The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1843-08-22 00:00:00

GRAND JURY.

Sir THOMAS BERNARD BIRCH. Bart., Hozles, Foreman.
Sir Thomas Brancker, Knight, Liverpool.
Sir Joshua Walmsley, Knight, Liverpool.
Hugh Hornby Birley, Esq , B.oom House.
Peter Bourne. Esq., Liverpool.
John Crossley, Esq., Scaitcliffe.
illiam Earle, Esq., Liverpool.
William Gale, Esq., Lightburne House.
Robertson Gladstone, Esq., Court Hey.
William James Garnett, Esq., Lark Hill.
Robert Gladstone, Esq., Withington.
Peter Greenall, Esq., M.P , St. Helen's.
Jonah Harrop, Esq., Bardsley House.
John Pemberton Heywood, Esq., Norris Green.
Thomas Hilton, Esq., Ardwick.
Adam Hodgson, Esq., Everson.
George Hall Lawrence, Esq., Liverpool.
Daniel Mantle, Esq., Liverpool.
Joseph Ridgway, Esq., Walituches.
Nicholas Robinson. Esq., Sudeley.
Thomas Sands, Esq., Mosley Hill.
Abraham Wood, Esq., Starkies.
Her Majesty's proclamation against vice, immorality,
and profaneness was then read ; after which
His lordship charged the grand jury, in nearly:the fol-
lowing terms :—Gentlemen of the grand jury, I regret to
find the calendar of the southern division of Lancashire
unusually heavy, both as to the number of prisoners, and
the character of the offences charged upon them. In
many instances, the crimes alleged to have been committed
are not referable to causes arising from want of eriploy-
ment, and consequent poverty and distress, but to habits
of brutal violence, exasperated by intoxication at beer-
shops and places of dissipation, the frequenting of a loch,
as it appears to be seen in the present calendar, and as I
learn from the depositions, is the immediate cause of
offences of this character. There are no less that, eleven
cases of homicide, five of which are charged as wilful
murder, and six as manslaughter. It is not very easy to
lay down any general rule for your guidance, by which in
all cases murder may be, with certainty, distinguished
from manslaughter. In all cases of manslaughter, how-
ever, where the death is occasioned by some injury inflicted
by another, the immediate presumption of law, in the
absence of all other circumstances, is. that such an injury
was maliciously inflicted, and the offence, prima
.facie,
would amount to murder; but where the circumstances
show, that the injury which caused the death was inflicted
in self defence, and upon reasonable ground of provoca-
tion, or without premeditation, or in sudden quarrel, er
in the heat of blood, the offence will be manslaughter, io
the absence of indications of malice on the part of the
prisoner, which are necessary strictly to constitute the
crime of murder. But it is also to he observed, as the
circumstances I have mentioned are only effeetive in re-
ducing the offence to manslaughter, by t rgativing the
malice which constitutes the crime, it is important to
consider the nature of the provocation, and the sort of
weapon that is used ; for if, upon slight or inadequate
provocation, or if upon provocation induced by the pri-
soner himself, a deadly weapon is used, arid in such a
manner as to show an intent to kill, or to do at least some
grievous bodily harm, the malice which the law assumes
is not negatived, and the offence will still be murder. In
cases where the offence chanted against the prisonar
is manslaughter, I have but one observation to awake.
wherever death is inflicted in the prosecution of an il-
legal act, it is manslaughter, however little hr may have
intended to do such an injury, as in cases of deaths from
falls, where blows tire given. There are no fewer t haft nine
charges of maliciously cutting and stabbing, and two of
maliciously shooting; and I cannot but observe, with re-
gard to the resorting to knives and oilier deadly instru-
ments of a like nature, that the commission of such
crimes is fearfully upon the increase. and it has become
absolutely necessary that the law should in all such
instances be most strictly enforced, for the prevention of
such cruel and unmanly practices. The question for you,
however, in all such cases, will be the intent with which
the wound was inflicted, that being the important in-
gredient in determining the real character of the offence.
If the wound was inflicted with the intention to kill, to
do some grevious bodily harm, or to resist lawful appre-
hension, the offence is felony, but it is only an assault
however grevious the nature of the wound. Gentlemen,
there is a case in the calendar, in which eight pet sons are
charged with having riotously assembled, and entered the
brick )ard of a person named Panting, and then and there
shot at a person named Fletcher, with intent to murder
him; and it would appear that a great many persons, to
the number of 200 or 300, entered in the night into the
brick yard, fired upon the persons set to guard it, de-
stroyed a great quantity of barks in the course of pre-
paration, and also destrot ed the furniture on the premises.
and seriously injured some persons. The law upon the
case is perfectly clear. If a number 01 persons assemble
together for the purpose of effecting softie illegal object
which they have in common, arid in the course of the
prosecution of a common design. a felony is cionniitted,
all are equally guilty of the felony with the persons
who actually committed it; and, therefore, in this case,
if the prisoners charged were equally engaged in the coin-
mnn illegal design of entering the yard by force, and
destroying the bricks, with the persons who used
fire arms in the prosecution of that summon design,
and who intended to kill or disable the defenders of the
yard. it will be you' duty to find a bill against them as
principals in the felony, althouth they may mint have actu-
ally fired the shots; arid the proper bosiness for you will
be the investigation of the proofs against them. There
are some circumstances connected with this case which I
cannot pass over without observation. There is reason to
believe that the persons who attacked the brick yaid, did
so to prevent the persons employed there from eontinning
to work ; and to oblige the owners of the yard to employ
other persons upon certain tsrms which they thought
reasonable. In this free country, emery man has a right
to use his own talent, industry, and cap tal, in such man-
ner as he thinks best for his interest, provided that he
does not interfere to prevent others from exercising the
same right. Every master hiss a right to employ such
workmen as he may choose. at the wages they may agree
upon ; and every workman has a right to refuse working
for less wages than he may fix upon ; and any number of
workmen may agree that they will not work under certain
wages. The 6th Geo. IV. cap. 29, renders such a course
perfectly legal ; but no man has a right to say what wages
a master shall give, or what another man shall receive ;
still less has lie the right to prevent any master from em-
ploying any workman he pleases, or to prevent any woi k-
man from working for whom or for what wages he thinks
proper Such a tyranny is not to be tolerated in such a
country as this, possessing the blessing of free institu-
tions. Such an assumption of authority is utterly lawless,
and must be put down by the law. lam the more desi-
rous to call attention to this, because my attention has
been drawn to the printed rules of the brickmaker's soci-
ety; and there are one or two of the articles which are
there mentioned which fully justify the observations I
have been led to make. By the 16th article of the society
1 should observe, the professed objects are unobjection-
able, the burial of their dead arid the protection of their
labour; but to effect the latter object there are rules per-
fectly unpardonable and illegal, and if carried out as at
present attempted, would operate as a fatal impediment
to all honest combination for honest purposes.

" If any should infringe upon the rights of this society,
or without a sufficient reason turn a nom away through
malice, any other person shall not be allowed to take his
kdace."

I read you one of the rules, gentlemen ; there are several
others framed for a similar object, which seems to he the
object of the whole of the persons who committed this
attack. Such a society, constituted with such rules, is
no less than an illegal combination to prevent and impede
the due course of honest industry, and roust in the end
prove detrimental to the well-doing of those whose inte-
rests it professes to protect. I cannot quit this case with-
out observing, that one of the fatal cases in this calendar
seems to have originated in some such illegal conspiracy
amongst the sawyers to interfere with the tree exerci-e of
the rights of the British subject, and the free exercise of
human skill and industry. There are in the calendar no
less than eleven cases of bigamy,—a serious offence, from
the misery and dist.esa that is too frequently occasioned
to the person who has been the subject of the second
marriage, and the lamentable consequences to the chil-
dren, if any. I allude to this offence, not only on account
of the number of persons charged with it in the present
calendar, but also because several cases of a similar kind
have occurred during the present circuit. There seems
to be an opinion generally entertained, that if persons
have been separated for a length of time, they are justified
in contracting a second marriage. Nothing, however, can
be more fallacious than such an opinion. It is only w bete
there may be just reason to believe that one of the parties
is dead, that contracting a second marriage does not
amount to bigamy. So far, however, as your duties are
concerned, it is only necessary for you, for the purpose of
finding a bill, to have it shown that the secone. marriage
was contracted during the life of the parties to the first.
If. however, it should be shown that there was reason to
believe that the party was dead, the offence of bigamy is not
complete, and it will be your duty not to find a bill. There
is a case in the calendar of a person charged with receiving
bank notes to a considerable amount, knowing them to be
stolen. The case, however, presents no point of law as
applicable to the facts which needs comment from me. If
there be evidence to satisfy you reasonably that the pri-

soner, at the time he received the notes, knew them to be
stolen, it will be your duty to find a bill. The points, if
any, will be rather in the detail of the evidence than as to
the law as applicable to the facts. Gentlemen, with re-
ference to the calendar, which now, I believe, contains a
list of 140 prisoners. I do not feel it incumbent upon me
to go into each particular case in detail; nor, indeed,
would there be sufficient time to do so, consistently with
the public duty you have to perform. 1 have made some
observations applicable to the snore prominent cases in
the calendar, and irons looking through it, and from the
view I have taken of the depositions, I am not aware that
there are any other cases of di;ficulty, or that require com-
ment from me. I may, however, observe, gentlemen, that
you are not to try the prisoners, nor to determine the
question of guilt or innocence ; it is your duty to find a
bill if there is sufficient evidence before you to raise such
a reasonable, though it may nut be a conclusive, proof 01
guilt against the party charged that a conviction upon
such evidence, supposing there is no other evidence in the
case, would be supported its point of law. Gentlemen. I
will not longer detain you. 11 there should be any point,
or if any matter should arise in the course of your inqui-
ries upon which you should require my assistance and ad-
vice, I shall be most happy to give it you.
The grand jury then retired, and the petty jurors were
sworn, after which the trials were proceeded with. •

THE LIVEiIPOOL STANDARD.

BURGLARY.
John Smith, 22, and John Brierley, 47, pleaded guilty
to a charge of having; at Bury, broken and entered the
dwelling-house of Edmund Grundy, and stolen therein
two silver caddy spoons.
BIGAMY.
Eliza Berry, 33, pleaded guilty to a charge of having,
at Prestwich, married one Samuel-Arrowsmith, her former
husband, William Berry. being then alive.
John Hardman, alias John Nicholls, 30, pleaded guilty
to a charge of having, at Wigan, married one Anne Cun-
life, widow, his former wife Elizabeth, being then alive.
FORGERY AND BIGAMY.
Charles Kniuht, a very fashionably dressed young gen-
tleman, pleaded guilty to a charge of having forged the
names of his brothers, Messrs. James and Isaac Knight.
accouaants, to two cheques upon the bank of Messrs.
Jones, Loyd, and Co., of Manchester, whereby he had
obtained money to the amount of £285. There was
another indictment against the prisoner. charging him
with having committed trgarny by marrying one Maria
Wardle, at St. Mary's Church, Manchester, on the morn-
ing of Tuesday last, his first wife being still alive. He
pleaded not guilty to the latter indictment. lie was given
in charge tor the bigamy and was undefended.
Mr. YATES conducted tine prosecution and proved the
first marr.age, and that the female was still living. The
second marriage was proved by the evidence of Maria
Wardle herself.

The prisoner, with reference to the first marriage, urged
the same objection as he did before the magistrates at
Manchester, the examination before whom will be found
in another column, but his lordship said it did not affect
the validity of the marriage. He then submitted another
objection ; that no time had elapsed between the applica-
tion for and the granting of the license on the first
marriage, but the judge decided against him.
His LORDSHIP then proceeded to charge the jury, tel-
ling them that, with respect to the fact of the first and
second marriage having taken place, there could scarcely
exist any doubt, and that the objections raised by the pri-
sonea were entirelp unfounded in point of law. Formerly,
it was the law that a minor, in case of mart iage, should
have the consent of her parents, and that the prosecutor
should prove distinctly that she had obtained such consent ;
hut that law had been altered by the last marriage act,
which merely directed that there should be such a consent,
but did not annul the marriage in case there should nut.
If, indeed, the question was asked at the time of applying
for the license, the parties were bound to make oath that
they had obtained consent, and, if a fake oath were then
taken, they were liable to punishment, but it by no means
followed that the marriage was thereby invalid. If this
were otherwise, the same unhappy results would follow
now as were found to prevail under the former law • and,
therefore, the prisoner's objections were entirely un-
founded.
Aiter a short consultation, the jury returned a verdict
of guilty.
The court adjourned soon after five o'clock.
NISI PRIUS COURT.—SATURDAY.

His Lordship took his seat at nine o'clock.
CAMPBELL AND ANOTHER V. HILES.
Verdict for the plaintiff; damages £64 I 6 s.
DOE DEM. GOODFELLOW AND ANOTHER V. LEA.
The plaintiff did not appear. and was nonsuited.

ASH TON AND OTHERS V. JONES.
Verdict, by consent, for the plaintiff; damages £44 9s.
BENNETT V. BROGDEN. _ _ _

This was a defended cause. in .which Mr. Martin and
Mr. Cole appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Wortley and
Mr. Atherton for the defendant. The question at issue
was. in the first place, whether an agreement had been
made for the purchase of two horses; and, secondly, if
an agreen•eot was made, whether a warranty had been
given; and, if so, whether one of the hors's was not un-
,,ound. Verdict for the plaintiff, that there was no con-
tract.