The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1843-08-29 00:00:00

THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD

CHARGE OF MURDER AT ASHTON.

John Hulme, aged 34, was then placed at the bar on a
charge of the wilful murder of Thomas Garland, at
Ashton-under-Lyne, by striking him with a piece of iron,
on the 31st October, 1840, thereby giving him a mortal
wound on the first nger of the right hand, of which he
died on the 16th of November following.
Messrs. Brandt, Holton, and Townsend appeared for
the prosecution, and Mr. Wilkins for the prisoner.
Mr. BRANDT stated the case to the jury. He said the
prisoner at the bar was charged with the highest crime
known to the law of Englan—that of wilful murder.
The deceased came by his death in the month of Novem-
ber, 1840, having received a wound on the first finger of
his right hand, and the surgeon would tell them this
wound was the cause of his death. The reason why the
prisoner had not been brought to trial sooner would ap-
pear in the course of the statement which he (the learned
counsel) should make to the jury. The transactions
which led to the death of the deceased arose out of a
turn-gut of all the sawyers which took place in the
month of October, 1840, when in consequence of
that turn-out all the business was suspended until fresh
hands could be got from other parts. This caused con-
siderable excitement in the town, and a bad feeling was
raised against those men who chose to work at the wages
given by the masters. The deceased received his death
wound in consequence of that agitation. It would, be
proved that on the 31st of October some men had been
brought over from Manchester to work in Ashton, and in
the afternoon of that day they were on the Ashton new
Toad, between Manchester and Ashton, when they were
assailed by a party of turn-outs, who rushed upon them
armed with sticks, bludgeons, and other offensive wea-
pons, and beaten severely. The deceased was severely
wounded in the affray, and was in consequence removed to
the infirmary, where it was discovered that he had re-
ceived a wound on the first finger of the right hand which
nearly severed it from his body. The surgeon who at-
tended him recommended that it should be amputated,
but the deceased refused to allow it, being anxious, if
possible, to preserve so valuable a member. The surgeon
would tell them he was indiscreet in not allowing the ope-
ration to be performed, but he (Mr. Brandt) apprehended
his Lordship would tell the jury that did not alter the
case • and if they were of opinion the deceased came by
his death in consequence of the injury inflicted by the
prisoner, the prisoner must answer for it. However, the
deceased continued until November, when all his wounds,
except the one on his finger, were cured, and that one
brought on lock-jaw, of which he died. The evi-
dence against the prisoner would mainly depend on
the testimony of a person named Heaton, who would
prove that he saw the prisoner strike the deceased with a
piece of iron, and inflict the injury of which he died : but
it would not be safe for the jury to rely on what he said,
he (Mr. Brandt) would at once state, unless they found
he was sufficiently corroborated by other evidence of an
unimpeachable kind. It was undoubtedly true that Heaton
did not make any discovery of what he had seen until
some time after. The prisoner was tried at the Spring
Assizes of 1841 on a charge of fekany, when Heaton was
a witness, and was acquitted. Some time after the pri-
soner was taken on another charge, that of taking a quan-
tity of tools with a view of destroying them, and he and
Heaton, who seemed to be a man of very violent temper,
were tried for the felony. Therefore, the jury would no
doubt look on Heaton's testimony with a considerable
degree of jealousy. He (Mr. Brandt) must also state that
the prisoner was not a sawyer, and therefore probably
was not likely to take an interest in the turn-out, but he
should be able to prove that he was a member of their
union, that he contributed to its fund, attended the meet-
ings of the sawyers, and took an active part in their
affairs, and on the day in question it would be proved tbat
the prisoner was at a meeting held at the King's Head, in
Ashton, when threats of violence were used against those
who were coming to Ashton to work at the wages offered
by the masters. He should also show that shortly before
the attack a party of persons went from that public-house
towards Manchester, and that one of the party corres-
ponded to the description given of the prisoner. It would
also be proved that the prisoner was seen running from
the place where the attack was made shortly after the
affray, and that he was absent from Ashton just long
enough for him to engage in the affray and return to Ash-
ton. There was also another piece of evidence which, as
well as the testimony of Heaton, he regretted had not
been brought forward against the prisoner on his com-
mittal, for it had been discovered since that time. In
corroboration of Heaton, there was the evidence of a man
named Beswick, who was certainly also liable to suspi-
cion ; but still the jury would have to say whether they
were not so corroborated as to leave no doubt of their
speaking the truth. Beswick would relate to them a con-
versation he had with Heaton respecting the affair in
question, which took place in March, 1841, when the pri-
soner said he was one of the persons who made the attack
on the deceased, and that Heaton was the only person
who could identify him ; and after the trial of Hulme he
told Beswick that it would not be safe for hit.. to remain
in this country, and, therefore, he would go to America.
He did go to America, where he remained until the pre-
sent summer, when, on his return in July last, he was
taken into custody. He (Mr. Brandt) did not mean to
offer any observations on the evidence to be offered, but
should leave it to the jury to say, after they had heard it,
whether it satisfied them beyond all doubt that the pri-
soner was guilty of the charge imputed to him.
The learned counsel then called a number of witnesses
who deposed to the circumstances as stated by him in his
address. _ _ _ _ _

Mr. Wir,inNs very eloquently addressed the jury for
the prisoner. He claimed their sympathy for the unfor-
tunate wretch on his trial, and whose difficulties had been
wantonly and cruelly multiplied. There was not much
sincerity in the sorrow expressed by his learned friend in
the opening, or the prisoner would have been apprized of
what had been kept back until that day. One of the wit-
nesses had been in their possession a month, and his
secrets known to a police-officer. He was not taken be-
fore a magistrate, but to a hole and corner in an attor-
ney's office. The learned counsel designated the case
" an infamous history of falsehood and perjury," and
pointed to the character of the witnesses, especially to
that of Heaton. If the case had been left as it originally
stood, before they got the evidence of paupers, convicted
felons, and disappointed accomplices, it would have been
nothing, and that was the reason why these additions were
made. He complained of the reference to the former
trial, and the repeated introduction of the turn-out, as
intended to bias the jury. Was not that trial enough to
drive him to America, when every man's hand was
pointed against him. Would he have 4:,•e back again if
he had been afraid of the charge, an gone to a public
court, in the eyes of all the most vig. nt of the Man-
chester police ? These proceedings showed the hollow
bond of union in these societies. All the witnesses had
fixed the murder on Holland, at the trial of that person,
and never hinted at this man.
At the close of the learned counsel's eloquent appeal,
the prisoner was acquitted of Murder, but found guilty of
Manslaughter, and the learned jadge passed upon him the
sentence of transportation for life.

STABBING.
Antonio Conti, 28, an Italian, was indicted for stabbing
James Langshaw, with intent to do him some grievous
bodily harm, on the 24th of April last, at Liverpool.
It appeared from the evidence of the prosecutor, that
on the night in question the prisoner attacked a lady in
Hanover-street, in Liverpool. He remonstrated with
him, when the prisoner stabbed him. He also attacked a
horse in the street, but was afterwards secured and taken
to prison.
Mr. WiLxiNs called three witnesses to prove that the
prisoner was insane at times.
The jury acquitted the prisoner on the ground of in-
sanity, and the learned Judge ordered him to be kept in
safe custody during her Majesty's pleasure.
The Court adjourned at half-past six o'clock.

NISI PRIUS COURT.—FRIDAY.
Mr. Justice Cresswell took his at nine o'clock.
BENTLEY V. WITTON.
An action for the recovery of £lOO, the value of certain
tolls.—Verdict for the plaintiff.

RUTHERFORD AND UX. V. CHAUNDY.
An action for the recovery of £3OO on a bond.—
Verdict for the plaintiff.

RHODES AND OTHERS V. WILSON.
In this action Joseph Armitage Rhodes was the plain-
tiff, and Thomas Wilson was the defendant; and it was
brought for the recovery of the sum of £9O for goods
sold and delivered. The defendant pleaded that he was
not liable.
The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff—£66
dam ages.

TURNER V. MILNER.
This was an undefended action for the recovery of £2O.
—Verdict for the plaintiff.
RENT.-BEARD AND OTHERS V. DAVIDSON.

This was an action brought by the plaintiffs, Ellen
Beard and George B. Lightfoot, the executor and exe-
cutrix of John Beard, against the defendant, Alexander
Davidson, for the recovery of £57, being the amount of
a year and a half's rent of a cellar. The defendant
pleaded generally that the plaintiffs were not the executor
and executrix, and that they were not seized of the cellar.
Mr. Martin and Mr. Cowling appeared for the plain-
tiff's ; and Mr. Knowles and Mr. Crompton for the
defendant.
Mr. MARTIN stated the case. He said the plaintiffs
were the executor and executrix of a gentleman named
Beard, who, up to the time of his death, carried on a
cooperage in Seel-street, Liverpool. There was a cellar
underneath the premises, which he did not require for
the purposes of his trade, and which, in the year 1826, he
let to a Mr. Hebblewhite to carry on the business of a
wine and spirit dealer there. The tenantcy was from year
to year, at £3l per annum, payable half-yearly. Mr.
Hebblewhite continued in the occupation until 1840. He
had been one of the directors at Liverpool for the Com-

mercial Bank of Manchester, and, in consequenle of his
connection with that unfortunate establishment, he be-
came a bankrupt, and having been largely indebted to the
bank, Mr. Davidson, public officer, was appointed his
assignee. Mr. Hebblewhite had a considerable stock of
wine, ale, and beer on the premises at the time, and the
gentleman who managed the affairs on behalf of the de-
fendant took possession of those premises, opened them
and continued them open until the following July, when
the stock was disposed of. The question was, whether
Mr. Davidson, by thus dealing with the property, took
possession of it as tenant and made himself liable for the
rent.

A verdict was returned for the plaintiff for the full
amount.

DOE DEM. ROCKLIFFE V. AMBROSE.
Verdict, by consent, for the plaintiff.
FRAZER AND OTHERS V. MATLEY.

This was an action brought by the plaintiffs, John Fra-
zer and George Brooks, against the defendant William
Matley, for the recovery of a sum of £460, the value of
goods sold and delivered. The defendant pleaded non
assumpsit, except as to £390.
Verdict for the plaintiff for £125.
DIXON V. WING.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff, John Dixon,
against the defendant, John Wing, for the recovery of a
sum of £3O, money had and received, and on an account
stated. The defendant pleaded the general issue and a
set-off.
The jury found for the plaintiff for £3O 155., with leave
for the defendant to move for a nonsuit.

ROBERTS AND OTHERS V. MORRIS.
This was an action brought by the plaintiffs, Elizabeth
Roberts, Elizabeth Unwin, and John Hughes, against the
defendant, Edward Morris, for the recovery of the value
of a certain quantity of limestone.
Verdict for the plaintiffs for the amount sought.
The court rose at five o'clock.

CROWN COURT.-SATURDAY.
MURDER AT BURY.

James Howorth, 20, was indicted for the wilful murder
of James Heywood, at Bury, by striking him divers blows
on the face, neck and head.
Mr. Brandt, Mr. Green, and Mr. Whigham conducted
the case for the prosecution, and Mr. Wilkins defended
the prisoner.
Mr. BRANDT stated the case. He commenced by say-
ing that the facts were wholly of a circumstantial nature,
which would require the particular attention of the court
and jury. The deceased was a hale, stout man, about
sixty years of age. who lived at a place called Little
Heaton. On the 3d of May last, he left home for Bury,
which was only about three or four miles distant. He
was seen at a public-house soon after nine o'clock the
same night, and the last time he was seen alive was about
half an hour after that time, when be left another public-
house for the purpose, as he said, of going home. When
he left home in the morning, his relations distinctly ob-
served that he had a watch in his pocket. On the morn-
ing of the following day he was found dead on the out-
skirts of the town of Bury, at a place called the gravel
pits. He was lying by the side of a hedge ; and, from the
appearance of the body and the place, he had evidently
suffered great violence. His watch was gone, and the
suspicion was that he bad been attacked, robbed, and
murdered. On his way home from the public-house, at
which he was last seen alive, he would have to pass the
New Market in Bury, and then, turning to his left, to go
on in the direction of Unsworth. One of the witnesses
would state that he was near the New Market on the
night in question, and that he saw the deceased going
along in the company of two young men, who seemed to
be taking him in an opposite direction, leading to the
place where the body was afterwards found. He would
further state that, in his belief, the prisoner was one of
those young men, but he could not speak positively to
him ; and he (Mr. Brandt) thought it but justice to state,
with respect to this witness, that he was not such a per-
son as the jury could place implicit reliance upon. There
was no doubt, however, that, soon after ten o'clock on
the night of the occurrence, the prisoner entered a beer-
house kept by a person of the name of Jenkinson, in
Bury ; that his beer-house was no great distance from the
new market-place; that he was out of breath at the time,
and appeared to have been rannin. • and that there were
marks of blood on his face. He asked a young woman at
the shop to wash off the marks; and she having dipped a
rag in some beer and complied with his request, he was
asked how they came there? He gave two replies; first,
he said that he had been in a row in the street, and then
he stated that the blood had oozed from a pimple on his
cheek ; but no pimple was visible. The parties in whose
company he then was were of a very degraded character,
and, after they had all remained together for some time,
they proceeded to a house kept by a man of the name of
Benjamin Cooke, where they gambled for about an hour.
They then went to the house of one of their party (Win-
terbottom's) ; and, while there, the prisoner produced a
watch, and, from his behaviour and conduct at the time,
there could be little doubt that it had very recently come
into his possession. In reply to the questions of the party,
he stated that a man named Meadowcroft had told him
that the watch was lying in a vacant place near the New
Market, and that he went there and found it.
Meadowcroft denied that he had ever told him anything
of the kind. It was rather unfortunate that the watch had
been disposed of ; but it could not, therefore, be now pro-
duced ; and that it would rest on the description given of
it by the witnesses as to whether it was the one which be-
longed to the deceased. Mr. Brandt concluded by saying
that the watch would be described by the son of the de-
ceased, and that upon this evidence would rest the guilt
or innocency of the accused.
James Clough and Charles Shell deposed to the finding
of the body.
John Heywood, a son of the deceased, described his
watch, as did also Ann Heywood, his daughter, the latter
stating it had only one seal, when
Mr. BRANDT said that he would not press the case any
further, as the other witnesses would describe the watch
as having two seals attached.
His LORDSHIP thought it would be unsafe for the Jury
to convict under the circumstances.
A verdict of acquittal was accordingly returned, and the
prisoner was discharged.

ROBBERY AT WAVERTREE-LANE.
William Smith, 26, and Thomas Hughes, 17, were in-
dicted for having broken and entered the dwelling-house
of Jane Lowndes, and stolen thereout twenty bottles of
whisky and ten bottles of brandy, the property of Thomas
John Lowndes.
Mr. Cardwell conducted the case for the prosecution,
and Mr. Wilkins defended the prisoner.
It appeared that, about four o'clock on the morning of
the 17th May last, the house of the prosecutor was en-
tered and the property extracted : and that, shortly after,
three persons, one of whom was the prisoner Hughes,
were seen coming in a direction from Wavertree-lane,
with a heavy basket. Subsequently, Mr. Lowndes suc-
ceeded in arresting Hughes, whereupon Smith came to
his assistance, and, in endeavouring to rescue him, took
out of his pocket a bottle of whisky to defend him, which
bottle turned out to be one of those stolen on the night in
question. The prisoners alleged that they had found the
bottle in an adjoining pond, while they were in-the act of
bathing. They were acquitted.

BURGLARY AT LIVERPOOL.
Joseph Dutton, 20, was convicted of having broken and
entered the dwelling-house of Thomas Todd, in Aber-
cromby-square, and stolen thereout two spoons, his pro-
perty, and a dress, a sovereign, and ten shillings, the pro-
perty of Mary Medcalfe. He was sentenced to transporta-
tion for ten years.