The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1845-08-19 00:00:00

TRANMERE WATEII-WORKS COMPANY

THE want of a supply of WATER, in the Township of
TR ANMERE, has been long and severely felt, and,
in some instances, the price paid for Water has been
equal to twenty to twenty-five per cent. upon the rental.
The object of the Company is intended to remedy tliii
evil by establishing Water-works at Holollll, where the
4".
Promoters have already secured, o -451 r and moderate
terms, a Well, with an abundan pring of good Water,
and situated most advantage° . y for supplying F-lOLT-
HILL, LOWER TRA i ERE, ROCK FERRY,
NEW FERRY, and t whole of the District.
Particulars will be-given in a future advertisement ; and
in the meantime every information may be obtainedby ap-
plying to Mr. 1. 0. WATSON, Solicitor, 19, Exchange-
alley North, Liverpool ; or to Messrs. GANDELL and
BRUNTON, Hamilton-street, Birkenhead, Engineers to
the Company.

THE ASSIZES

CROWN COURT,

-YESTERDAY

His LORDSHIP entered the court precisely nt nine

A numher of prisoners were arraigned, and a consider-
able number of them pleaded not guilty, so that the as-

STABBING WITH INTENT TO COMMIT MURDER

Robert Brooks, a genteely-dressed young man, whose
name did not appear in the calendar, was indicted for
having, at Bury, on the 25th of May last, feloniously cut
and stabbed William Leeming, with intent to do him
grievous bodily harm, and (by another count) with intent
to commit murder. He was defended by Mr. WILKINS.

Mr. MONKS, for the prosecution, stated the case to the
jury, to the following eff,ct. The prisoner, worked with
Walki,r, Smith, and Co., machine-makers, Bury; and
there was in that town another firm, Richard Walker and
Ce., ironfounders, not identical with the other, but hav-
ing some copartnery connection. In January last, the
men turned out ay R. Walker, and Co.'s, and continued
out still. When they had been out about a fortnight,
the men at Walker, Smith, and Co.'s turned out also,
without any ostensible cause, and they proceeded to get
other men, amongst whom was the prosecutor. He and
others of his fellow workmen lived in a row of houses
called Walker's-terrace, a part of the town nearest to
Rochdale ; and there they kept pretty well together when
not at work. On Sunday evening, the 25th of May, a
person named Smith challenged one of Walker, Smith,
and Co.'s men, who declined to fight, but another man,
Brien, fought with him. The prisoner, after they had
ceased fighting, came up with his band in the pocket of
his hunting coat, and was seen to take something apparently
bright out, and strike the prosecutor from behind with it,
saying, when he had done so, " You devil, thou'st got
enough ; thou'll go no more." The question would be
what his intention was, and whether the act and the word
that followed did not bear out the more serious charge in
the indictment. Blood flowed from the left hip of
Learning, and there was afterwards found a wound from
three-eighths to half an inch in length. The prisoner
was seized by the hair by a man named Holland, who
would have detained him, but another man, Bridge, pre-
vented him. The prisoner was not apprehended until
some time after. There was no contusion, but a clear
incised wound. The wound was not examined by a
surgeon until next day.
The prosecutor, a young man, supported this state-
ment so far, but on cross-examination, admitted that he
had been in prison four times at Wakefield, and was
once taken up for felony at Leeds ; also that he had lived
with a woman named Elizabeth Clarkson at Leeds, who
had been transported for highway robbery. When he
gave information to the pike, he said the mao that
stabbed him was little bigger than himself, and a little
pock-marked. Another witness also supported the
charge.

Mr. Wit..xiNs severely cross-examined him as to the
information given by the prosecutor to the police officer,
relative to the dress of the prisoner. It appeared that
there had been two affrays between the contending
parties that night, and that they threw stones.
Mr. Foster, surgeon, of Bury, described the wound as
about an inch deep, and punctured by a sharp instrument.
Leeming went to his work next day. It came out that

the prisoner was not a mechanic himself, and had hitherto
borne a good character.

Mr. WILK'Ns then addressed the jury for the prisoner,
who, he said, having nothing to do with the turn-out,
could have no int'rest in the matter, and bearing also a
good character, could have no motive in interfering.
Neither was any provocation given to him, and he was a
perfect stranger to the prosecutor. He could have no
osject in uttering theexpression stated. Leerningwas clearly
a man whose testimony was not to be relied on. The evi-
dence for the defence went to show that the prisoner had
gone with the witness to a tea-garden that afternoon,that on
their way home they were challenged to fight, and re-
fusing,.were attacked by several of the other party, who
were partly undressed, and that they were not present at
the second affray at all, when the prosecutor was stabbed.
The prisoner was also struck, and knocked into a ditch.
After remonstrating with them for striking one of his
friends, he got away, and they threw stones at him. He
afterwards went home with several of his companions.

The witnesses (three youths) gave a straight-forward,
consistent account of the whole of their own proceedings.
A police officer said that the prosecutor described the
prisoner as of about his own size, and pock-marked.
The prisoner received a good character as a sober, in-
offensive, and industrious young man.
Mr. MoNa then addressed the jury at some length,
urging that the slight discrepancies in the evidence for
the prosecution showed that witnesses had not laid their
heads together to make up a story, and that the strong
probability was that they spoke the truth. He contended
that the prisoner had time enough to get to the spot
where the assault was committed and back to his com-
panions without their knowledge.
The Learned Judge said that he thought the charge of
committing the assault, with intent to commit murder,
could hardly be sustained by the evidence, and he doubted
whether it could be inferred from the nature and position
of the wound that it was inflicted with intent to do
grievous bodily harm. His lordship went through the
heads of the evidence, remarking upon it as he proceeded,
and appearing to think favourably of that for the defence.
Neither the prisoner nor the man who, it aas said, had
rescued him, left the place, and though the latter was
kown to one of the witnesses for the prosecution, the

gistratTes, and never mentioned it until the prisoner was
apprehended a fortnight after.
The jury withdrew and did not return into court until
twenty minutes past seven o'clock, having been in consul-
tation five hours. They returned a verdict of guilty of a
common assault, with recommendation to mercy on the
ground of his previous good character. His lordship said
he should pass sentence in the morning.
Thomas Moore was found guilty of a common assault
on William Wil!iamson on the 12th of June in Preston.
He was sentenced to four months' impris,nment and hard

Robert Seddon was found guilty of.anasFault on Joseph
Bailey, near Swinton, and sentenced to six months' im-
prisonment and hard labour.

William Brooks, aged 22, was indicted for having
wounded, with a razor, Mary Ann Learning, with int ut to
murder her, or do her some grievous bodily harm. Mr.
Pollock conducted the case for the prosecution, and stated
the particulars. The prosecutrix was very young, and her
father lived at Halifax. The prisoner, who had
courted her for some time, induced her to leave her home,
and they travelled the country as man and wife for three
or four months, seling needles, &c. They had a quarrel,

and he struck her severely on several occasions. He af-
terwards went back to her lather's, but they had previously
to this become friends. A short time afterwards. a young
girl, Sarah Ann Taylor, who bad beet a friend of hers,
persuaded her to go to Manchester, and there she lodged
along with that young woman at the house of a Mrs. Col-
lins, in Henry-street. On the 9ch of May, about noon,
the prisoner went there, and enquired for her. She was
up stairs, and he waited about twenty minutes calmly in
the parlour. He then went up stairs to her room, where

Aso was Sarah Anne Taylor, who was in bed. He waited
some time until the latter had dres,:ed herself. He then
laid himself on the bed beside the prosecutrix for some
time, and then began to ask her a'sout her beads, which
e had not then on her neck. He then put his hand
round her neck as if to feel for them, and not finding
them withdrew it. They had no quarrel at the time. He
afterwards again put his hand under her neck, and she
felt that he bad cut her, as she thought with a razor. The
wound was large; went very nearly to the spine; and it
was remarkable that she had survived to appear in court.
She sprang up and screamed, and a female of the house
went in and found her bleeding profusely. She had also
had a struggle with him before assistance came, and re-
ceived a cut in the aria. A wit.,ess saw the razor open in
his hand. The prisoner said he felt satisfied with what
he had done, and that he was willing to die. This he
afterwards repeated to other persons. From the great de-
liberation be showed, and his being in perfect possession
of his faculties, and quite sober, it would be for the jury
to state whether the intention to take life would not be
made out.

The witnesses were then called, and deposed to the
facts nearly as stated. The prisoner after the act, went
up stairs, and said to the prosecutrix that he would give
her a kiss. He Rent up a second time for the purpose,
hut was ordered away. On first entering the room, he
offered her a glass of ale, which she refused, but after-
wards tasted some on his threatening to throw it upon
her if she did not. The prisoner conducted his own de-
fence, and cross-questioned all the witnesses, but to no
good effect. The prosecutrix was sent to the Infirmary
in about half an hour. The prisoner requested several of
the witnesses to bring a policeman, and afterwards went,
voluntarily, with a man who was called in, to the police-
office. He afterwards said to a police-officer, " I have
committed that deed." He also said he was perfectly so-
ber at the time, and that he wished the razor to be re-
turned to the owner, a recruiting sergeant at Ashton. He
sent word to the superintendent of police, saying he wished
to speak to him. He was advised to say nothing, and
was cautioned, but persisted, and said, he bad done it
for the purpose of meeting her in another, and a better
world. He also wished the superintendent to take an ac-
count of his life, saying he had deserted from many regi-
ments. The surgeon of the infirmary described the
wound. That on the back of the neck was right across,
and as deep as it could go for the bone. The prosecutrix
had been in the infirmary until Friday last, and her life
was long in imminent danger.
The prisoner entered upon a long and rambling defence,
stating his early and growing affection for the prosecu-
trix ; the fact of her father being against the union ; then
finally travellir, together for a subsistance ; his having
got her to go back to her father's; and her afterwards go-
ing to Manchester to Mrs. Collins, keeper of a brothel, to
live by prostitution, which drove him to drink, that made
him mad. so that he had overstepped his furlough, became
a deserter, and by intoxication was driven to the deed
when he knew not what he was doing. It appeared that
he belonged latterly to the 32nd foot, and he served (by
his own account) nine years in the army, and had suf-
fered much hardship.

The JUDGE succinctly summed up, and the jury return-
ed a verdict of guilty.
The learned JUDGE addressing the prisoner said, he
should take a few hours to consider whether there were
any circumstances by which his life might be spared. He
did not like to decide hastily,.but at present he saw no
such circumstances.
The court rose at half-past seven.

NISI PRIUS COURT.—YESTERDAY
(Before Mr. Justice Cresswell.)

SCHWAI3E; ADMINISTRATRIX, V.CLIFTAND ANOTHER.
—ln this case, which was tried before a special jury, Eliza-
beth Schwab,p administratrix of Louis Schwabe, was the
plaintiff, and James Clift and Edward Bates, two of the
directors of the Argus Insurance Company, were the
defendants. Mr. Knowles, Mr. Crompton, and Mr.
J. Henderson, appeared for the plaintiff; and Sir Fitz-
roy Kelly (the Solicitor-General), Mr. Martin, and
Mr. Unthank, for the defendants. The declaration set

forth five policies of insurance, each for the sum of £999,
effected by the late Louis Schwabe, in 1836, and his sub-
seq6ent death. The defendants, by their plea, said that
the decease., committed suicide, whereby the policy was
void. The replication denied that the death, under the
circumstances, rendered the policy void, and, therefore,
issue was joined.
Sir F. KELLY said, from the terms of pleadings it be•
came his duty to address them in the first instance. The

action was brought by the representatives (
Schwabe, on a policy of insurance effected by that

man on his own' lice with the Argus Insurance Company.
The policy was subject to a condition that it the party as-
sured should cumnait suicide the policy should be void;
and in the present case Mr. Schwabe swal owed poison,
and died in some hours after. It was held by a majority of
the Court of Common Pleas that when a person entered
into a contract of this nature, and that looking at the fair
meaning of the contract, it must have bee❑ the intention
of the parties—and it was the intention of the parties which
was to govern the construction of all contracts—that no
such question sh uld be raised as to whether the person

who committed suicide was in possession of his facilities at
the time, but that it was clearly theobject of the insurance
office to protect itself against any act of self-destruction,
not matter of mere accident. The Lord Chief Justice dis-
sented from the rest of the Court, and expressed an opi
nion that in order to bring the death of a party assured
within the meaning of a clause like this, it was necessary
that it should be a felonious suicide, and that he should
have committed suicide himself—in other words, that it
should be an act of felo de se. It was upon the great
weight due to the opinion of the Court of Error with a
view to the final settlement of the question. The learned
counsel proceeded to contend that such an interpretation
of the meaning of the clause in policies would put an end
to insurances by offering a premium to distressed parties for
the commission of suicide. The words of the policy were,
that the policy should be void if the person committed
suicide, it was the voluntary act of self-destruction against
which the policy guarded. The great question was, what
was the meaning of the parties to the contract ? There was
a well-known rule of law, and a rule of good sense also,
that words in the first place were to be interpreted accord-
ing to the plain, ordinary, national signification. What,
then, he ventured to ask, was the meaning of the words—
" Such a man has committed suicide ?" If the jury had
heard that a gentleman had thro's n himself off Westmin-
ster or Blacktriars Bridge, or that he had blown his brains
out, or swallowed poison, they would immediately say he
has c‘quinitted suicide—he has destroyed himself;" and if
they heard that the gentleman, in the present case, had
taken a quantity of sulphuric acid, and died in a few hours
after, they would immediately sa3 that the unfortu-
nate Mr. Schwabe had committed suicide. Would any

man say that the directors of the Insurance Company
meant any thing else by the clause but this—that they
would not pay the amount of the plicy if the party it
sured died in a duel, died by the hands of justice, oi:cc
'flitted suicide? Three of the judges held this.
case of Borrowdale v. Hunt, it was found that I

was in such a state of mind a s tendered him mora.

sponsible for his conduct ; and he knew of no way in which
self-destruction might he committed and which a feeling
of sympathy in the minds of jurymen might not lead them

to similar conclusion. He would now state the facts of
the case; and he would venture to promise ihat no doubt
would exist upon the mind of the learned judge, upon the
minds of the jury, or upon the mind of ar y man, that if
the, e ever was a conscious, del-
mitted it was the act which Mr.
The learned gentleman, having admitted two or three in
stances which occurred between the year 1842 and the
death of Mr. Schwabe, in which he was placed under re-
straint, proceeded to describe the mode in which suicide
was effected by him, which certainly shewed either great
deliberation and method, or that .of cunning, which is
often met with in the acts of insane men ; and fully proved
that lie was conscious that the act which he was commit-
tug would produce his death. He submitted that upon
these facts the policy was void in law, and the defendant
entitled to a verdict. Mr. Knowles, in all probability,
would ask the jury, whether they thought Mr. Schwabe
was sane or insane at the time he swallowed the poison
but he (the Solicitor-General) would submit
inquiry was entirely irrelevant and

iberate act of suicide corn-

Schwabe committed

at such an

not the meaning of the clause that the question s
raised before a jury as to how far the pers,
feited his policy by an act of suicide might not have been
of sound mind. Mr. Justice Coltman had put the case
on its true ground when he held that the real meaning of
the provision was to bs gathered from the meaning the
insurance offices attached to it at the time of entering
into the contract; and if suicide had been committed by
either a sane or an insine party, the policy was rendered
invalid in point of law.
Mr. Ransom Chapple, the cabdriver, and two or three
other witnesses were examined in support of the plaintiff's•
case. Their evidence went generally to bear out the state-
ments relative to the taking of the poison as detailed in
the Solicitor-General's

uld be
on who had for-

Mr. Knowles then addressed the jury. He said the
issue of the cause was of vital importance to the plaintiff,
because in her it was a matter of great interest to know
whether the provision made by the contract was to be ut-
terly set aside. The case of Hunter, to which such
marked allusion had been made by Mr. Kelly was, in all
respects, dissimilar to the present. In Hunter's case
there was no evidence of insanity prior to the act of self-
destruction being committed. Here, the question was,
whether Mr. Schwabe had committed suicide—a term

which the jury might confound with the mere act or self-
destruction, but which had a very d'fferent meaning ; for
he should contend that it meant something more, ►hat it
imported a felonious act, and that, unless the party who
committed the act was in a state of mind to make him a
responsible agent, then in the eye of the law he could not
commit a felonious act. In the case of Hunter the ex

ception introduced into the policy was relative to the
party dying by his own hand ; and though there might be
some little difference between the two, yet the jury would
find it assumed throughout that case that, if the words of
the policy there were such as they were here, then beyond

all doubt the office was liable, He cont
Schwabe, instead of t'l
away the life of ano

ig away his own life,

) when he

was no evil