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

THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD

The jury consulted together in the boa for a few mi-
nutes, and then acquitted the prisoner.
On the application of Mr. Wilkins he was immediately
discharged.

CHARGE OF MURDER AT ASHTON.
John Flubne, 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 finger of the right hand, of which he
died on the 16 h of November following.
Messrs. Brandt, Hutton, 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 England—that of wilful murder.
The deceased Caine 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-out of all the sawyers which took place in the
month of October, 1840, when in consequence of
that turnout 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
road, 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 i►► consequence removed to
the infi'mary, 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 be 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 suff►ciently 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
son e time after. The prisoner was tried at the Spring
Assizes of 1841 on a charge of felony, 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, th^ 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 that
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, ior it bad 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 H ulme he
told Beswick that it would not be safe for him to remain
in this country, and, therefore, he would go to America.

He did go to AMeria, 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. WILKINS 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
.

. , ......
4:
pointed against him. Would he have c e back again if
he had been afraid of the charge, an, one 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

the murder on Holland, at the trial of that person,

ever 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. WILKINS 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 1300 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—X66
damages.

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 be 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 tor the Com-

that no doubt the present charge would never have been
heard of if the brother of Mrs. Waldren had succeeded in
extorting, money from the prisoner.
The followng witnesses were then called, who gave the
prisoner an excellent character for good conduct—namely,
Mr. W. Procter, Mr. J. L. Aires, publican, Mr. Ro-
binson, one of the jury, Mr. Kiernan, a fish factor, and
Mr. Lovatt, the clerk of St. Nicholas' Church.
The Learned JUDGE proceeded to sum up the case, and
after observing that probably the jury would be satisfied
that the prisoner was a Roman Catholic, said the question
for them to determine would be whether they were satis-
fied that at the time the prisoner married a second time
he knew his former wife was alive, or had known it during
the seven years previous to that time; because, if they
were of opinion that he did, it would be their duty to find
him guilty : if they had any reasonable doubt on the sub-
ject, they would give the prisoner the benefit of it and
acquit him.

meicial Bank of Manchester. and, in consequen :e 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. Hebhlewhite 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.