The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1851-08-19 00:00:00

MANSLAUGHTER

John Jackson, Cornw•orth Robinson, and Richard
Dixon were indicted for the manslaugter of Charles
Hume, at Salford, on the sth July. The prisoners and
the deceased were drinking together at a public-house ; a
quarrel ensued and a fight took place, in the course of
which the deceased received injuries which caused his
death on the following morning. The prisoners were
acquitted.
Samuel Heaton, charged with an assault and robbery
upon Mary Bulcock, at Ashton under-Lyne, in April last,
was acquitted.

BURGLARIES

William Norton, Catherine Norton, and William
Langford were indicted for a burglary in the dwelling_
house of John Baggolev, at Manchester, in May last.
Langford was found guilty of housebreaking, and V/m.
Norton of receiving with a guilty knowledge. Catherine
Norton was acquitted. Langford was sentenced to
eighteen months' imprisonment, and Norton to six
months', with hard labour.

Francis Williams, who pleaded guilty to burglary at
Warrineon, was sentenced to twelve months' imprison-
ment, with hard labour.

Michael Carney, Joseph Mills, Charles Macardy,
Richd. Broady, Margaret Belshaw, and Mary Ann
Broady were indicted for a burglary in the dwelling-house
of Robert Blenkinsop, at Manchester, in May last. The
prosecutor isasilk-mercer, in Oldham- street, MancLester;
and on the night stated in the indictment, his premises
were broken into and several hundred pounds' worth of
silk goods stolen. Some of the prisoners had been seen
in the vicinity of the premises shortly before the robbery,
and the possession of the property was traced to the others.
Upwards of thirty witnesses were examined. The prison-
ers were all found guilty, and sentenced as follows :—Car-
ney, eighteen months' imprisonment; Mills and Broady,
ten years transportation; Belshaw, six months' imprison-
ment; Macardy, eighteen months' imprisonment.

YESTERDAY.
ASSAULT AND ROBBERY AT MANCHESTER.
Thomas Dowling, 20. was indicted for having, at Man-
chester, on the night of the 2nd June last, assaulted Wm.
Bunting, and robbed him of one pound in silver. The
prosecutor had been drinking in company with the pri-
soner and other parties in Nell's public-house, and left
the premises with them. On getting into Fetter-lane, he
was knocked down by a blow from behind, and whilst
insensible from the eflects, was robbed of the amount
stated. Emily Stanley deposed to being in the White
Horse, in Fetter-lane, on the night in question, when she
heard a cry of " Watch." On running into the street,
she saw the prosecutor lying on the pavement, with the
prisoner and another man stooping over him. She
screamed, when the two men ran away. Soon after the
policeman met two men running in Minshull-street. He
secured the prisoner. Mr. Pou.ocx, who defended the
prisoner, contended that sufficient identity had not been
established, and the jury, after very little consideration,
acquitted the prisoner. His LORDSHIP said the prisoner
had had a very narrow escape.

ROBBERY AT MANCHESTER,

Hrtvy Scholes, 67; John Smith, 36; Richard Hodges.,
35; Eliza Maddox, 36; and Ellen Riley, 39, were
charged with having broken into the shop of Mr. Anderson,
hoot and shoe maker, at Manchester, and stolen therefrom
70 pairs of boots, and 70 pairs of shoes. Mr. Wheeler
prosecuted, and Mr. Polloak appeared for Hodges ; but
the rest of the prisoners were undefended. It appeared
that on the night of the 4th of June the shop was locked
up as usual ; and on being opened the following morning,
the property was missed. The premises had been entered
by means of a false key. The prisoners Scholes and
Smith had been seen loitering about the shop on the
Friday previous to the robbery. Scholes came into the
shop, and was shown several articles, but went away
without purchasing anything.
Mr. POLLOCK made a long and able address to the jury
on behalf of Hodges, contending there was no evidence
to prove his participation in the robbery.

His LoansniP,in summing up, dwelt particularly on the
fact of the i;wo prisoners, Scholes and Smith, having been
loitering about the shop a day or two previous to the rob-
bery, and complimented Miss Anderson on her vigilance
in watching their movements. He also expressed his
approval of the conduct of Psrtington, in the manner in
which he traced the evidence after receiving the first clue.
This was furnished by Maddox bringing a pair of shoes to
pledge with a Mr. Shaw, who sent one of his assistants to
ascertain where she lived, and then gave information to
the police. The only evidence against Riley was her
having consented to take a pair of shoes to be pledged for
Hodges. As regarded Hodges, although there was no
positive proof of his participation in the robbery, there
was no doubt of his having dealt in the stolen property.
He also thought that Maddox was not sufficiently impli-
cated to warrant a verdict being found against her. The
jury, without retiring, found J)lin Smith and Henry
Scholes guilty of breaking into the shop and stealing the
goods, and Richard Hodges guilty of receiving the same,
knowing them to have been stolen. The two women,
Ellen Riley and Eliza Maddox, were acquitted. Sentence
deferred.

John Smith and Richard Scholes, who were prisoners
in the former case, were also charged, in company with a
man named George lanes, 40, with having broken into the
house of Mr. David Misell, carver and gilder, of Strange-
ways, Manchester, and stealing therefrom two iron pans,
one looking-glass, and other articles. Innes 'vas found
guilt y, and sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment, with
hard labour. Smith and Scholes were found guilty of
receiving the goods, knowing them to have been stolen.
There was a very bad account against these two prisoners
for previous crimes, and his lordship, in passing sentence,
said they evidently belonged to a very dangerous gang of
housebreakers, and for the protection of societ} they must
be sent out of the country. They were sentenced to be
transported beyond the seas for the term of ten years.

BIGAMY

John Conlin, 46, pleaded guilty to having feloniously
married Alice Ward, his former wife being then alive.
The prisoner, who appeared much older than the age
given in the calendar, said he had committed the act in
ignorance, as he supposed his wife was dead, not having
heard from her for more than two years. his second
wife, Alice Ward, was called, and in answer to his lord-
ship as to " what the prisoner represented himself to
her," said 'ne " had apprehended hisself to her as a
widow," causing a hearty laugh in court, in which his
lordship cordially joined. The prisoner was sentenced to
six months' imprisonment, with hard labour.

ASSAULT AND ROBBERY AT LEIGH

John Murray, 22 ; William Thompson, 27 ; Martin
Bell, 27 ; and John Harrison, 27, were indicted for
having, at Westleigh, feloniously assaulted James Hurst,
and taken from him a silver watch and eight shillings.
On the 24th of April last there was a fair at Leigh, and
the prosecutor and several others were drinking at the
Fox public-houte. The prisoners were also present at
different times during the evening. The prosecutor left
the house about twelve o'clock, and shortly after was
knocked down and robbed of his watch and some money.
The prisoners slept at Leigh that night, and left together
about nine o'clock next day. They went to War-
rington that day, and took lodgings from a person
named Ackers. They afterwards tried to induce him to
" fence a thimble"—that is, dispose of a watch—for them,
but, after giving information to the police, returned it to
them. The prisoners were afterwards taken into custody,
and on Thompson a watch was found, which was produced
in court, and turned out to be the property of the prose-
cutor, James Hurst. It appeared that Bell and Murray
were in bed at the time of the occurrence, and the jury
therefore acquitted them. Harrison and Thompson were
found guilty, and sentenced, the former to fifteen, and the
latter to ten years' transportation.

CONCEALMENT OF BIRTH.
Elizabeth Woodall, 22, was charged with haying con-

ceded the birth of a child, at Manchester. The prisoner
took lodgings of Robert Russell, in April last, and from
her appearance suspicion was aroused in the mind of
Mrs. Russell that she was in the family-way, On the
30th of April, the prisoner was very restless, continually
running in and out of the yard, and subsequently the body
of a child was found in the privy. Mr. Goland, surgeon,
of Manchester, said the child had been still-born, and the
jury acquitted the prisoner.

Ellen Evans, 26, was charged with a like offence. The
girl had complained of being ill, which excited the sus-
picion of her mistress, Mrs. Armstrong, who searched
and found the body of a child partly covered with rags, in
a lumber room, near the prisoner's bed-chamber. A
surgeon gave it as his opinion that the child was still born,
and the prisoner was 'acquitted. She stated, in her ex-
amination, that the father of the child was her mistress's

TIIL, Court rose at seven o'clock, Mr. Baron PLATT
objecting to work " late hours."

NISI PRTUS COURT.-THURSDAY.
• (Before Mr. Justice WI LLIA MS.)
LEAKE v. Boorn.—This was an action of assault, to
which the defendant pleaded not guilty. Mr. Sergeant
Wilkins appeared for the plaintiff', and the Attorney-Ge-
neral conducted the defence. Verdict for the plaintiff—
damages, one farthing.

THI ASSIZE. COURTS

Previously to Opening the above case. Mr. Sergeant
WILKINS said that sixteen years ago the corporation
made a promise that if the assizes were brought here they
would provide proper courts for the administration of
justice. They had, however, broken faith, and had illus-
trated the old adage that a corporation would do that
which would cause individuals to hang their heads with
shame. Human life more than once had been sacrificed
in that place through the indolence and supineness of the
corporation ; and if he thought they would be guided by
anything he could say in court, or that they would be
urged to keep their promise, he would say a great deal
more. He (the learned sergeant) suffered most acutely
every time he came there from the unhealthy atmosphere
of the courts, and he could not help expressing his feel-
ings as he had done on the present occasion.
ROBINSON Ux. V. MATHER.—This was an action to
recover damages for an assault alleged to have been com-
mitted by defendant on plaintiff's wife. Both parties
reside at Manchester, and are engaged in carrying on the
business of coach-builders. After the case had been par-
tially gone into, it was agreed to withdraw a juror.
KERR V. JOHNSON.—An action on a promissory note
for £2O, endorsed by the defendant. Verdict for the
plaintiff for the amount claimed, with interest.

BREACH OF PROMISE OF MARRIAGE.
WALKER V. WOLSTENHOLME.—This was an action
brought by the plaintiff, Emma Walker, against the
defendant, John Wolstenholme, for an alleged breach of
promise of marriage. The declaration stated that the
defendant made a promise to marry the plaintiff before
Christmas, 1850, and that he failed to perform such pro-
mise. The defendant pleaded that he did not promise in
manner and form. The case excited much interest, and
the court was crowded during the trial.
Mr. Sergeant Wilkins and Mr. Pollock appeared for
the plaintiff; Mr. Watson and Mr. Monk for defendant.
The plaintiff was the fourth daughter of Saml. Walker,
of Bury, who held a situation as bookkeeper at the Liver-
pool and Bury Railway. He had been in business in
Manchester, but being unsuccessful be retired from trade.
The defendant was a young man carrying on business as
an ironmonger in Bury, and he had also a standing in the
Market-place, where he disposed of his goods. Both
plaintiff and defendant were members of a dissenting
congregation ; both were Sunday-school teachers, and the
acquaintance began at a tea-party given to the teachers
of the Sunday-school. For some time he continued his
attention to the plaintiff, and was accepted in her parents'
house as her suitor. About this time she received an
anonymous letter, cortaining certain imputations on the
defendant's character, and the first time she saw him
after, she read the letter to him, intimating that if he did
not clear himself, she would break off the intimacy. He
did not give a satisfactory explanation, and the intimacy
was, therefore, broken off accordingly. The plaintiff
afterwards went to reside at Euxton, as nursery governess
in a gentleman's family, where she remained about two
years. At the urgent request of the defendant she re-
turned, when the intimacy was again commenced, and
continued up to a cert in period.
Ann Walker said—l am the wife of Samuel 'Walker,
bookkeeper at the Bury Railway, and mother of the
plaintiff, who is 23 years of age. The defendant is about.
26. He is an ironmonger at Bury, and carries on busi-
ness, also, in Rochdale. He began to visit at our house
in 1846, and continued his visits for about six months,
paying attention to my daughter Emma. S'te afterwards
went to live as governess with Mr. Priestly, where she re-
mained about two years. During her absence the defend-
ant spoke to me about her, and when she returned home
he renewed his visits, and continued them almost every
night, after business hours. In June, 1850, my daughter
had a small pnstule on her forehead, and the defendant
when he called wished her to go out with him. They
went out about half-past eight, and did not return for an
hour, although desired to stay only a quarter of an hour.
After that evening the defendant continued his visits, and
paid attention to my daughter as usual. On Sunday,
August 11, my daughter went out, but returned home
and in clnsequence of what she said, I informed my
husband. Next morning, I and my husband, and my
daughter Fanny went to see defendant. He was in the
shop, and I said I wanted to speak with him ; I walked
into the sitting-room' and the defendant then came in ;
I and my husband and daughter were there; I asked him
what his intentions were as regarded my daughter.
said, " you know what I mean, Emma is in the family
way by you." He said, "It was a common occurrence
of the folly of youth." " Yes," said I, " amongst the
low bred, but not amongst respectable people." I said,
"you must fix the wedding day." " Well," lie said, " I
cannot possibly be married at present, but I will at Christ-
mas." I asked him to mention an earlier period, as her
disgrace would be getting known, and he said he could
not, but that I might depend upon him at Christmas, or
sooner if he could. My husband offered him a written
contract to sign, but he said we might depend upon his
word. After that my daughter Fanny left the room. I
cried, and he requested me to dry my tears, saying they
would be married at Christmas. He called the same
evening and saw Emma, but was not very comfortable.
He continued to visit until the Bth of December, and paid
the same attention as formerly. Early in December I
called and saw him in his shop, and asked him to fix the
wedding day, as I thought it high time. He said some-
thing had transpired and he could not be married. I said
I could not bear such language. After treating Emma as
he had done it was shameful, and I would see what the
law could do. He said I might go to law. I also called
on him about a week before Christmas, and asked him to
fulfil his promise with Emma, and he laughed and sneered,
and said lie had made no promise. My daughter was
delivered in February of a daughter, and I consulted an
attorney.

Cross-examined by Mr. WATSON.—My daughter was a
governess to Euxton. She might be nursery-maid. She
assists her sister now at dress making. The sister is older
than Emma. The elder one, Sarah, is in a family. The
youngest, Fanny, is being brought up as a pupil teacher.
Jane Ellen Walker.—Was eldest sister to the plaintiff.
Remembered at Christmas, 1846, the defendant intro-
ducing himself at a Sunday-school tea party. when we
were returning home. We had some forks which had
been used at the party, and he introduced himself by ask-
ing to carry them. On the following Sunday he saw her
again, and continued his visits. I received an anonymous
letter, in consequence of which the intimacy was broken
off by my sister. She then went to live at Euxton, as a
nursery governess; while she was away the defendant
sent his love to her, and requested that he might see her
when she came home. I said I was not sure she would
like to see him. On her return I introduced her again,
and the intimacy was renewed. He said his house was
not exactly to his mind, but when he and my sister were
married she could make it so. lie called my mother by
that name after the 12th of August. In June, 1850, my
sister had a small tumour on her forehead; and defend-
ant, when he came, requested her to take a walk. She
declined on account of the tumour, when he said he could
get her a plaster which would cure it very soon. A few
days afterwards I noticed my sister weeping, and apparently
uneasy. The defendant had a sister living with him, and
she left about June. The defendant wished my sister to
go to his house to make him some pies and bake some
bread, but she refused to go without one of her sisters.
The defendant wished my sister to get him a housekeeper,
and she said she had got him one, a woman about forty.
He said she was too old for him. I went once with my
sister Emma to make him some pies and bread. Ho
once said that when he married, purity and innocence
should he his choice, and that he could find that in my
sister Emma. One day in August me and my sister met
the defendant with a Miss Openshaw, and my sister be-
came ill and leaned on my arm ; when she got home she
went into hysterics. She has never been well since. A
fortnight after this we met the defendant in Market-
street, coming out of Mr. Openshaw's shop; he followed
us, arid my sister asked him how he could think of going
with Miss Openshaw when he was engaged to her. He
said he was going past, and one of her fascinating smiles
had drawn him in ; lie said, " Don't be jealous, Emma ;
she is nothing to compare to you!" He afterwards came
to our house, and would not come in at first. He said,
" How can I forshame after what you have told Your
father and mother." While in the parlour, he said, i‘ As
sure as I stand on this ground, Emma, you shall be my
wife at Christmas, or before if I can make it convenient."
He said he would bring no disgrace upon the family. He
called me sister Jane twice that evening. He continued
to visit up to the Bth of December, and more than once
repeated that promise. He once spoke to me of his nice
shop, and said he had £lOOO of stock, and it was nearly
all paid for.

Cross-examined by Mr. Watson.—l am a dressmaker ;
when my sister was at Euston she went during the time
to Bury, but the defendant never saw her there. The
defendant was at his father's shop, but he had lately gone
into business on his own account. Had walked out with
the defendant and my sister sometimes. I thought at one
time he was paying some attention to me, on account of
my sister Emma. He told me once that he understood
Emma was engaged, and he would be glad if I would
except him. I did not make any reply. When my sister
was away I sometimes went with the defendant, and I
frequently went since, with my sister, the defendant, and
Craig. Was at a party at defendant's house on the 16th
November. All my sisters and several others were there.
Frances Eliza Walker, another sister to the plaintiff,
corroborated the evidence previously given.
Mr. Watson addressed the jury for the defendant.
He said that if his client were so horrible a character as
Mr. Sergeant Wilkins bad endeavoured to make him ap-
pear, the plaintiff had not lost much. If he were a bad
man, what could she lose by not hay.inthim for a husband ?