The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1844-08-27 00:00:00

RETURNING FROM TRANSPORTATION.

James Barrett was tried on an indictment charging
him with being at large after he had been sentenced to 15
years' transportation, before the term of his imprison-
ment had expired.
The prisoner was tried and convicted at the Central
Criminal Court on the Bth of July, 1839, on a charge of
burglary, and sentenced to 15 years' transportation. He
was found at Liverpool in May last, being before the term
of his sentence had expired, and was apprehended by
Superintendent Quick.
He was found guilty, and sentenced to transportation
for the term of his natural life.

STABBING AT LIVERPOOL.

Charles Diamond, 18, was i;iicied-for having, at Li-
verpool, feloniously cut, stabbed, and wounded Hiram
Stephens, with intent to maim and disable him, or to do
biro some grievous bodily harm.
Mr. Wilkins conducted the case for the prosecution;
the prisoner was undefended.
It appeared thatfreod
thecrew of an American the prosecutor
Awmaesranshipmariner,
called
and thatthe
he was
Palestine. The prisoner was also a mariner on board the
same vessel. On the night of Friday, the 2d of August,
the prosecutor went on board about eleven o'clock and
found the store-keeper sitting on the hatchway. Some
eonversation ensued between them, in the course of which
the prisoner interposed and called the prosecutor " a
Yankee." The prosecutor made use of an abusive epithet
in reply ; and then both the parties rushed at each other,
and almost immediately it was found that the prisoner
had inflicted a wound on the arm of the prosecutor with
a knife. The wound was three quarters of an inch in
length, and an inch and a half in depth.
The jury retired, and, after an absence from court for
nearly an hour, returned a verdict of guilty with intent to
maim, and recommended him to mercy.

MURDER OF A WIFE BY HER HUSBAND AT LIVERPOOL.
Owen Leonard, (63,) was indicted for having. at Liver-
pool, feloniously, wilfully, and of malice aforethought
killed and murdered his wife, Bridget Leonard, by cutting
her in various parts of the body with a razor.
Mr. Hulton and Mr. Dririkwater conducted the case
for the prosecution: the prisoner was defended by Mr.
M'Oubrey.
As the details of this case have been so recently pub-
lished at length in all the local papers, it will be unneces-
sary to do more than supply a brief abstract. It appeared
from the statement of counsel and the evidence of the se-
veral witnesses, that the prisoner occupied the house No.
37, Peter-street, in this town, and that his family consisted
of himself, big wife, a son, 13 years of age, and an elder son,
not at home at the time of the occurrence. The lodgers in
the house consisted of a lame man named Livingston, and
his wife, and another person, a stranger, whose name
was unknown. On the night of the 27th of July, shortly
before the alleged murder was committed, the parties
were in the kitchen. They consisted of the prisoner, his
wife, Livingston and his wife, and the stranger. Some
altercation then took place between the prisoner and the
stranger, which ended in the prisoner desiring him to
leave the lodgings. He refused at first to comply with
the request,
hbisutniagtng
htle,sltohdgtihneg,dtehcreeaespeednhcean, dtedidhiiimimthtne
laen,voeu,natn do of his
leit accortlinjy. There Were only five per-
sons then remaining in the kitchen—namely, Livingston
and his wife, the boy, and the prisoner and his wife.

Shortly after the stranger had left the house, the priso-
ner, from some cause or other, quarrelled with his wife.
He called her a w—, and she struck him on the face.
At that time the prisoner did not return the blow. Al-
most immediately, Livingston and his wife went up stairs
to go to bed, and the deceased accompanied them with
a lighted candle. Livingston and his wife slept on
the third story, and the prisoner and his wife on the
first. When the deceased accompanied the Living-
stons, the prisoner went up stairs to his bed-room, and
speedily came down again to the kitchen, where, in the
presence of the boy, he placed something bright, evidently
a razor, in his pocket. Very shortly after, he went up
stairs again, to Livingston's room, and ordered the de-
ceased down. She accordingly went down, first into
her own bed-room, and then into the kitchen. The
prisoner also came down, and at this period the only
persons in the kitchen were the prisoner, the deceased,
and the boy. She sat upon a chair, and almost immediately
the prisoner called her a vs— a second time, accused
her of having been guilty of adultery with a man named
Guest. who had been a lodger in the house two or three
years before. Her answer to the charge was some ex-
clamation of this nature—" aye sure," or " yes sure."
He then struck her a blow on the face which knocked
her off the chair, and, taking a razor out of his pocket,
he got upon her and cut her with it in various parts of
the body. The boy succeeded in getting outof thehouse and
alarming the constables ; and during the time that he was
away, a neighbour also had heard a noise and put
his head in and saw the ?risoner in the attitude of carry-
ing out his wicked intention of cutting her in various parts
of the body. Another witness of the name of Peacock
also came to the door about this time, and saw the de-
ceased
creeping towards the door ; and when she had suc-
ceeded in reaching it, the prisoner gave her a kick with
his foot which tumbled her out upon the footpath, and
then shut the door. When the boy and the constables
came :back, they found the deceased on the footpath
bleeding profusely from several wounds. She was then
laid on a stretcher and sent to the infirmary, but, before
she got there, she had breathed her last. The important
question in the case was, whether the crime could be re-
duced by anything which had taken place to the minor
charge of manslaughter. One of the most painful cir-
cumstances connected with the case was, that the principal
witness against the prisoner was his own son, the boy
previously alluded to as being only 13 years of age.
Mr. Edw. Parker, house surgeon of the Northern Hos-
pital, described the nature of the wounds. He made a
post mortem examination shortly after the death. There
was a slight wound on the left cheek. The end of the
nose was almost completely cut off. There was a wound
extending from the upper lip acfo3s the left cheek nearly
to the left ear. It was about five inches long, and three
quarters of an inch in depth, and bad divided the facial
artery. There were two slight scratches on the left side
of the neck, and on the right there was a transverse wound
about 4 inches long and one deep. That divided the ex-
ternal jugular vein. In front of the neck there was a
wound about four inches long and one in depth, which
extended down to, but did not open, the windpipe. Some
of the muscles of the neck were partially divided. On
the back part of the left fore arm there was a wound about
two and a half inches long and one and a half in depth.
On the outer and front part of the left thigh, a little above
the knee, there was a wound about six inches long and
seven deep ;it went obliquely upwards. On the inner
side of the calf of the right leg there was a perpendicular
wound about eight inches long and one deep. On the
back part of the right knee there was a wound about six
inches long and three and a half deep, which crossed the
upper part of the last mentioned wound and divided
a large vein and an artery of considerable size in the bend
of the knee. That wound extended to the bone. All
those wounds might have been caused by a razor. The
death was attributable to hemorrhage from the whole of
the wounds. In consequence of certain questions having
been asked of the medical witnesses. on cross-examination,
respecting insanity, Mr. Thomas Chalmer, the surgeon at
Kirkdale gaol, was called. He stated that he had taken
particular notice of the prisoner, and that he had never
observed any traces of a diseased mind about him. Upon
cross-examination, he said he had read several works on
the subject of insanity, amongst others, Gall and Spurz-
beim on Craniology.
At the close of the case for the prosecution,
Mr. WOUBREY addressed the jury on the part of the
prisoner. He said he anticipated one or other of two
verdicts;—either that a verd ct of manslaughter would be
returned, or that he should be acquitted on the ground of
insanity. He reminded the jury that in the former case
the prisoner would be condemned to work in chains,
and that in the latter he would be closely confined
in a lunatic asylum for life. He contended that the
occurrence had taken place during one of those
paroxysms of rage and ungovernable passion to which
the prisoner was occasionally subject, and that the
most reasonable inference to draw was, that ha bad
committed the dreadful havoc upon the person of his un-
fortunate wife while wholly unconscious of what be was
about. if he had been a sane man, what was to hinder
him front stabbing her during sleep, or poisoning her at
her meals ? The slaughter which had taken place was a
proof of his insanity; and the fact of his having, in his
paroxysms, trumped up groundless charges against the
fidelity of his wife, was a further proof that he had the
misfortune to labour under a disordered mind.

Margaret Leonard was the first witness called for the
defence. She said she was the daughter of the prisoner,
who, some years ago, was a mild, kind, gentle man. He
was very quiet and religious, treated all his family kindly,
and tried to instruct them as far as possible in the scrip-
tures. About five or six years ago, he gave up his reli-
gious habits. Before that, he used to ask the blessing
when he sat down to meat. He then gave up that prac-
tice. There was an alteration in his countenance and
conversation, and spoke disrespectfully of the deceased.
He composed poetry, and, for a trifling thing, became
wicked and vicious and would strike the children. He
fancied that the deceased would poiFon him, and be would
not partake of tea unless somebody had tasted it first,
generally the deceased. Ile remained in that state about
six weeks and then recovered. Since then, he has had
other similar attacks. About a year and a half ago he
had an attack of the same kind, and the same sort of irri-
tability succeeded. He ate ravenously, although his gene-
ral appetite was rather small. Last February, he was at-
tacked again. It manifested itself by his being particu-
larly anxious about bolting the doors and windows. The
deceased on other occasions always secured the doors.
His eyes became large. Last May, he had another
attack. He was jealous of the deceased when the
attacks came on, and would make her go up stairs before
him to bed.

Cross-examined.—He was a temperate man about five
years ago. Then he became intemperate; and when the
attacks came on it was generally after he had been drunk.
Witness saw him two or three times a good deal the worse
for liquor during the period that the attack lasted, five or
six weeks.

Ann Leonard deposed that she also was a daughter of
the prisoner. About two years ago he had a raised, ex-
cited look. About a month before the death of the de-
ceased, he asked witness for money, and because she re-
fused to give him any he threw her little brother from one
side of the room to the other. Witness interfered to save
her brother and the prisoner struck her, and said she was
not nis daughter. He accused the deceased, without
having any cause for it, of infidelity. The deceased was
afraid of him at that time. He was very violent, but at
other times very quiet and hardworking.
Cross-examined.—The day he asked her for money be
had been drinking, and he wanted the money to buy some
more drink.
He-examined.—His excitement did not always arise
from drink, but drink made him worse.
Henry Jones deposed that he lived opposite the house
of deceased in Peter-street, and was returning home about
half-past twelve o'clock on the night of the occurrence.
Saw the prisoner walking up and down opposite his door,
appprently much excited. The deceased was whispering
something persuasive in his ear. There was an uproari-
ous noise proceeding from the prisoner's house as
if from persons drinking. In a few minutes after there
was a louder noise, and, finding the door open, witness
looked in and saw the prisoner in a crouching position at
the stairfoot. Livingston was brandishing a stick in a
threatening manner. Livingston's wife ran between her
husband and the prisoner to prevent blows. Livingston
thrust his wife aside, and struck the prisoner twice or
thrice with his fist. The prisoner rushed to the d oorand
called " Police," and then deceased pulled him in by the
skirts of his coat, and shut the door. The noise then in-
creased; the door was again thrown open ; the previous
scene was repeated; and the door was shut a second time.
The prisoner was greatly excited.
John Goodwin deposed that he lived at Sir Thomas's
Buildings, and was a master tailor. He had employed the
prisoner, and whom he had known for the last 27 years.
Tne prisoner was formerly of a mild and gentle disposi-
tion, and lived peaceably with his wife. Within the last
two years there was a change. Witness thought the pri-
soner insane at times. He seemed wild and irritated
without cause. He rambled in conversation, started
abitiptiv, laughed without occasion, and used to dart out
of houses when receiving orders for tailoring jobs. He
was nervous, and would be easily stirred up to an act of
violence.

John Carroll, a dealing man, was called to prove the
insanity of the prisoner on the Sunday before the murder.
Upon that occasion, the prisoner said none of the children
were his except his daughter, Mary. Three or four
months before, he praised all the children.
Alice Ryan deposed, that the prisoner was quite drunk
at 12 o'clock on the night of the murder.
The case for the defence having here closed,
Mr. Holton replied.
His LORDSHIP then summed up in his usual clear,
omprehensive manner. He said there were three ques-
tions for the consideration of the Jury :—first, whether
the deceased died by the hands of the prisoner at the bar :
secondly, the character of the act ; and thirdly, the
prisoner's state of mind at the time. With respect to
the first, probably there could be no doubt. With re-
spect to the second, the prisoner was, at all events, guilty
of manslaughter ; and with respect to the third, the Jury
would have to exercise a cool and deliberate considera-
tion.
His Lordship recapitulated the whole of the evidence,
and concluded his charge at 10 minutes to 10 o'clock.
The Jury then retired, and, after an absence from court
for 10 minutes, returned a verdict of guilty of man-
slaughter.
The JUDGE then passed sentence in the following man-
ner :—Owen Leonard, you have been indicted for murder
in occasioning the death of your wife, the mother of a
large family. The circumstances under which her death
was produced present a spectacle such as the annals of
the worst crimes rarely exhibit. On that Saturday night
you appear to have used, against the person of your wife,
an instrument, with extraordinary barbarity, inflicting
upon her many grievous wounds. The Jury, before whom
you have been tried, have taken a favourable view of your
case, so far as to consider that the offence you committed
was not done with the malicious and deliberate purpose
of depriving your wife of her existence, but that, you
committed the most dreadful crime in a moment of

irritation, and that you were not actuated by any delibe-
rate malice. The circumstances, however, of your case,
while they call for the severest punishment upon the fre-
quent instances which the calendar most unhappily pre-
sents of violence carried to the extreme extent of pro-
ducing death, calls also for the severest punishment that
the law can award against the crime of which the jury have
found you guilty. The sentence of the court is, that, for
this offence, you be transported beyond the seas, to such
place as her Majesty by the advice of her Privy Council
may appoint, for the term of your natural life.
The prisoner, who appeared calm and collected during
the progress of the trial, sank upon the floor of the dock
and burst into a flood of tears on hearing the sentence,
and was with difficulty removed by the turnkeys.
The Court adjourned at a quarter-past ten o'clock to
nine this morning. There are only tour criminal cases
now remaining for disposal, so that in all probability the
Crown business will be concluded about noon, and his
lordship will leave Liverpool for London by the next train.

NISI PRIUS.—MONDAY.
The case of Farrar v. Deflinne was resumed this morn-
ing at the dating of the court. Mr. Baines called three
addiiianal witnesses, and thus closed the case for the
plaintiff. The Solicitor-General then addressed the jury
in a speech of nearly three hours' duration, contending
that ikse fact of Mr. Farrar having accepted the offered
compromise of 10s. in the pound proved that be did not
consider that Mr. Deflinne was a responsible party, other-
wise he would not have accepted it, but demanded what
he now sought, 20s. in the pound. His Lordship summed
up at considerable length, and the jury, after a consulta-
tion which lasted 15 minutes, gave a verdict for the plain-
tiff—damages, with interest, £1235 ss.
ACTION FOR CRIM. CON. AGAINST A SURGEON,—.•
WOOD v. MONK.—This was an action for criminal con-
versation with the plaintiff's wife. Mr. Knowles and
Mr. Hoggins appeared for the plaintiff; Mr. Watson and
Mr. Atherton tbr the defendant.

Mr. Knowles said that this was an action in which the
plantiff sought redress for an injury which, in every
case, and under all circumstances, must inevitably be one
of a very painful and serious description. Mr. Samuel
Wood complained of the seduction of his wife, effected
by a man whose position in life, whose profession, and
whose relation-with the plaintiff's family, which arose out
of that profession, were calculated to disarm suspicion, to
invite confidence, and to afford those opportunities of
which this case was a proof that he had very suc-
cessfully availed himself. The plaintiff carried on business
as a master stonemason at Preston. Eleven years ago
he married his present wife. He was now a man
somewhat past forty, and his wife was somewhat
younger. At the time of the marriage she was a person
of considerable personal attractions, and formed to do
honour to that home to which Mr. Wood took her, and to
afford to him that comfort which every married man
sought from the company of a good wife. For some years
the plaintiff continued to live in Preston. In addition to
following his ordinary trade, he kept a tavern. He re-
mained in Preston till 1841, when he took the Hesketh
Arms, in Southport. In the meantime, three children
were the result of the marriage ; and if the case were as it
had been represented to him (Mr. Knowles) it was no
small aggravation that the defendant, who was a medical
man, attended the plaintiff's wife on the birth of those
children. The defendant, Mr. Thos. Monk, a surgeon,
carried on business in Preston, and he also filled the
office of alderman of that town • and he (the learned
counsel) believed that during the whole period which
had elapsed since the marriage of the plaintiff, the de-
fendant had been in the habit of attending them, and, as
he bad before stated, had attended Mrs. Wood during
the birth of her children. He need not point out the
frequent opportunities which a medical man must have, if
' he was not guarded by a proper sense of propriety, in car-
rying into effect any design of the kind which it was the
object of this action to bring about. Of course the visits
of a surgeon were unrestricted ; and greater degree of pro-
priety was therefore expected from a medical man than
an ordinary person. In March, 1843, the plaintiff re-
moved from Southport to Preston. There he began to fall
into difficulties, and in October of the same year he went
to Lancaster Castle. He remained there till April of this
year, was then dischargedunder the InsolventDebtors' Act,
returned home, and then for the first time was acquainted
with that which had resulted in the present action. When
the intimacy first com nenced, he (Mr. Knowles) was not
able to show ; but there would be no doubt that during
the period in which the plaintiff was at Lancaster Castle,
the defendant was frequently in the habit of visiting the
plaintiff's wife ; and if his instructions were to -be at all
relied on, there could be no doubt that a series of inter-
course, if he might so say, took place, the nature of
which the jury would hear from the witnesses, and
the object of which was much too palpable to leave
any man in doubt. Their intimacy was carried on in
the most open and disgusting manner. They had often
been seen in bed together, seen by the servants of the
did not seem to have, taken
hevenous house,
ordinaryagains against
precautionsw h tyhe
to
prevent detection, He was
not aware what line of defence was to be taken by his
learned friend : but it was impossible to shut his ears to
certain rumours about the court, and he had been told
that there was to be an attempt to impeach the character
of this unfortunate woman in other transactions. He
(Mr. Knowles) would say that he believed the good taste
of his learned friend would prevent him adopting that
line of defence ; and he should think ill of the defendant
if he attempted to set up the dishonour of this woman, he
having been the cause of it, and should bring before the
jury any subsequent act of hers, this having been the re-
sult of his own education, if he might use. the term, and
ought to be that portion of his conduct which ought to
fill him with regal and dismay.
Witnesses were then called.
Richard Aughton recollected the marriage of the plain-
tiff with Eliza Ogden, in January 1833, and stated that he
frequently called at their house. They seemed to live
comfortably together. Cross-examined.—On my visits I
never saw her with a black eye •, never saw her husband
beat her. She never complained to me of her husband's
infidelity. She always appeared to me a respectable, well-
behaved woman. Her husband is a man of violent
temper.
Jane Mercer—said that the plaintiff's wife was a hand-
some woman at the time of marriage, and they seemed to
live together on very good terms. Cross-easmined.—
Have heard Mrs. Wood complain of her husband beating
her; but never saw it. That was before they went to
Southport. Re-examined.—Dr. Monk, who is a mar-
ried man and has a family, attended Mrs. Wood in her
confinement. He is an alderman of the town, (Preston,)
and is in extensive practice. He has an assistant. Should
think Mr. Wood was about 40 years of age.
Eliza Parkinson, wife of John Parkinson, currier, liv-
ing in Kil-haw-street. said—l know the plaintiff. I was
hired by Mr. Wood as waiter at the Grapes Inn. in Au-
gust of last year, and continued with him for three
months. Knew the defendant. He was in the habit of
calling twice a week at the Grapes Inn when I was there.
In October I was sent with a message to Mr. Monk. I
saw the defendant at his surgery, and told him Mrs.
Wood wished him to call when it was convenient. He
called in about two days after. When he came he went
to Mrs. Wood in the back parlour. I had occasion to go
in whilst he was there, for change. She stated that in
consequence of what she then saw she left the room. Saw
the defendant afterwards at the Grapes Inn. Mrs. Wood
had a gathered finger ; she sent me to the surgery ; Mr.
Monk came directly ; he found her in the kitchen; and
they went up st airs into a bed room. I went in for change
and they were in bed together. Nerer saw anything im-
proper in Mrs. Wood's conduct except on those two oc-
casions. Did not at the time disclose what I had seen.
Alice Proctor called on me after the plaintiff came from
Lancaster Castle, and said that if I would go to Liverpool
and tell the truth, I should be handsomely rewarded.
She did not say that I should have £2O. I did not tell
her what I had seen.
Alice Procter, wife of John Procter, and servant with
Mrs. Wood, proved the criminal conversation. On cross-
examination she admitted having been thrice separated
from tier husband. _ _ _

Thiselosedihe plaintiff's case.
Al W TSON• for the defence, urged that Mrs. Wood
..r. A •
was an innocent woman, and the victim of a conspiracy,
got up for the purpose of ridding her husband of the
responsibility of her maintenance. He scouted the idea
that a respectable married man of middle age would jeo-
pardise his prosperity in life by such conduct as that at-
tributed to the defendant. Mr. Watson called—
Richard Robinson, an apprentice of the defendant, who
said—ln December, last year, a message came for Mr.
Monk to go to the Grapes. On his return he prescribed
a lotion to be made up, and for a week or a fortnight after
I took medicine regularly there. Shortly after a child of
Mrs. Wood's was brought to the surgery ; it had a sore
head. On another occasion Mrs. Wood came to the sur-
gery ; Mr. Monk bled her, and medicine was sent for her.
The next (lay he went to the Grapes, again bled her, and
more medicine was sent for her. I took it, and found her
in bed. On two or three of the visits I accompanied the
defendant into the room, and saw Mrs. Wood in bed.
Her complaint was inflammation of the chest. In
February a message came stating that Alice had hurt
her leg ; the defendant went and bandaged it, and
1 attended her for several weeks. About a month after
the children had scald head, and Mr. Monk attended
them every other day. I accompanied . him. He con-
tinued his visits until after the return of the plaintiff from
Lancaster. Alice Procter came for medicine until July.
On one occasion (the latter end of June or beginning of
July) Alice asaed Mr. Monk to lend her money: she
said that Mr. Wood owed her money, and she could not
get it. Mr. Monk refused to lend her money, and she
said it should be the worse for him. Cross-examined—
Have seen Alice Prcoter at the surgery two or three times.
when she did not call for medicine, as far as I knew.

•
At the close of the examination of this witness (ten
minutes to seven) the court rose.

GROUSING.-Sir W. Massey Stanley, Bart. shot, with
his own gun, in eleven hours, on the first day of grouse
shooting, at his beautifully situated shooting quarters, in
Invernesshire, 116 brace of grouse.

EFFECTS OF WOOD PAVEMENT.—At a recent meeting
of the Westminster Medical Society, Dr. Copland re-
marked, that when wood pavement was taken up for re-
pairs, for several inches below the surface the pores of the
wood might be observed to be saturated with black mat-
ters from the decomposing of organic substances, which
were carried down and absorbed by the water, and on
further decomposition these would be likely to evaporate,
producing some subtle form of atmospheric impurity, be-
sides which they would be aided by the waters employed
in merely wat€ring the streets, and thus extend and pro-
long the influence of that low form of typhoid fever which
has been so common in the metropolis.
YORKSHIRE JURORS.— " I remember," says Lord
Eldon, in the Anecdote Book. " Mr. Justice Gould try-
ing a ase at York; and when he had proceeded for about
two hours, he observed, "Here are only eleven jurymen
in the box ; where is the twelfth ?" Please you, my
gone away about
. lord," said one of the eleven, "Ile 1!;
some business; but he ha: lgft Ms verdict with me."