The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1843-04-04 00:00:00

WORK AND LABOUR

IlourmswoßTH M r . Brandt for the plain-
tiff, Mr. Knowles and Mr. Atherton for the defendant. The
action was brought to recover £6O for work and labour done
by the plaintiff for the defendant, in Manchester, in mason's
work, in the erection of some houses in Chorlton-road and
Moss-side, Manchester. The defendant said that, except as
to £3B, which had been paid into court, he was not indebted.
The question was merely as to the prices at which the work
was done, consequently the case had no interest in it, except
to the parties concerned. After the trial had proceeded for
some time, the cause was referred.

LIBEL.
SHERBURNE v. QUARME.—There were two special jury
cases thus entered in the second list, both of which were
made remanets at the last assizes. Just before the rising of
the court,
Mr. DUNDAS said, there were two cases on his Lordship's
list on which a verdict would be taken by consent for the
plaintiff.
"The JUDGE.—Which cases are those ?
Mr. BAINES.—Nos. 64 and 65, my lord. Sherburne
versus Quarme.

The JUDGE.—Very well.
Mr. BAINES again rose, and said it had been agreed by his
learned friend and himself, he (Mr. Baines) representing the
defendant, that there should in these cases be a verdict en-
tered for the plaintiff, for a nominal sum, the defendant
withdrawing the plea of justification which he had put upon
the record. Mr. Quarme, his client, was a gentleman who
conducted a newspaper at Lancaster, and be had always been
anxious to conduct it honourably, and in a manner without
injustice to any one. The articles of which the plaintiff com-
plained were published originally without Mr. Quarme's
knowledge; he knew nothing of them whatever, and, there-
fore, he had instructed him (Mr. Baines) to consent to this
verdict, and to withdraw the justification.
Mr. DIINDAS, upon the part of the plaintiff, his client, of
course, after the justification upon the record had been with-
drawn, could not but accede to this arrangement. His ob-
ject. was only to stop libels upon his character ; and the
justification having been withdrawn, be was content.
A verdict in both cases for one shilling damages and one
shilling costs in each, was taken by consent.
The court then adjourned at half-past five o'clock.

CROWN COURT.-MONDAY, April 3.

CALLING OF JURORS

Mr. Baron PARKE entered the Court, as usual, at nine
o'clock, and immediately afterwards ordered the Clerk of
Arraigns to call over the list of jurors, in order to ascertain
if there were any absentees. The jurors in the Civil Court
having been called into the Crown Court, the list was read
over. The following gentlemen did not answer, and were
each fined £5 :—Thomas Barnes, of Farnworth ; Richard
Cummings, of Litherland ; Charles Galt. of Hulme ; William
Reynolds, of Warrington ; George Robinson, of Everton ;
Robert Syke, of Hardwick ; Michael Trueman, of Cheetham ;
Israel Taylor, of Wigan ; and Ellis Yates, of Liverpool. It
was mentioned that by the imposition of this fine the absent
jurors were not released from attendance : they are subject
to further fines during the Assizes, if they did not attend,

William Chadwick, 27, late of the parish of Ashton-under-
Lyne, labourer, was indicted for having, on the 4th of Octo-
ber, criminally assaulted Catherine Hurst. Mr. \VHIGHAM
was for the prosecution. Mr. WILKINS defended the pri-
soner.

Mr. WHIGHAM, in opening the case, said he believed that
Catherine Hurst had been subject to fits, and that her intel-
lect was not of the brightest order.

Catherine Hurst was'called. She was a tall, rather deli-
cate-looking girl. and stated that she was 16 years of age
on the 3d of November last. She lived with her parents
at Duckenfield. On Monday, the 24th October, she went
to Openshaw, for the purpose of seeing her sister. About
six o'clock in the evening she set out on her return to Duck-
enfield. A young man named Joshua Clarke, who was
courting her sister, accompanied her as far as Hammond's
public-house, where she expected to find a coach. When
she got there, however, the coach had gone, and she set off
towards Duckenfield, alone, and on foot. She had not got
many paces before two carts came up. They were proceed-
ing in the direction that she wished to go. The prisoner at
the bar had the care of the first cart. There was a man
with the other cart. She asked the prisoner, who was on
the pathway to let her ride. He consented, and she got
into the cart. which was loaded with cotton bags. There
was a tarpauling thrown over the bags ; he lifted it up, and
she sat under it. She rode from Hammond's to the other side
of the stone bridge leading to Ashton by herself. When
they came to the two roads leading to Ashton' the other
cart went by the old way, and the one in which she was
riding went by the new way. Before arriving at these roads,
the prisoner had got into the cart, but he went out again.
After they had passed the new bridge he got on again. That
was about a quarter of a mile from the two roads. There
were no persons on the road when he got on again. After
having fastened the tarpauling to the side he got into the
cart, and asked her to take her bonnet off, that it might not
be scrumpled. The tarpauling was not over her when he
got into the cart, but he put it over. He then began to take
liberties with her; sho screamed out 'Murder," but there
was no one near to help her. When he had accomplished
his brutal purpose, he got off the cart. He wanted to give
her a shilling and a glass of gin, but she refused it. She then
went on to describe the steps she took in consequence of the
prisoner's brutality. Several other persons corroborated the
prosecutor's evidence as far as they were concerned. She
LLI
Limn of the name of Beau-
mont __ .....
was driver of the eart.

in cross-exatnina

it was driver of the cart.
His LORDSHIP, in summing up, prefaced the evidence with
,otne general observations, one of which was that in cases
like this it was necessary for the jury to look upon the testi-
mony of the prosecutrix with great care and caution. She
had, lie said, externally the appearance of a person of weak
intellect; but she had given her evidence in a manner which
manifested little or nothing of weakness of intellect. He
put it to the jury to consider, with especial care, whether,
if her statement were correct, the advances of the prisoner
had not been of a sufficiently suspicious character to give
her a clear intimation of his design, and whether she might
not have as easily got off the cart before as she did after the
assault. If Beamont was present when the alleged outrage
took place, he must have heard the screams, if there were
any, and might have been called by the prosecution.
The jury retired. After an absence of a few minutes, they
returned with a verdict of guilty, but recommended the
prisoner to mercy.
The JUDGE said that he must know on what account the
recommendation to mercy had been given. If the prisoner
was guilty, he could not see any ground for the recommenda-
tion. if the jury had any doubt, they must make up their
minds.

The FOREMAN.—We have no doubt of the prisoner's
guilt, my lord.

Mr. Wit.KlNs.—Perhaps your lordship would ask them
what they mean.

The JUDGE.—Yea. What do you mean, gentlemen, by
recommending the prisoner to mercy
The FOREMAN.—We think, my Lord, that if Beamount,
the carter, had been produced, he might have given testimony
in favour of the prisoner.
Mr. WILKINS.—I hope you hear the answer, my Lord.

The JUDGE.—Yes. If You have any doubt, gentlemen,
you must consider your verdict.

-
The FOREMAN.—We brought the prisoner in guilty
___.

The June.—Very well

The prisoner was then asked, in the usual way, whether
he had anything to say why sentence should not he passed
upon him. lie replied that he wifhed to have witnesses
called as to his character.

The Ju D GE.—That would be of no use, because the penalty
is fixed by the law. The jury, after a patient examination,
have found you guilty. There were some circumstances which
made it necessary that 1 should lay them before the jury with
observations in your favour, but the jury are the proper con-
stitutional judges of the facts. Of one fact there is not the
least doubt, that the woman to whom you have done this in-
jury was before that time a virgin, and your misconduct has
been great indeed, in any view of the case. But the jury,
who are the proper judges of all questions of this kind, have
found you guilty of that serious offence for which your life
would have been forfeited a year or two ago, and for which
you will now be punished by the loss of your country for the
rest of your life, and the loss, probably, of your libesty too ;
for you must recollect that in being transported Ito a foreign
country, you are a slave, unless, by your good conduct, you
merit a remission of that sentence. The sentenre of the
Court is that you be transported fot this offence across the
seas, for the term of yodr natural life.
Mr. WHIGnAm mentioned that nothing whatever was
known of Beamont until the time of the trial.

William France, 21, a respectable-looking youth, was in-
dicted for having, at Ashton-under-Lyne, feloniously ravished
Sarah Ann Cordingley. Mr. Brandt conducted the prosecu-
tion, Mr. Wilkins the defence.

The jury returned a verdict of not guilty, and the prisoner
was discharged.

SENTENCES.

Robert Dean. Joseph Buckley, and Benjamin Whitehead,
who had been previously convicted, were each sentenced to
nine months' imprisonment.