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

DIXON V. WING.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, John Dixon,
against the defendant, John Wing, for the recovery of a
sum of £3O, money had and received, and on an account
stated. The defendant pleaded the general issue and a
set-off.

The jury found for the plaintiff for £3O 155., with leave
for the defendant to move for a nonsuit.

ROBERTS AND OTHERS V. MORRIS

This was an action brought by the plaintiffs, Elizabeth
Roberts, Elizabeth Unwin, and John Hughes, against the
defendant, Edward Morris, for the recovery of the value
of a certain quantity of limestone.
Verdict for the plaintiffs for the amount sought.
The court rose at five o'clock.

CROWN COURT.-SATURDAY

MURDER AT BURY

James Haworth, 20, was indicted for the wilful murder
of James Heywood, at Bury, by striking him divers blows
on the face, neck and head.

Mr. Brandt, Mr. Green. and Mr. Whigham conducted
the case for the prosecution, and Mr. Wilkins defended
the prisoner.

Mr. BRANDT stated the case

He commenced by say-

ing that the facts were wholly of a circumstantial nature,
which would require the particular attention of the court
and jury. The deceased was a hale, stout man, about
sixty years of age. who lived at a place called Little
Heaton. On the 3d of May last, he left home for Bury,
which was only about three or four miles distant. He
was seen at a public-house soon after nine o'clock the
same night, and the last time he was seen alive was about

half an hour after that time, when he left another public-
house for the purpose, as he said. of going home. When
he left home in the morning, his relations distinctly ob-
served that he had a watch in his pocket. On the morn-
ing of the following day he was found dead on the out-
skirts of the town of Bury, at a place called the gravel
pits, He was lying by the side of a hedge ; and, from the
appearance of the body and the place, he had evidently
suffered great violence. His watch was gone, and the
suspicion was that he bad been attacked, robbed, and
murdered. On his way home from the public-house, at
which he was last seen alive, he would have to pass the
New Market in Bury, and then, turtling to his left, to go
on in the direction of Unsworth. One of the witnesses
would state that he was near the New Market on the
night in question, and that he saw the deceased going
along in the company of two young men, who seemed to
be taking him in an opposite direction, leading to the
place where the body was afterwards found. He would
further state that, in his belief, the prisoner was one of
those young men, but he could not speak positively to
him ; and he (Mr. Brandt) thought it but justice to state,
with respect to this witness, that he was not such a per-
son as the jury could place implicit reliance upon. There
was no doubt, however, that, soon after ten o'clock on
the night of the occurrence, the prisoner entered a beer-
house kept by a person of the name of Jenkinson, in
Bury ; that his beer-house was no great distance from the
new market-place; that he was out of breath at the time,
and appeared to have been running; and that there were
marks of blood on his face. He asked a young woman at
the shop to wash off the marks; and she having dipped a
rag in some beer and complied with his request, he was
asked how they came there? He gave two replies; first,
he said that he had been in a row in the street, and then
he stated that the blood had oozed from a pimple on his
cheek ; but no pimple was v•sible. The parties in whose
company he then was were of a very degraded character,
and, after they had all remained together for some time,
they proceeded to a house kept by a man of the name of
Benjamin Cooke, where they gambled for about an hour.
They then went to the house of one of their party (Win-
terbottom's) ; and, while there, the prisoner produced a
watch, and, from his behaviour and conduct at the time,
there could be little doubt that it had very recently come
into his possession. In reply to the questions of the party,
he stated that a man named Meadowcroft had told him
that the watch was lying in a vacant place near the New
Market, and that he went there and found it.
Meadowcroft denied that he had ever told him anything
of the kind. It was rather unfortunate that the watch had
been disposed of; but it could not, therefore, be bow pro-
duced ; and that it would rest on the description given of
it by the witnesses as to whether it was the one which be-
longed to the deceased. Mr. Brandt concluded by saying
that the watch would be described by the son of the de-
ceased', and that upon this evidence would rest the guilt
or innocency of the accused.

James Clough and Charles Sheil deposed to the finding
of the body.
John Heywood, a son of the deceased, described his
watch, as did also Ann Heywood, his daughter, the latter
stating it had only one seal, when

Mr. BRANDT said that he would not press the case any
further, as the other witnesses would describe the watch
as having two seals attached.
His LORDSHIP thought it would be unsafe for the Jury
to convict under the circumstances.

---
A verdict of accruittal was accordingly returned, and the
prisoner was discharged.

ROBBERY AT WAVERTREE-LANE

William Smith, 26, and Thomas Huphes, 17, were in-
dicted for having broken and entered the dwelling-house
of Jane Lowndes, and stolen thereout twenty bottles of
whisky and ten bottles of brandy, the property of Thomas
John Lowndes.

Mr. Cardwell conducted the case for the prosecution,
and Mr. Wilkins defended the prisoner.
It appeared that, about four o'clock on the morning of
the 17th May last, the house of the prosecutor was en-
tered and the property extracted : and that, shortly after,
three persons, one of whom was the prisoner Hughes,
were seen corning in a direction from Wavertree-lane,
with a heavy basket. Subsequently, Mr. Lowndes suc-
ceeded in arresting Hughes, whereupon Smith came to
bis assistance, and, in endeavouring to rescue him, took
out of his pocket a bottle of whisky to defend him, which
bottle turned out to be one of those stolen on the night in
question. The prisoners alleged that they had found the
bottle in an adjoining pond, while they were in the act of
bathing. They were acquitted.