The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1845-02-04 00:00:00

THE GRAND JURY

Richard Allinson, Upper Parliament-street, merchant
Foreman.
George Ashton, Bedford-street North, gentleman.
Samuel. Barber, Birkenhead, cotton-broker.
Samuel Beckwith, Aigburth, broker.

Thomas Arthur Bushtiy, Lar7kfield, Toxteth- park, broker.
Richard Bevan, Leyfield, Knotty Ash, merchant.
James Bold, Everton-road, merchant.
George Campbell, Field-street, merchant.
David Cannon, Rock Ferry, merchant.
Wilson Carter, Walton Breck, merchant.

William Rushton Coulburn, Great George-square, mer-
chant.

George Cram, Fazakerly, broker.
Jacob Fletcher, Allerton, merchant.
Thomas Irlam, Rose Villa, Linacre Marsh, broker.
Horace Jee, Rock Ferry, broker.

Edward T. 'Kearsley, tverton-road, coal agent.
George H. Keiwhley, Fen.ick•street, merchant.

WiUiom Griffitr. Leete, Knotty Ash:merchant.
Thomas Littledale, jun., Claremont, West Derby, mer-
chant.

James Hardy Macrae, Springfield, Everton, merchant.
Robert Mason, St. Michael's Hamlet, Toxteth-park,
merchant.
William Nicholson, Blackstock-street, tanner.
The proclamation against vice and immorality having
been read,

The RECORDER, addressing them, said, that after an
interval of about seven weeks, about seventy cases would
be submitted for their consideration. On a perusal of
the calendar, he found there were few or no cases requi-
ring from him any particular remark or direction. There
was a case against a porter for stealing five bales of cotton
on its way to the railway station, to which. they would
direct their attention ; also anotherl against a servant,
charged with stealing £3O, the property of his master.
There were several cases that showed that the prostitutes
of this town were also, in many instances, thieves and
pickpockets. Such offences would be much more effec-
tually checked by the caution of individuals, than by any
possible efforts of the officers of police. It was gratify-
ing, however, to find that the police, by their vigilance,
had been the means of preventing, to a considerable ex-
tent, aggressions on property. There was a case in which,
he regretted to say, a prisoner charged with felony had,
in resisting the party about to apprehend him, levelled a
blow at him with a knife. He (the Recorder) regretted
this, because, in attacks on property, the offence was
greatly aggravated by using a dangerous weapon. He
bad but to add, that if, on hearing the evidence, they
considered there was sufficient ground for putting the
party on his trial, they would find a true bill •, and if not,
they would discharge a constitutional duty by throwing
out the bill. He knew of nothing further upon which to
remark to detain them from their duty.

The grand jury then retired, and in a short time re-
turned true hills against several of the prisoners, when
the court proceeded with the trials, but no case of pecu-
liar interest took place during the day, the evidence being
for the moi.t part similar to that given in the Police-court,
and already briefly detailed in our columns.

The following was the result up to the close of the court
yesterday •
James Shannon, aged 24, and John Fenton, 17, for
stealing, in December, a purse of money, a watch, &c.,
the property of John Whetstone, from his person.—Shan•
non, six month ; and Fenton (the greater aggressor), 12
months imprisonment and hard labour.

Marti• Davies, 18, for stealing shirting from a shop,—two
months' imprisonment.

William Taylor, 19, for stealing a coat,—three months.
James Burns, 19, stealing 25 handkerchiefs from a shop
door in Great Charlotte-street,—six weeks' imprisonment.
Sarah Best, 15, for stealing a jacket,—two months._

„
John Hunter, 17, for stealing wearing apparel,—four
months.

John Gilderoy, 25, for embezzling 215., received on ac-
count of Mr. John Dean, his employer,—two months.
Elizabeth Doyle, 26, for stealing a £5 note,—four
months.

It is to he understood that the punishment of the whole
of these prisoners includes hard labour.
Several other prisoners were tried during the day, but
they were put back, in order that their respective sentences
should be determined after some further enquiry and
consideration.