The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1843-09-05 00:00:00

death had been caused by violence; on the right side of
the abdomen there was a wound apparently caused by a
blow or kick; flakes of coagulated lymph were also found
in the vicinity of the wound. The question for the jury
would be, whether the prisoner had committed the offence
in question with malice aforethought, or whether he had
received such provocation as might reduce the crime to
manslaughter.
The prisoner, when apprehended, said he did not kick
the deceased, he only hit her five or six times with his
hand, and twice with his elbow. He also made another
statement, to the effect that he was sorry any thing had
taken place between him and his wife, and that he had
done nothing at her but touched her with his elbow on the
side.

One of the surgeons who examined the body of the de-
ceased was questioned at great length, and gave it as his
opinion that the immediate cause of death was inflamma-
tion of the peritoneum, probably produced by violence;
and a blow or kick might have caused such inflammation.
On a cross-examination by Mr. WILKINS, he stated
that mental emotion could not have produced the symp-
toms under which the deceased died.
Another surgeon, who, it appeared, had been in the
habit of attending the deceased at various periods previ-
ous to her death, was put into the witness-box and exa-
mined by Mr. WirActxs. He differed in opinion entirely
from the previous witness. He attended her on the 16th
April, when she had an attack precisely similar to that
which caused her death, and did not expect at that time

she would recover. He considered the cause of death was
the result of the extensive and long continued disease
under which the deceased had laboured, all the organs ex-
cept the uterus being disordered. It wls his decided opi-
nion that the death of the deceased had not been caused
or even accelerated by external violence, and that if a
quarrel had taken place, mental emotion might have
brought on the paroxysms of which she died.
In reply to a question from his LORDSHIP, the witness
stated that he was decidedly of opinion that the deceased
had died from natural causes, and not from violence.
The declaration of the deceased was then put in. It
was to the effect that the prisoner had struck deceased se-
veral blows while they were in bed ; one on the abdomen,
and others on different parts of the body, from which she
felt considerable pain, and that the blows were inflicted
with the hand, and also the elbow; he had also used very
ill language, and said he had had nothing but trouble since
her confinement.

Mr. WILKINS, in addressing the jury for the prisoner,
alluded to the evidence of the medical men, the latter of
whom had clearly shown that death was not produced by
violence, but had been the result of natural disease, and
under all the circumstances, the jury would be justified in
acquitting him of the charge which had been brought
against him. He then called several witnesses, who gave
the prisoner an excellent character.

His LORDSHIP summed up the evidence, and the jury
returned a verdict of not guilty.

ALLEGED MURDER AT LIVERPOOL.

John Ronnan, 24, (could read and write well,) stood
charged with the murder of Margaret Dillon, at Liver-
pool, on the Bth Aug.
It appeared the deceased was an unfortunate woman of
the town, and on the night of the sth of August she went
with the prisoner to a brothel in North-street, kept by a
person named Deare, and went up stairs to a bed-room,
underneath which the parties slept who kept the house.
Towards morning a noise was heard as of some persons
quarrelling, and the sound of blows, apparently given with
the open hand, and Deare and his wife went up stairs,
and saw deceased sitting on a pair of bedstocks, and pri-
soner standing near her. Just as Deare entered the room,
the deceased fell backwards, and her head came in violent
contact with the floor, where she lay for some minutes ap-
parently dead. A police-officer was then sent for, and on
his arrival the prisoner had the head of the deceased on
his knees, chafing it with his hands. She was quite dead.
He had not been seen by any one to strike the deceased,
though it appeared he attempted to kick or push her when
Deare entered the room. The prisoner said the deceased
had fallen down over the bedstead, and that he had not
done any thing to her.

Mr. Percival, surgeon, attributed the death of deceased
to the effusion of blood on the brain, caused by injuries
inflicted on the head, which injuries might have been pro-
duced by a blow.

Mr. WILKINS addressed the jury for the prisoner.
His LORDSHIP then went over the evidence to the jury,
who immediately returned a verdict of acquittal.

ALLEGED MURDER AT MANCHESTER

Jane Oliver, alias Jane Morris, 45, (could read and
write imnerfectly,) was charged wtih the wilful murder of
Robert Travis, at Manchester. _

Mr. MONK stated the case. It appeared that the pri-
soner and the deceased Robert Travis lived together at
Salford, and were not married. They were both in the
habit of indulging in liquor, and on the day in question
were in that state. About two or three o'clock in the
morning of the 11th April, the watchman who was on
duty in Rusaman-street heard a person calling out, appa-
rently in great distress, and soon after saw the prisoner
standing on the steps of the Manor Inn, in Salford; and
on inquiring what was the matter, she said " I cannot tell
you ; but if you will go with me I will tell you." He then
went with her to a house in Brunswick-street, and there,
in a back room, found a man lying on the floor, with a
deep cut in his belly, from which a portion of the intes-
tines protruded. The prisoner said they had had a row,
and Travis was going to cut her throat, but she took a
knife and stabbed him. The watchman said he would go
for a surgeon, on hearing which Travis opened his eyes,
and said there was no occasion, as nothing was the matter
with him. He was then placed in a chair, and afterwards
put to bed, but died the next day. The prisoner was ap-
prehended, and a knife marked with blood was found on
a table up stairs in the bed-room. When the officer was
taking her away, the prisoner said, " Robert, must they
take me?" and he said, " No; no one shall take you,
there is nothing wrong with me." The surgeon who exa-
mined the body was of opinion that the deceased's death
was caused by the wound which he received.
Mr. WILKINS made an eloquent appeal to the jury in
behalf of the prisoner ; and, after a short consultation, a
verdict of manslaughter was returned, with a recommen-
dation to mercy.
Sentence, two months' imprisonment.
STABBING.

Thomas Franklin, 31, (could neither read nor write,)
was charger', with stabbing Henry Schultz, at Liverpool.
It appeared that on the 24th July last a disturbance took
place on board a vessel, called the John Bibby, vOlich was
lying at this port on the day in question, on account of
the sailors having applied to the prisoner, who was the
cook, for a supply of fresh meat. The prisoner had a
knife in his hand, and was quarrelling with a person of the
name of Bowden, when, from some supposed interference
on the part of Schultz, who was standing close by, but
did not interfere, he stabbed him in the hip. The prisoner
was then given into custody.
Mr. WILKINS contended that the prisoner, according
to his own account, had pulled the knife out of Bowden's
hand, by which he cut his fingers severely, and in throw-
ing it away it stuck in Schultz's hip, and that he never
intended to commit the offence charged against him.
The jury acquitted the prisoner.
The court adjourned at twenty minutes to seven.

NISI PRIUS.—THURSDAY.
His LORDSHIP took his seat at nine o,clock
HOLLAND V. JOSEPH.

In this case Joseph Holland, a plasterer, sought to re-
cover from the Rev. Henry Samuel Joseph, the sum of
£175 money lent. The defendant pleaded not liable, a
discharge under the Insolvent Debtor's Court, and the
statute of limitations. Mr. Sergeant MURPHY opened
the case. He said an intimacy arose between the parties
as early as 1832, and advances continued to be made up
to 1833-4. With regard to the discharge under the Insol-
vent Debtor's Court, the schedule did not contain any
correct account of the debt to the plaintiff. With regard
to the statute of limitations, he could prove that the de-
fendant in 1836 acknowledged that the debt was correct,
and promised to pay it. He apprehended, therefore, that
that plea would fail. In support of this view the learned
counsel cited a case. His LORDSHIP looked at it, and
said there must be some mistake in it, and under the cir-
cumstances, thought the plaintiff had better be nonsuited.

PARTNERSHIP OR NO PARTNERSHIP.

MOLYNEUX V. WELSBY

In this case Joseph Molyneux, for whom Mr. Martin
and Mr. Unthank appeared as counsel, was the plaintiff.
Sarah Welsby, for whom Mr. Wortley and Mr. Crompton
appeared, was the defendant. Mr. Ward, of Prescot, was
the plaintiff's attorney, and Mr. Galloway, of the same
place,attorney forthe defendant. The declaration stated the
defendant was indebted to the plaintiff for work done and
wages due. The defendant pleaded never indebted.
Mr. MARTIN stated the case. The plaintiff was en-
gineer to a colliery, and he was a very skilful workman.
The defendant lived in the neighbourhood of Prescot, and
this action was brought against him to recover the sum of
five guineas. Although the sum in question was small,
and might have been settled in a court where the expen-
ses would have been less, still the parties wished it to be
tried here, as the real question at assue was whether Mrs.
Welsby was partner in a coal mine carried on in the
neighbourhood of Prescot, and the case was of impor-
tance, as it would depend upon the result of this action
whether other claims would be set up. Mrs. Welsby was
the sister of a person named George Burrows, who in the
year 1840 was in partnership with a person named James
Birch, in the Huyton Hey Colliery. In Sept., 1840, they
got into disputes, and determined to dissove partnership.
The accounts were accordingly put into the hands of
Messrs. Spencer and Higginson. Higginson was the
brother-in-law of Mrs. Welsby. and in September the
accounts were made out. It appeared that the sum of
£360 had been spent beyond what the colliery had pro-
duced. It was at first agreed that either party should be
at liberty to take the colliery on paying the sum due to
the other, but Burrows being anxious to take the colliery,
Birch agreed that he should have it. After this arrange.
ment Burrows said he was unable to pay the money, but
his sister-in-law, Mrs. Welsby, and his brother-in-law
were prepared to come in Birch's place. Accordingly, all
the parties met at the office of Mr. A. Kaye, an attorney,
in this town, and there Mrs. Welsby came and bargained
for her share of the colliery, and ultimately Birch agreed
to take £155 for his share. The money was paid, and
Birch got a receipt for it. This being done, the colliery
was commenced, under the management of Mr. Burrows
and Mrs. Welsby, a person named Higginson, another
brother-in-law, being appointed to look after the interests
of Mrs. Welsby. The colliery was continued up to 1812,
when it was stopped, and the workmen left unpaid, and
it was for this balance of wages due that the plaintiff
brought this action. The learned counsel proceeded then
to state that before the sale, the colliery was carried on
under the firm of " Burrows and Birch," and after that
the name was changed to " Burrows and Co.
After witnesses had been called to prove this statement,
Mr. WORTLEY, for the defenedoarngte,
Brosauirdtw s
hes,ac,
whotion hadwa
was,
to onrP hisses G
own account, but having a
kind sister and mother-in-law, who advanced him money
tt
o fi
o enable x
his d
creditors
tt oo
rcs uponarry
them. on, h
It w
e now tu rans
a m
ed rounder
e
and
advanceo
triedf