The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1850-12-10 00:00:00

THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD.

SOUTH LANCASHIRE ASSIZES.

Mr. Baron Alderson arrived by the six o'clock railway-
train, on Saturday evening, and proceeded direct to the
Court-house, in Chapel-street, where the commission was
formally opened. The learned judge then adjourned the
court until ten o'clock yesterday morning. On Sunday
his lordship attended Divine service at St. George's
Church. The sermon was preached by the chaplain,
son of the High Sheriff. Mr. Baron Alderson arrived in
town unaccompanied by any other of the learned judges,
Mr. Justice Coleridge being prevented from attending
through indisposition, and his place will be supplied by
Mr. Justice Talfourd, who presides at the Nisi Prius
Court, but, of course, for the trial of criminal cases, the
present assize being merely one of general gaol delivery.
The calendar contains the names of 111 prisoners, but the
cases, generally speaking, will prove dull. Amongst the
trials most likely to prove interesting are those of Edward
Moran, an officer of the Tibb-street establishment, Man-
chester, for manslaughter; Mr. Henry Blackhurst, an
attorney at Preston, for an alleged forgery of his late wife's
will ; Wm. Smith, for manslaughter, by causing the explo-
sion of a steam-boiler at Mr. Pooley 's works; M Tapley and
Sirrell, (the London silversmith,) the one for stealing and
the other for feloniously receiving a quantity of jewellery
and plate ;" and Gregory, Holland, and Pimlott, for the
daring burglary and highway robberies in Hulme.

CROWN COURT.—YESTERDAY.
Mr. Baron Alderson took his seat in this court at ten
o'clock. After the usual preliminaries bad been complied
with, the following gentlemen were sworn on

THE GRAND JURY.
Wm. Brown, Esq., M.P., Liverpool, foreman
Robert Andrews, Esq., Rivington.
Thomas Ashton, Esq., Middleton.
James Thomas Bonnie, Esq., Liverpool.
John Bent, Esq., Mayor, Liverpool.
Henry Butterworth, Esq., Rochdale.
William Carlow, Esq., Walton.
Thomas Ainsworth Crook, Esq., Rochdale.
Jas. Hilton Ford, Esq., Chester.
Joseph Fenton, Esq., Bamfird.
Wm. James Garnett, Esq., Bleasdale.
John Holmes, Esq., Liverpool.
Hugh Hornby, Esq., Liverpool.
Thomas Berry Horsfall, Esq., Liverpool.
Joseph Langton, Esq., Liverpool.
John Bolton Littledale, Esq., Liverpool.
Richard Christopher Naylor, Esq., Walton.
William Todd Naylor, Esq., Liverpool.
Albert Hudson Royds, Esq., Rochdale.
Samuel Henry Thompson, Esq., Liverpool.
William Gillibrand Unsworth, Esq., Maghull.
James Hibbert Wanklyn, Esq., Manchester.

..rook rates, Esq., Liverpool.
Mr. Shuttleworth, clerk of the crown, read the procla-
mation against vice, profaneness, and immorality.
The learned BARON then proceeded to deliver his charge
to the grand jury. His lordship said it would not be ne--
cessary for him to detain the grand jury with any obser-
vations of his own on the calendar, because, although-it
contained rather a numerous list of cases, vet there were
none of any importance on which it was necessary for him
to instruct or attempt to instruct them in the law appli-
cable to them. They were the ordinary cases of felony,
and he (the learned Judge) had had too much experience
of grand juries, in this county, to doubt their ability to
perform their duties well and properly. There was, how-
ever, one case to which he thought it necessary to refer,
because it was one of thosechargesnownot very frequently
made. It was a case of conspiracy, against James Phillips
and others, charging them with having, together with
several other evil-disposed persons, conspired, combined,
and confederated together unlawfully to intimidate and
prevent the workmen of Samuel Cowley and others from
following their trade, business, and occupation as brick-
makers, and to damage and destroy the property of the _aarge(..
said Samuel Cowley and others. The grand jury knew MR. BLACICH ITRST.
perfectly well that it pleased Parliament, some time ago, The grand jury yesterday found a true bill against Mr
to repeal the combination laws. A good deal of dif- Henry Blackhurst, an attorney, for forgery. The bill ap.
ference of opinion existed at the time, as to the peared to be a very bulky affair, and is said to be thirty-
expediency of that proceeding, but with that they had three feet long.
nothing to do in courts of justice. ,All they had to do was The Court- adjourned at a quarter before seven o'clock
to administer those laws which had received the sanction
of the legislature. By that law,.however, it was now clear
that every man had a right, if it could be fully and fairly
exercised, to combine with others for the purpose of ob. THREFALL'S FORGERY.
taining such wages, as, in their judgment, their work The first case called on, and which excited a great
fairly deserved. He (the learned judge) was quite sure degree of public interest, was that of William Threlfall,
the grand jury would agree pith him that it was no more against whom a true bill for forgery was found at the last
than reasonable that a workman should have such wages assizes. Mr. Bliss and Mr. Blair were retained for the
as he considered the nature of his work fairly deserved, prosecution ; Mr. Sergeant Wilkins appeared for the de-
rid no one was so fit to judge of that as the workman fendant.
iself. Therefore, a man ought to be at liberty, and the On being placed at the bar, he appeared to enjoy the
>aid so, to fix the amount of wages he ought to have, same degree of robust health that was evidenton the last
occasion of his appearance before rh.
• liberty to do that. It was a maxim

CUTTING AND MAIMING.
An Trish boy, named Anthony Hart, 16, was charged
with maiming James Riley, at Manchester. with intent to
do some grievous bodily harm. It appeared the prosecu-
tor, when walking along the street, was struck by the
prisoner, without the slightest provocation, with a sickle,
inflicting a wound on the cheek. The prisoner was found
guilty of a common assault. Sentence deferred.

I 1 OUSE-BREAKING.
Abraham Naylor, 20, was charged with a burglary in
the house of his father-in-law, John Cooper, at Haydock;
In consequence of the prosecutor and his son being un-
willing witnesses, the burglary could not be sustained, and
the prisoner was found guilty of larceny only. An attempt
was made to establish a previous conviction, but this failed
for want of identity, owing to the absence of a witness
named Henry James Chard, an officer of Knutsford House
of Correction, who did not answer to his name. His
Lordship sentenced the prisoner to two years' bard labour,
and directed the Clerk of the Crown to write to the
Cheshire magistrates, to say that, in his opinion, Chard
ought to be discl•- d.

NISI PRIUS COURT—YESTERI
Before Mr. Jutsice TALFOURD.)

__ ... ..,.., —, ...Liu.. a right To nx ins own rate ~,,,,,u. Jur. _DOSS, tile senior counsel for the prosecut
of wages, but it was also the law that they should not be addressing his lordship, stated that one of the witn(
allowed to interfere with that liberty in others which they had been taken ill, and there was some .doubt as to v
claimed for themselves. Mankind were too apt to adopt ther he could be brought into court •it was pro])
-
this is their maxim, to claim for themselves the right of do that the party would anive by a train which' would hp

_, consistently with the

in ten minutes

....ors to do not what they liked, but what pleased them.
The true principle should be that of having permissi on to the case, Su v....._
or not. His lordship complied. After the lapse of ten
do every thing which a man pleased, provided he infringed
mie witness not having arr Ser
no law, and that he should do to others as he would that
Wilnuteskins, rthose to say that the prisoner rived, Mr.
aked to be allo Sergeant
they should do to him, namely, allowing others to do what
seemed right in their own eyes, if they did not infringe to withdraw the plea of" notguilty,”and substitute the one
the law. That was the only true definition of civil liberty of " guilty." The judge asked the prisoner if he were
in the world. But a man had no right to intimidate an-
desirous of pleading guilty. He replied in the
other person ; he had no right to use indirect means toaffirmative. Mr. Bliss observed that there were circum-
prevent ethers from working. He was perfectly at liberty stances connected with the present charge which he
.n amicable agreement with regard to his own thought his lordship ought to be apprised of, and which
1
,-,s, or his own mode of working ;• but he ought to allow
others the same liberty of choosing as he claimed for him-
self. Therefore, if they found those men had been using
threats or intimidation to follow their 05..-----• -

er to see wh

to malc€

uiu lIUG appear in the depositions. The prisoner had
pleaded guilty to a charge of uttering a forged bill for
£lOOO. It was necessary to give Annie of

not call it a bad one—it might be a good one—it they
-
had used threats or intimidation to do, that, by the common ;Cepledand sorne.drawn by the prisoner; they
to £32,511. He was also prepared to prove the f0r4...
law of the land, it was a misdemeanor,. and ought to be
66 other bills of exchange, in addition to which there were
punished by law if proved in a court of Justice. He (the
learned judge) did not know that he need say any
more. four more, making one hundred bills amounting to
He trusted they would not be kept long from their homes
£ll3 801. There were also fifteen other bills of exchange,
at this season of the year—a season which peculiarly
whicl; have not yet, run out amounting to £21,590. In
called upon us to exercise the common duties due to each all there were 115 bills of exchange, amounting to
MO, in which they were prepared to prove the
other—our common love to each other, seeing £133
...,;1F.,,, i_ ,
we are
...,;IF., 1,. „,,_
__ .• • - . ahem to 01.1Alirnfo thn ...........e ......4• ~.- A. A. _ _ 1

mounted

greabesL event me world ever saw—
an event which ought to make all Christians love one
another.

cog°. inere were tour indictments against
•. consequently three remained for his lord-

tne p._
ship's disposal.
zrand jury then retired. Mr. Sergeant Wilkins wished to state that in nearly
...es of the common jury were then called over, every instance the bills had been taken up before thp
.;veral were fined £5 each for non-attendence ; but became due. Bills amounting to £113,801 '
with one exception, afterwards attended, and the I taken up. The prisoner had borne a most excel
time of the present charge ti

The iia
and
.n.

.een so

were remitted

racier up to ti:

g• made

THE CASE OF SIRRELL. against him.
Mr. Sergeant Wilkins applied to the learned judge in tention to def
this case to order that it should be ppnt bad always to

"lorally speaking, the prisoner had no in-
' his Lordship would find that he

laid, for