The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1845-08-19 00:00:00

inquiries
suc

c4ses where

were engaging in dangerot
have th

Fame clistinctiot

and the or

for the charge of murder any more than when two boys
are playing at cricket, and the cricket ball strikes one and

kills him. If it should turn out that it was purely acci-
dental, 1 recommend you to return no bill. Of the other
cases of violence, (and there are a great number,) I know
not how many there are of cutting and wounding with in-
tent to do grievous bodily hum. These are the usual
cases which have come before you so often that I need

not refer particularly to them. You must be satisfied of
the wounding and of the intention. Ot course, one can-
not tell, by any positive rule, the intent of any party; but

vm way ZULGIJ •••••,• ••••••••• UGGII El IC /MD
bodily harm, and that it was the natural consequence of
the act of the party, that that was the object. It you find
that, in any of the cases, there is reason to doubt that
that was the intention of the party, it will be your duty
to strike out the bill. There is one case to which I will
call your attention, for the purpose of making au obser-

_ .
vation I have made in two or three counties already where
I have had the honour of pres,ding—l allude to the case
of a man charged with having assaulted, kicked, and
beaten a woman with intent to do grievous bodily injury.
I must point out that that is no offence at all. To kick a
person, if it does not cause a wound, is no felony. With-
out a wound there is no felony in such cases, except in
some attempts to strangle. To kick a person—to attempt
to do grievous bodily halm by kicking is no felony at all.
I can easily see how gentlemen are desirous, in what I
conceive to be the present imperfect state of the law, and
in bad assaults to bind over parties for feloniously wound-
ing, but really it is a violation of the law. There is no
right to bind a party over to prosecute unless there is a
wounding, and a wounding under such circumstances as
lead to the conclusion that there was an intention to do
grievous bodily harm. In the case I refer to—Ditchfield's
there is no wounding, and it amounts really only to a com-
mon assault. There are no fewer than twenty cases of
burglary, but I do not see, so far as I have read, any of
very great atrocity.

John Haslam, William Lee, and Samuel Adamson,
who had been tried at the lest Assizes, for conspiring to
personate voters at Bolton, were discharged, the learned
Baron observing that Mr. Justice Coltman, who tried
the prisoners, considered the objection taken at their
trial—that it did not appear that Bolton was a borough
which had a right to have Conneillors,, or in which there
could be any valid election of Councillors—was a valid
objection.
William Moss was sentenced to eighteen months im-
prisonment for having,atAshton-under Lyne, on the 12th
of June, assaulted Martin Medcalf and seriously wounded

Richard Molyneux, 21, was sentenced to twelve
months' imprisonment yvith hard labour, for the
manslaughter of Lawrence Ward, of Wigan, on the 15th
June. The prisoner and deceased had quarrelled, when
the former knocked the latter down and he received such
injuries by the fall as to cause his death.
John ili'Latighlin, 21, was sentenced to one year's
imprisonment, for having, during a scuffle at Royton, on
the 12th June, statbed William Sutcliffe with a pair of
scissors.

Benjamin Harl, 17, was sentenced to ten years' trans-
portation, for a burglary at the house of Mr. Wolfenden,
in Little Bolton, on the 29th March.

John Sankey, 20, was sentenced to transportation to
life for a rape at Wigan.
Samuel Armitage, (could read and write imperfectly,)
and James Irving, 30, (could read,) were charged with
killing and slaying John Nortb, at Ashton-under-Line.
The prisoners were acquitted, it appearing from the evi-
dence that the death had occurred in consequence of the
deceased's clothes taking fire, during a lark with the
prisoners. _

Hugh Howard, 45, was sentenced to eight months'
imprisonment for having, at Scarisbrick, cut and wounded
Thomas Meadows with a sickle, whilst the latter was
taking away some goods of the prisoners, which he had
distrained.
Abraham Brown, 51, was sentenced to four months'
imprisonment for the manslaughter of Samuel Nuttall, at
Bolton, on the 18th July. The prisoner bad knocked
prosecutor down in a quarrel, and the latter received such
injuries as to cause his death.

NISI PRIUS COURT.—THURSDAY.
(Before Mr. Justice Crest well.)
The Cause List contains in the Salford division thirty
eight cases, and in the West Derby division ninety-
seven.

Several uninteresting undefended cases were taken

DISPUTED CONTRACT,

PRICKETT v. M'KENZIE.—This was an action arising
out of an alleged non-fulfilment of a contract for some
pig iron purchased by the plaintiff from the defendant.
The plaintiff, Thomas Pritkett, is an iron merchant at
Manchester, and at the time of the transaction in ques-
tion, was in partnership with his brother, since deceased.
The defendant, Robert Hall M`Kenzie, was of the firm
of Bankier and M'Kenzie, iron merchants, of Glasgow.
In September last, (as appeared from the statement of
Mr. Martin, the counsel for the plaintiff), a contract was
entered into by the plaintiff with defendant, the latter
agreeing to supply 500 tons of pig iron, at £2 15s per ton.
The contract was made on behalf of the defendant by
Mr. Andrew, who acted as his agent at Manchester. On
the 7th of December 100 tons were delivered, per the
Bridgewater 'trust, but the remaining 400 tons, although
frequently applied for, had never been supplied. The
Learned Counsel contended that the damages must be es-
timated on the advanced price of iron, which, in Decem-
ber last, had risen to £3 lOs per ton. A written agree-
ment of sale was put in, dated the 7th September, 1844,

he reached his stables about half-past eleven o'clock, and
stated that he had been insulted by a person on the road,
whom he had struck with his whip.—The jury, after being
out of court two hours, pronounced the prisoner guilty,
but recommended I -

iod of the pro

vocation he had received.—The learned Judge sentenced
the prisoner to be imprisoned and kept to hard labour for
the space of four calendar months.

NISI PRIUS COURT
CALDWELL V. UTTLEY AND OTHERS
Mr. Martin and Mr. Atherton appeared for the plain-

-FRIDAY

The issue being on the defendants

between a tenant and

tiff was a sub-contractor for a railway, an

mere at

e, near

of the year 1843, the plaintiff took from the defendants a
farm, at the yearly rent of £44, payable on the Ist June,
being in effect an agreement to pay partly in advance.
n December, 1841, the_defendants being apprehensive
a away without paying his
for two years' rent. The

that the plaintiff intended to

rent, tho-ught proper to distr

plaintiff then ieplevined, and hence this
Witnesses were called by both parties

for the defendant

His LORDSHIP said he thought the jury quite right, for
a grosser case of perjury he had never seen. If he had
had the power to order the costs of the prosecution, he
would have committed the witnesses for the plaintiff for
trial for perjury.