The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1846-09-01 00:00:00

THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD.

false declaration, and pledged it elsr'where for is. 6d.
more than toe sum advanced on it. Jones gave intorma.
Lion to the police, and, on examination, it was found that
the false declaration had been made before Christopher
Rawdon, one of the magistrates of the borough. Guilty.
To be imprisoned four calendar months with hard labour.

MANSLAUGHTER IN LIVERPOOL

Edward Martin, aged 36, was charged with having
killed Catherine, his wife. It appeared from the state-
ment of Mr. DRINKWATER, who conducted the prosecu-
tion, and that of the witnesses, that the prisoner was a
publican in Greenland•street, and that on the 7th of May
his wife, according to her usual habit since the death of
her only child, was drunk. A lad had been for change,
and she could not tell whether or not he had given the
shilling, for which he bad received copper change. The
prisoner ordered her to go into the back room, and a child
being heard to cry, he followed her, upon which she went
into the yard and laid hold V the door, as if going out in-
to Back Bird-street. He laid hold of her to prevent her,
and she fell down on the flags. A witness stopped to pick
her up, and on the husband threatening to strike her if
she did not go to bed, she said. " If you do, I'll strike
you ;" upon which he rejoined, " Will you?" and gave
her a kick on the lower part of the belly. The witness
could not say whether the blow was intended for him or
the dece ised. The unfortunate woman was cat vied into
the house, and died the next morning. The surgical evi-
dence showed that the cause of death was a rupture of one
of the small intestines, but whether the result of a kick
or a fall it was impossi')le to decide. Mr. ATKINSON,
for the prisoner, contended that the rupture was the result
of the tall, and that was accidental. A number of wit-
nesses gave the prisoner a very high character for for.
bearance in the treatment of his unfortunate wife.—The
jury, after a few moment's consideration, acquitted the
prisoner.

each square foot, but at the hutLom it was re;a-esen.ed to
be no less tnan 1,187 lbs. About this hour of the day the
sides of the tank gave way, and the water escaped; and,
independently of occasioning very considerable damage to
the neighaou ing property, very seriously injured certain
parties, and caused the death of more than one individual.
It was therefore contended by the plaintiffs, that the de-
fendant had not supplied a cistern capable of containing so
vast a body of water, and that the bursting of the vessel
was owing to the impe, feet design and malconstructioa of
the tank. They therefore held the defendant responsible
for the injuries to property and persons which had been
caused by the accident. Ihe present action was conse-
qnently brought to recover a total amount of £2,455 19s.
G.I. for which the plaintiffs ware liable ; and which, it was
agreed between the parties, would be required to compen-
sate the different claimants for the loss of furniture and
damage done to houses and machinery, independently of
remuneration to individuals who were injured by the cala-
mity. They also claimed the cost of the erection of the
foundation, which they had prepared in compliance with
the terms of the contract, and which was now rendered
useless by the bursting of the tank ; but it was left to his
lordship to direct the jury as to this point. The wit-
nesses for the plaintiffs clearly proved that the servant of
the Hawarden Iron Company had reported the cistern to
have been completed before orders were given to have it
filled with water; and tbey also proved that the founda-
tion which they had erected was not only firm and sub-
stantial, and fully adequate to maintain the weight it was
intended to support, but remained perfectly sound up to
the present period, notwithstanding the effect which the
bursting of the tank and the escape of so large a body of
water might have been supposed to have upon it. Several
scientific witnesses were also called, and they agreed in
the opinion that a tank constructed as the one furnished
by the defendant, was not capable of resisting the great
pressure of water which it would have to sustain, and that
it was most likely it would give way as the one in question
had done. when it was filled with water.—Mr. WATSON,
for the defence, urged that it was the duty of the plain-
tiffs to have given notice to the defendant, or his respon-
sible agent at Hawarden, before they ventured to test the
capabilities of a cistern so unusually gr:•at as the one in
question.—His Lordship did not consider that there was
any defence to the action ; and a verdict was returned for
the plaintiff, damages £2,455 19,. 6d.