The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1844-12-17 00:00:00

THURSDAY.,

His Lordship took his seat soon after ten.
The Grand Jury ignored the bill against John Lomax,
charged with the manslaughter of John Mulleneux, at
Liverpool.
MINT CASES.
Thomas King, alias Kelly, 63, (could neither read nor
write,) was indicted for uttering a counterfeit half-crown,
at Liverpool. He had been previously convicted, at the
Chester assizes, of a similar offence. The prisoner was I
found guilty. and sentenced totwelve years'transportation.
Michael Pickett, 43, (could read and write imperfectly,)
was indicted for uttering counterfeit shillings, at Liverpool.
The prisoner had been previously convicted on a similar
charge. An ingenious objection was taken by Mr. James,
the prisoner's counsel, as to the wording of the indictment,
which was pronounced by his lordship as fatal to the case,
and the prisoner was accordingly acquitted of the charge of
felony. He was then tried for a misdemeanour on the
same evidence, and sentenced to twelve months' imprison-
ment.
Mary Monaghan, and Mary Ann Stanley, who pleaded
guilty to a charge of uttering base coin, were sentenced to
six months' imprisonment.
The Grand Jury were discharged at twelve o'clock.
CHARGE OF RAPE.
In the case of Edwurd Kynaston, cow-keeper, of Li-
verpool, charged with a rape on Catherine Catterall, Mr.
VENABLES stated that a bill could not be found, owing to
the non-appearance of the prosecutrix, who was out of the
way.
ATTEMPT TO SHOOT A LANDING-WAITER.
Joseph MCaughie. 40, (could read and write well,)
stood charged with having, at Liverpool, attempted to fire
off a pistol at John William Arkle, with intent to kill and
murder him. There was another count charging him with
the intent to do some grievous bodily harm.
Messrs. Brandt and Paget were for the prosecution.
The prisoner was undefended ; he appeared very much
depressed in spirits, though, as the trial proceeded, he put
some questions to the witnesses in cross-examination.
Mr. BRANDT stated the case. The prisoner was for-
merly a weigher in the Customs, and Mr. Arkle, being
his superior officer, had occasion, in the execution of his
duty, to report his conduct, no doubt causing a feeling of
revenge on the part of the prisoner, and probably that
which bad actuated him in the commission of the dreadful
act with which he stood charged. It appeared that on the
12th of October last the prisoner went to the Custom-
house and said he wished to see Mr. Arkle, when he was
told that he might find him at the Prince's Dock shed.
He immediately proceeded in pursuit of him, and met
him at the dock going towards the depot. It was about
three o'clock in the afternoon. The prisoner then ad-
vanced towards him, and, when he bad got within about
five yards, turned round and presented a pistol at Mr.
Arkle, which however did not go off. He advanced with
the pistol a second time, when Mr. Arkle called out for
assistance, saying, " Don't you see he is going to shoot
me ?" A man then came up, and, with the a'd of other
parties, the prisoner was eventually secured. An exami-
nation then took place, but no cap was found on the pis-
tol ; it was afterwards picked up near where the scuffle
took place, being broken as though some one had trodden
upon it. On comparing the cap, and fitting it with the
pistol, it was found to be too large, and that circumstance
had probably been the means of saving the life of Mr.
Arkle, as the trigger would go down without discharging
the pistol, and that must evidently have beenl
times at-
the case
more than once, the prisoner having several
tempted to fire. When the prisoner was taken
which he
into cus-
tody, it was apparent from certain statements
made what his intentions were, for, being still under a
state of excitement, he expressed his regret that his design
had not been carried out.
Mr. Arkle deposed o the facts of the case as stated in
the opening by Mr. Brtandt, in which he was corroborated
by other witnesses.
per deposed to seeing the prisoner shortly
aftGerthrgee mocSctuarrence, and he said that Arkle had taken his
bread from him, and that made him do it ; he added, " I
am mad—l'm deranged."
Morey, the police-officer who took the prisoner into
custody, deposed to hearing him say on his way of Bride
did
-
well, that he was very sorry what he bad attemped
not take effect. The witness produced the pistol and
ball.
William Sumner, a person in the employ of Messrs.
Williams and Patrick, stated that the pistol was brought
to their shop ; it was fired off against a board, and a leaden
ball came out.
The prisoner, when called upon for his defence, entered
into a long explanation (which he read from a paper) of
the circumstances connected with his dismissal from the
Customs. That he had been charged by Arkle with being
in a state of stupor from the effects of drink, when such
was not the fact, as he was at the time suffering from in-
disposition. Those matters, together with want and mi-
sery staring him in the face, and being embarrassed and
in debt, drove him to madness, and he did not know what
he was doing. When he loaded the pistol, it was for self-
destruction, but meeting Mr. Arkle, the injuries he had
sustained wrought upon his feelings, and he went and
presented the pistol; when, however, he saw the horror
depicted in the countenance of Mr. Arkle (and which he
could picture to his mind at that moment) he relented,
and thought what an awful thing it would be to deprive a
fellow creature of life. While in the act of stooping down
he took off the cap from the pistol and threw it down.
Arkle ran away, and he followed, when he was taken into
custody. He had no recollection of having used expres-
sions such as had been referred to. He concluded by a
hope that what had been stated in the newspapers would
not have the effect cf biassing the minds of the jury in
coming to a decision in his case.
The jury found the prisoner guilty of an intent to do
grievous bodily harm.
His LORDSHIP, addressing the prisoner, said the act of
which he had been found guilty was one of a most mali-
cious and wicked character, arising out of a desire to be
revenged on a superior officer in the discharge of his duty.
He was liable to transportation for life, but he (the
Judge) would take a more merciful view of the case, and
hoped the prisoner would not abuse it ; the sentence was
that he should be impr;soned and kept to hard labour for
the space of two years.
BURGLARY.
George Jordan, 18, and George Wylie, 24, (could read
and write imperfectly,) were charged with entering the
dwelling-house of John Percival, and stealing a shot-bag.
a shawl, and a coat. Jordan pleaded guilty. The prose-
cutor kept the Derby Arms, at Bootle, and on the night
of the 26th of August last, his house was entered, and the
articles above mentioned taken away. Jordan was seen
by some persons, (who had occasion to call at the house
about one o'clock in the morning,) to jump out of the
window, and was immediately secured. Wylie was taken
a few days afterwards. Wylie was acquitted : Jordan was
sentenced to twenty years' transportation.

ROBBERY.

Charles alias John ConUP, 16, (could neither read nor
write,) was indicted for stealing a horse, the property of
Edward Show, and a bridle, the property of John Orme-
sher. From the evidence of Mr. Chalmer, surgeon, it
appeared the prisoner was of ansound mind, being afflicted
with connate imbecility, and he was accordingly acquitted
on that ground. _ .

SACRILEGE.
William Simpson, 48, (could read,) was indicted for
stealing property from Whitworth Chapel, near Roch-
dale, on the 20th of October last. It appeared that the
chapel was entered on the night in question, and a surplice
and hymn-book taken away, the latter of which was offer-
ed by the prisoner for sale at Rochdale a few days after-
wards. He was found guilty. There were two other
indictments against him for robbery. The prisoner called
a witness to speak to his character, when the following
recommendation was elicited :—The JUDGE.—What do
you know of the prisoner ? Witness.—He is a drunken
dissipated character. Mr. HULTON.—What more do you
know ? I know he has been previously convicted of fe-
lony. The prisoner was sentenced to twelve years'
transportation.
HIGHWAY ROBBERY.
William Wylde, 24, and Charles Pilling, 23, (could
neither read nor write,) were charged with robbing Tho-
mas Holden, at Tonge. The prosecutor lives at Tonge,
near Bolton ; and on the 19th of October was on his way
home, when he called at the Dog Inn, by the road side,
and remained a short time, after which he continued his
journey. He had proceeded about two miles o• the road,
when the two prisoners came up to him and knocked him
down ; and while one of them held him the other rifled
his pockets, and took from him three or four sovereigns.
The prisoners during the evening were seen at the inn on
the road where the prosecutor stopped, and the next day
Pilling had in his possession several sovereigns. They
were taken into custody shortly afterwards. The prison-
ers were defended by Mr. H. T. ATKINSON, in a very
able speech. Both were found guilty, and sentenced to
fifteen years' transportation.
The Court adjourned shortly after four o'clock.