The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1843-08-29 00:00:00

WOUNDING, &C.

Richard Sutcliffe, aged 38, was charged with having,
at Todmord6n, maliciously and feloniously wounded
Mary Sutcliffe, his wife.
It appeared that the prisoner, who is a stone-cutter.
was in the habit of getting intoxicated, The prosecutrix
and he had been married fifteen years. Mrs. Sutcliffe
took in washing. On the night of Saturday, the 10th 01
June last, she was taking home some clothes, when she
met her husband, who had had some drink. He ques-
tioned her as to where she was going, and ultimately
compelled her to return with him, though she was anxious
to attend to her business. When they got home he bolted
the door, and she assisted him to undress and put him to
bed. He ordered her to go to bed, but she said she could
not till she had delivered all her clothes and attended to
her household duties. He said she must stop his time,
and she complied, and remained till she thought he was
asleep, and then returned to her work as she had done
many a time before. She took her shoes and her apron'
in her hand, and went away and delivered her clothes,
and purchased some potatoes and coals. When she re-
turned he was up. She hesitated about going in, being
afraid, but at length he heard her, and ordered her to enter.
As soon as she entered he took her by the dress, and
threw her on the floor. lle bolted the door, and punched
(or kicked) her on her back and breast. He beat her
with his fist on the head. She scrambled up many times.
and he knocked her down again. He knocked her head
violently against both the wall and fl or, saying he would
beat her till she would not know him. He asked her if
she knew him. She replied "Yes." He said " Who
am I?" She said " It 's Dick." He said he would not
he called Dick, and he beat her still more. She then
called him Richard, but he still beat her. He lifted her
up, carried her up stairs, and threw her on a chair, and
asked her if she knew him. She said she did, and begged
him to give over, saying, " lam done." He immediately
dashed her on the floor and kicked her again, having all
the time his clogs on. He lifted her up and dashed her
to the ground, when her head caught the wall. Some of
the skin and hair adhered thereto. Her head was sorely
cut in five or six places. He at last took her up and threw
her on the bed, where she lay helpless. He went to bed
himself, and lay till morning. Witness stated that she
was about a month unable to move. The prisoner said
the reason why he locked the door when he beat her was,
that on former occasions she had run away before he was
satisfied.

The jury found the prisoner guilty of maliciously
wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm.
The JUDGE animadverted on the cruelty of the priso-
ner in committing such an unprovoked assault, and sen-
tenced him to fifteen years' transportation.

DISCHARGE OF THE GRAND JURY.
At a quarter before four o'clock to-day, there being no
more bills to go before the Grand Jury, they entered the
court and were discharged.

NISI PHIUS COURT.--TUESDAY.
Mr. Justice Cresswell took his seat at nine o'clock, and
immediately after proceeded with the case of

(HAVANT V. BAILEY,
Which had been left in an unfinished state at the rising
of the court on the preceding evening.
Witnesses having been called to prove that a machine
was not of the dimensions ordered, and that it was inca-
pable of performing its work, Mr. Knowles replied.
His Lord-hip charged the Jnry, who returned a verdict
for the plaintiff, damages £250, costs 40s.
"ACTION FOR DEFAMATION.-STANLEY V. ASCOLI.
This was an action for defamation, brought by the
plaintiff, Joseph Stanley, against the defendant, Guiseppe
Angelo Ascoli, commission merchant, at Manchester.
The declaration contained five counts, in which the plain-
tiff alleged that the defendant had imputed robbery to
him in disposinz. of certain bales of silk.

The defendant pleaded not guilty.
Mr. Dundas, Mr. Worthy, and Nil.. Pollock, appeared
for the plaintiff, and Mr. Baines for the defendant.
After the examination of one or two witnesses,
His Lordship suggested the propriety of having A set-
tlement made.

A short consultation then took place place between
counsel on both sides, at the close of which,
Mr. Baines said that his client was willing to withdraw
the justification and imputation of felony or dishonesty
to the plaintiff, who had, under a mistaken notion of his
rights. though irregularly, entered into the transaction
The defendant, he said, was willing to withdraw a juror.
Mr. Dundas assented to the arrangement.
His Lordship thought the plaintiff had pursued an im-
prudent course in the transaction.
A juror was then withdrawn.
COLLINS V. WILLIAMSON.
This was an action of defamation brought by the plain-
tiff, Charles Collins, against the defendant, James Wil-
liamson, for having charged him with the forgery of a
receipt.
Mr. Dundas and Mr. Pollock appeared for the plaintiff;
and Mr. Whigham for the defendant.
Mr. Dundas stated the case. The plaintiff was a
gentleman of considerable property, who married a Miss
Mottershead, the daughter of a pawnbroker, in Salford.
who died in the year 1842. The defendant was a school-
master at Salford, who made a claim of 235. for schooling
an illegitimate child of the late M. Mottershead, which
claim, with 3s. 6d. costs, Mrs. Mottershead, paid after
her husband's death. The defendant gave a receipt, but,
after Mr. Mottershead's death, he sent another bill for
the same amount to the plaintiff, and sued him in the
Couat of Requests. The judge of the court, atter having
seen the before-mentioned receipt, dismissed the claim,
but shortly after the defendant said that it was a wrong
receipt, that he had never signed it, and that it had been
forged by the plaintiff. whom he was determined to indict
at the next Liverpool Assizes.
After the examination of witnesses,
Mr. NI HIGHAM addressed the jury, stating that the
receipt had been inrerlined, and that the defendant might
reasonably have believed it to be a forgery.
A verdict was returned for the plaintiff, damages 40s.

LORD V FERRAND.
This was an action brought for the recovery of the
amount of a promissory note for £2OO, with interest
thereon. The defendant pleaded payment, and the statute
of limitations.
Verdict for the plaintiff for the amount claimed.
The court adjourned at a quarter to six o'clock.

CROWN COURT.—WEDNESDAY.
Mr. Justice WIGHTAIAN took his seat at nine o'clock.
STABBING.
WilliamDozadall, 40, was charged with having, on the
4th July last, on the road between Eccleston and Prescot
stabbed William Tickle. ,
It appeared that Tickle was with a friend, on his way
home to Eccleston, on the day in question, when the pri-
soner came up and rubbed against him. Some slight
altercation ensued, and in a few minutes the prisoner
struck the prosecutor a blow with some sharp instrument.
The blow was repeated, and Tickle received two cuts, one
on the eye and another on the temple. The prisoner ran
off. A crowd collected, and he was in a few minutes ap-
prehended by the police. He had, when taken, a dagger
in his hand. With this instrument it appeared he had
inflicted the wounds in question.
The prisoner, it appeared, was a very hot politician.
He entered into a statement of a long rambling descrip-
tion, averring that he was in danger from the liberal party ;
that he had performed various public services, and carried
the dagger for self defence. The prisoner called several
persons, who gave him a good character. Mr. Langshaw,
proprietor of the Conservative News-room in this town,
said the prisoner was a very good man, rather warm on
political subjects, and one of the warmest and best subjects
her Majesty had.
The jury found the prisoner guilty of a common assault.
His LORDSHIP said it was very fortunate for the pri-
soner that the jury had taken this view of the case. If
the jury had found him guilty of the more grave offence,