The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1844-08-27 00:00:00

August 27, IS-1-

Mr. Sergeant Murphy and Mr. Segar appeared for the
prosecution; and Mr. Wilkins and Mr. James defended
the prisoner.
chargede
e ildt eanp,peev‘oalfrt th
ing, and kicking his wife upon the abdomen and otber
parts of the body with such violence as to produce h9*
ef
havingr
severalo m tcliaeu
caused
et
witnesses,
temisl
see
ensdt,
death,
,altt,h
by
hyes counseltrikprisonerin ag
,ndb
beat-
parts
cease in the course of teo hours after. At the tame 0'
the occurrence he seemed to have been an overlo,ciker and
manager in the fue'ory of Messrs. Taylor and Brothers,
cotton-factors, of Waldgate, Wigan. He resided in VI C:.
toria.Street, about two hundred yards from the firctorY:
and, on the evening in question, he returned Lome aboU.
twenty minutes to eight o'clock. One circumstance rQ
the case differed in the sequel from ordinary cases of this
description, inasmuch as nearly the whole of the evidence
affecting the prisoner, instead of depending on the extra-
neous evidence of any persons who were witnesses to atilt
of the acts of violence, was all derivable from the in-
ferences to be drawn from the appearances of the
body of the deceased, and the admissions of the prisoner.
Mary Anne, the daughter of the deceased, sixteen Yes"
of age, corroborated what occurred after the time toe
prisoner had left the factory to return home. She went
to the house about that time, and the only persons then
in the place were the prisoner, the deceased, one child,
who was up stalls, and another child, in the lower roof*
When the girl arrived at the door, the prisoner and bls
wife were both up stars. Immediately after she heard
one of the children crying, and, presently, the prisoner
came down stairs. Upon his coming down the witneSb
went up stairs to ascertain what was the mailer, and Wl°,
to her mother 7 whO wig unable to reply. The prisone'
followed her up, said he was very sorry for what be hsd
done, and told the witness to go for Mr. Pennington, the
surgeon. She went accordingly, and, when she eat°
back, she found her mother sitting below stairs, and she
inferred from that fact that her father must hale mile°
her mother from the upper into the lower room. The
x
prisoner then made an admission to the effect, that he ha'
struck her, that he was sorry for what he had done, s?"
that if she recovered he would never strike her ag.,Bl°'
The next witness who spoke to any of the facts was lur•
Pennington, surgeon ; and he deposed, that it was about
eight o'clock when the girl cerne to his shop to Or'
won him, that he accompanied her, and found the a'
ceased in the lower part of the house. She was, at the.
time " cruddled" down,—by which it was meant that
the pains caused her to squeeze and double herself %,°;
gether : there was great difficulty in supporting her in, 'l,l-.
chair, and it was as much as the prisoner could do l0110'"
her up. At this period the prisoner appeared to be aware,
of the nature of his situation, and was endeavouring to'
render her every assistance in his power. One of the ali-
pearances was that there was lying under the seat where,
she was sitting a pool of blood which was a yard and a
half square. He made an examination of the lower parts
of her abdomen, and discovered that blood was OIL,
streaming down her legs in large quantities. He directed
that she should be put in a recombent position. At that
time the pulse was nearly gone, the body was cold and
clammy, and she exhibited all the appearances of being
dead. He bled her, and ordered her to be taken up stairs •
Previous to bleeding her she was in a state of insensibility
and inaction, and his object was to give something to re;.,
vive her. 'When bled she seemed to come to herself, 11°'
then he administered brandy and water, which for a while'
rallied her to some extent ; but, after having continued
in this state until about eleven o'clock, she breathe
her last. In addition to describing appearances, gr'
Pennington went on to detail certain statements made by
the prisoner ; for it appeared that, after the deceased be
revived a little from having swallowed a portion of tl
brandy, she contracted a loathing for it, and said,
cannot drink." The prisoner immediately replied:
" Thou should'st not have been drunk, and I then would
not have done this to thee ;" and the reason here as'
signed for the violence he employed against the wants°
was corroborated by Mr. Pennington, who stated that
there was a strong smell of liquor about the decease,"
He further stated, that the clothes and bedding of the de-
ceased were saturated with blood; that his remedies I,°:
her restoration were wholly ineffectual ; and that, besides o
the other injuries, he observed a wound upon her lip. '
asked the prisoner what had caused the latter woundet°
which he replied, that he had struck her on the lip with
his fist; that it was a sad job, and he was very sorry 10'
it, and he kept continually moaning. He went on to
state, that the reason he committed the act was, because'
when he came home from his work, he found the 1101
dirty and his wife drunk in bed. He afterwards went Sn"
voluntarily surrendered himself to the police, het"
made a declaration that he had used violence to his Wife'
and that the result was the death cf the woman.
A post mortem examination was made, and the surge°
minutely described the wounds.
Mr. WILKINS addressed the jury, strongly endeavour;
ing to reduce the case from murder to manslaughter. 11.
called the employer of the prisoner, who gave him an
cellent character for kindness and humanity; and, after
the judge's charge, the jury found the prisoner PultYi
but stronuly recommended him to mercy on account
his previous good character. Sentence deferred.

CASE OF GEORGE EVANS.
Upon George Evans, charged with the murder of a fe-
male named Miller, at Manchester, on the 14th instant,
being called,
Mr. JOSEPH POLLOCK rose, and applied to his lordship
to have the trial postponed. In support of his applicatioEa'
the learned gentleman read two affidavits from Mr.
ward Bent, the prisoner's attorney, which alleged that the
evidence given before the magistrate at the time of 1115
committal, and the evidence before the coroner, had been
published in the Manchester Guardian, and in eonse"
quence of this publication, a great excitement and preja'
dice bad been created in the mind of the public against the
prisoner ; and that several of the jury emannened ti.rl
the said George Evans had come from the p
tow" ""roer;ere
Manchester Guardian was circulated, and tThe
Precond
could not be expected to have a fair trial. -he
of Wed-
affidavit set forth that the .illanchester Guardian° of
nesdav contained a letter addressed from
Bristol to Mr. Suerintendent Taylor, of the Mancbes
borough police,which contained an account of the P,Ve
mit•
er's former life, and was improperly pub,i,hed to
Manchester Guardian, and was highly calculated to creal
a strong prejudice against the prisoner. The le.arr.'e
counsel suggested that there was a case where a similar
application had been granted upon similar grounds.
LORD CHIEF BARON.—It was some case before
brother Alderson. the police
ter

Mr. PonLocx.—Yes ; ase Bolam.
Mr. SOWLER.—My lord,thel alsoof appear on behalf of the,t
prisoner. I concur in what has fallen from my learn%
friend Mr. Pollock, but I would direct your lordshil),.,
attention to what appears to me a very material distitwi
lion between this case and that of the Queen v. Bola,
in the 2d Moody and Robinsoh, and the distinction is ve%
much in favour of our application. Your lordship *it'd
observe that in Bolarn's case the murder was commito
in December, and the trial was to take place on the 're
of March following, so that there was an interval of 081
than two months for any excitement that might Present
to the prisoner's prejudice to subside. In the presetb
case the offence was committed on the 14th of this 1:01,0
(August), and the prisoner is here on his trial within
days. Great excitement lice prevailed and does still Prnb
vail, and there can be little doubt that the paragrN
complained of in the prisoner's attorney's (Mr. Berl' ve
affidavit has been seen by some of the jurymen. The-
is another distinction between this and Bolams e-ge
which your lordship will not fail to mark. In that cll
the reports and paragraphs were on the authority merest;
of the newspapers in which they appeared ; in this Iv
the letter of superintendent Taylor, which appears 10 it,
paragraph, bears a kind of official authority 00°40
which must have great additional weight with all "ot
peruse it. On these grounds, my lord, I support -
learned friend's application. 00
0
Mr. BRANDT said that no stress could be laid 1/04
that part of the affidavit which referred to an infur,iit.
mob. lie would not make any allusion to one afficiar,./y
It was his wish to have the administration of justice c:ed
ducted in an honest, public manner. He quite egri'bio
with what had been said about the publication of 01,
letter if any police-officer of Manchester had been jos'

mental in its publication. Prelo;
His LORDSHIP retired to consult Mr. Justice
well. After a short absence his lordship returned apd
said—l have consulted my learned brother Cre.,swelicillt
I entirely agree with him, or rather he quite agrees,'"
me, that this trial ought to be postponed. The evileeo
before the coroner end the magistrates have both no'
published; but there is an additional publication 'OP
duced which is alleged to have come from autbaor,
giving an account of the life and character of the Pris°so°,
the facts of which, if possible, ought to be forgotteTeijeu
the immediate impression of which ought to have Woole
before the prisoner be called on to take his trial. •Aierfet°
reprehensible publication, more calculated to in reol
with the impartial administration of justice I have Oa 3,
ever met with ; and I think it behoves the pers. Or
authority in the town of Manchester to institute_
strictest inquiry, under what circumstance—by whogorty6
mission a letter addressed from the superintendent'sehlY
in the central police station, Bridewell-street, n'tte,
M'Callum, who purports to be an inspector of Pcuhi;bll,ie
dressed to Mr. Superintendent Taylor, who 10°' of "'s
one of the witnesses—for I see John Taylor is oobeebolea
witnesses at the back of the indictment—l say, i,t atner
those in authority in Manchester to inquire ':"slet',/
under what circumstances, it could happen that its li-of
written by one official person to another faun' its
into the public paper, to the destruction of theuld,
justice, as it seems to me at least for a time. It Taylor
doing mischief if I were to read the letter for t e
pose of commenting upon it. Superintencleinetterdliti
must have known from its nature that that, g-
most confidential, and either some one has UeirdS 'f
of great treachery towards him and crime t°,ointiond
prisoner, or he has been guilty of a criminal is Ili.
duty, which calls for the strictest inquiry. It dem
mischief, that, in consequence of this publica ,e pl aee
application is made, and a trial, that ought to
pare 86
for the vindication of public justice, Cannnoare te,"
place. I thought it right to make this obsery r 1 Voce,
ground on which this trial is to be postp9n4l,oid
means say that the mere publication of
tbe °Pre
taken before the coroner, or that taken before whictot
trate, is of itself sufficient. The point I)°,, this ,ipo
brother Cresswell and myself mainly rely '.,tirpor,`ol6
improper and, I think, criminal publicatipli...rory o,fohd
to give an account of the life, conduct. and
upon
prisoner, calculated most deeply to affect
sta,
but a few days before his supposed tirle
A recuOlisisto4l
grounds, the trial must be postpone— ; in io
must be respited, and the prisoner must rtebain %est ass
till the next spring assizes—or, rather,r,
001. or 111)
whenever they may take place—at Live
P uggesti°"
Mr. BRANDT said that his lordships s
poti
inquiry would most certainly be made.
Charities a to"jes,
LORD CHIEF BARON.—I think the auis
brought ttaece4
discharge their duty unless some;persown.
a_
cireneiswbert;
tice tor it. I cannot conceive under. b
it could have happened without a criminal fault
jualtrsdVeinst6:ll
It certainly calls for public inquiry, and p
that it does not in some way deserve u