The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1850-08-20 00:00:00

THE STANDARD.

THE ASSIZES.

CROWN COURT, YESTERDAY.

The following prisoners were called up for sentence.
The first was Michael Quinn : his lordship, addressing the
prisoner by name, said, you have pleaded guilty to an indict-
ment for burglary, I have considered the circumstances
of the case, and find you were detected by a noise you
made and were apprehended in the very fact; however you
were alone and unarmed; under these circumstances we
think the ends of justice will be answered by the sentence
of twelve months' imprisonment with hard labour.
Thomas Morton for the manslaughter of Richard Olive
at Prestwich, was sentenced to three months' imprison-
ment. _ . _

Henry Leigh for the manslaughter of Hugh Riley at
Nianehester, three months' imprisonment with hard
labour. _ _ _ _

James Smith was the next prisoner put up; he is a lad
sixteen years of age: his case is one of a singular character,
the particulars of which have recently been published.
The judge addressing the boy said, you have tech con-
victed of a common assault, but under extraordinary cir-
cumstances. It seems you were employed by the prose-
cutor and his wife, and four days after it was found you
had purloined small sums of money. They do not appear
to have intended to prosecute you, or even to dismiss you
from their service. You came behind the prosecutor's
wife while alone, and made, it would seem, an attempt to
cut her throgt, which she prevented by seizing the knife
before any wound was inflicted. It seems immediately
after you showed much excitement, and it is impossible
to account l'or the act, except by supposing you was in-
flrenced by some unaccountable and uncontrollable im-
pulse ; under these peculiar circumstances, and in the case
of one so young, the judge said he was unwilling to subject
the prisoner to the contaminating influence of a prison
for any length of time, he should therefore sentence the
boy to three months' imprisonment with hard labour ;
the first and last three days to be solitary.

Charles Campbell for shop breaking and stealing there-
in was put up : the prisoner had been previously cons
victed. Sentence seven years' transportation.
Thomas Shativell and Thomas Martia pleaded guilty
to ha ving forged a certain voting paper at Manchester,
were sentenced to one months' imprisonment.
John Walklett called up; the prisoner had been con-
cerned in a felony with four others, for which his comrades
were convicted and sentenced to transportation at the last
assizes, when the prisoner was not in custody.. Sentence,
transportation for fourteen years. •
Robert Reid, convicted of the manslaughter of his wife,
was called. His Loritship said, you have been convicted
of the manslaughter of your wife. I have carefully con-
sidered the circumstances of the case, and certainly they
shew the fatal consequences of intemperance. It is said
that when sober you were a good and kind husband and
father, but when drunk, which was too frequently the
case, you were the reverse. The deceased went at night
to fetch you home from some place of amusement, and
for this only, for it does not seem there was any other
cause of offence, you behaved to her with most unmanly
violence. You struck her that fatal blow which deprived
her of life, and your children of a mother. However,
that fatal blow was not given with any instrument, but
with the hand only. Under these circumstances, and
bearing in mind that the jury had recommended the pri-
soner to mercy, his Lordship sentenced him to fifteen
months' imprisonment and bard labour.
James Ilezekiah Sutton, for forging at Manchester,
was sentenced to six months' with hard labour. The pri-
soner had been previously convicted of a similar offence.
John Spencer and Allen Fidler, for bigamy, were put
up. His Lordship said it did not appear that the women
whom they married the second time appeared to prosecute.
Sentence, three months' imprisonment with hard labour.
Richard Rothrell, who had married a married woman,
the prisoner being himself married, was sentenced to six
weeks' imprisonment.
POACHING AT KNOWSLEY.—Richard Appleton and
William Mayors, two ill-looking fellows, were indicted
for having maliciously and feloniously cut and wounded
James Tyrer with intent to kill and murder him. Mr.
Monk prosecuted ; the prisoners were undefended. The
particulars of the case have been already published. Tyrer
is a gamekeeper in the service of the Earl of Derby. On
a night in the early part of June last, Tyrer and other
keepers had appointed to meet some of Lord Sefton's
keepers at a place known as Davis's Farm ; while Tyrer
and his companions were waiting at the rendezvous for
their friends, when they heard parties approach, whom
they thought were their friends ; they proved to be a party
of poachers, who made a deseerate at tack on Tyrer's party.
Tyrer himself was so seriously injured that his life was
considered to be in danger for some time. The learned
counsel informed the jury that in this case the only
evidence that could be produced would be that of an
approver, an accomplice named Brown ; but he wished to
submit the character of this evidence to his lordship for
consideration ; as respected the identity of the prisoners,
the only evidence to this point was as follows. Brown
had a stick with an ivory head, which he used in the
attack ; during the affray the head of this stick came off,
and next morning it was found near the spot. Now this
was sufficient evidence of the presence of Brown, (a fact
not doubted,) but he did not. see how it affected the pri-
soners ; he could not carry the case further. The learned
judge ordered the jury to return a verdict of "not guilty."
FELONY AT MANCIIESTER.—Robert Burns, a lad of
18, was indicted for having assaulted Elizabeth Mothersill,
and stolen from her-an umbrella. The offence was com-
mitted at Chorlton-upon-Medlock, Manchester, last
winter. The prisoner was remanded from the last assizes.
A verdict of guilty was found, and he was sentenced to
twelve I ontlis' imprisonment, with hard labour.
BURIVARY AT MANCHESTER.—John Nolan and James
Walton were indicted for a burglary in the house of Miss
Frances Vs'ilmor, at Pendleton, near Manchester. Mr.
Lowler prosecuted. Nolan was acquitted. Walton, who
has been previously convicted and imprisoned, was found
guilty, and sentenced to seven years' transportation.
ROBBERY ON THE HIGFI BEAS.—JOhII /IPCarty, a
seaman, was indicted for having, on the 2nd of August,
during a voyage from Douglas, stolen a watch. Mr.
Grey prosecuted. The prisoner had been one of the
hands on board the " King Orry" on the date referred to.
A Mr. Peacock, of Manchester, was among the number of
the passengers : he fell asleep, and when he awoke he missed
his watch, which had been violently severed from the
guard. Suspicion alighted on the prisoner, and he was
taken to a roundhouse on the deck by Captain Quayle,
and while thus seated be was seen to put his hand into
his waistcoat pocket, and immediately after the watch fell
from his hand. He 'was found guilty, and sentenced to
six months' imprisonment, with hard labour.
ASSAULT WITH FIREARMS AT MANCHESTER.—Sa-
mueI Smelter, a brickinaker, was indicted for having fired
at James Farr and another, with the intent to do some
harm. Mr. !Pollock and another prosecuted, and Mr.
Sergeant Wilkins defended in the case. The prosecutor is
a Crickmaker, residing and carrying on his business at
Rusholme, near Manchester. In consequence of attacks
having been made on his premises, be on the night of the
25th of July, thought proper to arm himself and two
friends, one of the name of Foster, and the other Gunning.
On the night in question these parties surveyed Ivarr's
premises, and while doing so discovered that a large body
had assembled on the grounds; four or five were seen to
approach, and one of these was identified as the prisoner,
by several witnesses, one of whom called to him by name,
upon which he made a feint as though he were fulling in
order to conceal his face. Directly after this fifty or sixty
shots were fired by the marauders at Farr's party, but no
person was injured. No evidence was adduced to show
even that the prisoner had a gun in his hand at the time.
Mr. Sergeant Wilkins pointed out to the jury the nature
of the charge, on which the case mast stand or fall. The
jury, after a short deliberation, aequitted the prisoner, and
his Lordship expressed his surprise at the charge of folony
having been instituted against the man, who, he said, was
no doubt chargeable with an illegal act in joining the par-
ties who were out, but that was quite another affair to the
specific charge in the indictment.
UNPROVOKED AND GROSS ASSAULT AT 'MANCHESTER.
—George Reece, a young man of gentlemanly exterior,
was indicted for having .eut and maimed William Mullinar,
at Manchester, on the 3rd inst. Mr. Baxter prosecuted.
Mullinar is an assistant collector of market tolls at Man-
chester. On Saturday morning the 3rd inst. he was
standing in Shudehill market when the prisoner came up
to him and ordered him to move on. Mullinar refused,
and the prisoner repeated his order accompanied by a
threat that if he did uot move on he had something that
would make him ; as he said this he struck Mullinar on
the breast ; in another moment Mullinar discovered that
he had been wounded. The prisoner was seen directly
after holding a penknife in his hand, and Shaw, a market
collector, and another man saw him strike Mullinar with
the knife. The wounded man was confined in the infir-
mary for a week. Mr. Sergeant Wilkins addressed the
jury for the prisoner. He said it would be for them to
decide whether the intention was to do grievous bodily
harm •, the wound did not appear to have been a severe
one, but he refrained from making further observations
on the case. Verdict, "guilty of the common assault."
Immediately upon the verdict being returned Mr.. Se-
rgeant Wilkins asked his Lordship to suspend his sentence
until Wednesday, in order to allow time to lay before his
Lordship some information which it would require time to
furnish in an authentic shape. Permission was granted.

MANSLAUGHTER AT PEIIBERToN.—Peter Barton, a
moulder. of Pemberton, was indicted for the manslaughter
of James Lowe on the 7th June, by driving against him a
cart, by which his skull was fractured, and death took
place the following day. Deceased was a bookkeeper,
and had been to Newton races on the day in question.
The prisoner "had also been to the races with a party.
They were returning in a cart driven 111 the prisoner, and
the cart was drivers at a furious speed. Deceased was
standin,, at the edge of the footway, when he was knocked
down by the cart. near the Red Lion public-house, at
half-past ten o'clock at night. Mr. Monk defended the
prisoner. Verdict, not guilty.
HIGHWAY ROBBERY.—Moses Leech, Thomas Barrett,
and Robert Hall were indicted for having assaulted and
robbed Miles Dawson, at Castleton, on the night of the
25th of July last. Mr. Cross prosecuted, and Mr. Pollock
defended. The prosecutor,, a -simple country fellow, was
returning from Bagslake races to his house at Castleton,
when he encountered the three prisoners, to whom he was
known. Some dispute arose between the parties, during
which thq, prosecutor was knocked down and ill-treated,
and upon getting away from them he found he had been
robbed of six or seven shillings. The prosecutor did not
produce any witnesses to corroborate his evidence. Ver-
dict, not guilty.
SETTING FIRE TO A MlNE.—Robert Holland, a miner,
of the township of Haddock, was indicted for having
feloniously and maliciously set fire to a mine in the same
township. Mr. Hall prosecuted. It turned out that the
act was one not coming within the meaning of the statute,
and a verdict of not guilty was advised by the judges.
WooNDlNG.—Michael O'Rourke, Daniel APNeile,
and Charles Murphy, were indicted for wounding John
Ellison on the 4th instant, at St. Helens. Mr. Hall pro-
secuted, and Mr. Roebuck defended the prisoners. It
appeared that a row took place in the Red Lion on a
Sunday night, a knife was drawn, and prosecu' or was stab.

bed is the face, the cartilage of his nose being cut. The
evidence was very eor►ficting as to the person who struck
the blow, and the jtrry returned a verdict cf guilty, of the
minor offence, the commonassault against all the prioners.
His lordship in sentencing tile men observed that, he was
determined to mark his sense of the cowardly practice of
drawing knives, on occasions of sudden excitement, by a
severe punishment. The sentence' was nine months' im-
prisonment with hard labour in each case.
BURGLARY.—Joseph Booth was indicted for burglary,
at the house of Mr. James Woodcock, Rochdale, on the
night of the 12th !nstant. It appeared that on the night
in question the premises were secured, but that in a
couple of hours afterwards an alarm was given by a police-
man, when it was found that one of the windows had been
broken open, and a quantity of wearing apparel belong-
ing to a family of the name of Scholefield, and who resi-
ded in the house, had been abstracted from some drawers
in the parlour, and lay on the floor as if ready for removal.
Mr. Pollock prosecuted. The verdict, in consequence of
a slight doubt entertained by the jury, was Not Guilty.
MANSLAUGHTER.—Thonzas Ropers was indicted for
the manslaughter of Samuel Nixon, at Manchester, on,
the Ist of June. Mr. Pollock prosecuted, and from his
opening it appeared that the deceased was a child, and
the occurrence took place in Port-street. The child was
sitting near the kerb-stone, and the off wheel of a cart
driven by the prisoner passed over the child's body. To
have done this the cart must have been on the wrong side
of the street. The prisoner was sitting on a barrel in the .
cart with about four other persons, and drove on without
regarding the warning given to him by a person who saw
the imminence of the child's danger as the cart ap-
proached the place where it sat. Mr. Wheeler defended
the prisoner. He was found guilty and sentenced to one
months' imprisonment. The court rose at six o'clock.

NISI PRIUS COURT—YESTERDAY.
(Before Mr. Justice Creswell.)

QUESTION OF THE LEGITIMACY OF AN INFANT.-

WRIGHT V. HOLGATE AND OTHERS

(s. J.)

This was an issue from the Court of Chancery, directed
by Vice-Chancellor Knight Bruce, to try the *legitimacy
of an infant named Tom Wright, who sued by his next
representative. Thomas Wright.
Mr. Martin and Mr. Russell appeared for the plaintiff,
and the Attorney-General, and Mr. Watson and Mr. Hill
for the defendants.

Mr. MARTIN stated the case to the jury. The plaintiff
was an infant of the name of Tom Wright, born in March,
1847, who sued by his next representative, and the defend-
ants were an uncle of the plaintiff, named Jonas Holgate,
some of his children, and some children of a Mrs. Emmett ;
and the question the jury had to try was, whether the
plaintiff was the legitimate child of Mrs. Wright, the wife
of a person named Thomas Wright. The law with regard
to the legitimacy of the children of a married woman was
this, that they were presumed to be the children of her
husband, sinless there was (to usi the language of Lord
Lyndhurst) strong, distinct, satisfactory, and conclusive
affirmative evidence that the husband had no access to his
wife, so as to make it impossible the child could be his.
The father of the plaintiff, Thomas 'Wright, was a
butcher and cattle-jobber, in rather a low condition of
life. In 1836 or 1837 he became acquainted with Samuel
Holgate, the father of Mrs. Wright, who was a cattle-
dealer, near Halifax, in Yorkshire. Thomas Wright en-
tered his service, and became acquainted with Susannah
Holgate, whom he married in 1837. She was, no doubt,
a profligate woman, and in 1843 they separated, and went
to live in the neighbourhood of her father and mother,
where she continued until her death, in 1848. In the year
1846 the alleged father of the plaintiff lived with a person of
the name of Mills, at Littleborough, who was a cattle-
dealer. 'Wright was then in the constant habit of visiting
Halifax market weekly, where his wife at that time lived.
After the death of the plaintiff's mother, in July, 1848, he
was removei to the workhouse, and then the parish au-
thorities applied to Thomas Wright, and he was compelled
to keep the child. The property in dispute was—
THE JUDGE.—Have we anything to do with that ?
Mr. MARTlN.—Nothing, my lord, except that there is
property which the child would take through his mother,
left by the grandfather.
Six witnesses were then called to prove that the father
of the plaintiff was constantly seen at Halifax market in
the year 1846.

Mr. MARTIN also called the alleged father of the plain.
tiff, and referred his lordship to the orders of the Vice-
Chancellor as to his competency as a witness.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL referred his lordship to the
case of the King v. the inhabitants of Sourton, sth,
Adolphus and Ellis, page 108.
Mr. MARTIN said his object in calling the witness mas
not with respect to the legitimacy of the plaintiff, but to
ask as to his particular employment at the time.
His LORDSHIP having read the case referred to said,
it was a distinct authority on the point by which he con-
sidered himself bound. If, however, he were to allow
the first step to be taken, there would be no limit to the
course of examination.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL addressed the jury for the
defendants, contending that the evidence adduced on the
part of the plaintiff was not sufficient to establish the fact
that Wright had access to his wife at the time she first
became pregnant of the plaintiff. There had been no less
than six witnesses called by his learned friends, all of
whom stated that they had seen the husband at Halifax,
where the wife then lived, and had a house of her own ;
but not one of the witnesses had ever seen them together
under either her own roof or the roof of any other person.
He should prove that from the time the mother separated
from her husband she had constantly lived a most profligate
life ; that in 1841 she had an illegitimate child, which no
one ever pretended was the child of Wright, the husband ;
that again, in 1844, another illegitimate child was born ;
and, from the time of the separation until her death, she
manifested the utmost feeling of abhorrence for her
husband.

Several witnesses were called to prove the facts stated
by the learned counsel, and evidence was tendered to
show the feelings entertained by the plaintiff's mother
towards her husband, and also her declaration with refe-
rence to a person named Thomas Kershaw, an alleged
paramour of hers ; but his lordship ruled against its ad-
missibility.

Mr. MARTIN replied.
His LORDSHIP • summed up the case to the jury,
leaving it to them to say whether they believed that
the husband had 'intercourse with his wife. If they did,
even although they might be of opinion that half a dozen
other parties had done the same, the plaintiff was entitled
to their verdict—that was the law of the case.
The Jury retired, and, after a consultation of five
minutes, returned a verdict for the defendant, being of
opinion that the plaintiff was illegitimate.

INFRINGEMENT OF A PATENT.-HOWARD AND ANOTHER

V. PEACOCK AND ANOTHER.

This was an action to try a a patent right.
Mr. Martin, Mr. Atherton, and Mr. Webster, appeared
for the plaintiffs ; Mr. noggins and Mr. Cowling for the
defendants.
The plaintiffs were Joseph Howard, a hat-manufacturer
at Denton, near Manchester, and Richard Bolton, a plush-
weaver at Manchester. The defendants were Messrs.
John Peacock, Zachariah Peacock, and Samuel Peacock,
who carry on business at Market Harborough, in
Worcestershire, and also at Denton. In the year 1845
the plaintiff (Joseph Howard) originated a patent for
certain impovements in the manufacture of silk plushes,
silk velvet, worsted, and other plushes. The action was
designated by the learned counsel (Mr. Martin) as the
most complicated matter he had ever to deal with, and,
therefore, he hoped some of the jury understood weaving.
The only question for the jury to decide was, whether the
defendants had infringed the patent so far as the weaving
of plush was concerned ? The old method of weaving
plush, now brought into such general use in consequence
of its being applied as a covering for hats, was in a similar
manner to that in which Brussells carpets, or in a similar
manner to that in which teapot-stands and iron-holders
are woven in the Blind Asylum—that is by having the
waft alone raised by means of a hollow or grooved wire,
which when cut along the groove gave the fabric the well-
known appearance plush presents: Those wires were intro-
duced every three picks; but the method patented by Mr.
Howard introduced the wire .at irregular intervals,
extending from six to nine and fifteen picks. By this
means the plush presented, when so manufactured, a more
regular appearance, and it possessed also the advantage of
economizing the materials and facilitating the manufac-
ture of the article.

--
A number of witnesses were then called to prove that
previous to the patent of Mr. Howard they did not know
of plush being woven according to it; but some of them
stated that they had worked at the defendant's factory at
Market Harborough, when the system pursued was in
accordance with the patent process.
At the close of the plaintiff's case his Lordship adjourned
the Court, it being half-past five, the learned judge ob-
serving, that from what be had seen that day, he had been
enabled.to form a judgment why patent causes had become
such a nuisance.

The Rev. Dr. M'Neile will return from Ireland at the
close of the present week, and will preach at St. Paul's
Church, Prince's Park, on Sunday next.
On Saturday a cricket match was played between the
Sandon and Phoenix Clubs, on the ground of the former,
near Prince's Park, which was won by the Phoenix Ciub,
with several wickets to spare.
THE CAUSE LIST.—At the rising of the Court yesterday
then n ained four special jury cases for trial, and four-
te:ll .r 11 e consideration of common juries. Of the
to:-t•cr one is case of erim. con., and another an action
':scarf; of pr, wise of marriage, both specially interest-
n. to a Liverpoffl public.
T:t c TICCNDEItOGA.—With reference to a para.
t-Jzli in the shipping news of yesterday we have authority
,fate the s4atement asserting that this vessel made
)ot of
_water rer hour while being towed to the wharf
ftially union. ded, but that by Captain Farren's calcu-
,.itio:is. she h• d sustained little if any damage.
'1" 1 er, last week, was all that could be wished
for the harvest. On Saturday, a slight shower or two
fell. On Sunday, the wind blew rather fresh, and during
the night increased to almost a hurricane. Yesterday,
also, we had a strong breeze from the south-west, but in
other respects the weather was genial and seasonable.
RIIUDDLAN ROYAL EISTEDDFOD.—A meeting of the
Liverpool Committee, in aid of the objects of the Rhuddlan
Royal Eisteddfod, was held at the office of Messrs. Cotes-
worth, Wynne, and Lyne, yesterday, the Rev. D. James,
A.M., in the chair. The following gentlemen were
present :---Ales,rs. Robert Wynne, David Evans, Roger
L. Jon:'?, John Br coe, William Jones, Samuel Lloyd,
R. P. Williams, E. ward W. Thomas, B. Williams, Dr.
Gam is, E. P. Jones, and Ellis Jones. The following re-
soluti in. moved by ITavid Evans, Esq., and seconded by
Robert Wynne, E ry., was carried unanimously :—" That
this Committee, whilst anxious to do nothing which may
tend to mar the arrangements of the Rhuddlan Commit-
tee, still desire to state that they disapprove of Pe in-
tended engagement of English vocalists and band from
London, and would respectfully recommend a reconside-
ration of this part of the proposed arrengement, wish the
view to saving expense, and the encouragement and pro-
motion of native talent."