The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1846-04-07 00:00:00

THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD.

CHESTER ASSIZES.

CHAMBERLAINE V. THE CHESTER AND BIRKENHEAD

RAILWAY COMPANY.

This was an action to recover compensation in damages,
under the following circumstances :—The plaintiff is a
gentleman who owns considerable property at Tranmere,
near Birkenhead, together with a ferry, called the Tran-
mere Ferry, on the Cheshire shore of the river Mersey.
When the promoters of the bill for making a railway from
Chester to Birkenhead were before parliament, they were
opposed by the plaintiff, who proposed to carry a line to
Tranmere Ferry. In order to get rid of the opposition,
it was proposed to carry the railway no nearer the shores
of the Mersey than Grange-lane, in Birkenhead, and the
promoters submitted to the insertion of a clause, enacting
that the company should not carry on their line to Wood-
side Ferry without, at the same time, carrying branch
lines to Tranmere and Birkenhead Ferries. They had,
however, carried the line to Monk's Ferry, and, as Mr.
Jervis contended that the Monk's and Vs oodside Fen ies
were one and the same, the company had violated the
clause of their act, for which he called on the jury to give
exemplary damages. It was proved that the plaintiff had
expended about £12,000 on improvements at Tranmere
Ferry; that he bad two steam-boats which cost about
£5,000, now lying idle, and that the hotel near the ferry
had been unprofitable to the plaintiff, having been for
some time unoccupied.

. _
M r.„ CROMPTON addressed the jury for the defendants,
contending that they had done nothing which their act
forbid, and that the action was an attempt to obtain
money very improperly. The only question for the jury
was, whether the defendants bad done any thing which
was contrary to law, and he would demonstrate to them
that they had not ; but if they had, it was not a question
for more than nominal damages, for if the plaintiff was
right in his claim, the line must be made, and then, if be
got damages now, be would be paid twice over.
llis Lordship said he certainly understood that the con-
struction of the act was for the court above.
A considerable discussion then took place between the
parties, and it was ultimately agreed to take a verdict for
the plaintiff for the damages in the declaration (X 20,000),
subject to the opinion of the court above on the construc-
tion of the act, and should the court be of opinion that
the plaintiff is right in his claim, then the amount of da-
mages to be ascertained by reference to some gentlemen.

Henry Turner, 34, pleaded guilty to an indictment,
charging him with breaking into the dwelling-house of
William Hesketh, at Tranmere, and stealing therefrom
various articles.

Samuel Johnson Charlesworth, 22, was convicted for
stealing two saws, at Birkenhead, the property of Mr.
Fowler, and sentenced to three months' imprisonment.

George Potter, 38, indicted for arson at Nether Knuts-
ford, was acquitted.
John Jones, 17, and James MR-Enna, 18, were indicted
for a burglary at Birkenhead, on the 10th of August last,
in the house of Mrs. Jane Bailey. The jury found Jones
guilty, and acquitted the other prisoner.
Mary Evans was indicted for administering a certain
deadly poison called red oxyde of mercury to her male
child, with intent to kill and murder it. It would appear
that the prisoner had a bastard child in September last,
which she gave to a person named Mary Cheetham to
nurse for her. On the 3rd of December she called upon
Cheetham to see the child, and told her if she would go
out with her she would give her some gin, and a little of
something for the child. They went, and when they were
together at the house where prisoner lived, the latter said
she would give the child a little new milk. She took the
child out, and Cheetham saw her administering some-
thing which she thought was milk, but she called out,
" Don't give the child cold milk." The prisoner replied,
" A little cold milk will do it no harm." Cheetham then
took the child home, but it soon began to vomit, and be-
came very ill. It was then taken to a druggist, who im-
mediately perceived that poison had been given to it, and
sent for a constable. The vomit was subsequently exa-
mined, and red oxyde of mercury was found in it. She
had also been seen concealing something when apprehend-
ed by the constable, which proved to be poison. The
Judge, on summing up, said there were two questions for
their consideration—first, had there been an administra-
tion of poison to the child? and, secondly, had the poison
been administered by the prisoner at the bar, with intent
to murder it? There was also for their serious considera-
tion and investigation a subordinate point, viz., as to
whether or not the child had obtained any name by repu-
tation ; inasmuch as the prisoner was charged, in several
counts, with administering poison to a child named James.
The jury found the prisoner guilty of the felonious adrni-
ni! tering, stating their opinion that the child had required
no name by reputation. Judgment of death was then or-
dered to be recorded against her.
THE MURDER OF MR. PEA COP.—On Tuesday, the
three men, Lynch, Nowlan, and Tallent, who had been
committed to Chester Castle to take their trial for the
murder of Mr. Thomas Peacop, arrived at Birkenhead by
the nine o'clock train, the bill against them having been
in the afternoon ignored by the grand jury. Thousands
of persons from Birkenhead and the neighbourhood as-
sembled at the railway station to give them welcome upon
their arrival, and the train which conveyed them was
hailed by tremendous cheering.
Michael Burns, 33, was indicted for a highway robbery,
with violence, upon the person of Thomas Peacop, at
Higher Bebbington. The Attorney-General stated the
case to the effect, that the prisoner was charged with
highway robbery upon the person cf Mr. Thomas Pea.-
cop, on the 31st day of December, 1844. The grand jury
had thrown the bill for murder against three of the pri-
soner's companions, and he had determined upon pro-
ceeding against the prisoner for highway robbery only,
with violence. It would be remembered that Mr. Peacop
was murdered at Bebington, and that a number of per-
sons were concerned in it. The question for them would
be whether he was of the party consenting to Mr. Peacop's
robbery, the murder as he before stated not being charged.
When the robbery was committed, Mr. Peacop had some
sovereigns and some silver upon him, the silver only being
taken. For a long time afterwards no it-donna:ion was
obtained as to who were the offenders ; but at length
the prisoner went over to Dublin. Information was
about that time obtained respecting his connexion
with the robbery, and a constable went to the city
of Dublin, and apprehended him. The prisoner then
made a statement implicating himself, and upon that
statement, corroborated as it would be by other evidence,
he thought they would have no doubt he had been a party
to the highway robbery. Evidence of the murder and
robbery was then produced. The Judge—Prisoner, if
you have anything to say, now is the time to say it.
Prisoner—l have said all I had to say before ;it was paid
no attention to, and I have now no more to say. His
lordship then summed up. The jury brought in a verdict
of " guilty," and the Judge sentenced the prisoner to
transportation for life.