The Liverpool Standard, and General Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1854-08-15 00:00:00

DO YOU BELIEVE IN PURGATORY ?

Frank Travers, aged 34, a gaunt Irish shoemaker
pleaded not guilty to having, at Bolton, on the Bth May
stabbed George Pendle, with intent to disable him. fir

Sowler prosecuted; Mr. Kay defended the prisoner. The
prosecutor is a painter residing at Bolton. On the evening
of the Bth May, he was in the market-place of Bolton, with
a friend named Haywood, when a shower of rain came on
- took shelter in the Vine Tavern, whP--

And they tool
called for ale

d treated the compa

short time the prisoner, who was the worse f
went up to the prosecutor, and going down on
before him, said, " Do you believe in purgator3
prosecutor said he did not, whereupon the prisoner became
enraged, and using an oath, said, " I could rip you up."
A quarrel ensued between them ; but after one or two
roundi, the prisoner said "he gave in." They suspended
hostilities, and the prisoner went away; but in a little

while he returned, having in the meantime been to a stall
belonging to &person named Atherton, in the `market-place,
and borrowed a shoemaker's knife. This was concealed
about his person when he re-entered the public-house.
He again opened a quarrel with the prosecutor, and a
scuffle ensued, in the coarse of which theprisoner drew
the knife, and stabbed Pendle below the seventh rib, the

knife striking against the bone, which, according
surgeon's evidence, in all probability saved his life.

Eliza Lancashire, aged 30, factory worker, pleaded not
guilty to having, at Salford, on the 27th of April, stabbed
Ann Murray, with intent to do her bodily harm. Mr.
Blair prosecuted; the prisoner was undefended. On the
day in question, a quarrel ensued between the prosecutrix
and the prisoner, who were neighbours. The fray took
place in the prisoner's house, several other persons were
engaged in it, and it was shown, in the course of the trial,
that knives, forks, and pitchers were indiscriminately
thrown about. In the absence of direct evidence against
the prisoner, she was acquiited.
Robert Gaskell, aged 45, veterinary surgeon, was charged
with having, on the 19th April, stabbed Joshua Coop, with
intent to do him bodily harm. Mr. Milne prosecuted;
Mr. M'Oubrey defended the prisoner. The prosecutor is
a turner, living in Derby-street, Bolton, and the prisoner
is a veterinary surgeon, having a place of business in tl
same town. About eight o'clock on the evening
19th April, the prosecutor and some friends wei

Grey Man, beer-house, when an old man, knOwn,as

Dick," entered, exhibiting severe bruiSes about the face,
and bleeding. The prosecutor asked who had inflicted
the injuries ? and he pointed to the prisoner, who was
present, in a state of intoxication. Coop, who, according
to the landlord, had also had drink, said if he had been
there he should not have done it. The prisoner became
excited, and drawing from his pocket a case of instru-
ments, he took out a knife, with a long sharp blade,
and said, "If you don't hold your noise, I'll give you
something you don't- like. I'll probe you." He then
went towards the prosecutor, who stooped to pick
up the tongs to defend himself; but before he could
recover himself, the prisoner stabbed him in the le ft side.
The prosecutor and several witnesses proved the facts. In
cross-examination it was elicited that in the course of the
quarrel the prosecutor twitted the prisoner with not hav-
ing paid his (the prosecutor's) father for painting his
sign. Mr. Adam Hampson, surgeon, described the wound,
which was an inch and a quarter in depth, and of a dan-
gerous nature. The prosecutor was under his care several
weeks. Mr. M'Oubrey urged that the prisoner had the
knife in his hand when the prosecutor was about to strike
him with the tongs, and that, throwing up his arm to
parry a blow, he accidentally wounded Coop. A large
number of the principal farmers in the neighbourhood
gave the prisoner an excellent character for humanity and
good nature. His lordship having summed up, the jury

retired to consider their verdict. - After an ibsence Of
twenty minutes they returned with a verdict of " guilty
of -unlawfully cutting and wounding." Sentence deferred.
John Doulin, aged 20, factory-hand, pleaded not guilty
to having, at Manchester, on the 9th June, stabbed
Alexander Walker, with intent to do him bodily injury.
Mr. Ovens prosecuted; Mr. Torr defended the prisoner.
On Sunday afternoon, the 4th of June, the prosecutor,
who is a glassblower, was going along Woodward-street,
when he saw a number of persons fighting with sticks
and pokers, and he observed that the prisoner put a poker
up his back. He drew the attention of a policeman to
this, and the officer took the poker from him. The
prisoner afterwards went up to the
_prosecutor, and said

Z` the first time he met him he would stick him to the
heart." On the Friday night subsequently, the 9th of
June, Walker met the prisoner in New Islington. He
said to him, " What's the reason you want to stick me
for ?" and the prisoner replied, " For telling the police-
man I had a poker up my back." They then seamed to-
gether and fell ; and the prisoner drew a knife, opened it,
and struck him on the left temple, causing wounds down
to the bone, and two inches in length. Erysipelas set in,
and for some time he was in danger, but he ultimately
recovered. The prosecutor deposed to these facts, which
were corroborated by William Howard and Thomas
Brannon. For the defence Mr. Torr contended that the
injuries were caused by the plaintiff's head coming in
contact with a barber's window during the scuffle. Guilty
of wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm.
Fifteen years' transportation.
The court rose at twenty minutes 'to seven o'clock,
business being adjourned until nine o'clock this morning.

AN UNWILLING WITNESS.-At an early period of the
day, Mr. Higgin made an application in the case of John
Morris, charged with forging a will. One of the witnesses
had been subpoenaed to produce the will. He was him-
self in attendance, but he had refused to produce the will
fmtil the office fees had been paid. By the direction of
the judge, the witness stepped forward. In reply to his
lordship, he said he had no control over the will. His
lordship : If you had had any control, I should hare had
no hesitation in committing you at once. However, I
recommend you to produce the will. An objection of this
kind cannot stand in the way of the criminal justice of
the country, and I shall take care of your person till the
conclusion of the assizes, unless the will is forthcoming.
In your application for it, you may use my name as much
as you will. The witness, whose physionomy had under-
gone a palpable change, thought he could obtain the will
by morning.
---
_ _ .

On the application of Mr. Temple, Q.C., it was arranged
that J. W. Stable, solicitor, charged with embezzling
X7OO, the property of the Manchester, Sheffield, and Lin-
colnshire Railway Company, should be placed on his trial
on Wednesday. It will probably exhaust the chief part
of the day. Mr. Sergeant Wilkins, Mr. James, Q.C., and
Mr. Atkinson are for the defence.

NISI PR lUS CO.URT—YEsTEnDAT
BEFORE MR. JUSTICE CROWDER.
MUTILATION IN. A FACTORY.

SCHOFIELD e. SCRUNCH AND OTHERS.—Thomas Scho-
field was the plaintiff, and Messrs. Schnuck, Roberts, and
Turner, the joint proprietors of a cotton mill, the defend-
ants ; and the action was brought to recover compensation
for the loss of his arm, which, was torn off by the machi-
nery, while attending to his duties as " piecer." The
action was brought in the name of the plaintiff's mother,
the plaintiff himself being under age. Mr. Attorney-
General Knowles and Mr. Wheeler, for the plaintiff; Mr.
Serjeant Wilkins, Mr. Atherton, Q.C., and Mr. Milward,
for the defendants.—Mr. Attorney-General Knowles, in
stating the case, said the defendants had pleaded, first,
not guilty; secondly, they denied that the mill-gearing
was in motion ; and, thirdly, they asserted that the injury

was caused by the fault of Schofield himself, The 'Ain-
tiff was a young man, now between 17 and 18 years of age,
• so that at the time of the accident, which happened on the
10th September, 1852, he would be between 15 and 16.
The action was brought to recover compensation in
damages for injuries of an irreparable description. The
defendants were cotton spinners, having, besides other
establishments, a cotton spinning-mill, called the North
Moor Mill, near Oldham, where the plaintiff was
engaged as a " pieeer." On the morning in question, the
plaintiff was putting a displaced wheel-strap on a " drum,"
while the machinery was in motion, and, in consequence
of there being uo "guides" or "box" guarding the shaft,
his hand was caught between the strap and the shaft,
which was making 250 revolutions in a minute. He had
the presence of mind. which probably saved him from
greater injury, to throw himself upon the shaft and re-
volve with it. With every revolution he was knocked
with great force against the ceiling, which was only one
or two inches above the drum, and only a foot or two
above the shaft. The whole occurrence was the work of
a moment. The plaintiff's right arm was almost instan-
taneously wrenched off, a little above the elbow, and had
subsequently to be amputated at the shoulder-joint; his
left arm was broken in two places ; and one of his eyes'
was literally out of the socket, although it was afterwards
found capable of being replaced. The defendants were
very kind to him, providing for his maintenance, until he
recovered sufficiently to attend to light duties at the
factory. In January last, however, in consequence of
taking a dog to the factory in defiance of orders, as it
was alleged, he was discharged from his employment ;
and, being incapable of undertaking other work, he
was deprived of all means of subsistence, except
from that provision which the jury by their verdict
might secure. The groundwork of the action was
that the shaft was not fenced, as it since had been ;
and the action was laid under the 21st sec. of the 7th
Victoria, which directed that every shaft, whether verticle
or horizontal, should be securely fenced. In reply to the
plea that the accident was owing to the plaintiff's own
neglect and carelessness, he contended that it could not
have happened had the requirements of the law been
met, and the shaft fenced; neglecting to do which, the de-
fendants had made themselves responsible for the conse-
quences. Evidence in proof of the accident having been
given,—Mr. Sergeant Wilkins replied at considerable
length, contending that the accident occurred in conse-
quence of the carelessness of the plaintiff, who had stood
on the wrong side when attempting to put on the strap.
There was a regulation in the factory that the person
putting on a strap should go to the off side of the shaft,
at the back of the drum, whereas the plaintiff attempted
to put it on the front side, and, as a consequence of this
violation of the rules, he had suffered mutilation which
all must regret. Mr. Ogden, one of the partners, described
the regulations to which the learned sergeant had re-
ferred. He further stated that it was the duty of the
spinner and not of the piecer to put on the strap; and
that, in doing so, it was not necessary to touch the strap
with the hand, as it could be put on the drum by means
ht, of Oldham,
of a brush. William Rye,
never saw a horizontal shaft ned if
accident must have happened, baoxlnedilhovf2g If it had been
boxed off, the same „
mule.
the plaintiff stood on the wren side of

M._ V.,

J,UV. and I

Mr. K

'or the

if they 'considered 1

Lry negligence
ict.—The jury

factories f

,he consid

s were n(
TpdiAnt ii

msider the

After deliberating an hour and a half, they returned with
a verdict for the defendants ; accompanied by a recom-
mendation of the plaintiff to the benevolence of the de-
fendants.—Mr. Sergeant Wilkins said he was sure the

commendation would be

EL verdict by

d Upon, was taken by

nterest

th, a verdict was

g'eant Wilkins
xyment of the (

subject

and tha