The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1842-03-29 00:00:00

BURGLARY AND ATTEMPT TO RAVISH

Francis. Miller, 30, was charged with having, at Heaton
Norris, broken into and entered the dwelling-house of Thos.
Williamson, with intent to commit a felony.
Ellen Williamson. wife of Thomas Williamson, cotton-
spinner, Heaton Norris, said, that on Sunday, the 22d of
August last, her husband was from home. She went to bed
a little ufter nine, having locked the door and fastened the
windows. About half-past eleven she was wakened by the
prisoner crying " Ellen ! " There was a light from the
street, by which she knew the prisoner. She had known
the prisoner for more than a year. She jumped up, and he
took hold of her by the nightgown. It tore, and he lost his
hold, and she escaped. He said, " I shall not lie with our
Mary Ann to-night; I shall lie with you." He was partly
undressed. Witness cried " Oh, dear ! " and he said,
". Don't make a din." When she went down stairs, she
found the table against the door, which she removed and got
into the street. It was the outer door. The key was left in
the lock inside.. There was also an iron drop-latch which
was fastened at night, but was opened and bent when she
came down. She saw Mrs. Bucktrout, and told her the
prisoner was up stairs in her bedroom. Prisoner asked Mrs.
Bucktrout not to say anything, and witness said to him,
"Go away, you dirty vagabond! if she does not tell, I
will." The key was found on the ground. 'She afterwards
returned to bed. In the morning, she found a key with a
piece of leather attached to it. She thought the key, when
she left it, would be crossway when she locked the door at
night. She found several marks on the door, between it and
the cheek. There was nothing outside the door by which
the drop-latch could be opened. The drop was bent, so that
the door could not be fastened by it. The prisoner asked
her next day to give him back the key, which she refused.
Tire prisoner afterwards came with another man and wanted
to repair the door, but she would not allow them. He also
offered her a sovereign to say nothing about it. The prisoner
lived near their house. She got a warrant for the prisoner,
which cost her ss. 6d.

Cross-examined by Mr. WILKINS.—The man who came

wii-tlTePrisoner was named Leech. She was in Leech's
house the night before, and there drank twice some wine.
The prisoner said, at first, that it was only beer. She supped
that night at Leech's. Her own fire was out, and she cooked
her own supper, a beefsteak. Leech, she had heard, had
since gone to America. A chisel was found in Leech's house,
as she had heard, which fitted the marks. The prisoner said
he'd rather give a sovereign than have any work about it.
Ellen Bucktrout, wife of the watchman, saw Mr. William..
son that morning. She said " Frank" had broken into the
house, and was there. Witness saw Frank come out. She
asked him how he could find in his heart to do so, and her
husband not at home. She said she had locked the door and
left the key in, and witness remarked, " I think nobody
could have got in, if you had left it." She (witness) after-
wards picked up the key. When he came out, witness said,
" Frank, you're tipsy, and so is she," and he said he was.
She found a key outside the door, and took it out and gave
it to the prisoner. She found that key first before she picked
up the other on the floor.
Cross-examined.—Mrs. Williamson said they had both
been drinking. She saw her (prosecutrix) at the door about
twenty minutes to twelve o'clock. She was in her night-
shirt. Witness said to Miller, " I saw a man under this
lamp before," and she said, " Yes, that will be Bill Leech.
lie line had a bit of a lark with me." Witness then scolded
them both. Mrs. Williamson was very tipsy that night.
Hammond, police serjeant, served the warrant on
the prisoner, and read it to him. He got a key with a piece
of leather fastened to it, and showed it to the prisoner, ask-
ing him if he knew he had left it in Mrs. Williamson's bed-
room. He
at
t .rHaTet He found a
hseLaeildaetcchh: knew nothing about it.
Leech's.
was Tbheen tpor stownaerrd outwards, said
, he
ite appeared,k new n o tfhoirneg-

ing the door. Leech, it was said, had gone to America.
Witness had searched for him since, but had not found him.
Leech was before the magistrates, and his deposition was
taken.
Mrs. Williamson recalled
from Leech's to open my door.

—I have never borrowed a key

Mr. WILKINS ably addressed the jury on behalf of the
prisoner. He contended that the prosecutrix was not in a
state of mind to tell the true facts of the case, for it was in
evidence that she was drimk. There was a discrepancy in
her testimony as regarded the time. When the prisoner told
her that he could not sleep in his own bed and would sleep
with her, it was the language of a man who thought that,
after being drunk with her in a neighbour's house, he sbnuld
be well received. Besides, she had not complained to Mrs.
Bucktrout that her shift was torn, and that person never saw
it. The watchman was within hail at the time, yet she
made no outcry. She only said, " Oh, dear !" and called
no one. Her being so quiet was a presumption that, when
seen by Mrs. Bucktrout, she accused the prisoner to prevent
a disclosure to her husband, and to give a favourable colour-
ing to her own conduct. With respect to the offer- of the
sovereign, it was natural the prisoner should do so, to pre-
vent anything unpleasant, on the part of the-husband, against
himself. He contended, that, taking the whole of the cir-
cumstances, the reasonable inference was, that the prosecu-
trix had given the prisoner such encouragement as, while it
would not justify his conduct in a moral point of view, yet
removed him from the legal grievance of the offence. With
regard to the burglary, if committed at all, it was, probably,
done by Leech. The prosecutrix, it should also be remem-
bered, had admitted having had " a lark" with that indivi-
dual, who had left the country, and had been drinking with
him and the prisoner until she became intoxicated.
The learned JUDGE summed up with great perspicuity,
leaving the charge of the felonious intent to ravish in the
hands of the jury.
The Jury, after consulting for about 'ten minutes, re-
turned a verdict of Not guilty.