The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1842-04-05 00:00:00

MURDER

John Taylor, a respectable looking young man, was chart_
ed with the wilful murder, at Warrington, of James Taylor,
(his own brother,) by stabbing him with a knife.
Mr. WILKINS stated the case to the jury, and with him
was Mr. Monk.

Jane Taylor, widow of the deceased, said, on the l'ith of
February she went to an inn in Warrington, called the Tower
Angel, to look for her husband, and he said he would go with
her at eight o'clock to receive some money. I went back at
eight o'clock to the Lower Angel, and we went together with
Mr. Carter and his wife, the deceased, and another, to the
White Hart. We all went from there to the Bear's Paw. We
had a glass of ale a piece. No words took place there. Ido
not think the prisoner had any drink before that. They staid
about an hour and then went to the Lower Angel, where
they had two glasses of ale each. My husband and John
Taylor had some words about the cutting shop. My husband
was a fustian cutter, and the prisoner is a printer. My hus-
band was very tipsy. The prisoner was not drunk. All the
party left the Lower Angel at the same time. John Taylor,
(the prisoner) had hold of one of his arms and I held the
other to assist the deceased, he was so tipsy. Carter and his
wife then left us. Near the Infant School my husband said
to prisoner, •` Jack, I'll tell you what, I'll take another shop
to-morrow. I'll neither be bothered with thee nor thy set
any longer." The prisoner said, " Thou may go to hell and
take another shop. 1 could have set the shop and the PIC.
,
ses six months ago for £2O a-year." They were quarrelling
till they got nearly home, and were going to fight. I cannot
d husband
and squaring. They were not stripped. I pul!Fe. then saw
say which begun ; they were both standing before each other
away. I had not then seen either of them
fsatereit:
prisoner strike deceased on the side of his face,
the first blow I
hand or fist, I can't say which.
Tuhrather. I did not see my
saw. My husband went on a little fHe
might strike him, but
husband strike the prisoner at all.
t there was a gas-lamp
dark, bu
lttle further he I did not see him. It was ton a i with his open
band ri'r L.„if,," Ile spoke
not far off. When my h'T, Where ' n'Y --- - . lifted it up.
stopped. John then said,
lied hisknife ou this up. lie then either
his Docket and When the knife was.
He then put his hand in
diSssiiid nothing when
him open. He had, and opened it. Deceased
he would rip .
knife ''''
d, li here's n}.
pulled
out. Prisoner said i
said,
before when he .
he held up his hand with
said so once
ond time,
When he said so the second
funbuttoned his coat or . t
him not to take his knife, before:
the knife it. I begged
I: I was standing in that position, pri-
soner eads standing between the prisoner andd
W bile
several times, but the blows did not reach
soner struck at him
husband said, " what are you going to do ?"
him. MY ~II kill you, by God." 1 then got from he-
thhee pulled
deceased. it t
.
husband said,
Prisoner said,
In
tween them•
dme in the belly." They then both fell on
a minute or two after my
" He has stabbe
husband to go away
I told my when he was get-
the floor. .
out and afterwards when he took it
• the knife
ring t Francis Stockton came up with a light, but
screamed on •
ut. Another candle was brought. My husband
it went o
lay stretched in my bed, "lam d ,* " and I
said, us he .
mg,
thensaw him spit blood. He was carried into his father's
house.
great sorrow
Prisoner went in ond expressedl
, and
his thumb was cut, as if the knife had closed upon it. L
fetched a surgeon. A police-officer was sent for, and. poi- _
goner remained till he came. Constable Fain came, 44d L,
went with him to the spot where my husband saick sae. was
stabbed, and saw the knife, and the officer picked itc AP, found:,
was closed, and there was blood on the blade. 11l
v/P•s- foun'''
less than a yard from where my husband stood when he was.,
stabbed. My husband died on the 14th February. He;.
could not stir himself after the wound.
Cross-examined by Mr. BRAN3a.-,-1 have been married.
three years last July. 1 did Ott live with hire, as we had no
means of furnishing a bowie- My husband. used, to drink,
and waf quarelsoruu viltOlt tirtinit nu WM about six feet

knocked down by one of the horses, which Made a rush for- no evidence had been given to show that any one pf them
ward, and one of the wheels passed over his head, the prison- became a partner till the end of 1838, whilst the whole of
er being then a wry short way from the cart. The prisoner these claims accrued in 1837, and in the eleven mouths of
admitted to the police-officer, that he saw the child before it 1838. He contended, however, that the evidence of the
left the footpath, and ran up towards the horse's head. H. partnership was insufficient and unsatisfactory. The bank,
expressed great sorrow, said thax he could not help it, and too, were cognisant of the frauds upon the public by the Mi-
that such a thing had never happened to him before. The nine Company, because their own manager, Walsh, was ac-
prisoner had always borne a good charaeter for steadiness tualty one of the directors.
and attention in driving his cart. The question was whether The learned JUDGE then summed up the case at consider,
he had shown gross negligence. able length and with much perspicuity.
The Jury returned a verdict of Not Guilty, and the prison- The jury retired to consider the verdict, and, after an ab•
er was discharged

Ivered a

sence of forty minutes, they (lc
tiff. Damages £6938 6s. 4d., as agai

MANSLAUGHTER.
The Jury that had been locked up to consider their verdict except those named above.
W
in the case of William Shaw, a carter, whose cart had run The JUDGE granted leave to Mr. ortley
over a child, named Ward, were here called back into the duce the damages to the balance due in 1839, which w
Jury-box, and, not having yet agreed, his Lordship said he rather more than £3,000.
should discharge them from giving a verdict. The case, he The trial of this case commenced at three o'clock on Fri
added, was one on which he should not have passed any great day, and concluded at half-past three this afternoon, exclusiv
punishment. The prisoner will, therefore, we presume, be of the time the jury took to consider their verdict.
discharged.

,st all the defendants

BRUNSKILL 'V

to move tore

CHARGE OF MURDER.
Timothy Hetherington was again brought up, charged with
the wilful murder of Peter Jackson.
Dr. BROWN conducted the prosecution, stating, in the
conclusion of his opening, that there was a question whether
the prisonet was sane at the time, and, should the jury so
find in their verdict, he would be taken care of and kept un-
der such restraint that a similar fatality could not again occur.
It appeared from the evidence, that the prisoner and the
deceased were both paupers in the. workhouse. The deceased
had given the prisoner eighteenpence to take care of for
him, which he had spent. The prisoner subsequently said,
that he had been to the governor, and would go to him
again, as he had not yet got his money from the deceased.
On the 7th December the prisoner went up to the deceased
in the workhouse, struck him with his knee, took him by
the collar, threw him down, and knocked him savagely on
the body, and once on the jaw. He was stopped by some of
the inmates, and was soon afterwards taken to the cell,called
the " lunatic." The prisoner was subject to fits, and had
several times been confined in the lunatic. The fits came upon
him suddenly, and he was sometimes very violent after them.
He had had fits all night on one occasion, and was a long
time in the lunatic afterwards. The prisoner was a man of
weak intellects. The surgeon of the 'workhouse saw the de-
ceased about two hours after the assault. He had three ribs
broken and a contusion of the jaw. The deceased died
from inflammation of the lungs. caused by one of the ribs
having penetrated that organ. The injuries appeared to have
been caused by kicks. The prisoner appeared to be collected
after the assault, and related what had happened, mentioning
the money and the assault. He said he had frequently asked
for his money, and thought he was justified in striking the
deceased, as be could nut get his money in any other way.
He said he was sorry for the circumstance, and hoped the re-
sult would not be serious. W;tness inclined to think that
prisoner was not sensible of what he was doing at the time,
as he was subject to epilyptic fits, and had maniacal attacks
afterwards. Sometimes persons subject to such fits may, have
violent paroxysms of madness without having a fit, and these
may soon go off.
Mr. GRERNE spoke ably in behalf of the prisoner, contend-
ing that the prisoner committed the act during one of those
transitory paroxysms which so deprived him of his reason,
and that he was not then a responsible being, and must be
acquitted of the crime of wilful murder, at d he would be dis-
posed of in another way.
_t, le- "d qz summed up with great care, and the

'ibis was an action, on promise, brought by James Brun
skill, a glazier and painter, against Elizabeth Bell, both (
. .

St. ilele'n's, to recover £22. 19s. 2Ad., for work and labor
done, for materials supplied, and on an account stated. Ti
defendant denied that she had promised.
From the statement of Mr. WORTLEY, (with whom w:
.

Mr. Atherton,) it appeared that, in Septeinber, 184

defendant, who is a widow lady, had, among other property,
a house in the New Market, in which the work was done for
the recovery of which the present action was brought. In
May last, the house being then in an unfinished state, Mrs.
Bell, thinking that she had been fortunate enough to se-
cure a good tenant in the person of a Mr. M`Keen, went
to the plaintiff's shop, and gave him directions for the
necessary work to be done, but, as no one was present at
at time, no evidence could be given that she had actu-
The effect, however, was, that the

ally given the order
plaintiff, by her desire, did the work at the house in question
M`Keen intended to make the house into a shop, and he put
into it a counter and the usual fixtures • but the plaintiff was
employed, not by him but by Mrs. Bell, to paint and pa-
per the house, and partially to glaze it. He should prove on
these occasions, by means of some workmen of Mr. Latham's,
who were employed by M`Keen, that the defendant had su-
perintended and interested herself in the work of the plaintiff.
As the work was nearly concluded, M'Keen. who bad run in

debt, absconded and left all parties in the lurch. Some of
those persons who had been employed by M'Keen followed
and brought him back to St. Helens, but, being a very slip-
pery subject, he again slipped through their fingers, and had
not since been heard of. Now, although Mrs. Bell, as the
landlady, bad the benefit of the plaintiff's labour, she was
seeking to have it without paying for it, for her defence was,
that M'Keen had employed the plaintiff. The jury, how-
ever, would hear from the witnesses, that Mrs. Bell not only
interfered in the course of the work being done, but she ac-
trno,

----Y used the remnants of the paper with which the plain-
tiff had papered the walls; and that afterwards, in higgling
with a person who offered to take the house about the rent,
she told him she could not take what he offered, as she had
been at so much expense in paper and painting.
Witnesses were then called, who proved the statement of
the learned counsel

- The learnt-, up,— - !S.--
jury, after consulting together fot:a few minutes, pionounced
the prisoner guilty of manslaughter.
His LORDSHIP said the prisoner had been guilty,of cruelly
assailing an old man, who had not deserved such treatment
at his hands, and the result was that he died. The jury had
acquitted him of the charge of murder, but found him guilty
of manslaughter, without being convinced that the act was
done during temporary insanity. The sentence of the court
was, that he should be transporttl/41for the term of his natural
life.

MANSLA L GHTER

John Chadwick, a very stout rough-looking man, aged 39,
was charged with manslaughter, at Manchester, on the night
of the 26th of December, in causing the death of William
Greaves, by shoving him into a canal. The prisoner was on
board of a flat in the canal at Manchester ; and, seeing the
deceased, with whom he had had a quarrel, corning on board,
said, " If you come here, I'll throw you into the water."
He went on board the next vessel, and began to quarrel.
The captain of the flat went on deck, and told them they
must not quarrel there, but, if they would make a disturb-
ance, they must go somewhere else. The witness then went
to the cabin, and the prisoner went down into his own ves-
sel, and closed the hatches upon himself. Shortly afterwards
the witness heard a noise again, and went on deck, and
found that the deceased was struggling in the water. He
gave the deceased a shaft to get him out, and he said it would
not reach him, and afterwards cried, "He is there ! He is
there !" as if he wished to assist in getting him out. The
deceased cried out, " Dick ! Dick !" The stern rope was
thrown off, and witness and prisoner tried to get him out, but
did not succeed; and the deceased was drowned. The pri-
had told deceased when he forbade him to come on board,
that he was out of a situation, and he was afraid he would
rob the boat. The weather was frosty, and the decks were
very slippy, and there was no rail round the vessel. The
prisoner had been drinking bard and was drunk, and ex-
pressed great sorrow. The prisoner said that he had gone
below to go to bed when he heard the deceased come on
board, and saw the deceased taking some ropes. Whether
he touched him or not he could not recollect, but he slipped
and fell in.

The Jury found him Guilty.
It appeared that the prisoner had been in confinement from
the 27th December. Ills character was favourably spoken

1113 LORDSHIP said he would consider the sentence, and
the prisoner was put down.

MANSLAUGHTER AT LIVERPOOL

13AINEs, for the defendant, said be should have no
• • -• •

difficulty in convincing the jury, that the work had been done
for M'Keen, who, having absconded, the plaintiff now
brought his action to recover the demand from Mrs. Bell.
M'Kee'si was the person who engaged the plaintiff, who gave

the orders, and who superlntenti'eSthevfo:k. There wan .ot
a particle of evidence to show that Mrs. Bell had engaged
the plaintiff. Among the persons who followed M'Keen was
the•present plaintqf, and, all that time, he much lamented
that he was not so fortunate as the former, who had been
employed by M'Keen, as he could take.away the counter and
fixtures. The plaintiff also succeeded in obtaining from
M'Keen the key of the premises, and he actually held pos-
session of them for some time; indeed, when Mrs. Bell com-
plained of this, he told her he should keep possession of the
house until his bill had been run out in rent. Other conver-
sations would be deposed to, which, combined with those he
had just stated, would convince the jury that the plaintiff
was engaged by M'Keen, and not by Mrs. Bell.
Witnesses having been called, whose testimony confirmed
these statements, the jury returned a verdict for the de-
fendant.

CROWN COURT.—MONDAY
Baron PARKE took his seat at nine o'clock,

CHARGE OF MURDER.-THE WARRINGTON CASE.
John Gill, aged 24, was charged with the wilful murder of
Sarah Mould, at Warrington. One count in the indictment
charged the prisoner with having pressed his body against
her and his hands over her mouth, and so suffocated her;
another count charged that he had suffocated her while at-
tempting to violate her person. The prisoner presented him-
self at the bar with a cool and steady demeanour, and pleaded
not guilty with a firm voice. As it was certain that some of
the disclosures would be indelicate, ladies were ordered

out of court.
Mr. BRANDT and Mr. HULTON prosecuted ;
xrivs and Mr. MONK defended.
Mr. BRANDT gave an outline of the ca
ceeded to call the evidence

Mr. Wu-

se, and then pro-

Mr. WILKINS requested that one witness, (Clough) who
was a most important one against the prisoner, should be
kept apart from the other witnesses. He was called into
court, the other witnesses being out.
William Savage, jun., son of the sexton of Warrington
Church. On Monday morning, the 14th November last, I
was sweeping the flags by the big gate when I saw a man.
He was darkish complexioned, with a light coloured round
jacket on, and no hat. He was a tall man. He came through
the entrance gate by Mr. Harrison's, the clerk. He went
past the rectory back entrance. Teter Ford was at that time
making a grave. I heard of a body being found. 1 went
from the churchyard for a minute or so, but 1 quickly re-
turned. The man did not return the same way : if he had I
should have seen him. The prisoner is about the size of the

John M' Camley, 18, and John Kelly, were charged with
manslaughter, at Liverpool, by a boy named John Chambers.
The prisoners had been committed by the deputy-coroner,
ou the verdict of the, jury, for wilful murder, but this major
charge was abandoned by the grand jury. The case was fully
laid before the public soon after the occurrence, and we need
but remind our readers of the principal facts. The deceased
was struck and kicked by the prisoners, at a small " penny "
theatre. in Vauxhall-road, on the 28th February. He walked
borne, but was much hurt, and took to his bed next day. The
deceased and a companion, about the beginning of the " per-
formances," at the instigation of Some other lads and girls,
once called out, " Emma Templeton,"—the others having
repeatedly before cried out " who made the lad spend his
week's wages ? " and to which words " Emma Templeton "
were intended, as they (deceased and his companion) thought,
as a reply ; but they did not know what it meant. This was
done when a girl, who danced and sang on the stage, named
Emma Templeton, made her appearance. The deceased
shouted only once, and Emma Templeton pointed, to him
the
he did so, as if to mark him out to some one. After
e ierformance was all over, the prisoner struck and kicked
th
deceased violently. The decased never rose from his bed
after
over thatt ook to it on the following day. He was so sore all
lie could not bear to be touched, and bad to be fed i
with Mr.
a teaspoon.
Woods, surgeon, .was called to him
about the 4th March. Deceased did not complain to him of
i
violence. Mr. Craig was afterwards called
n, and found
him very ill. TT ts finally found that he had received. injury
of the spine, .
which,
by internal injury. 'lath prisoner surgeon was of opinion, was caused
hended, admitted that hPerli,soner M'Camley, on being appre-
intention to hurt him. The the deceased, but not, with
nion, at the shopwhere he e other (Kelly) said to his compa-
ceased on the leg, and added, that he did kick the de-
' suppose you will come and
see me hanged."
Mr. WiLKINs addressed the for the
Several respectable persons spoke in their
The JUDGE briefly summed up, and jlier behalf.
verdict of jury returned a
Guiltyto of Manslaughter again at both, but recom-
mended them mercy.
The learned JUDGE said, that there was no foundati f
the charge of murder, but they had been found 9n or
and it did not appear and guilty of
manslaughter, ender aggravated cir-
cumstances. The most culpable part of their conduct was
using
their foot, but,. as he thought they did not intend to
inflict any mortal injury, the ,
sentence of the court was,
that they be imprisoned and kept to hard labour for three
calendar months

MANSLAUGHTER. ,
His LORDSHIP then sentenced John Chadwick, for man-
slaughter, at Manchester. His lordship said there were
several mitigating circumstances in the case, and, as the pri-
soner had been in gaol for some time, he should now only
commit him for two months from this time, and to be kept
at lard labour.
The court rose at ten minutes past six o'clock.

NISI PRIUS COURT
FLETCHER, PUBLIC OFFICER, fl. CROSBIE.
This case was resumed this morning, and Mr. 'WORTLEY
continued his cross-examination of Mr. Sheraton, secretary
to the Mining Company, on the part of the defendants,
Thomas Wilson, Thomas Brancker, jun., Thomas Field,
Timothy Bourne, Miss Harriet Copeland, Patrick Hare,
John Hampson, Andrew Ralfe, Mrs. Margaret French, and
Thomas Jagger. The general scope of the cross-examina-
tion was to ascertain who had attended the various meet-
ings of the Mining Directors, and to fix the dates of those
several meetings, and to explain what was done at them with
reference to the transactions with the bank.

man.
Cross-examined by Mr. MONIC.—When I left the church-
yard I had heard that there was a body found, and I ran to

Mr. WaTsoN then claimed the right to cross-examine the
witness on the part of the defendant, M.. E. Croshie. An
argument ensued on this point, Mr. Wortley, Mr. Baines,
and Mr. Cowling contending that such a course was irregular
under the pleas which the defendant had put in. The
Coy RT, however, over-ruled the objection, and Mr. Watson,
therefore, proceeded with his cross-examinaiion with the
view of establishing that certain other of the defendants than
Mr. Crosbie were present at the proprietors'- and directors
meetings; and, in fact, that they had taken an active part

Ind appar

Mr. Witxtivs.—l say she was covered
with wet and mud all over. I have never said she was free
from soil above the knees. I believe I never •did. Since I
was before the magistrates I told Mr. Nicholson that the
sleeves were torn out. In the first instance I said her dress
was not much deranged. 1 have washed the dress since. I
assisted in laying her out. The countenance appeared very
placid.
Edwin Steel, surgeon, Warrington, stated that he bad ex-
amined the body on the 13th November. I did not observe
any,external marks of violence, except below the knees. The

shins looked red, as if something had been rubbed against
them. I opened the body. There was nothing to indicate
that there had been recent connexion. I examined with a
view of ascertaining that fact. There must have been some
traces if anything of that sort had occurred on Saturday
night, but there were none. Witness went on to state that
he found the lungs and liver congested, but he attributed the
death to apoplexy of the lungs. Disease of the lungs would
cause it. There were no marks of disease. Suffocation
would cause it. Cold. would cause it—excess of drink, or
injury of the spinal cord. I did not examine the spine. .If
the female had drank freely, and been resisting an attempt
to violate her, the excitement might have brought it on. If
the hand had been put over the mouth, the drink would have
caused her to be suffocated sooner; but there would have
been some mark about the mouth. There was no mark about
the mouth, and none about the neck. If there had been a
struggle with a man who wished to get possession of her
person—if a pressure on the chest had been so great as to
prevent respiration, it might have produced the effect, but
not without such pressure as would have prevented the mus-
cles of the chest from acting. _ _ _

By Mr. WILKINS.—Froin all that I have heard and know
of this case, it is my opinion that this woman may have died
from natural causes. As she was a muscular woman, if her
death had been produced in the manner described by the
counsel on the other side, that is by a struggle with a man,
I should have expected to have found many more marks
than I did. I have heard that the deceased frequently com-
plained of pains in her chest. Had I known that, I should
have directed my attention to her stomach, as well as to the
lungs. Ulceration of the stomach is a common cause of
sudden death, and would have produced complaints of pains
in the chest. Excitement is produced in the system by ardent
spirits, and more so in women than men. That excitement
is generally followed by collapse, which, in a cold frosty air,
will induce an almost indomitable desire to sleep. If that
desire were yielded to, all the consequences might follow
which I discovered in the deceased. Alarm might produce
the excitement, and that, coupled with the attempt to scram-
ble out of the ditch, might have produced . the apoplexy of
_the lungs. I believe it to be impossible to say what caused

the apoplexy.
Mr. John Robson sworn.—l am a surgeon in Warrington.
I assisted Mr. Steel in examining this body. Witness stated
his agreement with Mr. Steel as to the appearance of certain
parts of the body. His evidence was generally accordant
with that of Mr. Steel. He said his opinion was, from the
want of marks of violence, that the woman died. in conse-
quence of exposure to cold when in a state of intoxication.
Any sort of excitement might have produced the appearances
which presented themselves. If she had fallen into the ditch
and got wet, that would have produced the first appearances
and accelerated her death. If she had got wet and then strug-
gled out, that might have caused her apoplexy. From-the
appearances and history of the case, I am of opinion that the
appearances were produced aradually.
Ells LORDSHIP put it to Mr. Brandt whether he would go
,on.

Mr. BaANDT said be did not think he had evidence enough
to get over the difficulty.

His LORDSHIP said unless there were proof of violence
the case could hardly go on. He was, boweyer, perfectly
ready to pursMe the inquiry.
Mr. BRANDT said he had evidence of the prisoner having
left her, but whether alive or dead he could not show.
Mr. Robson was recalled. He declared his opinion to be
that the deceased had fallen into the ditch, and being intoxi-
cated, had struggled about for a few minutes, had scrambled
out, and in crawling along had, from the effect of drink and
exhaustion. fallen forward, and there died.
Mr. BRANDT said, after this he felt it would be useless to

- The jury immediately acquitted the prisoner, and he was
discharged. ,

Thomas ROUST, aged 29, was charged with having, at Roy-
ton, induced by divers others to the jurors unknown, violated
the person of Mary Whitehead, wile of James Whitehead,
nurseryman, of Pendleton.

It appeared from the evidence that, on Sunday, the 12th
September, Mrs. Whitehead went from home to Poyton,
which is about eight miles from Pendleton. She went into a
beer-house, and had some drink. She was in the habit of
drinking, and was nearly intoxicated when she left the house,
which she did in company with the prisoner. It was alleged
that the prisoner had, with others, taken Mrs. Whitehead
into a field, and there abominably ill-used her. Mrs. White-
head now stated that the prisoner had done all he could to
screen her, which was at entire variance with her testimony
in the depositions taken before the magistrate.
The details of the case were exceedingly disgusting. It ap-
peared that the outrage was witnessed by several individuals,
who did not dare to interfere. The pr:soner was certainly
present, but the only witnesses who swore to his having taken
any part in the affair were two police-officers, who were
brought to the scene by a man who had seen what was going

on.
The jury retired at a quarter before two o'clock. They
returned into court in about ten minutes. They found the
prisoner guilty of an assault with intent, and recommended
him to mercy on account of his previous good character.—
Sentence deferred.
FALSE ACCUSATION, WITH INTENT TO EXTORT MONEY.
_ .

see it, but I was back in a minute.
William Savage, sen.—l am sexton at the parish church of
Warrington. On Sunday morning, the 14tri of November,
I was employed in the churchyard. Peter Ford pointed my
attention towards something at the east gate. I went to the
place indicated, and I saw a basket and a human body. The
basket was eight or ten feet from the body, and the body was
about a yard from a ditch or brook, with the feet towards the
ditch, and the head towards me. The ditch was nearly at
right angles to the fence of the churchyard. The body was
that of a female, and it lay upon its face. The hands were
under the body ; her feet were about a yard from the ditch.
I turned the face towards me. I observed some soil upon
the face and nose. She lay upon the grass sod. I found the
face close to the earth. The mouth was full of dirt. She
was lying on the grass, and there was no dirt upon the place
where her face was lying sufficient to account for that
pearance about her mouth and nostrils. I did not perceive
any soil near the place. I replaced the head in the same po-
tion, or as near as poSsible. I sent for the deputy-consta-
Ir. Jones. He came with me, and we saw the body as
It was in the same position. There was a shawl
thrown over her head.' I did not remove that shawl in
raising her head, but it would be displaced a little perhaps. I
"did not remark whether she had a bonnet on. Her clothes
from the middle of the back downwards were saturated with
wet. • I did not notice whether they were wet in front. One
stocking was down to her ancle; I think it was the right leg.
The knee of that leg was red. The body was removed to the
Ring of Bells public-house. Jones the constable examined
the basket, which was perfectly dry. I saw when she was
taken to the public-house that she had a bonnet and cap on.
I did not notice whether they were wet or dry, but the crown
part of the bonnet was broken.
Cross-examined by. Mr. WILKINS.—I was somewhat
agitated at the discovery. There had been a little wet that
morning. The field was a meadow, and there was a foot-
path through it. The rest of the face was somewhat dirty,
as well as the nose and mouth. I could see dirt against the
teeth. The brook is perhaps a yard and a half wide, and
three or four feet deep. I cannot say whether the ditch be
often cleaned out ; there is a strongish current there.
Peter Ford.—On the 14th November last I was in the
churchyard at Warrington. I was near Howley Pit. I saw
a man looking over the fence towards the river. It was
about five minutes before seven. He was looking towards
the
place where the body was afterwards found. I was near
enoughnohaton.
to see that he had a light coloured round jacket, and
wentty toirS.awvai-flieek
be-
came of I afterwards saw a basket in the field, and I
Wilkins.—j,
aoaltda
hli
jacket. man. I did not see what
Warring-
ton. The ja,cik,beet
otlniaet tblieprisOnewraws
than that. wore
oonwpnp
appeared
emder
aattber
lige
lighter
to me they said was John Gibb's.
James Jones, s
the Sunday deputy-constable. of 'Warrington. I went on
morning in question,
churchyard of Warrington, dabout eight o'clock, to the
the face. There was a slai:w7 there I saw the body lying on
if • over the hack of the bonnet.
The shawl appeared asit had been pulled
than it should have been. It wa • • up a little hjgher
She had a bonnet and cap on. Theyquite saturated with watzr.
were perfectly dry, and
the crown was out of the bonnet,by one
plat. The hair was dry. The stocking oft her
rlpiece of
down to the foot. The other was right. The kneeft leg
was
left leg was much inflamed down to the uncle. of the
petti-
coats were nearly as,high as the knee of the left leg ;e Her
ut no t
so high on the right. The whole of her clothes were satu-
rated with wet, except her bonnet and cap. Tier basket con-
ed tea, coffee, sugAr, &c., and the pocketbook was the
nost article, a little open. I observed the impression of
in's fodt on the opposite bank, opposite where the body
-----itly conic out of the ditch. The grass was off the
Argm or the ditch, as if a person bad either crawled out or
eee dragged out. I did not observe any footmarks near the
body. I had it removed afterwards to the Ring of Bells. I
went afterwards to search the ground for footmarks. I found
some in the footpath leading from Howley warehouse to where

Daniel Seholefielci, aged 21, was charged with having, at
Middletob, accused Henry Moore of having committed an
unnatural crime, with intent to extort property from him.
Dr. BROWN prosecuted ; . M r. WILKINS defended.

The details of this case are totally unfit for publication.
The prisoner, it was alleged, had-accused Moore, and de-
clared he would press the accusation unless a suit of clothes
were given to him.

It was stated by Dr. BROWN in his opening, that a person
named Cheetham, who was named by the prisoner as a par-
ticipator in the crime against Moore, had been taken into
custody since he had been before the Grand Jury, on charge
of having really committed such a crime Some time ago.

His LORDSHIP said, according to the state of the law, it
did not matter whether the offence alleged had been actually
committed or not. If there were any charge to be made, it
should be made before a magistrate, and not urged with the
intent of extorting money.
It appeared that the accusation had been mere vulgar
'abuse. Under the direction of his lordship, the prisoner was

acquitted.
Cheetham was subsequently placed at the bar charged with
the abominable offence alluded to. The case broke down,
the evidence being insufficient to sustain the charge. The
jury acquitted the prisoner. -