The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1842-04-01 00:00:00

CUTTING AND MAIMING

Robert Pilling, 28, was indicted for having, at Ashton-in-
Mackerfield. feloniously cut and stabbed Richard Whittle.
The prisoner had been out on bail.
Mr. 'BRANDT, for the prosecution, stated that the prisoner
and Whittle were members of a friendly society, but, at their
meeting, on the 9th of January, they got drunk, a fight took
place in the street, and the prosecutor, seeing the prisoner
(fray laying about him with a stick, went up to

:five in t

_ .
him, got into the melee, and received three or four severe
cuts or stabs from him with a knife. When the prisoner was
apprehended, a knife was found at the house of his mother-
in-law, which he admitted was his, and which had marks
of blood upon it.
From the evidence of the surgeon, Mr. Pennington, who
attended the prosecutor, the injuries inflicted appeared to be
very severe. Mr. Pennington gave the prisoner a good
character, and John Oakes, a police-officer, examined for
the prosecution, said he had the best character he ever knew.
Richard Whittle, the prosecutor, in his cross-examination,
said his brother was reckoned a biter, and himself too, in the
neighbourhood, but he was never in such a scrawl in his life,
nor had he ever bitten off a man's ear. He had fought
standing up, and up and down—both roads—many a time.

Henry Latham, another witness, in cross-examination,
admitted that he had 'seen a man, named Flodkinson,
" purring" the prisoner, and jumping upon his back.
Mr. WILKINS was about to address the jury for the de-
fence, when the JUDGE stopped the case, observing that it
was but a blind affair, and for aught the jury knew, though
the use of the knife could not be excused, unless under the
most urgent necessity, the prisoner might have inflicted the
wound in self defence, believing his own life to be in danger.
A verdict of acquittal was taken.

MANSLAUGHTER

Joseph Boothroyd, 29, was indicted for having killed and
slain one William Riding.
The prisoner was undefended.
Mr. WILKINs for the proseeptioh, stated that the de-
ceased_formerly lodged in the same house as the prisoner and

his father, and, in fZict, the prisoner was his broiher-in=law.
He was sitting in the house with his father on the night of
the sth of January, when the deceased came in with a com-
panion, named Thomas Allen. The prisoner w;.-.s drunk, and
asked insultingly what he had brought that fellow Alien for.
Allen replied, and a squabble ensued, hut the parties were se-
parated by the deceased's mother. The 'next morning the
prisoner and deceased went (:;t in a field to fight. The
mother having heard of it, went there, and found her son
dying and the prisoner standing over him, both being in their
shirt sleeves. Mr. Hodson, the surgeon, who made a post
mortem examination of the bod 7 stated that he found two of
the vital vertebrae of the upper part of the spine more move-
able than usual, and there ‘sas an effusion of blood, which
might have been caused by a blow upon the nose. Death
was no doubt produced by the injury to the spine, and the
injury might have been occasioned by the man falling upon
his back after a blow upon the nose. The other witnesses ex-
amined were Thomas Allen, Henry Riding, Ann Riding, and
a verson named Robinson. _

The jury found him Guilty, with a strong recommendation
to mercy. _ _

The JUDGE observed that in common parlance the death
might almost be said to be accidental. Fighting was illegal,
but it did not appear that he had contemplated the death of
the deceased, or that there had been any unfair advantage
taken. As he had already suffered some imprisonment, the
justice of the case would be further satisfied by his imprison-
ment in the House of Correction for a fortnight.

TIORRLBLE A

Heizry Ward, 30, an Irishman, was indicted for having,
at Wigan, feloniously cut and wounded Catharine Ward.
The prisoner was undefended.
Mr. JAMES, for the prosecution, stated that the prisoner
was a huckster, dealing in fish and fruit at Wigan. He had
two stalls, one attended by his wife, and one by himself. On
the night of the 18th December, his wife returning home

about 11 o'clock, found him sitting by the fire. He asked
her where his watch was ? She replied, that she did not
He said she must know, as he had it in the after-

noon. Some more words passed between them, and he
seized her by the throat, threw ber down twice, and kicked
her with his heavy clogs on the head, arms, and body, so as
to reduce her to
,a state of complete insensibility, from which
she did not recover until a doctor commenced cutting off her
hair. Mrs. Jane Bonny, a neighbour, heard her moans, and
on going into the house to see what was the matter, found
her lying insensible at the bottom of the stairs, with a deep
cot on her forehead, her husband being at the time in the
yard. Mrs. Bonny spoke to her, but got no answer, and
tried to raise her, but could not. She went back to her own
house, and was followed by the prisoner, who got a light and
returned, shutting the door after him. She and her brother
listened, and heard him again beating her, and his wife crying
"Oh dear." He said, after every blow he struck, " Where
is my watch ?" He came to the door once or twice, as if to
look whether any one was near, and then she heard the blows
repeated. There was no one in the house at the time but
the prisoner and his wife. They heard him tell her to go up
stairs, still beating her, and she crying. " Oh dear, don't.

A woman named Sarah Heaney went into the house some-
time afterwards, and found him counting copper on thetable.
On inquiring for Mrs. Ward, Patrick Miller, her son, by
a former marriage, a boy of twelve years of age, plucked
at her cloak, and then made signs that his mother was
up stairs. Mrs. Heaney went up and found Mrs.
Ward lying partly under the bed. She and the child
helped her on the bed, and she got some water and washed
her, as she was covered with blood, and very badly hurt. Mr.
Alexander Shaw, a surgeon, was called in, arid, after cutting
her hair off, found on the left side of her head, near the fron-
tal bone, one wound of two and a halt inches, another from
half an inch to an inch long, about an inch from that, awl a
third an inch long, which bled freely, as a branch of the tem-
poral artery was divided. There was another cut close under
the left eye ; the upper part of the ear, to the extent of three
quarters of an inch, was separa•ed, and hanging to the other
part. There were several other wounds, like leech bites, on
the forehead. There was a mark as of the pressure of fingers
on the throat. A great extravasation of blood had taken

place on the leg, the swelling extending seven or eight inches.
The large wounds on the head were nearly of the shape of a
horse shoe. She could not swallow until three or four days
afterwards, when she parted with a great deal of blood from
that quarter, and after that became easier. Her life was in
danger from ten days to a fortnight, and she was confined to
the house for a month. The prisoner observed to a police.
man, who came to see what was the matter, " I don't care
if I've killed her : I should not mind if I was hanged for
her." He also said, in answer to an inquiry, " She was
drunk, and had fallen against the door, and he had carried
her up stairs." The boots with which the injuries were in-
flicted were produced in court. They were such as are usually
worn by ploughmen, and had iron heels and a great number
of nails. There was blood upon the toe of one of them when
the prisoner was apprehended, the same night. The watch
in question had been'taken from the prisoner the same day,
by a police officer, for safety, the prisoner having been found
by him drunk at a public-house. Witnesses were called to
prove the facts as stated.
The JUDGE left it to the jury to say whether, at the time
the injuries were inflictej,l, the prisoner intended to commit
murder, or do some grievous bodily harm.
The jury returned a verdict on the last count, alleging the
intent to do some grievous bodily harm.

The JUDGE animadverted very strongly on the brutality of
of the prisoner's conduct, observing that drunkenness very
often only assisted to develope a man's natural disposition,
and, as a warning to others, sentenced him to be transported
beyond the seas for the term of his natural life. The learned
judge further intimated that he should cause such a repre-
sentation of the circumstances to be laid before the secre-
tary of state as should secure his pasing the term in a chain-
gang, on the public works.
The prisoner's wife was taken ou

Df court in hysterics.

CUTTING AND MAIMING AT WARS
James Lightfoot, 23, was indicted for hay...„,
ton, feloniously eut and stabbed Thomas Oakley
Mr. Wilkins defended the prisoner.
Mr. ASPINALL, for the prosecution, stated that on the
evening of the 13th of November, the prosecutor and pri-
soner met at the Brown Cow public-house. A quarrel en-
sued, and the prosecutor, with two other persons, left the
house. In the Market-placP, the prisoner challenged him
to tight. Some blows were struck, the prosecutor was
knocked down, and the prisoner ran away. The prosecutor
overtook him, and another scuffle ensued, during which the
prosecutor received a stab in the back, near the shoulder.
The prisoner was immediately taken into custody, and at
once surrendered a knife, which was found in his posses-
sion. The wound was of trivial consequence, according to
the evidence of Mr. Steele, the surgeon, and did not pre-
vent the prosecutor—who appeared, from Mr. Wilkins's
cross-examination, to be a person of indifferent character,
having been once convicted, and imprisoned three months,
for felony, held to bail for assaulting his step-father—from
following his occupation.
Mr. WmfoNs urged that Oakley was undeserving of
credit, and told the jury it was quite competent to them, if
they thought proper, to find a verdict for common assault.
He called a witness to character.
The jury found the prisoner guilty of
a common assault.
imprison-
ment. Judge sentenced the prisoner to six months'

at Warring-

SHOOTING AT BOLD.
Ralph Boscow, 24, was charged with having, at Bold, felo-
niously tired at James Halliwell with a certain gun. There
were five counts in the indictment, the two first charging the
prisoner with an intent to maim or disfigure, the third to do
some grievous bodily harm, and the two last to prevent the
apprehension of the prisoner whilst engaged in an unlawful
act, or a companion of his, named Woods.
Dr. Brown was for the prosecution, and Mr. Wilkins for
the defence.

Considerable merriment was excited in the court by the ex-
amination of the prosecutor as to whether his name was H el-
liwell or Halliwell. Mr. Wilkins, to invalidate the indictment,
was desirous that it shouid be the former, and m.: Brown was.