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

CROWN COURT-FRIDAY.

Mr. Justice Parke took his seat upon the bench, at 20
minutes before 2 o'clock. The clerk of the crown then called
the roll of gentlemen in the commission of the peace of the
county ; and, as the gentlemen answered, the learned judge
invited them to dine with him on Monday next. The mayors
and coroners of this division of the county were then called ;
and all answered to their names, except the mayor of Wigan,
whom his lordship directed to be fined £5. The following
gentlemen were then sworn of the grand jury :
than. RICHARD BOOTLE WILBRAHAM, M.P., of Blythe
Hall, Foreman.
Sir Thomas Brancker, Lint., of Liverpool.
James Aspinall, Esq., Liverpool.
Henry Ashton, Esq., Woolton.
Joseph Birley, Esq., Didshury.
Peter Boune, Esq., Liverpool.
Chisenhale Chisenhale, Esq., Arley Hall.
William Earle, Esq:, Liverpool.
John Smith Entwistle, Esq., Foxholes.
James Hilton Ford, Esq. ainford.
John Frederick Foster, Esq.,
Sale Priory.
William Gale, Esq., Lightburn House-
Robert Gladstone, Esq., Didshury.
Teter Greenall, Esq., M.P., St. Helens.
Richard Earle, Esq., Edenhurst. •
Hugh Hornby, Esq., Sandown.
'George Hall Lawrence, Esq., Liverpool.
Joseph Langton, Esq., Liverpool.
Thomas Leyland, Esq., Walton Hall.
John Shaw Leigh, Esq., Childwell Hall.
. Henry Moss, Esq., Aigburth.
Thomas Parr, Esq., Grapenhall Heyes.
Francis Aspinall Phillips, Esq., Thornfield.
Her Majesty's gracious proclamation against vice, im-
morality, and profaneness, having been read by the Clerk
of the Crown, Mr. Justice Parke proceeded to deliver the
charge to the grand jury, in the following terms :
Gentlemen of the Grand Jury :—lt rarely happens, in the
administration of criminal justice in this country, that a light
burden is cast upon the gentlemen who form the grand inquest
of this extensive and populous county ; and I am very sorry
to find, that the present occasion will be no exception to the
prevailing course, and that you will be called upon to investi-
gate a long list of offences, charged against not less than,
as I conceive, a hundred prisoners, of differing degrees of
magnitude, with but a few of a light trifling degrees,pf mag-
nitude, with but a view of a light or trifling nature; if, in-
deed, that expression can be applied CO any offences against
the public, and dangerous to its peace and security. The
great bulk, indeed, are of serious character ; many of an ag-
gravated description. 'I shall address but few observations
to you respecting them; and, in making those observations,
I hope you will consider that I am not to trespass upon your
province. You are the proper judges of all questions of fact ;
you will only receive from me the law, and apply it to the
evidence before you. Amongst the long catalogue of crimes
before us, the most serious ones are undoubtedly those which
affect the life of the accused ;. which mustdepend, in the first
place, upon the result of the evidence given before you. You
will, of course, understand that I allude to the five charges of
wilful murder against eight individuals. I shall advert to
each of these cases, not in detail, but simply call your atten-
tion to the principal points in each case. The first, and hue
of the most serious, of these charges, is a case in which, as it
appears, a middle-aged wilinan was found dead, I think on
Sunday morning the 14th November, in the neighbourhood
of the churchyard in the town of Warrington; and the cir-
cumstances detailed in evidence before the coroner's jury
would show, that the accused was seen in company with her
down to a late period at night; and there is an attempt also
to show, that early the following morning he was seen
coming from the direction of th place where the dead
body was found ; but there is an obscurity as to the
cause of that death, and you will have to say if it
can• be attributed to the accused. She was found lying
near ti rivulet, and had been immersed therein, though
not overhead, in the course of the night. If you think that
she fell in by accident, of course the charge of murder falls ;
but if you think it is to he attributed to violence, loolttng at
all the facts of the case, and that violence from the hand of
the prisoner, then you have to treat it as a case of murder,
and you will have to consider whether there are any facts
which would reduce it below that offence.. Presuming that
to be the fact which the surgeon states, that the death of the
party was from the effects of suffocation—if. you think the
act was done with that intention, no doubt the offence will
he murder; or if you think that that was not. the intention
of the prisoner, but that it occurredaccldentally in the course
of a struggle, and in order to effect a robbery, or with the
view (which the facts may possibly suggest) of a criminal
assault—in both these cases, although violence was not in-
tended to that degree, yet in poins of law, if violence is in-
flicted with a felonious intent, and death ensues, the offence
is murder; for that denotes that evil mind which is charac-
teristic of that offence. But upon another supposition the
offence may be manslaughter only. The deceased was in a
state of -great drunkenness •, and this must be taken into
consideration, combined with the fact of the attempt upon
her person. In all these cases, where violence is clearly at-
tributable to the hand of the accused, the law considers him
guilty of the greater offence, unless circumstances be brought
forward on the prisoner's behalf which should induce the
jury to come to a contrary conclusion.—There is a second
case, in which a person named Grayson appears to have met
his death. Here the obscurity respecting the cause of death
is much less ; there seems little doubt that it was owing to
violence inflicted upon him by somebody; he was found in
the morning breathing his last; and no doubt his death was
attributable to unlawful and felonious violence on the part of
some person. You will have to investigate the case against
three persons, who are accused of jointly robbing him, and of
murdering him in that attempt to rob. Circumstances will be
laid before you as affecting each, and you are to consider
them, and- see what are accurately proved; for here a great
deal depends upon tie accuracy of the witnesses. If they
satisfy your minds as to their accuracy, and if, putting their
evidence together, you think, as reasonable men, that the
three prisoners are the same men that joined in the .attack,
it will be your duty to find them guilty. There are three
other cases, of somewhat different character. ~_ In one it. ap.,-
pears, that a pauper in a workhouse made an assault upon
another pauper with hands and feet, merely in consequence
of the deceased not having paid him Is 6d which he owed
him. In that case, according to the testimony of the surgeon.
there will be a doubt whether the accused is of sound mind.
But I advise you to dismiss from your minds all considera-
tion as to his sanity ; for this plain reason, that, if you
ignore the bill on the ground of insanity, the prisoner will
remain at large ; whereas, if you find a true bill, he will be
a prisoner during the queen's pleasure, and not allowed to go
at large again, until certified to be in a sane state. Then you
will see whether there are circumstances in the case to re-
duce the offence to manslaughter, or whether you must con-
clude that it was murdef. In this case, no dangerous
instrument was used ; nothing but hands and feet : and this
forms n.marked distinction as compared with cases where a
deadly instrument is used, in the absence of mitigating cir-
cumstances. But where a man uses his hands and feet only,
it is a question whether lie is actuated by the barbarous dis-
position characteristic of murder ; and that will depend very
much upon the degree and extent of force he used. You are
to say here, whether so much violence was used as to indicate
that malignant disposition which I have before adverted to.
If you are not satisfied as to this, that offence will amount to
manslaughter only.—There is another case of the same des-
cription, in which the death of a young man has been caused
by two other young men, both of the age of 18, in consequence
of some quarrel at a low theatre in this town. The young
man was assaulted by them as he came out, in consequence
of some supposed insult offered to one of the actresses on
the stage. He was there beaten; and in two or three days
after, from the result of that beating, he died. You will have
to consider, . whether the beating was with that excessive
violence that you can say it was either the intention of the
parties to destroy life, or to effect some grievous bodily
harm. If you think the intent was merely to give an ordi-
nary beating, then the offence will be manslaughter only.
The last case is one of a very painful nature : in that case,
unquestionably, a brother died by the hand of a brother.
The wound was inflicted in the abdomen. It was a slight
one, but resulted in the death of the deceased, in consequence
of a morbid state of the part in which the wound was in-
flicted. I need not tell you, that, if the effect of a blow by
the hand of a prisoner is to shorten life never so little,—it it
cause him to die at an earlier period than he would have died,
then the accused is responsible. But, in the case of the ac-
cused, there are circumstances worthy of consideration,
which tend to shew that that blow was not the effect -of ma-
lice, but arose from a sudden transport of passion, created
by a quarrel between him and the deceased, and you are well
aware of the law as to provocation ; and that if a wound is to
bttributed to passion, excited by provocation, and not to ma-
lignity of heart, in that case the offence will be manslaughter.
In that case also both the accused and the deceased were in
a state of great intoxication ; but you well know, that volun-
tary intoxication is no excuse for any crime. If it were there
are few cases of violence in . which prisoners would not es-
cape just punishment. But, although it is no excuse, it
may be also taken into consideration when there is actual
provocation, to show that the fatal blow is to be attributed
to the comparatively vtnial passion of anger, instead of a ma-
lignant disposition ; and, taking these into your consideration,
if you think that the blow was given in a sudden transport
of passion, the charge of murder must fail. Those are the
serious cases in the calendar in which a capital offence is
charged against the accused. I think it unnecessary to ad-
vert to other cases of the same description ; and upon many,
indeed, contained in this calendar. I am unable to do so,
because of the very short period that has elapsed since I came
into this place, that I have been unable to make myself mas-
ter of the details. Should anything occur, upon a further
perusal, to make it necessary for me to give you farther ad-
vice and assistauce, I shall request you tO attend here for that
purpose ; but in all probability it will not be necessary.
But, before I dismiss you, I will call your attention to one
other case, which is not in the calendar, but of which I have
read the depositions. It is a charge against a surgeon of
manslaughter, that either by negligence, or want of proper
skill, he caused the death of a female inmate of a workhouse.
It is not for me to give any opinion as to the course which
the coroner's jury have chosen to pursue on this occasion ;
but unless the facts appear very different from what are
stated on tile depositions, it is perfectly unjustifiable to find
a verdict of manslaughter against the prisoner. Upon the
law of this subject there is no doubt. The law is, that a
person who holds himself as possessing medical skill is bound
to give that skill wherever required,; and if death result, by
faiilure. of that skill, or from want of the attention which
every medical man is bound to bestow upon his patients, he
is amenable to justice, and is guilty -of manslaughter. But
these are cases which require to be narrowly watched ; and
in no case ought a man to be made a felon (which lie is if
guilty of manslaughter), unless it appears that he broadly
and distinctly violates some well-known rule of practice, or
is guilty of some gross and manifest dereliction of duty in
reference to the party employing him or the party under his
' care. Here you have to consider whether -either. a want.
idetnhase,
case
t
wa s
the
that
usual
s the
of skill or a want of care be made out against the party.
charged; If, according to the evidence,
Practice adopted by the surgeon
and proper practice, and if the deallith the_ deceased appears
to have arisen, not from. the adoption of that practice, but
from the want of due care on the part of the deceased her-
self, in not covering herself up to take care of cold, is a mat-
ter into which you will inquire. You will see whether the-
surgeon is guilty of any subsequent negligence ; if not, it will
e
be your duty to dismiss the
a
strictly watched ; for, even supposing the gentleman accused
be acquitted, the effects upon his professional reputation, and
' upon his peace of mind, generally turn out to. be extremely
I request you to exercise
severe. With these observations, . the facts
_
your own judgment in that case; unless facts be
- different from what I have collected from the depositions,
probably you will have very
.little doubt about the result.
With these observations, I will now dismiss you to your
duties.
The grand jury then withdrew. The petit jury,
bill was were sworn,
but it was half-past three o'clock, before any
re-
turned, where the parties did not plead guilty.

BIGAMY.
- Mary Edteslon (47); indicted for having on the 26th Sep-
tember, 1811, married Samuel Goulding,, at Warrington,—
her husband, Thomas Edleston, whom she married at Liver-
pool on the 28th August, 1814, being still alive,—pleaded
iluilly, and in extenuation urged that her husband had been
a long time away from her, nine years.; and that lie was also
married again. She admitted that her husband had paid her
a small allowance.—Mr. Justice Parke, in passing sentence,
said, that the husband's absence or bigamy was no excuse for

the prisoner's crime, which► however, was not to serious an
offence as bigamy on the part of a husband► because of the
injury inflicted on the female be pretended to marry. His
lordship sentenced the prisoner to four months' imprison-
ment to hard labour in the Kirkdale house of correction.