The Liverpool Standard, and General Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1854-12-19 00:00:00

ON Tuesday morning, Ti.

Justice 1

tending Divine

ed to St. George's-hall; wl
his seat in the Crowr

ntlemeu were sworn On

THE GRAND JURY.
John Cheethaln, Esq., M.P., Eastwood, Stalybrid

Henry Ashworth. Esq.. The Oaks, Bohol
Robert Benn,.Esq., Liverpool.
Thomas Brooks,,Esq., Sunnyside, Warrii
Edmund Buckley, Esq.. Manchester.
John Chapman, Esq.' Hill-end, Mottram
John Crossley, Esq.,Scaitcliffe
Charles James Darbysl
Robert Gill, Esq., AIL

3, Liverpool

Henry Gray, Esq., Liverpool.
John Grundy, Eso.., The Dales, Stand, Manch
James Heald, Esq., M.P., Parr's Wqod, Didsb
William Leaf,.Esq., Manchester.
Henry Newsham Pedder, Esq., Preston.
Richard Pennington, Esq., HiAley-lodge, Wigai
James Pilkington, Esq., Blackburn.
Richard Pilkington. Esq., Windle-hall, St. Helens.
Harold Potter; Esq., Colthnrst, near Clitheroe.
Richard Smethurst, jun., Esq., Duxbury-park, '
James Aspinalt Tobin, Esq., Liverpool.
Jamr kA":- ' louse

Aspina, arner, Esq., Pendlebury.;
John Hayward Turner, Lsq., Liverpool.

Ir. Justice
t, and the

Er, the grand jury

The learned JUDGE, in addressii
said, they would have to inquire i
cases, several of them of painful importance_
tive of the state of crime throughout the, county
he did not anticipate that their task would be long
or difficult, because in very many cases, by the satis-
factory exertions of the police, the offenders had been
very promptly apprehended, and the proofs clearly col-
lected with regard to them. The calendar also afforded
grounds for his expressing satisfaction with respect to the
crime of the highest magnitude that of murder.

ato a good many

as indica-
Still

There was but one charge for that offence, and, in respect
of it, he gathered from the depositions that the act was
committed by the prisoner when she was not in possession
of her senses. From what he had seen of the depositions,
he was of opinion that the guilt of murder was not to be
apprehended with respect to that charge. Of the crime of
manslaughter there were thirteen cases. In several of
these the charge would consist of an unlawful act, not of
one highly criminal. One case was a little out of the
ordinary course—a charge of causing the death of a toll-
gate-keeper by driving over him. The party accused was
endeavouring tolmss the gate wrongfully, when he had no
ticket, and the ateased was expostulating with him. The
deceased, therefore, was in the lawful discharge of his
duty ; and if it was made out to the jury that the accused
drove on and over the party who, in discharge of his duty,
demanded that he should either show .a ticket or pay the
toll, the jury would find a true bill. There was one
other charge of manslaughter rather out of the usual
course—a charge against a person, in the business of a
chemist, practising as a medical man upon the occasion of
a woman being taken in labour. The medical man who
was expected not being found at home, the prisoner seemed
to have offered his services to attend the deceased, and to
have used considerable violence, according to the opinion
of the medical men who saw her afterwards, with a gross
want of skill, and by reason of that violence the death of
the woman ensued. If it was established that there was
great want of skill, and the party chose to offer himself
for a service for which he was by no means competent, and
by reason of his interference death ensued, it would be
their duty to brine in a bill against the prisoner. There
were some cases which were most painful. In one a father
was charged with striking his wife in the course of some
domestic quarrel about a trifling matter, and afterwards
with striking his daughter upon the head, which brought
about her death. There was also a charge against a hus-
band who had separated from his wife, and who, when his
wife called to make some application to him, struck her
down, and hit her with such violence ou the head as to
produce an injury from which death ensued. These,
if borne out by the evidence, were cases of the greatest
magnitude, approaching almost, in guilt, the highest
crime, and indicative of very reckless crime on the part of
those so accused. There were five or six charges of
stabbing in the calendar, but they did not call for any
particular remark. With respect to the class of offences
against property with violence, there were 31 burglaries,
a large number ; and a large number of robberies on the
highway, 19. There was more than oue charge against
parties, with their faces blacked, and armed with danger-
ous weapons, entering houses and causing great terror.
There were 19 charges of robbing on the highway, 13 of
which were of the peculiarly dangerous class. (The
learned judge minutely described the garotting process.)
These cases required the very careful consideration of those
who attended to the repression of crime, since the victim
scarcely ever recognised more than one of his assailants,
and this one might be apprehended, while three or four
others might remain at large. Having alluded to some
minor offences, the learned judge said there were two
charges of bigamy, one having the peculiarity that both
woman and 'man were equally guilty, the second wife
having married the husband after receiving notice from
the first, that the latter intended to separate from him,
and after receiving a warning that the results of the union
might• be as unhappy to the second as they had been to the
first wife. After a few general remarks, his lordship con-
cluded his charge, and the grand jury retired to their
room. • •

TRIALS OF PRISONERS
(Before Mr. Justice Erle):

MINT CASES.—John Gallagher, Rose Bergen, semp-
stress, and Maria Fagan, hawker, were charged with the
fabrication of base coin. They were all . found guilty ;
Fagan was sentenced to six, and Bergen to four years'
penal servitude, and Gallagher to twelve months' imprison-
ment with hard labour.— Robert Williams, alias James
Brown, stonemason, was charged with passing a base
shilling. He was found guilty, and having beeii pre-
viously convicted of a similar offence, he was sentenced to
be imprisoned for eighteen months with hard labour.
BUBGLAUY. Daniel Kennedy, joiner, and James
Thorneley, factory-worker, were charged with two
burglaries in Bolton—one on the.night of the 16th, the
other on the night of the 18th of August. • There were
several other charges against the prisoners. They were
found guilty, and sentenced to six years' penal servitude.

(BcfOre Mr. Justice Crompton.)

GAROTTE ROBBERIES.— Thomas Doran, alias Fletcher,
labourer, was charged with having, about midnight on the

27th of August list, in Market-street, *Manchester, in
company with a female, seized by the throat and rifled
the pockets of Mr. Brown, a ropemaker, The prisoner
was found guilty, and a former conviction having been
proved against him, he was sentenced to fifteen years'
transportation.— Thomas. Handley, soldier in uniform, and
Thos. Darcey, hawker, were indicted for a similar offence,
committed at Manchester, on the person of Jas. Fielding,
bookkeeper, at Bury, on the 17th of November. The
prisoners were found guilty, and each sentenced to fifteen
years' transportation. Handley has previously been con-
victed of burglary, and Darcey of robbery.—Mary LeC,
sempstress, and Catherine Glass, hawker, charged with
stealing money and clothing from Henry Ibbs, of Charter-
street:Manchester, with whom Lee lodged, were discharged,

WEDNESDAY. •
(Before Mr. Justice Erie.)

BIIRGLA.RIES.-- Patrick Dalton, tailor, was charged with
having burglariously entered the house of Martin Paton,
of Bold-street, Stretford, near Manchester, early on the
morning of the 7th September last, and stolen therefrom
three coats and a pair of boots. The prisoner was found
guilty, and sentenced to twelve months' imprisonment,
with hard labour.—James Stott, collier, and Charles
Hulme, collier, were indicted for having, on the 13th of
August, broken ' into the dwelling-house of James John-
stone, Mawdesley-street, Bolton, and stolen a watch and
guard, a coat, and other property. Stott pleaded guilty.
Hulme, who was found guilty, had been previously con-
victed, and was sentenced to four years' penal servitude;
Stott to fifteen months' imprisonment.—Thomas Green, a
well-dressed young man, an engraver, was charged with
having, on the evening of the 6th of November, broken
into a warehouse in the occupation of William Archer
Jenner, and, after blowing up the safe with gunpowder,
stolen therefrom £7 9s. 4d., a bag, and a piece of paper.
The jury returned a verdict of guilty, and the prisoner
was sentenced, to penal servitude far; six.years.—James
Thompson, labourer, was indicted for burglariously enter-
ing the house of William Kenyon, farmer, of Great Heaton,
and stealing a pair of boots and'a cap. Verdict, guilty.
Sentenced to six months' imprisonment—MaryLightfoot,
servant, was indicted for having burglariously broken out
of the house of William Once, a farmer and shopkeeper,
at Bold, on the •morning of the 9th October, and stolen a
desk,-containing£ll. She was found guilty, and sentenced
to eighteen' months' imprisonment, with hard labour.—
Thomas Burke, labourer, was indicted for having, on the
17th October, burglariously entered the hohse of Mr.Thos.
Whalley, and stolen £9 in money, and various articles of
plate and jewellery. The prisoner was found guilty, and
sentenced to penal servitude for four years.—Geo. Thomas,
alias Gal Thompson, a Stonemason, pleaded guilty to
an indictment charging him with feloniously breaking
into the house of William -Webster, at Windle, and steal-
ing several articles of wearing apparel, a guinea, and other
money, on the 26th March last. Sentenced to eighteen
months' imprisonment.— Win. Gregan, labourer, Robert
Catterall, labourer; Joseph GoOdier, spindle Aurner, and
Robert Goodier, a baker, were indieted—for having,. at
Moss-side, on the oth November, burglarious* broken
into the dwelling-house of Sarah Taylor, • with intent to
plunder.- Gregan and Catterall pleaded guilty. The jury
returned a verdict of guilty ; but his lordship explained
that Robert Goodier had been in communication with the
police from the first, and on that consideration no evidence
had been offered against him. The jury, therefore,
acquitted him, • s _ _ _ _

ker, were inc