The Staffordshire and Potteries Examiner. — 1881-01-29 (Stoke-on-Trent, Staffordshire, England)

CROWN COURT.  Before Mr. Commis,ioner Wills, Q.C. The Court opened at 11.30 a.m , vlien the following gentlemen were s,vorn upon the *and Jury :—Sir Charles Clifford, KB., Hatherton H foreman) ; James Motteram, Q. 0., Malley House ; 1-r. Charles James Ashton, Llttlo Orin Hall,; Mr. William Thomas Locker, Pyrehill; Mr. James Solly, Toll End Hall; Mr. dward Mayner, Walton Bury ; Mr. Henry Ward, 'rtodbaston ; Mr. Walter Mainwa.ring Colyney, 'Ashbourne ' • Mr. Robert Heath riddrilpli Grange ; ,Mr. :vtichaclDaintry Hollins, Stoke- a-Trent ; 'fr. Henry Williams, Rockingham flail; Mr. Ed, :rd John Ridgway, Rownall ; Mr. Thomas William Fletcher, Lawneswood ; Mr. Basil Thomas Fitzherbert,-Swynnerton Park ; Mr. Joseph Wm. Williams, Soighford Hall; Mr. Benjamin Armitage, Rowley Rail; Mr. William Adami, Wolstanton ; Mr. Ralph Heaton, Conrtlands ; Mr. Henry Adkins, Key Hill, Birmingham ; Mr. Robert \Vin. Hanbury, Dam Hall ; Mr. Taylor Ashworth, Shelton; Mr. Edward Garrow Garrow-Whilby,Cresswoll Hall.  Iti charging the Grand Jury, the learned Commissioner, after referring to the fact of there being several gentlemen on the jury who had had e e;at experience in criminal matters, which would conr :ably shorten his labours, observed that there were tw 0 cases of murder. With regard to the first of these, the case of James William, who is indicted for the murder of a young woman, he appeared, from his own statement, to have pushed the girl into the canal, in which she was drowned. lie thought they would have no alternative but to return a verdict of wilful murder; and he would respectfully advise them to do so, as he was told that some question would be raised as to the state of the prisoner's mind, which, of course, weuld be investigated when the case came on for trial. The next case was one which would give room for discussion. The prisoner was committed by the magistrates for murder, but by the coroner for manslaughter. In that case it would be desirable to recognise the difference between murder and in inslaughter. It appeared that the prisoner, Adderley, had Some quarrel with a man named Rowe and his wife, which arose between them in Rowe's house. Prisoner knocked Rowe down, and the latter became insensible, and did not remember anything more. The wif a did not appear to have lost her senses, and it was not quite clear what was done after that, as she was not called before the magistrates, and there WM consequently a gap in the evidence. But 'in the evidence given before the coroner it, not appear that anything took place after t band had been knocked down to lead to prov . Shortly afterwards the prisoner appeared to have been crossing the yard connected with the house where Rowe lived, and encountered a woman named Mary Kelley, and in the dark and in a drunken passion he appeared to have mistaken her for Mrs. Rowe, with whom the altercation had arisen. lie knocke,l her down, and kicked her so violently about the body that lie broke five of her ribs. About five days afterwards the nufortunete woman died in the hospital. So far as the ciicumstances were concerned there appeared nothing in the case to reduce the offence from murder to that of manslaughter. A person, whether drunk or sober, who struck another a blow, with a clear intention of doing mischief, under the promptings of anger or other passion' whether the person he struck were the one he intended to strike or not, and if those blows wet eof a nature to show that the person was careless of the consequence of them, it was held in common sense, as well in law, that a case of that kind was a crime of murder. The learned Commissioner then referred to the other case of manslaughter, against Thomas Montgomery, who caused the death of Samuel Simpson, at Cobridge, in the course of a fight, and observed that in this case the deceased gave prisoner a great amount of provocation, which resulted in a fight, during which deceased met with his death. After briefly referring to the other cases in the calendar, the learned Commiesi,mer dismissed the Grand Jury to their duties. Shortly afterwards the jury returned with some true bills, and the Court proceeded with the