The Wolverhampton and Midland Counties Advertiser. — 1876-07-15 (Wolverhampton, West Midlands, England)

STAFFORDSHIRE ASSIZES.  The business of the Assizes was commenced as Tuesday, in the Shirehall at Stafford, when Mr. Justice Grove took his seat in the Crown Court at  a qulrter-past ten. The following justices of the peace for. the county were sworn upon the Grand Jury :—Sir C. M. Wolseley, foreman; Major-General Ewart, C. 8., of Tatenhill ; Mr. J. T . Harland, of Bellamour ; Mr. J. Bourne. Hilderstone ; Mr. F. C. Perry, Du.nston ; Mr. W. T. Locker, Pyrehill ; Mr. W. J6hnson, Rickerscste ; Mr. W. Hicken, itudmore; Mr. A. Sparrow, Preen Manor; Mr. H. Tichborne Davenport, North Rode; Mr. H. Williams, Rockingham Hall; Mr. Walter Williams, Sugnall ; Mr. J. Harrison, Norton Hall; Mr. H. 0. Firmstone, Wollaston; Mr. H. Wiggin, IlletchleY Orange; Mr. H. Cotton, Woodhouse; Mr. H. Smith, Summerhill ; Captain Nugent, Forebridge ; Mr. J. Robinson, Westwood Hall; Mr. G. Ward, Bearnet House; Mr. G. T. Hartley, Tong Castle; Mr. W. H. Rogers, Goldthorne Villa; and Mr. B. Armitage, Rowley Hall. The learned Judge, in his charge, referred to the increase in the number of prisoners for trial, and said that although the increase and the nature of the offences was not such as to cause any alarm, yet it was to be regretted that there should be something like thirty prisoners at that Assizes. Adverting to the charge of child murder against Lucy Jane Barnett, his Lordship said that if the evidence was not strong enough to sustain the indictment for wilful murder, it would be competent for the petit jury to reduce it to manslaughter. From the medical evidence it appeared that the child had been born alive, and it would be a question to be determined by the evi. dence whether death had resulted from strangulation as alleged, or whether it had been caused by negligence. In connection with the charge of manslaughter against Mr. Joseph Stones, one of the partners of a firm owning a steam boiler which had exploded on the 29th of March last, and caused the deaths of three persons, his lordship said it was a very serious case. The prosecution alleged that prior to the accident the defendant had been made acquainted with the defective condition of the boiler. It appeared that the boiler was worked at a pressure of 431,b5., which was what was called a high pressure. The boiler had been in use ten years at defendant's works, and had previously been used at the works of a person named Harris. About two months before the explosion it had been patched, and it was on that occasion that the defendant had been told of the state of the boiler. They would hear, however, that the defendant was in a carriage at the time, and was deaf, or rather hard of hearing. They must remember that although, as in the case of railway companies and other proprietors, the employer was responsible in a civil court for injuries caused to persons or property by the negligence of servants, yet they were not liable to charges of manslaughter. There must be a direct breach of duty to constitute manslaughter. In that case, what they would have to consider was whether there was sufficient evidence to fix knowledge of the state of the boiler on the proprietor. If they were not satisfied that such knowledge existed it would be waste of public time to send the case for trial. After some brief comments on a few other cases, the Grand Jury were dismissed to their duties.