an act, which either amounts to murder or manslaughter, then, you will have to confider whether Jones or Footner were abetting Sellers at the time he committed the fact. Now this I fhould hold to be abetting, that if they faw Mr. Yates coming into the house, and told Sellers to go down with a loaded piftol and fhoot him, and faid, don't let him come in, they (being in the houfe, and telling him to do that) would be guilty as abettors, and would have a fufficient conftructive prefence to warrant their being found guilty upon the allegations of this indictment. This I ftate only as general law: it will be neceffary for you now to attend to the facts, as the witneffes have proved them, and then it will be for you to fee whether this piftol was fired wilfully or accidentally: if wilfully, it is murder; if accidentally, it is manflaughter; and then you will have to pronounce how far Jones and Footner have been abet-, tors in the killing.

[Here the learned judge fummed up the evidence on both fides].

This is the whole of the evidence on the one fide and on the other, and now to apply that evidence to the cafes of the different perfons: Elizabeth Jones and Richard Footner are charged then with being prefent, and aiding and abetting Sellers at the time he fired off this piftol. There is no direct evidence of their being prefent, of their having counfelled him, or having had any thing to do with him. On the contrary, there is very ftrong evidence in favour of both of them, There is evidence in favour of Jones, that at the very firft fight of the piftols the faid fhe would rather leave the houfe than they fhould be there; and that it was not till her attorney and Sellers had interpofed,

and affured her that flie need not
be alarmed, that the would confent
to the piftols being fuffered to stay:
after that, it feems mifs Jones and
Footner expected that there would
be perfons come on the part of
Mr. Yates into the houfe on Mon,
day, and thought it neceffary, to
gether with Sellers, to keep those
perfons out, to prevent Mr. Yates
from turning the tables upon them
and turning them out; and, they
for that purpose, locked all the
doors with Sellers's affiftance, There
is no pofitive evidence as to what
they did at the time Mr. Yates was
endeavouring to get into the house,
there being no pofitive evidence of
that fort, and the story told by Mary
Thompfon not being that which
warrants us in forming a rigid pre,
judice against mifs Jones and Foot-
ner, it appears but juftice for us to
fay that they speak the truth in their
defence, when they fay, they did
not know the piftols were loaded ;'
and Footner, that he knew no-
thing of the matter till he heard the
piftol fired.' If you are of that
opinion you cannot conclude that
they were prefent either by legal
construction, or actually at the
time the piftol was fired; and,
therefore, as to them, it seems you
will have very good ground to ac
quit them as being acceffaries, aid-
ing and abetting in this act of
fhooting; and I think it beft to
difpofe of them firfl, because then
it will leave Sellers's cafe to be con
fidered wholly by itfelf, fubject to
your judgment, I think you will
do no injuftice to your country, but
rather juftice, if you acquit Jones
and Footner of being acceffaries;
there is hardly evidence to draw a
conclufion that muft affect their
lives, if they are found guilty.
Then, as to Sellers, the great point
is, whether this piftol went off by

(D 4) accident

(56)

accident or defign; he had no pre-
vious malice against the deceafed
moft clearly; he knew nothing of
the deceafed till he was invited into
the houfe of Mr. Yates and mifs
Jones by the recommendation of
Mr. Beard and Mr. Biggs; and
when he came into the houfe he
tells you, that Mr. Yates behaved
with a great degree of vicience, and
he was advised by thofe to whom
he thought proper to refer, to have
piftols for his defence. So far then
it feems these arms were brought
into the house to protect this man
and mifs Jones, against any vio-
lence that Mr. Yates (whofe tem-
per was violent) might use against
them; and that the piftols were
brought in for that purpofe; but the
piftols are brought in unloaded. Sel-
lers, therefore, at fome time or other
(and we are not informed when) muft
have loaded them. One of them
is loaded at this hour; and he ac-
knowledged it was loaded with ball;
he knew therefore at the time he
took that piftol up, that it was
loaded with ball. We have no evi-
dence to contradict him, as to his
taking this piftol up upon the im-
pulfe of the moment; but when a
man takes up to dreadful a weapon
as that upon the impulfe of the mo-
ment, without a provocation, it
will not justify him in any impro-
per
ufe he may make of that pistol.
He knew it was loaded, and he
took it up upon the impulfe of the
moment, because he understood
Mr. Yates was forcing his way into
the houfe. He was advifed, and
they all agreed, if they could get
Mr Yates into the garden they
would keep him there till the law
yers of both rarties met, which
was expected in the evening. Mr.
Yates had clearly a right to come
into that houfe again, and any per-

fon who ftopped Mr. Yates from
coming into that houfe was a treí-
pafler, for he was only coming out
of the garden: fome faying it was
a joint and others a permiffive pof-
feffion. Well then, this was a fort
of poffeffion the attorney had told
them in point of policy they were
to deprive them of; but the attor-
ney was not fo wife as to advise
them not to detain him from that
poffeffion by the means of deadly
weapons; but he takes up this wea-
pon, and he comes down ftairs; no
provocation was given to him; he
fees Mr. Yates in a very helpless
ftate, endeavouring to get in at the
window; he tells Mr. Yates,• he
must not come in.' Mr. Yates is
frightened and retreats, and in the
time of retreating the piftol goes
off. It may be faid in Sellers's fa-
vour, that he fired it upon a re-
treating and not upon an advancing
That circumftance is in his
favour. It is faid by Mr. Sellers,
that Mr. Yates touched the piftol,
and fo gave the jar; it is pofitively
faid by the girl, that Mr. Yates did
not touch the piftol, nor could
touch the piftol; and the convería-
tion between Mr. Yates and Sellers
in the garden, if you believe the
witnefs, is, that he asked whether
they were in the act of a fcuffle at
the time the piftol went off; he
faid no, no;' but when he asked
him if he thought the piftol was
fired off maliciously, Mr. Yates
faid, in that very awful moment,

man.

yes, yes.' Whether he would confider the turning afide a pistol a fenffle or not, is for you to turn in your own minds. You have heard what the girl fays now, that he put forth his hand, and he could not touch the piftol. Upon her depofition before the coroner fhe fays his this, that Mr. Yates put out one of

his hands to push away the piftol,
when it immediately went off and
fhot him; he does not fay in that,
whether he touched the piftol or
not; but before the magiftrate the
fays Mr. Yates put his hand toward
the pistol to push it away, and did
pufh it a little afide, and that then
Sellers fired the piftol off. The
giri, therefore, has varied in her
teftimony before the magiftrate
from the teftimony that he has
given this day; he has faid at one
time that he did touch the piftol,
and at another time that he did
not; fhe fays to-day he did not; it
cannot be imputed to any thing
but error and miftake in the girl;
for she has told her ftory with great
fimplicity, but it may be that her
recollection is not perfect. Mr.
Yates has faid that he was fhot ma-
liciously; on the other hand, Sel-
lers fays, that Mr. Yates touched
the pistol, jarred it in his hand, and
that was the occafion of its going
off. If you are of opinion that that
was really the cafe, and that the
piftol went off by accident, then I
think you ought to find Sellers
guilty of manflaughter only; if
you think it went off wilfully, I
think it is a murder of an atrocious
nature. There are a few circumflan-
ces to be obferved upon exclufive of
the act of the pitol itfelf, that
where a piftol does go off by acci-
dent, it is natural for a perfon to
fay immediately, it went off by ac.
cident; but he only fays, he is not
hurt, he is not hurt, and does not
feem to be aware that he has done
any mifchief, nor does he before
the deceased in the garden fay it
was an accident, though he does
fay fo to a witnefs afterwards; he
does not tell Mr. Yates fo, he only
afks him forgiveness; but the time
to have obferved that fhould have
been the very inftant, and that in

the hearing of Mary Thompson;
that being the cafe you will take
that circumftance into your confi-
deration and fee how far it should
weigh in deciding upon his guilt,
had not the girl food contradicted
by herfelf, upon the circumstance
of the piftol not having been touch-
ed by Mr. Yates; the fays one time
he did touch the pistol, at another
time he did not touch the pistol;
but I muft obferve this, that this
piftol muft have been extremely
carelessly ufed by Sellers; he must
have cocked it before he 'went
down, unlefs he was cocking it at
the time; if he carried it down
cocked at the time, he ought to
have been very careful not to have
put that piftol fo near Mr. Yates as
to endanger his life; but that is a
matter perhaps that will affect the
degree of guilt as to the punish-
ment, if you find him guilty of
manflaughter; then here is a cir-
cumftance that will lead you to de-
cide whether the piftol was fired
off accidentally or wilfully. If up-
on the whole you think it was fired
off wilfully, you will find Sellers
guilty of the murder; if, on the
other hand, you think there is not
evidence fufficient to lead you to
fay he fired off this piftol wilfully,
but accidentally, there being no
pofitive and direct proof that it was
fired wilfully, you will find him
guilty of manslaughter only; and
you will remember this, that in a
doubtful cafe, the character of a
man ought always to weigh and
ftand him in good ftead; and if a
man has, during his whole life, as
was ftated by fome of the witneffes.
ever fince 1772, for 24 years; fays
another for 20 years; fays another
he has been uniformly marked for
his humanity and the mildness of
his difpofition; it is a ftrong cir-
cafe
cumftance to weigh in a doubtful

cafe in the man's fate. You will therefore fay, under all thefe circumftances, whether you think there is evidence fufficient to believe he fired it wilfully; if you think fo, you will find him guilty of a moft ferious murder; if you think he fired it accidentally, you will find him guilty of manflaughter, and lefs than that you cannot find him guilty of.

11d. but on the 15th of Auguft 1796, when wheat fold at 40s. 32d. flour was returned at 50s. ; he therefore appealed to the honourable court, whether fome enquiry ought not to be immediately made, or fome method adopted to give every confumer of bread a fair opportunity of purchafing that neceffary commodity at the moft moderate price. It had been fuggefted in another place, and from refpectable authority, that the erection of mills might benefit the public, and that the baker or private confumer might purchafe his own corn, and have it ground on his own account. No doubt every fociety was bound to affift its members, and promote the general benefit; and he conceived that the corporate body of the capital would be highly praifeworthy in promoting the happiness of their industrious poor, and adopting fuch means as may best conduce to fo defirable an end. He did not charge or criminate any fet of men: his duty led him to confider the general intereft of this great city, and while he thought it fair and honourable that the man of bufinefs thould reap the profits of his labour, yet he alfo conceived it was an act of justice, as well as mercy, that the confumer should enjoy his commodity at a reafonable price.

16. A court of common council was held, when the lord-mayor addreffed the court on the expediency of taking into immediate confideration the prefent high price of bread. He obferved, that although the flock of wheat in hand was very confiderable, that great quantities were still importing; that the harveft had been attended with uncommon fine weather, and from univerfal report, with abundant crops, yet the price of flour was ftill very high, and he conceived difproportioned to the price of wheat. He obferved that the mills in the fouthern part of the kingdom, which formerly fupplied the London markets with flour, now, through the medium of canals, fent their produce to the country markets; again, that by the deftruction by fire of the Albion mills, which had fupplied the markets with flour, and which challenged a fair competition with other venders of flour, they now ceafed to operate-in fhort the capi- Deputy Merry perfectly agreed tal now depended on its fupply of with the lord-mayor, and moved, ficur from a confined body of men,That it be referred to a committee whofe motives might be perfectly to take into confideration the causes fair and honourable; but he could of the prefent high price of flour, not reconcile the comparative state- and to make an immediate report ;* ment of the price of wheat and which was feconded by Mr. Powell. flour at different periods with the prefent. In the year 1778, the price of wheat for 52 Mondays was 40s. 9d.flour was fold at 36s. 6d.-again in 1787, wheat was fold at 41s. 1d.-flour at 32s.

Alderman Pickett complimenting the lord-mayor for his public exertions, hoped that the motion would convey to the public that it originated from the information fa properly conveyed by the lord

mayor; but it was conceived by the court more proper, that the fentiments of the court fhould be made in a feparate motion, and again Mr. deputy Merry moved, That the thanks of the court be given to the right hon. the lordmayor, for his extenfive information refpecting the high price of flour, which operates fo much to the prejudice of the public,' which was immediately feconded by alderman Pickett.

Deputy Merry then moved for A committee to be appointed, to confift of the lord-mayor, court of aldermen, and one commoner from each ward, to take into confideration the causes of the high price of flour, while grain is cheap, and to make a speedy return of the beft means of removing fo oppreffive an evil.'

This morn

Liverpool, Sept. 17. ing, a little before one o'clock, a most dreadful fire broke out in a large warehouse, belonging to Mr. Hervey, in Cheapfide; which, notwithstanding every poffible exertion, could not be got under till the whole warehoufe, with all its valuable contents, was confumed. The top part was occupied by Mr. Middleton, as a cotton manufactory, where the fire broke out; occafioned, as is fuppofed, by the friction of one of the wheels employed in the works. In the lower part were eleven thousand meafures of wheat, belonging to meffrs. Corrie, Gladstone, and co. which, with a large quantity of hides, rum, brandy, and other fpirits, were entirely deftroyed. About three o'clock, the front part of the warehoufe fell into the ftreet, directly upon one of the fire-engines that was then working, which occafioned a fcene of horror impoffible to be defcribed; three men were

crushed to pieces on the fpot; ten
more were carried to the infirmary
in a dreadful fituation, two of whom
died immediately. Two of the de-
ceafed were foldiers belonging to
the Tay Fencibles; the others are
a butcher and two of the people
belonging to the engine.

17. William Clerk was indicted
for the wilful murder of Michael
Conner, a boy of ten years of age,
by driving over him the Newmar-
ket mail coach.-It appeared in
evidence, that on the 16th of Au-
guft, the duke of York's birth-day,
a great concourfe of people hap-
pened to be affembled in Bishopf-
gate-ftreet, and this mail coach
came driving up at a furious rate, in
confequence of which the boy,
Michael Conner, was run over, and
wounded in fuch a manner, that
he died. Several witnesses were
called to prove that fufficient warn-
ing had not been given of the ap-
proach of the mail coach; but it
was not clearly afcertained whether
the noife of the perfons affembled
had not prevented the blowing of
the horn from being heard. Seve-
ral witneffes proved the general
good character, fobriety, and good
nature of the prifoner. He did not
know of the accident having taken
place till he was ten miles out of
town, and had expreffed much for-
row upon the occafion. Mr. Bol-
ton, coachmafter, bore teftimony
to the prifoner's character, and
likewife faid, that the contractors
for the mail-coaches were obliged
to reach the place of their deftina-
tion in a given time, which made it
neceffary to drive with great rapi-
dity. Similar teftimony was given
by other perfons. The jury with-
drew, and were out of court up-
ward of two hours. When they
returned, they pronounced the pri-
foner, not guilty; but the foreman,

in