On this page
- Departments (2)
-
Text (5)
-
Untitled Article
-
ie Printed by DOUGAL M'GOWAN, of 17, Great Mndm'H ; street," Uaymarleet, in the City of Westminster , nit""-
-
Untitled Article
-
%<®m foiteUtpnte
-
Untitled Article
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
-
-
Transcript
-
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.
Untitled Article
XORFOLK CIRCUIT .
Norwich Arm * 5 . —Hobmbm MaxsiacghieH ; — Baraari& and Henrv Chipperfield were in-Sf&rtheliuu ^ laugliter of John Ainess The dSed waTasmall f ^ ner , residing at Foulsbam jXcounty , and was about 74 years of age ,. The tXer Eglington is theson ofafanner at Foulsham , Jndthe prisoner CMpperfield is a tailor in the same Sace . It appeared in evidence that on Friday , the 21 st February last , about ten o ' clock in the morning , tiie prisoner * Chipperficld went into a public-house kept by a man of the name of Clithero ; after he had been there a short time the prisoner Eglington came in , and seeing John Amess ( the deceased ) passing by , he * beckoned him in . Soon afterwards other persons came in , and with them two German dancing girls ; they continued there the whole day drinking together
the deceased was danced and pulled about , and made the laughing stock of the whole party . About six o'clock in the evening the prisoner Eglington sent the landlord ' s son for threepenny worth of jalap , to give to the deceased . The quantity purchased was sufficient for six doses . The boy , on his return , gave the jalap to Eglington , "who immediately called for a glass of beer , which was brought to him in the passage by one of the landlord ' s daughters j lie put tlic first part of the jalap Mo the gla ^ , and gave it to deceased , and he drank it . The prisoner Eglington then put the rest of the jalap into three other glasses of beer , and gave tLem to the deceased , all of which he drank . The prisoner Chipperiield then got up and danced the deceased about , and as he fell on his
knees they kept pulling him up again . One of the German girls was playing a tambourine , and the rest o the company were making a great noise , singing am shouting . The deceased was very drunk , and coul < not stand . The prisoner Eglington then unfastened the old man ' s leathern girdle , and pulled his clothes over his face and head , so that he could not see , and then pushed him naked on to the fire . Several persons were in the room laughing and making merry , and did not offer any assistance . Deceased called out several times , "Barney , don't bum mc , " andheput one of Ms hands on to the hot bars and raised himself up , and got off the fire into his chair , and soon after fell on to the fire , and then oh to the tioor ( this was about eirfit o ' clock in the evening ) . The deceased
rubbed his tbigh' and knee , and complained very much of being-burnt . " The poor old man was then carried out of the room into the back kitchen , and laid on the floor , where he remained about au hour groaning most pitiably . They afenrardsput the deceased into a wheelbarrow , and the prisoner Eglington took hold of the barrow and said , "I will turn the old beggar ont , " -which he did . The prisoner Chippcrfield and the landlord ' s son then lifted him np , and earned him into the kitchen , and put him on a seat near the fire . In this state the deceased was left for the night , and about five o ' clock in the morning he left the house , and went home with a handkerchief tied round his head , as the prisoner Eglington had burned his hat the day before . The deceased , on his reaching home , veniio bed . Be then told his vr ' ife that he had been shamefully used , and she perceived his
thigh and knee much burnt . On the Sunday week following ( the 2 nd of March ) she went for the surgeon , and he attended the deceased until the following day about noon , when he died . The deceased had two burns on the lower part of his back ; one appeared as if inflicted by a broad piece of iron , similar to the top bar of a grate , the left hand was very much burnt , and there were also burnings on the left thigh six inches in . length . From the evidence of the surgeon , it appeared that the body of the deceased was in a perfectly healihr state , and that lie died from exhaustion produced by the profuse discharge from his wounds . The learned Judge stated there was little or no evidence against the prisoner Chipperfield , and directed the jury to acquit him . Mr . Dasent addressed the jury for the prisoner Eglington . After a long consultation the jury returned a verdict of Guilty . Sentence deferred .
THE MUBDER AT GREAT YARMOUTH . Norwich , Moxpat , ArniL 7 . —Robert Richard Royal , aged 2 i ; James Mapes , aged 24 ; and James Hall , aged 21 , pleaded "Xot Guilty" toanindictmeni charging them with the wilful murder of Harriet Candler , at Great Yarmouth , on the 18 th of November Jast . Jfr . Palmer and Mr . O'Malley conducted the case for the prosecution ; Mr . Prendergast defended $ he prisoners Royal and Hall ; and Mr . Couch appeared for Mapes . Mr . O'Malley , in consequence of the unavoidable absence of Mr . Pahner , proceeded to open the case , and fremhls statement , coupled with the testimony of numerous witnesses , the following circumstantial outline of the facts connected with this bloody deed might be gathered : — Thedeceased , Harriet Candler , was an old woman ,
occupying a . portion of a house in Howard-street , in Great "Yarmouth , where she carried on general business , dealing in grocery and tobacco , in the front room , and "keeping" andjsleeping in two others at the back . These rooms , which were all on the ground floor , are separated from others occupied by a Mr . Catehpole . in the same house , by a passage , the walls being of lath and plaster only , through which the slightest noise could be heard . Mr . Catchpolc , it appears , is a solicitor , and occupied apartments in these premises asthe lodger of aman named Yarham , who as well as his wife acted as his servant . Not long before her death Mrs . Candler had received a legacy , "which had been long anticipated by her , and had frequently been talked of by her very unguardedly ,
and men it did come she openly mentioned the sum , which she said had fallen short of her expectation , its amount being only £ 150 , which she had been paid by achequefoi-jlOOon abank , and in notes and gold , all of which she was undoubtedly well known by her iieigkbours to have in her possession . Living alone in her shop , the old lady was in the habit of going regularly every night about ten o ' clock for her beer to the Black Swan public-house , hard by her house . On the night in question she went as * usual , and having chatted a bit with the people there , and drunk a little of her beer , she went back again . After this she was not seen alive by any one but the person 01 ' peisons at wlose hand slie met her death . At two o'clock in tlic morning , police-constables Waller and
Johnson were going their rounds through Howardstreet , and as they passed the bouse of the deceased one of them pushed againsttlic door , onwhichit gaye way . On entering they found the shop and parlour in darkness , but by the light of their lanterns they could see that a candlestick was on the counter , while on the parlour table stood the unfinished beer and the remains of a frugal meal , which plainly showed that the old woman had been disturbed not long after her return from the Black Swan . Not being able to malic any one hear , though they frequently knocked with their truncheons against the counter and partitions , they lighted the candle , and on examining the counter , behind which was the tilldrawer , they discovered the body of the deceased .
quite cold and dead , doubled up on the floor in a pool of blood , her throat being deeply cut on one side , while her head was almost smashed by blows dealt on the back with seme blunt instrument s as if she had been struck in the act of stooping to get something from beneath the counter . On the counter near the body was a knife covered with lard and blood . As soon as the sergeant came from the station-house the ahum was given , and among other persons the inmates in Mr . Caichpoic ' s house were roused up , the bell being answered by Yarham from a window . When Leeamedownjlieinanswcrtotiieinquiriesofthe police replied ibat he had 2 iot heard any noise in Mrs . Caudler ' s house , though he had been sitting up all night for his master tiirbne o ' clock , and that he had
been to buy some rashlishts at her shop that night at ten o ' clock , wheu he saw and conversed with her , and left her well , ^ withstanding this , the police veiy properly searched the adjoining premises , and though nothing was found io implicate Yavliam . he was taken into custody , as well as the prisoners at the bar , against whom suspicion was directed in consequence of their having been seen loitering about the premises on the evening before the murder and after it during the night . The strongest circumstance , however , arose ftom the discovery of a bag of money , bearing the superscription "Mrs . Candler , by rail to Yarmouth , " which was found secreted in in the " Denes / ' a sandy district surrounding Yarmouth , by two women on tbeniornins after the
murder , who , observing that the sand had recently been disturbed near a heap of broken glass , conceived that the latter had been erected as a landmark to guide ¦ the murderers to the recovery of their plunder . They accordingly dug near the footmarks of two men , which they particularly noticed at the time , and very soon came to the bag and money . While so employed they saw the prisoner Royal hanging over SDme palings not far off , and apparently watching tnem , ~ and they were soon afterwards joined by him , when he said , " There ought to be a cheque too . " The property so singularly recovered was placed in tie hands of the police , and it bein ? stated by a private watchmaH that two men resembling Royal and Manes had been seen coin * towards ihc " Denes , "
and to stoop down at the identical spot , those two men were arrested . Xothinsr , however , came out to justify their committal , and the parties suspected were all discharged . On further consideration they were again taken up , and on the 30 th of December the shoes of Royal and Mapes were examined and pronounced by the women to make impressions exactly resem wing those they liad noticed in the sand . Beyond these very vague circumstances there was nothing whatever to implicate the prisoners in the commision of the murder , except the evidence of the man Yarham , who about the same time professed hisreadiness to make a statement of what he knew ; and ultimately disclosed the following facts , which we give as narrated to-day by him before the jury in the following form ;—
Samuel Yarham . —I am a shoemaker , of Great nf ™ , ' ™ occupied the premises in which Mr . Gatchpole resided . My wife lived with me . I slept fcindwT i oil " * s Mr- Catchpole's , over Mre . SoftlL ^ ^ i- ^ Vlellvedthereat the SS . T ' f . i went out aea > - six o ' clock T ^ wl ^ S , * ? ldine ****** was going , and also whe ^ lie should return home . lilv wife was ill
Untitled Article
that night with a pain in the back of her neck . Mr . Pasbwood attended her . She went to bod at hah-past ten , and had some leeches on that night , which my sister Harriet put on . I was sitting up in my room for Mr . Catchpole , and had prepared some gruel ; 1 was in my keeping-room next to the kitchen down stairs . The keeping-room is separated from the hall in which the staircase is by a wall . I went out of my house at a quarter-past ten o ' clock on the night of the 18 th of November , and went to Mrs . Candler ' s to get two rushlights . She served me , and I had some conversation with her . My wife was then down stairs . In a quarter of an hour after my return my wife -went up to bed ; and I went up about eleven o ' clock . I came down again in a few
minutes after . I came into the hall , and then heard a noise in Mrs . Candler ' s shop ; it was a scuffling noise , as if some people were walking about . I went to Mr . Catchpole ' s front door , and into the street to Mrs . Candler ' s front door , which I found fastened . I tried the door and knocked . Ko one answered . I saw a light through the fanlight over the door . There was something across the window . I saw in at the sides , and I then went through Mr . Catchpole ' s house into the back yard , and saw the reflection of a light through Mrs . Candler ' s keeping-room window , which I knocked at over the wall which separates her premises from Mr . Catchpole ' s . No one answered me . I then came back again through the hall into the street and stood on the step of Mr .
Catchpole's door . While I was standing there I saw two men ; one man was crossing the street , and the other coming out of Mrs . Candler ' s shop-door . The man crossing had a bundle under bis »; the man ^ coining out of the shop-door put his hand np to put aside some obstruction to its shutting and then he put the door to . A man and a woman were standing near Houchen's-iw . It was Royal who was coming out of the door . I said , " What are you about ? " He said , " Go on , Jickey , " or Jigger , I don't know which . He said to big , " B—t you , if you say anything , I'll serve you the same . " I said , " What do you mean ?" He said , " We were told she'd got some money , and we've been after , or have got it , " I can't say which .
Whilst I was speaking to him the man who was crossing went up Houchen ' s-row , and the man and woman previously standing there followed . I again spoke to Royal , who said . " E—t you , if you say anything , I'll serve you out ; " and asked if I lived there ? He then said , " I'll give you a sovereign . " When he "b d"me , I asked him where was the woman ? He said he'd not seen her . I asked , " Wasn't she at home ? " and he said , " We knocked her down behind the counter . " I said , "Good God ! you ' ve notkilled the woman ? " and he said , " I don't think we have , but I left her there—don't blow of an old playfellow , and you shall have a share in the dole . " He then followed the other party up the same row . I then took the candlo which was standing in Mr .
Catehpole ' s hall and went into the shop . 1 went behind the counter on the right hand side , and saw nothing ; I then went to the left hand counter , and saw the body of Mrs . Candler under the counter . I felt yery much alarmed , and went back into our keeping-room , and considered about it . I remained there two hours , till Mr . Catchpole came home , who came home about half-past one o'clock . I saw him when he came home , and he went to bed about halfpast one o ' clock , and so did I . When I had been in bed au hour and a half I was awakened by a ringing of the bell . Hooked out of the window , and saw Sergeant Williments . I have since seen the man who was crossing the street , and sec Mm here to-day ; it is the prisoner Hall .
lhe witness was severely cross-examined by Mr . Prendergast , but without eliciting anything new or contradictory . Sarah Tai-hani , wife of the previous witness , was next examined , but her evidence was not important . At the close of the case for the prosecution , Air . Pkexdeeoasi rose to address the jury on behall of Royal and Hall , and in the course of his address imputed to the witness Yarham the whole guilt of this most mysterious ease ; concluding with the intimation of Ms intention to disprove the case against Ms clients by witnesses , who would show that they were at two public-houses at different parts of the town at the time when the murder was perpetrated When the learned counsel had brought llis speech to a conclusion , His Lordship adjourned the further hearing of the case till to-morrow morning .
The "Verdict . —April 8 . —The above trial was resumed- this morning at eight o ' clock , when Mr . Crouch proceeded to address the jury for the prisoner Mapes , on whose behalf , as had been done with respect to the other prisoners , an alibi was opened . At ttWJ close of the learned gentleman ' s address a great number of witnesses were called , with the view of establishing no less than three alibis . The examination and cross-examination of these parties went to considerable length , hut the details of their testimony may be briefly dismissed by the statement that they showed all the prisoners to have been at different public-houses in Yarmouth at the time the murder was perpetrated , no two of them having ever been seen together on the night in questien by any of the
deponents . Mr . Justice Patteson , in summing up the evidence to the jury , intimated Ms concurrence in the admission made " by Mr . O'Malley , that the case depended on Yarhani ' s testimony . The circum stantial evidence was clearly insufficient to convict any of the prisoners , and as Yarham swore to Hall as as well as Koy al and Mapes , it -was difficult to see how he could be believed if it was admitted that he had been well answered by the witnesses called by Hall . The jury , having consulted together for nearly ten minute ? , returned a verdict of A ot Guilty generally , a result which elicited some demonstrations of applause from the gallery . These however were soon quelled , and there only remaining one more case for trial , the court , was comparatively deserted in a very few moments .
NORTHERN CIRCUIT . ACTION AGAKfST A -MAGISTRATE FOR ILLEGAL IMPIUSONIIENT . WILLIAM LEIGU ( K / ttinSt THE UOS . C 0 L 1 S L 1 SBSAY . Such is the heading of a cause tried en Saturday last at Liverpool , and which excited intense interest in the extensive coal district of Lancashire . Our readers will recollect the circumstances of the case , as they were detailed in this paper in September last . A poor collier—the onty support of an aged father and mother—was taken into custody about the 20 th of August last , and kept in the loek-up till the 23 rd , when , notwithstanding his earnest request that the case might be postponed till legal . assistance could be procured , this was peremptorily refused ; and iu the
course of a few minutes the poor fellow was on his way to gaol for two montiis and hard labour ! The charge against him was that he had " absented himself without leave ; " it being impossible for him to earn a living where he was , he had obtained work elsewhere—not , as before stated , merely to gratify Ms own wants , but to support his parents . This conduct the magistrate considered to be a " misdemeanour , " and sentenced his victim accordingly . We take our report of the trial from the local papers . Liverpool , April 5 . —Leigh v . Lindsay . —Tnrtjmi'H of Right over Might . —This was an action of trespass imprisonment . Mr . Baines , Mr . Addison , and ib * . Fry , appeared for the plaintiff ; Mr . Knowles and Mr . Cowling for the defence . Mr . Baincs
stated Vm ease . He said the plaintiff in this case was a person of humble rank , being a worker iu tlic coal-pits of a person of the name of Whallcy . The defendant was " the Hon . Colin Lindsay , son of the Earl of lialeavras , and a magistrate of the county . The grievance of which lie complained was that of having been imprisoned for twenty-five days in the gaol at Kirkdale . Dining that time he was dressed in the 2 > rison dress , lived on the prison fare , and was kept to hard labour pursuant to the prison discipline . He was silso put to great expense in procuring his liberation by habeas corput . The plaintiff , as stated , had been in the employment of Mr . Whalley , at Inec , near Wigan , and on the 23 rd of August last he was brought before the defendant and charged by Whalley .
under the 4 th George IV ., an Act for Regulating Disputes between Masters and Servants , with absenting himself from his employment . Under that Act a magistrate sitting alone , acting both as judge and jury , has the power of sending the party complained against to gaol for three months . The powers thus conferred were very large . The charge against Leigh was that of having contracted , in the first instance , to enter into the employment of Messrs . "VVhaley and Co ., and then absenting himself from that employnicntwithout proper notice ; and untler that Act of Parliament a single magistrate sitting alone was empowered to act as judge aud jury . His decision was absolutely binding : he might , upon the single oath of the party complaining ; , the other party not
being heard at all , direct that the person complained against should be sent to gaol and kept to hard labour for three months ; and therefore the power given by the Act was of the very strongest nature , and one which ou ^ 'ht to be most cau tiously exercised , not only with regard to the individual upon whom it Avas exercised , but in order to satisfy the public that justice was done . He could not say tliut it was illegal for the Hon . Colin Lindsay to sit as a magistrate under this statute ; but , seeing that he w . -is the son of Lord Balcarras , one of tins greatest con ] m , islcri } m tlic county , it did ; i [>[ ic . ii' to iiim ( Mr . Baincs ) , that tin ' s was a case in which he would have exercised a wise discretion if li « had declined to act . In several recent statutes the legislature had provided that mnslcm who weve
Lhmiselves interested in the matter in dispute should nut act as justices . In the Masters' and Servants' Act , however , that provision was wanting . Air . Colin Lindsay , therefore , could not be charged with violating the law ; but it would be more satisfactory if in cases where colliers were brought for trial he would leave the decision to magistrates who were not like himself interested in the decision ; at all events lie should decline to act alone . However , he did preside as judge , and he adjudicated that the plaintiff had been guiltv of absenting himself from his employment . He ( Mr . Baincs ) did Tiot " Know whether it was competentlbr himself and his learned friend win geared for the defendant , to discuss the question ¦ : ner or not the man was guilty of the offence laid to his charge : and therefore he" would not state the evidence
Untitled Article
he had on that point . The Hon . Colin ' . Lindsay issued his warrant ; and , as Ins lordship would tell the jury , that warrant was so perfectly illegal in itself , that it was wanting in almost every requisite which such a warrant should have . After the plaintiff had been in gaol for more than three weeks , upon the tread-mill , upon this illegal warrant , he was set at liberty upon an application to Mr . Justice Wightmax , in the Court of Queen ' s Bench . The prisoner was brought up by a writ o ! habeas corpus ; and thaf learned judge , upon looking at the warrant , declared it to be defective , and the plaintiff was sot at liberty . He presumed he could not , in this action , enter into the mevits of the conviction . If he could W ¦ would most willingly do so , but the consideration of the iurv would be " directed to the warrant which Mowed
that conviction , and which would be found to be perfectly illegal , and wanting in every necessary requisite . On this warrant the p'aintilf suffered impnsonmentfor twentv-fivc days , until he was liberated by habeas corpus . * It did not show that the witnesses in support of the complaint had been examined in the prisoner ' s presence . It did not show a contract for anv specific time , and , for aught that appeared , even the ahVcd absenting of himself from his work , might have been with tlae consent of his master . He apprehended the only question in this case would be the amount of damages , and these , he thought , the jury should give with a liberal hand . These tribunals In which tlic accused was deprived of the protection of a jury , where single magistrates were clothed with such extensive powers , should be most strictly
watched , and when either trom -ffiltulnessor carelessness they did \ vvo » g , tlifc p&vty suffering sxicb wrong should receive an ample recompense . He ( Mr . Babies ) apprehended that the moment his lordship looked at the warrant , this became ^ perfectly undefended cause ; . and then the only question would be , what amount of damages the plaintiff was eniitlei to . He took it , in the first place , that the jury would give liberal compensation in damages for the injury the plaintiff had sustained , and the hardship he had endured , in consequence of this illegal imprisonment ; and he should also contend that he was entitled to damages for the expense to which he had been put m obtaining Ms discharge . He had been put to the expense of obtaining his liberation , and the defendant had not thouqht proper to tender him one single farthing
in reparation . It was provided by the law , that a magistrate should have a month ' s notice oi' action given to him in cases of this nature , in order that lie might have an opportunity of tendering to the party aggrieved what might be sufficient amends for the inj ury sustained . If he did not do that , ho might , after the commencement of the action , pay the money into court , and then tlic plaintiff would proceed further at his peril ; hut neither before nor after the commencement of the action had the defendant offered to make any reparation . After reading the decisions of two or three learned judges in similar cases , the leavned counsel said he would leave the case in the hands of the jury ; and though the plaintiff was a poor man , and the defendant one of the wealthiest in the county , he trusted that they would meet with an equally fair
measure of justice . —Mr . Edmund Gribbs , governor of the Kii'kdale House of Correction , produced a commitment , signed by the Hon . Colin Lindsay , under which the prisoner remained in custody from the 24 th of August to the 17 th of September , and was kept to havd labour . Witness accompanied the _ prisoner to London when brought up under a writ of habeas corpus . On that occasion the prisoner was discharged by Mr . Justice Wightman . Witness had been paid his expenses by Mr . Roberts , Leigh ' s attorney ; the expenses were £ 11 odd . — Mr . William Prouting Roberta stated that he was an attorney and solicitor . Was in August last employed to obtain the liberation of Leigh . Went to London at the hearing . Paid the expenses of the governor of the gaol . Paid the fare of Lcisrh back . Produced the account of law charges .
Served notice of action on the 14 th December , at Haigh-hall , the residence of the Earl of Balcarrns , where the defendant resides . Cross-examined : I live at Newcastle-on-Tyne , and carry on business as an attorney there , and in London and Manchester . I have three offices . I attend all three as far as I can . Newcastle is my principal residence . I knew nothing of Leigh before this . My profession is principally among colliers , The colliers subscribe to a general fund . I have not been paid these costs out of that fund . The colliers ' subscription is partly for the purpose of paying those who are out of employ , and the paying law costs . The latter generally come tome . I have a salary , and I am also paid what costs avo incurred in each particular instance . By the costs incurred I mean
the costs out of pocket . I do not consider my salary a lavgc one . I did not think I should succeed in obtaining the discharge of the plaintiff on the habeas corpus . I have not been able to serve personal notice on the proprietor , Mr . Whalley , who was ill in bed . I saw his son , and gave it to him , and he told me it had been received by Mr . Whalley . I had some doubt if this was sufficieut , and I knew Mr . Justice Wightman was very particular . No part of this bill has been paid me . My salary only extends to work done in the county of Lancaster . I expect the defendant to pay me these costs . If he docs not , and Leigh has the power to pay , I would look to him . I do not think I shall apply to him . If the defendant docs not pay , and Leigh cannot , I would apply to the general fund . I did not consult tlic colliers on the KuowlesWhat is
case , before acting . —Mr . : your salary for \ I don't think I have made myself thoroughly understood . By the costs which avc incurred , I mean the costs out of pocket . —Oh , you have a salary , and the costs out of pocket ? A salary , and the costs out of pocket . —May I ask what your salary is ? II' you have any delicacy upon the subject , I will not particularly press the question . If you don't like to answer it , I will not press the question . I will answer it , if you press it . —It is rather a large salary , I believe ? I don ' t consider it so . — You say the habeas was taken out in London without vour attendance ? It was . —What was there that rendered your personal attendance in London necessary ? I may be allowed to say , that I did not think I should succeed in obtaining the discharge of the
prisoner unless I did personally attend , it requires much zeal as well as an intimate knowledge of all the circumstances to succeed in their . cases , —Pia you act as advocate , ov did youv counsel , Mr . Bodkin , attend ? Mr . Bodkin acted as advocate ; still I must be allowed to state my belief that he derived some assistance from his previous consultations with me . —What , thou , you were in personal contact with Mr . Bodkin , and he becamo zcalons ? Is that so ? Yes ; you may so state ifc if you please , but the words do not exactly convey my meaning . —Have you an agent in London ? No . —Who attends to your business there ? My clerk . —Who is he ?_ Mr . Cliinery . And is not he a zealous man ? Yes . —Could lie not attend Mr ^ Bodkin without you ? No doubt he coidd , but in a case -of tins sort I would
not trust any one but myself . There was also another necessity for my going to London . — When did you go ? Perhaps you will allow me to eontjnuejmy answer?—01 ) , certainly . —I had not been able to effect personal service of the notice of habeas on the prosecutor . Mr . Justice Wightman is always particulai * in seeing that there has been personal service . WIiqii I went to Mr . Whalley , he was ill in bed ; I was therefore obliged to send the notice to lim . I heard that the notice was takcrr U- and received by him ; but the practice of the Crown-office is so very strict , that I was not quite sure that the service would bo considered sufficient unless I was there to explain the circumstance . That was one reason why I went to London . —I suppose you do it by affidavit ? Yes , I did by affidavit . —You couM
make affidavit in the country as well as in London ? I could do so—still that docs not give the case fairly . A judge might require facts to bo stated in an affidavit wluch were not stilted ; if the deponent were not present there would then be a considerable loss of time , and perhaps defeat , from the delay of correspondence . I may state generally that I was anxious to obtain the man ' s disehavgc , and I thought he would be safer in obtaining his diselmi'go ii I went than if I did not . —Has any part of this bill been paid to you ? None , sir . Perhaps I should state , m connection with another answer which I gave , that my salary only extends to work which is clone in the county of Lancaster : it does not extend to costs out of pocket , and work which is done out of the county of Lancaster . —That may explain why you were so
anxious to go to London , Mr . Roberts . Now , sir , let me ask you this question : you say you have not been paid any part of this bill . "Upon your oath , do you expect Leigh to pay you one shilling ? I expect the ( Icfcmhini to pay it , sir . — But did > ' 0 U ever expect that Leigh would pay you a farthing of this ? 1 did not think he would ever have the power to paj | me . —AVill you not apply to the fund , to the Association ? In that case 1 shall apply to them . —The Judge : In what case ? In the cve ' nt of Leigh not paying , nor the defendant paying , I should bring the case before the colliers generally . —Mr .-Knowles : Were you not retained in this matter by the colliers generally , and not by Leigh ? No , sir ; in the first instance 1 was sent for by the friends of Leigh and Morris , a man who obtained his discharge at tlic same time , but without being taken to London . I did not consult the colliers upon the' case . —The Juihjk : Not bufoiis acting ? iSiot before acting , my
lord , in the first instance J sent tor the writ ; and , when I \ ienrd thai Lord Denniaii expressed an opinion against tin ; warrant , 1 went on upon my own responsibility . —Mr . Knowles : Did you attend before the magistrate when Leigh wascosunitted ?; No . — Did i'OU know from Leigh whether he was present liuibro the lniiKisti-Ate at tlic time the information was heard ? No . —By Mr . Baines : The plaintiff is liable to me for this action . J had made myself intimately acquainted with the facts of this case before I went to London , and in my judgment it was necessary for mo to go there . I may be allowed to add , that I do not tlunk a discharge under a habeas could ever be obtained by a mere agent , or by a clerk . —Mr . Baines then put in a copy of the notice of action , and said this was the plaintiffs case . —Mr . Knowles , for the defendant , submitted that the action would not lie in its present form , This was an action of trespass against a magistrate for something done by him in his capacity asainagistrato , and it was not disputed that this was a matter in which the magistrate had jurisdiction ., llis learned friend had
Untitled Article
put in evidence an instrument which he called a warrant , and which in one part purported to be a conviction ; and what he ( Air . Knowles ) had to submit to his lordship was , that there was a conviction unquashed and still in force ; and though it might be informal in some respects , yet that it was not a void conviction , and was therefore a protection to the magistrate in an action of trespass . —His lordship held , that though the conviction was not quashed , vet for the defects the magistrate was still liable in this form of action . He , however , said he should reserve the point with leave to move to enter a verdict for the defendant . —Mr . . Knowles said , he should limdei . ' a'bill of exceptions , if the vesult of tlio aelion was uniavouraulo to the defendant . The learned
counsel then tendered a formal conviction of the plaintiffbefbretheHon . Colin Lindsay , and submitted that it was sufficient to protect him from the action . —Mr . Addison , on the other side , objected to the conviction being received , and cited dicta , of leavned judges in the case of Clianey v . Payne , in support of his argument . — -Mr . Knowles contended that tficcase of Chaney y . Payne did not affect this case , as there was a distinction between the two so far as the facts went . He called his lordship ' s attention to the case oi'Masseij v . Johnson ( 12 th East ' s Reports ) , where a warrant had been issued without any conviction at ail , and Lord Ellenborough said the conviction might be drawn up at any time after the party was convicted . He also cited a decision of Barou Alderson ,
in the case of Leewood v . Mountain , where that learned judge allowed two convictions to be produced , and acted upon the proper one . —The Judge : In that case there had been no habeas corpus , you will perceive , at all . —Mr . Knowles asked if he was to understand his lordship to rule that the production of a formal conviction was no protection to the magistrate , and that it could not be produced ?—The Judge ; Yes , —Mr . Knowles : Then your lordship , I am sure , will not think I am meaning any disrespect ; but , in order to take the opinion of another court upon both points , I wlJl tender a bill of exceptions upon both points . —Tlic Judge : I do not say that I shall not receive it in evidence . I will receive it in evidence ; but I shall tell the jury that it is no
protection to the magistrate . —Mr . Knowles then addressed the jury for the defence , alleging that the defendant wished the case to be conducted in the most liberal manner aud complaining of the prejudice which it had been sought to impart into it . There was no doubt the plaintiff had been guilty of the offence with which he was charged , and the action was merely founded in the allegation that by an . oversight that offence was not sufficiently described . Evidence was then adduced to show the facts iu which the conviction was founded . It appeared the plaintiff was under terms of a fortnight ' s notice , and that he had actually given such notice , but did not serve out the fortnight . —Mr . Addison , before the witnesses were examined , objected to the evidence being received , on the ground of irrelevancy , and his lordship took a note of the objection . —Mr . Addison replied , commenting on the extreme severity of the sentence . Verdict for the plaintiff—damages £ 30 besides the attorney ' s billwhen the amount
, , was in taxa fcion . In reply to a question by the learned Judge , the jury stated their opinion that Mr . Roberts ' s journey to London , to obtain Leigh ' s discharge , was necessary and proper , and that he should be allowed the expense thereof . Mr . Knowles afterwards tendered a bill of exceptions to his lordship ' s ruling on the two points above mentioned . Thus terminated a trial , the progress of which has been watched with most intense interest by both Colliers a :: tl Coalmasters . The court was crowded to excess , and the verdict evidently gave great satisfaction to both judge and audience—to all indeed , except Mr . Colin Lindsay and his attovney . It has been an expensive and humiliating lesson for the youthful defendant to learn so early in life , but it will be cheap to him if he makes proper use of it ,
Ie Printed By Dougal M'Gowan, Of 17, Great Mndm'h ; Street," Uaymarleet, In The City Of Westminster , Nit""-
ie Printed by DOUGAL M'GOWAN , of 17 , Great Mndm'H ; street , " Uaymarleet , in the City of Westminster , nit "" -
Office hi the same Street and Pavisl ) , - for " ' pvietor , FEAHGTJS O'CONNOR , Esq .,: md published u > ¦ William Hewitt , of No . IS , Charles-street , Brancon ' street , Walworth , in the Parish of St . H "~ h ^ " ^~ ton , in the County of Surrey , at the Oli ^ e . No- «* 8 tvr . na in . the Vans o ^ St . Mary-lo-Stvan s- ' - City of Westminster-Saturday . A lS 4 a
Untitled Article
THE ROCHDALE POOR LAW GUARDIANS against
THE POOR LAW COMMISSIONERS . Liverpool , Friday , Apuiii 4 . — This case , which has excited the greatest interest throughout the country , was tried this day in the . MsiPrius Court , befove Mr . Justice Wightman and a special jury . Several of the officials from Somerset-house were in court , and among them two of the commissioners , Sir E . W . Head and Mr . G . C . Lewis , who occupied seats on the bench , io the left of the learned judge . The pleadings raised a variety of issues , most of them merely of a technical character ; the principal and substantial question being , whether the defendants had disobeyed a legally-constituted order of the Poor Law Commissioners . There were no less than fifteen
defendants on the record , whose names it may be convenient to insert here , viz ., Thomas Livsey , George Mansell , Thomas Holland , James Hayes , James Sharp , . Samuel Holland , Jolm Leach , John Danin , William Barnes , Thomas Makin , James Wilkinson , John Scholefield , Thomas Redfern , John Whitaker , and Thomas Samford . . ; The Poor Law Commissioners were represented by Mr . Martin , Air . Watson , and Mr . Tomlinson ; the case for the defendants was conducted by Mr . Crompton , assisted by Mr . Cobbett . Attorneys ibr the Commissioners , Messrs . Sharp , Field , and Jackson , London ; for the defendants , Mr . R . B . E . Cobbett , of Manchester .
Mr . Tomlissox having opened the pleadings by reciting the different issues , Mr . Martin stated the case . —He had the honour to appear for the Poor Law Commissioners , who had the regulation and administration , of the laws for tho relief of the poor in this country . The defendants were guardians of the poorin the union of Rochdale , who had been elected in the month of March , 1844 , under an order of the commissioners issued in 1837 . The jury were aware that in the year 1834 , the Legislature thought proper to interfere with tlic laws under which relief to the poor had been previously regulated , and to appoint a board of commissioners to superintend and direct tho manner in which the poor were io be relieved . The Act was
passed in the fourth year of the reign of his late Majesty . At that period it was universally admitted that tuo tirao had jiyvivcd when it was essentially iiGeessavy for some alteration to be made in the mode of administering relief to the poor . The legal right of the poor to relief originated in the reign of Queen Elizabeth . Previous to that time , and until the reign of King-Henry VIII ., monasteries existed in this country , possessed of enormous wealth and of gveat landed property , inhabited by persons who did not marry , and who , having no families , distributed their wealth in charity and in acts of kindness to the poor persons of the country . But in tho reign of Henry VIII ., by an Act of that monarch , the entire property of the monastic bodies was taken from them ; the reformed religion was established ; the
immense possessions of those institutions were given to noblemen , connections or friends of the King , and they were now held , probably to the amount of some millions a-year , by different persons whose titles were obtained at that time . In consequence of all _ these possessions coming into the hands of private individuals , the distress of the poor in the reign of Queen Elizabeth was extremely great , and then , for the first time , an Act was passed , giving to the poor of this country the legal right to receive relief at the hands of the ' overseers of each parish , they being officers created by the same Act for tho administration of sueii relief . Abuses , however , crejjt in ; and it would readily occur to tho jury how—in consequence of some parishes being very small , whilst others were
very large—some being inhabited by persons of intelligence and knowledge , able to manage the affairs of the poor , whilst others were inhabited by persons not remarkable for intelligence , who , however anxious they might be to carry the law into effect , were not able to do so properly—in the year 1 S 34 matters had arrived at sueh a pitch in connexion with the administration of the Poor Law , especially in the southern parts of the kingdom , that it became absolutely necessary for something to be done in order to prevent the whole property of those districts being absorbed in the relief of the poor . Rates were actually made for the payment of labour . A farmer paid liis labouring men one-half or two-thirds of what they ought to get , and a rate was imposed upon other
persons to make up the difference between what they actually received and what they ought to have been paid ; a species of abuse carried to «} i enormous and ruinous extent , and so unjust that'the necessity for legislative interference must be obvious to all . Accordingly . with the universal concurrence of all the great parties in Parliament and in the country , the present Act was carried for the regulation of relief to the poor , and Cor the ; appointment of commissioners to carry it into effect ; unions were to be created of a tolerably uniform extent throughout the country , and guardians elected who were more immediately to administer the law . Everything was done that possibly could be done to give satisfaction to the community . For instance , the guardians were
to be elected by the inhabitants of each union ; almost all persons who paid rates had a ri g ht to vote ; the election was to be fair and open—one m which all parties must concur ; and * in addition , the magistrates who acted in the union were to be guardians ex offi . no . A body more likely to give satisfaction could scarcely be conceived ; and he was happy to say , that with yery few exceptions , the elections had not given offence to any . The Act was now very nearly in universal operation throughout the country . In some p arts a very great deal oi opposition had been made to It , and m no district more than in Rochdale and in the neighbouring one of Todmorden . The
commissioners wero desirous of carrying it into operation cautiously . calmly , and equitably . Where great onposition existed they wore unwilling to raise discontent or dissatisfaction , and accordingly they refrained until the year 1844 iv « m requiring the inhabitants of the Rochdale Liuon to submit to the W . But almost air the country bein g then under the regulations created by th U Act , and , generally speaking it giving ; great satisfaction , the general pol cv of lhe Jaw was fully dacuwed in Parliament . : iSad weviously boon a topic of considerable discussion atthe general election , after which many personsS into Parliament honestly prejudiced against it , and ^ Z SiXr « T + ? '? Iiy step ? t 0 hll P ° sc Jt x 'P ° n « e who decided to oe governed by it , •«] the opinion
Untitled Article
of the new Parliament upon it had been ascertained . It was discussed in tho . new Parliament , and there was very ; nearly an unanimous opinion that it was a very proper , and ( rightly understood ) a very beneficial Act for all parties . Under these circumstances , the commissioners felt it their duty to act upon the law generally through the country , and they proceeded to call upon the guardians of the Rochdale union to obey the law . The mode of carrying it out was by the commissioners . making certain orders for that purpose—written orders , under seal , which are to be sent to different parties in the district . These orders , by the Act , must be submitted to the Secretary of State , and to Parliament , immediately upon its meeting ; and it was not to be supposed that commissioners
acting in discharge ot a public duty , and subject to such control , woulc make anything like an unreasonable rule . In the month of October last year ( 1844 ) , in pursuance of their authority , they made an order directing the guardians of the union of Rochdale to assume the administration of the relief of tho poor under this Act . That order was delivered in the proper way to the various persons entitled to receive it . There was a refusal to act upon it ; a public meeting was called and strong language used , but lie did not mean to introduce this topic into the present discussion , as he hoped the result would be that the Act would be carried into operation with good feeling towardsthe commissioners- and towards tho persons upon whom , the law was to operate . Not ouo syllable
should , therefore , fall from him calculated to excite ill-will . The guardians , however , having declined to act upon the order sent to them , a mandamus was granted , in November last , by the Coiut of Queen ' s iiencl . ' , to compel obedience . A mandamus was carried into effect by being delivered to the parties on whom it was to operate , and who made a return to the court of their reasons for disobeying the order . In the event of those reasons being insufficient , the court would direct a peremptory mandamus to issue , wluchwas an absolute peremptory command to obey the order ; but in the event of sufficient reason being shown the mandamus fell to the ground . By the statute of Anne , the parties making the return mitrht have tho whole matter investigated by a jury
in order to ascertain whether the facts were true or not ; and in compliance with that statute tho jury would now have to investigate whether six several matters alleged in the mandamus were true or not , A body of guardians had been in existence in the Rochdale union i ' ov several years before October last , although they had not assumed the administration of the law for the relief of the poor ; ^ lor on the 21 st of January , lStfT , in order to give eftcct to the Act for the registration of births , deaths , and marriages , the Poor Law Commissioners issued their order , directing that the sis several townships of Spotland , O ' astleton , Bletchingworth-in-Caldevwood , Butterworth , Wardloworth , and Wherdale and TVardle should form the Rochdale union . This order
directed that the guardians should be elected according to law , and that until it had been ascertained what proportion of rates collected in those towns , upon an average of three years , sliould be contributed to the general fund , they should only carry into effect the Registration Act . That order was issued according to the manner directed by the Act ; it was immediately obeyed by every one of the townships electing guardians , and the guardians , some of whom were among the present defendants , appointed a clerk and other officers to carry the Registration Act into effect , down to October , 18 i 4 , when tho order was issuet directing them to assume the administration of relief to tho poor . By that order tho most distinct intelligence was given of everything that ought to be done
by them ; the duties of the relieving officers , the medical officers , and all other persons connected with the administration of the law , were defined ; and he ( Mr . Martin ) challenged any person to put his finger upon a single point in which the good of the poor , their feelings , the supply of every want , and the necessity fov kindness was not-provided ibr . lie really was at a loss to sec how any persons could bring themselves to fancy that hardship was imposed upon any one . There was no one thing connected with the benefit of the poor unprovided for . The most kind , lie might say , the most affectionate directions , wero given with regard to those upon whom tho law operated , and to persons who quietly and peaceably obeyed the law , who would be in as good or in a better condition than they were whenfundcr the control of the old law . Tlic learned counsel then read the recitals in the mandamus , stating that the return to it by the 15
defendants out of the 18 guardians denied certain portions of those recitals . They denied that the order of 1837 had been , sent to the churchwardens overseers , and to the clerks of the justices of the district . They denied that a portion of the guardians of the Rochdale Union had been duly elected and constituted according to the law and according to the commissioners' order . They denied that at the time of tho issuing of the order there were any duly appointed or cx-offwio guardians of the union . On this point , which he believed to be the onl y important matter in issue , he relied upon the decision in the Todmorden case , in which the Court of Queen ' s Bench held , that for tho purpose of constituting a good board of guardians , if there were three duly elected or appointed guardians at any time that was sufficient to satisfy the Act . The next point denied was that the Commissioners made the order of tho 25 th of October . 1844 ; that was , whether a seal had been affixed to it . The 121 st section of the Act 1
and 2 Victoria , chap . SO , made its production , sealed , receivable , and thereupon it proved itself . The next point was , whether the order had been duly sent . All that he had to show on this point was , under tho 72 d section of the 101 st chap . 1 and 8 Victoria , that the order had been sent to the proper parties by post , which he should do . He had now stated the plaintiff ' s case—a case which seemed to him to lie in the narrowest possible compass . He had avoided saying a single word that would excite-an angry feeling ; and if in the result-ifc were found that tho return
could not be supported , he trusted the persons who had influence- in this union would have the good sense to obey the law , and not bring fruitless and unnecessary expense uison themselves , with great trouble ana annoyance to others . He hoped gentlemen Would have the good sense to sec that further opposition was fruitless . The evidence would be of a most technical kind , and somewhat wearying , perhaps ; but at the conclusion lie hoped the verdict would be for the Commissioners upon nil the issues , in order that an end might be put to all these proceedings . Evidence was then called in support of the plaintiff ' s case .
Mr . CnoMrTOK then addressed the jury for the defendants , expressing his belief that upon some oi the issues they would be entitled to a verdict . It was absolutely necessary for the guardians to have tho present questions minutely investigated before they placed themselves in tho responsible situation which they were called upon to take . Without wishing to aggravate any unkind feelings between the parties , he must say that the guardians had some reason to complain of the proceedings of tlic commissioners . No opportunity had been afforded to them of" answering the application for the mandamus ; for , if that which was the proper course had been taken , they would not have been put to the enormous expense of having the matter investigated before a jury . He implored the
jury to consider how extremely necessary it was for the guardians to sec ' that the proceedings of the conimissoners -had been careful , well advised , considerate , and legal ; because if upon some of the points suggested , and upon others yet behind , still more important , their proceedings were invalid or illegal , in what situation would the guardians be ? They were commanded by the mandamus to take upon them tlio administration of relief to the poor in si most populous and extensive union— in a union where 12 , 000 rate-payers were against the introduction of the law . Were they to put themselves into the situation of opposing those 12 , 000 persons , any one of whom might " legally question their acts ? It was quite impossible for them to do so ; and this
through no fault of their own , for they had not made the Poor Law unpopular . It had been put to tho jury , not quite fairly , that they had been acting under the Poor Law system for a long time in Rochdale ; but it was not so , for by the original order constituting the guardians for the purpose of carrying out the Registration Act , they were expressly directed not to interfere with the relief of the poor . lie should not go into the question whether the new law were good or bad , but it was a very important foot , that the inhabitants of this thicklypopulated district thought its enactments very harsh , and to have been carried out in an offensive manner With regard to the points lie had to submit , heslionld prove that there were three petty sessions in the division ot Rochdale a fact which would have snmn
, bearing upon one of the issues . But the most material question would be , whether the last order of the commissioners was good and valid , for unless it were it tell to the ground . No order of this kind , he apprehended could be made except by the commissioners at aboam meeting ; as a point of law , it was clear that two commissioners , at least , must be together upon making the order . Two constituted a board . iNow supposing two commissioners were not present together at the time the order was made , so that oom tiieir minds were concurring in its signature and execution , the proceeding was void . It would not do tor arbitrator
one to sign an award one dav , and another upon the next ; and even the judges OH the bench , when making their rules and orders , aiway 3 met and signed them together . Therefore if , m the present case , lie proved that one signature was fixed at one time and the other at another , the instrument was not binding . He should be able to Show that tho commissioners wore wide asunder -when the order was executed . In a i ediou 3 case like this , it might excite a smile to hear the cause of the mistake in the commissioners' proceedings , which ; ho hoped would relieve the people of Rochdale from the yoke which they were evidently so much disinclined to nut 1
upon tiieir neons . Ihero was a littleblind god that mixed himself " up- with almost everything in this world , and so it was in the present case , fur the fact was , '; : at one of the ' commissioners went to be married u . e . tiny : \ iltv ihe order wan executed and at the time when it was supposed tc ( lated-tho Tith —tins gentleman , for whom he j .:. - . : the greatest pos-
Untitled Article
sible respect , was not at Somerset-house , but much pleasanter place—the Grove , at Watford V could not have a better excuse for his neghVe ,, ! . He was not to be blamed for preferring ' a . place lil " the Grove to his office in Somerset-house , calcukf ' the proper average of gruel for the daily allow-nw of the poor . The commissioners thus were not km ' , as his learned friend Mr . Tomlinson thought tin but merely men ; and the fact was , that one of th ' at this time was in love . ( A laugh . ) One . \ vi n have thought if any one were safe against the L \ passion it would be a Poor Law Commissioner - would have thought that their orders and iw , V ° " respecting the poor formed a kind of panonl v t « m them from the arrows of the little god . ( lL ^ m The order executed by Sir E . W . Head oSf ^ commissioners , was sent down to Mr . Lcwb , { V ' ford , by a special messenger . A beiscm * Simner took it to Watford , and there Mr Lvk " Ins name to it . Simner brought it back ' ,,, ^ these c ircumstances , notwithstanding tiu > fin » , upon it , he apprehended it was not worth tho , it was written on . u l ' P <*
The Judge . —I thought you had some points m , u rial for the consideration of the juw ? 1 M £ C " Mr . Cromwox .-Yes ; this , as to \ vhet ] lei . | onio , was executed m the way alleged . 01 ( lcl The Judge . —You mean whether the two canm siouers wore present signing it ni the S ! mK ; tjZ " l Mr . CWiriox . —Yes ; I have opened that The Judge . —Is that the onl y question of hct J Mr . CnoMrro-w—Yes ; for I do not think ti ,,.-, will be any dispute about the division astoncttver-. Mr . George Cornewell Lewis , examined l . v \ i , OnoMi > Tos .-I believe you were married oK ( llc . & ot October last year ?—I was ~ m Were you staying about that time at the fin , ™ near Watlori ? -I was ; that is to say , 1 u , ls , < S $ there , but going occasionall y to London " . And occasionally papers " wero sent d < w ,, for vom signature to Watford ? -lt is possible « me i me « ofhcial papers—may have been sent to me .
About tilings you had . 'determined on Mm > Utnpial papers were sent to me for my perusal ¦ but during the chief part of the time I was there both Z colleagues were m London ; therefore it would ' have been unnecessary to send papers for my signature Were you m London on the 25 th of October Li cannot say positively I was in London on the 25 ti > ot ' October . 1 remember being in London upon some day preceding my wedding , but whether it was on tlic 2 oth , I do not recollect . As that was a day which must have m .-u ' e a « OOt | deal of impression upon your mind , be so good as to try to recollect whether you were or not "<~ l , »•„ , „ , f positively say I was not . ' " ""'
lou surely can remember being " married last year and what occurred only the day before your marria « e » —lhe distance between London and Watford is ° ev treniGly small , only about eighteen miics and close to the railway ; and I had occasiou to » o upon various matters before my marriage . Look at the order , and tell me whether von and Sir E . W . Head signed it in tJie presence' of each other or not ?—I have no doubt as to the signatures but I have no recollection as to signing it wfth him ! ' Was it signed by you in the presence of Sir E . W . Head ?—I cannot swoav to signing it in his presence . Have you any reason to suppose you did sign it in his presence ?—I cannot say whether 1 did ov did not .
You sec that your signature is not in the sa me ink as Sir E ' . W . Head ' s ?—I have no doubt it is my signature . The filling nn of the date is not in my writing . 1 suppose so ; do you know in whose handwriting is the filling up ?—I do not know ; but no doubt ft was filled up by one of the clerks in the office after our signatures . That is ourusu . il habit ; om- nml habit is to sign the order first . I do not ask you about that ; I ask you about the date ?—I suppose the " 25 th" was filled in by one of the clerks after the order had been signed by myself . I understand you to say , you have no remembrance of signing the order in conjunction with Sir lv . \\\ Head ?— . No , I have not .
Had you any board meeting on the 25 th oi October ?—I cannot recollect that . 1 cannot recollect a board meeting on any particular day in October lust . I was in London several time ' s about that period . You have no remembrance of being in the office on the 25 th , or of having signed the paper in the presence of Sir E . AY . Head ?—I cannot swoav I did so . _ The Jvdge . —He has no remembrance oi' having signed at all . I understand Mr . Lewis to say , he knows his own signature , but the precise time oi signinsr he does not recollect .
Mr . Lewis . —That is exactly the case . We issue a vast number of orders in the course of a year , and this order might probably be brought to ' me with twenty or thirty others , and I should siyn it without any particular observation . -Examination resumed by Mr . Cromptos . Was Sir E . W . Head with you or not ?—Our freiuicnt habit is to sign orders together in the same room . Sometimes we sign them in different rooms . And sometimes papers have been sont to vou whilst you have been staying at the Grove in
AYatford f—It is possible some may have been sent to me for signature . I cannot say they were not , for 1 have no distinct recollection upon the subject . 1 have a distinct recollection of official papers being sent to me for perusal . I have no recollection of a person named Simnel bringing any to we on the 25 th . I presume you always sign orders upon the day they arc dated , because they come into operation iVoin that day ?—They come into operation fourteen days from the signing . The date of signing is immaterial .
Air . George Coode , first assistant-secretary to the Poor Law Commissioners , was then examined ; but it qiuyiuicd he had no cognisance whatever oi' \\\ t order " in question , nor did lie know where Mr . Lewis was when it was signed , Mr . Lumloy , a gentleman also in the commissioners' office , was next examined . Ho stated that lie knew of this order having been sent out oi Somerset-house to be signed by " Mr . Lewis , but where it went for that purpose lie did not know , lie ( Mr . Lumlcy ) was not in the office when it was signed by Sii- E . W . Head . Witness prepared the order ; and it was sent out of the office for Mr . Lewis's signature by his directions , no doubt upon lie clay it was dated . He did net ace Mr . Lewis at
the office on the 25 th . He was not there at the time it was necessary to have the order signed , and therefore lie directed it to be sent . Sir E . W . Head was in the o ! lice that day . The clerk ' s name to who )]) he gave the order to ' be sent was Hutclsins . Documents " were { usually signed in the commissioners ' room . There were a board-room andtwo other rooms where the commissioners sat , and each commissioner had his own room . They signed orders indiscriminately . Mr . Lewis was not in the board-room < lt tlie time this order was signed . Could not tell whether .
lie ( Mr . Lewis ) had been a good deal away from the office just before this time , because witness had been away himself ; but he did know that Mr . Lewis had been there a short time previously . Jt had not beca the practice for several years past to send documents away from Somerset-house to be signed ; but occflionally documents of great emergency had been so scut-This order was considered one of emergency ; it being already prepared , ami there being certain ( l . itcin it , it was necessary to issue it that night . The date " 2 oth" was in tho writing oi' on& ol " witness s clerks .
llugh Owen , a chief clerk in the Commissioners office , was next called , but it . appeared he was in Wales in October , so that he knew nothinc of wins had taken place . AM Simnel was then placed in the box , on which Mr . Mahtix said that if this witness was called merely to prove that the order was signed at different times by Mr . Lewis and Sir . E . W . Head , he would give his learned friend no trouble , but admit it at once . Mr . Cbompton said that was his point , and with it the case for the defendants would be closed . After some , discussion the objection vas p laced upon the judge ' s notes in this form— " That the order of October the 2 oth , 1844 , was signed at different times upon the same day , and in different places . "
Mr . Martin then rose to reply . He said he sluraW express his opinion first upon the system of inquiry which had been pursued with respect to Mr . Lewis s marriage , for the purpose of picking a hole in the order . How could the time wheii that gentleman was married have been found out except by some turned off clerk—The Judge . —If that be objectionable , I do not know why your addressing the jury upon ' it is no * equally objectionable . Mr . Mamis—Very well , my lord , I will leave tin case as ifc stands . ,. . The Judge . —It seems to me , then , that a vcruict should be entered for the Crown upon all the issue . ' ) and Mr . Crompton may have liberty to move— . Mr . CnoMMOx . —To enter a verdict for the ileiendants ? The Junr . E . —Yes .
Mv . Guownos . —I am satisfied with that , wi Lord . A verdict was then entered for the Crown—JJ «" mages , Is . and the proceedings terminated . The trial lasted from nine in the morning till m * in the afternoon .
%≪®M Foiteutpnte
% <® m foiteUtpnte
Untitled Article
T&K N ^ RTJa'ErRNi SiE&tR . April 1 % ig 45
-
-
Citation
-
Northern Star (1837-1852), April 12, 1845, page 8, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse2.kdl.kcl.ac.uk/periodicals/ns/issues/vm2-ncseproduct1310/page/8/
-