On this page

• Departments (2)
  • 
  • 
• Text (5)

  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.

  • 

    ?J8 • THE NORTHERN STAR. April 12, 1845,

  • 

    AlSge InttOftoitt*

  • 

    *~ NORFOLK CIRCUIT. Norwich. Apbil 5.— H...

  • 

    . —_— ,^ Printed by DO0GAI. M'GOWAK, of 17, Great w in3^ »i IT tt i„» !_ ii._ nii.. .tH'Artmlnster, »'

  • 

    Office in the same Street and Parish, fo...

• 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.

    ?J8 • The Northern Star. April 12, 1845,

    ? J 8 THE NORTHERN STAR . April 12 , 1845 ,

    Alsge Inttoftoitt*

    AlSge InttOftoitt *

    *~ Norfolk Circuit. Norwich. Apbil 5.— H...

    *~ NORFOLK CIRCUIT . Norwich . Apbil 5 . — Horrible Manslaughter . , — BarnardSdmgton and Henry Chipperfield were mdSed for Se ^ nslaag hter of John Amess . The S £ d « t small farmer , residing at Foulsham , ff ^ comity . andwas about 74 years of age The i ^ soner Eglingtonis the son of afarmer at Foulsham , Ld the prisoner Cliiiqserfield is a tadorin the same place . It appeared ia evidence that on Friday , the list February last , about ten o ' clock m the morning , the prisoner Chipperfield went into a pubuc-house kept by a man ofthe name of Glithero ; after he had been there a short time the prisoner Eghngton came in . and seeine John Ainess ( the deceased ) passing by ,

    ne beckoned fiim in . Soon afterwards other persons canieim and with them two German dancing girls ; the * continued there the whole day drinking together ; -the " deceased was danced and pulled about , and made the laughing stock ofthe whole party . About six o ' clock in the evuing the prisoner Eglington sent the landlord ' s sou 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 Ellington , who immediately called for a glass of beer , which was brought to him in the passage by one of the landlord's daughters ; he put the frst part of the jalap into the glass , and gave it to deceased , and he drank it . The prisoner Eglington then nut the rest of the jalap into three other glasses

    t ) f beer , and gave them to the deceased , aR of which he drank . The prisoner Chipperfield 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 of the company wei-c making a great noise , singing aud shouting . The deceased was very drunk , and could not stand . The prisoner Eglington then unfastened the old man's leathern girdle , and pulled his clothes over lis 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 burn me , " and he put one of his hands on to the hot barsand raised himself

    np , and got off the fire into his chair , and soon after fell on to the fire , and then on to the floor ( this was about eight o'clock in the evening ) . _ The deceased rubbed his thigh | 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 four , where he remained about an hour groaning most pitiably . They aferwards put the deceased into a ¦ wheelbarrow , and the prisoner Eglington took hold ofthe barrow and said , "I will turn the old beggar out , " which he did . The prisoner Chipperfield and the landlord ' s son then lifted him up , and carried uini into thelutehen , and put Mm on a seat near the fire . In this state the deceased was left for thenight , 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 , went to bed . He then told his wife that

    he had been shamefully used , and she perceived Ms thigh and knee much burnt . On the Sunday week following ( the 2 nd of March ) she went for the surgeon , and ho 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 . Prom ihe evidence ofthe surgeon , it appeared that the body of the deceased was in a perfectly healthy state , and that he died from exhaustion produced by the profuse discharge from his woiinds The learned Judge stated there was little or no evident © 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 GuStv . Sentence deferred .

    THE MURDER AT GREAT YARMOUTH . . Norwich , Moxdat , April 7 . — -Robert Richard Royal , aged 24 ; - James Mapes , aged 24 ; and James Hall , aged 21 , pleaded " Not Guilty" to an indictment charging them with the wilful murder of Harriet Candler , at Great Yarmouth , on the 18 th of November last . Mr . Palmer and Mr . O'Mallcy conducted the case for the prosecution ; Mr . Prendergast defended the prisoners Royal and Hall ; and Mr . Couch appeared for Mapes . Mr . O'Maixey , in consequence of the unavoidable absence of Mr . Palmer , proceeded to open the ease , and from Ms statement , coupled with the testimony of numerous witnesses , the foUowing circumstantial outline of the facts connected with this bloody deed might be gathered : —

    The deceased , 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" and ] sleeping in two others at the back . These rooms , which were all on the ground floor , are separated from others occupied by a Mr , Catchpole , in the same house , by a passage , the walls being of lath and plaster only , through wMch the slightest noise could be heard . Mr . Catchpole , it appears , is a solicitor , and occupied apartments in thesepremisesas thelodgerofamannained Yarham , who as well as his wife acted as his servant . Not Jong before her death Mis . Candler had received a legacy , - wMch had been long anticipated by her , and

    had frequentlybeen talked of by her very unguardedly , and when it did come she openly mentioned the sum , wMch she said had fallen short of her expectation , its amount being only £ 150 , which she had Been paid by a cheque for £ 100 on a hank , and in notes and gold , all of which she was undoubtedly well known by her neighbours 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 ihe 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 fids she was not seen alive by any one but the person or poisons at whose hand she met her death . At two

    » clock m the morning , police-constables "Waller and Johnson were going their rounds through Howard / ifcreei , and as they passed the house ofthe deceased vno of them pushed against the door , on which it gave : -Vay . On entering they found the shop and parlour in ilarkness , but by the light of their lanterns they « ould 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 make 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 wMch was the

    tilldrawer , they discovered the body of the deceased , quite cold and dead , doubled np on the floor in a pool of blood , her throat being deeply cut on one aide , while her head was almost smashed by blows dealt on ihe back with some blunt instrument , 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 alarm was given , and among other persons the inmates in Mr . Catchpole ' s house were roused up , the beflbetogansweredbyYarhamfromawindow . When he camedown , heinanswertothcinquiriesofthe police replied thai he had not heard any noise in Mrs . Candler's house , though he had been sitting up all

    night for bis master till one o ' clock , and that he had been to buy some rushlights at her shop that night at ten o ' clock , when he saw and conversed with her > and left her well Notwithstanding tills , the police very properly searched the adjoining premises , and though nothing was found to implicate Yarham , 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 tie premises on the evening before the murder and aSter ii daring ihe ni g ht . The strongest circumstance , however , arose from the discovery of a bag of money , bearing the superscription "Mrs . Candler , by rail to Yarmouth , " wMch was found secreted in in the "Denes , " a sandy districtsurroundim ?

    Yarmouth , by two women on the morning after the mur der , who , observing that the sand had recently been disturbed near a heap of broken glass , conceived that tie 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 some palings not far off , and apparently watching -them , 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 the hands of thepolice , audit being stated by a pri-- ^ ate watchman that two men resembling Royal and

    mapes had been seen gomg towards the "Henes , " ana to stoop down at the identical spot , those two menwere arrested . Nothing , however , came out to ostify their committal , and the parties suspected were all discharged . On further consideration they were again taken up , and on the 30 th of December tie shoes of Royal and Mapes were examined and pronounced by fie women to make impressions exactly resembling those they had noticed in the sand . Beyond these very vague circumstances there was nothing ^ whatever to implicate the prisoners in the t » mmision of the murder , except the evidence ofthe man Yarham , who about the same time professed nisreadjness to make a statement of what he knew ; sad wRamatdy disclosedtie following facts , which we efcEas narrated to-day by Mm before the jury in the

    _ Samuel Yarham . —I am a shoemaker , of Great i annouth , and occupied the premises in wMch Mr . Catchpole resided . My wife lived with me . I slept S ^ n ^ T ^ oinm S Mr , Catchpole ' s ,. ovec . Mrs S * ' « B 2 £ . ? T ^ ii ^ TO & wS'Sx o ' clock ^^^ ^ , ^ M ; 3 ^ iwhBre he was going , and *>» when he should return home . My wife las 21

    *~ Norfolk Circuit. Norwich. Apbil 5.— H...

    that night with a pain in the back of her neck . Mr . Dashwood attended her . She went to bud at half-past ten , aud had some leeches on thatnight , wMch my sister Harriet put on . I was sitting up in my room for Mr . Catchpole , and had prepared some gruel ; I was in my keeping-room next to the kitchen down stairs . The keeping-room is separated from the hall in wMch 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 horn- after my return Riy 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 neise in Mrs . Candler ' s shop ; it was a scuffling noise , as if some people were walking about . 1 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 . No one answered . I saw a light through the fanlight over the door . There wis 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 Mi-. 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 1 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 his arm ; the man coming out of the shop-door put his hand up 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-row . 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 me , " 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 wMch .

    Wlulst 1 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 " B—tyou , if you say anytMng , I'll serve you out ; " and asked if I lived there ? He then said , "I'll give you a sovereign . " When he "b——d" mc , 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 not killed the woman ? " and he said , " I don ' t think wc 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 candle which was standing in Mr .

    Catchpole ' s hall and went into the shop . I 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 very 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 an hour and a half I was awakened by a ringing ofthe bell . Hooked out of the window , and saw Sergeant Williments . I have since seen the man who was crossing the street , and see him here to-day ; it is the prisoner Hall .

    The witness was severely cross-examined by Mr . Prendergast , but without eliciting anything new or contradictory . Sarah Yarham , wife of the previous witness , was next examined , but her evidence was not important . At the close ofthe case for the prosecution , Mr . Premiergast rose to address the jury on behalf 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 his intention to disprove the case against his 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 his speech to a conclusion , _ His LordsMp adjourned the further hearing ofthe case till to-morrow morning .

    The vEnnicr . —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 the 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 , but the details of their testimony maybe briefly dismissed by the statement that they sliowed 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 question by any ofthe

    deponents . Mr . Justice Patteson , in summing up the evidence to the jury , intimated his concurrence in the admission made by Mr . O'Mallcy , that the case depended on Yarham ' stestimony . The circumstantial evidence was clearly insufficient to convict any ofthe prisoners , and as Yarham swore to Hall as as well as Itoyal 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 , havingconsultedtogether fornearly ten minutes , returned a verdict of Not Guilty generally , arcsult wMch 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 AGAINST A MAGISTRATE FOR ILLEGAL IMPRISONHENT . WILLIAM LEIGH against THE MOW COLIN LINnSAY . 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 ofthe case , as they were detailed in this paper in September last . A poor collier—the only support of an aged father and mother—was taken into custody about the 20 th of August last , and kept in the lock-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 in the

    course of a few minutes the poor fellow was on lus way to gaol for two months 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 his 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 . —Trimira of Right over Might . —This was an action of trespass imprisonment . Mr . Baines , Mr . Addison , and Mr . Fry , appeared for the plaintiff ; Mr . Knowles and Mr . Cowling for the defence . Mr . Baines

    stated the case . He said the plaintiff m this ease was a person of humble rank , being a worker in the coal-pits of a person of the name of Wlialley . The defendant was the Hon . Colin Lindsay , son of the Earl of Balcarras , and a magistrate of the county , The grievance of wMch he complained was that of having been imprisoned for twenty-five days in the gaol at Kirkdale . During that time he was dressed in the prison dress , lived on the prison fare , and was kept to hard labour pursuant to the prison discipline . He was also put to great expense in procuring Ms liberation by habeas corpus . The plaintiff , as stated , had been in the employment of Mr . Whalley , at Ince , near Wigan , and on the 23 rd of August last he was brought before the defendantand 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 . Whaley and Co ., and then absenting himself from that employment without proper notice ; and under that Act of Parliament a single magistrate sitting alone was empowered to act as judge and jury . His decision was absolutely binding : he might , upon the single oath of the party complaining , ihe 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 ought to be most cautiously exercised , not only with regard to the individual upon whom it was exercised , but in order to satisfy the public that justice was done . He could not say that it was illegal for the Hon . Colin Lindsay to sit as a magistrate under tMs statute ; but , seeing that he was the son of Lord Balcarras , one of the greatest ceahnasters in the county , it did appear to him ( Mr . Baines ) , that this was a case in which he would have exercised a wise discretion if he had declined to act . In several recent statutes the legislature had provided that masters who were

    themselves interested in the matter in dispute would not act as justices . In the Masters' and Servants' Act , however , that provision was wanting . Mr . Colin Lindsay , therefore , could not he charged with violating the law j but it would be more satisfactory if in eases 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 he should decline to act alone . However , he did preside as judge , and he adjudicated that the plaintiff bad been guilty of absenting himself from his employment . He ( Mr . Baines ) did not know whether it was competent for himself and his learned friend who appeared for the defendant , to discuss the question whether or not the man was guilty of the offence laid to his charge ; and therefore he would not state the evidence

    *~ Norfolk Circuit. Norwich. Apbil 5.— H...

    he had on that point . The Hon . Colin Lindsay issued liis warrant ; and , as his lordship would tell the jury , that warrant was so perfectly illegal in itself , that it was wanting in almost every requisite wMch such a warrant should have . After the plaintiff had been in gaol for more than three weeks , upon the tread-nnll , upon this illegal warrant , he was set at liberty upon an application to Mr . Justice Wightman , in the Court ot Queen's Bench . The prisoner was brought up by a writ of habeas corpus ; and that learned judge , upon looking at the warrant , declared it to be defective , and the plaintiff was set at liberty . He presumed he could not , in this action , enter into the merits ofthe conviction . If he could he would most willingly do so , but the consideration of the iurv would be directed to the warrant wMch followed

    that conviction , and which would be found to be perfectly illegal , and wanting in every necessary requisite . On this warrant the plaintiff suffered imprisohmentfor twenty-five days , until he was liberated by habeas corpus . It did not show that the witnesses in support of the complaint had been examined in tho prisoner ' s presence . It did not show a contract for anv specific time , and , for aught that appeared , even the alleged absenting of himself from his work , might have been with the consent of his master . He apprehended the oidy question in tills case would be the amount of damages , and these , he thought , the jury should give with a liberal hand . These tribunals in which the accused was deprived ofthe protection of a jury , where single magistrates were clothed with such extensive powers , should be most strictly

    watched , and when either from wilfulness or carelessness they did wrong , the party suffering such wrong should receive an ample recompense . He ( Mr . Baines ) apprehended that the moment his lordsMp looked at the warrant , this became a perfectly undefended cause ; and then the only question would be , what amount of damages the plaintiff was entitled to . Hetook it , in the first place , that thejury 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 in obtaining his discharge . He had been put to the expense of obtaining Ms liberation , and the defendant had not thought proper to tender him one single farthing

    in reparation . It was provided by the law , that a magistrate should have a month ' s notice of action given to Mm in cases of this nature , in order that he might have an opportunity of tendering to the party aggrieved what might be sufficient amends for the injury sustained . If he did not do that , he might , after the " commencement ofthe action , pay the money into court , and then the plaintiff would proceed further at his peril ; out 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 learned counsel said he woidd leave the case in the hands of thejury ; and though the plaintiff was a poor man , and the defendant one of the wealthiest in the count 3 ' , he trusted that they would meet with an equally fair

    measure of justice . —Mr . Edmund Gibbs , governor of the Kirkdale 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 lfth of September , and was kept to hard 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 Ms expenses by Mr . Roberts , Leigh's attorney ; the expenses were £ 11 odd . — Mr . William Prouting Roberts stated that he was an attorney and solicitor . Was hi August last employed to obtain the liberation of Leigh . Went to London at the hearing . Paid the expenses of the governor ofthe gaol . Paid the fare of Leigh 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 Balcarras , where tlie 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 oi employ , and the paying law costs . The latter generally come to me . I have a salary , and I am also paid what costs are incurred in each particular instance . By the costs incurred I mean

    the costs out of pocket . I do not consider my salary a large 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 tMs was sufficient , 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 does 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 does not pay , and Leigh cannot , I would apply to the general fund . I did not consult the coUiers on the

    case , before acting . —Mr . Knowles-. What is your salary for ? I don't think I have made myself thoroughly understood . By the costs wMch arc 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 ? If 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 1 I don ' t consider it so . — You say the habeas was taken out in London without your 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 , —Did you act as advocate , or did your 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 , then , you were in personal contact with Mr . Bodkin , and he became zealous ? Is that so ? Yes ; you may so state it 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 . Chinery . —And is not he a zealous man ? Yes . —Could he not attend Mr . Bodkin without you ? No doubt

    he could , but in a case ot this sort 1 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 continue ! my answer ?—Oil , certainly . —I had not been able to effect personal service of the notice of aafieas on the prosecutor . Mr . Justice Wightman is always particular in seeing that there has been personal service . When I went to Mr . Whalley , he was ill in bed ; I was therefore obliged to send the notice to Mm . I heard that the notice was taken to 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 be 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 could make affidavit in the country as well as in London ? I could do so—still that does not give the case fairly A judge might require facts to be stated in an affidavit wMch were not stated ; if the deponent were not present there would theft 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 discharge , and I thought he would be safer in obtaining his discharge if I went than if I did not . —Has any part of this bill been paid to you ? None , sir . Perhaps I should state , in connection with another answer which I gave , that my salary only extends to work which Is done in the county of Lancaster : it does not extend to costs out of pocket , and work wMch 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 tMs bill . Upon your oath , do you expect . Leigh to pay yen one shilling ? I expect the defendant to pay it , sir , —But did you ever expect that Leigh would pay you a farthing of this ? I did not tMnk he would ever have the power to pay me . —Will you hot apply to the fund , tothe Association ? In that case I shall apply to them . —The Judge : In what case ? In the event 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 ? Nosir ; in the first

    , instance I was sent for by the friends of Leigh and Morris , a man who obtained Ms discharge at the same time , but without being taken to London . I did not consult the colliers upon the case . —The Judge : Not before acting ? Not before acting , my lord . In the first instance I sent for the writ ; and , when I heard that Lord Denman expressed an opinion against the warrant , I went on upon my own responsibility . —Mr . Knowles : Did you attend before the magistrate when Leigh was committed ? No . — Did you know from Leigh whether he was present before the magistrate at tho time the information was heard ? No . —By Mr . Baines : The plaintiff is

    liable to me for this action . I had made myself intimatel y acquainted with the facts of this case before I went to London , and in ray judgment it was necessary for me to go there . I may be allowed to add , that I do not think a discharge under a habeas could ever be obtained by a mere agent , or by a clerk . —Mi * . Baines then put in a copy of the ! notice of action , and said this was the plaintiff ' s case . —Mr . Knowles , for the defendant , submitted that the action would not lie in its present form . TMs was an action of trespass against a magistrate for something done by him in his capacity as a magistrate , and it was not disputed that this was a matter in which the magistrate had jurisdiction . His learned friend had

    *~ Norfolk Circuit. Norwich. Apbil 5.— H...

    put in evidence an instrument which he called a warrant , and which in orc part purported to he a conviction ; and what he ( Mr . Knowles ) had to submit to his lordsMp 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 lordsMp held , that though the conviction was not quashed , yet for the defects the magistrate was still liable in this form of action . He , however , said he should reservo the point with leave to move to enter a verdict for the defendant . —Mr . Knowles said , lie should tender a bill of exceptions , if the result of the action was unfavourable to the defendant . The learned

    counsel then tendered a formal conviction of the plaintiffbeforetheHon . 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 learned judges in tlie case of Chancy v . Payne , in support of his argument . —Mr . Knowles contended that the case of Chancy v . Payne did not affect this case , as there was a distinction between the two so far lis the facts went . He called his lordship ' s attention to the case of Massey 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 Baron Alderson ,

    in the case of Lccwood v . Mountain , where that learned judge allowed two convictions to be produced , and acted upon the proper one . —The Judge ; In that case there nad been no habeas corpus , you will perceive , at all . —Mi \ Knowles asked if he was to understand his lordship io rule that tho 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 will tender a bill of exceptions upon both points . —The 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 bo 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 iu the allegation that by an oversight tfiat offence was not sufficiently described . Evidence was then adduced to show the facts in which the conviction was founded . It appeared tho plaintiff was under terms of a fortnight's notice , and that lie had actually given such notice , but did not serve out tho 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 bill , when the amount was in taxation . In repl y to a question by the learned Judge , thejury 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 J ; he expense thereof . Mr . Knowles afterwards tendered a bill of exceptions to his lordsliip ' 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 and 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 attorney . 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 lie makes proper use of it .

    THE ROCHDALE POOR LAW GUARDIANS against THE POOR LAW COMMISSIONERS . Liverpool , Friday , April 4 . — This case , which has excited the greatest interest throughout the country , was tried this day in the Nisi Prius Court , before 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 , to 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 , John Leach , John Danin , William Barnes , Thomas Makin , James Wilkinson , John Scholefield , Thomas Redfern , John Whitaker , and Thomas Bamford . The Poor Law Commissioners were represented by Mr . Martin , Mr . Watson , and Mr . Tomlinson ; the case for the defendants was conducted by Mr . Crompton , assisted by Mr . Cobbett . Attorneys for the Commissioners , Messrs . Sharp , Field , and Jackson , London ; for the defendants , Mr . R . B . B . Cobbett , of Manchester .

    Mr . Tomlinso . v 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 the relief of the poor in this country . The defendants were guardians ofthe poor in 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 the 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 to be relieved . The Act was

    passed hi the fourth year of the reign of his late Majesty . At that period it was universally admitted that the time had arrived when it was essentially necessary for some alteration to be made in the mode of administering relief tothe poor . The legal right ofthe 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 great 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 the 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 niillions 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 ofthe 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 ofthe overseers of each parish , they being officers created by the same Act for the administration of such relief . Abuses , however , crept in ; and it would readily occur to the 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 personsnot remarkable for intelligence , who , however anxious they might be to carry the law into effect , were not able to no so properly—in the year 18 S 4 matters had arrived at such a pitch in connexion with the ad < ministration of the Poor Law , especially in the southern parts of the kingdom , that it became absolutely necessary for sometliing 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 naid his labouring men one-half or two-thirds of what

    they ought to get , and a rate was imposed upon other persons to make up tbe difference between what they actually received and what they ought to have been paid ; a species of abuse carried to an 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 groat parties in Parliament and in the country , the present Act was carried for the regulation of relief to the poor , and for 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 oi each union ; almost all persons who paid rates had a ri g ht to vote ; the election was to be fair and open—one in which all parties must concur ; and , in addition , the magistrates who acted in the union were to be guardians ex officio . A body more likely to give satisfaction could scarcely be conceived * , and he was happy to say , that with very few exceptions , the elections had not giveu offence to arty . The Act was now very nearly in universal operation throughout the country . In some parts a very great deal of opposition had been made to it , and in no district more than in Rochdale and in the neig of

    hbouring one Todmorden . The commissioners were desirous of carrying it into operation cautiously . calmly , and equitably . Where great opposition existed , they were unwilling to raise diseon-^ i « SS ? Sff " 51 * and ac ? >' »^ y they refrained iL ntll & M Tf - firw i ? rcomring the inhabitants of the Rochdale Union to submit to the law . But almost all the : country being then under the regulaturns created by this Act , and , generally speaking , it fZTLfZ u s * tlsfaetion , the general policy of the law was fully discussed in Parliament . It had pre-T atow Qf considerable discussionatthe ^ S ^ r' * $ * wMeh many PerSM * ™»* ^ 0 wfnSfLn ? ^^^ 1064 a « ainst % and un-21 itfrT 8 te Pf t * ° ^ P ° se i 4 UP * those Mho declined to be governed by it , -. til the opinion

    *~ Norfolk Circuit. Norwich. Apbil 5.— H...

    . the new Parliament upon it had been ascertained . It was discussed in the new Pariwiiicnt , 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 arc to bo 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 meetin" ,- and it was not to bosupposed that commissioners

    acting in discharge of 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 the 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 he did not mean to introduce this topic into the present discussion , as he hoped the result would be that the Act would ba carried into operation with good feeling towardsthe commissioners and towards the persons upon whom the law was to operate . Not one syflable

    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 , m November last , by the Court of Queen's Bench , 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 tor disobeying the order . In the event of those reasons being insufficient , the court would direct a peremptory mandamus to issue , which was 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 miffht have the whole matter investisrated by a jury

    in order to ascertain whether the facts were true or not ; and in compliance with that statute the jury would now have to investigate whether six several matters alleged in tlie mandamus were true or not . A body of guardians had been in existence in the Rochdale union for several years before October last , although they had not assumed the administration of the law for the relief ofthe poor ; for on the 21 st of January , 183 T , in order to give effect to the Act for the registration of births , deaths , and marriages , the Poor Law Commissioners issued their order , directing that the six several townships of Spotland , Castleton , Bletchingworth-in-Caldcr wood , Butterworth , AVardleworth , and Wherdale and Wardle should form the lloehdale 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 , should 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 , 1844 , when the order was issued directing them to assume the administration of relief to the poor . By that order the most distinct intelligence was given of every thing 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 for kindness was not provided for . He really was at a loss to see how any persons could bring themselves to fancy that hardshi p was imposed upon any one . There was no one thing connected with the benefit of the poor unprovided for . The most kind , he might say , the most affectionate directions , were given with regard to those upon whom the 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 when under the control of the old law . The learned counsolthen 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 183 T 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 the issuing of the order there were any duly appointed or ca-ojicio guardians of the union . On this point , wMch 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 the 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 the 26 th of October , 1844 ; that was , whether a seal had been affixedto it . The 121 st section ofthe Actl and 2 Victoria , chap . 56 , 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 tMs point was , under the 72 d section of the 101 st chap , f 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 ease 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 it 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 upon themselves , with great trouble and annoyance to others . He hoped gentlemen would have the good sense to see that further opposition was fruitless . The evidence would be of a most technical kind , and somewhat wearying , perhaps ; but at the conclusion he hoped the verdict would be for the Commissioners upon all 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 . CaoMrroN then addressed the jury for the defendants , expressing his belief that upon some of the issues they would be entitled to a verdict . It was absolutely necessary for the guardians to have the present questions minutely investigated before they placed themselves in the 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 the commissioners . No opportunity had been afforded to them of answering the application for the mandamus ; for , if that wMch 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 tho guardians to see that the proceedings of the commissoners 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 b y the mandamus to take upon them the administration of relief to the poor in a most populous and extensive union—in a union where 12 , 000 rate-payers were against fihe introduction ofthe 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 the 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 . He should not go into the question whether the new law were good or bad , but it was a very important fact , 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 he had to submit , heshould prove that there were three petty sessions in the

    division ot Rochdale , a fact which would have some bearing upon one ofthe issues . But the most material question would be , whether the last order of the commissioners was good and valid , for unless it were it iell to the ground . No order of this kind , he apprehended , could bo made except by the commissioners at a board meeting ; as a point of law , it was clear that two commissioners , at least , must be together upon makmg the order . Two constituted a board . Now , supposing two commissioners were not present ™ geth ? r at the time the order was made , so that Dotli their minds were concurring in its signature and execution , the proceeding was void . It would not do for one arbitrator to sign an award one day , and another upon the next ; and even the judges on the bench , when making their rules and orders .

    always met and signed them together . Therefore if , in the present case , he 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 the commissioners were wide asunder when the order was executed . In a tedious case like this , it might excite a smile to hear the cause ofthe mistake in the commissioners' proceedings , which ho hoped would relieve the people of Rochdale from the yoke wMch they were evidently so much disinclined to put upon their necks . There was a little blind god that mixed himself up with ahnost everything in this world , and so it was in the present case , for the fact was , that one oi the commissioners went to be married the day after the order was executed ; and at the time when it was supposed to be dated-the 25 th -this gentleman , for whom he had the greatest pos-

    *~ Norfolk Circuit. Norwich. Apbil 5.— H...

    sible respect , was not at Somerset-house , hut at much plcasanter place—the Grove , at Waiium \} could not have a better excuse for his negligent He was not to be blamed for preferring a place fit " the Grove to his office in Somerset-house , calculatin the proper average of gruel for the dail y a llowanr of the poor . The commissioners thus were not kinpf as his learned friend Mr . Tomlinson thought them but merely men ; and the fact was , that one of tlipm at this time was in love . ( A laugh . ) 0 ne w „ , S have thought if safe against

    any one were the Crf passion it would be a Poor Law Commissioner would have thought that their orders and regular ; " respecting the poor formed a kind of panonlv * „ 0 U 3 them from the arrows of the little god . ( LaimU ^ The order executed by Sir E . W . Head , one oHi commissioners , was sent down to Mr . Lewis at V f ford , by a special messenger . A nersnn , ' " Simner took ft to Watford , and there M ? lj , ^ his name to it . Simner brought it back ' nm I l these circumstances , notwithstanding the fi „„ ? upon it , he apprehended it was not worth tl . or , al it was mitten on . Itu tllc nn

    . i . JyDCE '—I thought yon had some nonif , ™ * rial for the consideration of the jury t mm mtc ' Mr . Crompion . —Yes ; this , as to wiictlm .. tu i was executed in the way alleged . ei the ord et _ The Judoe . —You mean whether the two o «« , Burners ware present signing it at the muo S ^ Mr . CROMrroN .-Yes ; I nave opened that . ' Ihe Jvdge .-Is that the only question of fact « Mr . CaoMPlon .-Tes ; tor I do not tlmik- Vhere will be any dispute about the division as to npfh . sions . l ' SCi-Mr . George CorneweU Lewis , examined bv M « - Csownw . —I . believe you were married 0 Hthc O ( i , ot October last year ?—I was . Jlu Were you staying about that time at the Cm ™ near Watford ?—I was ; that is to say , I was rcsi ( m there , but going occasionally to London . And occasionally papers were sent down for ,-mir signature to Watford ?—It is possible some papers official papers—may have been sent to me

    About things you had Jdetermined on before > ~ Official papers were sent to me for my peru « al Li during the cMcf part ofthe time I was there both my colleagues were in London ; therefore it would li ^ -n been unnecessary to send papers for my si gnature J Were you in London on the 25 th of October i —\ cannot say positively I was in London on the 25 tli of October . 1 remember being in London upon « ome day preceding my wedding , but whether it was on UV 2 oth , I do not recollect . As that was a day which must have made a "ood deal of impression upon your mind , be so good ' as to try to recollect whether you wore or not ?—I cannot positively say I was not .

    I ou surely can remember being married last yew and . what occurred only the day before youi-mama" ! ' * —lhe distance between London and' Watford is " extremely small , only about eighteen miles , ami close to the railway ; and I had occasion to go upon va . nous matters before my marriase . r ,. L okattlie order , and toll me whether y 0 U and Sir E . W . Head signed it in the presence of each other or not ?—I have no doubt as to the signatures , but 1 have no recollection as to signing it with bim n w tt S }^ ' >' ou in thc P « scm » of Sit h ,. \ v . Head ?—I cannot swear to signing it iulw presence . Have you any reason to suppose you did sign ij in his presence ?—I cannot say whether I did or did

    not You see that your signature is not in the same ink as Sir E . W . Head ' s ?—I have no doubt it is mv signature . The filling up of the date is not L > mv 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 iu the office after our signatures . That is our usual habit ; our usual 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 bv one ofthe clerks after the order had been signed bv myself . I understand you to say , you have no remembrance of signing thc order in con junction with Sir E . W " Head?—No , I have not . Had you any board meeting on the i & tli of October ?—I cannot recollect that . I cannot recollect a board meeting on any particular day in October last . I was in London several times about that period .

    You have ho remembrance of being in the oliir ¦& on the 25 th , or of having signed the paper in Hie presence of Sir E . W . Head ?—I cannot swear 1 did so . # The JuncE . —He has no remembrance of bavins signed at all . I understand Mr . Lewis to say , he knows his own signature , but thc precise tiiuc of signing he does not recollect . Mr . Lewis . —That is exactly thc case . Wc issue a yast number of orders in the course of a year , and this order might probably be brought to mc with twenty or thirty others , and I should sign it without any particular observation .

    Examination resumed by Mr . Cuomviox . Was Sir E . W . Head with you or not ?—Our frequent habit is to sign orders together in the same room . Somc < times we sign them in different rooms . And sometimes papers have been & ont to you whilst you have been staying at the Grove in'Watford ?—It is possible some ' mayhttre been sent to me for signature . I cannot say they were not , for I have no distinct recollection upon the subject . I have a distinct recollection of official paper ;

    being sent to me for perusal . I have no recollection of a person named Simnel bringing any to me on the 25 th . I presume you always sign orders upon the day they are dated , because they come into operation from that day ?—They come into operation fourteen days from thc signing . The date of signing is immaterial . Mr . George Coode , first assistant-secretary to the Poor Law Commissioners , was then examined ; but it appeared he had no cognisance whatever of the order in question , nor did he know where Mr . Lewi ; was when it was signed .

    Mr . Lumlcy , a gentleman also in tbe commissioners' office , was next examined . He stated that he knew of this order having been sent out oi Somerset-house to be signed by Mr . Lewis , but where it went for that purpose ' he did not know . He ( Mr . Lumley ) was not in thc office when it was signed by Sir E . W . Head . Witness prepared the order ; aud it was sent out of the oinee for Mi \ Lewis ' s signature by Ms directions , no doubt upwi the day it was dated . He did not see 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 he directed it to be sent . Sir E . W . Head ' « u in the office that day . The clerk's name to whom he gave the order to be sent was HutcMns . Documents " were ( usually signed in the commissioner : '

    room . There were a board-room and two otherrooim where the commissioners sat , and each commissioner had his own room . They signed orders indiscriminately . Mr . Lewis was not in the board-room at the time tills order was signed . Could not tell whether he ( Mr . Lewis ) had been a good deal away from the office just before this time , because witness hail breii away himself ; but he did know that Mr . Lewis hai been there a short time previously . It had not been the practice for several years past to send documents away from Somerset-house to be signed ; but occiionally documents of great emergency had been so sent . This order was considered one of emergency ; it being already prepared , and there beiug certain data in it , it was necessary to issue it that night . The date " 25 th" was in thc writing of one ol witness ; clerks .

    Hugh Owen , a chief clerk in the Commissioner ? , office , was next called , but it appeared lie was in Wales in October , so that he knew nothin g of wit a had taken place . Abel Simnel was then placed in the box , on which Mr . Mautis said that if this witness was called . merely to prove that thc order was signed at dinerenj times b y Mr . Lewis and Sir . E . W . Head , he wnW give his learned friend no trouble , but admit

    daonce . ., Mr . Crompxos said that was his point , aiw with i the case for thc defendants would be closed . , After some discussion the objection was W ® upon the judge ' s notes in this form- " Th . it the order of October thc 25 th , 1844 , was signed at differed times upon the same day , and in different p laces . u Mr . Martix then rose to reply . He said lie alio' ]* express his opinion first upon the svstem of iwi « 5 which had been pursued with respect to Mr . Lew' ;; marriage , for the purpose of picking a hole iu i * order . How could thc time when that gentlcu ^ was married have been found out except by s ^ - turned off clerk— . Thc Judge . —If that be objectionable , I *> £ know why your addressing the jury upon it ' ll '' equally objectionable . a-Mr . Martin . —Very well , my lord , I will l « a «* it stands eta iu atiinus

    case as . ccusv . . . The Judge . —It seems to me , then , that a tcp » should be entered for the Crown upon all the IS *" " and Mr . Crompton may have liberty to nioV < - " ~ , , fffi . Mr . Cromftox . —To enter a verdict for the aw dants ? The Judke . —Yes . tf , Mr . CnoMPioy . —I am satisfied with that , Lord . pj , A verdict was then entered for the'Crow mages , Is . and the proceedings terminated . . The trial lasted from nine in thc morning till in the afternoon .

    . —_— ,^ Printed By Do0gai. M'Gowak, Of 17, Great W In3^ »I It Tt I„» !_ Ii._ Nii.. .Th'artmlnster, »'

    . —_— , ^ Printed by DO 0 GAI . M'GOWAK , of 17 , Great in 3 ^ » i IT tt i „» !_ ii . _ nii .. . tH ' Artmlnster , » '

    Office In The Same Street And Parish, Fo...

    Office in the same Street and Parish , for <»'; t , prietor , FEARGUS O'CONNOR , Esq ., andpubUstiy , Willi am Hewitt , of No . 18 , Charles-street , Brao street , Walworth , in the Parish of St . Maryi » ^ ton , in the Coumy of Surrey , at the Office , * <•' Strand in ; the Paris of ; . 8 t , MaryJe-StrancJ i » City of Westminster * Saturday , A . 1845

• Citation
  • Northern Star (1837-1852), April 12, 1845, page 8, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/ns/issues/ns2_12041845/page/8/