The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1856-02-05 00:00:00

LIVERPOOL BOROUGH SESSIONS.

TUB General Quarter Sessions of the Peace forthe Borough of
Liverpool were opened yesterday, before Gilbert Henderson,
Esq., Recorder, in the Crown Court, St. George's-hall. The
calendar is comparatively a light one, embracing the names of
twenty-two prisoners charged with felonies, and twelve accused
of misdemeanours.

The following gentlemen were sworn on the GRAND Jun :
John Bibby, merchant, Tower-garden, Foreman.
Thos. Stevenson Ashburner, wine merchant, Rumford-place,
Charles Frederick Came, merchant, Rumford-place,
William Rushton Coulbarn, merchant, Old Church-yard,
William Cliff, merchant, Tithebarn-street,
Ralph Dawson, merchant, Chapel-walks,
George Langford Fosbery, merchant, Tithebarn-street,
Edgar Garston, merchant, Rumford-place,
' Abram Gartside, wool broker, North John-street,
Edward Jackson Lowe, sharebroker, Exchange-street East,
William John Marrow, merchant, Brunswick-street,
Robert Rankin, merchant, South John-street,
Alexander Sleigh, broker, Hackin's-hey,
George Blundell Thompson, merchant, Fenwick-street,
William John Tomlinson, merchant, Rumford-street,
Caleb David Watson, ship broker, Water-street,
Wallace 'Walker, merchant, Rumford-street,
Horatio John Webster, broker, Rumford-street,
Robert Vining, merchant, Chapel-street.
The learned RECORDER then proceeded to charge the Grand
Jury; he said :—Gentlemen of the Grand Jury, looking at the
calendar now before us, we find that it contains the names of
little more than about thirty individuals ; and this number
may be looked on as small. The offences also, it appears, from
the same date, are comparatively light. There are a con-
siderable number of cases of stealing, but none of these of a
very aggravated character. One is a case of stealing palm oil
from the dock-quay, which is rather unusual; there are seve-
ral instances in which shops have been broken into, and goods
and money stolen from the premises. Several cases also occur
in which the knife has been used, thus showing that the dis-
graceful practice of stabbing is still prevalent in this com-
munity ; but also proving that the authorities are watchful in
detecting the perpetrators of such offences, and that the ma-
gistrates are vigilant in their endeavours to repress it, and
determined in their resolution to have the offenders brought
to punishment. Still, on the whole, there is but little to re-
mark, either on the nature or the number of the offences
charged in the calendar. Considering that six weeks have
elapsed since the last sessions were held, the number of pri-
soners now committed for trial must appear somewhat small,
when compared with this great community; and might in-
duce the mere casual observer to suppose that the smallness
of the number of prisoners was indicative of a diminution of
crime. This, I fear, upon examination, will be found scarcely
to be a warrantable conclusion. It may be accounted for in
various ways, apart from so favourable a view as that of dimin-
ished criminality. One thing strikes us forcibly, on an inves-
tigation of the subject, and that is the large number of sum-
mary committals by the magistrates, as compared with
those which are sent for trial. When the act under which
the power of summary commitment was so greatly enlarged,
I entertained some doubt as to the effect it might have ; and
large as the experience of one sitting in such a place as this is,
I had, I confess, some doubt of its actual working. The sub-
ject, hon ever, has fallen under the consideration of a gentle-
man who has ample opportunity for judging, and it appears
to him that the operation of summary commitment is more
extensively carried out here than in many other places. In
the admirable report made to the county magistrates, by Mr.
Clay, the chaplain to the House of Correction at Preston, the
subject is referred to ; and in regard to it that gentleman
says, " Captain Greig, in his tables, shows only 455
committals for trial, and 13,127 summary punishments !
This is a startling discrepancy, and indicates an extra-
ordinary want of uniformity' in the mode of dealing with
crime and disorder in the same county." It shows, indeed,
a singular discrepancy in dealing with crime and dis-
order in Liverpool, when compared with Manchester and,
other large towns. Criminals know and appreciate the dif-
ference of being dealt with by the,one mode or by the other,
and instances are common in which prisoners implore the
magistrates to do whatever they please with them summarily,
but not to send them for trial. An instance came to my
knowledge not long since,• in which an individual was taken
almost in the act of committing a robbery, and under circum-
stances which did not admit any chance of his escaping con-
viction. On being taken he remarked coolly to the officer,
" this will not be much, not more than three months under
summary conviction." This shows clearly that criminals are
aware of the more lenient sentences passed in the summary
way than when sent for trial, and that they calculate accord-
ingly. Such considerations as the above lead forcibly to the
conclusion that the practice of summarily convicting before
magistrates is one deserving of careful attention, as it may
lead to consequences very different from those intended by
the Legislature. None of the cases in the calendar appear to
be of a nature to cause any difficulty in the way of your
dealing with them, and with the few observations I have
made I shall refrain from further occupying your time.
The Grand Jury then retired, and shortly after the court
proceeded with the trials of prisoners.

COUNTY COURT OPPRESSION.

IMPORTANT INVESTIGATION.

On Saturday, Mr. Pollock, Judge of the Liverpool County.
Court, sat in inquiry upon the case of M`Mahon v. Bromielaw,
involving a charge against the under-bailiffs of the court,
Lloyd and Keenan, of extorting 4s. from a poor woman, under
the following circumstances :—On the 7.th of January, the
bailiffs proceeded to the house of the defendant to distrain
under an execution for £1 4s. ld. Mrs. Bromielaw and her
husband naked them to wait until they had raised the money ;
and after they had done so the bailiffs demanded 45., as a day's
wages for Lloyd, for waiting in the house until they had
found the money. They threatened to take away some of the
furniture, unless their claim was satisfied;_ and, in order to
get quit of them, the 4s. was paid. On applying, the following
day, at the office, for a receipt, Mr. Jackson• refused to give
her one for more than £1 4s. ld. She had.thereupon applied
to the court, and his honour had ordered this inquiry. Kee-
nan explained that the additional money paid was only 3s. 6d.,
and that was asked after a special agreement with Mr. and
Mrs. Bromielaw that they would pay a man that amount for
staying with the furniture until the money was obtained.
Lloyd said he was-not a legalised officer of the court ; that he
accompanied Keenan "on spec," as it was called; that it was
agreed that he was to be left in possession, and to receive the
fee ; and that he was subsequently paid 3s. 6d. by Keenan.
His HONOUR, having elicited from Keenan that Ile was for-
merly in the police, asked him if he had a written appointment
as an officer of this court.

Keenan, in some confusion, produced a.filthy bit of paper,
which his Horrunn declared to be not a legal document. Have
these men, he asked, any appointment at all.?
Mr. GOOD replied that the appointment of Keenan had not
yet been certified, as he was on trial ; that Lloyd was not an
officer of the court ; and that the only person who had a writ.
ten appointment was Jackson.
His Horroux observed that there was still another point to
be explained. The officers of the court had spoken only to
receiving; 3s. 6d., but Mrs. Bromielaw, and the other witnesses,
had de, Tared that 4s. was the amount of the extra sura.claimed.
What had been done with the sixpence, and under what
authority was it claimed ?
Mr. Hears explained that that was claimed as possession-
money, under a Treasury order ; and directed his Honour's
attention to the 106th section of Aachbold's Practice, which
authorised 'the high-bailiff' to claim sixpence in the pound as
possession-money, after goods had been distrained.
His HONOUR: I don't see in the act anything about pos-
session-money before a sale.
Mr. GOOD : It is done in every court in England.
His HON.OUR.-But if it is not authorised by act of Parlia-
ment, the sooner it is out of every court the better. You have
no right to take fees, except by act of Parliament. 'But there
is another question. If you are entitled to charge possession-
money by the act, by what right have these poor people to be
made to pay money to a separate person in addition to your
ls. • and if that separate individual, by agreement, is entitled
to charge anything, what right have you to say, " Well, now,
having left a man in possession, under agreement, you must
pay his wages, or I will take your goods." I say, even if such
special agreement were made, you cannot enforce payment by
keeping the goods. As to this part of the question, this pos-
session-fee, I shall defer it for future consideration. He was
perfectly satisfied that a sum of money had been extorted from
the Bromielaws by, the officers employed under the high-
bailiff. It was said.that 3s. 6d. was the amount paid, but he
had not the slightest doubt that the Bromielaws had had 4s.
extorted from them. It just showed to what such arrange-
ments were liable. When a departure was made from the clear
legal right of parties, nothing but extortion and misconduct
might be practised under the cloak of " private arrangement."
He had very little doubt that the 6d., beyond the 3s. 6d., had
found its way into Keenan's pocket, after he had paid Lloyd
for going "on spec," as he termed it., Now, these things
could not be tolerated, and, as far as he was concerned, it
should not be in that court, nor iu that jurisdiction. He
doubted whether the high-bailiff could legally claim the pos-
session fee, but being at present undecided upon that point, he
would leave it for a future day. He had been told that it was
a general 'custom to claim such a- sum of money, He should
give it his best attention, and would ascertain whether any
such claim could be sustained in point of law. A certain sum
was already allowed to the high-bailiff for execution; and
'at' present he saw no reason whatever why he should claim
an additional 6d., where goods had not been removed. He
would, however, see that the high-bailiff did not receive more
than he was entitled to, or might.consider himself entitled to.
If it should be found that the high-bailiff was entitled to pos-
session-money, it would set at rest the other question of
charging by a person not an officer of the court. Jackson
appeared to have acted by the orders of the high-bailiff, and he
did not attach any blame to him ; and Lloyd was not an
officer of the court, and he could not properly deal
with him. As to the high-bailiff, though he might have
introduced this arrangement of permitting an irrespon-
sible person to receive money for remaining in pos-
session, with every good intention, and although he could
see that, in some cases, it might be a great boon, he
could not allow such possession-money to be extorted by fear
of any process of the court, or by any such compulsion as was
evidently used in this case, and which was clearly illegal. He
was satisfied that Keenan had no right whatever to this 4s.
or 3s. 6d. ; and he was persuaded that Keenan had told a
falsehood in that matter. "He has told me that upon oath,"
continued the judge, " and I direct that he he discharged as a
bailiff from all employment here within a fortnight from this
time ; that he be not employed during that period ; that an
order be made upon him to repay, after settling as he can
with Lloyd, the 4s. extorted by him from the Bromielaws,
with all the costs of this inquiry. I shall enforce this, it
necessary, by commitment to prison for the longest period
the law permits. I direct further that no bailiff be hereafter
appointed without a written order from Mr. Stone (the high-
bailiff); that no one be appointed before the court has been
consulted, and has been informed of the character of such
person; and further, that a list of all bailiffs so appointed be
kept in Mr. Stone's office, to be referred to by me at any time."

SENTENCEs.—Thomas Hunter, convicted of stealing a purse
and Bs. from Mary Hughes, sentenced to six years' penal
servitude.—John Fortune, John Hughes, and Patrick Sharkey,
charged with breaking into the store of Mr. Lawrence, and
stealing a number of brass taps, &c. Sharkey was acquitted.
Hughes was sentenced to four and Fortune to six months'
imprisonment.—Bartholomew Cook, convicted of stealing a
purse from Catherine Kermade, was sentenced to four years'
penal servitude. —James Neagle, Mary Neagle, and James
Murphy, charged with breaking into the shop of Robert
Brownig and stealing 23 pairs of boots, were convicted and
sentenced, Mary Nagle to 12, James Nagle to 18 months' im-
prisonment, and Murphy to fiveyears' penal servitude—Edward
Dillon, convicted of stealing a dress from J. H. Gibson, was
sentenced to six months' imprisonment.—Win.Clark, convicted
of breaking into the shop of Thos. Ellison and stealing 405.,
was sentenced to seven years penal servitude.

[FEBRUARY 5, 1856.