The Northern Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1856-12-08 00:00:00

THE LANCASHIRE SPECIAL ASSIZES.

On Saturday afternoon Baron Alderson and Mr. Sergeant
Channel opened the commission in the Assiza Courts, St.
George's Nall. Their lordships were attended by the high
sheriff of the county, the mayur of Liverp3ol, and several
members of the corporation. Ycs erday, their lordship,
attended divine service at St. George's church, and were
accompanied by the mayor and the corporation. The sermon
was preached by the high sheriff's chaplain. This day, their
lordships will commence the business of the assizss at St.
George's Hall.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

BEFORE MR. J. STEWART.

DIPLOMATIC CORRESPONDENCE.—There are many instances
of " intercepted correspondence" on record : and had Mr.
Camphdl, one of the main bridewell keepers, lived in the time
of Fouehe, he might have rivalled that celebrated king of
deteeHtes. Joseph Connor anti John Shaw, were locked up
on a charge of having robbed William Hickson, a person keep-
intr a baker's shop in St. Anne street, of his watch and coat.
On Friday evening a girl came to the bridewell with a nice
hot spiced cake, buttered toasts, tea, and divers other nice
things, to comfort Messrs. Connor and Shaw in their captivity.
Mr. Campbell having received these savoury articles for the
purpose of transmission to the prisoners, imagined lie smelt
something more than the odour of caraway seeds and
currants. Now, the olfactory nerves of Mr Camp-
bell discovered in the centre of the hot cake the
following billet doux :—" The man has been two times
to day, and does not blame you for the watch. Send word
out what you were put back for, if you can." To this the
following d.‘snatch was sent by the " birds" :—" We hope you
have given him his watch and coat, Posteript —Be in the
Court soon, as we will he ibe first tried, and let us know whe-
ther
youhaoe!Zinn the watch and coat back." Mr. Campbel!
kept all this :tiplomatie correspondence cozy and snug until the
Pli"1"."..1 were brought up; but when Hickson came up to
loss, it appeared he was so drunk when he lot the
'articles, that he could not tell anything about the affair, so the
prisoners were discharged.

CHARGE OF FORGING A FREE PASS ON THE
LONDON AND NORTH WESTERN RAILWAY.

IMPORTANT CASE =George Nash was brought up on
remand before Mr. Stewart, on Saturday, charged with
having forged a p.ass on the London and North Western
Railway. The prisoner had been before the magistrates
on Saturday week, and on Monday the details of the
proceedings appeared in our paper. On Saturday Mr.
Blenkinsop appeared far the company 'o prosecute, and
Mr. Godfrey was for the prisoner. Mr. Blenkinsop,
in opening the case, said it was a charge of forgery of a
serious nature that he had to prefer against the prisoner.
It appears (said he) that about six years ago a single
pass for one journey from Liver Pool to London was
given to a person named Browning. That pass was
heard nothing more of until about seven days ago,
when the prisoner presented the pass, the date having
been altered to 1856, the original figures being 184,
leaving a blank for another figure to be filled in after
the four. The four had been altered to five, and the six
added, and the pass was also altered from " Liverpool"
io " Chester and back, for three months." He would
prove to the bench that that pass was used by the
prisoner, and that the forgeries on it were in his hand-
writing. Indeed, on the former day, when the prisoner
was before the bench, he admitted that he altered the
date of the pass. Now this was a forgery at common
law, the same as if a bill of exchange, that was out of
date, had the date altered to make it negotiable.
Travelling by train without a ticket was a minor offence,
but he would., proceed on the higher charge, that of
forgery, for the sake of the public, and also to caution
persons, as he believed there were several forged passes
in existence. He called Mr. George Blake, who said : I
am a clerk in the managers office in Lime street. I was
at Crewe on Friday night week, when I saw the prisoner
get into a carriage. I got into the same carriage with
him. On arriving at Edge hill Station, the ticket
collector called on the prisoner to show his ticket. He
said he had a pass, and produced this pass to him. The
prisoner showed it to him in a book, and the collector
took it for granted that it was a good pass. I saw the
pass, and said to the prisoner, " Excuse me, but passes
are granted only for single journeys," and then the
guard came np, and I told him to look to the matter.
The guard insisted on getting the pass from the
prisoner, saying he would have it examined, and
if found to be correct, he would return it next day. I
saw at once that the date bad been altered. When we
came to Lime street I said he must pay the fare or go
into custody. He said he would leave his luggage, but
that would not do, and he said all the money he had
was a sovereign. I was here this day week, when he
admitted that the pass was altered. Cross-examined by
Mr. Godfrey : You offered to let him go if he paid his
fare? Yes, if he paid the fare I would have let him go
I have been twelve years in-the company's service, but I
do not remember passes being altered, nor allowed to be
altered—quite the contrary is the fact. Do you know if
the company allows booksellers and news agents to
alter passes ? Certainly not, they do not allow anything
of the sort. He offered to leave his luggage, and said if
I would accompany him he would pay the fare. It was
not my duty to go with him for the fare. Do you say
you have never done so.? Ido positively. I have not
made any enquiry from persons along the line about the
prisoner, but there have been enquiries made at Euston
square by the company's solicitor. I have not been
informed under what circumstances the pass was issued.
Mr. Blenkinsop : lam going to call a gentleman who
will tell you. The witness was examined at much
length by Mr. Godfrey, and said about four years' ago
the prisoner had a pass from the company. There was
no conversation between them in the carriage nor at
Edge hiit. He was called:on at Crewe to show his ticket,
and he showed the pass in a book. (The witness
described how the prisoner showed the pass in a book,
covering one-half of it with his hand, and only showing
the signature.) I have seen the prisoner, but not very
frequently. Do you know he was a newspaper reader
in this town ? No, but he said something about such a
thing. I claimed £2 5s , the fare from London, he said
he would give me a sovereign but I refused to take it.
There was a ticket inspector, a guard, and two boys
present. It was at three in the morning. I do not
remember if be said he could get the money at an hotel
round the corner. To Mr. Blenkinsop : I was not aware
that the pass was forged at the time when I offered to
let him go if he paid his fare. What first raised your
suspicions ? The prisoner's antecedents to the com-
pany. John Bettring, a porter, and ticket collector at
Edge Hill, was examined : Said the prisoner
s lowed him a pass on the morning in question,
this :pass now produced is the same. He- had
a bundle of documents in a book with the pass, and he
showed me the signature to the pass. Cross-examined :
I did not like to delay the mail train by examining the
ticket more closely, but I called the guard's attention to
it. I was not at Lime street. Mr. Charles Long
ex ,mined : I am corresponding clerk at Euston square
station, and it is part of my duty to make out free
passes; I made out this (pass pock:teed) one. What
portions of it are in your handwriting? All, except the
signature of the secretary, the words—" for three months
--- to Chester and back," are not in my handwriting.
There is a figure of five altered to a six, and that is not
in my handwriting. This form of pass was not in use
in,1851, and clearly it has been altered. Was the form
in, use during the last twelve months ? Most certainly
not. I have received letters from the prisoner, and I
am familiar wirli his handwriting. To the best of my
belief, the " three months ---- to Chester and back"
are in his handwriting. Cross-examined by Mr. Godfrey :
I have been twenty-one years in the company's service.
I have a brother in the employ at Euston station. I have
known Nash for a dozen years or so. Do you know that
he is an active and respectable man ? I have heard he
was an active man. (Laughter.) Had conversations
with him once or twice. Do you know that he was
employed at railway meetings to give reports to news-
paper agents ? I have heard such stated about him. I
never knew he was employed by the company. Did you
ever
hear that he served the company most materially at
Oxford, Birmingham, and other places ? No, not the-
company. Do you know he was employed as repre-
sentative of the company ? No, I heard he was an
active man, and that,ta all, and during the railway ses-
sion of 1845 he might have done something for the line
about the ,guages, and have got a pass like this one, -or
it might have fallen into his hands by mistake. The
company to any one to alter
never
pgoasyseiblpeeTaits,siaonnd
no
Pass could be used
passes—quite impossible
out of date. We have had parties who used, them out
of date, but we made them pay the fare. I cannot
remember if he had a pass in 1846 or not. I have not
seen any correspondence between the prisoner and my
brother, but I heard the latter speak of him. • I have
seen a letter from the company to Nash, asking how it
was be altered a:pass, and to give an explanation of it. Mr.
Blenkinsop : That letter is here, if Mr. Godfrey wishes
to see it. (A laugh.) Mr. Godfrey : Thank you, sir. The
witness, in answer to Mr. Stewart said : Certainly the
form of pass was out of use since 1851. To Mr. Blenkin-
sop : I heard Nash bad detained a pass on hands. After
a desultory conversation, Mr. `Nyberg said the prisoner
had sent the following document to the magistrates,
which, if Mr. Blenkinsop wished, could be read and put
in as evidence. Mr. Blenkinsop said he was entitled to

To b„, 1.4 ,4t14.1;;;.
‘-‘eitt ,fitiw ti9D71.194 %/Oil elide eAvyi
•-t!q11! ' • kola 711-iil:lso`t;

have it in evidence. Mr. Wyberg then read the follow-
ing document :
WALTos, Thursday.
TO THE SITTING lIAGISIIIACES.

I feel it but right, as I appised my solicitor last Monday,
whatever course my case may take, at once to save trouble to
all engaged, and not to give undue importance to a simple
•matter, by giving in a written statement admitting the facts.
I then gave to him as follows, whether the charge made against
me at the railway station, at the police station, and at the
police court, as to the " liability to pay the fare," be magnified
into any other or not. I state, therefore, that I did travel to
Liverpool on Friday night, 28th November, by a London and
North Western Railway train with that "free ticket" (pass)
plainly altered to " 56" from 1848 or 9. That the additions
to it (as "to Chester" and " three months") were in my
undersigned handwriting. That fact does not, however, come
into operation now, the old date of blank "Nov.' covering
that month. It was a (.o,ml-ion practice to alter and to use
them out of
.date, and to hand them over, like tickets for the
theatre. Booksellers and newspaper people de so still, and use
them out of date, at risk of paying fare. But I must stand or
fall by the circumstances which I before stated to the magistrate
and the prosecutors;to justify or excuse me in using this .ticket
without pking the fivos, or more than that. I made nod
guise about the ticket. When at Crewe, looking for the above
Liverpool train, the guard asked me for my ticket. 1 gave
him my packet book with this free ticket and a regular free
ticket up to Crewe by another line, both opened out. He took
it out of my hand on to the platform, and looked at, I believe,
both. The witness Blake, too, handed it back, saying "all
right." At Edgehill they had another inspection, and asked
for it. He and Blake got into another carriage with it. At
Liverpool they disputed the ticket as an old one, and required ,
the faro lat first refused. I offered to deposit a sovereign,
silver, and luggage, until the heads decided the subject. He
agreed,-but afterwards refused. I made no overture to him to
overlook it. Those officers, present the whole time, can speak
to thi.A. As to the ticket, I was no stranger. For many years
from 1815 I %tiith my relatives, at the instigation of Mr. Mczeley,
%yolked days and nights, attended meetings, voting, speaking,
and writing, in the ba!ties of the gauges, and other business
matters, without reward. I was in the habit of having hatches
of free tiakots for such purposes. I appeal to my correspon-
dence with the assistant secretary, Mr. Long, whether I was
not justified in altering and using them. I have returned
several batches previously, and altered tickets to the company
in the last half dozen years, in 1843 50.51. &e. This one and
another one or two I received from Mr. Long I kept, with his
consent, for any sudden emergency that I might. experience.
I It was not used before, though altered for a witness who could
not be found in 1849, and the correspondence will show that I
was allowed to retain them for a pressing necessity, and altera-
tion plough not strictly en regle) not objected to until now.
Mr. Godfrey then proceeded to address the bench, and
contended that his client imagined he had a right to
alter the ticket; that he was now 8 days in prison—kept
from his important duties, his character stained, as a
report of the case would go over the world ; and he,
therefore, contended that punishment enough had been
inflicted on him. Mr. Wy berg said ; There was no
doubt the forgery was an offence at comm 'n law ; —it
was a misdemeanor. Mr. Blenkinsop denied that the
prisoner was ever employed by the company. His ante-
cedents with the company were the reverse of employ-
ment. Mr. Godfrey contended that, the only case that
could be made out against Mr. Nash, was for travelling
on the train without a ticket. Mr. Blenkinsop said : It
was his duty to press the highea charge of forgery. After
a short consultation with Mr. Wyberg, Mr. Stewart gave
the following decision :—The prisoner must pay the full
fare, and a fine of £2 with cos s, or to be imprisoned for
two months. Mr. Blenkinsop said: It was the bounden
duty of the company to bring forward the case, in order
to caution others—as it was known that forged passes
were out.

THE ROYAL OAK BURIAL SOCIETY.

" A COLLECTOR IN TROUBLE."—III OUT impression of
Saturday, we informed our readers that a case had been
brought before the magistrates which again brought this
society under public notice, although it had generally been
supposed that all its difficulties and mishaps had been settled
when its disputes had been brought under the cognizance
of the judge of the county court, who, after much pains,
and with moderation, exercised the powers entrusted to him
by the act of parliament, by enforcing the adoption of a
new code of regulations, and the election of a staff of officers
for carrying out those regulations. Such a procedure)
however, ably carried out, as it was, has not placed this
important society—for the interests of the greater portion
of our working classes is involved in is good management—
in the high position it has a right to stand with the public;
and hence the p•esent case before the magistrates. The
facts of this case are simply as follow :--George O'ffyllon,
one of the collectors, wac summoned, under the Friendly
Secietics act, for having, after being dismissed by the com-
mittee of management, retained the possession of certain
books belonging to the society, after ho had been called
upon to give np the same. Mr. loiartin, one of the trustees
of the society, appeared as the prosecutor, and his case was
conducted by Mr. t spinal], barrister, instructed by Mr.
Tybee ; Mr. Bremner appeared for the defendant. When
the case was first heard, as our readers will recollee,
Bremner first raised a doubt as to the jurisdiction of the
magistrates, the defendant having entered an appeal against
the decision of the committee of management as te his
dismissal. That was overruled by the bench, and then an
adjournment was asked for on behalf of the defendant, which
was acceded to,with the understanding that the books he held
,in his possession should be given up to the society. On
Saturday, however, the parties again appeared before the
msgistrates, Messrs. Aikin' and Rathbone (the latter gen-
tleman being one of the trustees of the society, would have
withdrawn from taking any part in the case, but WES by
each party requested to occupy his place on the bench),
when, after many conferences between the legal gentlemen
on each side and the defendant, who, from his gesticulations,
appeared not to be content, like Shylock, until he had had
his bond, therefore the case proceeded by Mr. Aspinall
stating the offence for which the defendant had been sum-
moned, that of not giving up to the society the books which
he held in his possession, at the same time admitting that
some of the books had been promised to be given up; but
that there was 0ne...-.-the most important one—which had not
been for hcoming. He then went on to say that it was well
known to' the public that there had been great disputes in
the society during the years 1855 and the beginning of 1856,
when all parties appeared to be their own masters. During
this time it appeared that some of the collectors had taken
advantage of that state of things, and had collected
various sums of =grey for which they had not
accounted, and had put it into their own pockets. Mr.
Bremner objected to such a statement being made, as his
client was not charged with any offence of that sort;
he was only summoned for not giving up certain
books. Mr. Aspinall said he should prove that the books
required by the society had been in the possession of the
defendant, and that they had not been' given up, But, he
believed, that as some of the books had been given
up, the only question .that would arise was as to one.
Mr. Jenkins, the secretary of the society, was then called,
and he.st ited that he had given the defendant a collecting
book for the collection of the subscriptions from June, 1855,
to Dlcember of the same year. That book had never been
given to him. He had frequently seen it in the possession
of the defendant. By Mr. Bremner :He could not say
that it had not been given up to the auditor, although ha
did not believe that it bad. Mr. Moses Cullen, the presi-
dent of the society stated that the defendant had never given
the book in question up to him. He had asked him for it,
but he had never received it. In the June of this year he
had told the defendant that Mr. Bold, the auditor, wanted
the book to make the accounts up: By the Bench : Did he
deny having the book in his possession at that time ?
Witness : -Ne, he did not, Mr. Aikin.: He did not deny
that ho had the book then—why did'nt he give it up or
account for it ? Mr. Bremner then quoted the section of
the act of parliament which stipulated that the person must
be guilty of holding money or books by false representa-
tions, and was about to make sonic observations Ott the same,
when Mr. Aikin said it was clear that the defendant had
possession of the book in June, 1856, and that he had not
since given it up—that was six months after the time it
should have been given up. It is his place to show why he
did not give it up. Mr. Bremner: The defendent is not
charged with fraud or embezzlement. Mr. Aikin : Then
that is the very reason why h 3 should produce the
book, and then it would be seen that no charge could
be made against him. Mr. Bremner : The de-
fendant denies having the book. Mr. Aiken :
He may deny having it, but it. would be a
difficult job for a society to prove that he bad not it. He
may have burnt it, or destroyed it, but let him prove that
he has delivered it up. Mr. Jenkins was then recalled,
and he stated that he could not say that he had ever asked
the defendant for the book in question, but he bad fre-
quently told him that all his books were required for the
auditor to make up the accounts. Mr. Aiken said the
Bench were of opinion that the defendant had the took,
and as he had not shown that he had given it up, was
responsible for it. If he had not it in his possession, what
had he done with it ? It was a case that should be visited
with the severest penalty which the Bench could inflict.
e
then ordered the defendant to pay a penalty of £2O, or
beimprisoned for three months. Sme conversation then
took place between the parties concerned and the Bench,
the result of which was, that the case wls adjourned for a
was not given up the society, the decision
week, with the Understanding, that if in the course of that
to
otirtheethmeabg?:tkrates would be enfarced.

XOITAT:!
+2. 14111F4.11 a ral ,rad2;fl,.
c,Aia;ob
,effi

7 J r.1;41