The Northern Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1853-12-10 00:00:00

SOUTH LANCASHIRE WINTER ASSIZES.

• • CROWN COURT. •
(Before Mr. Baron ALDERSON.)
On' the sitting of the court yesterday morning, the prison-
ers who were found guilty of stabbing, under various cir-
cumstances, and other offences, were placed at the bar and
sentenced as follows :

Emanuel lifonteiTo, for the manslaughter of Richard
Jarvis Crispin, by stabbing him in Whitechapel, to be
transported for 20 years.
His LORDSIUP, through the interpreter, informed the
prisoner that he should have transported him for life had he
not been a foreigner, and in a measure ignorant of the guilt
which in this country attached to the crime of which he had
been convicted.

' "John _Flaherty and Denis. Denein' for maliciously wound-
ing John Kclly, at Ashton-under-Lyne. The former to be
transported. for 20 years; and the latter to -suffer penal im-
prisonment for six years.
James Barlow, for cutting and wounding, six years' penal
servitude.

Ann lreb.stei-, for throwing vitriol, nine months' hard
labour.

Rose Ann Killow, for cutting and wounding, eighteen
months' imprisonment.
Thomas Clayton, for stabbing and wounding, eighteen
months' hard labour.

David Irwin, for assaulting a policeman, twelve months'
imprisonment.
- • Thomas Woods and Andrew Caldwell, three months' hard
labour. •

Peter Hastley, for uttering a forged. order- for the pay-
ment of money, six months' hard labour.

THE FRAUD UPON THE CORPORATION.
Joseph. Ratison and William Clark were placed at the
bar charged with having unlawfully and fraudulently con-
spired, confederated, and combined together by dives false
pretences to acquire to themselves of and from the mayor,
aldermen, and burgesses of the borough of Liverpool
£1727 145.-9 d., with intent to cheat and defraud them of
the same.

Mr. SIMON and Mr. BRErr prosecuted. Joseph Rawson
was defended by Mr. EDWIN JAMES, Q.C., and Clark by
Mr. MONK.
The indictment contained seven counts : in the first five
the prisoners were charged with the false pretence, and in
the last two counts with conspiracy.
Mr. &max, in opening the prosecution, said that the pri-
soner was charged, together with a party rot then in cus-
tody, of the name of Yarper, with obtaining a certain sum
under false pretences, from the Corporation of Liverpool,
and also with conspiring together to obtain it. It was
necessary, in order to lay before them fully the nature
of the case, that he should occupy their attention in
going, with some particularity, into the various circum-
stances in connection with the evidence which he had to lay
before them. In the year 1849 the corporation commenced
the erection of a new gaol on some land at Walton, in the
neighbourhood of this town, and the person whose duty it
was to make all arrangements in connection with the build-
ing was Mr. Weightman, who had been for several years,
and still is, the surveyor for the corporation. Amongst
other arrangements made by that gentleman was one w,th
the prisoner Rawson, who, on a verbal agreement, under-
took to make a quantity of bricks upon some land adjacent
to the site of the proposed building. There was no stipu-
lated number of bricks, nor any stipulated period during
which the contract was to last ; but the price was to be 15s.
per thousand for common bricks • 255. per thousand for bull
noses ; and 275. 6d. per thousand for bevels. Rawson, on
entering on the contract, employed Harper, who was also
mentioned in the indictment, for the purpose of going

through the field, inspecting. the work done by the men, and
handing in, from time time, a return of the quantity done,
to Rawson. Clark was appointed by Mr. Weightman on
behalf of the 'corporation, as clerk of the works, and his
duty was to perform the same service for the corporation
that Harper did for Rawson. He had to go through the
field, keep a written account, in a book furnished him for
the purpose, of the quantity of bricks supplied by Rawson,
and then to give a return of those quantities to Mr. Weight man,
in order that that gentleman might grant his certificate
on the treasurer of the corporation. The treasurer then
placed it before the finance committee, and when it passed
that body he was bound to pay over the amount on Raw-
son's application. Rawson commenced the manufacture of
the bricks in the season of the year, 1850, and continued to
manufacture them during the season of 1851, which began
early in April, and terminated about the 13th of September.
In the season of 1851, eight stools were set in operation in
the field, and during the time the work was going on, the
Men, some 'of them from day to day, all of them at the end
of the week, counted their work, and handed in a return of
the number of bricks to Harper, who again counted them
over on every Friday afternoon, or Saturday morning, and
then,entered them both in his own book and the payment
books of the men, which had been furnished for the purpose,
so that there was thus ample opportunity for Rawson to
know, from time to time, the precise number of brieks made,
and the amount he was paying his men in respect of their
labour. At the close of the season of 1851, about the begin-
ning of Octeber, he applied to Mr. Weightman fora payment
on account, and on the aamc day a certificate was handed in
by the clerk, to the effect that 6,157,230 bficks had been
supplied. On the receipt of the certificate Mr. Weightman
called on the clerk for his account-hook, and finding that
the numbers talliad with that in the return, he granted Raw-
son a certificate on account for-XlOOO. The certificate was
in due course handed to the finance committee, and on being
passed, and returned by them to the treasurer, Rawson went
the following. day and received the money. From time to
time he required more payments on account, and obtained
them precisely in the same manner, until finally ho applied
for a certificate for the. balance. Upon this Mr.
Weightman. went over the account, and having de-
ducted some 4,000 bricks for waste, certified that there
was a balance in his favor for 424,000 bricks. Rawson ac-

cordingly received that balance and other money in respect
of work done : and the ground on which the present charge
rested was that of over-charge.
His LORDSHIP : How, then, can it be a false pretence ?
False pretence consists in obtaining goods or money by
means of falsehood state 1. It may be an action of law, but
it is not an indictable offence.

Mr. SIMON continued to say that he would direct his
lordship's attention to the falsification of the accounts,
which would be found to bear out the false pretence. In
the first place the entire amount of bricks reported by
Clark as made by Rawson, was 6,157,230 ; but it would be
proved that in that return there was au excess over-charged
and over-paid for 1,440,630 bricks. He would direct their
attention to some details of this account to show not only
falsification, but that it must have been done wilfully and
with the knowledge of the prisoner. He would establish
chiefly by the evidence of the workmen themselves, that the

total number of bricks made by them, was 4,249,000. In
some instances he should be able to produce the books kept
by the men with the entries of Harper, showing in the case
of one man named Kitchen, that the actual number of bricks
made by him was 560,000 which in the account returned to
Mr. Weightman by Clark the number charged for was 725,
175. In like manner the actual number of bricks made by
a man named Charnock was set down in Harper's book at
600,000, while in the account furnished by Clark he was
reported as having made 785,465, the over-charge in these
two cases being, in the one £139 odd, and in the other
£ll2 15. 9d. There was also a charge in the account
for " bevels " at a second stool, and as it would be proved
that there was but one stool for that description of brick,
the amount over-paid in that particular was £416 16s. 2d.
There was also from the 31st of May a charge reported in
respect of a ninth stool and continued for a period of fifteen
weeks ; and at that stool, according to the report of Clark,
446,565 bricks were made, and the amount of money paid
in respect to it was £334 18s. 6d. It would be shown, how-
ever; that there was no such stool in the field at all, and
the total number of stools there during the entire season
was but eight, The brick-burner would be also produced
and would COlTAnrato tho orideitue of the moulders, so attic
no earthly doubt could be entertained as to the fact of a con-
siderable and excessive overcharge having been made. Then
came the question, whether or not this was fraudulently
done ; but here again little doubt could be entertained
that it was so. For the total account with the corporation
was only £5OOO, and in that there was an over payment
of £1567 16s. 9d.—a circumstance which, certainly, with a
man who looked, after his business as Rawson did, could not
be the result,of oversight or negligence.
His LORDSHIP observed that if the indictment could be
sustained on the case as stated, he must be labouring under
a delusion with regard to the criminal law for the last five
or six years. The criminal law was not intended for such
cases, though a civil action would lie, they did not see
why in their scheme Mr. Weightman might not be also in-
cluded in the indictment, but he did not mean to say that he
ought to be.
Mr. SisioN : Oh ! he is a gentleman above any suspicion.
Mr. JAMES : And deservedly.
HIS LORDSHIP : I have merely mentioned his name as .an
illustration. But he was through the field as well as Raw-
son, and a man is much more sharp to find out when he
loses than, when he gains.
Mr. JAMES : The action at law has been brought,—it has
been referred to a gentleman of high :standing, and the
money has been deposited to meet the award.
His LORDSHIP : It is a very proper case for such a
course. For really if it is to be said that because a ervant
makes out a bill in which there is an over-charge, and that
the money is paid, you may as well at once indict the
tradesman and the clerk for conspiracy.
Mr. Snuori: But if the accounts are furnished with a
knowledge of the overcharge,:and there is evidence to show
that knowledge—
His. LORDSHIP : I waited, but I did not find any.
Mr. SIMON : Not, the fact that there are entries.
His LORDSHIP : Are there books ?
Mr, SIMON : The other side has them, and we have given
them notice to produce them.
His LORDSHIP : That shows me still more that it is a
civil case.
Mr. SitdoN : There are two books, which we shall pro-
duce, in which entries are made by Rawson's clerk. We
shall show that Rawson was cognizant of these entries, and
that he paid the money on them. Then I will show that
these entries are true, and when compared.with the accounts
on which the money was received, the latter will be found to
be false.

llis LORDSHIP : I don't think that will help you much.
It is only endeavouring to make me try a question of

accounts

Mr. Weightman was then sworn and examined. He de-
posed to the nature of the contract with Rawson, and stated
that Clark's duty, was to count the bricks, and return the
number to him from time to time. Witness then granted
the certificate ; it was then handed over to the treasurer;
the treasurer entered it in his abstract book ; the abstract
book was laid before the finance committee at their weekly
meeting; the town-clerk or, his deputy read out the items,
and the finance committee ordered it to be paid, and then
the treasurer-
His LORDSHIP : Oh I. it is " the house that Jack built."
(Laughter.)
The witness identified the account-book kept by Clark,
and stated that on the winding up of the contract he de-
ducted 10 per cent. for waste on the total number of bricks.
Charnock, one of the brickmakers, was then examined,
and stated that he had been employed by Rawson, in the sea-
son of 1851, to make bricks in the field adjacent to the gaol.
There were only eight stools altogether there during the
season. The witness then described how the bricks were
counted, by both the .men and. Harper, who afterwards, on
every Saturday night, entered the amounts in their payment
books. Witness made 60,0000 bricks during the season,
and produced his payment book, in which that number was
set down. He was idle two weeks during the sea,on.
On cross-examination by Mr. JAMES, witness said that it
was Harper who managed all the matters, Rawson merely
paying the money when the amount was called out to him by
Harper. In answer to Mr. MONK witness also stated that
Rawson had another brick-field outside the land of the
gaol.

- Mr. BaErr then showed by Clarke's book Charnock was
entered as having made in the week ending the 14th Jane,
34,935 bricks, and in the week ending the 2nd August,
27,690, these being the two weeks in which he had not
worked at all.

Thomas Kitchen, another brickmaker, was then examined,
and deposed to almost precisely similar facts.
Richard Molyneux, the brickburner, was also examined,
but his evidence did not add any new feature to the case.
His LORDSHIP inquired if they could carry the case any
further ?

Mr. SIMON : Not further : but these items show that there
has not been a mere casual overcharge, but that it has been
continued throughout, and thus arises the. presumption of
guilt in each of the parties.
His LORDSHIP : That would be quite unreasonable.
Ramon takes the account from his clerk and pays it. There
is no motive in the one and no knowledge in the other.
SimoN : But suppose I show you loans between the
parties under circumstances highly improbable ?
His LORDSHIP : You made no mention of that before ;
but any repetition of what I have before me will make no
difference.

Mr. MONK : Mr. Simon might also have as well stated
that he would have known nothing of these loans unless
from the statement of Clark himself, that they were very
small, and that an I. 0. U. in every case was given.
Mr. BRETT then proceeded to argue that Rawson must
have had certain anticipations in reference to the
contract, and that, therefore, he must have been aware,
through the largeness of the excess, of the falsification of
the accounts.

His LORDSHIP : And what has Rawson to do with Clark?
I think there is no case. You da not bring the parties
together at all; and you cannot show a conspiracy to
defraud unless you bring the. parties together, and show a
corrupt arrangement inter se. There is no real case, though
there may be a very good action at law.
The prisoners were accordingly discharged. •
THE BOILER EXPLOSION AT BLACKBURN.

TYilliam Hesketh was then placed at the bar, and charged
with having, in the month of last October, feloniously killed
and slain Edward Sharpies and others.
Mr. MONK appeared for the prosecution, and stated the
facts of the case, which are still fresh in the recollection of
the public. The plaintiff is a manufacturer of woven fabrics,
and his premises at Blackburn being too large for his pur-
poses, he let a portion of them to a shuttle-weaver. He had
an engine, with the old waggon-shaped boiler, on the
premises, and having undertaken to supply the motive power
to both establishments, a greater pressure was put upon the
engine than it could possibly bear, so much so that, though
101bs. to the square inch was fully as much as it could
sustain, it was frequently kept at a pressure of 301bs. and
more to the square inch. Having stated the facts of the
case, and described how the deceased had come by their death
_through the explosion of the boiler, the learned counsel
proceeded to ,argue that though the prisoner• himself was
not in charge of engine, yet that he was responsible for
the act of his servant—the engineer.
His LORDSHIP observed, that he conceived this point had
been fully settled in the case of .Phillips v. the London and
North Western Railway. However, as it was an important
one, he would consult his brother (Baron Martin) on the
subject.
His LORDSHIP then retired, and on his return stated that
his learned brother was equally clear on the subject as he
was. If the prisoner had done the act himself, or if it bad
been done by his particular direction, then he might be sued
iu trespass ; but here,, where the act was done through his
agent, who was not dioputcd to be an intelligent one, the
case could not lie, and the only remedy could be by civil
action. It would be well, perhaps, if the law in this par-
ticular were altered; and though, if in Parliament, he might
vote for such an alteration, yet so long as it existed in its_
present form, it could only be administered in that state.
The prisoner was accordingly acquitted.
THE RIOTS AT BLACKBURN.

James Burthill, William Slater, Robert Dickenson, Ben-
jamin Waddy, and Joh4 Cowell, were indicted for assaulting
William Stowe, with intent to do him bodily harm, on the
Ist of last November, at Blackburn. The assault arose out
of the last mun cipal election in that town, and though it
was a very severe one, yet, fortunately, it did not result in
any serious injury to the prosecutor.
After a protracted trial, Cowell was acquitted. The
other prisoners were convicted on the count charging them
with maiming and wounding, and were sentenced each to
twelve months' imprisonment.
THE LATE PRIZE FIGHT,

Frank Donne'ly and Joseph Clarke pleaded not guilty to
the charge of having on the 12th of November feloniously
killed an slain one James Gill.

Mr. BRETT prosecuted, and Mr. TINDAL ATKINSON
defended.

The facts of this case have been very recently before the
public. The deceased and Donnelly fought a prize
fight a short time since for £2O, and though after a
fight of thirty-five minutes the deceased was declared
the victor, yet he died, in a few days after his triumph. It
appears that his health, previous to the fight, was in a de-
clining state, and that a day or two after the " mill,"
erysipelas set in, and thus terminated his career. For the
defence a witness was called, and he proved that on the
night after the fight he had seen the deceased fighting with
a man, much his superior in physical strength, in Scotland-
row. He saw the deceased repeatedly thrown to the ground ;
and it was accordingly exceedingly doubtful whether the
erysipelas arose from the injuries then received, or from
those sustained by him in the prize fight. Clarke was the
second of Donnelly. The prisoners were acquitted.

SECOND COURT.--YESTERDAY.

Michael liibchester, a winding master in a mill at Preston
and a married man was accused of a criminal assault on
Margaret Pemberton, a married woman, both workers in
Sharples's mill. The prisoner was acquitted.
John Hudson, James Berry, and John Brierly, three
boatmen were indicted for an assault on a married woman
named Jane Makinson, at Manchester. The accused were
boatmen, and the facts of the transaction have recently ap-
peared in the NORTHERN DAILY TIMES. In this case also
there was a verdict of not guilty.