Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1859-02-25 00:00:00

WAREHOUSE COMMITTEE,

The proceedings of this committee contained a corres-
pondence between the committee and Mr. Mansfield, in
reference to a, decision came to by him in the case of a
man named II oggart, who had been employed by the
committee, and was brought up at the Police court,
charged with stealin., 1 lb. 8 ounces of pepper, and a
quantity of gutta percha.
Mr. Hubback, in moving a confirmation of the pro-
ceedings, alluded to this correspondence,, and stated the
facts of the case as they had been brought before the
committee by Mr, Cowan, the superintendant of the
Albert warehouses, It appeared that
.Hoggart had been
in the employment of the warehouse committee for four
years, at a salary of 21s per week, and on
the 12th of February, instead of leaving the
docks as usual, he stopped,. and pilfered the
articles found in his possession. A quantity of pepper
which was in the warehouse was vniglicd, it was found
to be short.tlbs. This man was considered trustworthy,
and was so treated, but it was feared that this was not
his first offence. The prisoner Hoggart was_ discharged
after about six hours imprisonment. When these facts
came before the Warehouse Committee, it appeared
to them that. the punishment was not equal to the
nature of the offence, and it was the opiniok of the
committee that all the facts had not been placed before
Mr. Mansfield, and that their superintendent and
their gatekeeper had been negligent in not setting these
facts before the magistrate. It was thought desirable
that a letter should be written by the secretary to Mr.
Mansfield, of which the following is a copy :
Secretary's Office, Liverpool, 16th February, 1859.
Sir,—The warehouse committee of the Mersey Dock and
Harbour Board having had submitted .to thetn, at their meeting
of the 14th instant, a report of the detection of John Hoggart,
labourer at Albert Dock Warehouses, when about to leave the
premises on the 12th instant, with a quantity of pepper and
gutta percha secreted upon him, have instructed me to
bring the matter under your notice, and would be glad if you
would do them the favour to inform them whether all the facts
as above stated were before you when Hoggart was released
from custody, by, as the committee are informed, your authority.
—I am, sir, your obedient servant,
To J. 5. Mansfield, Esq. (Signed), DANIEL MASON.
And the following reply had been received :

-itesaolis House, Liverpool, 16th Feb. 1859.
Sir,—We are instructed by the police magistrate to acknow-
ledge the receipt of your letter of this date, and to observe in
reply that he feels sure the warehouse committee will, on re-
flection, perceive that the enquiry is not such as ought to be
addressed to a magistrate.—we are, sir, your obedient servants,
WYBERGII and GARNETT,
Clerks to the Magistrates.
_ _ _

To D. Mason, Esq., Dock Secretary.
The committee very unwillingly brought this matter
before the board, but on considering the matter, they
thought it would be better if the board would say what
steps should be taken.
Mr. Arnold seconded the confirmation of the proceed-
ings. He felt that the proceedings of the magistrates on,
the bench should not be nude the subject of comment by
that board, and brought before the public unless the
occasion seemed to deserve it. But he thought they
were entitled, if the servants of that board, or the ser-
vants of the warehouse committee, were to be held
responsible for the goods under their charge, he thought
they should have the support of the local magistrates,
and not the discouragement. His attention had been
called to a case in the daily papers of yesterday, which
was somewhat analogous to the case before them. It
was the case,of a person named Evan Jones, who was
charged with stealing six ounces of tea. In this case
the prosecution was not pressed.
.

The Chairman suggested that this was not in order.
He thought no good could arise from the discussion of
this subject by the board. It was a matter occurring in
a court of justice.
Mr. Evans said, the matter had gone too far now to
blink it.

Mr. Arnold went on to say, that the man whom he
referred to was only receiving a small amount of wages
to support his family, and yet he was committed a month
to jail, with hard labour, while Hoggart, who was receiving
21s per, week, and was detected in taking away these
goods to sell them in some of those receptacles in town,
was taken before the magistrates, and was ordered
to be discharged insix hours. Now he wanted to know what
the reason was for the difference in treatment in these
two cases. It was not a small duty the warehouse com-
mittee had to perform in investigating complaints which
were constantly brought before them in reference to the
weight of goods. He thought their hands ought to be
strengthened and not slackened by the action of the
magistrates. He was aware that the magistrates had a
right to deal with these cases as they thought proper ;
but he supported the warehouse committee in bringing
this matter under the attention of the board.

Mr. Bushell said he had just heard of this matter
for the first time, and he thought it was not
for them to pass over it lightly. They were
the trustees, not only for the docks, but also for the
property which came into them, and they were obliged to
give over that property as it came to them. They all
knew the amount of vigilance which was to be exercised,
and the great amount of labour caused to keep these
goods in that way. And to those who were in employ-
ment and in a position of trust, if matters of this kind
were passed lightly over, what effect would it have ? He
asked if three or four hours' imprisonment were the
punishment for such an offence, what would be the
practice of those professional thieves who in-
fested their docks ? He hoped it was the
case that Mr. Mansfield had not had placed before him all
the facts brought before the warehouse committee. It
might be that the evidence before him was not such as to
enable him to commit; but it was perfectly clear that the
warehouse committee had acted courteously in the matter,
and Mr. Mansfield might have given them the same
courteous reply. The committee asked if such and such
were the facts, and he might have stated that the facts
were so and so on which he acquitted the prisoner. This
would have been the most dignified course. Of course
they had no power over Mr. Mansfield in his position as
a stipendiary magistrate, appointed by government, but
he would beg to move that the correspondence and the
statement of the facts of the case be forwarded to the
Secretary of State for the Home Department for con-
sideration.
Mr. Harold Littledale seconded the motion.

The Chairman said he might agree with several things
that were said, but, as referred to the decision of the
magistrate, it could only be an error of judgment. No
corrupt motive could be attributed, and he thought they
really had not sufficient grounds to make a represen-
tation to the Home Department. He thought
this would be placing themselves in a false
position, to make a serious representation on so
slight a matter, because it was not a slight matter to
arraign the decison of a magistrate before the Home De.
partment. He hoped Mr. Bushell would withdraw his
motion; it was a mere difference of opinion, and
he considered that they would not add anything to their
own good opinion with the government by such a
procedure. In fact they would rather lose than gain
by it.
Mr. Evans said he thought it would not be necessary
to h.. 0 any further. He believed Mr. Mansfield, whose
jnorgments he bad always admired, and his observations
not less so, was in this instance, in all likelihood, led
astray by the counsel, or bythe criminal, who made out a
likely case of distress. He believed that Mr. Mansfield
merely considered that this was little more than a pinch
or two of snuff, and that he was rather hasty.
However, he certainly looked upon the sentence
ao
mu gohutn tot o
fb ew
hp
autn
wishasedstaoslena,
passed as very erroneous. It was a crime, and
bc
ur itmaes, nao
tt
hue
fpto. upon tHh eu
thought
the matter might be very well left where it was.
Mr. Anderson said, he that Mr. conjectured Mansfield
had misunderstood the letter, and thought
it was calling
upon him to give his reasons for
he did.

Mr. Smith said, a motion having been proposed and
seoonded, it appeared to him that this matter could not
rest exactly where it was, and he rose for the purpose of
proposing a middle courso. He was a menther of
the warehouse committee, and was a party. to