Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1860-02-11 00:00:00

costs ; Hornby-street---dismissed;
Eliza Roberts, Teoughton-street--filed ss. and costs ;
BridgetEastwoooll, Peat-street;—fined 2i.- 6d., and 2s. 64..
coats; John &Bairns, Oak-street-_—fined ss. and costs;
Daniel Berry, 161, Chatham-street—dismissed; Isabella
Almond, Vauxlis.ll-road, summoned for permitting drunk-
enness—fined is. 6d.; and 2s. 6d. costs; Robert Pear-
son, •Brownlow-street, who had been six times preii-
ously fined-50s. and costs; Thomas Jones, Park-road
—fined 20s. and costs; James Randalls, Netherfield-
road North—dismissed; Abraham Fountain, Newhall-
street—fined 10s. and costs; Sarah ITutton, keeper of a
night-cellar-in Ilotham-street--fined 6s. and costs.

THE CHARGES AGAINST THE CLERK
(OF ST. JAMES'S CHURCH.

INQUIRY YESTERDAY.

A public investigation was held yesterday at St.
James's school-room, St. James's-road, before the Vener-
able Archdeacon Jones, the object being to inquire into
the conduct of the clerk of the church, Mr. George
Claringbold, who, the, incumbent alleged, had made
various unauthorised charges for marriages, &c at the
•1
church.

The Archdeacon, in opening the inquiry, said, it
was with much regret that he was compelled to hold,
the present investigation, for he could have wished that ,
his private efforts would have proved success-
ful, and prevented such a trial,; but., as these
_efforts-- friendly efforts lie might -say —bad failed
altogether, he held that inquiry, which, by the act
passed in the eighth year of the reign of her present
Majesty, he beheved he could be compelled to do.
Though he was not required by the 'terms of the act to
held so open and formal a court as that, yet, as the sub-
ject of the inquiry had already been brought before the
public, and had caused considerable excitement in the
;locality, he had decided to hold his ,court there and to
admit a portion at least of the neighbouring com-
munity. But he wished it to be understood that he
could not admit of any manifestation of feeling on
either side. He desired it to be in all respects
a calm, quiet, and impartial inquiry; and with that view
he must request that all who had to speak would abstain
from irrelevant remarks. His inquiry must be strictly
limited to the alleged misconduct of the defendant, with
reference especially to the charges and fees. He then
called upon the' Rev. Mr. Thomas, the incumbent, to
state the charges against the'clerk.
Mr. Thomas ate' some length detailed the charges
against Mr. Claringbold, including the receipt of a
larger amount of fees than he was authorised to charge,
and more than he had accounted for ; the charge of
2s. 6d. for the marriage certificate at the time of a mar-
riage, of is: 6d. for the publication of the'banns, and of
Is. 6d. for the registration of a baptism—none of which
charges were legal. or authorised by the incumbent. •
Mr. Deighton, who, instructed by Mr. Clarke Aspi-
nail, appeared for Mr.• Claringbold, said that would
perhaps be the proper time for him to say that he
appeared for Mr. Claringbold.
The Archdeacon having read the 'clause of the act
under which the investigation was held, said it did not
appear that that was to be considered in the light of
a case at common law ; it. was more an inquiry on
'behalf of the archdeacon to get the best information he
possibly can, and in fact, no 'doubt, the object of that
act was to lessen the expense of terminating such
questions as those. He thought it would really be a
bad precedent for needless display and expense if he
allowed counsel to appear.. He would, however, permit
Mr. Deighton to assist his client by advising him.
Considerahle discussion ensued upon this point, but
the archdeacon-refused to allow Mr. Deighton to speak
as a right, though helubsequently permitted him to do
so, and to cross-examine the witnesses on behalf of Mr.
Claringbold as a matter of courtesy., ,
Deighton objected to the continuation of the
enquiry, as an enquiry held under the special Act of
Parliament in reference to this church enacted that in
cases of that kind, by certain persons therein specified,
and that that. enquiry having been held, and Mr.
Claringbold having been declared innocent, it was con
trary. to the principles of English justice that a man
should be tried twice for the same offence, but the
archdeacon decided to go on with the investigation, and
refusal the application made by Mr. Aspinall that the
prosecutors should not be assisted by. Mr. Thomas.
The first witness called was ,

. -
Mrs. Drake, who stated that she was married
March, 1859, by license. Before the marriage she sa4 1
the clerk and paid him £3 ss. for a license, and accom-
panied him to the surrogates with another woman to get
the license.. She did not see how much the clerk paid.
On the Sunday morning following when they were mar-
ried, the clerk demanded 17F. for fees, and haying been
'told that they would require the marriage lines, said they
would have' to-pay half-a-Crown more, which was done.
Besides this, witness gave hint four shillings and six shil-
lings, and her husband said that he gave him half a' sove-
reign.—Cross-examined by Mr. Deighton : The curate,
Mr. Dunkerly, was present when the clerk demanded the
fees. I am. quite sure that I paid Mr. Claringbold £3
ss. in his own house for the license, and that I did not
pay the money to the surrogate. The way I first'
discovered that £3 ss. was an improper sum, was when
I heard that a person who,lived in the same street had
been married by license, and only paid £2
Mary Bingham, who said she was, present on each of
the occasions spoken of by the last witness, was, called to
corroborate her evidehce, and was being cross-eXamined
by Mr. Deighton as to where she lived, and how she got
her living, when the Archdeacon interfered, and refused
to allow that course of cross-examination to be proceeded
with.

Mr. Deighton said that his only object was to get to
know who the witness was, as his client informed him
that he did not know her at all.

Mr. Shore deposed that be was married at St. James's
Church on Easter Sunday, 1859, and that he,paid 17s.
for marriage fees, and, 2s. 6d, for the certificate. The
curate was present at the time.
John Cool, coachman, was married at St. James's in
March, 1859 ; paid ls. 6d. for the' banns, 10s. for the
marriage, and. 2s. 6d. for the marriage lines. The
curate was present Then the money was paid, and asked
if he wanted the lines, and witness asked him what they
were. Mr. Dunkerly replied that he would have to pay
2s. 6d. for them.

Mr. Dunkerley—That is a gross and impudent false-
hood. •
-The Archdeacon said there must be some mistake
about the matter ; and the witness when asked by Mr.
Deighton if ho was sure of the subject,"said that, to the
best of his knowledge, Mr. Dunkerley said that, but it
was so long ago that he .would not say positively.
Mrs. Howell deposed to having paid 2s. 6d. for the
marriage lines, and said that having been married pre-
viously, and received her certificate without payment,
she was rather astonished at the charge.
Mrs. Jamieson paid lls. marriage tees, ls. 6d. for the
publication of the banns, and 2s. 6d. for the certificate.
Mrs. Brown said she had paid 17s. 6d. for marriage
feeo, and 2s. 6d. for, the certificate, and her evidence
was corroborated by that of Mrs. Rebecca Golden.
Mrs. Walkinshaw having' sworn that she had been
asked Is. 6d. for a haptism by the clerk,
The Archdeacon said this was a bad case, and he was
sorry that any charge should be made even for register-
ing a baptism, but in no case should a charge be made
for administering a sacrament of the. Church. He should
be glad to see the charge for the certificate done away
with, for it brought reproach upon the ordinances of the
Church.

Mr. Thomas said he felt that himself, but it had been
the custom to, make a small charge for registration.
The witness said that Mr. Thomas told the clerk that
he had told him not to charge one-and-sixpence, and
the clerk said it was a lie and a falsehood. ,
Mr. Baker, one of the church-wardens, was called, to
shew that in September Mr. Thomas had told the clerk
only to charge one shilling for registering baptisms,
and six-pence for publication of banns, and to discontinue
the charge of two shillings and six-pence for the marriage
certificate.
Mr. Thomas said there were four cases of over-charge
after September.
This being the case,
Mr. Deighton, in defence, questioned the regularity
of the present proceedings.
The Archdeacon said he would not ' admit of the
objection being made ; Mr. Deighton must not call in
question his authority.
Mr. Deighton then addressed the court for the defence,
contending that, by the special act of Parliament with
reference to that, church, the fees payable were made
dduble the amount of the fees paid at Walton, and that
the clerk had, therefore, no discretion as to the amount
he charged. They had received no evidence of the
amount of fees payable at Walton; and if it should be
found that the clerk had taken the proper amount, he
apprehended that he had been guilty of no legal mis-
conduct. With regard t' the first case, in which the
clerk was charged with having received 13 ss. for a
license, Mr. Clarmgbold denied it; and not only did he