The Sun.
London, England, 1846-08-18 00:00:00

RAILWAY.

William Clare and James Quinlan, the driver and stoker
of the Firefly engine, which caused the late serious and fatal
accident on the Eastern Counties Railway, at Stratford, were
brought up under a writ of habeas, before Chief Baron Pol-
lock, at the Judges' Chambers, to ascertain if there was any
just reason why the prisoners should not be admitted to bail.
Mr. B. W. Rawlings, solicitor, of Romford, appeared in
support of the application ; and Mr. Whitticomb, of the
firm of Messrs Duncan and Co., on the part of the Eastern
Counties Railway Company. The prisoners were in attend-
ance in the custody of an officer of Ilford gaol.
Mr. RAWLINS stated that the prisoners happened to be
employed as the driver and stoker of an engine called the
Firefly, which on the 18th of last month unfortunately ran
into another train at the Stratford station. For this the ac-
cused parties were given into custody by the railway autho-
rities, and under the powers of Lord Seymour's Act, the
Ilford bench of magistrates had committed his clients to take
their trial for the misdemeanour. It was on this charge that
the writ of habeas had been obtained to bring the prisoners
before his Lordship, but subsequently one of the parties in-
jured by the accident had died, and a coroner's jury had re-
turned a verdict of "Manslaughter" against. one of the pri-
soners. He had understood since he had been there that,
although the Learned Judge should admit the prisoners to
bail, there were police-officers in waiting who held the war-
rant of Mr. Baker, the Coroner for Middlesex, and who, upon
the authority of that warrant, would instantly take Clare
into custody, and convey him to Newgate. He (Mr. Raw-
lings) put it to the Learned Judge, whether he had not the
power, should the prisoners be once admitted to bail, to pre-
vent either of them being so taken into custody?
The Learned JUDGE said he had no such power, as it ap-
peared that to be admitted to bail on the charge of man-
slaughter was not the actual application before him, al-
though he must confess that at the outset he had considered
that it was so.

➢lr. WHirricomn observed, that if the application haneen
confined to the admission to bail on the charge of the mis-
demeanour under Lord Seymour's Act solely, his instructions
were, on the part of the Eastern Counties Railway Company,
to offer no opposition ; but he could not consent to the ad-
mission to bail upon the subsequent and more serious charge
of manslaughter, especially as the security was so small as
two sureties in the sum of 501. each.

Mr. RAWLINGS—WouId not the taking into custody of
either of the prisoners, after their admission to bail by your
Lordship, be a contempt of court, my Lord ?
Chief Baron POLLOCK—Certainly not; it is on another
charge.
Mr. RAW'LLNIGS submitted the hardship that would be in-
flicted on the poor man Clare if allowed to be taken into cus-
tody and conveyed to Newgate the moment he was admitted
to bail, moreover as he understood it was intended to apply
to put off the trial from the next session of the Central
Criminal Court to the subsequent one.
The Learned JUDGE said he should accept the bail for the
misdemeanour, and if the accused Clare was taken into cus-
tody on the coroner's warrant, the depositions could be im-
mediately forwarded to him, and he would admit him to bail
in that case also.

Mr. Charles Renck, of the Angel Inn, Stratford, and Mr.
James Heath, grocer, of Stratford, having been accepted as
bail, these proceedings terminated.
Clare was subsequently taken into custody on the coroner's
warrant, but the necessary arrangements were made in the
course of the day for his admission to bail.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT
(YESTERDAY).
OLD COURT.
One of the gentlemen summoned to serve upon the grand
jury objected to serve, upon the ground that under the
present system of prison discipline he should object to be any
party to carrying it out, as he disapproved of it altogether.
The RECORDER asked if he was to understand that the
gentleman had a conscientious objection to perform the duty
which the law required from him ?
The party summoned said he conscientiously objected to
be a party to carrying out the present system of punishing
offenders.
The RECORDER, after consulting with his colleagues upon
the bench, said that it appeared to him that the real ground
upon which the person ought to be excused was that he was
really unfit to undertake the office. The same obliquity of
mind which induced them to entertain such opinions as he
had conceived might induce him to say that an innocent
person was guilty.
The COURT eventually excused the person from serving
on the grand jury, the Recorder remarking that the ground
for excusing him was, that he was unfit to perform the duties
of a grand juror.
John Weekes surrendered to answer au indictment charging
him with embezzling three several sums of 45., 65., and 65.,
the moneys of Nathaniel Pegg, his master.
Mr. Ballantine and Mr. Charnock prosecuted, and Mr.
Clarkson and Mr. Parry defended the prisoner.
Flom the evidence adduced, it appeared that the prisoner
had been in the service of Mr. Pegg, who is a coal merchant
carrying on business at Phoenix-wharf, Southwark, for twelve
years, as collecting clerk, and his duty was to receive moneys
due to the prosecutor, and to account for thesums he received
at the end of each week ; and it was alleged that he had re-
ceived three payments from a person named Watts, and that
on those occasions he had embezzled the sums mentioned in
the indictment. Upon the cross-examination of Mr. Pegg,
however, he admitted that he allowed one of his clerks the
privilege of selling coals to his friends or private customers,
at an ads ante of five shillings per ton upon the price of the
coals in the pool, and although he denied ever having ac-
corded such a privilege to the prisoner, it appeared that the
sum he was charged with embezzling made up exactly the
amount that he would have been entitled to receive for him-
self, supposing such an arrangement to have existed, and
which on the part of the prisoner was alleged actually to
have baen the case. It likewise appeared that the charge
had not been made by the prosecutor until after the prisoner
had left his service, and gone into that of another coal-mer-
chant, named Wright, who had set up in the coal trade near
Mr. Pegg's wharf, and he admitted that the prisoner had
taken a great many of his customers away.
Mr. CLA RKSON made a very able address to the jury on
behalf of the prisoner, and called a number of highly re-
spectable witnesses, all of whom gave him an excellent
character.
The RECORDER summed up the case, and the jury imme-
diately returned a verdict of Not Guilty.
The prisoner was then arraigned upon another indictment,
preferred by the same prosecutor, charging him with larceny ;
but, after one or two witnesses had been examinee. Mr. Bal-
lantine expressed an opinion that he did not expect the jury
would convict the prisoner upon the evidence that he was in
a position to offer, and he therefore withdrew from the
prosecution.
A verdict of Not Guilty was accordingly recorded.
James Augustus Seymour, 40, was indicted for a misde-
meanour, in having unlawfully caused the registry of a false
entry of a birth.
Mr. Doane conducted the prosecution.
Mr. Hamblin, the registrar of births, deaths, and mar-
riages for St. Luke's, deposed that on the 12th of May de-
fendant came to his office and said he wished to register the
birth of a child, and witness, at his dictation, filled up the
register. He described himself as the father, and described
the mother as Amy Seymour, formerly Amy Wallen. The
witness said that the prisoner did not say that they were
married, but he inferred that they were so from the descrip-
tion the prisoner gave of the mother of the child.
The prisoner cross-examined the witness at some length,
as to his identity, but he persevered in declaring that he was
the man who had come to his office and had caused him to
make the entry.
Amy Wallen deposed that she had been living with the
prisoner as his wife, but they were not married. She was
delivered of a child, of which the prisoner was the father, in
the beginning of May, and she remembered the prisoner go-
ing away on the 12th, saying that he should get the birth
registered. She identified the signature to the register as the
prisoner's handwriting.
The prisoner cross-examined the witness at great length,
but upon matters totally irrelevent, and the only object ap-
parently being to defame her character and that of her fa-
mily. The Recorder repeatedly interposed, and told him
that he could not do himself any good by such a course of
examination, and that he ought to confine himself to the real
question at issue, viz. whether or not he had caused the false
entry to be made.
In anwer to a question from the Court, this witness said
that for the last nine months she was living with the pri-
soner, she went by the name of Amy Seymour, and was
looked upon by their landlord, and every one who knew
them, as the prisoner's wife.
The prisoner, who had conducted himself with great
effrontery during the trial, declared that the whole pro-
ceeding was a conspiracy by the girl's relations to get him
transported.
The RECORDER, at the close of the case for the prosecution,
said there appeared to him to be this difficulty, that although
the prisoner had made a statement that the parties were
married, and that the child was legitimate, yet, in point of
fact he had not made any actual false statement.
111 r. DOANE admitted this was so, but he said the effect of
such a proceeding was entirely to defeat the intention of this
Act of Parliament.
The lIMORbER said that the mischief which it was the in-
tention of the Act to prevent, was certainly effected, but
undeurdtglas uponcircunit the point.
should like to tike the opinion of
the i
Theitify ultimately returned a verdict of Guilty, but under
the direction of his Lordship, they appended to their verdict
the statement that the woman was known by the name
described on the register, and:that in point of fon act no actual
false representation had been. made by the priser.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
GUILDHALL.

Mn. WILLIAM Connerr.—Yesterday Mre. Cobbett, the
wire of the above individual, who is at present in the Court of
Queen's Bench, and who is the son of the late celebrated Mr.
Cobbett, appeared before Alderman Wood, for the purpose of
making an application under the following circumstances :
Mrs. Cobbett stated that about eletert years ago a person
named Jesse Oldficld came to her father-In-law's house in
Pdieffiehl, and represented himself as a man of substance.
lie also brought a woman with him, whom he represented
to be his wife. On being asked if he bad ever been .1). ser-
vice, he replied in the negative. From that time he bad
with Mr. Cobbett's family ; and, on t;:e
death
coorrinthecete,
elder
g;-:.f.leman, he (Mr. Win. Cobbett, the i
heir-at-law) wag, On the property being thrown Into
Chancery by the gross impOsiii,en of Jesse Oldfield,
thrown IMO prison, where he had been for seven years.
She now applied, on behalf of her husband, under an
Act passed in the reign of George 111., for the punish-
ment of persons uttering false certificates and cha- 1
racters of servants. Jesse Oldfield had said that he had never
been a servant, when it was untrue, and that the woman
whom he introduced was his wife, which was not the case.
Under these circumstances she now applied on behalf of Mr.
'William Cobbett, that he (Alderman Wood) would order
two magistrates to go to the Queen's Bench and take her
husband's evidence, on oath, respecting her statement, for
lie Vurlrne Of gral44 A Ramat And approbondixigidr.