The Sun.
London, England, 1860-08-06 00:00:00

no deliberate intention to insult the court, and, so
far as he was personally concerned, the matter was
not of the slightest importance. He, however, felt
that he was called upon to support the dignity of
the bench, and that ho had no alternative but to
take the course he adopted. If the high sheriff had
sat down when he requested him to do so, there
would have been an end to the matter, but he would
not, and persisted in addressing the gentlemen pre-
sent, and he felt himself therefore compelled to do
what he had done. He now, however, was quite
willing to accept the apology that had been offered,
and he was glad the matter had been thus settled.
His lordship then gave directions to Mr. Avory,
the deputy clerk of assize, that the fine of £5OO in-
flicted upon the high sheriff should be remitted,
and Mr. Evelyn and his friends left the court.
The unpleasant affair was thus so far brought to
a termination. It appears, however, that, from
some cause or other that has not transpired, an un-
pleasant feeling has existed between the judges and
the magistrates for this county at the present assizes.
It has been the invariable rule, not only in Surrey,
but in every other county where a large number of
magistrates attend in pursuance of their summonses
to serve on the grand jury, for the judge who sits
in the Crown Court to thank them for their zeal
and readiness to assist in the administration of the
justice of the country. At these assizes there was
an unusually large attendance of magistrates, and
many of them came a considerable distance, and Mr.
Evelyn, as high sheriff, being aware of this fact,
appeared to be anxious that his brother magistrates
should receive the 'compliment that was usually
paid to them by the judge, but it appears that
Mr. Justice Blackburn pertinaciously refused, awl
said that it was not customary. A great many
rumours and statements were current on Friday
in reference to the affair—one of which was that
Mr. Justice Blackburn had made an offer to remit
the fine before any apology was made, and an-
other that Mr. Evelyn had sent a cheque to the
judge for the amount of the fine. But these
statements are incorrect. Nothing of this sort
occurred, and the above is a correct version of the
affair. Mr. Evelyn appears to have filled the office
of high sheriff with very great liberality, and he is
much respected in the county generally, as well as
by his own particular friends, and the general feel-
ing appears to be that Mr. Justice Blackburn acted
rather harshly to him in the matter, and that the
imposition of such an enormous fine was not only
uncalled for, but actually absurd, under the circum-
stances. Mr. Evelyn performed his duty of escort-
ing the judges to court on Saturday morning, but he
only remained for a very short time.
(Before Mr. Justice Blackburn.)

Elizabeth Ann Barber, a well-dressed middle-
aged woman, surrendered to take her trial for mis-
demeanour,- in having knowingly and wilfully
caused certain false statements to be entered upon
a register of births.
Mr. Ribton conducted the prosecution ; Mr.
Lilley and Mr. Pearce were counsel for the de-
fendant.
The learned counsel for the prosecution, in open-
ing the case to the jury, said that the lady at the
bar was the wife of a gentleman named Barber,
who, he was instructed, was in possession or en-
titled to considerable property, and they were
married in the year 1836. They continued to live
together until the year 1845, when Mr. Barber got
into difficulties, and was ultimately taken to the
Queen's Bench prison, and since that time the par-
ties had never lived together. The defendant in
1859 resided at Thames Ditton, and in August of
that year she had a child, and it was with reference
to the statements made by her to the registrar of
births for the district, and which he should clearly
prove were false, that the present prosecution was
instituted against the defendant. The jury were
aware that under a particular statute it was neces-
sary that the names of the parents of every child
should be registered, and it would appear
that the prisoner stated to the registrar
that her name was Elizabeth Anne Jones, that
her maiden name was Summersby, and that her
husband's name was Jones, and that he was a
traveller, when she knew perfectly well that she
was a married woman, that her real name was
Barber, and that her maiden name was not
Summersby but Goodall. He said that he thought
he was bound to inform the jury that this prosecu-
tion was not instituted by the registrar or by the
authorities, but that it emanated from the husband,
and that he had also commenced proceedings in the
Divorce Court. He was not aware of any object
the defendant had in view in making the false
statement, but if he established the facts the jury
would be bound to convict her of the offence im-
puted to her by the present indictment.
Mr. Justice Blackburn inquired whether there
were any grounds for believing that the giving of
the false names had any reference to obtaining pro-
perty of any kind by means of the proceeding ?
Mr. Ribton said he could not find any evidence
that this was so.
Mr. Justice Blackburn said that as this was the
GC4,00 be IT O. Of orit.io.. that Oa. rwo=o.,,tinn
not to have been instituted. It was not at all the
case contemplated by,the act of Parliament.
Mr. Lilley said that the prosecution was not only
instituted by the husband, but he had actually
caused the commission of the offence by himself
sending the registrar to the defendant to obtain the
statements that were made the subject Of prosecu-
tion.
Evidence was then adduced by which it nppeared
that Mr. Woods, the registrar of births for the
Esher district, went to the defendant's house and
told her he had been informed there was the birth
of a child to be registered, and asked for the neces-
sary information, and the defendant gave him the
particulars which he inserted in the register, and
the defendant signed it as Elizabeth Anne Jones.
He also stated that a person named Barber, whom
he had since ascertained was the husband of the de-
fendant, called upon him and requested him to go
and obtain the information from the defendant.
A witness named Dickells also proved that he
had known the prisoner and her family for a great
many years, and that her maiden name was Eliza-
beth Goodall, and had never heard her called Sum-
mersby. He likewise stated that he was present at
her marriage with Barber, 23 years ago, and he
had seen Barber a short time back.
Mr. Lilley, at the close of the prosecution, took
some technical ohjections to the indictment, and
Mr. Justice Blackburn said it appeared to 44
that the only averment that requlred an answer
was the one that the defendant-had falsely alleged
that her maiden name wAs Summersby, when in
point of fact it was Goodall.
Mr. Lilley made a very energetic address to the
jury on behalf of the defendant, and in the course
of it he said it was clear that the prosecution had
been instituted by the husband from vindictive mo-
tives, and not for the purposes of justice; and he
contended that the jury would be justified, under
all the circumstances, in coming to the conclusion
that the defendant had not wilfully stated her
maiden name to be Summersby, and would be jus-
tified in acquitting her on that ground.
Mr. Justice Blackburn in summing up repeated
that in his opinion the prosecution was a very im-
proper one, and never ought to have been instituted.
The object of the act of Parliament was to prevent
registers of births, &c., from being falsified for the
purpose of enabling parties to obtain property, and
it was never intended to apply to such a ease as this.
Th:re was still, however, no doubt that the matter

came 'Within the terms of the statute, and they
must deal with it, and if the evidence satisfied them

that the defendant had made a false statement, and
had caused that &Ise statement to be placed upon
the register, the only course they could pursue was
to find her guilty ; but they might, at the same
by a recommendation
time, accompany that verdic:

to mercy.
The jury; after some deliberatiolZ. found the pri-
soner guilty, but strongly recommenc: ed her to the
merciful consideration of the court.

Mr, Justice Blackburn in passing senteti.ee said
that in his opinion the conduct of the husband to in-
stituting this prosecution was as improper as it
could be, and he was only sorry this was one of those
cases in which the court had no power to allow the
expenses, that he might have expressed his dissatis-
faction by refusing the expenses, if they could have
been allowed. The object of the act of Parlia-
.

went was to prevent the fabrication of evidence by

means of the registers and thus obtain possession
of property, and where this was established, it was
no doubt a very serious offence and one that would
be visited by severe punishment. In this case,

however, it Was clear that the only object the de-
fendant had in view was to diguise her real posi-
tion, and he therefore only felt himself called upon
to inflict a nominal punishment. He then ordered
her to pay a fine of ls, and to be at once discharged

from custody.
There was some applause in the court at this ter-
mination of the case.
This was the last criminal case for trial. and Mr.
Justice Blackburn then proceeded to try common
jury causes taken from the other court.

OXFORD CIRCUIT—HEREFORD' AUG. 2.
CIVIL COURT.
(Before Mr. Justice Byles and Common Juries.)
IL Cooke and Mrig.nC:trhaaiyss
DOWDING AND WIFE V. ORGEE,
Mr. Huddleston, Q.C., and Mr. Best appeared for
the plaintiff; and Mr. W.
James Dowding
rpaodredyin w
for the defendant.
The plaintiff in this action',
a farmer at the Hill House Farm
.ffor a malicious
county, end he sued the defendant, Thornas' 0 ,
who was also a farmer at the Vine's End Farmr',2nien'
1 e. The decla-
ration same parish, to recover damage;
)treepass and fake
prosecutionration ais ocoofn
thaiisn(etdh ea p
countl plaintiff's) t ifffo'rs

-C_.T'i