The Sun.
London, England, 1860-07-19 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON. TIITTESDAY EVENING, JULY 19, 1866.

SUMMER ASSIZE'S.

HOME CIRCUIT.—CHLmsroit.P, .luly 18.
CROWN SIDE.
(Before Lord Chief Justice Cockburn.)
James Bowtell, 23, labourer, was charged with
feloniously diverting and altering a signal upon the
Eastern Counties Railway, with intent to obstruct
the engines and carriages travelling upon the line,
and to endanger the safety of the passengers.
Mr. Codd prosecuted on behalf of the Eastern
Counties Railway Company.
• It appeared from the evidence of a signalman
named French at the Chesterford station, that at
40 minutes past 11 at night, on the 13th of March,
a meat train from Norwich arrived at that station,
and he put on the red light, or danger signal,
as a warning to all other trains not to come up
while this train was at the station. The signal is
worked by a wheel, and, very fortunately, sortly
afterwards French heard the wheel creak, and sup-
posing it to be one of his mates who was moving
it, he called out that he had put on the danger
signal, and went towards the signal post, and
he there saw the prisoner in the act of moving
the signal, and he had already changed the red
light, and had put on the green, which denoted
caution to 'any approaching train. The proper
signal was immediately replaced and the prisoner
taken into custody, and, on being asked how he
came to meddle with the signal, he made no reply.
It appeared that within a very short time a meat
train from Peterborough, a second meat train from
Norwich, and also a mail train, would have been
due at the Chesterford station, and if the alteration
of the signal had not providentially been discovered,
the most disastrous consequences might have en-
sued. The prisoner did not appear to have ever
attempted to deny that he committed the act im-
puted to him, or to have given any explanation of
his reasons for it. It was the opinion of the wit-
nesses that the prisoner intended to have put on
the white, or all-right, signal, in which case any
approaching train would have dashed into the sta-
tionary train, and received serious mischief.
The jury, after a short deliberation, returned a
verdict of guilty, and evidence was then given that
the prisoner had been convicted upon a former oc-
casion of housebreaking, and sentenced to six
months' imprisonment.
The Lord Chief Justice sentenced the prisoner to
' 2 months' hard labour.

OXFORD CIRCUIT—WORCESTER, July 17.
(Before Mr. Justice Hill and a Common Jury).
DAVIS V. BOMFORD.
Mr. Serjeant Pigott and Mr. Gray appeared for
the plaintiff; Mr. Huddleston, Q.C., and Mr. Mot-
teram for the defendant.
The plaintiff in this action, Fanny Davis, was the
daughter of a journeyman shoemaker in this city,
and she sued the defendant, Thomas Bomford, the
son of a farmer at Westmancote, to recover damages
for a breach of promise of marriage.
The defendant denied the promise, and also
pleaded that the plaintiff had absolved him from its
performance.
It appeared that the plaintiff was a young wo-
man, 22 years of age, of considerable personal at-
tractions, and in the year 1856 she was residing with
her parents at Defford Lodge, the property of Sir
Thomas Sebright. The defendant saw her for the
first time at the Worcester Races in 1856 ; and on
the 12th of July in that year he wrote her a letter,
signed " T. 8.," in which he requested her to meet
him the next evening near the Defford Station.
The plaintiff showed the letter to her parents, and
they accompanied her to the station, where the de-
fendant was introduced ; and from that day, the
13th July, 1856, down to the 4th of September,
1857, the defendant was the plaintiff's recognised
suitor and a constant visitor at her father's house,
several times a week. Distinct evidence was given
by the father, mother, and brother of the plaintiff
that the defendant had promised to marry her ; and
numerous letters written by the defendant to the
plaintiff were read in evidence, containing expres-
sions of most devoted love. In August he addressed
her as " My own Fanny," and, the lady being fair,
he soon addressed her as " My own Lily, and
" dearest Lily," telling her that he did not go to the
picnic, because he knew she would not be there ;
that she was " his life," his all," and that " every-
thing else was as nought." In September he wrote
that every day was as a month till he saw her again;
and he begged her to think of him sometimes, as he
always did of her. In October he excused his ab-
sence by writing that he had been " out shooting
the whole of last week," bat he hoped to be home
in a day or two, and promised himself the pleasure
of seeing her immediately on his return, and said
he would come to see her the same evening. He
added that, he knew his " own dear Lily" had too
much confidence in his tried affection and untiring
devotion to suspect he could avoid this, to him,
" miserably long separation," but that she would
still think of him with love equalled by his own,
and believe him still ever and always her own
" Tom." In December, he addressed her as "My
own, own Lily," and assured her that few mo-
ments passed without thoughts of her, and that
she was " always in the memory of her own
Tom." In January, 1857, he was absent at
the Feathers Hotel at Ledbury, whence he addressed
her as " My dearest, dearest Lily," and told her
that, but for the belief that she loved him well and
truly, whether absent or present, his not seeing her
would be " very insupportable." As it was, he said
he did not forget her for one moment, and that he
should be " wretched " till they met. In March,
1857, he wrote a letter, in which he said that, when-
ever he was alone, his thoughts always rested upon
the plaintiff, his " own dearest treasure," and fan-
cied he was by her side and his arms encircling her
he loved best in the wide, wide world; but some-
times other thoughts would intrude, and he sighed
to find it was only a day dream, a fancy " instead
of a reality." The next letter began "My own
sweet life," and on April 14, 1857, he wrote a letter
cautioning her to take care of her health," if not for
your own sake, you must for mine ; " for, said he,
" to me, dear girl, you are estimated as beyond all
value, more to me than all else, and nothing earthly,
whether riches, fame, fortune, or position, could
possibly compensate for my loss of you." ie said
he fancied that she looked paler on Sunday than
usual, and, said he, " I must have the rose' pre-
dominate over the ' lily' in your sweet face a little
more, dearest," and so he hoped to find her better
next meeting. He reminded her of the lines he
gave her once on the common ; when he looked
upon her, though he said nothing, he thought of the
words—

"Wert thou to perish, so beloved,
I would not weep, but—die."
This letter, which was rather a long one, went on
to inform the plaintiff that love was " a strange
medley of hopes and fears, pains and pleasures, sor-
rows and joys ; " and that, amidst all, his "emo-
tions of unbounded love for his own dear Fan,
and the pleasures attending it," he too ex-
perienced, like others, many a pain, many an
unwelcome thought, many troublesome fears,
anxieties, and darker moments; but, he said,
" You, dear girl, can make amends for all the
bitters by according me the sweets of your whole
and entire love for ever." On the 12th of May he
wrote how anxious he was again to hold her to his
heart, and repeat those " vows and assurances of
never-ceasing love and faithfulness" which she had
so often heard; and on the 16th of May he assured
her that his love had gradually but surely increased,
and it was then of such a strength that it would
" defy change or anything else to diminish it." In
June he wrote from Birmingham that he was going
to the theatre with his sisters, but not all the gay
doings or attractive sights he might see could tempt
him ever to forget his "own darling Fanny ;" and,
as an inducement to her to remain faithful, and not
forget him, he sent her " Ten thousands of kisses."
The correspondence continued on these terms from
July, 1856, to the beginning of September, 1857 ;
but the last letter, dated the 4th of Septem-
ber, though addressed to " Dearest Fanny," was
much colder and shorter than the rest. It expressed
sorrow for not seeing her that week, " but it was
unavoidable ;" and requested her to meet him on
Sunday afternoon near the bridge, or between that
and the bottom of the gravelly hill, "exactly at
half-past 3." What occurred on that day did not
appear ; but from the evidence of the plaintiff's
brother it seemed that soon after the defendant re-
turned the plaintiff all her letters, and wished her to
return his, in order that he might pretend to his
father that he had broken off the connexion. The
plaintiff refused to do this, saying that if she gave
up his letters she should feel that she was giving
him up all together. The defendant, however, wrote
her another letter on the 17th of September, which
the plaintiff's counsel were challenged to put in, and
which it was suggested would have shown that the
engagement was put an end to by mutual consent ;
but this letter was not put in by either side, though
the defendant had ontained a copy under a Judge's
order. As the law does not allow the partieS to be
examined in an action of this kind, the plaintiff's case
was proved by her father and mother and brother,
and the letters read in evidence. It appeared that,
the connexion was entirely broken off in Septem-
ber, 1857. The defendant married in December,
1859, and as soon as this event took place the pre-
sent action was brought.
On the cross-examination of the plaintiff's father
it appeared that the present action was not the first
which had been brought for the plaintiff for breach
of promise of marriage. A Mr. Skinner, a tanner,
had been her suitor, and the father had brought an
action against him, which he settled at the office of
Mr. Clutterbuck, the plaintiff's attorney, for £54.
This settlement was not come to before the 2d of
March, 1857, nearly eight months alter the acquaint-

once with the defendant had commenced ; and, as
Mrs. Davis adnitted that the connexion with
Skinner, the tamer, had been broken off about two
months before tie settlement of the action, there
was some grounc for the suggestion that the plain-
tiff was receiving the addresses of two lovers at the
some time. _ _ _

Both Mr. and Ars. Davis positively denied that
there was any trut in the suggestion, and said that
Skinner had brok?n off his engagement before the
defendant was introduced. _ .

Mrs. Davis, or cross-examination, said that
Skinner had been her daughter's suitor for five or
six years, the infe•ence from which was that she
was only 12 or 13 rears of age when the courtship
began.
No evidence beiig given by the defendant,
Mr. Sergeant Pigott summed up the case for the
plaintiff, and in so doing said the only substantial
question for the jury was as to the amount of the
damages. The promise was proved by the direct
evidence, confirmed by the acts and letters of the
defendant, who had visited and corresponded with
the plaintiff as his intended for 14 months. Nothing
could be suggested against the propriety of the plain-
tiff's character ant. conduct, and the jury might be
well assured that if the defendant could have
brought forward anything either in reduction of
damages, or in support of his plea that the plain-
tiff had absolved him from the performance of his
promise, he would not have failed to do so, He,
therefore, asked for a verdict with substantial
damages.
Mr. Huddleston, for the defendant, denied that
any promise whatever had be©n made, and, even if
j the u-y should think otherwise, he contended
there was evidence that the engagement was
broken off by mutual consent. The defendant had
returned the plaintiff her letters, but he had been
incautious enough not to demand back his own, and
the result was that they were all deposited in Mr.
Clutterbuck's office until the defendant got mar-
ried, when they were brought out to sustain this
action. The learned counsel denounced this as an
attorney's action, and said Mr. Clutterbuck, the
attorney, was the only person in court who shed
tears during the pathetic speech made by the plain-
tiff's counsel. The action was merely a screw for
the extortion of money, which he hoped the jury
would prevent by finding a verdict for the defen-
dant.
Mr. Justice Hill summed up the evidence to the
jury, and left it to them to say, first, whether the
promise of marriage had been made ; and, secondly,
whether the plaintiff had absolved the defendant
from its performance.
The jury, after a few minutes' consideration,
found a verdict for the defendant, to the evident
surprise of nearly every person in court.
CRIMINAL COURT.
(Before Mr. Justice Byles.)

James Hutchinson, commercial traveller, was
charged with feloniously forging a promissory note
for 150, at Dudley, on the 19th of June, 1857, with
intent to defraud. There was also a count for
uttering the same knowing it to be forged.
Mr. Kenealy appeared for the prosecution ; Mr.
J. Best defended the prisoner.
It appears that a Mr. Joseph Nickolls kept
what is called a money club at Dudley, and that in
the year 1857 the prisoner was a member of it.
There were 500 members, and the custom was for
each member to subscribe ss. a month until the sum
of £25 was raised. This sum was called a share,
and was put up to auction and sold to the highest
bidder. The purchaser then gave a promissory note
with two sureties, and repaid the money by monthly
instalments. In June, 1857, the prisoner bought
two shares, amounting to £5O, at the auction, for
which he gave his promissory note, with two sure-
ties, and the sum of £l2 195., which he paid down
out of the £5O which he received. The note was
given to the secretary of the society and locked
up in the iron safe, and the prisoner paid his in-
stalments of £1 a month regularly for one year, but
he then made default, and it was ascertained, upon
inquiry, that the signatures of the sureties to the
promissory note which he had given were forgeries.
No charge, however, was made against the prisoner
for two years, but at length, when it was found
that no more money was forthcoming, and that the
sureties would not pay, the prisoner was given into
custody.
Mr. Best addressed the jury for the prisoner, but
he was found guilty of uttering the forged note,
and Mr. Justice Byles sentenced bim to four years'
penal servitude.
James Addleton, 28, was charged with commit-
ting aggravated assaults upon his wife and daugh-
ter on the 26th May and 18th June, 1860, at Oldbury.
Mr. It. Sawyer appeared for the prosecution ; the
prisoner was undefended.
It appeared that on the 26th May the prisoner,
who was a smith's stoker, returned home from his
work and began to abuse his wife, and threatened to
cut her head off with a knife with which he was
eating his supper. The poor woman took refuge in
a neighbour's house, and as she was standing at the
door he threw a knife at her head, but missed his
aim. On the 18th June he came home in liquor,
and beat his little girl with a gutta percha stick,
and when the mother had put the child to bed he
went upstairs, and having made a ferocious attack
upon it, threw his wife down, beat her violently,
and took her by the throat till she became senseless.
The jury found the prisoner guilty of both
charges.
It appeared the prisoner was a good workman
and earned good wages, but he had been in the
habit of cruelly assaulting his wife ever since his
marriage, four years ago.
Mr. Justice Byles regretted he could not pass
upon the prisoner a sentence of penal servitude.
This case was the worst of the kind which had ever
come before him, and he passed upon the prisoner
the heaviest sentence in his power, viz., two years'
imprisonment with hard labour.

NORTHERN CIRCUIT.—YORK, July 16.
(Before Mr. Baron Martin and a Special Jury,
SMITH Y. PIGGOT.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, who
had been for many years the manager of the wire-
drawing establishment at Halifax of Royston and
Co., to recover from the plaintiff, the personal re-
presentative of the late Mr. Royston, damages for
dismissing him from his employment, and also a
third of the profits for salary up to the time of his
dismissal.

The learned Judge held that there was no evi-
dence of any employment by the defendant; and
directed a verdict for the defendant accordingly.
(Before Mr. Baron Wilde.)

James Richardson, a respectable looking man,
was indicted for having by false pretences obtained
from John Kay, as agent to Mr. W. B. Beaumont,
of Bretton hall, M.P., various sums of money.

Mr. Hall and Mr. Wortley appeared for the pro-
secution; and Mr. Overend, Q.C., and Mr. Serle
were for the prosecution.
From the evidence adduced it appeared the pri-
soner had been upwards of 40 years in the employ-
ment of the Beaumont family, and that since the
present Mr. Beaumont had succeeded to the estates,
about nine years, he had acted as overlooker to the
masons and other labourers upon the property at
Brettoi' The pay-day was once a fortnight, and it
was the prisoner's duty to present a time-bill at the
office some days previously, with the amount due
to each man stated in such bill, and also the num-
ber of days' work done by him during the preceding
fortnight. On the 19th of May last the prisoner
took in a time-bill for work done ending the 19th
of May, and the total amount of such bill was
£4O Bs. In that account the prisoner charged for
one Charles Moorhouse 12 days at 45., Henry
Ogden 12 days at 45., Joseph Haigh 12 days at 45.,
William Norton 12 days at 3s. 10d., and Edwin
Richardson 12 days at 4s. All these persons were
called on behalf of the prosecution, and proved that
they had not worked the number of days charged,
and had not received that amount of money from the
prisoner.
Mr. Overend, on behalf of the prisoner, con-
tended that there was no intention on the part of
the prisoner to defraud, that he had a multiplicity
of business on his hands, without any office of his
own, and was obliged to trust much to his memory.
It was hardly likely 'that a man who for such a
number of years had borne an irreproachable
character would commence in his old age such a
system of fraud. It was a mistake on the part of
the prisoner in the keeping of his accounts, and as
such he hoped the jury would view it.
The learned Judge, in summing up, put it to the
jury whether such a mistake could have been made
by the prisoner.
The jury, after having retired for a short time,
brought in a verdict of guilty, with a strong recom-
mendation to mercy.
Sentence was deferred.
Thomas Wilson was indicted for forging a cheque
for £35 10s. on the Sheffield and Rotherham Bank,
purporting to be drawn by Mr. Thomas Swann, of
Morthenthall, on the 7th day of July, with intent
to defraud.
.Mr. Nlaule and Mr. Wortley appeared for the
prosecution, and Mr. Campbell Foster for the de-
fence.
It appeared that on Saturday, the 7th of July,
the prisoner entered the bank of the Sheffield and
Rotherham Banking Company, and presented a
cheque purporting to be drawn in favour of
Messrs.
_Rhodes and Smith, coal merchants,
by Mr. Thomas Swann, of Morthen-hall, or
bmr.er, and tendered it for payment. Mr, Swann
had an account at the bank, and after some in-
quiry the cheque was cashed by a clerk named
Calvert, he having submitted it to Mr. Turner, his
superior in the bank. The prisoner endorsed the
name of John Rodes" on the cheque, and after-

wards placed in it the letter " h." The cheque
turned out to be a forgery, and the prisoner was
taken into custody on the following Monday. At
the time when he presented the cheque he had
much hair under his chin and large whiskers, and
when apprehended he had small whiskers and no
hair under his chin, and both Mr. Calvert and Mr.
Turner, though they expressed their belief that he
was the man who had presented the cheque, would
not swear positively to him.
A witness named Lees, who had known the pri-
soner several years, stated that on the Saturday
afternoon the prisoner had changed a £5-note of
the Sheffield and Rotherham Bank, which was cut
in two at his beer-house, and that he then had a
beard under his chin.

This was the evidence against the prisoner.
The defence was that he was not the man who
presented the cheque, that the note which had been
cut, and which he changed, was not likely to have
been reissued by the bank, that the bank would in
the ordinary course of business take the number. 3 of
the notes paid out, and there was no proof that the
note changed was one of those given for the cheque,
and that in other respects the identity of the pri-
soner was not satisfactorily proved.
His lordship having summed up,
The jury retired, and on their return found the
prisoner guilty.
Sentence was deferred.
(Before Mr.'Monk, Q.C., in the Magistrates' Room.)
Four men, named Charles Smith, Jas. Marshall,
William Thompson, and Joseph Stott, were in-
dicted for a highway robbery on Richard Marsden
on the night of the 9th of May last.
Mr. Shaw and Mr. Cummings prosecuted ; and
the prisoners were severally defended in their order
by Mr. Campbell Foster, Mr. Blanshard; Mr.
Wheelhouse, and Mr. Waddy.
It appeared that the prosecutor had had to at-
tend an inquest at two o'clock on the day in ques-
tion at a village near Bradford, and set out with £5
in gold and afew shillings in his pocket. He was
drinking at several public-houses during the day,
and at midnight found himself in a drunken state
in a beer-house called the Fox and Hounds, near
Bradford, in which were the prisoners and several
other men. There he drank more ale, and was with
the other men turned out at 2 o'clock in the morn-
ing. On his way home he swore that the four pri-
soners took him through a lonely place, called
Peckover Park, and knocked him down and robbed
him of £4 15s.
The several learned counsel engaged for the de-
fence addressed the jury for their respective clients,
contending that the prosecutor was so drunk that
his evidence could not be relied upon, and that he
was not corroborated, but in several points contra•
dieted in his testimony.
The case occupied all day.
The learned Judge having summed up,
The jury acquitted all the prisoners.

PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEES.

THE METROPOLIS GAS BILL.

This bill, which occupied the attention of the
select committee for several weeks, having been re-
ferred back for further consideration, the com-

mittee, consisting of Mr. Sotheron Estcourt, Lord
11. Cecil, Mr. Packe, Mr. North, and Mr. Turner,
re-assembled yesterday—Mr. Estcourt in the chair.
Mr. Wyatt appeared in support of the bill, and
Mr. Baxter on behalf of the London Gas Com-
panies.
At a former meeting Mr. Baxter said the great
objection which the companies entertained to the
bill was the repeal of certain clauses of the Gas
Consolidation Clauses Act of 1847, under which
clauses the companies were entitled to divide 10
per cent., subject to certain reservations. The effect
of the repeal of those clauses would be to reduce the
rate of dividend from 10 to 8 per cent. The next
objection was to the repeal of that part of the Act
which made the reduction of price only commen-
surate with the excess of profits. 'the bill as it
now stood would have the effect of reducing the 8
to 4 per cent., and the companies would be unable
to raise the dividend again beyond that amount.
With respect to the price of gas, the companies
considered that there ought to be a maximum
beyond the charging price, and they suggested
that the maximum should be ss. 6d. per 1,000
feet, leaving a shilling margin beyond the
charging price, so as to allow for rises in price
of coal and other increases on the cost of pro-
duction. As a security against any improper
exercise of this power it was proposed to give
the consumers an appeal to the Secretary of State,
who would have authority tedisallow the increased
charge. Considerable objection was felt to the
power possessed by the Metropolitan Board of
Works, who could prevent the gas companies from
laying down their mains, although they would be
liable to penalties if they did not supply gas when
' demanded. After pointing out. several minor ob-

jections,
Mr. Wyatt was heard on behalf of the promoters
of the bill, contending that under the operation of
the Gas Clauses Consolidation Act it was quite im-
possible for the consumers to obtain a reduction in
the price of gas. If the committee should think
proper to fix the maximum dividend at 10 per cent.
there would be no difficulty in adapting the clauses
of the bill to that view of the case. With respect
to there being no means of raising the dividend in
case it should happen to be reduced to 4 per cent.,
he should have no objection to an alteration of the
clause if such was its affect as it now stood. The
guaranteed dividend was fixed at 8 per cent. So
far as regarded the laying down of new mains, it
was most important that some control should be
exercised over the gas companies, and that mere
trading companies should not have the power of
breaking up the streets whenever they choose to
do so.

Various amendments were then handed in, and
Mr. Wrangham said if they were adopted all
further opposition to the bill would cease.
Mr. Wyatt expressed his belief that if the com-
mittee adopted the bill as amended it would not be
accepted by the parishes which he represented.
The Chairman said the effect of the first amend-

ment was to include the whole of the gas consoli-
dation clauses—to take as the standard of profit
the rate prescribed by the several local acts, and
in default of such prescribed rate to take 10 per
cent.

A discussion took place as to the mode in which
the accounts of companies should be inspected, so
as to ascertain the amount applicable to dividend,
and a clause was inserted authorising the Secretary
of State to call for such returns to be presented to
Parliament. A clause was also inserted giving a
margin of ls. over the 4s. 6d. per 1,000, subject to
reversal on appeal to the Secretary of State.
Mr. Wyatt said that as the companies appeared
unwilling to make any concession, he trusted the
committee would take upon themselves the respon-
sibility of adopting the suggestions whieh he had
thrown out.
The room was then cleared, and after the com-
mittee had deliberated about half an hour, the
parties were readmitted, and the clauses were gone
through seriatim.
A proviso was introduced to the effect that any
company not charging for meters on the Ist
January, 1860, should not be allowed to do so until
after the Ist February, 1862. The committee also
decided that the price per 1,000 cubic feet of com-
mon gas should be any sum the company thought
fit, not exceeding ss. 6d. ; and that the price of
cannel gas should be any sum not exceeding 7s. 6d.
per 1,000 feet.
Mr. Wyatt intimated that after these decisions
of the committee he should no longer detain the
committee by appearing in his professional capacity.
The remaining clauses were then passed, with
amendments.
The Chairman said the committee had agreed to
make a special report to the house, stating that it
is their opinion, in case no legislation shall take
place during the present session on the subject of
the metropolitan gas supply, it is highly desirable
that the whole subject should be brought under the
consideration of the Government, and that the Go-
vernment ought to be prepared to introduce a mea-
sure for the settlement of the question at the com-
mencement of the ensuing session of Parliament,
with a view to regulate the conditions under which
the gas companies shall supply gas in their several
districts, with a due regard to the interests of the
public.
The proceedings then terminated.

GUN AND MORTAR BOATS.
The select committee appointed by the House of
Commons to inquire into the manner in which the
contracts for the construction of the gun and mor-
tar boats had been carried out, met on Tuesday
Sir F. Smith in the chair.
Mr. Penney, one of the government inspectors
appointed by the Admiralty to inspect the progress
of the work at Messrs. Green's yard, and see that it
was being carried out according to the terms of the
contract, spoke of the enormous pressure of business
at the time, which was so great that he could not
give more attention to each boat than about half an
hour a day, and that some days he was obliged to be
at Woolwich all the day. So far as he could see at
the time things were all going on right, but many
things had been subsequently pointed out which, if
he had had more time to inspect, he should possibly
have discovered, and certainly not have allowed.
He never authorised the driving of any bolts after
the boilers were in. He was certain that he had never
given an order to drive bolts under the boilers. Ho
knew it was in evidence that only a few of the bolts
were found clenched. He should be responsible if
he knew of anything wrong such as that, but if he
did not see it he could not be answerable for it.