The Sun.
London, England, 1859-12-13 00:00:00

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.

'Sittings at Nisi Prius before the Lord Chief Baron
and a Special Jury.)

BRIDGES V. BAKER.-Tli E SOUTH ESSEX ELECTION

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, Mr.
William Bridges, the proprietor of the Green
Dragon, Bishopsgate-street, against Mr. Wingfield
Baker, the unsuccessful Liberal candidate at the
late election. for the Southern Division of Essex.
The declaration stated that the plaintiff sued the
defendant for the use and occupation of certain
rooms in the Green Dragon, used us committee-
rooms, for meat, drink, and lodging supplied to the
defendant and others, at his request, and on an
account stated.

The defendant simply pleaded "Never indebted."
Mr. Bovill and Mr. Meadows were counsel for
the plaintiff; Mr. Edwin James and Mr. Woollett
represented the defendant.
Mr. Bovill opened the case for the plaintiff, and
stated the chief circumstances, from which it ap-
peared that at the last general election the Green
Dragon had been used as the head-quarters of the
London Committee of Mr. Wingfield Baker, the
Liberal Sandidate for South Rises, and that after
the contest plaintiff sent in a bill to Mr. Baker for
the use of rooms and for refreshments to the com-
mittee, &c., amounting to £172 17s. 4d., of which
Mr. Baker had 'paid £lOB 45., but disputed his
liability as to the balance, £64 13s. 4d.

Mr. 'Frederick Smith examined—l am a mem-
ber of the bar. Mr. Wingfield Baker was the
unsuccessful candidate for South Essex at the
last election. In 1857 he successfully contested
the division. I was a very active member of his
committee. The committee in 1857 consisted
chiefly of Mr. Tindal Atkinson and myself. He
was the expense agent, and called me on. At the
last election, in the spring of this year, Mr. James
Parker, of Chelmsford, was the expense agent.
Mr. James—What an " expense agent" is I do
not know. We all know what an expensive agent
is. (Laughter.)
Mr. Bovill—He was the general agent.
Examination continued--I was not the chair-
man. Mr. Gurney, of Lombard-straet, `as adver-
tised as the chairman, but we never saw him. He
was the ornamental chairman. I saw Mr. Baker
in reference to the election before the dissolution
took place. I was very much averse to taking part
in the election, but I was much pressed. Mr.
Baker asked abcut my fee, and I said I would leave
it to him. It was arranged that I should ha-re 100
guineas. Finding it inconvenient to go home daily,
I took up my residence at the Greenllragon. That
was with the knowledge of both Mr. Baker and
Mr. Parker. Mr. Littler also came to the Green
Dragon. It is important in election matters to
watch how the candidates' speeches are reported, so
that nothing shall appear to injure them with their
constituents. Mr. Baker's speeches had been mis-
reported, and part of our duties was to correct them.
Mr. Baker and Mr. Parker used to partake of the
refreshments. Sometimes when Mr. Baker had
attended meetings we had refreshments on our re-
turn, when correcting the manuscript of the re-
porter. Perhaps the reporter had a chop for sup-
per. Very likely he did if he was not a voter. The
account was made:out in my name, in order to pre-
vent voters coming in and getting refreshments on
account of the committee. Ido not think Mr.
Baker or Mr. Parker ever paid anything: There
is an item in the account for 76 breakfasts
at half-a-crown apiece. It was in order
to get the canvassers together to bring up
the voters to the poll—which had answered so well
in 1857, indeed, I think that manoeuvre won the
election in 1857—that I ordered breakfasts to be
provided for them.
Cross-examined—l looked upon my position in
1859 as a general agent to carry out the election. I
was not merely the manager of the London com-
mittee. Mr. Gurney was the sleeping chairman,
and I was the acting chairman.
Mr. James—You never slept at all. (Laughter.)
Crossexamination continued—l have not seen
the bill which has been paid. Mr. Littler was en-
gaged as an agent by Mr. Baker to assist him in
the conduct of the election. I received £l,OOO from
Mr. Baker in three sums, of £2OO, £5OO, and £3OO.
I will explain this. There were a numberof clerks
and canvassers, and when the account was checked
they had to be paid on Saturday. I had an account
with my private bankers of £2OO, and I arranged
with them for a power to overdraw, in ease I had
to pay more on the Saturday. When Mr. Baker
heard this he said, " Oh, you ought to have the
money," and he gave me the £5OO. The money
was nat given to me to pay for Mr. Baker's refresh-
ments, or Mr. Parker's sherry.
Mr. James—You have used that expression two
or three times. Did Mr. Baker ever have a dinner
out of the account ?
Witness—Yes, he dined with me once. There are
two bottles of champagne in the bill That was
when there were two editors who were very influ-
ential in the county, and had given in great assist-
ance in their columns. We asked them to take
something with us, and we had the champagne.
(Laughter.) I thought that a very legitimate mode
of conducting an election. (Laughter.) The Lon-
don expenses were not £5,000. The account as
certified by the election auditor is what I call a
fraud on public credulity. (Laughter.) It is made
oat so as to show that the expenses were very large
lin London, and very small in the country. For
instance, I do not see the fee of 603 guineas paid to
I Mr. Parker.

Re-examined—l have furnished all the vouchers
to Mr. Parker. The books were regularly kept. I
have no action against or dipute with Mr. Baker.
Mr. Win. Bridger—l am the plaintiff in this ac-
tion, and am the proprietor of the Green Dragon, in
Bishopsgate-street. Before the list election Mr.
Parker, of Chelmsford, came to me, but I objected
to have the committee there, on account of the trou-
ble on previous occasions. Mr. Parker said I must
make it convenient, and as the house had been ad•

vertised as the committee-room, I took them in.
Mr. Parker said I must make it answer my purpose.
I asked him whom. was to look to for payment,
and he said. "I will see that everything is pan.'
I charged £3 3s. a-day for three rooms, and a guinea
a-day for one. All my charges are fairand reason-
able- I sent in my account short £l2 12s. Mr. Wil-
son and Mr. Copeland came to me with the larger
account I had sent in, and said I must alter it in
form, because the election auditor would not pass it.
I therefore made out separate accounts, according
to their instructions. I afterwards accepted a cheque
for £99 4s. from Mr. Copeland, on his assuring. me
that it would be without prejudice to further claims.
Mrs. Bridger, the plaintiff's wife, was then called
and proved that when she asked to whom some
sherry should be booked, Mr. Smith said she might
enter it to Mr. Littler, of Baker's Committee, for
convenience sake.

Mr. James—Can you give the name of any per-
son but Smith and Littler who ever ordered refresh-
ments ?

The Lord Chief Baron—l suppose not.
Mr. Bovill—There are the 76 breakfasts.
The Lord Chief Baron—That is charged to the
committee-room.

This closed the plaintiff's case.
Mr. James submitted there was no evidence of
any authority to contract this debt. Why should
Mr. Baker be liable when there was nothing to
show it had been brought to his knowledge that
Mr. Smith and Mr. Littler had been eating, drink-
ing, and sleeping at the Green Dragon at his ex-
pense.
The Lord Chief Baron—lt might well have
entered into his mind if he had seen them there.
(Laughter.)
Mr. James—But they had had their fee.
The Lord Chief Baron—lf it had been an attorney
the case might have been different. I thought a
barrister had always his fee and his grub. (Laughter)
Mr. James—l thought it was always the other
way —that the attorney had the best of it. (Great
laughter.)
The Lord Chief Baron—l cannot say; there is no
evidence of authority.
Mr. Bridger, the plaintiff, was here recalled at
Mr. James's request, and stated in reply to ques-
tions, there might have been two bills, one in Mr.
Littler's name and the other to Mr. Baker's com-
mittee.

A Juror—Were both bills, though under different
headings, for the purposes of Baker's committee ?
Witness—They were.
Mr. James, without addressing the jury for the
defence, called
Mr. Albert Copeland, a solicitor, of Chelmsford,
who had conducted the election for Mr. Baker,
under the direction of Mr. Parker, who proved that
he had gone to the Green Dragon and given up the
committee-rooms. Witness had told the plaintiff
that the £ll7 account was not in a proper shape,
and he could not recognise the other for £42 odd as
against Mr. Baker at all, because it belonged to
Mr. Littler. It had Mr. Littler's name on it. Wit-
ness agreed to pay £99 4s. and £9. The £99 4s.
was to be paid subject to the election auditor's ap-
proval. The £9 was advanced to Mr. Roberts, and
that was paid at once by witness. He objected to
pay for the 76 breakfasts.
The Lord Chief Baron—Did you think Mr.
Littler was to pay for the breakfasts ?
Witness—l thought the payment would be il-
legal.
Cross-examined—l paid Mr. Bridger £99 4s. by
a cheque of Mr. Baker's. That sum was to have
nothing to do with any previous account.
Mr. James said that now the question was rather
one for his lordship than the jury.
The Lord Chief Baron—The question is simply
whether Mr. Smith and Mr. Littler were to be there
as the whole committee in free quarters.
Mr. James—The question, I submit, my lord, is
whether they had authority to pledge Mr. Baker's
credit.
The Lord Chief Baron—l think there is evidence
of authority.
Mr. James—Your lordship will be good enough
to take a note of my objection.
The jury then returned a verdict for the plaintiff
for £64.135. 4d., the amount claimed.

WESTMINSTER COUNTY COURT.
(Before F. Bailey, Esq., Judge.)
THE LATE ELECTION FOR MARYLEBONE.-FORSTER
Y. DICKSON.
This action, heard on a former day and adjourned
for his Honour's consideration, was brought by the
plaintiff, publisher of the St. Pancras and _Holborn
Times, a local paper, against the defendant, Col.
Dickson, the late unsuccessful candidate for the
representation of the borough of Marylebone, to
recover an amount due for 2,000 copies of the said
paper, printing certain bills and addresses, and the
.costs of advertisements relative to the election.
Mr. Anderson, as before,.was for the plaintiff;
and Mr. C. Dod, solicitor, Great Portland-street,
for Colonel Dickson, in whose behalf it was alleged,
on the case being gone into previously, that a Mr.
Watson, tradesman of Tottenham-court-road, had,
as an agent for the Colonel, incurred the debt.
The Judge now said—lt appears the work claimed
for was done, advertisements published, and paper
supplied on order of a Mr. -Watson, who, for a short
time prior to the sth July, acted as agent for the de-
fendant, although he received no written appoint-
ment as agent up to that day. The sth July was
the day of nomination, the 6th the election. The
first item in plaintiff's bill is for 5,000 bills, and the
order is dated the 28th June, signed by Mr. Watson,
not as agent of Col. Dickson, but as chairman of Col.
Dickson's committee for the election • receipt for
those bills is dated Ist July, signed Henry Dixon,
secretary. It does not appear who personally gave
the order for 22,000 addresses, but Mr. Watson says
that all articles charged for in plaintiff's account
were ordered by his direction. A receipt for the de-
livery of these 22,000 addresses is produced, signed
for H. Dixon, J. W. By section 520 of the act of
Parliament there was nothing to limit the right of
any creditor to bring any action, or otherwise to pro-
ceed against any candidate for expenses connected
with an election.
,By section 522 personal expenses
of any candidate, and expenses of advertising in
newspapers aforesaid any election, shall be defrayed
by the candidate himself, or his 'authority. These
are all provisions of the Corrupt Practices Act which
it is material to notice. Upon the facts now stated,
I am of opinion that Watson never had any autho-
rity from defendant to pledge his credit, and plain-
tiff had no reason to suppose he had any such autho-
rity. Watson was not duly constituted an agent of
defendant until the sth July, and work and goods
for which payment is sought to be recovered in the
account were done and supplied before that day.
-Watson says they were ordered by his direction,
but no order was given by any one professing to act
as his (defendant's) agent. It further appeared that,
a few days before the sth July, defendant authorised
Watson to act as his agent, and handed over to him
500 sovereigns, upon 'Watson's assurance that that
sum would be more than sufficient to defray the
defendant's election expenses. Indeed, he gua-
ranteed that the expenses should or would not
exceed £3OO-. By the Corrupt Practices Prevention
Act of 1854, section 524, " No Person shall pay any
expenses of any election candidate, or to or under
authority of an election auditor, except allowed by
the net." Sections 22 and 25 said, "The candidate
and his agents by him appointed in writing, may
before the day of nomination pay any lawful and
reasonable expenses of election which he or they
shall bona fide believe fit and proper to be paid, in
ready money, and payment of which cannot con-
veniently be postponed." 5-31, the same act says,
" Each candidate shall before or at nomination de-
clare to the election auditor, in writing, the name
or names of his agent or agents for election expenses
who shall be appointed, in writing; and no other
than such agents shall have authority to expend
any money or incur any expenses of or relating to
an election in the name or on behalf of a candidate,
and such agents may pay any of the current ex-
penses of an election necessary to be paid, in ready
money." -Whatever authority Watson may have
had under the written appointment, I consider that
he had no authority before that appointment to
pledge defendant's credit, for which he had not even
an implied authority, being merely defendant's
agent to lay out £5OO in defraying expenses. It
was, however, contended that the subsequent ap-
pointment of Watson operated as a ratification of
his previous act. There are no words in the ap-
pointment expressing an intent to ratify any pre-
vious act of Watson, before whose appointment as
agent there was no evidence to show that Colonel
Dickson knew that previously thereto he had
pledged his (the Colonel's) credit. His judgment
was, therefore, for the defendant with costs.

" SEVEN YEAnS." By JUI.IA KAVANAGH, author of
•‘Nathalie," &c., 3 vols.—The publication of this work must
add still greater celebrity to the reputation of Miss Ka-
vanagh, who already hol is a high position in the first rank
of modern novel-writers. Miss KaVatiagli has never suc-
ceeded to a larger extent in any one of her previous works of
fiction than in these volumes. IVe meet in them the same
genial spirit she has always manifeAed, the same morale
which. gives such, a charm to her thoughts, and the same
kindliness of Purpo3e, combined with orl4inality, which make
her onc.of the. most popular authors of the day.—Weekly
Messenger.
[invEnTiscur:vr,] Holloway's Ointment and rms.—
lical-all.—Ap winter approaches the system becomes feeble,
and is far more liable to be attacked by disease. ,Everybody
in the late autumn should take some cooling and purifying
medicine, than which none stands superior to Holloway's
Pills Now, too, especially will his Ointment exert its
wholesome influence over all classes of skin diseases, which
may be trifling now, but being neglected, will ere spring,
have materially changed for the worse. - Nothing equals Hol-
loway's Ointment for all external ailments, whether super-
ficial, deep, simple, or complicated. These purifyin!-, Pills
exercise the most beneficial action over every Internal'oriran
From the combined use of Ointment and Pills the body, 'Cow:
socver aflTicted, soon re-airs toile and vigour,,
•

ASSIZE. IN TELL IGEN=

NORTHERN CIRCUIT.—LIVERPOOL, Dec. 10.
The commission was opened on Saturday last in
the absence of either of the judges named in it by
Mr. Robert Sowler, .Q.C. Mr. Baron Martin ar-
rived late in the evening in Liverpool, and attended
divine service at St. George's-church yesterday
morning. This day (Monday) his lordship pro-
ceeded to charge the grand jury, and afterwards to
try the prisoners named in the calendar. They are
not so numerous as usual at this period of the year,
but the offences are chiefly of a violent description.
Cases of manslaughter and stabbing form a large
'proportion di the list.
The civil business will not commence before Fri-
day next, the 16th, at noon, by which time Mr.
Justice %%rifles is to arrive from Chester, and pro-
ceed to try causes.

CROWN COURT.
(Before Mr. Baron Martin.)
Thomas Titherington was indicted for burglary
in the house of William Dodson, at North Meols,
and stealing a drawer, money, and other property,
on the 28th of August.
Mr. Asshcton Cross prosecuted.
The offence was traced home to the prisoner
chiefly through the identification by the witnesses
of a pair of boots which had beon dropped, along
with the drawer in question, by the thief on that
night, and were brought into court. This was seen
by the police-constable on duty, who could not
speak positively to the prisoner being the man.
The evidence of the shopkeeper who had sold a
similar pair of boots to those produced to the pri-
soner on the 26th of July, of a companion who had
seen a similar pair in possession of the prisoner, and
of the person in whose house the prisoner lodged,
who was called and spoke to the fact of his going
out on the Saturday with boots on his feet and re-
turning on the Sunday morning without any was
also taken. The robbery was committed during
the night of Saturday. The prisoner defended
himself with some energy, if not discretion, asking
one of the witnesses if he knew whether he was on
his heels or his head, calling another a liar, and
making use of the Lancashire idioms in a manner
which amused the bystanders.
The jury found him guilty. Sentence deferred.
Bridget Lenaghan was indicted for bigamy with
one Patrick Mooney, her first husband being then
alive.
Mr. Rafliies was for the prosecution.
From the opening it appeared that the prisoner
was married to her first husband in the year 1843,
in the county of Mayo in Ireland, and had been
deserted by him in a few months. The second
marriage took place in 1854. The judge elicited
from the second husband that there had been
squabbles between him and the prisoner, insomuch
that they had not lived together for several years.
He gave her into custody on this charge. A witness
proved that the first husband was alive as recently
as the Ist of November last. The prisoner declared
that she had not heard of or from her first husband
for more than nine years before her second mar-
riage.

The jury acquitted the prisoner.
The Judge declined to allow the costs.
Thomas Clarke was charged with assaulting and
robbing James Burns.
Mr. Deighton prosecuted ; Mr. Scott defended.
The prisoner was found guilty.
The Judge, in passing sentence, reminded the
prisoner that he had "received sentence for various
offences thirteen times, and condemned him to ten
years' penal servitude.
Edwin Moorhouse was indicted for robbery with
violence from the person of James Hammond, in
A shton-un der-Lyne.
Mr. Holker was for the prosecution ; Mr. Scott
for the defence.
The robbery was• clearly proved.
It appeared the prisoner had received sentence of
one year's imprisonment for robbery in 1858, which
expired only a few days before he committed this
offence.• Sentence, ten years' penal servitude.

WESTERN CIRCUIT—EXETER, Dec. 12.
The commission for holding the special gaol de-
livery for the county of Devon was opened in this
city on Saturday afternoon by Mr. Baron Chan-
nell. His lordship attended divine service yester-
day at the Cathedral. This morning the business
commenced. In the county there are the names of
twenty prisoners for trial in the calendar ; tho
offences are of such a character that the doors of
the court must be closed during the trial of nine
prisoners. In the city there are two prisoners.
Mr. Baron Channel!, in charging the grand jury,
said he had a serious ground of complaint against
some person ; at present, without inquiry, he did
not know against whom. The grand jury were
aware that it was now considered necessary in
several instances to hold what was called a winter
assize. The Secretary of State decided on the
counties in which these special assizes should be
held, and in order to guide him he had . returns
made to him from the different gaols in the king-
dom of the number of prisoners in custody. That
return had been made up to the sth of November,
and it would then appear that there were but seven
prisoners for trial in this county. There was no
complaint against the respectable governor of the
gaol of this county. The returns having been re-
ceived by the Secretary of State, and the counties
in which assizes were to be held being determined
upon, the judges then fixed the different days for
holding the assizes ; it was, therefore, of the utmost
importance that the number of prisoners should be
accurately given. There was, however, no return
made of a case of a man named Kavanagh, in which
there were no less than 28 witnesses in the deposi-
tions, although it would seem that the man was
committed in July or August. The inconvenience
to which this might lead might be the unavoidable
adjournment of the assizes until after Christmas.
The charge against the prisoner was of a very grave
character—namely, scuttling a vessel with intent
to defraud the underwriters ; it would be a case
requiring their great consideration. '
Emily Ann Osmond was indicted for feloniously
marrying John Vosper Blacklee, cf the parish of
Charles, on the 13th of November last, her former
husband being alive.
It appeared that the prisoner, who was only 20
years of age, was married to Osmond on the 23d of
February last, at the office of the Registrar of Mar-
riages, and she was married to Blacklee on the
13th of November last by banns.
The defence was an address to the Court in miti-

gation of piinfshment. The first husband had told
the girl to go home, and the second went to sea
soon after the marriage.
The jury found the prisoner Guilty, and she was
sentenced to two months' imprisonment without
hard labour.