The Sun.
London, England, 1861-09-26 00:00:00

THE SUNt, LONDON, THURSDAY EVENING, SEPT E VIBE R 26, 1861.

interregnum. They would, on the other hand, hate
much greater reason to complain had the change
been forced upon them without sufficient opportu-
nity for remonstrance or discussion. These diffi-
culties are inseparable from the very nature of
change, and will be borne withcheerfulness or with
impatience according to the estimate which is
formed of the merits or demerits of the change
itself. That the change should be a matter -of
doubt is a misfortune for which nobody can fairly
be held responsible, and which no contrivance can
obviate. What are the objects of the Minute itself
we will consider on a future occasion.—Times.

THE CASE OF RICHARD GUINNESS

HILL.

RUGBY, WEDNESDAY EVENING.

The adjourned inquiry into the charge preferred
against Richard Guinness Hill of having furnished
to the Registrar of Births for the Rugby district
false particulars touching a male child, born on the
sth January, 1859, was resumed and concluded to
day at the Town-hall: The following magistrates
were on the bench :—Mr. G. W. B. Leigh, the Rev.
R. Lickorish, Mr. G. M. Caldecott, Mr. J. A. Camp-
bell, Mr. Butler, and Mr. Atty. Mr. Leigh presided.
The court room was crowded by the people of the
town and neighbourhood.
The prosecution was conducted by Mr. Cooke,
solicitor. Mr. Philbrick, instructed by Messrs.
White and Collisson, defended the prisoner.
The prisoner was brought up in the custody of the
police. His demeanour was if anything quieter and
more subdued than it was on Saturday. He was ac-
commodated with a seat near his counsel, with
whom he frequently communicated during the day.

The first witness was
Mr. John Collis, record keeper in the Bishop of
London's registry, who stated that the depository of
records in that registry is in St. Paul's Cathedral,
and who produced thence a certificate of marriage.
He was proceeding to describe the contents when he
was interrupted by
Mr. Philbrick, who maintained that the certifi-
cate could not be accepted as evidence until the hand-
writing was proved.
Mr. Cooke immediately called

Mr. Maltby, English Vice-Consul in Brussels,
who stated that the certificate was in the handwrit-
ing of the Rev. Mr. Drury, the clergyman who
married Mr. and Mrs. Hill. He added that he also
knew the handwriting of the witnesses, the first of
whom was the Hon. Wm. Eden, an attache.
Mr. Philbrick submitted that the certificate could
not be received. It purported to be signed by an
English clergyman in Brussels, and to be witnessed
by certain persons, one of whom was said to
be an attache. Such a document could in no
sense be said to be a certificate which was
admissible as evidence in England. The House of
Lords had decided in a celebrated peerage case that
no certificate of marriage could be accepted as evi-
dence here unless it had been registered according
to the law of the country in which the marriage
took place. In the present instance there was no
proof that the certificate now produced had been
registered according to the law of Belgium, or that
it had been issued by an official person
.in the dis-
charge of an official duty.
Mr. Cooke, in reply to the, objection of the learned
gentleman, recalled.
Mr. Collis, who stated that certificates of mar-
riages celebrated abroad between • English subjects
were registered in the Bishop of London's Registry.
The mode of registry was by entering the certifi-
cate in a book,' and. depositing the original in the
cathedra!: ' Such had been the. invariable practice
for many years.

Mr. Pliilbrick remarked that, the statement of
Mx.. Collis only prayed that the certificate now pro-
duced came from• official custody. The question
still-remained, whether it was written • and issued
by the Rev. W. Drury in the discharge of a public
duty imposed by law.
In reply to further questions from Mr. Cooke,
The witness said he did not know by what autho-
rity
the registration of certificates of marriages
celebrated abroad between English subjects took
place. He knew, however, that such certificates
were transmitted to the Bishop of London's Registry
through the Foreign-office.
Mr. Maltby recalled, and examined by Mr. Cooke.
—I was present at the marriage mentioned in the
certificate now produced. The parties were Richard
Guinness Hill and Amy Georgina Burdett. The
prisoner is the husband, and I have seen Mrs. Hill
this morning at the George Hotel.
Mr. Cooke—l submit that the marriage is now
proved. Mr. Philbriek will surely admit that.
Mr. Philbrick--We cannot admit anything in a
criminal case.

Mr. Atty—l cannot see what the marriage has to
do with the charge before us.
Mr. Philbrick—lt has nothing to do with it
whatever.

Mr. Cooke, addressing the witness, asked whether
since the marriage, Mr. and Mrs. Hill had, up to
a recent period, lived continuously together ?

Witness—l believe so.
About the month of April last were you called
upon to adjust differences between them ?

Mr. Philbrick—That quiet question is totally
beside the case. The falsification of the register is
alleged to have taken place in January, 1859, and
now it is proposed to enter into something in the
married life of the parties which is supposed to have
occurred in April, 1861. That cannot have any
effect on the charge before the magistrates.
Mr. Atty—l think so too.

Mr. Cooke—My question is incidental to the
charge, because it is necessary to prove that the
child registered was a child of the marriage.

Mr. Philbrick —Not at all.
Mr. Cooke—lt is also important to show the mo
tives of the prisoner for falsifying the register.

The question was not put.
You have examined entry No. 221 in the Rugby
rc gister-book for Jan., 1859 P—l have.

Under the head " Name and surname of father,"
what do you find ?—I find the name " Robert Hill."
In what respect is that falsified?
Mr. Philbrick—l do not object to the question,
but it is perfectly useless. The entry in the regis-
ter speaks for itself.
Witness—The only answer I can.give is that the
person wbawrote the name " R. Hill " in the entry
is the same person whom I know as Richard Guin •
ness Hill. That person is the prisoner.
Eliza Jeffreys, a married woman, residing in
Rugby, stated that on Jan. 5, 1859, she was sent for
to the Globe Inn to nurse a lady about to be con-

fined. The lady was delivered of a male child.

Here Mrs. Hill and the child were brought into
court, and were identified by the witness. They
remained for a minute only. Mrs. Hill wore a thick
veil, which partially concealed her features.
Witness continued—The prisoner was living at
the Globe Inn at the time, but I had no conversa-
tion with him. .

By the Chairman—Have you seen the child since
you were at the Globe Inn in the beginning of 1859?
—I saw it on Saturday ;last.
How did you• know it. Was the same child ?—I
know it by its features generally, and by the colour
of its hair.

And no you think it is the same 0111(1?-1 do.

Did you see Mr. Hill on the sth of January, 1859 ?
—Yes ; I saw him at the Globe Inn.
Did he come into the room where the lady was ?
—Yes.. .

How long did you remain in the service ?—Eight
days.

Was -there any other person nursing the lady
besides yourself ?—Not while I was there.
Why did you leave so early P—The gentleman
told rne his expenditure was great, that he could
not afford to keep me, and that there was a nurse
coming from London to take the baby.
Who paid you for your services ?—Mr.

James Brett, the detective officer, formally pro-
duced.the shawl in which the child was wrapped
when it was taken to London, and the box in which
its clothes were packed, and stated that he got the
latter from Mrs. Andrews on the 13th 9f June, and
the former from Mr. Cooke on the 14th. He Olen,
in answer to questions from Mr. Cooke, proceeded as
follows :—I was first employed in this matter in the
latter end of May. I had two interviews with the
prisoner, One on the 7th and the other on the Bth of
June, in Mr. Cooke's office.
What was the object of those interviews ?
Mr. Ph ilbrick—l object to that question. Nothing