The Sun.
London, England, 1861-03-19 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, MARC ti 19, 1861.

ROYAL FREE HOSPITAL, Gray's-inn-road,
Patron—The QUEEN.
This Hospital is entirely devoted to destitution in its most
pitiable form, viz., that which is accompanied by sickness and
disease, and is now of sufficient magnitude that, with ade-
quate support, it may be rendered capable of admitting into
its wards a very large proportion of the easual sick of this
great metropolis. It requires but the funds in order to have
500 beds immediately available for the reception of these the
most wretched of our fellow-creatures. Moreover, it gratui-
tously affords medical advice and medicine to more, on the
average, than 2,000 out-patients a week.
Contributions received by the Treasurer, Edward Master-
man, Esq., Nicholas-lane; also by Messrs. Coutts and Co. ;
Ransom and Co. ; Prescott, Grote, and Co. ; Smith,
Payne, and Co. ; Glyn and Co. ; Jones Loyd and Co. ;
Barclay and Co. ; Denison and Co. ; Williams, Deacon, and
Co. ; Overend, Gurney, and Co.; Nisbet and Co., Berners-
street ; Drummond and Co. ; Herries and Co. ; Masterman
and Co. ; and at the Hospital.
STANFORD S. SMITH, Secretary.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

OXFORD CIRCUIT.—STAFFORD, March 18.
(Before Mr. Baron Wilde.)
THE EXTRAORDINARY CHARGE AGAINST COAL-

MASTERS.

John Wright, Adam Hickman, Edwin Hickman,
and John Hickman, mine owners at Haden-hill, in
the parish of Rowley Regis, in South Staffordshire,
were arraigned for having on divers days be-
tween the Ist of June, 1859, and •the Ist of June,
1860, feloniously stolen upwards of 10,000 tons of
coal from a certain mine, the property of Alfred
Haden Barrs, another coal master. Another count
charged the prisoners with having unlawfully,
maliciously, and feloniously obstructed an air-way
in Mr. Barrs' mine, with the intent thereby to delay
the working of the mine.
Mr. Motteram prosecuted •, and Mr. Huddleston,
Mr. Powell, and Mr. James defended the prisoners.
Mr. Motteram, in stating the case, said that the
colliery which the prisoners had in their possession
was originally worked by Messrs. Brettel, Hum-
phrey, and Bennett, who left off in 1856 under the
impression that there was no other coal to be got.
In 1857 the prisoners took the colliery to get the
" ribs" and " pillars," which were frequently left
after the first workings were completed. Soon after
they began to work, Mr. Barrs discovered that they
were getting a quality of coal superior to that which
Brettel and Humphrey could get. In the month
of February, 1860, his• suspicions increasing, he
asked Wright for permission to examine the mine,
but was not allowed. Mr. Barrs' suspicions were
still further increased by the reports of his work-
men, who said that they could hear those in the
employ of the prisoners at work. Mr. Crewe, a
mine agent, was instrusted to make application to
examine the pit, in the month of March, but the
permission was refused, till Mr,. Barrs !applied to
his solicitor, and he made application to the pri-
soners. The application was conceded in July,
1860. Then, however, it was found that a dam
constructed of brick work had been erected at the
entrance to the gate-road, whence the coal had
been taken from the prosecutor's mine, and the pri•
soners refused to take it down. Tests were theta made
in Mr. Barrs' mine, and there were evidences that
to the extent of 100 yards the prisoners had taken
the prosecutor's (coal to the width of 15 or 16
yards, the total quantity being that stated in the
indictment, and worth upwards of £2,000. The
prisoners knew that they were taking this coal,
because they had frequently examined the
plans in the possession of a Mr. Woolwich, who
had surveyed the property on the part of Mr.
Grazebrook, the proprietor; and as early as the
end of 1859 they were told that they were slightly
out of their own boundary, and in that of Mr.
Barra'. They said they knew it, but they hoped
they should be able to purchase some of his mine
from him. Whilst the prisoners were getting the
property of the prosecutor they took every precau-
tion to prevent the workpeople in the prosecutor's
employ from discovering them. One of these at-
tempts constituted the third count. The prisoners
lighted a fire in an air way, whence the smoke
would escape into the workings of the prosecutor ;
and of so disgusting a description was the fuel
used that it was utterly impossible for the prose-
cutor's men to continue working in a portion of
the mine.
The prosecutor and other witnesses were called
in support of the above case.
The Judge said there was no case against Wright.
Mr. Huddleston, in addressing the jury for the
Hickmans, maintained that his clients had not wil-
fully taken the coal, but had done so in error. If
they had intended to take the coal of the prosecu-
tor they could have done so long before they
reached the portion they were now charged with
stealing. They had made a mistake of the same
description as that the prosecutor and his bailiff
had themselves made, and Mr. Barra' remedy was
the same as that which Mr. Mills had taken—he
should seek compensation.
The jury, after retiring to consider their verdict,
Acquitted the prisoners.

NORTHERN CIRCUIT.—YoRK, MARCH 18.
Nisi Prius Court.—(Before Mr. Justice Hill and a
Special Jury.)
_..

THE QUEEN V. JOHN BARFF CHARLESWORTH—
THE WAKEFIELD BRIBERY PROSECUTION.
The Solicitor-General (Sir W. Atherton), Mr.
Monk, Q.C., Mr. Overend, Q.C., Mr. Cleasby,
Q.C., and Mr. West, were the counsel for the
Crown ; Sir Fitzroy—Kelly, Q.C., Mr. Mellish,
Q.C., Mr. Quain, and Mr. Maule appeared for the
defendant.

Mr. West opened the pleadings. This was a
criminal information filed by the Attorney-General
against John Barff Charlesworth, charging him
with bribery at the Wakefield election. There
were various counts charging the defendant with
different acts of bribery, to which he pleaded not

guilty.
The Solicitor-General stated the case. He said
he had the honour to appear before the jury to pro-
secute the defendant, Mr. John Barff Charlesworth,
on an information which had been filed against
him by the Attorney-General. The nature of the
charge, which the jury had collected already, de-
noted its importance, and the importance of the
inquiry on which they were about to enter. The
present information and others had been filed by
the Attorney-General, and in every one of the in-
stances the persons selected for prosecution had not
been the recipients of bribes, whose poverty fre-
quently subjects them to the strain of a very serious
temptation when the purchase of their votes is
solicited, but the persons selected had been those
who had in some way been concerned in the ad-
ministration of these funds. The defendant is a
gentleman who is in partnership with his cousin,
Mr. John Dodgson Charlesworth, these two gentle-
men owning and managing very extensive colliery
property in the neighbourhood of Wakefield, but
the defendant earlier in his life was trained to the
profession of the law, he was called to the bar, and
for some time he practised on that circuit. The
charge against him was twofold. In the first
place, that he advanced and paid money with the
intent that it should be expended in bribery, and
the other form of charge was that he gave or caused
to be given to particular voters money for the pur-
pose of inducing. them to give their votes for the
defendant's cousin, Mr. John Dodgson Charles-
worth. The charge arose out of an election for a
member of Parliament which took place in April,
1859, for the borough of Wakefield. Early that
month, or about that time, Parliament was dis-
solved, and a general election ensued. In April,
1859, the candidates for election were Mr. Leatham,
who had been a banker in a well-known firm in
Wakefield, and Mr. John Dodgson Charlesworth,
the cousin of 'the defendant in this case. Mr.
Leatham appeared on the liberal side, and Mr.,
Charlesworth on the conservative side. The nomi-
nation day was on Friday, the 29th of April. A
show of hands having taken place a poll was de-
manded, and it took place on the following day.
The declaration of the poll was made on the follow-
ing Monday, and it then appeared that Mr. Leatham
had been returned by the narrow majority of three
votes, the numbers being—for Mr. Leatham, 406 ;
for Mr. Charlesworth, 403. As the numbers would
almost of themselves indicate, the contest was a very
severe one. Although Mr. Leatham was returned,
dissatisfaction existed, he (the Solicitor-General)
presumed, on the part of those who had been his
opponents, and this led to a petition being presented
to Parliament, the object of which was to unseat
Nr. Leatham. That petition was referred to a select
committee of the House of Commons, which ended
in Mr. Leatham being unseated. Besides that ad-
judication the committee reported that corrupt prac-
tices had extensively prevailed at the election for
Wakefield. The act under which the report was
made, and under which certain proceedings subse-
quently took place, is an act of 15th and 16th Vic-
toria, which was passed in the year 1852, and it is
an act to provide for more effectual inquiry into the
practices at elections for members to serve in Par-
liament. By the authority of that act a commission
was issued, and after a long inquiry the commis-
sioners made a report. The defendant was examined,
and failing to satisfy the commissioners that he had
made a full disclosure, they did not give him a cer-
tificate, which was given to many other persons.
Witnesses would be called who, having received the
commissioners' certificate, were freed from that lia-
bility to peril and penalty to which, but for that
certificate, they might have been subjected, if they
had not made full disclosures of the facts connected
with the proceedings of that election within their
knowledge. The learned counsel then directed the
attention of the jury to the second part of the
charge, which was that the defendant advanced and
paid money to Mr. Fernandez with the intent that
such money should be expended in bribery.
called,
support After b
ut
ofht e
theexamination
declined
aboveali answering
facts,
t some
gmßme otherr
c.whether
FhaereahsFernandes
dowitnesseserastah wasoi n
re-
ceived money from Mr. J. B.
account of the election. Ile was examined as a
witness before the commissioners at the Wakefield
election inquiry, and after having given his evidence
he received a certificate. (The certificate was pro.
duced, and handed to his lordship.) The witness

PRICE 4D. STAMPED, SD.

was then asked—Did you receive any money from
Mr. J. B. Charlesworth in April, 1859 ? but de-
clined to answer the question.
His Lordship said that he should consult his
brother Keating on the point whether the witness
was bound to answer, and left the court for that
purpose. After an absence of a few minutes his lord-
ship returned, and then, addressing the witness,
said he was bound to tell him that he and Mr.
Justice Keating had carefully considered the ques-
tion, and they had come 'to the conclusion that he
(witness) would not be exposed to any peril by
answering the question put to him. He was clearly
free from any penal consequence, forfeiture,
punishment, disabilities, incapacities, or any crimi-
nal prosecutions whatever by reason of the certifi-
cate granted to him. It was therefore his duty to
answer the question.
The witness still persisting in his refusal,
The learned Judge then pressed the question, and
said if he declined to answer it he had no other
course left than that of committing him for con-
tempt of court for an offence of no ordinary charac-
ter, his evidence being material for the prosecution
then before the court, he well knowing that the
effect of refusing to give his testimony would de-
feat the ends of justice. His lordship was of
opinion that the witness was firmly persuaded in
his own mind that he would be in no peril what-
ever if he answered the question. What his
motive was might be easily imagined—to defeat
the proper administration of justice. He must
therefore be sentenced to six months imprisonment.
unless sooner released by some competent atitli.rity
and pay a fine of £5OO. •
The sentence was received with applause in court
which was speedily suppressed.
Mr. Fernandez was given in charge of the Go-
vernor of York Castle, and his lordship directed
that he should be detained in custody as a first-
class misdemeanant.
The Solicitor-General applied that the certificate
of the witness might not be returned to him.
The Judge acceded to the application.
The Solicitor-General then intimated that it was
quite impossible for him to move a step further in
the case, seeing that Mr Fernandez had declined to
give his testimony. He therefore asked his lord-
ship to discharge the jury.
The Judge—What authority have I to do that?
The Solicitor-General then quoted the case of
" Newton" (13 Queen's Bench Reports, page 716),
to show that the judge had the power to discharge
the jury in a criminal prosecution. In this case the
prisoner was committed by the justices for murder.
On his trial he pleaded not guilty, and the jury re-
tired, and remained in deliberation all night. Being
unable to agree, the learned judge discharged the
jury, and the prisoner was detained in custody.
The Judge' said that this ought not to be done
except in cases of extreme necessity. In the case
referred to the judge had to go to another assize
town, the business being concluded, and as there
was no chance of the jury agreeing, they were dis-
charged.
The Solicitor-General having quoted some other
cases in support of his argument,
Sir Fitzroy Kelly contended that none of the
cases referred to resembled that which was unhap-
pily before the court. Without at all wishing to
enter into the question whether his lordship had
power to discharge the jury, the effect would be
that if that course were adopted, the defendant
would be put upon his trial twice for the same
offence and it might be to subject him and to
visit him with very great hardships arising
from a circumstance over which he had no
control. This was the second time that the de-
fendant had appeared in court in reference to
these proceedings; he had been:put to very great
' expense, and, in addition to that, he had expe-
rienced all that anxiety of mind which must insepa-
rably be associated with a man when a case of that
character was brought against him.
Mr. Mellish followed on the same side.
Mr. Justice Hill, having consulted with Mr.
Justice Keating, discharged the jury.
THE QUEEN Z. C. D. CHARLESWORTH.
The Solicitor- General withdrew the record in this
case. The defendant is the ex-candidate and former
member for Wakefield.
The Court then proceeded with the trials of the
Queen v. Judd, and the Queen v. Crowther, for
offering bribes to the electors of Wakefield. The
cases were proceeding when our parcel left York.