The Sun.
London, England, 1861-07-22 00:00:00

rather lose his election than be guilty of bribery.
He warned his friends • present against bribery.
This was a fortnight.before the election. I never
heard or saw Mr. Charlesworth do anything con-
trary to what he said at this dinner.
Mr. Baron Martin expressed his satisfaction at
the manner in which Mr. Fernandez had given his
evidence that day.' If he applied to the Secretary
of State for a release from undergoing the remain-
der of his punishment, he might refer to his lord-
ship, in making the application.
John Shaw deposed that he received £4O from
Mr. Fernandez, and spent £3O of it in bribing a
voter named Richard Wilcock, a gardener. Wil-
cock took some vegetables to Bradford market, and
did not vote at all. - _ .

Cross-examined—Told Mr. Fernandez that I
should want £4O for election expenses.
Wm.'Wells said that he knew Brear, who gave
him £4O. He said to Brear that he was tired of
being asked for his vote, and told him if he voted
at all he would vote for Mr. Charlesworth. Brear
then left the shop.
Samuel Giffard, tailor, Market-street, received
£l5 from Brear to give his vote for Charlesworth.
A few days after this, on the nomination day, he
again saw Brear, who gave him another £l5. He
then told • Brear that he was not of Mr. Charles-
worth's way of thinking, and should noty vote for
him.

John Whitehead (Bradford) knew a man named
Moore; living at Bishop Auckland. I got the name
of the " Man in the Moon," and when I went to
Wakefield I was introduced to Brear. I was a stran-
ger in that town. I received money from Brear,
amounting in the whole to £5OO. I became ac-
quainted:with a man named Laing, to whom I think
I gave £5O for his vote in favour of Mr. Charles-
worth. I gave a portion of the money, about £2OO,
to a man named Dan. Robinson.

George Laing said he received from the " Man in
,he Moon" £5O to vote for Mr. Charlesworth.

Dan. Robinson (Bradford) received £2OO from
Whitehead to bribe voters. He gave Thomas
Stead, a bread-baker, £6O for his vote.
Thomas Stead admitted that he had received £6O
to vote for Mr. Charlesworth. Dan. Robinson gave
him the money.
This closed the case for the prosecution.
Sir F. Kelly then addressed the jury for the de-
fendant. He said that he appealed confidently to
them for their verdict in favour of the defendant,
who was a gentleman and a magistrate of the
county, had been a member of Parliament, and had
enjoyed, and still enjoyed, the esteem and confi-
dence of all who knew him throughout Yorkshire.
The crime alleged against the defendant, being one
of some magnitude, it was necessary that the evi-
dence should be positive and conclusive, but in his
judgment it was not of that clear character as to
justify the jury in convicting the defendant of bri-
bery.
Mr. Baron Martin, in summing up, said that the
jury must consider and try the case in the same
manner as they would any other in the criminal
court on the other side. They must not convict
upon suspicion, but act entirely upon the nature of
the evidence that had been given. If they should
think that the defendant did not interfere to prevent
acts of bribery, but, with his eyes open, allowed
these sums of money which had been named to be
expended in influencing :the votes of the electors,
then, as men of common sense, the jury would be
bound to find him guilty. If they, however, should
think that the evidence was not conclusive, they
must acquit the defendant. His lordship referred
to the Act of Parliament, and quoted the sections of
it, telling the jury that if the defendant had in their
judgment committed bribery within the meaning of
the statute he must be convicted. Bribery, of course,
had to be carried on secretly. A man could not
stand in the street and bribe people openly ; he
must be behind the scenes, and do it privately.
The jury before they found a verdict of guilty must
be convinced that the defendant was a consenting
party to the payment of the bribes, the money for
which had been placed in the hands of Mr. J. B.
Charlesworth. If the defendant chose to keep his
eyes shut and would not look at what was going on,
but turned aside, the question was whether be was
not substantially and in truth as much guilty of
bribery as if he•had with his own bands given the
bribes.
The jury retired and were absent for upwards
of an hour, when they found a verdict of guilty
against the defendant upon the first count,
namely, that he had unlawfully given- money to
Mr. J. B. Charlesworth, with the intent that
it should be expended, or some portion of it, for
purposes of bribery. As to the other counts alleg-
ing specific acts of bribery the jury could not agree,
and they were discharged without giving a verdict.
The jury told his lordship that there was no pros-
pect of their agreeing upon these particular counts.;
CROWN COURT.
(Before Mr. Baron Wilde.)