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

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

NORFOLK CIRCUIT.-CAMBRIDGE, JULY 20.

The judges arrived in this town yesterday, and
having opened the commission and attended divine
service, this morning proceeded to dispose of the
business of the assize, _ _

There were six prisoners and three causes for trial.
In the case of Augustus Hilton, the man charged
with the wilful murder of his wife at Parson Drove,
in the Isle of Ely, it will be remembered the trial
was postponed from the last assizes on the applica-
tion of the prisoner's counsel, in order that evidence
might be obtained as to the prisoner's state of mind,
a proceeding desired by his friends, and not at all
by the wish of the unhappy man. The delay being
granted, the prisoner at once expressed his disap-
pointment and regret at the trial not proceeding,
and has since done so repeatedly to the gaol autho-
rities. With regard to any defence he also expressed
his firm and unalterable determination to plead
guilty to the charge. This was communicated to
his counsel, also to the learned judge, and the pri-
soner was brought into the dock to plead with the
other prisoners. His lordship, however, humanely
ordered that he should be removed till Monday, the
day fixed for trial, in order that he might have fur-
ther time for reflection upon the course he was pur-
suing, feeling, as may be imagined, a strong reluct-
ance to receive a plea of guilty upon such a charge,
for upon the plea being recorded sentence of death
must be passed, and the law take its course.

NORTHERN CIRCUIT.—YORK, JULY 20.
(Before Mr. Baron Martin and a Special Jury.)
THE QUEEN V. J. C. D. CIIARLESWORTH-THE WAKE-

FIELD BRIBERY PROSECUTIONS.

The Attorney-General (Sir Wm. Atherton), Mr.
Monk, Q.C., Mr. Overend, Q.C., Mr. Cleasby, Q.C.,
and Mr. West, were counsel for the Crown ; Sir F.

Kelly, Q.C., Mr. Mellish, Q.C., and Mr. Maule
were for the defendant.

This was a criminal information filed by the At-
torney-General against J. C. D. Charlesworth, for
certain acts of bribery committed by him at the
Parliamentary election at Wakefield in April, 1859.
To these charges the defendant pleaded not guilty.
The Attorney-General having stated the case for
the prosecution, called the following evidence :
Mr. J. P. Naylor produced the writ for the elec-

tion of a member for the borough of Wakefield in
1859. He also produced the poll books.
Mr. James Whithorn, town clerk of Wakefield,
stated that in April, 1859, Mr. S. B. Harrison was
elected auditor for the borough. He spoke of the
writ being received for the election at Wakefield,
and the publishing of the notice for that election.
The candidates were Mr. Charlesworth and Mr.
Leatham. There were 952 electors on the register at
the time. The result of the poll was the election of
Mr. Leatham, the numbers being for him 406, and
for Mr. Charlesworth 403. The election expenses of
Mr. Charlesworth were returned at £634.
Mr. R. V. B. Davison said he was a banker at
Leeds. In April, 1859, Mr. J. B. Charlesworth gave
him a letter, accompanied with a debenture on the
Stockton and Darlington Railway. An account was
then opened with Mr. Charlesworth, and he with-
drew several sums from the bank. On the 16th and
23d April he got out £l,OOO on each occasion. On
the 22d April, £1,500; on the 29th, £500; on the
3d May, £250 ; and on the sth May, £5OO.
Mr. J. B. Charlesworth was the next witness, and
a free pardon having been handed to him from the
Crown, he having received no certificate from the
commissioners, he proceeded to give evidence. He
said that on the 9th April he had a conversation
with Mr. Fernandez relative to the state of the
election. After that conversation he saw the
defendant, and communicated to him the result.

When he saw Mr. Fernandez he told
him that there would be preliminary expenses
connected with the election for runners, watchers,
and obtaining the show of hands on the nomination
day. He informed the defendant, who said that
these expenses might be paid. On the 27th April
he paid £1,500 to Mr. Fernandez, not in the com-
mittee room, but in a private room, at the Stratford
Arms. Nobody was present but himself and Mr.
Fernandez. He talked to Mr. Fernandez about the
election, and he informed him that they were paying
large sums for voters on the other side, and that it
must be counteracted. On the 29th of April he
went to the bank for money at the request of Mr.
Fernandez. Did not ask Mr. Fernandez how the

money had been expended. Did not say anything
to him about its being a large sum of money. On
the 3d of May he applied for another sum, no doubt
at the dizection of Mr. Fernandez; but on the sth
of May he withdrew money for himself to meet any
expenses that might have been incurred. The total
amount he took out of the bank was £4,754, of
which sum £3,750 was paid over to Mr. Fernandez,
who was not asked to render any account of these
moneys. The defendant never required an account,
and none was rendered to him. After the election
he told the defendant that a great deal of money
had been expended, when he said that he did not
want to talk about it then, but would converse upon
it at some other time. The petition against the
election was then going on. At a dinner held about
three weeks previous to the election the defendant
said that he would not be one to bribe at the elec-
tion, and he would rather retire from the contest
than be guilty of any, corrupt practices.
Cross-examined—With respect to the £1,500, it
was wanted to meet expenses previous to the elec-
tion. There was no idea that a single farthing of
this money would go to bribing the voters. It was
expected that there was then a majority of 60 in
favour of Mr, Charlesworth, and of course there
was then no idea of bribing. When he gave the
£1,500 to Mr. Fernandez previous to the election
the notion of bribery was not entertained. He was
to go no further than £1,500 in drawing from the
bank, as far as the defendant was concerned. No
portion of the £1,500 was applied, or ever was
intended to be applied, for the purposes of bribery.
Mr. J. L. Fernandez, on being sworn, said he
remembered the election at Wakefield in 1859. At
that time he was residing at Wakefield, and was
carrying on the business of a corn merchant in that
town. He was well acquainted with defendant, wile
was a candidate at that election, and had known him
for many years. He had taken an active part in
the parliamentary and municipal elections of the
borough, and took the same side in politics as Mr.
Charlesworth. He took an active part in the election
of 1859, and canvassed for Mr. Charlesworth. lie
knew Mr. Charlesworth's cousin well, and some
short time before the election had some communica-
tion with him in reference to money. Mr. Fernan-
dez here stated that he should like to address a few
remarks to his lordship in reference to the course he
had thought it right to pursue at the last assizes.
He then refused to give evidence, on the ground
that he should be doing that if he consented which
would tend to criminate himself. He still held to
that objection, and thought that he ought not to be
called upon to state that which might criminate him,
as he had always understood that any and every
witness ought to be protected. He deemed the sen-
tence he had received at the last assizes as one of a
most harsh and severe character. Since that period
he had applied to the superior courts to get the de-
cision of Mr. Justice Hill reversed, but he regretted
to say that in consequence of the form of proceed:'ng
it was impossible that this case could be argued
upon its merits. The law as applied to his case was
not at all in a satisfactory or convenient state, and
he begged now most respectfully to renew the ob-
jection which he made on the last occasion. The
course taken was of a vindictive charecter when he
was examined before the commissioners. He felt
himself in peril at that time and also at the last
assizes ; but now he felt himself in greater peril
than ever, notwithstanding the certifioate which
had been given to him by the commissioners. That
certificate was impounded at the last assizes, and
was still withheld from him. Should his lord-
ship consider that he was bound to answer he must
bow to that decision, but at the same time he hoped
his lordship would properly protect him in the mat-
ter.

Mr. Baron Martin said it was his duty to inform
Mr. Fernandez that what he did at the last assizes
had come before the three courts at Westminster-
hall, and all the judges had decided that he was
bound to answer the questions put to him. He
assured Mr. Fernandez that he was in no peril what-
ever, and was quite free from all penalties.
The certificate which had been impounded was
handed to Mr. Fernandez, when his examination
was continued. He stated that he had had some
conversation with Mr. Charlesworth upon the
subject of money for the election. He told Mr. J.
B. Charlesworth that from £l,OOO to £1,500 would
be required preliminary to the election. Witness
spoke to sums which ho had received and paid for
the purposes of the election.
Cross-examined—Had had no communication
with the defendant as to how the money should be
applied and expended. There was a majority of
60 upon the canvas, and bribery was not thought
of. None of the £1,500 was applied in obtaining
the votes of the electors. No bribery was men-
tioned until Brear came to him three or four days
before the election; £1,200 or £1,500 was for pre-
liminary expenses to gain the majority upon the
show of hands, for watchers and runners who were
non-electors. He believed that the sum of £1,035
was paid by him to Holder to meet the expenses of
the watchers and the runners. The defendant was
not aware how the money was expended. He can-
vassed with the defendant, who had no idea of
being guilty of bribery. If he had mentioned,_r
the_
subject whilst on the canvass, he was sure
sMua;
Charlesworth would not have approved
of any
proposition. Mr. Charlesworth was innocent Yof any
charge of bribery. brought against him. I knew
that we had a majority of 60 on the can.v.ast,
he
edhaaat
dinner I heard hi. Charlesworth aay, Via

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 not 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
the 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 ih 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 olear 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 he was
not substantially and in truth as much guilty of
bribery as if he had with his own hands 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.)
THE CHARGE OF MURDER AGAINST A SURGEON AT
GREAT HORTON.
William Randall Mackley, 33, was charged with
the wilful murder of Martha Curtis, at Bradford ;
also with making false entries in a certificate of
death.
Mr. Price, Q.C., and Mr. West prosecuted ; Mr.
Bliss, Q.C., Mr. Maule, and Mr. Wheelhouse de-
fended the prisoner.
The prisoner pleaded not guilty.
On the part of the crown, Mr. Price objected to
a juryman who was a Quaker.
The case has so recently been reported in our
columns that the particulars will be fresh in the
recollection of our readers.
After the examination of the medical witnesses
for the prosecution, Mr. Bliss inquired the necessity
of pursuing the investigation, and wished to know
his lordship's opinion whether or not there was any
case against the prisoner to go to a jury ?
The learned Judge said there were in the conver-
sation between the prisoner and Mr. Field circum-
stances of strong suspicion, but he would take the
opinion of the jury upon the matter.
The jury then retired, and after considering for
a few moments returned into court, and stated that
they thought the evidence was such that there was
no necessity to prolong the inquiry.
A verdict of Not Guilty was accordingly re-
turned ; and as Mr. Price did not offer any evidence
on the charge of making false entries, the prisoner
was acauitted.