The Sun.
London, England, 1850-03-28 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

NORTHERN ClRCUlT.—Liverpool, March 27.
CROWN COURT —(l3ifore Mr. Baron ALDERSON,

EXTRAORDINARY CASE.

The Rev. Moorhouse James, perpetual curate of
Bedford, in the parish of Leigb, in this county, was
indicted for having, on the 14th of August last, un-
lawfully refused to marry Henry Fisher and Ann
Hardman, on the production of the certificate of the
superintendent-registrar of the district that they had
given the requisite netices, and complied with the
forms of the Act of Parliament in that behalf. The
defendant, who had surrendered to his bail, and who
sat near his counsel, pleaded Not Gui!ty.
Mi. Knowles, Q.C.; Attorney-General for the
county Palatine, and Mr. Crompton prosecuted; and
Q.C., appeared for the defence.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL, in opening the case, said
this
,was an indictment charging the defendant, a
clergyman of the Church of England, with a misde•
meanour in reusing to solemnize a marriage between
two,persons who had presented themselves to him for
that purpose, and who had previously complied with
the ,requirements of the Marriage Act (6 and 7
William IV., c. 85), and had obtained a certificate
from the superintendent-registrar of the district in the
place of banns. The case was one of some importance,
not 'on account of any special difficulties which it
might involve, because he believed when the point
was fairly looked at, it would not be found to involve
ariy, but because he was informed that the defendant
and other clergymen had conscientious scruples as to
the fine of duty which they were called on to follow ;
and it was therefore desirable that those scruples
should be settled by the right interpretation of the
law,' and the defendant and others would then, no
doubt, ace according to what was decided to be the
law. Until 14 or 15 years ago the mode in which
marriages were solemnized in this country was regu-
lated by an Act of Parliament passed in the reign of
George 11. (26t.h of George 11., c. 33), and under the
provisions of that Act all parties except Jews and
Quakers might not then, as now, be married accord-
ing to their own usages, but they were required to be
married in some church or chapel either by banns or
by licence. By special licence or dispensation parties
might be !married in any place convenient. Some
eldsses of Dissenters found this a grievance. They
were not members of the Church of England, and
perhaps had no very great fondness for any of its forms,
and 'they were anxious to be able to marry in their
own 'way, in their own chapels, and according to the
forma .of their own churches ; and for the purpose of
removing that grievance, and for other considerations,
an Act of Parliament was passed 14 or 15 years ago
which introduced very great alterations indeed in the
moa by which marriages were then, and may now
be, celebrated, and at the same time an Act of Par-
liament was passed which provided for the better re-
gistration of marriages, births, and deaths. By the
last-hamed Act a registrar, a deputy-registrar, and a
aupe'rintendent-registrar were to be appointed, and for
the purpose of marrying in many cases the Legisla-
ture availed itself of this new machinery, and allowed
parti'ee, if they chose, to be married before the super-
intendent-registrar of the district. They might also
be married in' their own chapels on following the
for* pointed out by the Act of Parliament. The old
forrni were, of course, preserved in the church, and
parties might still be married by licence or banns in
chturch, and many respectable Dissenters still pre-
ferre4 to be married in the church, in face of the
chfiecti, and by a clergyrnau of the Established
Church; and he should have thought that it would
have' been wise in any clergyman rather to foster than
to 4tiflp that feeling ; for he did think it was
worthy of grave consideration for clergymen to en-
courOga persons to go' to church for any purpose,
ratho than to close the doors upon them and expel
if a person were minded
them:.-As the law now stood,
not ito- be married by banns or licence, the mode of
proceeding was this :—he was required to go to the
superintendent-registrar of the district, and to give
notice Under his band, according to the form given in
the schedule of the Act of Parliament, in which
he specified his condition in life, rank, or profession,
his age, dwelling-place, and length of residtrice in it,
and then came a very important requisition as re-
gardei this case, that he should state the building,
churCh or chapel, in which he wished the marriage
to tecelebrated. This was entered in a book called
" the'marriage entry-book," and, after the expiration
of twenty-one days, during which period this notice
was hung up in the superintendent-registrar's-office,
and road at the meetings of the board of guardians of
the poor, the superintendent-registrar was required to
issue'a certificate under his hand, which was also to
be in'another form given in the schedule of the sta-
tute, in which must be stated the rank, age, dwelling-
place, and building, church or chapel, in which the

marriage was to take place. This certificate certi-
fied that the marriage was duly entered in the notice-
book, and that the requirements of the statute had
been complied with. Then, by the statute the Ist
Victoria, cap. 22, the issuing of this certificate was
to stand in the stead of the publication of banns to all
intents and purposes, and every clergyman
was bound to solemnize such marriage after
such notice and certificate as after the due pub-
lication of banns. He believed that there
could be no doubt in the world that the intention
of these Acts of Parliament taken alto.
gather was that the notice to the superintendent-
registrar and his certificate were to stand in all re-
spects in the place of the publication of banns, and that
the clergyman was bound to marry parties who pre-
sented to him this certificate, just as he would have
done before after the proper publication of the banns.
That being so, he would now call attention to the
facts of the case, as to which there was no dispute at
all. On the 14th of May last a person of the name
of Henry Fisher gave notice to the superintendent-
registrar of the Leigh district that he wished to marry
Anne Hardman, and thereupon the superintendent-
registrar duly entered this notice in his book ; 21
days after that Fisher obtained from the superinten-
dent-registrar the certificate required by the Act Gf
Parliament, and having.got that he called on the de-
fendant, who is the officiating minister of the church
of S.. Thomas, Bedford, and gave notice to him
that he wished to be married next morning. lie
(the Learned Counsel) was sorry to say that there
was a very good reason why Fisher should not
wish the marriage to be deferred, for the woman
to whom he wished to be married was far
advanced in pregnancy. It was desirable on all
accounts, whatever the faults of the parents might
have been, that the child, innocent as they must take
it to be, should not have visited upon it the conse-
Fuences of their fault. The defendant inquired of
isher if he had been baptised, to which he answered
that he had. Tile defendant then inquired if he had
been asked in church ? Fisher said, " No, at the
board of guardians." The defendant then asked if he
had been confirmed ? Fisher said no, he had not, and
then the defendant said he would have nothing to do
with him, and that, as he had been asked at the board
of guardians, the board of guardians might marry him.
He (the Learned Counsel) was sorry that the defen-
dant should have treated such a subject with levity,
for so only could he understand it, that this was meant
as a joke; for nobody but the defendant, the Rev.
Mr. James, could marry him, because the notice to
the superintendent-registrar had been given for the
marriage to be solemnized at the church of St. Tho-
mas, and he could only be married in that church by
Mr. James. Fisher went away. On the evening
of the same day he again called on Mr. James, and
again expressed his wish to be married, and no doubt
Mr. James then well knew the reason why. On the
19th of June Mr. Hayes, the superintendent-regis
trar, called on Mr. James and explained to him that
all the proceedings had been regular; still the defend-
ant refused to marry them; and on the 21 of August
Hayes, Fisher, the woman, Hardman, and a solicitor,
went to the defendant, and formally requested that a
day not later than the 14th of August, on which day
the time the certificate was valid expired, should be
fixed for the marriage to take place. The defendant
then said to Fisher, " I will marry you when you
have expressed a wish to be confirmed, and not other-
wise." This was a denial of the ceremony to him.
The parties were not married, and to this day
they were not married ; and, unfortunately, a child
had been born with a stigma attached to its
name entirely through what he must call the
scruples of Mr. James to marry them. Taking,
then, these to be the facts, he understood the refusal
of the defendant was thus grounded—that according
to the marriage service in the Book of Common
Prayer they would see that the rubric at the end of it
admonished or recommended parties to partake of the
holy communion at a " convenient" time, or as soon
as they conveniently could ; and he believed the
argument for the defendant would be, that inasmuch
as a person not confirmed was not in a state to par-
take of the holy communion, Mr. James considered
this declaration of the rubric as an injunction ad
dressed to him, and that it was his duty not to marry
parties who were not in a state to become partakers
of the holy communion. He believed that was the
ground of the defence. He (the Learned Counsel)
could not imagine how such a defence could contra-
vene the express directions of an Act of Parliament.
But let them for one moment consider what the state
of the world would have been if such an excuse as
this bad been held to be a reasonable excuse.
If it were a good excuse now it would have been
a good excuse before this Act of Parliament
passed ; and only let them think what the state
of things would have been if the Church had here-
tofore held amongst its officiating sons.men with such
Scruples. How
,could a Dissenter have Rot married
at all ? They were not confirmed. They were,
therefore, in this respect in the same condition as
Henry Fisher, and if Mr. James was right in his ex-
cuse to-day, then half the population of the country—
much of its intelligence and of its respectability—
never could have been married at all, because before
this statute they could only be married in the
bhurch by priests in holy orders ; and if a clergyman
had said, " You are a Dissenter, you have never been
confirmed, you cannot partake of the holy commu-
nion, and I will, therefore, exclude you from the right
of marriage," one-half the people of the country could
not have been married. He need only mention this
to show the absurdity—using that phrase without
disrespect to men who acted from conscientious
scruples—of such an excuse as this. Probably also
Mr. James might set up this defence—" If Ido not
marry you you now can be married elsewhere;
you may be married in your own chapel,
or in any building duly authorised ; or you
may go to the superintendent-registrar's office
to be • married ;" and probably it might be
said that Fisher might have taken this
course. But he could not. His notice must express
where he wished to be married, and he therefore could
not be married at all elsewhere under that certificate,
or without commencing de novo, and giving a fresh
notice stating some other place in which he wished to
be married. He would make no further observations
on the case ; but he could not belp thinking that it
would be much more wise, on an occasion like the
present, when the Church was agitated by many dis-
sensions both within and without, rather to throw
open the portals of the Church than to close them,
and to encourage parties to come to church for any
purpose than to shut them out. That, however, was
not the place to consider such a question, and he made
the remark with great deference to those who had
deeply considered the question, and he would now
proceed to call his witnesses. When he had given
his evidence it would become a question for his Lord-
ship, or for some other tribunal, to set this question
at rest, and to instruct Mr. James as to his duty ac-
cording to the law of the land, which he and every
other subject was bound to obey.
Mr. Hayes, the superintendent-registrar of the
district of Leigh, and clerk to the board of guardians
for that district, stated that oa the 14th of May he re-
ceived a notice of marriage from Henry Fisher. The
notice (pursuant to the Act Gth and 7th of Wil-
liam IV.) was produced and read, describing the
church in which the marriage was wished to be so-
lemnized as St. Thomas's Church, Bedford. This
notice was entered in the marriage notice-book. That
was the book kept under the sth section of the 6th
and 7th William IV., c. 85.

His LORDSHIP—TiIe Act of Parliament requires
that the party must have resided more than seven
days in the district in which he gave the notice.
It is not mentioned in the notice how long he had
resided.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—The notice was in the
form given in the schedule of the Act.
Hia Loaosiur thought that
,was sufficient. The
notice entered in the marriage notice-book was
read at three weekly meetings of the board of
guardians.

HIS LORDSHIP—IS that a public meeting ? Msy
everybody go there ? Witness—No.
His LORDSHIP—How is a father to know when
his child is going to marry ? Witness—The marriage
notice-book is open to the public at all proper hours.
His LORDSHIP—Yes, that is if a father knows his
child is going to marry—knows what is true—he
may go there ; but how is a father to know his child
is going to marry ? Witness—l am not able to
answer that question.
His Loansuir—
No, nor anybody else. The banns
were published that all
people should know. This is
one of the evils of change.. But go on.
Witness--Henry Fisher had after that applied to
him for a certificate, which he gave to him. (The
certificate was put in and read, and was according to
section 7 of the Act, and the form given in schedule
B.) On the 19th of June he called on Mr. ,lames,
the defendant, who is the officiating minister of St
Thomas's Church, Bedford, in the Leigh district,
and saw him. lie told Mr. James his name and
office, and then told him he had been in correspond-
ence with the Registrar-General in con‘equ.ence
of his refusing to marry Fisher and Hardman,
and that the Registrar-General, as advised, did not
consider the non-confirmation of the persons, or either
of them, was any objection or legal impediment. He
said he hail seen Fisher before on the subject, and he

declined to say anything in reply. Witnesi then
slid that Fisher bad something to say. Mr. James,
however, refused to hear Fisher, who was about to

address him. Mr. James then retired and closed the
door of his residence. On the 2cl of August he again
went to Mr. James's residence, accompanied by
Henry Fisher, Anne Hardman, and Mr. Whitehead,
a solicitor of Tinsley. They saw Mr. James, and
Whitehead introduced the business, and wished that
some arrangement could be made by which the par-
ties might be married under the certificate. Fisher
produced the certificate, which Mr. James, the de-
fendant, said he supposed was all right according to
law. Fisher then made a distinct and formal de-

nand that the defendant should celebrate the mar-
riage on or before the day named in the certificate—
the 14th of August, when it would expire, and Hard-
man made a similar demand. The defendant said,
" I will marry him when he (Fisher) has expressed
a desire to be confirmed." The parties made no
reply. At witness's request they both repeated the
demand. Mr. James then said, "I have given you
my answer."

Cross-examined by Mr. Brass.—Did not Mr. James
refer them to the rubric of the Prayer-book as his
reason ?—Not in my presence.
Did he not say, " You will find my answer in the
printed forms ?"—I am not aware of it. Mr. White-
head might have said, " We are aware of that."
Mr. James allowed the certificate to be valid, but,
notwithstanding, he refused to marry the parties.
Mr. James had been minister seven years. Witness
attended the Wesleyan chapel. He was present when
the notice was read at the board of guardians, and
read it immediately after the minutes of the previous
meetings.
Re-examined—My ',lamed Friend has thought it

worth while to ask you if you attended the Wesleyan
chapel ; did you once attend the church ?—I did.
When was it you left ?—About four years ago.
His LORDSHIP—Ii that material ?—I think not.

The ATTORNBY-GENERAL—Why did you leave
the Church? Witness—l have reasons, but would
rather not express them.
His LORDSHIP—Do let us try this case as if it
were an action between John Thomas and Peter
Jackson. What can this inquiry have to do with the
question ?
Henry Fisher stated he lived at St. Thomas's
crescent, Bedford. He was a stripper and grinder,
and had lived there eleven years. Had known Anne
Hardman two years. She worked in the same place
as he. In May last he and Anne Hardman had
agreed to be married. Previously to that she had
lived at Tingley, and before the 14th of May she had
lived a month in Bedford, at St. Thomas's-crescent.
The notice produced was signed by him, and he gave
it to Mr. Hayes on the 14th of May. The certificate
produced he got from Mr. Hayes on the 12th of
Jane. After he had got it he called on Mr. James,
the defendant, the same night. Ile was not at home,
but he saw him the night after. He told Mr. James
that he was come to give him notice that he intended
being married at St. Thomas's Church next morning.
Mr. James asked him if he had been baptized. Wit-
ness answered "Yes." He asked witness what his name
was, and he told him. He asked him if be had been
asked at church. Witness said "No." He asked him
where he had been asked, and witness said at the board
of guardians. He then asked him if he had been
confirmed, and witness said '• No." He then said
" He could have nothing at all to do with me." Wit-
ness asked for what reason. He told him he was
.not compelled to tell me his reason. Witness said,
" Very well, I will go to the board of guardians and
see what they say." He said "If people will be so
foolish as to get asked at the board of guardians, I
must go and let the board of guardians marry me."
He saw him again, and he was again referred to the
board of guardians. He afterwards went with Mr.
Hayes, and also a fourth time, to see him, when Anne
Hardman was with them, and demanded him to fix a
time to marry them on or before the 14th of August,
and Anne Hardman did the same. He said he would
marry them when witness had expressed •a desire to
be confirmed.
Cross-examined—His father was living; his mother
was dead. He used to go to church some time ago,
for about twelve months. He did not go to Mr.
James to learn his catechism. He never learnt the
Church catechism.
His LORDSHIP—HOW is this material ? However,
I will give you credit for asking it with some motive
material.

Mr. BLlss—My Lord, I think it is.
'Witness—His mother never went with bim to Mr.
James to learn the Church catechism. After the first
notice, he gave another to the guardians on the day
he should have been married, on the 14th of June, to
be married at Tinsley Chapel—a Dissenting chapel.
His father did not attend that chapel. He did not
attend that chapel himself. He himself went to the
Methodist chapel in Bedford. Tinsley Chapel is two
miles off.
His LORDSHIP—Then why were you not married ?
Witness—Because they wanted this case to be tried
on, whether Mr. James would marry us or not.
His LORDSHIP—Then you and your child are the
victims of this case ? Witness—Yes, to be sure.
His LORDSHIP—Then I think there is folly on both
sides now.
Anne Hardman, a good looking girl, very young,
was sworn, but not examined.
Cross-examined—Her child was born on the 18th
of October. She was not married yet. She had been
confirmed about six years ago.
His LORDSHIP—Why were you not married, my
poor girl ? Are you under orders from anybody not
to be married till this cause is tried ? Witness—
Yes, till this is tried.
His LORDSHIP—SO then you are living in a state
of sin, in order that this cause may be tried ? Are
you living with the young man now ? Witness—Yes.
HIS LORDSHIP—So they have kept you in a state
of sin in order to try this cause. Very well ; if that
is not a sin, I don't know what is. It is disgraceful.
At the present day there is a determination to drive
everything to extremities. Perhaps the young man
won't marry you now. Witness—Yes, he will.
Henry Fisher was recalled, and, in answer to the
Learned Counsel for the prosecution, said he was
living with the girl, and had not married her until this
cause was tried, because of his own personal feeling
in one sense, and because it was ordered he should
not be married till this was settled.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL - Who ordered you?
Witness—Why, I had warning from the registration•_
office.

This was the case for the prosecution.
Mr. Buss then addressed the jury for the defence.
He said the case required more nerve than he pos-
sessed, not to feel embarrassed on rising to address
them on such an occasion, for the subject was one
which involved subjects strange to that Court, and
which he felt himself neither able nor quite worthy
to urge. The consequences of their verdict to the
defendant, for his interests in this world, were most
serious, for he believed the defendant would count
their condemnation of his conduct as one of the
greatest misfortunes of his life. The consequences
were also important to the order of which he was a
humble, a faithful, and an earnest member, to the
Church itself, and tosociety at large, which the Church
had been the means of reclaiming from barbarism,
infidelity, or superstition. The Learned Counsel was
proceeding to contend that the enforcement of the
doctrines of the Church and of its strict discipline
had never for these objects been more required than
at the present day, when
His LORDSHIP said he supposed there was no dis-
pute about the facts, and he should like to hear the
legal objections raised.
The Learned COUNSEL then, at great length and
with much ingenuity and research, which our limits
do not enable us to do justice to, proceeded to contend
that the defendant had committed no legal offence ;
that he was bound by the canons and the rubric ; and
that if he were wrong his offence, if any, was cog-
nizable only by the ecclesiastical courts. By the
ancient law of the Church the communion was re-

quired to be administered at the marriage ceremony;
and now it was by the rubric enjoined that "it is
convenient that the new married persons shall receive
the holy communion at the time of their marriage, or
at the first opportunity after their marriage." This
change had been made to meet the objections of the
Puritans in Charles IL's reign. That requirement
presupposed a certain degree of fitness in the parties
to receive the communion, and it was imperative,
under the canons, before a party received it, that he
should be so far advanced in Church doctrine and

discipline as to be fit to partake of it, which Fisher
was not, never having been confirmed, and he evi-

dently having lived in a state of fornication.
His LORDSlllP—Unfortunately in this case the ob-
jection taken by the defendant was only that one
party had not been confirmed. He don't object to the
parties having lived in fornication. He swallows the

camel.
Mr. Buss contended that it was not too late for
him now to take that objection. It might be that the
defendant had refused to marry the parties for a bad
reason when he could have urged a good one.
His LORDSHIP—If the good reason had been as-
signed the parties might have amended their lives.
Mr. Buss then contended that a clergyman was not
bound by the statute to administer the solemn rights
of the Church to persons who were not in a fit state,
to persons of any or no creed. Otherwise lewd women
might demand to be churched after giving birth to
their bastards.

' His Lottrsinr—l do not see any reason why a
woman may rot thank God for her safe deliverance.
Mr. Buss then contended that this was an offence
at common law. The certificate was put in the place
of banns, and a clergyman was not bound to marry
where the banns had been published, but was required
first, by the 62nd canon, to see that the parents gAve
their consent, if the parties were under age. He had
a judicial power conferred upon him, with his exer-
cise of which the law would not meddle ; and if he
did wrong his error was only cognizable in the eccle-
siastical court.

TES LORDSHIP expressed himself to be with the
Learned Counsel on that point. He, however, could
not help thinking that it was very unwise to raise
these points either in one court or the other. The
best way in such matters was to use good advice, and
to exhort men to do right. He could not but ex-
press his utter disapprobation of persons continuing to
live in sin for the purpose of raising such a question
as this. It was shocking.
Mr. Brass then: said he had taken the objections
he was instructed to take, but there were others
which, as en advocate, he felt it his duty to take. He
then objected, that the defendant's refusal to marry

was not sufficiently proved ; that the parties should
have presented themselves at the proper hour, on the
14th of Angus', at the church to be married, as the
defendant had until that time to marry them ; that
the conseneof the parents was not proved, as was re-
quired by the 62d canon ; and that it was not proved
that the Church of St. Thomas, Bedford, was licensed
for the performance of marriage, or that it was a
pariah church.
The vicar, the Rev. James Irvine, was called by
Mr. Knowles to prove this, and that gentleman, of his
own knowledge, did not know, as he had never per-
formed marriage there. The churchyard had graves
in it, and there was a font in the church.
His LORDSHIP said these were evidences of a parish
church.
Mr. Brass then objected, that the notice to the
register was insufficiently set out in the indictment.
Having taken these points, the Learned Counsel then
addressed the jury on the facts, and contended that it
was due to the members of the Church that their re-
ligious scruples should be respected as well as those of
other sectarians, and that it would be an infringement
of civil and religious liberty to compel clergymen to
celebrate one of the Church's most sacred rites to
persons who were unfit to receive them, against their
consciences, and against the canons by which they
were bound.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL in reply merely stated,
that those who had instructed him had not been Re-
tinted by any of those feelings which had drawn
down his Lordship's censure.
His LORDSHIP, in summing up, said he was quite
sure that the Government of the country, whom the
learned Attorney-General represented, would not be
guilty of so unworthy a thing. Most of the objec-
ticns urged by the Learned Counsel with great in-
genuity and talent appeared to him unfounded ;
but they might turn out to be worthy of more
attention than they then appeared to him
to be on the case being beard elsewhere ;
and he should reserve them. If now called
on to decide whether the defendant were right in re-
fusing to marry, as at present advised, he should say
he was wrong. He should, however, now advise the
jury not to consider one of the parties not having been
confirmed to be a good objection; and his reason for
thinking so was, that the universal practice of the
Church had been not to take that objection at all ; and
the practice of the Church was the best evidence of the
rule of the Church. As at present advised, heiwas
strongly of opinion that this was a matter solely of
ecclesiastieal cognizance, and if he were to act on bis
opinion now be should direct an acquittal, but if so
he should deprive the parties of the opportunity of
raising the question. In order therefore to raise the
question he must act contrary to his opinion, and
direct them to find the prisoner guilty, and if wrong
he could be set right by a superior court. 'With re-
spect to the other objections, they were such as
ought to be reserved, but he should confine them to
those which the defendant took at the time he refused
to marry. The legal objections raised he should also
reserve.

The jury then found the defendant Guilty, and he
was bound over in his own recognizance, to appear
and receive judgment when called upon.
His LORDSHIP then said that he could not suffi-
ciently express his utter abhorrence at the conduct of
those, whoever they might be, who had prevented the
two young people from being married for the purpose
of trying this cause, and thereby made them to con-
tinue to live in sin.
Robert Walmsley was charged with having, at
Longridge, on the Ist November last, feloniously shot
at Isabella Taylor, with intent to murder her.
Mr. Seger and Mr. James conducted the prosecu-
tion ; Mr. Overend defended the prisoner.
The circumstances of this case will be better under-
stood by detailing the evidence of the several wit-
nesses. The first witness called was the prosecutrix.
Isabella Taylor—l resided as servant with the Rev.
Mr. Bache, at Longridge, last year. The prisoner
had a small farm about two miles off. He is a mar-
ried man, and used to come to my master's house
about once a fortnight to work about the garden, and
when my master and mistrees were from home he
used to come to sleep to take care of the house. I
was confined of a child in February, of which the
prisoner is the father. Two days before the Ist of
November I told the prisoner that I was in the family
way, and that I was determined to go to Preston to be
examined by a medical man, to see what really was the
matter with me. Prisoner said, in reply, that he would
not advise me to go to a doctor, as I should be get-
ting both myself and him into a hobble. I said that
if I found I was in the family way he (the prisoner)
would have to pay for it; to which he answered that
there was no way to make him pay for it. The next
day I saw the prisoner again a little before dinner, in
the stable, and told him that I was going to Preston
on the morrow. He looked at me from head to foot
and smiled. I did not see him again. The prisoner
knew what time Ifr. and Mrs Bache drank tea.
About six o'clock I took away the things, and went
into the pantry with some bread and butter plates. I
had a candle in my hand. Persons outside can see
into the pantry from the road. After I had put some
bread and butter plates on the shelf and was going
to the pantry door, I was shot in the chin. A good
many shots entered my face, and I heard the report of
a gun. I ran to the dining- room door, and fell down.
Mr. Bache was from home, but returned about nine
o'clock, and at about eleven I told him of being in the
family-way by the prisoner.
Cross-examined—l seldom had leave out, and had
no friends about. I told prisoner of my condition
several times before I was shot.

The Rev. W. C. Bache—l am incumbent of Long-
ridge. Isabella Taylor had lived with me a year and
three months. I occtisionally employed the prisoner
as a gardener, and he took care of the house when I
and my sister were.absent from home. On the night
of the let of November I returned home about nine
o'clock, and found that Isabella was in bed, and had
been shot. I was for an hour-and-a-half trying to
extract from her whether she could fix her suspicions
upon any one, and at last she communicated to me
her connexion with the prisoner, and the result of that
connexion. The bottom of the pantry window is
about four feet from the ground. The glass is plate
glass of peculiar thickness. Owing to that and the
position of the girl the shot was arrested and prevented
from having a fatal result.
Cross-examined—The prisoner is a married man
with two children, and has always borne the highest
character. The policeman and myself both endea-
voured to obtain from the girl her suspicions.
William Durham, a police-officer—l heard the re-
port of the gun, and afterwards went to the house
and found one hole in the pantry window, as if a
charge of shot had gone through. Five fingers could
be put through the hole, or an orange. The gun
must have been fired close to the window. A 100
shots hadgenetrated a door on the opposite side of the
pantry. About half-past twelve at night I went to
the prisoner's house, in company with Kenyon and
Kay. There is a projection at the door. We all
went up as quickly as possible. I stationed Kenyon
to answer any question from the window. I went up
and got as close to the door as possible. I knocked,
and placed myself so that I could not be seen from
the window. In about five minutes the prisoner
came to the window and said, " Who is there ?" and
Kenyon said, " You had better come down stairs, I
want to speak to you." He then went into the room
and I heard him conversing with some one. He re-
turned to the window and said, "Is it thee, boy '
Kenyon said " Yes," and then prisoner said, "Is a
policeman there ?" I said yes and told him, to come
down. I had remained all the time so that I could
not be seen. Prisoner did not speak from his own
bed-room window. He then came down, and I
charged him with shooting Labelle Taylor. He said,
" I'm innocent of that, thank God !" I asked him
where his gun was. He banded me one down, and
said, " This is it—l had it out this afternoon." I
said, " Robert, there's another gun hanging up," and
I took
gun." it
I down.
‘,
I sPrihsaolnlertaskae this too ;" and he said,id, " That's my brother's
" It's no use taking that, it does not belong to me."
He was very much agitated, and let the candle drop
out of his hands. I took him into custody, and as we
were leaving he asked me if she was dead. At the police
station I found in his pockets some shot loose. Ken-
yon took up some of the shot, and said, " Robert, do
you use this shot regular?" He said, " No, but
these are a few I got from Tommy Fenton." He also
had four percussion caps. On examining the guns, I
found that the gun he said was his own had not been
lately fired off, but the gun which he said was his
brother's had ; both guns were loaded. About an
hour and a half after I apprehended him prisoner
called me to him at the police-station, and said it
was strange that he should be suspected. I said,
" Robert, the girl told me that she is in the family-
way by you, and that she had a conversation with you
about it on Sunday." He said, " I never had any
connexion with her in all my life, and never_ had
a conversation with her." At Preston police-office
he sail he could clear himself; that he went to
a sale at five o'clock, and returned 11...tne, where
he remained half an hour or better, and then went to
Hothersall- hall to collect some tithe-rents, but that
seeing some of the daughters playing outside the hall,
and hearing one of them say, " Here's papa coming
home in a Whitechapel," he didn't like going in—
and that he arrived home at about half-past eight or
nine o'clock. I said, " Robert, some one must have
seen you." And he replied, " I don't think anybody
did."

Cross-examined—There was a sale by auction that
day, as the prisoner stated.
Robert Daw-4 am a farmer at Hothersall-hall.
I had been from home from the day of the occur-
rence, and returned home at nine o'clock. My chil-
dren had gone to bed. The prisoner collects chuzch-
rates, but no tithe-rates. He is a churchwarden. I
did come home in a Whitechapel, and passed by the
prisoner's house.
Cross-examined—l did owe church-rates at that
time. Prisoner is churchwarden of Ribchester.

was a moonlight night. I don't know whether my
children would have been out playing at seven o'clock.
Another witness wag at a sale at Cawood. The
prisoner was there, He went away between five and
six. Ho had an old blue coat on.

Richard Billington—The prisoner was not at the
sale at Cawood at half-past five. I went to the pri-
soner's house at forty minutes past six o'clock. tie
was not at home. I stayed till seven o'clock, and he
had not come home.

John Herbert—l am a blacksmith. I drew the
shot from the guns. I cannot say that the allots taken
from the pantry-door are the same size as those I
drew from the gun,
Thomas Dixon—l am a surgeon at Preston. Ex-
amined Isabella Taylor, her face was much swollen,
and had thirty-three shot-marks. I extracted the
shot, which I hare lost. It corresponded with some
shown me by the constable.

Mr. OVEREND, in an able speech, urged upon the
jury the fact of the evidence being purely circum-
stantial and unsatisfactory, and that the conduct of
the prisoner was that of an innocent man.

His LOIDiHIP having summed up,
The jury returned a verdict of Not Guilty.
This case did not conclude till a late hour las'
night.

OXFORD checul r. —Here tbrd. March 26.
CROWN COURT.—(Before Mr. Justice
PATTESON.)
John Horne was put to the bar to answer to an in-
dictment which charged that he had been convicted of
housebreaking, at the Maidstone quarter-soesions, on
the 15th of October, in the third year of her Ma-
jesty's reign, 1839, and sentenced to transportation
for the term of ten years, and that he afterwards' to
wit, on the 19th day of June, in the year of our Lord
1847, at the parish of Ross, in the county of Here-
ford aforesaid, was at large, without any lawful ex-
cuse, within her Majesty's dominions' before the ex-
piration of the term for which he had been so ordered
to he transported as aforesaid.
Mr. Powell conducted the prosecution, and Mr.
Cooke the defence.
This was one of those cases where many would re-
joice that the strict letter of the law was defeated by
any technicality. It appeared that the prisoner had
been convicted of breaking into a dwelling-house in the
day time, during the absence of the family, near Tun-
bridge Wells, in 1839. The law at the time did not
permit a shorter sentence of transportation than ten
years. He was sentenced to be transported for that
period, and was taken to Sydney. There, in conse-
quence of his, good conduct and his superior intelli-
gence, he was put into the engineers' department,
made an overseer of a gang of twenty men, and sent
down frequently in a diving-bell to blow up wrecks.
On one of these occasions, after he had served six
years of his sentence, he escaped to an American
vessel and got to New York. There he worked for
some time, and then came to London as a common
seaman. Me then worked for several months on the
London and York Railway ; after that on the Hast-
ings and South Coast Railway; next on the North
Staffordshire Railway; and then, after he had been
two years and a half in England, went into Hereford-
shire, and having no money, and being unable to get
employment, and having been three days without
food, he went on the 19th November last, after the
expiration of the ten years, to the house of the super-
intendent of the police at Ross, and that officer being
from home, he waited for three hours till his return,
and then surrendered himself; and was taken into
custody as a vagrant, and in answer to questions
put by the superintendent, gave the above account of
himself. The magistrates, on hearing the case, directed
their clerk to communicate with the Secretary of
State, who replied that it was a fit case for prosecu-
tion, and directed an indictment to be preferred in the
usual course.
Before the trial had proceeded far,
Mr. Coosa objected to the sufficiency of the in-
dictment, on the ground that it did not allege that the
prisoner was feloniously at large before the expiration
of this sentence. The statute provided that persons
escaping before the expiration of their sentence should
" suffer death, as in cases of felony." This clearly
made the offence a felony, and therefore it should
have been charged as a felony in the indictment by
the use of the word "feloniously."
Mr. POWELL, in support of the indictment, con-
tended that as the indictment charged the offence
against which the statute provided in the very words
of the statute, it was unnecessary to allege that the
offence had been committed feloniously. The case
differed from most other statutable felonies in this—
that statutes relating to such offences declared speci-
fically that whoever committed them should be
" guilty of felony ;" whereas there was no such pro-
vision in this statute ; and it was by no means clear
that because the punishment was to be the same " as
in cases of felony," the Legislature meant to decree
that the offence of returning from transportation
should be a felony. The Learned Counsel added,
that in a case of this kind, he wished simply to dis-
charge his duty, and not to exceed it; and that he
would, therefore, only ask his Lordship, if he had any
serious doubt en the question, to reserve it for the
decision of the Judges in the Court of Appeal for
the consideration of such matters.
His LORDSHIP, however, said that he was clearly
of opinion that the statute, in enacting that parties
so offending should "suffer death as in cases of
felony," made the offence a felony, and he had so
strong an opinion on this point that he would not re-
serve the question, as it might be drawn into a pre-
cedent and might encourage the introduction of great
vagueness and uncertainty in criminal pleading.
There were certain words which had been held ne-
cessary for ages to be used in indictments. He
thought this one of those cases ; the word " fe-
loniously" ought to have been inserted, and as it was
not inserted the indictment could not be sustained,
and therefore he thought the prisoner ought to be
acquitted.
He was then ordered to be discharged ; and some
benevolent gentlemen in court commenced a subscrip-
tion for him, to which several members of the bar
contributed.
The omission of the word " feloniously" was a
mere accident of the copying clerk in the indictment
office, as the word was in the precedent laid before
him.

(Before Mr. Baron PLATT.)
George Cullicott, aged 28, was indicted for felo-
niously forging and uttering a counterfeit bank note
for 51, with intent to defraud Messrs. Bailey and Co.,
bankers of Abergavenny. There were other indict-
ments against the prisoner for similar offences.
Mr. Huddlestone eppeared for the prosecution. The
prisoner was not defended by counsel.
On Saturday, the 22d of December last, the pri-
soner went into the shop of Mr. Maclean, a tailor and
draper at Hereford, and purchased a coat for 11. Bs.,
for which he tendered in payment a .5/. note, purport-
ing to be of Messrs. Bailey's bank, and received in
exchange for it the coat and the difference in money.
The same evening he went to the shop of Mr. Hooper,
a grocer, and Mr. Hickson, a grocer, at Hereford, at
each of which he bought a pound of tea, and gave
forged notes of the same bank in payment, and
received the difference He also pail a 51. note
the same evening to Mr. Gethen, a draper, for two
handkerchiefs, but this note had been paid away, and
was not identified. Mr. Maclean discovered that
the note given to him was a forgery the next day,
and gave information to the police and a minute de-
scription of the prisoner, in consequence of which,
in the month of February following, he was sent for
to Birmingham, where he identified the prisoner
amongst ten or twelve others who were there being
arraigned before the Recorder of that borough, and he
afterwards identified the coat the prisoner wore when
apprehended on another charge at Birmingham, as
that which he had sold to him at Hereford. The
prisoner, being transmitted for trial to this place, was
on his arrival immediately identified amongst other
prisoners by Mr. Hooper, and by the wife of Mr.
Hickson, and was further identified to-day by an as•
sistant of Mr. Gethen, who sold him the handkerchiefs.
For the defence, the prisoner called a witness, who
swore that on the 22,1 of December the prisoner was
with him at a watchmaker's shop, in Birmingham,
the whole of the afternoon ; but the jury disbelieved
him, and returned a verdict of Guilty, in consequence
of which the other cases were not proceeded with.
His LORDSHIP sentenced the prisoner to 15 years'
transportation.

Mr. HUDDLESTORB stated to the Court, after the
sentence, that simultaneous uttering* of forged notes
of the same bank took 'place on the evening of the
same day, the 22d December, at Newport, Usk, Rag-
land, Monmouth, Merthyr Tydvil, and Bristol.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MANSION-HOUSE.

Rose Hunt, aged nineteen, was brought before Al-
derman Gibbs, on a charge of having attempted to
commit self-destruction.

It appeared that the unfortunate creature had been
fur four years living a wretched life of prostitution in
the eastern parts of London. Her history is a very
deplorable one, and presents a melancholy example of
the way in which the streets of London are replenished
with victimp.

Rose Hunt states, es the Rev. Mr. Cohen, the en-
lightened chaplain of Giltspur-street Prison, observed
to the Alderman, that she is the daughter of a person
who once kept a respectable inn in a country town,
but who, by various losses, has become so reduced as
to become now dependent upon parochial relief.
`►bout four years ago, when only fifteen years of age,
the defendant meta young woman at a fair in Suffolk,
who endeavoured to win her confidence, and after-
wards abused it for the very worst purpose. By
means of this female she was introduced into a
house of ill-fame, seduced, and eventually brought
by her to London. She was taken to a low concert-
room in Tower-hill, and left to a course of prostitution
amongst the lowest class of the water-side district.
About nine months ago, as she wandered about one