The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1840-09-01 00:00:00

LIVERPOOL

SUMMEIr'4ASSIZES,

CROWN COURT.-FRIDAY.
ALLEGED PERJURY AT WIGAN

Henry Pennington, surgeon, of Wigan, who had sullen.:
dered himself in discharge of his bail, was indicted for per-
jury.—Mr. Brandt and Mr. Wilkins appeared for the prose-
cution. The Hon. Mr. Wortley and Mr. Atherton for the

The offence was alleged to have been committed

before the revising barrister, at Wigan, at his court, on the
12th of October. The charge consisted of his having sworn
e had occupied a house from the 15th of July, 1838,
31st of July, 1839, when, in fact, he had not occupied
louse in question till the 15th of August, 1838. Several
asses were called to prove the facts, and that the mis-
ment must have been made with a guilty knowledge by

the defendant, inasmuch as he had claimed a reduction of the
charge for the highway rate, on the ground that he had not
occupied the house until the later date.—The evidence hav-
ing been gone through, Mr. Wortley objected that there was
no proof, as regarded an averment in the second count that
the list of voters had been published on the doors of the
churches and chapels.—Mr. Brandt argued that the word

' chapel" in the statute had reference merely to those of the
Church of England, and that there was proof of the publica-
ion of the lists on the doors of the parish church.—Mr.
,rt Wortley addressed the Jury for the defence, contend-
- as regarded the defendant, a respectable young man,
son of a clergyman, the prosecution was an affair of great
Itiveness—that all the evidence against him proceeded
',is political opponents, and that his sole offence was
Tory.—Mr: Wortley called the following witnesses
`er :—Mr. Robert Wortley, coal-proprietor, of Bol-
that he had known the defendant many years, as
—i remarkable for his integrity and truth.—Mr. Tyson,
.p manufacturer, of Liverpool, had known the defendant
everal years, and always considered him to be a person of
the greatest honour and highest integrity.—Mr. James Owen,
wholesale and retail chemist and druggist, had been ac-
quainted with the defendant since 1831. He was a very re-
spectable young man, of rather a religious turn, and attended
very regularly to business.—The JUDGE remarked that the
question for the Jury to decide was not whether the defend-
ant had sworn rashly, but whether he had wilfully and de-
liberately sworn that which was false. His lordship was
,ro through the evidence, when the Jury intimated
as quite unnecessary, as they were perfectly satisfied
of the defendant's innocence. They returned a verdict of
acquittal.—The JUDGE remarked that persons in such ex-
aminations should be very cautious.—M r. Wortley observed
that it would have been but candid had Mr. Robinson put
the defendant on his guard.—The costs of prosecution were
disallowed.

from I

ton, stated

that it w

THE MILITARY OUTRAGE AT WIGAN

Adolphus Frazer, and Charles Luxmore Bennett, were
arraigned, and pleaded not guilty for an assault and rescue
at Wigan. No evidence being offered, a verdict of acquittal

was taken.

THE MANCHESTER CA ARTEII

.-THE RIVAL CORONERS

aIJEEN V. RUTTEP

Rutter was indicted for an assault upon
, at Manchester.

Mr. Brandt and Mr. Crompton appeared for the prosecu-
lion, and Mr. Wilkins for the defence.
Mr. BRANDT stated that this was an indictment for as-
sault. It was a case which the magistrates bad thought pro-
per to send to the assizes, and probably the jury• would think
that it was a very proper course to pursue, and that the case
should not

lecided in the town Of Manchester, where so
much excitement prevailed on the subject which had given
rise to the charge in question. It was not a very material
assault, but circumstances gave to it a very serious aspect.
Mr. Chapman, the complainant, was the coroner for the bo-
rough of Manchester; Mr. Rutter, the defendant, was coro-
ner for the county. The occasion of the assault was, these

two parties meeting together to assume the right of holding
an inquest, each independent of the other. If the defendant
should prove to be right, the plaintiff would regret the result.
If wrong, the plaintiff would naturally look for some security
that the offence should not be repeated. The learned coun-
sel regretted that he should have to conduct this case against
Mr. Rutter, because be had a personal knowledge of his
exemplary conduct in private life, and of his having acquitted
himself with the greatest respectability and integrity in his
official capacity until this occurrence. He could not but
think, from these and other circumstances, that the defendant
at the time of the assault laboured under some degree of ex-
citement, and that he forgot the situation held by himself
and that of the gentleman whom he had assaulted. The jury
had heard that a charter kad been granted for Manchester.
Where there was a quarter-session held in a chartered bo-
rough, they would understand that the magistrates in that
session assembled were called upon to appoint a coroner for

le borough, and this was done in Manchester. The validity
f the charter was disputed, but the decision of the judges
ad not yet been given. Had that decision arrived earlier, pro-

bably this affair might not have occurred. They were not
to inquire to-day whether the charter was valid or invalid.
That Mr. Rutter, the coroner for the county, would not dis-

pute, nor that Mi. Chapman was the coronet: for the borough,
if the charter should be found to be valid. Mr. Rutter,
though he had brought an action to determine this point,

it to go on holding inquests within the borough,
which waswas to be deplored, as it gave rise to these disputes.
Mr. Brandt then proceeded to detail the facts of the case.
On the Bth of July, notice had been given by the borough
coroner for an inquest on a child named Marsham, at the
Robin Hood public-house, at half-past three o'clock on the
following day. The messenger for the county coroner, on
hearing of this, fixed the inquest to he taken by his employer
a quarter of an hour earlier. The juries met, and Mr.
Rutter got the start. The principal witness was the mother
of the deceased, who, when she had finished her examination,
sat down in a chair in the room. The mother was taken
from this room to that where Mr. Chapman was sitting, and
the jury of that gentleman then went to a house across the
road to vi

the- body. When they had left, Mr. Rutter
went into the filling-bar, which Mr. Chapman would neces-
sarily have to pass in returning. After the inspection be
was proceeding to his room, when Mr. Rutter, who appeared
:0 be in a state of great excitement, said to him. " What are
you doing with my business ? I have not done with her."
Mr. Chapman replied, "Neither have I done with her."
Mr. Rutter, on this, seized and struck him, and threw him
with his back against a table. Mr. Rutter said that this was
not true, but that Mr. Chapman assaulted him first ; that he
_ _

put up I

hands before hini, and in fact touched him. Now
Mr. Rutter, as a lawyer, must know that, even if this were
the case, the law did not recognise anything in the way of re-
taliation, except no other mode was left of defending himself
from imminent danger; and he could be under no danger
from so weak a man as Mr. Chapman, and whilst he had hit
constables about him. Mr. Chapman was then called and
examined at some length.—The learned judge interfered and
said, these two coroners appeared to be wasting the time of the
public on a very trifling matter.—Mr. Wilkins observed
that his client had not instituted the proceedings, and
if a mutual concession were made there might now be
an end to the matter.—Mr. Brandt remarked that he
shouid have no objection to hear what the other side
had to say. The prosecutor thought that his honour
was concerned.—The Judge smiled and said, there appeared
to be no imputation. His lordship inquired were there not
ictments.—Mr. Brandt replied there was only one at
mizes.—Mr. Wilkins observed that there was one at
;ions. He did not mean to say that Mr. Chapman
lty of a wilful perversion of the truth, but that he was
state of excitement that he was not capable of stat-

the ses

ing the facts with correctness.—The Judge said it appeared
to be a misunderstanding. Both the parties were highly re-
pectable, and he thought it ought to be carried no further.
Mr. 'Wilkins said Mr. Rutter had been always willing to
Mr. Chapman half way.—Mr. Chapman said that what-
dship might direct he should submit.—Mr. Brandt
er what his client had said, he wished to
further. He hoped it would lead to such
s he had suggested in his opening._His

s well as-ever with the World

was no imputation on his character.—Mr. Wilkins : Nor on
that of Mr. Rutter.—Mr. Brandt, of course not.—The Judge
again .commended an arrangement.—Mr. Rutter said it had
been -ish to be on amicable terms with Mr. Chapman
fror com►r- —A Juror was then withdrawn by
co! It. The business of the Crown Court terminated at
'c k, and his lordship immediately retired.

i the commencement

NISI PRIUS COURT.—FRIDAY.
(Before Mr. Baron ROLFE.)
LONCRIDGE V. MANCHESTER AND LEEDS RAILWAY.
At the opening of the court this morning, Mr. Alexander
ddressed the jury on the part of the plaintiffs. He called a
Teat ounber of witnesses, whose examination occupied till
even o'clock in the evening. The JUDGE then summed up,
nd the jury returned a verdict as follows :—For the road
rustees in pleas 1,2, 3,4, 5,6, 7,8, 9, 10, 14. For the com-
iany in pleas 11, 13, 15. Specially in plea 12.
The case was peculiarly uninteresting.

NISI PRIUS COURT.—SATURDAY.
(Before Mr. BARON ROLFE and a Special Jury.)
HEARNE, CLIME V. STOWELL, CLERK.
The trial of this ease excited intense interest among all
classes of Protestants and Catholics. Every part of the court
was crowded, for some time before the proceedings com-
menced, and many were compelled to retire unable to obtain

,diniAsion

en were sworn of the special jury

Prescot,

verpool, merchant
do. do.

Toxtetli-park, do
do. do
James Harrison, Liverpool, do

Peter Murray.
Robert M'William, Liverpool, merchant.
William Richardson, do. do.
Edw. Jones, Walton-on-the-Hill, do.
el for the plaintiff—Messrs. Dundas, Q.C., Wight-
Diggins, and Murphy. Solicitor—Mr. —. Gibson,

Manchester

Counsel for
Alexander, Q.(

ke defendant—Messrs. Cresswell, Q.C.,
and Watson. Solicitor—Mr. —. Goulden,

Mr. MURPHY opene'd the pleadings. In this case the Rev.
Daniel Hearne, of Manchester, was the plaintiff, and the
Rev. Hugh Stowell, also of Manchester, was the defendant.
The first count of the declaration set forth that the plaintiff
had been and still was a clergyman and priest of the Roman
Catholic religion ; and that the defendant, intending to injure
him in that character, had published of him a false, scanda-
lous, malicious, and defamatory libel. The second count of
the declaration stated that the defendant had spoken of him
certain words for the purpose of bringing him into disrepute,
tnd injuring him in his profession. To these allegations the
laintiff pleaded not guilty ; and thereupon issue was joined.
Mr. DUNDAS then arose to address the court and jury.
spoke nearly as follows :—May it please your lordship—
,tlemen of the jury : I have the honour to attend you as
tiff iu this action ; and, upon rising to address you on
half, I do most unfeignedly bespeak your earnest at-
whilst I ant stating to you the circumstances of the
''st I ant spewing to you the grounds upon which
's, that my client, the plaintiff, is compelled to
court of justice to demand it, and to ask at
s for injuries inflicted upon him by the de-
-n, I dare say you caught from my learned
"Mr. Murphy) what is the nature of
It is defamation of a clergyman,
man in his office, defamation of such a
ue, Mr. Hearne, the plaintiff, would be
v of which he is now an ornament, he
a gentleman among the persons who
would be dishonoured in his calling
•utd the bishops, or those with
...ongs, would be justified in suspend-
lid be bound to suspend him—and deprive
Very serious matter this, therefore,

the issues you liaxT to try

f it vier

.eeive, into which you are to inquire ; very
„tore, I should entreat your earnest attention,
, between the parties justice may fairly be done.
in part, in the name ()Piny client, Mr. Hearne, I
manner of doubt, any more than I have of the fact
Awn existence, that justice will be done him if he has
to it at your hands—and that, according to the injury
i-such violence as has been offered to his character, re-
.s compensation—for compensation at your hands will
client undoubtedly receive. Gentlemen, before I pro-
d to )3tate to you the details of the libel and the slander
ich we lay at the door of the defendant, Mr. Stowell, bear
Me, whilst I lay before you some facts inci-
dental to the question you have to enquire into, but, as I
think, necessary to the proper understanding of the issues
you have to try•. I will tell you, then, what you probably
know much better than I do, but I state it for the sake of
convenience, that in the town of Manchester there are thou-

with me for a v

...
sands,,,, .;ands of our p,onian Catholic brethren. I
1•1* ; within bounds, and at a moderate aver-
. ~ar‘flotalesa than from betwcon 70,000 to
41111