The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1841-04-09 00:00:00

CHARGE OF RAPE

John Tobin, . 19, was indicteil fo7l;iving, at Walton-on-
the-Hill, feloniously ravished and carnally known Mary Ann
Campbell, on the 26th December last.
Several witnesses were examined, one of whom was a sur-
geon; after whose testimony the jury said they were satis-
tied, and the prisoner was acquitted.
SHEEP STEALING.

John Fitzpatrick, 20, James Smith, 28, and Ann Keenan,
28, were indicted for having feloniously stolen one sheep, the
property of James Hockenhall, of Prescot.
Dr. BROWN prosecuted. The evidence was to the effect
that the male prisoners had killed the sheep, which was in a
field, during the night, and carried the carcase into the,fe-
male's house, where a portion of it was afterwards found
concealed in the chimney.
The prisoners were found Guilty, and sentenced to one
year's imprisonment each.
RETURNING FROM TRANSPORTATION.
Edward Oakes, who had on a previous day pleaded to an
indictment which charged him with having returned from
transportation, and being unlawfully at large, was brought up
for judgment.
The CLERK OF THE COURT asked the prisoner, in the
usual form, whether he had anything to say why judgment
should not be passed upon him ?
The Prisoner replied; that he had every opportunity to
escape, and if any person had been placed in the same cir-
cumstances, they would have done the same. It was not his
fault that he had escaped, for he was not looked after as he
ought to have been, neither was he aware that in going away
he was committing a crime, or he certainly would not have
done so. He hoped the court would have mercy upon him,
and allow him to return to his own country once more.
The JUDGE.—You have pleaded guilty to this indictment,
which charges you with the offence of having been unlawfully
at large before the expiration of the period for which you
were sentenced to transportation. You say you did not
know that it subjected you to very severe punishment : but
it does, and to one in which the court has little or no choice
as to its limits. The reason the legislature had for making
such a law as that, when people are sentenced to transporta-
tion for seven years, or any other limited period, they may
know that, by escaping, they not only may be, but must be
sentenced to transportation for life. You say if you had
known of it you would not, have escaped. Everybody is
supposed to be acquainted with the law ' • and if any man,
who has been sentenced to transportation for seven years, or
a shorter period, and is found at liberty, without lawful ex-
cuse, in this country, whether from ignorance, or whether
he has been negligently kept or not, the court before whom
he is tried must pronounce the judgment ordered by the act

of parliament. The aot of parliament adjudges for this of-
fence transportation for life, and imprisonment in gaol for
some term, not exceeding four years : therefore when any
person has done what you have done, however natural it may
be, he must be transported for life, and he may be imprisoned
for four years. All the discretion which the court has is,
not to transport for life, or for a shorter term—for they must
transport for life—but to imprison for some time. There
may be some imprisonment, but not for more than four years.
Therefore I can only sentence you to transportation for life.
The learned judge -added a few other remarks, at the close
of which he sentenced the prisoner to transportation for life,
and that previously to leaving the country he be imprisoned
and kept to hard labour for six months.
PERSONATION OF A VOTER AT THE ELECTION FOR

ABERCROMBIE WARD,
William Thompson was indicted for a misdemeanour, in
having, on the 2d of November last, personated a burgess
named William Thompson, entitled to vote in elections for
Abercrombie Ward, in the borough of Liverpool, in respect
of his occupation of a house in St. Andrew-street. The
defendant pleaded not guilty.
Mr. Starkie and Mr. Crompton appeared on the part of
the corporation of Liverpool, by whom the prosecution was
instituted.

Mr. SNOWBALL, the defendant's attbrney, applied for
the trial to be postponed for a short period on the ground
that the briefs were in the hands of Mr. James, and that
the learned counsel had gone away.
The JUDGE said he could not help that ; the case must
proceed.

- After the delay of a few minutes, Dr. BROWN said he had
just been instructed to appear on the part of the defendant,
and that, owing to the very short time he had had for prepa-
tion, he was under the necessity of requesting the witnesses
to retire from the court.

Mr. CROMPTON then opened the case. This was an in-
dictment against William Thompson, and it charged that, on,
the 2d November last, there was an election for a coun-
cillor to represent the municipal ward of Abercrombie in
the Town Council, which came on duly before the alderman
and assessors ; that there was a burgess named William
Thompson entitled to vote in that election ; and, that the
defendant went before the alderman and assessors and voted
in that name.—The indictment was three yards long.
Mr. STARKIE then stated the case to the court and jury.
They had heard that this was a charge of having personated
a voter of the name of William Thompson, who was a bur-
gess of Abercrombie ward, and had the right to vote, but
that the defendant had not such right. Mr. Thompson was
ill in bed at the time the defendant pretended he had a vote,
and he actually gave a vote in a false name, and by a false
paper. This was'a proseinition instituted by the Corpora-
tion of Liverpool, and their object in bringing it was merely
to prevent the repetition of offences of this nature, and be-
...se if laws for the registration or-Voters in elections
were not observed, they would become useless. On the 2d
of November last—the first being the Sunday—the elec-
tion came on for a councillor for this ward : there were
two candidates, Mr. Todd and Mr. Proctor. and there
was a person named William Thompson, a dairyman,
in St. Andrew-street, who had a right to vote. The
defendant came with a paper purporting to be a regular vo-
ting-paper for a councillor for Abercromby-ward, and by
virtue of that paper his vote was received. It was afterwards
found that he was:not William Thompson the voter, but that
he had personated that William Thompson. He (the learned
counsel) apprehended, therefore, that the defendant had
committed.a misdemeanour in exhibiting that false and forged
paper, and also personating the voter under false pretences.
It might perhaps be said that he was acting under a mistake.
He (the learned counsel) however should be able to shew
that he could not be under a mistake, for the year before he
had done the same thing, and upon that occasion, when he
was remonstrated with, he appeared very sorry, and promised
not to commit the like offence again. Under these circum-
stances he was at a loss to conceive how that plea could be
set up. The defendant must have known that, under the
corporation law, every man who voted must first pay his
rates, and that he paid none.
Mr. Thos. B. Barclay was the first witness. He said—
I am the alderman of Abercombie ward, in this town, which
returns three councillors. On Monday the 2d of November
I presided at the election of one councillor, with two asses-
sors, Mr. Hindle and Mr. Atkinson. I remember in the
course of the morning a person named Wm. Thompson ten-
der a vuting paper; there was no objection to him, and he
voted. The paper produced is the voting paper, and when
be produced it witness put his initials upon it.
Mr. Hindle said lie was an attorney, and acted at the last
election for Abercrombie ward as one of the assessors, along
with Mr. Barclay and Mr. Atkinson. He recollected a
voting paper brought by some man ; Mr. Atkinson took it.
I don't know that I saw the man who brought it; I received
it from Mr. Atkinson. The papers were just placed on a
file, and when they had accumulated they were put in a
wooden box. The man voted between nine and half-past
nine in the morning.
Mr. Barclay recalled—The paper was tendered about half-
past nine o'clock.

Cross-examined—There were a great many voters at the
time ; but I can tell at what time this paper was produced,
because it was the 35th in No.

Re-examined—l believe that no other Wm. Thompson
voted.

Mr. Atkinson said that he was the other assessor. He
remembered seeing the voting paper presented, but did not
see the man. No other Wm. Thompson presented himself
to vote.

Thomas Lockwood.—l am a surgeon and a burgess of this
borough. I attended the election on behalf of Mr. James
Proctor. Mr. Thos. Todd was the other candidate. I had
a burgess-roll in my hand. I have known the defendant
twelve months ; he used to reside in St. Andrew-street,
Abercromby ward. He is a shoemaker. I saw him on the
day of the election, at the polling booth, about half-past nine,
put in a voting paper. 1 looked into the burgess-roll, and
while I was doing so the vote was recorded, and the man
disappeared. Mr. Robertson Gladstone and Mr. Bushell,
the other two representatives of the ward, were there, and I
said something in their presence, in consequence of which
they went away. I have known William Thompson nine
y ears ; he is a cow-keeper living in St. Andrew-street, and a
burgess. I have examined the rate-book.
_ _

Cross-examined.—Mr. Proctor was the tory candidate,
and Mr. Todd the whig. It was not a close run. The
putting in of the voting paper by the defendant was done in
a moment.

The JUDGE asked under what section of the act these pro-
ceedinzs were taken ?

Mr. CROMPTON said under the common law necessarily,
as the three questions imposed by the 37th section of the
municipal act had not been asked.

Jane Thompson said she was the wife of Wm. Thompson,
cowkeeper, in St. Andrew-street, in Abercromby-waid.
They had lived there for seven years. Witness had paid
rates for the house. On the 23d Oct. her husband was taken
ill, and remained so for three weeks. On the 2d Nov. he
was not out of bed. The defendant is a shoemaker ; ten or
eleven months ago he lived opposite to witness's house. She
had known him for some years.

Thos. Atkinson, plasterer, said he was a burgess in Aber-
cromby-ward, In 1837 he was upon one of the committees
for conducting the elections in that year. A few days Paler
that election he saw the defendant at his own door in St.
Andrew's-street, and asked him if he had voted for Mr.
Henry Ripley ? He said he had. Witness asked him how
he came to vote when he had no vote, and he replied, they
told me to vote. Witness told him he had subjected himself
to an action : he expressed his sorrow for having done so
and promised not to do so again. He said he was told he
had a vote; and when witness reminded him that he could
not have a vote without his rates were paid ; he said he knew
nothing about that. Witness has known William Thompson,
cowkeeper, for ten years.
Cross-examined.—The conversation witness had described
took place at the door, and he had never said it occurred in
the lobby. There appeared to be a rail there which was so
made as to form a lobby.—After the cross-examination had
continued for some time,
The JUDGE said, if this lobby did not lead to something
more important than it seemed likely to do at present, there
was no use in continuing the cross-examination.
William Thompson, cow-keeper, living at N 0.34, St. An-
drew-street, said he was confined at home by illness on the
2d November last. The voting-paper produced was not
signed by him. The signature to it is like his writing, but it
is not.

Cross-examined.—The defendant's house witness thinks,
in St. Andrew-street, opened into a house-place. It had no
lobby.

Mr. Christopher Bushell said he was one of the represen-
tatives of Abercromby-ward in the town-council. In con-
sequence of what he heard, he and Mr. Robertson Gladstone
went to the house of the last witness, and found him in bed
dreadfully ill.

Mr. Thomas Ellerton, tax-collector, for Abercromby and
Rodney-street districts, proved that Mr, Thompson, cow-
keeper, of St. Andrew-street, had been a rate-payer for seven
years. He did not know William Thompson the defendant.
He was not a rate-payer. Witness produced the rate-book
signed by the magistrates to prove these facts.
By the JUDGE.—If there had been another William
Thompson in St. Andrew-street, witness would have col-
lected the rates from him for the last seven years.
Mr. Wm. Tyson produced the burgess roll of the borough
for 1839, from the Town-clerk's office. William Thomp-
son, cow-keeper, St. Andrew-street, was upon the roll, and
there was no other Wm. Thompson in the same street.
Mr. STARKIE said this was the case for the prosecution.
Dr. BROWN submitted that his learned friends had not
proved that Abercromby ward was a ward according to the
provisions of the municipal corporation act. They ought to
have proved this, as the indictment alleged the borough was
divided into wards.

Mr. CROMPTON said this objection referred only to the
three first counts. _

Dr. BROWN said he would refer then to the 4th count,
which charged a fraud against the corporation, but it had not
been proved a corporation under the municipal act.
The JUDGE aftera short argument overruled the objection..
Dr. Du, w N awn prcrceeaen to acutress the jury for the
defendant. The learned counsel contended, in the first in-
stance, that by the act of parliament the payment of rates
up to the very time of voting was required, and that there
was not the slightest evidence of that having been fulfilled
by Mr. Thompson, cowkeeper.
The JUDGE corrected the learned counsel. There was
ample proof of that fact in the testimony of the collector.
Dr. BROWN then proceeded with his address, and con-
tended that, from the evidence before them the jury could
not be justified in finding that the defendant had purposly
committed any fraud. Before they could come to that con-
clusion they must be satisfied that the defendant was the
man who gave in the voting paper, of which fact he considered
there was the merest tittle of evidence. There was no evi-
dence that the man, whoever he was, who presented the
paper, affected to say that he was Mr. Thompson, cowkeeper ;
and, indeed, the only testimony against him on this point was
that of a zealous partisan. The learned counsel concluded
by telling the jury that the questions they had to decide, by
the evidence which they had heard, was first, whether the
defendant was the person who delivered the voting paper,
and next, whether he did so with an intention to personate
any other man.

The Learned JUDGE, in summing up, recapitulated all the
principal points In the evidence.
The Jury immediately found the defendant Guilty.
The JUDGE asked the counsel for the prosecution whether
they moved for judgment ?
Mr. STAaKIE said he did not wish to press for any severe
punishment.

14Ir. BUSHELL requested permission to observe to his lord-
ship, that one strong feature in favour of the defendant was,
that he had made the personation so early in the morning :
it was at an hour when, in point of, fact, there was no con-
test.

Dr. BROWNE replied, if that was so, it was a hard measure
to prosecute at all.
Mr. BUSRELL.—I had no hand in it.
Mr. STARKIE called the attention of his lordship to the
fact, that the hand-writing on the voting paper was nearly
the same as that of Mr. Thompson.
The JUDGE.—What are the circumstances of this man?
Dr. BROWNS.—He is a working shoemaker.
Mr. CROMPTON.—The recommendation, my lord, comes
from a political opponent.
The JUDGE.—WeII, we can hardly carry the spirit of a
municipal election throughout the year. His lordship then
addressed the defendant. He had been found guilty of the
oflence of personating an elector, and no doubt that was an
offence which must be Prevented by law. There was one
fact, however, in his favour, which had been very kindly
stated by Mr. Bushell, which was, that at the time be went
to vote there was no contest expected.
Mr. BUSHELL.—There was a contest, my lord, but at that
hour in the morning it could not have gone so far; the con-
test would have been stronger late in the day.
The JUDGE.—That he understood; and one vote at that
time might not make much difference. But the defendant
appeared to have had a warning before, from the gentleman

who had given an account of what passed with him at' the
door, and he ought to have attended to what he said, instead
of voting in 1840. The people of Liverpool were, from what
he (the learned judge) had seen of them, a great deal too in-
telligent to allow any one to believe that a person working
in a respectable station as a shoemaker, was deficient in ge-
neral information. He could hardly think that the defen-
dant could be so very ignorant as not to know that no man
could get put upon the burgess roll without he had paid the
rates. That, indeed, was a sort of thing to which the people
had paid great attention, and grumbled about, as the defen-
dant must have known. He certainly, however, had not
personated anybody whose description he did not answer;
and he might have had a notion that he had a kind of right,
as being William Thompson, of St. Andrew-street, to do
anything which the other William Thompson had a right to
do. It was not, therefore quite so aggravated a case as if he
bad called himself John. Brown, of Hunter-street, or any
other name upon the list not his own. Persons who did that
kind of thing must be severely punished. lie, however, had
been very leniently dealt with. The party opposed to, and
which prosecuted him, desired to recommend him to mercy.
Still he (the judge) said there must be a punishment, that
might tend to deter him from repeating this, or anybody else.
The sentence of the court was that he must pay a fine of ten
shillings, or be imprisoned a fortnight.
The money was immediately paid, and the defendant re-
leased.

At a quarter-past five his lordship commenced trying civil
causes. There now remain only two criminal causes to be
disposed of, one of which is a rape, and the other the case of
bigamy which excited so much attention in the beginning of
March. They will be proceeded with this day, immediately
upon the return of the judges from divine service.

(Before Mr. Justice NIAULE.)
LEE V. QUIRK AND ANOTHER

The defendant in this case was in trover, and the action
was brought to recover the value of sixty sacks of wheat
which had been entrusted to the defendant. Mr. Alexander
and Mr. Crompton were for the plaintiff; Mr. Tomlinson
for the defendant. The plaintiff is a corn merchant, in the
Isle of Man, and the defendants reside in Liverpool. They
are the owners, among other vessels, of a smack called the
William, which regularly traded between Ramsay and
Whitehaven. The wheat in question was sent by the plain-
tiff by the vessel to his agent in Whitehaven, and when
it arrived there the vessel upset whilst in dock. The wheat
was damaged so much by the action of the water—that the
plaintiffs and his agents refused to receive it, and the action
was brought to recover £ll7, the value of it. A commission
had been issued to examine witnesses in the Isle of Man. An
objection was raised to the reception of the evidence under
that commission by Mr. Tomlinson, on the ground that it
directed the commissioners to make a return of the questions
to, and answers of, the witnesses, whereas the return merely
included the answers. The Learned Judge said he would
reserve the point, and would give the learned counsel leave
to move for a nonsuit.—After a long hearing, the jury re-
turned a verdict for the plaintiffs, damages £ll2 10s.

NISI PRIUS COURT.—THURSDAY.
Mr. Baron Rolfe took his seat on the bench at nine o'clock
this morning.
BRINDLE WILL CAUSE.-MIDDLETON AND OTHERS V.