The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1841-01-29 00:00:00

IMPOSTORS.-BEGGING PETITIONS

On Tuesday, at the office of Messrs. Leigh and Sanders,
before one of the magistrates of the county, James Seymour,
James M'Kinley, and Charles Coxton were hrought up.
charg.ed with having committed various frauds, by means of
begging petitions.
Inspector John Poole stated, that the head-constable had
received information that several persons were going about
the county with forged petitions, in consequence of which he
(Poole) had, in plain clothes, gone in search of them, and
found the three prisoners in the neighbourhood of Woolton.
He followed them to Liverpool, then to the Knotty Ash,
which he entered at the same time as the prisoners, and
heard their conversation. Ile found they were about to pro-
ceed to Mrs. Dugdale's, of Dovecote-house, for the purpose
of presenting a begging petition. He (Poole) followed them,
and took them into custody near the house of Mrs. Dugdale,
with a sovereign, which he had caused to be marked, and
which had been received front Mrs. Dugdale, in the pos-
session of Seymour.

Mr. Harvey Bell, butler to Mrs. Dugdale, deposed, that
the prisoner Seymour called, about five weeks ago, at his
mistress's house with a petition, which Mrs. Dugdale refused
to open, and sent the prisoner away. He returned again last
Saturday, to inquire if Mrs. Dugdale had received a letter
from his (the prisoner's) sister, but she had not, and he
went away, and called again on Monday, when Mrs. Dug-
dale pave him, by the witness, a sovereign. The prisoner
asked him for his document, meaning the letter he expected
his sister to send to Mrs. Dugdale, which bad been received
that morning. This proved to be one of the forged petitions
in question. It was given to him, and the witness put his
name to it, for Mrs. Dugdale, with the sovereign, which he
had previously entered. The prisoner then went away and
joined the ot,ier prisoners in the road, when they were taken
into custody. _

Mr. Tho'mas Littledale, jun., Liverpool, whose name ap-
peared attached to the petition, said, that the signature was
neither his father's or his own, and that he had on Monday
morning received, by post, a petition of a similar description
to the one sent to Mrs. Dugdale, being a printed form, and
the same list of names attached. _ _ .

The following is a copy of the letter to Mr. Littledale and
the petition enclosed':—
" SIR,—I beg to forward you the enclosed memorial for
your perusal. A recent misfortune in business obliges me
to solicit the aid of the benevolent on behalf of my parent and
family."
The printed petition was as follows :
" Subscriptions on behalf of Mrs. Wm. J. Morris, widow
of the late ?Ir. W. J. Morris, formerly a highly respectable
draper here, who died in embarrassed circumstances, in the
year 1839, much respected. She is left with a family of seven
children, without the means wherewith to provide for them.
The benevolent are earnestly solicited to contribute their mite
towards a fund now raising for the purpose of enabling her to
commence the business of her late husband. The petitioning
creditors, Messrs. Scholes and Balmer, manufacturers, Man-
chester, have kindly contributed the sum of twenty pounds,
and, it is to be hoped, their example will not be lost upon
those to whom Providence has given the means of rendering
timely assistance to the widow and fatherless.

(Signed)

Rev. R. LEICESTER, £5.
RICHD. ALISON, Jun. £3

Much Woolton, Jan. 15, 1841.
It is presumed, the names affixed to this will be a sufficient
guarantee that the money subscribed will be judiciously ap-
plied to the above laudable purpose."

Then follows in writing
`` The bearer, James Morris, is the son of Mrs. W. J.
Morris, has had the misfortune to have recently lost his leg
by amputation in the Liverpool Infirmary ; subscriptions are
received by him on behalf of his parent."
The names then follow, amongst which were those of Pat-
tison Ellames, Esq., £1; R. Roskell, Esq., .61 ; Rev. W.
Badnall, £1 ; H. Hornby, Esq., £1 ; Thomas Bolton, Esq.,
£2; Messrs. Tayleur, Sons, and Co. ; Messrs. Peek, Bro-
thers, and Winch, £1 ; T. Sands, Esq., £1 ; Rev. Hugh
M'Neile, £1 ; I. 0. Bold, Esq., £l.
The prisoners were remanded on the above evidence till
Thursday.
Yesterday, at two o'clock, they were again brought up at
Messrs. Leigh and Saunders' office. The magistrates pre-
sent were John Holmes and John Formby, Esqrs.
Inspector Poole gave a detailed statement of his meeting
with the prisoners, and the circumstances of their apprehen-
sion. He had been to Manchester, and had ascertained that
there was no such firm there as " Messrs. Scholes and
Balmer, manufacturers," who were represented to be the
petitioning creditors to the fiat issued against " Mr. W. J.
Morris, a highly respectable draper."
Margaret Whittle, of the Knotty Ash public house, proved
that the three prisoners were together there previous to
Seymour going to Mrs. Dugdale's.
Richard Crosby, valet to the Earl of Derby, proved that,
on the faith of a document similar to that above, the noble
lord had given WlCinley £2 on the 22d inst.
This was the whole of the evidence. Seymour, when
asked what he had to say, acknowledged having received a
sovereign from Mrs. Dugdale. The others declined saying
anything.
The witnesses were then bound over, and the prisoners
were committed to Kirkdale for trial at the next quarter
sessions.

REWARDS TO POLICE OFFICERS

IMPORTANT RESOLUTION OF THE WATCH COMMITTEE

Yesterday morning, at the Police Court, before the usual
business of the day was proceeded with, Mr. Rushton ad-
dressed those present at considerable length, with reference
to the recent appeal case, heard at the Kirkdale Sessions—
(Stephen Fletcher versus Edward Rushton and Thomas
Booth)—and also, for the information of the public, and of
the police (a large number of whom were present), commu-
nicating the result of a conference with the watch committee
on the system of rewards given to police officers.
Mr. RUSHTON said before he proceeded to hear any fur-
ther informations, he thought it became necessary to make
some observations on a case which had recently excited con-
siderable attention, particularly as affecting the police force.
An information was some time back laid by certain police
officers, against an individual, a publican, named Fletcher,
for an offence against the tenor of his license, and upon the
evidence adduced he had convicted the defendant, and or-
dered that he should pay a fine of a considerable amount.
Fletcher appealed against that decision to the County Ses-
sions, in which court appeals of this nature could enter-
tained. On the trial of the case, it appeared in evidence, or
rather on cross-examination—(and he must here say, that
the &lice officers did not give their evidence in that direct
and straight-forward manner that became every one belong-
ing to the force)—it appeared that one of them distinctly
stated, and also the other, though not so distinctly, that they
expected to be rewarded, if the conviction pronounced by
him were sustained. Upon hearing this evidence the justices
retired; and, according to the reports in the newspapers,
which he had reason to suppose were got up with pains and
and accuracy, short-hand writers being employed, they
quashed the conviction, though it did not clearly appear to
him upon what precise ground. They rejected the evi-
dence' of the police officers as inadmissible, on the ground
of their illegality as witnesses. Now be (Mr. R.) felt
that the objection to admit their evidence ought not
to have been on the ground of legality, but on the
ground of their credibility. He had taken consideraable
pains since the case was before the sessions, to ascertain
what had been the practice of the Watch Committee with re-
gard to rewards—and it did appear to him that they gave
these rewards both upon conviction and acquittal. 13ut,
notwithstanding the pains taken by the committee to show
the officers that whether in the event of conviction or other-
wise they would be rewarded for good conduct and extraor-
dinary exertions, an erroneous impression, it appeared, was
established in their minds, that their services would be more
appreciated in the event of a conviction. Now, he would
suppose that it had been deemed necessary for the mainte-
nance of the due efficiency of the police force—and he was
happy to bear his testimony to their general good conduct as
a body—supposing the officers were to receive a reward ou
the contingency stated, still they were competent as witnesses,
the only question being as to their credibility. This question
had been discussed and settled in one of the higher courts,
and he should refer on this point to the sth and 6th William
IV., cap. 76, sec. 32. The question was raised and argued
in a forcible manner by a learned counsel, now occupying a
seat on the bench. He stated that the parties giving evi-
dence in such cases were not disqualified on the ground of
illegality, but on the ground of credibility alone. Judgment
was in that case given in accordance with that opinion by
Mr. Justice Bailey. After abiding to one point at issue,
that learned judge said—
" The second was the point chiefly relied upon, and
it was insisted that by analogy to the cases of rewards
and other statutable benefits, it might be considered as
a rule in criminal cases, that by a statute conferring a be-
nefit upon a person who but for that benefit would have
been a witness, his competence is virtually continued, and he
is as much a witness after that benefit is conferred as he would
have been before. The case of rewards is clear on the

grounds of public policy, with a view to the public interest,
and because of the principle upon which such rewards are
given. The public has an interest in the suppression of
crime, and the conviction of criminals ; it is with a view to
stir up greater vigilance in apprehending that the rewards are
given, and it would defeat the object of the legislature by
means of those rewards to narrow the means of conviction,
and to exclude testimony which otherwise would have been
admissible. It is upon the principle, therefore, that the ex-
clusion of persons entitled to rewards would be inconsistent
with the spirit of the acts giving the rewards and against the
grounds of public policy, that their competence is virtually
continued."—The King v. Williams, page 156—Barnewell
and Cresswell.
It was also laid down by the writer of one of the ablest books
on the law of evidence (Mr. Phillips), who stated that the
competency of witnesses was not affected, in such cases, by
their expectancy of reward. In Burns's Justice it was also
stated, that for the ends of public justice such evidence was
admissible, as was that of a person robbed against the perpe-
trator. Thus, then, it appeared that even in the case of a
direct reward, the officers in the case under consideration
were competent witnesses. From the decision, therefore, of
the magistrates in county sessions, it became necessary to
ascertain on what ground they had arrived at such a result;
and it appeared to him (Mr. Rushton) that they had felt a
reluctance to believe the officers after their cross-examina-
tion, and had, therefore, quashed the conviction without
hearing any of the evidence on the other side. But he felt
certain that in coming to that conclusion they were actuated
by the most unquestionable motives, by, in fine, a desire im-
partially to administer justice ; and however different the
view he took of the case, ha entertained the profoundest re
spect for their opinion and decision. That decision, how-
ever, was such that it became necessary for the magistrates
to confer with the watch committee, and, if possible, obtain
their concurrence to the adoption of some measure that should
convince the police-officers that they should not be rewarded
solely in cases of conviction, but for general good conduct
and extra exertions, and that conviction was valuable only
so far as it served the cause of public justice. He (Mr.
Rushton) had since had interviews with the watch commit-
tee, who had shewn the greatest willingness to hear any sug-
gestion that might remove the objections entertained to the
mode hitherto pursued, and who promptly and heartily en•
tered into his views and feelings on the subject. The result
was that, at a special meeting of the watch committee, 28th
January, 1811, the following resolution was agreed to :
" That until further order, constables shall in all cases be
compensated for extra labour and time by extra wages, acr
cording to a fixed sum per hour, to be paid independently of
the result of such extra service ; but the claim to be forfeited
by any misconduct that may draw down the observation of
the magistrate, or the report of the head constable."
[We understand that this resolution of the watch commit-
tee is founded on the 82d section of the 5 and 6 William IV.,
ch. 76.—The Municipal Corporation Act.]
Mr. Rushton, in continuation, said that the change in-
volved in this resolution would, he doubted not, produce a
good effect in the morals of the police force. No reward
would henceforward be made to officers except for extra work
and time ; and this wise resolution would disabuse the minds
of such of the police-officers as entertained opinions similar
to those expressed by the two officers who were examined
at Kirkdale. He trusted that hereafter the evidence of offi-
cers would not be rejected on the ground of their being in-
terested, but solely on the ground of competency as credible
witnesses, on which ground the magistrates bad a right to
form their own judgment.
The business of the court then proceeded.

SEVEN YEARS AVERAGE PRICE OF WHEAL—The fol-
lowing is the average price of British wheat, barley, and
oats, per imperial bushel, during seven years, ending on the
Thursday before Christmas Day, 1810:—Wheat, Gs. 'lid..'
Barley, 4s. Id.; Oats, 2s. 10Id. William Jacob, Controller
of Corn Returns.—Office of Controller of Corn Returns,
Board of Trade, Jan. S.