The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1846-12-15 00:00:00

CHARGE OF BIGAMY.

James Chadwick (not in the calendar) was indicted for
having, at Manchester, on the 23rd of March, in the pre-
sent year, intermarried with Eliza Bostock, his former
wife, Ann Chadwick, formerly Ann Fisher, being alive.
Mr. T. C. Foster appeared for the prosecution, and Mr.
Monk for the prisoner. The facts of the case were as fol-
low .—Some years ago the prisoner married a female
named Hannah Fisher, who died. In the month of Sept.
in last year, he married Ann Fisher, the sister of his
deceased wife, with whom he lived only a short time,
haying heard that a marriage with the sister of a former
wife was illegal. In the month of March in the present
year, he married a female named Ann Bostock. The
friends of the second wife hearing of this, caused him to
be apprehended, and brought before Mr. Maude, at Man-
chester, when the facts of the case having been fully
stated, Mr. Maude ordered the prisoner to be discharged,
he being of opinion that the marriage of the prisoner
with his first wife's sister was null and void. It was un-
derstood that the prosecution was instituted by a society
of gentlemen, who have run the risk of violating the
canon law by marrying the sisters of their deceased
wives, in order to have the question fairly raised
before the judges. Mr. Foster contended, that under
the Levitical law, the marriage of a man with the
sister of his deceased wife was perfectly legal. It
was true that it was opposed to the canon laws; but these
were .rot based upon any act of parliament. Ile con-
tended at some length, that the prisoner had not com-
mitted any offence within the criminal statutes, by marry-
ing his first wife's sister, and that therefore the marriage
with her was perfectly legal. Consequenrly the marriage
of the prisoner with Elizabeth Bostick, during the lite-
time of Ann Chadwick. constituted the crime of bigamy.
Mr. Monk, on the other side, contended that the mar-
riage
with Ann Fisher was quite illegal, as it was forbidden
that a man should marry his wife's sister. Mr. Justice
Wightman having consulted Baron Rolfe, said it appeared
to him that the best course to be pursued would be this,
that the jury should find a special verdict—simply stating
the facts as to the consanguinity of the parties in the or-
dinary form of a special verdict, and stating that upon the
question whether the persons were guilty or not, they
would bow to the decision of the court. Ile (Mr. Jus-
tice Vightman) would give his judgment to the effect that
the prisoner was not guilty, and that the prosecution could
move for a writ of error. He thought this would avoid
any difficulties. If the prosecutors were advised to try a
writ of error, this would be the proper mode of reaching
the question ; therefore the facts that would be found by
the jury would he simply the facts of the two marriages,—
that on the 14th 5ep.,1845, he married Ann Fisher, and that
subsequently, on the 23d March, in the present year, he
married Eliza Bostock. They would also find that Ann
Fisher, to whom the prisoner was married on the" 4th
Sept., 1845. was the sister of Hannah Fisher, to whom the
prisoner had been previously married on the 27th of June,
1825, and who was deceased at the time that he married
Ann Fisher. Now that really was the whole case, and as
to the question whether the jury would find the prisoner
guilty or not, they must say that they did not know, upon
which he (Mr. Justice Wightman) would give his judg-
ment that he was not guilty. The jury would therefore
find a verdict stating the facts which he had mentioned.
lie thought that would be the best course.—Mr. Monk
observed that lie was not sorry that his lordship had cur-
tailed his (Mr. Monk's) argument.—Mr. Justice Wight-
man said that he entertained a very strong opinion upon
the subject, and therefore he need say nothing more upon
the matter. The jury accordingly returned the special
verdict as desired.—Mr. Monk said he thought it right to
state that his client, having heard some doubt passed upon
the validity of his marriage with his sister-in-law, he had
gone to the Rev. Mr. Wilson, one of the chaplains at the
Collegiate Church, at Manchester, from whom he obtained
a document stating that the second marriage with Ann
Fisher was utterly null and void ; and it was not until
then that he again got married. The prisoner was then
discharged.

SATURDAY.
(Before Mr. Baron lior,Fri.)
Mary Goulding, for concealment of birth, was sen-
tenced to six months' imprisonment.
Robert Blinkhorn, Matthew Harmer, and John Bailey,
were indicted with having committed a robbery and rape
on Catherine Holt, in Salford, on the 3rd of October
last. They were acquitted.
This concluded the business of the Assizes.
SATURDAY.
(Before Mr. Justice WIGHTM AN.)
His LORDSIIIP proceeded to pass the following sen-
tences •—Bernard M`Neild, for a street robbery, to one
year's imprisonment : Edward Neild, for embezzlement,
nine months ; S. Hickey, for stealing a piece of gold from
a fellow sufferer in a shipwreck, nine months ; TV. TVearer,
for forging an order for the delivery of goods, (the second
conviction,) to be transported for seven years ; Robert
Lees, for forging a postoffice order receipt, twelve months ;
Thomas Buckley and Samuel Cranford, for passing base
coin, six months each : Nathaniel Allcock, Milton Wall-
worth, Michael Berry, and Thomas Size, severally con-
victed of bigamy, each three months imprisonment, and
Lydia Tyson and Ellen Pollitt, for the same offence, two
months; James Lyon, convicted of stealing a lease at the
last assizes, at which time judgment was deferred, nine
months ; John Edwards, fur the uttering of a forged re-
quest for the delivery of goods, twelve months; Richard
Smith and Frederick Brown, for being severally in pos-
session of a mould for coining, each twelve months ;
Sarah Smith, alias Jenkins, for passing base coin, (the
second conviction,) twelve months. The term of impri-
sonment in each of the above sentences to be accompanied
with hard labour. . _ .

Patrick 0 ell, GI, was acquitted on a charge of hay-
ing, at Warrington, committed a criminal assault on Mary
Shaw, a child under the age of twelve years.

CONCEALING BIRTHS.

Jane Sprout, a respectably-attired young woman, of
about twenty-three years of age, was indicted for having,
at Halewood, secretly disposed of the body of a female
child, of which she had been safely delivered. She was
found guilty, and ordered to be removed from the bar.
As she lett there was a smile upon her countenance.
Ann lows, another young woman, was indicted for
having, at Rusholme, near Manchester, concealed the
birth of her child. She was convicted.
Both prisoners, Sprout and Jones, were then put for-
ward to receive their sentence. His LORDSHIP said,
they had been convicted of an offence of a most serious
character, not so much from the mere fact of the con-
cealing of the bodies as from the fearful consequences to
which such concealment too often gave rise. He found
in their respective cases this difference, that Jane Sprout,
down to the last moment, and, if the evidence were to be
relied upon, even after the time of her actual delivery;
denied that she was ever pregnant. With respect to Ann
Jones there was no evidence of her having denied her
pregnancy before she was delivered. He cons'dered,
therefore, that in that respect the case of Jane Sprout
was of a far more aggravated character than that of Ann
Jones. The sentence was, that Sprout should be im-
prisoned six months, and kept to bard labour, and that
Jones should be imprisoned four months.