The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1841-01-26 00:00:00

'—From early in

We are told there has been a former conviction ?
as.

'—There

Were you the informer in that case
—rere you the witness ?—No.
rere you upon that beat then ?—I was.
id you know the house before the present landlord kept
No.

'—l was not

Now, in case of a conviction, do you receive part of the
penalty ?—No ; I never received any.
I ask you if any parties have given you ?—I never—
I ask you that question, sir ?—lf the committee think pro-
per to give me anything, I accept it ; but in the case in ques-
tion I received nothing.
You received nothing because the conviction is not yet
confirmed ?—I have received rewards when there has been
no conviction.

That may be : upon your oath, have you any expectations
of reward, or any hope of payment, in case this conviction is
confirmed ?—I am never influenced.
Upon your oath, have you in expectation any reward in
case this conviction is confirmed ?—I am not.
That you swear, do you ? Mind what you are about, sir.
" There's a chiel amang us takin' notes
An' faith he'll prent 'em." ,
Now, upon your oath—as you believe in the sanctity of the
oath you have taken—l ask you if you expect any reward in
case this conviction should be confirmed ?—I have been re-
warded frequently for good conduct.
1 ask you, sir, if you expect any reward in case this con-
viction is confirmed ?—I may or 1 may not ; but I cannot—
I do not ask you whether you may or you may not; I ask
you whether you expect any reward in case this conviction is
confirmed ?—I may or I may not : I cannot demand it.
But you do expect it ?—I expect it, but it is not told me
for what I got it : I am not told what I get rewards for, but
frequently I get rewards when no conviction takes place.
The CHAIRMAN.--I should like to have that answer dis-
tinctly.

Mr. WILKINS.—(to the witness.) Now, sir, upon your
solemn oath, again I ask you, do you expect any reward if
this conviction is confirmed ?—Why, sir
Yes or no, sir, is it so ?—lt is optional with the committee.
Yes or no, do you expect it ?—lt is not told me what it is
for.

Yes or no, do you expect it ?—I cannot say.
Do you expect it, sir ?—lt is quite optional with the com-
mittee.

Upon your oath, do you not expect it ?—I expect to get
rewarded ; but whether it is for that case or not is not told

me
Very well; you say you went into the house at about five
minutes to twelve ?—I did.
Did you and your brother officer go in together ?—We did.
Where was the landlord ?—He was standing in the bar.
Was any one standing with him ?—Yes.
Who?—Oh, several persons; I do not know who they
were. I dare say the landlady was there, the landlord was
inside the bar.
Were there several persons in the bar ?—There were two
or three persons standing outside the bar; the landlord and
landlady were inside the bar.
You told me in the first instance that there were several
persons standing in the bar with the landlord, and you be-
lieved the landlady : that was your first answer ?—Yes.
Then I ask you again if there were not several persons in
the bar with tne landlord, and you answer that two or three
persons were standing outside the bar, and the landlord and
landlady inside ?—Exactly.
That is what you mean ?—I mean to say the landlord and
landlady were inside the bar, and several persons outside.
The CHAIRMAN.—Then in the first instance you did not
intend to express that several persons were in the bar.—Yes.
Mr. WILKINS.—Then there were no persons in the bar?
—There might be ; for all 1 know there might be some per-
sons concealed under the bar.
You said that the landlord and landlady were inside the
bar ; Do you mean to say that if there was any body else
inside, they must have been concealed ?—They might have
been there unknown to me.
I do not ask you that ; I ask you if there was any body
else there, must they have been concealed ?—I did not see,
or could see, any but those two.
Where were those people that you say were drunk ?—They
were in the adjoining room to the bar.
How many do you say were drunk ?—Fourteen.
How many males were there of them?—Ten men were
drunk, and four women.
Where were the ten men placed that were drunk ?—Six of
them were on the left hand side, as I entered the room, sit-
ting at a small table.
Where were the women ?—They were among the party.
Where were the other four men ?—Some of them were
standing, and some of them were sitting in the room.
And where were the women, do you say ?—They were sit-
ting at the opposite side of the table.
(if which table ?—The table at the right-hand side.
Now, do you mean to tell the court, upon your oath, that
you took such notice that you are able to speak accurately
that you saw ten men drunk and four women drunk ?—I do.
How many were there altogether ?—About thirty-two.
How long were you in the house altogether I—About 9 to
10 minutes.
You say that one man threw his bat at an officer's face ?
He did.
Where was that man, sitting or standing ?—He was stand-
ing at the right-hand side, as we went in.
When did you first tell that story ?—I gave it in the infor-
mation.
Upon your oath, as you value your place as a policeman,
did you tell that story to the magistrates?—
Dr. BROWN.—Was your deposition taken in writing ?
No.
Mr. WILKINS.—Upon your oath, did you tell that to the
magistrates at the time you laid the information cannot
exactly recollect ; but I can safely swear that the man did it.
The CHAIRMAN.—Was the information laid before the

commissioners or before the magistrates ?—lt was first be-
fore the commissioners.
Mr. WILKINS.—Now, then, upon your oath, if there were
two examinations into this matter, will you swear that upon
both of those occasions you mentioned the fact of throwing
the hat?—l rr •

That is no answer : upon your oath-
Dr. BROWN objected to this examination : the witness had
answered the question.

Mr. WILKE.s.-Liiut I want to get another answer : I ask
you, upon your oath, whether, on both your examinations,
either before the commissioners or before the magistrates,
you will take upon yourself to swear you stated this fact of
throwing the hat ?—I did.
Before the commissioners
That you swear ?—I will.
Who was present ; was your brother officer?
not.
Was that gentleman (Thomas Hughes)?—He was not
Was anybody present who is here nosy ?—I think not.
Was not your brother officer present the whole time when
you were examined before the commissioners ?—He was not.
Was he examined before the commissioners?—Not that I
am aware of

'—l did

No ; he was

But he was when you were examined before the magis
trates ?—He was.

Now, have you any doubt that you mentioned it before the
magistrates cannot exactly recollect that I did.
Will you swear that you did ?—I will not; but I intended

Can you describe how the man was dressed who threw the
hat ?—Yes ; he was dressed in baragan clothes.
Was he standing up or sitting down ?—He was sitting down,
but he got up and took off his hat, when he threw it.
How soon was that after you went in ?—Not many minutes.
How long before you came out ?—I dare say five or six
minutes.

You say that a man was shouldered out ; was that the man
that threw the hat ?—No.
What time had you been there when the man was shoul-
dered out? I took notice exactly of their motions and ap-
pearance ; I then went to the bar, and told Mr. Fletcher that
I intended to report his house, for having drunken and dis-
orderly people in it. He said it was not twelve o'clock. I
said that made no difference.
Answer my question, sir.
Dr. BROWN begged to say that the witness was answering
the question, as he was going to tell what happened.
Mr. WILKINS (to the witness).—Will you be kind enough
to tell me when it was that this man was shouldered out ; was
it before or after the man had thrown the hat?—lt was after
the man had thrown the hat.
Where was your brother officer at the time you were read-
ing thislecture to Mr. Fletcher ?—He was standing alongside
of me. Mr. Fletcher requested I would turn the parties out,
saying, that he could not get them out himself. I said that
if he wished it I would soon turn them out for him.
Pray, sir, what did these people do to induce you to con-
clude that fourteen of them were drunk ?—They conducted
themselves in such a manner, and used such infamous ex-
pressions towards us as I never heard before.
Were there more than one man shouldered out
I s

'—Not that

Now, my question to you was, what induced you to sup-
pose that these fourteen people were drunk ? Your answer
is, that the conducted themselves so and used such infamous
expressions towards you. Did they show other symptoms of
drunkenness ?—When they stood up, some of them could not
balance themselves properly ; they tossed to and fro.
What else?—They were taken out in such a state that I
could safely say they were drunk.
Who were taken out ?—The man who was shouldered out ?
the other thirteen stood up, but could not balance themselves
properly. Some of them were worse drunk than others.
Do I understand that your reason is, that one was shoul-
dered out, and the other thirteen could not stand properly ?
They could not balance themselves without tossing to and
fro. Some of them were worse than others ; they all showed
symptoms of drunkenness, less or more.
The CHAIRMAN reminded Mr. Wilkins that his first ques-
tion only related to the one drunken man, who had been
shouldered out.
Mr. WrmuNs.—Yes ; when you say (to the witness) that
the other men could not stand, do you mean the whole 13
men.—No.
How many then ?—There were nine men that could not
balance themselves properly.
Could not the remaining four balance themselves
could walk without falling.
You said there were six at the left hand side, sitting at a
small table, could they stand?—They could stand, but not
balance themselves properly.
Where was-the man taken from who was shouldered out ?
—From the left-hand side, as I entered the room.
Was he one of the six I—He was.
Did you know personally any of the people in the house
that night ?—No sir ; I knew them so far to be very low cha-
racters in that neighbourhood.
They did not wear quite so good a coat as you, I suppose ?
—No

—They

Pray who were you before you entered the police ?—I was
a wood merchant, sir.
What, a match dealer ?
barrel-staves.
Where ?—ln the highlands of Scotland.
Did you come directly from the highlands of Scotland to
be a policeman here?—No, sir.
What were you before you were a policeman ?—I was em-
ployed upon the Liverpool race-course for nearly two years.
What did you do there ?—I superintended a lot of sheep.
A shepherd, I suppose?—Yes, previously to my joining
the police.
Then did you go immediately from the race-course to the
police ?—No.
What did you do between
on business.
What business?—ln a spirit-merchant's office.
What spirit-merchant's office ?—The parties have dissolved
partnership since.
What were their names I—Clark and Baker.
Where was their office ?—ln Chatham-street, Piccadilly.
And what do you mean to say you were in that office ?
I was a solicitor for orders, and a collector of debts.
Were you a porter then ?—No.
How long were you in that capacity ?—Only sixteen weeks;
they dissolved partnership and gave up business. '
Did you go from there into the police ?—I did, sir.
The witness was then re-examined by Dr. BROWN.—He
said that he had been in the police five years, iti;(l tl,at he had
been made an inspector; he supposed the revs which he
had received had come from the Watch Comwmee, but he
had never asked. They had been given to him for good con-
duct in cases where there had been no conviction, and he had
never been accused by his superior officers of the least symp-
tom of drunkenness. He went into the appellant's house of
his own accord, as he heard a great noise. He knocked with
his stick for assistance, and police-officer Atherton coming
up, they went in. It was his duty to enter the house, when
he heard a noise, and he had no doubt the people in it were
drunk

'—No, sir, I was a manufacturer of

—I have been in Manchester

John Atherton, police-officer, No. 20, was next called and
examined by Dr. BROWN.—He said that on Saturday night,
the 14th November, he went into appellant's house with the
last witness, at five minutes to twelve o'clock. He went from
the bar into the tap-room, and found it in a state of confu-
sion. Many were drunk, and some men and women were
wrangling. The word was given that the police were there,
and the fiddle stopped playing for a moment. One door of
the tap-room opened into the bar, and another into the lobby.
He should say that there were ten men quite intoxicated and
four women. A woman, who sat at the back of the window.
threw a glass of ale at a man, and a portion of it went into
the inspector's face, and also into witness's face. This
woman was drunk. Witness afterwards saw her in the street,
when she wanted the inspector to take up the man at whom
she had thrown the ale. Witness told her to go away, or she
would be taken up herself. This woman was taken before
the magistrates on the following Monday. When witness
was in the tap-room, a man on the opposite side of the table
deliberately took off his hat and threw it at him. This man
was drunk, and witness from his own observation was enabled
to say that several of those present were drunk and also dis-
orderly. Witness had given evidence on the former convic-
tion of the appellant, and had frequently been in his house.
Cross-examined by Mr. WILKINS.—What time was it
when you went in ?—A few minutes to twelve.
How came you to go in?—The inspector knocked, and I
answered him.
Was any body in the bar ?--There were several persons
standing round in the bar, and one of these 1 took to be
Mrs. Fletcher.
Was any body else there ?—I did not notice.
There were some people standing round the bar ?—Yes,

Where was Mr. Fletcher?—He was just within the
door of the tap-room ; I should fancy myself that he was
engaged in a squabble, but I cannot speak to that.
What should induce you to suppose that he was engaged
in a squabble ?—I have no other reason but because he was
just going from the bar into the room where it was.
Was he in the bar or in the tap-room ?—He was in the
tap-room.
You say there were ten men drunk ; what part of the
room were they in ?—They sat in different parts. There was
one table occupied by them completely. They were all drunk
at that time, but one, a reputed thief.
We are not here to try the question of the reputed thief ;
how many were there at that table ?—There were 6 or 7.
And they were all drunk ?—Every one, with the exception
of the reputed thief.
What makes you say they were drunk ?
them drunk.
But why ?—Because when they got up they had to be
assisted out by those that were better.
Was more than one assisted out ?—Yes
How many ?—I cannot speak.
Was any body shouldered out ?
was great confusion.
Did any of them go out whilst you were there ?—Some of
them began to go out when we went in, but I should think
there were about 30 people there when we commenced count-
ing them.

'—l should consider

'—l cannot say, as there

You say some man threw his hat at you; how did he do
it ?—He took it quite deliberately off his head, and damning
the police, threw it at me.
When did you first tell the story about throwing the hat?
—Before the magistrates—before Mr. Rushton.
Will you swear that ?—I am almost sure I did.
Will you swear that, I say, and be careful ?-1 cannot say
for a moment, but I am positive in my own mind I did.
Will you swear you did ?—I should not like to swear I did,
but I believe I did, to the best of my knowledge.
Do you expect any reward in case the conviction should
be established ?—I never received any reward for any con-
viction of a publican.
Do you expect any reward in case this conviction should
be established ?—At the end of last quarter I did receive
something, but what it was for they never told me.
Do you expect any reward in case this conviction should
be established ?—I never received any reward ; but there is
an understanding that there is something.
I ask you again, do you expect any reward in case the con-
viction should be established ?—I can answer you only as I
have done before.

I ask you, sir, again, what you expect?—Whatever I get
from the Watch Committee. I do not know what there
will be.

Do you expect any reward in case this conviction should
be established ?
The CHAIRMAN desired Mr. Wilkins not to put his ques-
tions so rapidly, as he had not been able to put down all the
answers.
Mr. WiLiciNs said it was important to have the answers
down, and he would repeat the question, in order that there
might be no mistakes. (To the witness.) Do you expect
any reward in case this conviction should be established ?
There is an understanding that we should have something ;
but we are never told what it is for.
The CHAIRMAN.—When you say that there is an under-
standing that there is something, do you mean that it is given
conviction or no conviction ln a case of-felony--
The CHAIRMAN.—I do not mean in a case of felony.—l
never was upon an information only the two in question.
Mr. WiLicrws.—Perhaps. you will be kind enough to an-
swer my question yes or no. My question is, not what has
been done, nor what particular rewards are given, but it is—
Do you expect a reward in case this conviction should be
established ?—I must answer as I did before ; I cannot tell
you. Which way can we expect it when we do not know
what it is for?
Do not reason with me, sir, but answer my question. If
you are a reasonable man, you can easily do it. Do you ex-
pect a reward in case this conviction should be established?
—I must say that I do.
Why could you not have said so before.
The CHAIRMAN.—I have it down—" I do expect a re-
ward in case this conviction is established."
Mr. WILKINS.—That is your meaning, is it ?—I do not
know how to say otherwise.
Now let us have no misrepresentation. I will repeat the
question : it is this—do you expect any reward in case this

conviction is established? yes or no.—There is an under
standing that there is a reward.
'The cross-examination was then continued at some length
It concerned what took place in the house, and as to the
witness having received a bribe in liquor, or money insteac

keener, fo,

some object which was not stated, which he de-

tiled in Coto_
On his re-examination he briefly explained what had beet
alleged against him in his cross-examination_

Dlr. John Parkinson, an articledCia.in the Town-
clerk's office, produced the conviction, and proved the ma-
gistrates signatures to it.
Dr. BROWN said that was the case for the respondents.
Mr. WnimiNs said that, before he addressed the court on
behalf of his client, he would take their opinion whether,
after what had been proved, he ought to occupy any portion
of their time in reply ?
The CHAIRMAN said the court thought it necessary to
look carefully into the facts before calling upon Mr. Wilkins,
and they should retire for that purpose.
The magistrates then retired. After an absence of twenty
minutes they returned into court, when the CHAIRMAN said
they had taken the evidence into their most serious consi-
deration, and did not find that they could confirm this con-
viction. They had read the words of the evidence care-
fully/over, and copied them, and he believed they had them
correct. He was not going to make any remarks upon the
proceeding before the Court, but merely upon the evidence
brought before them. The Chairman then read that portion
of the evidence of the last witness which was to the effect
that if this conviction were established there was an under-
standing that a reward should be given. They thought that
justice compelled them to say that that man's evidence ought
not to be admitted. The conviction, therefore, must be

quashed

_
Dr. BROWN could not say that he regretted the decision.
He knew that the practice of giving rewards had long since
been protested against by others as well as himself, and he
was not at all sorry for the result.

Mr. WILKINS said it was not necessary for him to express
his opinion, because it would not be considered as worth
much, seeing that he was upon the other side. His opinion
of the practice, however, was in accordance with that of his
learned friend.

Dr. BROWN added, that the same opinion was held by a
learned friend of his [Mr. Lawrence Peel, advocate-general
of India], now removed to another station.
The CHAIRMAN said that whatever might have been the
practice before, the magistrates had confined themselves
only to the evidence.
The conviction was then quashed.