The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1843-08-29 00:00:00

TRIAL OF NEWTON FOR BIGAMY.

Joseph Newton surrendered to-take his trial on an in-
dictment charging him with having married one Mary
Bolger, at Dublin, in the kingdom of Ireland, on the 2d
of May. 1820, and that afterwards, to wit, on the 30th of
July, 1832, he intermarried at Liverpool one Martha
Robinson, his former wife being then alive.
Mr. Holton appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. Wil-
kins and Mr. Atkinson defended the prisoner.
Mr. HULTON, in stating the case to the jury, observed
that a question would arise in the present case whether
under the circumstances the prisoner was liable to the
penalties affixed by the law to the crime of bigamy, as the
statute under which he was indicted contained a provision
which stated that, if at the time of a second marriage a
man and his wife should be continually absent from each
other for the space of seven years last past, and that the
party marrying did not know during that time that his
former wife was living, he was not guilty of the crime im-
puted t- him. The point was a new one, for as far as he
could ascertain no case had been decided o❑ the point.
However, he should call a witness before the jury who
would prove that she had received letters from the former
wife of the prisoner in 1829 and 1841, and delivered them
to the prisoner, one of which he read and then put it in
his pocket, and then it would be for the jury to say whe-
ther the prisoner at the time be was married a second
time knew his former wife was living—if so, he appre-
hended his Lordship would tell them he was guilty of the
present charge.
Elizabeth Waldron was then called, and she said she
was the sister of Mary Bolger. The prisoner was mar-
ried when in the vestry of Townsend-street chapel. in
Dublin, by Father Pierce Walsh, on the 2d May, 1820.
That was a Roman catholic chapel, and the witness, her
sister, and the whole family were Roman catholics. All
the family of the prisoner were also Roman catholics.
The prisoner was, at the time of his marriage, an ap-
prentice with his step-father, and for twelve months after
his marriage lived with him. He afterwards lived with
his wife for about six months, and then left her and went
away to Liverpool. Witness saw the prisoner in Dublin
about five years ago, and spoke to him. Her sister is still
living. She saw her about a fortnight ago.
Cross-examined by Mr. Wurcitis.—The prisoner
courted my sister four or five months previous to his mar-
riage, and I saw him generally once a week. I was then
living with my father and sister at home. My father was
a builder and tailor, and kept a second-hand clothes shop.
I don't know that the prisoner was in the habit of attend-
ing a Baptist chapel previous to his marriage to my sister.
I saw him on two occasions with my sister at a Roman
catholic chapel. When I saw the prisoner in Dublin,
four or five years ago, I said to him "Joe," and he turned
round and said "Joe, your grandmother." (L ughter.)
I am more than fifty years old but cannot say how much.
Aly sister it younger than I am. She has been supported
by my brother since her husband left her.
Re-examined.—The brother of the prisoner was at
Clongerswood College at the time of the marriage, educa-
ting for a priest. . . .

Christopher Fox stated that he was an apprentice with
the prisoner, with his step-father. Was present at his
marriage with Mary Bolgar, at Townsend-street chapel,
Dublin, by the Rev. Mr. Pierce Walsh, on the 2d May,
1820. Saw the prisoner and his wife living together after
that. He was a Roman Catholic.

Cross-examined.—Have frequently gone to Roman
Catholic Chapels with him. Never knew he went to dis-
senting chapels.
Edward Lovat, clerk of St. Nicholas's parochial chapel,
Liverpool, produced the marriage certificate between the
prisoner and Martha Robinson, on the 30th July, 1832.
Martha Robinson proved that she was married to the
prisoner, in St. Nicholas's church, rather more than ten
years ago, but cannot say the exact year. The prisoner
was married in the name of Newton, and had gone by that
name ever since. Knew him about five months before
the marriage.
Cross-examined.—Since our marriage, the prisoner has
always attended the Church of England, and a better or
kinder husband could not be.
By the Court.—l do not carry on the prosecution, nor
do any of my friends.
Mary Ann Jones said—ln December, 1829, was in
Dublin, and saw Mary Nugent. She gave me a letter
which I took to Liverpool, and gave it to a girl who
handed it to Mr. Nugent. The latter opened it and read
it. A dark woman was present, who asked the prisoner
what that was. He said nothing, and put the letter into
his pocket. The letter was delivered to me open, and I
read it. I was again in Dublin at the beginning of the
summer, 1831, and received another letter from Mary
Nugent, which I took to Liverpool, and delivered it to
Mr. Nugent. He went in behind the screen in his shop,
opened it, and appeared to read it.
Cross.examined.—l was not before the magistrate
when the prisoner was committed. I went to Dublin
about my business, hut it is nothing to you, and I won't
tell you. I went with my husband, who is a silver-
plater. He was present when I received the letters from
Mary Nugent. I brought three letters altogether.
Mrs. Waldron re-called, and examined by Mr. War.-
xiNs.—Mary Nugent has not lived in the same place in
Dublin since the prisoner left her. She removed about
six months to my mother and father's house until they
died, eleven years ago, and my brother has supported her
ever since in lodgings. For about six months oiler Nugent
left her she lived in her own shop, and then removed to
her father and mother.
Martha Robinson was re-called, and swore that the
witness, Jones, never delivered a letter in her presence to
the prisoner.
George Greaves, one of the Liverpool police, appre-
hended the prisoner on t: e 17th of July last. Told him
that he was taking him on Mr. Bolgar's charge of bigamy.
I cautioned him, and he said all they could do was to
make him pay half a-crown a week.
Cross-examined.—Heard the brother of the first wife
wife say he had been over in Liverpool before then.
By the COURT.—The prosecutor is present.
Mr. Wiexiss then proceeded to address the jury in
behalf of the prisoner. He was extremely obliged to his
lordship for asking the last question, and also for asking
another question from the witness Robinson, as to who
the parties were that carried on the present prosecution,
because it was evident his lordship saw the nature of the
case. There were two questions of fact which the jury
would have to decide. The first was, whether it was
proved to their satisfaction that the prisoner was ever a
Roman Catholic in his life, because, if he was not, the
former marriage was an illegal one and a nullity. The
next question was. whether the jury were satisfied that
the prisoner, for seven years previous to the marriage in
1832, was aware of the existence of the person whom they
chose to call his wife. Would any man believe that, be-
cause a person was seen at a Roman Catholic chapel once
or twice, he was, therefore, a Roman Catholic? Unless
the Roman Catholic church had relaxed in its discipline
to what was known of it from history, it was absolutely
necessary that persons should do more than merely attend
the chapel to be considered a member of the church. If
he had been a Roman Catholic, it would have been easy
to prove that he had confessed or attended mass, but
where was the proof that he had ever done so in his life ?
How many persons were there who attended Roman Ca-
tholic chapels from mere curiosity ! How many were
there who went to look at the vestments of the priests—
to see the magnificence of the altar, and its candles light-
ed! How many were there who attended to hear the
splendid music performed there—who in fact went to the
chapel because it was the only theatre open on the Sun-
day ! (Laughter.) And were they therefore Papists ?
He did not mean to ridicule the Roman Catholic religion,
but there were those who considered the splendid page-
antry exhibited as a necessary part of religion, whilst
others thought it mere mummery. As to that part of the
case which went to show that the prisoner had knowledge
of the person whom they called his former wife being
living, that rested solely on the evidence of the witness
Mary Ann Jones, and that they could not rely on, espe-
ciaPy after it had been contradicted in an essential point
by Mrs. Nugent. He remarked on the improbability of
the prisoner doing as he had, in opening a shop in the
most public market in Liverpool, and carrying on busi-
ness in so public a manner, if he conceived himself liable
to such a charge as the present, on the fact of his being
a good and kind husband, and concluded with observing

that no doubt the present charge would never have been
heard of if the brother of Mrs. Waldren had succeeded in
extolling money from the prisoner.
The follow*, witnesses were then called, who gave the
prisoner en excellent character for good conduct—namely,
Mr. W. Procter, Mr. J. L. Aires, publican, Mr. Ro-
binson, one of the jury, Mr. Kiernan, a fish factor, and
Mr. Lovatt, the clerk of St. Nicholas' Church.
The Learned JUDGE proceeded to sum up the case, and
after observing that probably the jury would be satisfied
that the prisoner was a Roman Catholic, said the question
for them to determine would be whether they were satis-
fied that at the time the prisoner married a second time
Ise knew his former wife was alive, or had known it during
the seven years previous to that time ; because, if they
were of opinion that he did, it would be their duty to find
him guilty : if they had any reasonable doubt on the sub-
ject, they would give the prisoner the benefit of it and
acquit him.

The jury consulted together in the box for a few mi-
nutes. and then acquitted the prisoner.
On the application of Mr. Wilkins he was immediately
discharged.

THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD.

meical Bank of Manchester, and, in consequen:e of his
connection with that unfortunate establishment, he be-
came a bankrupt, and having been largely indebted to thg
bank, Mr. Davidson, public officer, was arpointed his
assignee. Mr. Hebblewhite had a considerable stock of
wine, ale, and beer on the premises at the time, and the
gentleman who managed the affairs on behalf of the de-
fendant took possession of those premises, opened them
and continued them open until the following July. when
the stock was disposed of. The question was, whether
Mr. Davidson, by thus dealing with the property, took
possession of it as tenant and made himself liable for the
rent.

- -
A verdict was returned for the plaintiff for the full
amount.

DOE DEM. ROCKLIFFE V. AMBROSE.
Verdict, by consent, for the plaintiff.
FRAZER AND OTHERS V. MATLEY.
This was an action brought by the plaintiffs. John Fra-
zer and George Brooks, against the defendant William
Matley, for the recovery of a sum of £460, the value of
goods sold and delivered. The defendant pleaded non
assumpsit, except as to £390.
Verdict for the plaintiff for £125.
DIXON V. WING.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, John Dixon,
against the defendant, John Wing, for the recovery of a
sum of £3O, money had and received, and on an account
stated. The defendant pleaded the general issue and a
set-off.
The jury found for the plaintiff for £3O 155., with leave
for the defendant to move for a nonsuit.