The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1851-12-16 00:00:00

SATURDAY

Mr. Baron Parke, on taking his seat at nine o'clock, pro-
ceeded at once with a long and tedious case involving a
charge of perjury, preferred, at the instance of the County
Constabulary Committee, against two men, named John
Hartley and William Whewell. Hartley was first placed
in the dock. Mr. Wigham prosecuted, and Mr. James
was for the defence.
The facts of the case are briefly these : Hartley and
Whewell are both beersellers, residing at Oswaldtwistle.
On Saturday, the 7th December, 1851, they were visited
after eleven o'clock at night by police-constable Procter,
who found company in their houses, and the circumstance
was duly reported. On the following day (Sunday), Proc-
ter being on duty at Lonswithin, called at a public-house
kept by Jacob Houghton, and there he found Whewell
and Hartley. Of the circumstances which took place in
the house different versions were given. Whewell and
Hartley stated, that Procter received from them ss. ficl.
each, in order to quash the information of what he had
seen the day before ; and that statement they made on
oath before the magistrates of Haslingden, when Procter
was charged by the police-superintendent of the district,
Mr. Edwin Sheppard, with violation of his duty in accept-
ing the bribe. Procter on that occasion called witnesses
to disprove the statement made by Hartley and Whewell,
and satisfied the magistrates that their story was untrue.
The magistrates dismissed the charge, and the case was
reported to the Constabulary Committee, who directed
that a prosecution for perjury should be made against
Hartley and Whewell. Several witnesses were called for
the prosecution. _ _ _ _ _ _

Mr. JAMES addressed the jury for the defence:
The witnesses for the defence altogether contradicted
the main features of the evidence for the prosecution.

In summing up, his LORDSHIP said he did not know
whether the jury could find their way through the evi-
dence; there had certainly been the greatest quantity of
perjury, on one side or other, he had ever witnessed. It
was requisite in cases of perjury there should be something
more than the evidence of the person who made the
charge. It would be for the jury to consider whist' of the
two parties told the truth. There was evidently a com-
bination on one side or other. The witnesses agreed as
to the policeman having refused the bribe in the first
instance, but they differed in their statements as to what
became of him afterwards. The result would be, that the
jury could not pronounce the policeman guilty of perjury.
The jury immediately returned a verdict of not guilty,
and the prisoner was discharged. In the case of Whewell
no evidence was tendered, and, by his lordship's direction,
he was discharged.
Mr. JAMES applied for costs in both instances, which
were allowed.
At the conclusion of the above case, the prisoner John
Lee, convicted on Friday of wilful and corrupt perjury,
in a cause tried at the last autumn assizes, " Hayes v.
Williams," was placed in the dock. His LORDSHIP, in
passing judgment, said that perjury was a crime which
was frequently committed. They had had specimens of
it that day. In the case which bad just been tried, four
or five of the witnesses examined must have been guilty
of perjury; but it was doubtful who were the false
swearers. In the case of the prisoner at the bar there
could be no mistake. He chose to tell an untruth for the

purpose of protecting his own character. Instead of re-
fusing to answer the questions put to him, as he ought to
have done, he positively stated on oath several times that
he had not been convicted of larceny, when such was the
fact. As it was a fact affecting his own character, the
offence was in some degree pardonable, and on that ac-
count he (the learned baron) would not inflict the punish-
ment of transportation. The sentence of the court was,
that he should be imprisoned in the gaol of this county
for a period of twelve months. The judge having con-
sulted the act of parliament, intimrted that the imprison-
ment must be accompanied with hard labour.
The court rose about half-past six o'clock, the whole of
the business of the assizes having been disposed of.

NISI PRIUS COURT.—TUESDAY
(Before Mr. Justice Elms.)
_

As soon as his lordship took his seat,
Dominic Dowd and James Cain were brought up for
sentence, having been convicted of stabbing. The former
was sentenced to four, and the latter to nine months'

imnrigonment.
William Wils•n, charged with stealing a cow belonging

to Thomas Jackson, at Ashton, was acquitted. some par-
tial agreement between the prisoner and Jackson being
proved.

MANSLAVGHTER AT MANCHESTER

Edward Wood was indicted for the manslaughter of
James Gamin, at Manchester. On Saturday, the 25th of
October, the prisoner was at the Nelson Tavern, Great
Ancoats, with Gamin. There was a club of tin-plate
workers met at the same house,and both men belongedto
this club. A quarrel arose, in the course of which the
prisoner took up the poker, and struck at the deceased,
hitting him on the head with it, and Gamin fell upon the
floor from the effect of the blow, and went into fits. He
died from the injuries on the 12th of November. The
jury found the prisoner guilty, but as evidence had been
given that the prisoner had received provocation, the
Judge only sentenced him to five calendar months' impri-
sonment with hard labour.

William Henry Brady, who pleaded guilty to the
charge of having obtained, at Manchester, several sums
of money from philanthropic societies, by forged orders
upon the officers, was sentenced to transportation for
seven years. _ _

Joseph Brooks was sentenced to transportation for
twenty years, for an aerravated assault upon, and at-
tempt to rob, Samuel Williams, whom, on the 11th of
October last, he brutally ill-treated at Salford. Brooks
took advantage of his victim being in a helpless state of
intoxication.

Robert Jones, late collector of rates, pleaded guilty to
embezzling certain sums of public money. He was sen-
tenced to 12 months' imprisonment, and hard labour.
Thomas 111' Donnell, aged 19, was charged, on a coro-
ner's inquisition, with having, at Liverpool, feloniously
killed and slain a child named James Fitzhenry. This was
a driving-over case. The prisoner was found guilty, and
sentenced to twelve mon ths' m prisonm ent with hard labour.
Patrick Cole was found guilty of killing Patrick Caf-
frey, on the 15th of November of last year. The occur-
rence took place during an Irish row in No. 14 Court,
St. Martin-street, in this town. The prisoner was sen-
tenced to four months' imprisonment., with hard labour.
David Shepherd, 22, and Joseph Berry. 25, were each
transported for ten years for having assaulted, at Bury,
William Bewley, putting him in danger of his life, and
stealing from him money and other property.
Gilbert Levy, a boy of 12 years old, was charged with the
murder of another boy, John Rothwell, at Aughton, on the
3rd of November ; but it appearing from the evidence that
the death arose accidentally during a contest for the posses-
sion of a stick, the jury acquitted the prisoner. He
was then formally arraigned on the coroner's inquisition
on the charge of wilful murder, (for the same offence,) and
acquitted. The prisoner was discharged, with a caution
from his lordship.

WEDNESDAY

CURIOUS DISCOVERY OF A ROBBERY IN LIVERPOOL

John Barrington, 28, was indicted for having, together
with two other persons unknown, feloniously assaulted
James Livingstone, and, with violence, robbed him of
one Bank of England note of one hundred pounds, two
twenty-pound notes, a watch, and a bank post bill for
£B7 4s. Bd., on the Bth of October last. On the Bth of
October, between the hours of nine and ten o'clock at
night, Mr. James Livingstone, a merchant, residing in 13;
Bold-place, was returning home, and when within a few
yards of his own door, he was Pttacked by two men, one
of whom gave him a chuck in the neck, and the second
held him tightly around the throat. A third man then
came up, whom Mr. Livingtone swore was the prisoner,
and cut his trowsers open, ai.d his pocket off. The pocket
contained the amounts stated in the indictment, and Mr.
Livingstone's watch was then dragged from his neck.
Some days after the prisoner called at a public-house,
kept by Mr. Holmes, in Whitechapel, and there left a
sum of £BO, to be taken care of for him. On the day
following be called and drew £2O, and in the course of
the following week also received £2O, from Mrs. Holmes.
With this money, the prisoner appeared to have taken a
beer-house, situate in Bronte-street, from Mrs. Margaret
Crouley, for the possession of which he paid upwards of
£l5. In a pigeon-cote, at the top of the prisoner's-
house, the officers found the watch stolen from Mr. Li-
vingstone, and eleven sovereigns, which the prisoner
claimed as his property. When asked, he denied at first
that he had left any money at. Mr. Holmes's, but he sub-
sequently claimed the £4O which had been handed over to
the police, together with the money found in the pigeon-
cote, as his property. A verdict of guilty was returned
against the prisoner. A previous conviction, for which
sentence of transportation for ten years had been re-
corded, was proved against him.—His lordship sentenced
the prisoner to be transported for life.