The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1845-09-23 00:00:00

DECISION IN MR. JOHN WHITE'S CASE.

One o'cleck on Saturday last having been fixed for
cross-examining the witnesses for the defence in the case
of Mr. John White, publican, of Copperas-hill, summon-
ed on the preceding Friday week, for having permitted
drunkenness in his -house, the court at that hour was
densely crowded with publicans and other persons who
had taken an interest in the proceedings Mr. White,
accompanied by Mr. Snowball, his solicitor, having en-
tered the court at the time appointed,
Mr. Rushton asked whether they were ready to pro-
duce the witnesses for the detence ?
Mr. Snowball replied in the negative. Mr. White
had been out or town. He only returned from Doncaster
races that morning, and he bad found it impossible to
collect the witnesses.
Mr. Rushton said he was desirous of cross,examining
them, and had given ample notice to that eff..ct. He
might state, that he had spared neither time, trouble, nor
expense to silt the case, and that he understood the wit-
nesses for the defence had given accounts which were not
true. I f they were not produced, the court would proceed
to give judgement.
Mr. Snowball said his client had no opportunity of find-
ing them, as one described himself as from Newcastle-on-
Tyne, and snot er from Leeds.
Mr. Rushton said that from inquiries made, the court
were led to believe they .vere residents of Liverpool.
Mr. Snowball said he had called at Mr. White's in his
absence, but could get no information from Mrs. White.
A long conversation then took place between the ma-
gistrate and Mr. Snowball, in which, Mr. Rushton said
Ihe should not bring forward the evidence procured by the
head constable, unless the witnesses for the nefence were
eroduced, as he proposed to elicit the truth by cross-
hthe witnesses for the defence
prosecution
the witnesses
.ining them ; and if they denied the facts now before
would call the testimony to which he referred.
them, -vball observed, that it appeared an unusual
Mr. Silw, -ding ; for Mr. White was accuses'', lied
jmaomd
ee s
of
P 4 ?;
t
' '
addresseeil-'
were produced, ant. •case scompletely
*he cage was not. concluded at all;
hiss Rushton said -• j. •
inquiries. AI,. arn.s, in his
but adjourned to institute
‘lice officers, T 1 II 3
)reisft__ an_
opening, accused the two p,
em malicious motives in
M'Farlane, of having acted
they were interested
laying the information, and also th, t • induce, theft) in
in a conviction, and paid in a manner
such a way as would impugn its recepsa, Now, the
0
mode of payment was consonant with law. They were
paid for attendance in court when not on duty, ai sd mach
an hoar, without reference to Ole success or nonsuccess
of the case ; so that the imputation was unfounded. The
court believed the officers to be actuated simply by a
desire to do their duty. Threlfall had been iu the force
since 1836, and was a trustworthy person. M'Farlane
had been a shorter time in the force, but had conducted
himself well, and he believed there was nothing improper
in either. The enquiries relative to the four persons for
the defence showed that the balance of testimony, beyond
a question of doubt, belonged entirely to the officers.
Mr. Snowball remarked, that the witnesses for the de-
fence had received no intimation whatever that their pre-
sence would be required.
Mr. Rushton observed, that that was not the fault of
the court.
Mr. Snowball admitted that it was not ; neither was it
his fault.
Mr. Rushton said he was now giving judgment.
Mr: Snowball presumed, that. if the witnessed€ were
present, they would be able to defend themselves.
Mr. Rushton said he was observing nothing with re.:
gard to the witnesses further than this, that the balance'
of testimony was, in his opinion, entirely in favour of the
officers. He then convicted Mr. White in the full
amount of the penalty, £lO and costs.
It will be found from en advertisement in another
column that the friends of Mr. White purpose to assist
him in appealing on the proceedings against him to the
Court of Queen's Bench, and that a isubscreroion has
been commenced by several publicans for that purpose.
We also refer to a letter on the subject in our present
sheet.