The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1842-12-16 00:00:00

ACQUITTAL OF JANE FARRAR

The trial of Jane Farrar, on a charge of having stolen two
pairs of stockings and other articles, from the shop of Messrs.
Jeffrey and Morrish, came on this morning, and resulted in
the acquittal of the young lady.
The prisoner pleaded not guilty. Mr. Lawrence con-
ducted the prosecution. and Mr. lietiderson the defence.

The court was excessive!y crowded. The young lady, who
frequently shed tears, was allowed to sit at the bar during
the greater part of the trial.
Mr. Sweetnian, obe of Messrs. Jeffrey and Morrish's shop-
men, proved the facts as they have already been detailed in
our columns.

Mr. Jeffrey said, that on the information being given to
him, by the last witness, that the prisoner had put into her
pocket two pairs of stockings and a bundle of purse twist, he
was particular in asking the young man if he were sure the
party had the things in her pocket, as she was a very re-
spectable looking person, and it was a serious charge ; last
witness said he was quite sure. Witness then desired last
witness to point out which of the two was the delinquent;
he pointed to the prisoner. Witness then asked her to walk
with him, as he wanted to speak to her. On taking her into
the warehouse below, he said he had a most unpleasant duty
to perform ; but the young man who had been serving her
stated that she had something in her pocket that did not
belong to her; would she oblige him (witness) with the sight
of the contents of her pocket. Prisoner said, "My pocket ?"
and objected. Witness then said he must send for an officer,
which he did. The prisoner then asked what the young man
said she had. Witness said, "He tells me you have some
stockings," which she denied. Witness here stated that he
did it as delicately as he could.
The RECORDER said, witness had acted in a delicate and
gentlemanly manner, and could have acted in no other way.
Mr. Jeffrey, on cross-examination, said, when the officer
arrived he related to him what had occurred. He (the
officer) asked if there was any charge against the other lady.
Mr. Jeffrey said " No." The officer said to that lady, " You
are an old offender: I know you of old." Mr. Jeffrey gave
the prisoner in charge. The officer took them both. Mr.
Jeffrey admitted that he had given rewards to his young
men for vigilance in discovering thefts, but explained by
stating he had not done so for a considerable time, nor was
the witness (Sweetman) aware of the fact, as it had not been
done during the time he had been in the witness's service;
nor had he (witness), before nor since the examination before
Mr. Rushton, intimated, directly or indirectly, that any re-
ward would be given to the young man.
The police-officer having stated the circumstances neces-
sary to make out the case, he was cross-examined by Mr.
Henderson. He denied that he said to the lady who accom-
panied Miss Farrar, that if she were not a thief she was
something worse. He did not recollect that he said she was
an old offender. He did not as he was going with the two
ladies to bridewell, meet a police-officer, and observe to him,
" Here I am, a flat between two sharps."
Mr. HENDERSON spoke at some length in defence of the
prisoner, with very great address and ability. The compa-
nion of Miss Farrar on the occasion was a lady of high re-
spectability, and they had heard, in the course of the evi-
dence, that she was the wife of a respectable gentleman of
this town. Mr. Henderson animadverted in severe terms on
the conduct of the police-officer who had taken upon himself
to characterise the lady as an old offender, to insult her by
an insinuation, that if she were not a thief she was something
worse, and to take her into custody. This lady, there was
not a doubt, was most respectable, a lady of high character,
and as there was not a shadow of a charge against her, she
was at once dismissed by the magistrate. Was it to be sup-
posed, that if Miss Farrar had been desirous of committing a
felony she would have chosen for her companion a lady of
acknowledged respectability, of high integrity, who would
instinctively shrink from such a proceeding? Was it to be
believed that she would have sought, had se been inclined
to purloin property, to do it under the very eye of a person
who would have been the first to cause detection by her very
horror of the crime ? But he would show that she was her-
self a person of the very highest character and integrity, that
up to the present period the slightest breath of slander had
not sullied her reputation. He would call before the Jury,
persons of opulence and standing, including a banker and a
county magistrate, who had known her from chilldhood, who
had the highest opinion of her character. Not a shadow of
imputation had ever been cast upon her till she unfortunately
fell under the suspicion of that young man at the shop of the
prosecutors. She had now lain one month in prison, and
there was no doubt if even she had swerved ever so little
from the paths of integrity, the instance would have been
raked up against her in the day of her misfortune. But no.
The thing had been talked of ; it had unfortunately obtained
no little notoriety, but not one instance of misconduct had
been brought to light even by the severe scrutiny of malevo-
lence; on the contrary, there were numerous friends who
were willing to come forward in this trying hour, some of
them from a distance, whose confidence was unshaken, and
who would bear testimony to her excellent conduct and spot-
less character. The learned counsel remarked with some
emphasis on the system established in the shop of giving bo-
nuses on detection, and he could not help thinking, that the
prospect of reward had influenced the young man to be more
sharp-sighted than was necessary. Hewas on the watch face to
face with the young lady. It was not pretended that she had
exercised any extraordinary adroitness as if she had really in-
tended to steal, but she had taken the things from the counter
before the face of the young man, and from under his very eye.
The conclusion, that she took them with a felonious inten-
tion, was, with this fact, sworn to most absurdly. The
learned recorder saw this, and questioned the witness parti-
cularly to this point, and the jury heard that he confirmed
the statement. He would submit to the jury that they could
scarcely come to the conclusion that a young lady, who had
hitherto maintained so high and unimpeachable a character,
as he should prove belonged to Miss Farrar, could at once
forfeit it by such an act ; that in taking the articles mentioned
from the counter in the presence of another lady, and under
the watchful eye which was observing all her motions, she
could not have had the intention of stealing them. The true
statement of the affair was, that she did indeed take up the
stockings, as had been alleged. Her intention was to become
a purchaser. She had on a cloak, the same which she then
wore. She put down her hands, and they naturally went
beneath her cloak. Where else could they go_? If she nut
her hands clown they must go beneath her cloak. If a gen-
tleman, having a cloak on, in examining books which were
ticketed for sale, placed one or two of them under his arm
for a moment while he examined others, would it be inferred
that he was stealing such books? Was it because a lady suf-
fered her hands to drop beneath her cloak that she must be
accused of stealing? Was it because Messrs. Jeffrey and
Morrish's shop was sometimes frequented by another descrip-
tion of persons, and because the young men were enjoined to
watch, that all ladies who happened to put their hands
beneath their cloaks must become objects of suspicion ?
The handkerchief was put into her hands by one of the
young men, and when Mr. Jeffrey went round, he took
it from her. Was it to be said that she was stealing
that handkerchief ? The handkerchief was called a cravat,
but it was presented to her by one of the young men who
offered it as a suitable article to make an apron. She had it
in her hand, and when Mr. Jeffrey, having been whispered,
as it appeared, by the young man, went round, he took it
from her, and hence it was inferred that she was stealing it.
Mr. Jeffrey civilly invited them into the back shop, and her
impression was that be was going to show them some winter
goods. She followed him, but instead of taking her into the
back shop he led her down some steps into the warehouse.
He exhorted them here to consider the case with some degree
of delicacy. They were men with strong nerves probably,
and the courageous dispositions of men. Here was a female
of nervous temperament and timid disposition, as he should
prove, and it would be necessary to bear this in mind, for it
accounted for the circumstances. When Mr. Jeffrey tapped
her on the shoulder and asked her to go with him to the back
shop, she still held in her hands the goods which she had se-
lected for purchase. Mr. Jeffrey's expression to her was,
" Let me feel in your pockets." Then it was that she lost
her self-possession. She had in her hands the things which
she had previously taken up—she was astonished at the ques-
tion—at all that it implied, and the construction which
might be put upon the articles which she held, and she was
unable to reply. The articles dropped from her hands, for
she was overwhelmed by the words which she had heard.
The learned counsel expatiated on the effect which some sud-
den shock or suspicion may produce on a timid or nervous
female, causing them to act sometimes in a manner the most
foolish and unaccountable. Of this he gave an illustrative
instance in the case of a young lady, who, stepping across a
street as a mail-cart was advancing at a furious rate, and
being warned, first stood stock-still in apparent consterna-
tion, and then just as the vehicle was rushing past her, step-
ped forward, so that the wheel passed over her instep, and
crushed it so severely that she was probably a cripple for life.
Mr. Henderson also gave an instance drawn from his own
experience of the frequent fallacy of judgment from appear-
ances, as there might be strong apparent reasons, arising out
of his or her own conduct, for believing a person guilty who
was in reality entirely innocent, a fact which Mr. Hender-
son's anecdote fully proved.
Mr. HENDERSON called the following witnesses :
Mr. Alfred Harris deposed, that he was a banker residing
at Bradford. He bad known Miss Farrar nearly twenty
years. He had at different times had opportunities of judg-
ing of her character. A year and a half ago he had entrusted
his daughters to her tuition. He considered that she was a
young lady of excellent character, of an ingenuous disposition
and exalted piety. She was exceedingly timid, and of a ner-
vous temperament. She was very retiring in her habits. He
had come from Bradford purposely to bear testimony in her
behalf.

Mr. Joshua Pollard stated, that he resided at Bradford,
and was a county magistrate. He had known Miss Farrar
from childhood. She had lived in that neighbourhood during
the greater part of her life. Her conduct had always been
most exemplary, and she had always endeavoured to make
her life as useful as possible. He believed her, from know-
ledge of her character and disposition, totally incapable of
committing the crime imputed to her. She was of a timid
and nervous temperament. _ _

Mr. Tolson, solicitor, of Bradford, stated that he had
known Miss Farrar from her childhood. She had always
borne the highest character, and he believed her incapable
of committing a dishonest act.
Mr. John Smith, cf the Liverpool Mercury, stated that
he had known Miss Farrar fifteen years. He had known
her by meeting her at houses of the highest respectability,
where she was an esteemed visiter sometimes for months.
Her character was most excellent, and she had rendered her-
self exceedingly useful to more than one of the parties to
whom he had alluded. Their opinion of her was most high,
and it continued unchanged to the present hour.
The Rev. Mr. Livesey, of Sheffield, stated that he was in-
cumbent of St. Philip's church in that town. Miss Farrar
had resided there, and her conduct came minutely under his
observation. She was decidedly under the influence of Chris-
tian principles, and, he was convinced, incapable of commit-
ting the crime alleged, He knew nothing but good of her.
Mr. Blackburn, merchant, of Lancaster, stated he knew
Miss Farrar, and gave her a high character.
The Rev. Mr. Barker, minister of Edge-hill church, stated
that he had known Miss Farrar during the last eighteen
months. She had made herself exceedingly useful in various
ways and was highly esteemed. He always considered her
of a timid and nervous disposition.
Mr. M'Cinnis said, he had known Miss Farrar for some
time, at Birkenhead, most intimately. She was there highly
esteemed and was frequently held up as an example to others.
She possessed a high character and he believed her to be in-
capable of any crime.
lkir. Henderson said there were other witnesses who were
anxious to come forward, but he believed he need not trouble
the court with further testimony.
The learned Recorder summed up the evidence, calling the
attention of the jury to its chief points, and particularly that
of the prisoner having taken the goods from the counter un-
der the eye of the young man. The jury must be satisfied
that when the prisoner took the goods she had an intention
of stealing them.

The Ju-ry, after a few minutes' conversation, returned a
verdict of Not Guilty. A slight outbreak of applause fol-
lowed, which was immediately suppressed. The Recorder
ordered the prisoner to be discharged.

YESTERDAY.

PERSONATING A DECEASED VOTER

Jan Feeney, 52, vvz-ts-i;li;ted for wilfully making a false
an:,..vey to oi:e of the questions directed to be put to voters
under the municipal act. It will be remembered that at the
last election for Castle-street Ward the prisoner brought a
votinpaper to the booth, in favour of Mr. Hugh Hornby,
in the name of John Grimshaw, of Sir Thomas's-buildings,
and on being asked if he were the person so named in the
note, replied in the affirmative. Messrs. Haynes and
Fletcher, burgesses, who were present, knowing that John
Grimshaw was dead, had him taken into custody. In the
preliminary investigation when he was brought before Mr.
Rushton, at the police-court, it appeared that the prisoner
gad soave other WA had Inca taken into a room ill Cagle.

street, while the voting was going on, and that the prisoner
had been induced to personate the deceased individual.
The prisoner pleaded guilty to the charge.
Mr. PAGET counsel for the prosecutors (the mayor, alder-
men and burgesses of tlia borough) said, that it appeared that
Ready, who bad given the prisoner drink, and suborned him
in that state, was the principal culprit, and ought to have
been within the bar in place of Feeney ; and that the prose-
cutors, therefore, did not pre.is fcr any but a nominal pu-
nishment.

The RECORDER said, that much as he respected the re-
commendation, he could not altogether comply with it,
although he should be as lenient as possible. The judges,
he said, had expressed their determination to put down such
disgraceful practices, and the prisoner must, therefore, be
imprisoned for 14 days.

ROBBERY OF GOODS FROM MESSRS. CROSSFIELD

The prisoner Spooner, who was indicted for selling a large
quantity of rice, raisins, &c., belonging to his employers, (as
stated in a report of the ease in our paper of Tuesday,) was
brought up on Wednesday. There were four indictments
against him, to two of which he pleaded guilty, and the
others were not proceeded with. He was brought up this
morning to receive judgment, and the sentence was that he
should be transported for fifteen years.