The Manchester Examiner. — 1848-05-20 (Manchester, Greater Manchester, England)

THE ALLEGED MURDERS AT STONELEIGH ABBEY-FURTHER PARTICULARS.  On Saturday last we gave an account of an extraordinary application made to the magistrates at Warwick, by Mr. Pollock, which amounted to a charge of murder against Lord and Lady Leigh, of Stoneleigh Abbey.  .., On that occasion, Richard Barrett, a stonemason, swore that in 1814 he was employed at Stoneleigh Abbey making alterations in a bridge, and he and several men, whom he named, were at work at midnight, and that whilst they were employed letting down a stone a ton and a half weight, Lord Leigh and Lady Julia Leigh gave orders to " let go," when two men, named Matthew Billinge and William Forbes, were under it, so that the stone fell upon them, and his inference was, that Lord and Lady Leigh intended to murder them, though neither he nor any other witness suggested any cause or motive for such an atrocity. The stone, he said, was never removed from off the bodies, and they built over it that night. Billinge was a married man, and had a child. Witness never saw Billinge's wife since, until he saw her in Liverpool last Christmas. There was not a doubt but that she knew of the murder.  Another witness was called on that occasion, but the falsehoods being so palpable, the magistrates declined granting any warrant against Lord Leigh; and yr. Jones, his lordship's solicitor, stated that he should indict the parties for perjury. Mr. Jones attended the police-court in Liverpool yesterday, at which Mr. Rushton and Mr. W. Rathboue were the presiding magistrates. He was accompanied by a middleaged labouring man of-respectable appearance, and, after a lengthened conversation, Mr. Jones took his seat at the table usually allotted to the solicitors. He then said he had the honour to appear before the bench as solicitor for Lord Leigh, of Stoneleigh Abbey. He had arrived in Liverpool that morning, and he had had tendered to him important evidence bearing upon the point. The party tendering the information was in court. He had never seen him before, and he would merely ask the magistrates to call him before them, and see whether the evidence which he could give would further the ends of justice. Mr. Rushton said he had taken down the man's statement. He appeared to be a respectable man, and had made his statement to him in such a straightforward manner that he (Mr. Rushton) did not entertain the slightest doubt of the truth of his story. The man stated that his name was William Billinge, and that he was a stonemason, living in Nelson Place. He (Billinge) was at Stoneleigh Abbey with his father, Matthew Billinge, and his brother Joseph, when the bridge was built. He produced a letter from his father to himself, which he received at Sheerness, dated the 16th of February, 1822, and bore the proper postmark. The bridge at Stoneleigh was built in 1814, and his father was one of the men who was said to be buried under the battlements of the bridge. This, however, was not true, for his father died in 1825 or 1826, and was buried at the Methodist chapel at Edgeley, near Stodport. He had seen a report of his father being left under the bridge at Stoneleigh Abbey, but it was all a lie and a hoax. Mr. Rushton added, that he had no doubt whatever of the truth of the man's statement, for he thought he was an honest, straightforward felWar. We understand that information orfill the facts contained in Billinge 's recordance was immediately sent by telegraph to Sir George Grey, at the home office.