In a conversation I have had with Flood, he said Davey had applied to print the list-the overseers had chosen Davey. I had a conversation with Mr. Robinson in the House of Commons, when he told me that all the facts had not yet come before the public. The witness then detailed the proceedings as they took place in the revising barrister's court on the 5th of October, when the original list was traced to Mr. Kensett, and he refused to produce it.

Stephen Curtis, a vestryman of the parish. Davey printed the lists. There was a question asked at a parochial committee respecting a publication that had been in the newspapers. I said every word in it was true, and they were advised to be cautious in what they did. Mr. Kensett said, he had no hesitation in saying, that he had been the prime mover in this concern, and he did not doubt that any other vestryman would be equally proud to have the honour of being a freeholder for the county; they had put down a good many of the right sort, but he did not put down Mr. Curtis.

J. Mackintosh, the beadle, proved taking 42s. to the bank on account of the parish, for the county claims, by desire of Mr.

The Attorney-General and other counsel addressed the jury for the several defendants.

Lord Denman then summed up the case.

The jury retired at seven minutes to 10 o'clock.

About 11 a message was sent to his Lordship to say there was no probability of their agreeing, and to beg they might be discharged,

The learned Judge said, he could not possibly agree to that at pre

sent.

At a quarter past 1 the jury entered the court, and delivered the following verdict:" Stuart, Flood, Robinson, and Davey Not Guilly; Kensett and Glazier Guilty.'

COURT OF KING'S BENCH,
FEB. 11.

Tarr v. M'Gahey. Violation of the Reform act by an

Overseer of St. Pancras.

Sir W. Follett stated this to be an action brought by an elector of the parish of St. Pancras, to recover a penalty of 500l. against one of the overseers of that parish, for having, in contravention and disobedience of the provisions of the Reform Act, wilfully and corruptly placed upon the list of voters for the borough of Marylebone, the names of three persons

namely, Michael Gibbs, Alexander Frazer, and John H. Benham, who were not entitled to be so placed, or to vote in the election of members to serve in Parliament. The defendant, M'Gahey, filled the office of overseer of the parish; and the question for the jury to consider would be, whether, in that office of trust so confided to him, he had wilfully contravened and disobeyed the provisions of

;

the act, by placing fictitious votes on the list. There were three instances laid in the declaration one was that of Michael Gibbs. The collector was present, and the defendant being about to put down his name, the collector said, "That man is not entitled to vote —he has not resided a sufficient length of time on these premises, and has not paid his assessed taxes." The reply of the defendant was "It is no business of yours; I shall put down his name as a voter." That name was objected to, and was subsequently struck off by the revising barrister. The next instance was that of John H. Benham, of No. 16, Meltonstreet; and the collector apprised the defendant that that person also had not paid his assessed taxes. The defendant, notwithstanding that caution, said, it made no difference, and put him down. That name was objected to, and struck off. The third instance was that of Alexander Frazer, of 6, Tottenham-court, New-road. That person was well known to the defendant, and they had acted on behalf of the same party together. The same statement was made by the collector that Frazer had not paid his rates, and was not entitled to vote. What, however, did the defendant do? He spelt the name "Frazier ; and when the opposite party sent in an objection to his name, knowing him to be a bad vote, the defendant placed the objection opposite the name of another Alexander Frazer, of Upper Seymourstreet, who was in reality a good vote, and to whom no objection was intended. When the case came before the revising barrister, of course the objection was disallowed, and the bad vote of Alex

ander Frazer of Tottenham-court, to which no objection was made, was allowed to stand, and it actually still stood upon the list as a good vote. The barrister had no right nor authority to strike him off, and the overseer subsequently corrected the misnomer which he had himself intentionally made, and had the name altered by the revising barrister from " Frazier" to" Frazer."

Samuel Straight, deputy returning officer for the borough of Marylebone.-I produce the list of voters as revised by the revising barrister. It is signed by the overseers of the poor, and by the defendant, "John M'Gahey, clerk to the directors of the poor of the said parish."

The

John Stewart.—I am one of the overseers of the parish of St. Pancras. The defendant is also one there are four others. The duties of the overseers are to relieve the poor, under the directions of the directors of the poor. Appeals relative to settlements are defended by the overseers. defendant has acted as overseer, and also as vestry clerk, and clerk to the directors and guardians of the poor. He holds several offices. I did not assist in making out the lists. I signed it on the 31st of July, and appeared subsequently before the revising barrister. There were questions put to the defendant by the revising barrister. Mr. M'Gahey extended the circumflex, so as to include the name in the list of overseers. He did that in consequence of objections made by the other party, that he was acting as overseer, although he signed it merely as clerk to the directors.

Thomas Coventry, revising barrister for the borough of Marylebone.-I revised the lists for the

Mr.

parish of St. Pancras. Mr. M'Gahey produced the lists, and I called for the overseers. One gentleman, Mr. Stewart, I believe, said he was an overseer; and Mr. M'Gahey then said he was one, that the addition to his name was a mistake, and that the circumflex should have included his name as one of the overseers. The circumflex was then extended, but I cannot say by whom. M'Gahey then acted as overseer, during the revision of the lists. I see the name of Michael Gibbs, 6, Belgrave-street; his name is erased, and my initials added, which satisfies me that his name was objected to and struck out. I took no notes. The name of John H. Benham, 17, Melton-street, is also struck out, but I do not know anything of the ground of objection. I see the name of Alexander Frazer, 65, Upper Seymour-street; there was an objection to it, but the objection was disallowed, and the vote was allowed to stand. There is also the name of Alexander Frazer, 6, Tottenham-court, New-road; that was not objected to. There was a list of objections handed in by the overseers, which we first went through. The name was originally Frazier;" it was altered to "Frazer," but by whom I cannot tell, as I did not take any note.

Cross-examined. The revision lasted four days. Mr. Scadding was in attendance, and supported the objections taken by his party, which were very numerous. I think all the objections were given in the name of John Tarr, the present prosecutor. There were several hundred objections by him. I overruled about half of the objections. Mr. Tarr was in the room, but took no active part; he

left it to Mr. Ernest and Mr. Scadding.

James Thompson, collector of assessed taxes in the parish of St. Pancras.-I collect in the west and south divisions. I attended on the 22nd of July last, at the vestry-room to assist in preparing the list of voters. The defendant called over names from a list he held. I recollect his calling the name of Frazer, 6, Tottenhamcourt, New-road. I said, he had been very remiss in paying his rates, that he was very much in arrear, owing 31. 7s. 6d. I have since recovered the amount, having levied by distress. I called the defendant's attention to some names he passed over. He said, "Never mind, go on; answer my questions; you are not to put questions to me.'

John Chapman, collector of assessed taxes for part of the south and west division.-I attended the defendant on the 21st of July with my books. I saw Thompson in attendance. There was a question whether a person had paid the poor-rates. Defendant said, "Never mind-go on;" he said this in a sharp tone.

William Body.-I am clerk to Mr. Scadding. I was at the registration court. I appeared in support of the objection of Alexander Frazer. The barrister did not allow it to be gone into. Two others were objected to in the same interest, and were struck out. Defendant applied to have the name of Frazier altered.

P. Thisselton, collector of assessed taxes.-I attended the defendant with my books. I told him Gibbs did not live at the place he stated, as the house was unfinished. He told me to go on, and call another name. I told

him he was not assessed. He did not call the names regularly; he was looking at the poor-rate book. I told him it had never been done in that way before. He said he should do it as he pleased. I re. member his coming to the name of Benham, of Bennett-street, Euston-square. I told defendant he had not paid his assessed taxes due on the 6th of April previous. He told me to go on.

Cross-examined.-I called over the names with the defendant. I know Gibbs, he is a vestryman; there was no assessment of his house.

'Re-examined.-We went over 3,500 names. He did not call over the names regularly. He only called over particular names. The attorney-general then addressed the jury for the defendant. The Jury having retired for a short time, gave a verdict for the plaintiff for 501.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT,

MARCHI 2 AND 3. The Custom-house Robberies. William Jordan, alias Leary, aged thirty-three, labourer, Thos. Sullivan, aged twenty-six, labourer, Henry Mott, aged thirty-four, clerk, and Thomas Seal, aged thirty-eight, clerk, were put to the bar on an indictment which charged them with having, on the 27th of November, 1834, broken and entered the custom-house, and stolen therefrom property to a great amount, consisting of cash and bank notes.

himself. In November, 1834, there was a considerable sale of property at the customs, as well as one a few months before, the produce of which would come into his hands. He had 4,292l. 118. 9d. belonging to the crown, besides about 201. of his own, and 400l. belonging to a Mr. Billings in the chest on the 27th of February. The money was principally in notes, obtained in exchange for gold from the Bank. [Here witness produced an account of the property stolen.] The chest was deposited in his own private office in the inner room; it was secured by two padlocks. There was a stork lock, but it was out of order, and not locked. The keys of the padlocks were kept one by himself, and one by the accountant of petty receipts. His own key was kept on his per. son, or locked up in his desk. There were two clerks in the office, and besides these no others had access to the office except on business. He saw the chest safely locked on the evening of the 27th of November; the key was left in his desk. When he came to the customhouse next morning, he heard a rumour, and, on going into the office, he found the padlock of the accountant of petty receipts broken. His own padlock was locked, and the key was in the drawer, the lock of which was broken. There were some foreign securities in the chest, which were left behind. The money was in three cashboxes in the chest. He knew Mott as a clerk in the King's warehouse. He did not know any of the others. He had in the office a book in which he entered the name of the person who paid money, the amount, and the manner in which it was paid, that was whether in gold or notes.

On the morning in question he found that all the leaves of that book were torn out. The witness identified several notes as being some of those lost from the chest. John Beeston, a clerk to the accountant of petty receipts, examined by Mr. Bodkin. On the 27th of November, 1834, he was in Mr. Walsh's office. On that day the money was safe in the iron chest. He fastened the comptroller's padlock to the iron chest (a lock and key produced). These are the lock and key. [This witness corroborated the statement of the receiver of fines, as to the manner in which the chest was found on the morning of the 28th.]

Samuel Sterke. He was em ployed by the customs as extra tide-waiter. It was his business to attend the fires, and to extinguish them when the clerks and officers went away. He recollected going into Mr. Walsh's office on the evening in question, The

clerks had not then left the office. There is a passage door from the receiver's office, which was closed when the clerks left. He closed it on the day in question with a spring lock. He then went round to fasten another door, and any one might have passed into the office when his back was turned. Witness locked the door on the south side with a pick key, and took that key to the house of Mr. Billings, He went on the morn ing of the 28th, and on opening the south door of the office he found everything as he had left it. Mr. Joseph Peel said, he was a clerk in the Bank of England, in the bank-note pay-office. (Three 3007. notes handed to witness.) He paid two of them on the 27th of November; the numbers were

2,309 and 2,310, and dated the 14th of November.

William Huey, an accomplice, examined by the Attorney-General.

He was appointed a landingwaiter in the customs in September, 1827. His father was collector of customs in Drogheda, Ireland. He became acquainted with Seal, who was a landingwaiter, and searcher like himself. He had had a difference with him, which was made up in June, 1834, and they became intimate again. Shortly after the renewal of the acquaintance he made a proposal to witness, saying that he intended to rob the custom-house. They used to meet at publichouses; sometimes at the Duke of Sussex, Peckham, at the Royal Mortar, in the London-road, at the Castle, Kent-road, and at the Three Kingdoms, Harp-lane. When he spoke of the robbery, he asked him to go to the Three Kingdoms to meet a person named Mott, a clerk in the customs. They went there; and when Mott came, Seal mentioned the robbing of the office of fines and forfeitures. Mott said the next sale would be small, but the following ones would be larger. Witness went to Ireland in August that year. Before that and after, he often met Seal and Mott at different publichouses. He first met Jordan and Sullivan, in June, at the Royal Mortar, London-road, and became acquainted with them through Seal and Mott. He afterwards met Sullivan and Jordan in Dublin, on his return from Drogheda, and they proposed robbing the custom-house in Dublin, or that of Drogheda, or any thing that he could help them to. He told them he could not help them to any thing of the kind there, and