APPENDIX TO CHRONICLE. 



309 



the crown, but which did not ap- 

 pear to have been relied on as evi- 

 dence, did or did not influence 

 the jury in their verdict. 



On the motion for the new trial, 

 considerable stress was laid for 

 the defendant, on the circum- 

 stance that the instances of the 

 alledged false tickets, which were 

 confined to the assessment of 

 1S09, were only live, and that 

 the sums alleged to have been 

 fraudulently charged were incon- 

 siderable. 



This latter occurrence led to a 

 further examination of the assess- 

 ments and accounts between the 

 defendant and Price, and it result- 

 ed in the discoveiy of several fur- 

 ther and like instances of fraud, 

 under similar tickets for taxes, 

 not only in the year 1S09, but 

 also in the years 1806, 1807, and 

 1808, and the greater part of 

 these sums was traced into the de- 

 fendant's hand. A second infor- 

 mation was accordingly filed by 

 the .attorney General, founded on 

 these new charges of long prac- 

 tice, to which the defendant plead- 

 ed not guilty, and both informa- 

 tions stood for trial at these as- 

 sizes. On the trial of the new 

 information, on the 4th instant, 

 whicli stood lirst on the paper, 

 and occupied nine hours, the 

 charges werefully established, and 

 the defendant was found guilty. 



The learned Judge (Mr. Baron 

 Richards) animiidverted, in strong 

 terms, on the improper conduct 

 of the defendant, in hjii'ing uni- 

 t:d the character of commissioner 

 witii that of assessor and collec- 

 tor, which his Lordship con- 

 sidered to be not only illegal but 

 criminal ; and his Lordship 

 observed, that the evidence in 

 support of the defendant's good 



character could not weigh against 

 facts. 



After the circumstances of the 

 case in the new trial of the first 

 information had been stated to 

 the jury on the following morn- 

 ing by the counsel for the crown, 

 the defendant pleaded guilty. 



These prosecutions excited very 

 considerable interest throughout 

 the county, and the court was 

 croN\ded to excess. 



Marginson v. Howard. — This 

 was a qui (am action for a breach 

 of the game laws. The defend- 

 ant was a carrier between Orm- 

 skirk and Liverpool. The chief 

 witness against him was William 

 Wvberlev, a surgeon at Orras- 

 kifk. On the 25th of August, 

 the defendant entered Ins house 

 at 8 o'clock in the evening. He 

 had game in his pocket. Witness, 

 with a little opposition from How- 

 ard, took out a partridge, and 

 gave it to his father. Howard 

 then goodnaturedly drew out 

 another, and gave it to witness, 

 saying " that will make you a 

 brace." Another person of the 

 name of Nixon, who was present, 

 after a little struggle, took two 

 more from him. Howard said 

 the birds were given him, and 

 tliathe did not kill them himself. 

 Being cross-examined, the witness 

 allowed tliat Howard did not of- 

 fer tliem for sale — that the strug- 

 gle in which they were taken 

 from him was rather jocular than 

 serious — and that he never de- 

 manded j)ayment for his game, 

 and never received any, though 

 tlie witness allowed that it was 

 delicious. 



On this evidence the learned 

 Judge directed to find for the 

 plaintiff. Possession here was 



not 



