COURT OF KING'S BENCH, WEDNESDAY, FEB. 10. Prosecution of Marylebone Vestrymen, for Conspiracy. The King v. Kensett and others.

THE indictment charged the defendants with having combined, conspired, and confederated, and agreed together, maliciously, wickedly, and corruptly, to insert fortytwo names in the list of voters made by the overseers for the parish of Marylebone, after it was signed by, and without the consent of, the overseers, and to cause a copy of such list to be printed and affixed to the church-doors, and to conceal such lists from the overseers, and to destroy the original list, and to cause to be transmitted to the revising barrister the altered list, and to induce the barrister to retain such forty-two names on the list, as being persons entitled to vote for members of parliament for the county of Middlesex.

Sir W. Follett stated, that the present was a most important case, both as regarded the nature of the offence and the position which the parties occupied. The defendants, except one, were vestrymen, elected under the provisions of an act of parliament, and the other of them (Flood) was the assistant vestry-clerk. They went out onethird annually, and the whole body were renewed every three years. They had the management of the parish funds, and the regulation of the parochial affairs, and they ought to have dismissed

from their minds all party motives, and should have regulated themselves in the discharge of their official duties by no other rule than that of a wish to do good to the public. The present defendants were all supporters of one of the members for the borough of Marylebone and one of the members for the county of Middlesex. By the 37th section of the Reform Act, the overseers were directed to make a list of the voters for the county, and to give notice to all persons entitled to vote to send in their names. These claims must be sent in previous to the 20th of July, and the overseers were then to make out the lists, with the Christian and surname, place of residence, and ground of claim to vote. They had also the power to write the words " objected to" against the name of any person on the list, and then to cause the list to be affixed to the doors of the parish church, and to keep a copy for public inspection. By that arrangement, all persons either having the right of voting, or claiming to have that right, had the power of inserting their names on the list. The overseers were then directed, by the 40th section, to send a copy of the lists to the high-constable and the clerk of the peace, and he was to produce the list signed by the overseers before the revising barrister. No power was vested in any other person, either to strike out or put in any name upon the list. In the vestry of the parish of Marylebone there

was a very great preponderance of one political party and the substance of the offence charged against certain members of that body was this:- They came to a resolution, "That a committee be appointed to assist the overseers in making out the elective lists for the parish for the year 1835." That resolution had been proposed by Mr. Kensett, one of the defendants, and on the next meeting of the vestry, Mr. Robinson, who was an attorney, and also one of the defendants, proposed a resolution "That no person be allowed to copy from the rate-books, and that, agreeably to the 32d section of the Vestry Act, no person be allowed to inspect the books of the vestry, unless he or she be a rate-payer, or a creditor of the parish." That was an illegal resolution; for as the right of voting depended upon the rating, every rate-payer was intitled to inspect and copy from the rate-books and although such a proceeding was not sanctioned by the act of parliament, the vestry passed the resolution. Mr. Harwood, the overseer, then received a letter from the defendant Flood, who was the assistant vestry-clerk, calling upon him to attend the self-appointed committee, and to assist in revising and preparing the lists. Mr. Harwood, however, remained in the court-house until the 20th of July for the greater part of every day, and there received the claims of all persons who chose to send them in. During that time he received 134 claims to vote for members for the county, and these claims were handed by him to the defendant Flood, the assistant vestry - clerk. There was then a meeting of the committee, at which Mr. Har wood was present, and the de

fendant Kensett commenced writing opposite the names of several of the claimants "objected to," although he had no legal authority to do so, and was at length stopped by Mr. Harwood. On the 24th of July the lists were signed by the overseers, Harwood and Garnett, and after that time no alteration or addition could be legally made to them; and now began the contrivance of the defendants. The defendants, Messrs. Kensett, Glazier, Stewart, Robinson, Flood, the vestry-clerk, and Davey, a printer, discovered, on looking over the lists, that their party had not so great a preponderance as they wished, and set about to get an additional number of names upon the list for their party. What were they to do? In the first place, the day had gone by. In the second place, there were no freeholders to put in claims; but neither of these obstacles stopped them. Their first object was to create votes. There was a burial-ground in the parish, which, under an old act of parliament, was vested in the vestrymen of the parish. It struck Mr. Kensett and Mr. Robinson, the lawyer, that they might create votes out of this burial-ground. There were 120 vestrymen in the parish, and their notion seemed to be, that each of them had a right to vote in respect of that burialground! No rational or sensible man could entertain so absurd an idea; but, as there were many gentlemen of the vestry not of their party, and many who would not have countenanced such a proposition, they resolved to select those only who had a strong political feeling on their side, or as Mr. Kensett expressed it, "Those of the right stamp." And, ac cordingly, forty-two yestrymen

were singled out, who, in the opinion of the defendants, would form a very judicious addition to the list of voters. They imagined that if they could introduce these forty-two names into the lists previously signed by the overseers, they would escape detection and run no risk of their being objected to. They attempted to make the overseers party to that scheme; and on the 28th of July, eight days after the claims could have been legally sent in, Messrs. Kensett, Glazier, and Stewart, went to the overseer, Harwood, and asked him to allow them to introduce these forty-two names, Mr. Harwood said he would have nothing to do with it. It was represented to him that their party would be benefitted by it; that they were persons of "the right stamp," but Harwood was firm. He said he had a public duty to perform, that he was responsible to the public, and could not countenance such a fraud. They pressed him further, and intimated that there were certain offices at the disposal of the vestry, any of which he could have; but he still refused. These applications were made more than once; they also applied to Mr. Garnett, but to no purpose. They then went to Davey, who was a member of the committee, and he, in order to assist his party, consented, without the authority of the overseers, to print a list having these forty-two names fraudulently introduced, and having the names of the overseers affixed thereto. These lists were affixed to the church doors of the parish in the room of the original lists, and the question was, what had become of that list made out by the overseers, of which they should have

kept a copy? The list was given by Harwood to Flood, by him it was given to Kensett, and it was not afterwards heard of. When the lists were brought before the revising barrister, he asked for the original list signed by the overseers. The overseers were examined, and they stated that that was not the original list-that it contained names not on the list. Flood stated, that he had given the original list to Kensett, and Kensett declined to answer any question. It would be proved that the proof-sheet of the list was seen at the court-house, in the hands of Flood. The sums of 1s. each on the original 134 names were lodged in the bank, to the credit of the parish, and Flood contrived to lodge the additional sum of 42s., for the forty-two surreptitious names, in the bank in the very same way.

Mr. Greenwell, vestry-clerk of the parish, produced the vestrybooks, and therefroin read the resolutions agreed upon by the vestry, as stated by Sir W. Follett. The receipts for the payment of 6l. 14s. and 21. 2s. into the bank of Sir C. Scott and Co., were endorsed County Claims." and were in the handwriting of the defendant Flood.

Mr. Mortimer, from the office of the sheriff of the county of Middlesex, produced the revised list of voters for the county of Middlesex in the years 1833, 1834, 1835. In the list for the parish of Marylebone in 1833, he did not see the name of Thomas Alsop, of Edmund Archer, or Artud Williams

The Attorney-General admitted that the forty-two names in question had not been on any previous list.

Charles Wright, of the office of

the clerk of the peace for the county of Middlesex, produced the revised list of the freeholders of the county of Middlesex for the last year.

Mr. Harwood resided in the parish of Marylebone, and was overseer there. Mr. Garnet was the other overseer. They both filled the office at the time of the preparation of the last list of voters. Gave notice to the voters two Sundays previous to the 1st day of July. Had claims to vote to the amount of 134, which he gave in to the vestry-clerk. Was not aware that a committee had been appointed to assist the overseers, till he received a letter requesting him to attend it. He attended the committee in consequence. Mr. Kensett acted as chairman, but he could not recollect whether Mr. Robinson was there; Mr. Stewart was there; Mr. Flood was also there. The claims were there also on two files. Mr. Kensett took the chair without any motion being made for that purpose. He (Mr. Kensett) took one of the lists of claims, and wrote against one of the names "objected to;" this the witness would not allow, and took the lists from him, and struck out the words he had written. Afterwards was ordered to make out the list of all claims, which he did. He afterwards prepared a list of the voters, to be placed on the church-doors; it was signed by himself and brother overseer. They signed that list on the 24th of July. Mr. Kensett wrote on that list to several names, in red ink, "objected to." The list, after being signed, was left with Mr. Flood, in order that it might be printed. Never saw the original list afterwards. The names inter

lined were not in the list when he gave it to Mr. Flood. This was the first time he had seen the paper since. He asked Mr. Flood for it, at the request of Mr. Coventry; he stated that he did not know what had become of it, but admitted he had seen it in Mr. Kensett's hands. Mr. Kensett was asked by Mr. Coventry where the list was, when he informed that gentleman the last time he had seen it was on the vestry-table. Did not make any inquiry himself of Mr. Kensett about the list. Recollected seeing Messrs. Kensett, Glazier, and Stewart on July 28. Saw the two former in the vestry-room together. Mr. Kensett said, they had been to his house, as there was property unrepresented in the parish. He said, there were claims which he wished witness to accept. Witness said, "Claims! what claims ? had not the parties put in their claims before the 20th of July, as he had sat at the court-house every day, from the 1st to the 20th of July?" To which Kensett replied, it was an after-thought. Witness asked if they had acquainted Mr. Garnett with it, and, on being answered in the negative, he asked the reason, when they said, they had more confidence in him. Witness would have nothing to do with them; when Mr. Kensett said, it was a pity, as they had forty-two of the right sort, and, as houses were property which could not be depended on, he should have any situation in the parish that he would name, if he would do it. Witness went

Why

down stairs, intending to go home. As he was walking along the street, he looked round and saw Stewart at his back, and Glazier and Kensett on each side of him.

Witness ran across the road to get rid of them, but they kept close to him. Went into a public-house kept by his friend, to avoid them, Afterwards saw Kensett and Glazier there. They supped there and they wanted him to leave with them, which he refused, as he was glad to find himself safe at his friend's. Afterwards saw Kensett, who said he had some money for him, but he refused to take it, as he did not owe him any. Saw Mr. Flood ticking off some names in the list, and saw two sovereigns by his side; this was in the vestry

room.

Cross-examined. When it was proposed to add the names to the list, there was no objection made to tell the names. All that he knew was, that their number was forty-two, and that they claimed to vote as vestrymen and trustees for the stone-yard and buryingground. The list, with the forty two names, was put on the church doors on the 2nd and 9th of August. Knew on the Friday previous that the list was to be put up on the Sunday. Knew that it was to be put up with his name and that of Mr. Garnett attached to it. Did not order any other list to be put up. He had no doubt in the week between the 2nd and 9th of August, that the list had been put on the churchdoor on the 2nd of August. Knew after the 9th of August that the list had been put up again on that day. Objections came in to five of the names in the list afterwards. Jeremiah Garnett, the other overseer. The substance of this gentleman's evidence was, that, when he signed the list, the fortytwo names were not in it; that a proof-sheet was sent with the manuscript to him for examination;

that he looked at the print, and his son read the manuscript; the forty two names had then been inserted, but he was not aware of it, as, not suspecting fraud, he had not looked at the manuscript. Mr. Robinson called on him on Saturday, the 1st of August. Α conversation ensued relative to the forty-two names, when Mr. Robinson told him that, as overseer, he might scratch the names out if he pleased. Witness replied, they had scratched themselves in without his knowledge, and they might scratch themselves out as they could. Had never given any au thority to any one to alter the list.

In cross-examination the witness stated, that he had not given orders that the altered list should not be put on the church-doors, nor had he ordered any person to put up another list.

Charles Hibble.-Was a ratepayer. Saw Mr. Flood from the gallery in the vestry-room ticking off some names on the list. Applied directly to look at the list; it was immediately sent out to him; there were ticks against the forty-two names. In about half an hour after, saw the banker's receipt brought for 21. 2s., and Mr. Flood wrote upon it "County claims." I told Mr. Harwood, in Mr. Flood's presence, of the fortytwo names being inserted in the list, and cautioned him, as no claims had been received for them, and told him the consequence of allowing a false list to be published, and said, if it was permitted, I should bring the whole before the public. Mr. Harwood replied, that he had delivered in his list to Mr. Flood, and had done with it. Mr. Harwood declared he had never received any claims for those forty-two names.