MARY PARKER examined.--I am the daughter of Richard Tidd; I live with
my father; I remember the police officers coming and finding some boxes
and things in our lodgings; they came about half-past eight; those
things had been in the house when they came, about a quarter of an
hour; they were brought that morning; among them were the pike staves;
it was no person in my father’s employment who brought them; he had
been taken into custody the night before; I know a person of the name
of Adams; I have seen him at my father’s; I know a person of the name
of Edwards; I have also seen him there; he has been there often; I have
seen similar things before the officers came; I believe these to be
the same things; Edwards took part away; I do not know who took the
rest; he took them away on Wednesday; my father did not take them away;
Edwards did not take away the box; he only took away some things that I
have since heard were used; the box was brought a day or two before my
father was taken; it never was uncorded; Adams brought a large grenade;
I do not know what Edwards was.
The Attorney-general declined asking this witness any question.
EDWARD HUCKLESTONE examined by Mr. Curwood.--I know a man of the name
of Dwyer. I have known him for some years. Latterly I have known him
intimately. I used the same public-house. I do not think he is to be
believed on his oath.
Cross-examined by the Attorney-General.--I saw him with plenty of
money, and knowing that he had little or no work, I was surprised. I
was in distress. He told me he would put me in the way to make plenty
of money, if I would go with him. I agreed; and he proposed that we
should charge gentlemen with an unnatural offence. That he was to go up
first, and then I was to join him. I left him quite shocked. This was
about three months ago. He said he had got ten pounds at a time from a
gentleman in St. James’s-street, by only catching him by the collar,
and accusing him. I met him the next night at the Rodney’s-head, and
he called me a coward. I told him of the danger, and reminded him that
his brother had been transported for the same thing. He said he knew
better how to general it than his brother. I ought to have communicated
it to a magistrate; but I was afraid of falling a “wictim” to the
Irishmen who lived in the neighbourhood. I have spoken to him since. I
was a shoemaker, but am now articled to a cow-doctor in Newman-mews.
I first communicated this to my brother, about a week ago. I did not
mention it before, lest I might be ill-treated, as I had to go so
much about among the cows. Some of the Irishmen have gone away from
the neighbourhood now, and that induced me to summon up courage to
mention it to my brother. I did go with Dwyer to the Park, but I was
always struck with the horror of the thing. When I saw the names of the
witnesses in this case in the paper, I made the communication to my
brother.
(The witness was desired not to go out of Court.)
Mr. JOSEPH DOANE examined by Mr. Adolphus.--I am called the Court
Reporter; I prepare for the newspapers an account of the movements of
the Court, the cabinet dinners, _&c._ I send the same accounts to six
papers, among others to _The New Times_, [Looked at the announcement
in the _New Times_, of the cabinet dinner, on Tuesday the 22d of
February.] The intelligence respecting the Court in this paper I sent.
The paragraph respecting the cabinet dinner, from the wording, I think
I did not send. I think so from the use of the word “grand;” cabinet
dinners are always alike, and I do not think I used the word “grand.”
ANDREW MITCHELL: I am printer of _The New Times_; I produce the
original of the paragraph respecting the cabinet dinner, announced in
_The New Times_ on the 22d of February.
Mr. Doane recalled: That is not my manuscript; I always write from a
manifold.
Andrew Mitchell: I did not receive that from Mr. Doane, but from a
person of the name of Lavenue, who furnishes things in the same way.
JOHN WHITTAKER: I searched in eleven newspapers of the 22d of February
for the annunciation of a cabinet dinner at Lord Harrowby’s, and in
none of those papers was there such an announcement as that in _The New
Times_.
The Attorney-General: These papers ought to be here.
The Chief Justice Abbot: Strictly speaking, they ought to be here.
The witness: _The New Times_ alone had the annunciation of the dinner
at Lord Harrowby’s on the 22d of February.
Mr. Adolphus: This is all the evidence I intend to offer on the part of
the prisoner.
Mr. Gurney: I wish, my Lord, that Dwyer should be again called.--The
witness, Dwyer, was then again put in the box, and examined by Mr.
Gurney: I do not know a man of the name of Hucklestone.--[The witness
Hucklestone was desired to stand up.]--Dwyer: I know that man, but did
not know his name was Hucklestone. I have met him in Oxford-road. Not
in a public-house. I never proposed to him to charge any person with an
unnatural offence. In February last I was at work at the parish mill,
and got three shillings. I have a wife and family.
Cross-examined: I did not know Hucklestone by name. I saw him with
other chaps at the corner of James-street, near where I live; but
I never associated with him. I have seen him in Hyde-park. I never
went into a public-house with him. I resorted to the Rodney’s-Head,
but never knew him to resort there. I have not repeatedly met him
in a public-house. I don’t know that I can swear I never saw him
in a public-house. I will swear I have not been with him at the
Rodney’s-Head within this three months. I am a bricklayer by trade, and
worked fourteen years for one master.
Mr. Adolphus now entreated permission to be allowed till the ensuing
day to prepare himself to address the Jury on the part of the prisoner.
The state of exhaustion to which he had been reduced, as well as the
shortness of the time which had elapsed since he had received his
instructions, and the great importance of the duty which he had to
perform, where the life of a fellow-creature was at stake, the more
imperiously impelled him to entreat this indulgence, if consistent with
the views of the Court.
The Lord Chief Justice felt the propriety of the appeal, and after some
conversation relative to the convenience of the Jury, the Court was
adjourned till the following morning.