§ MR. WOODS () Lancashire, S.E., InceI beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to the alleged wrongful imprisonment of Charles Barton at the Leigh Police Court, Lancashire, on Monday, July 30; whether he is aware that at the hearing of the case evidence was given by four witnesses that Barton was at Astley, which is more than a mile from the place where the assault was committed on the police constable, at the time when the offence was committed, and that not one single independent witness gave evidence against Barton; whether he is aware that the Chairman of the Magistrates admitted that the evidence showed that 765 Barton was not present when the assault was committed, and that Sergeant Gledhill and Police Constable Shaw saw two persons named Speakman and Leech on the Sunday, the day previous to the hearing, and were told that Barton was at Astley at the time the offence was committed at Tyldesley; that the two policemen refrained from giving this evidence at the trial; and that the Magistrates convicted Barton on the ground that he might have been present; and if lie will cause a strict inquiry into the circumstances under which he has been convicted?
§ MR. ASQUITHI have had careful inquiry made, and have received a Report, together with the evidence, from the Clerk to the Magistrates by whom the case was heard. Evidence was given by three witnesses on Barton's behalf as to his whereabouts on the night of the assault, but on the other hand police constable Duncan, who was corroborated by another police constable, swore positively that when he, Duncan, was on the ground Barton came up and kicked him on the leg; that he knew Barton well, and called out, to him, "I see you, Barton," and Barton bung down his head and ran to the back of the crowd. The Chairman did not, admit, that the evidence showed that Barton was not present when the assault was committed. On the contrary, be said that the Magistrates believed the evidence of the police. Serjeant Gledhill and police constable Shaw were told by Speakman and Leech on Sunday before the hearing that Barton was at Astley at the time the offence was committed at Tyldesley. The constables could not themselves give this evidence. At the hearing Speakman was a witness. Leech was not. It was thought his evidence would be immaterial. He spoke to the defendant being at Astley at 7 and at 10 o'clock, but the assault took place at 9.30. I see no reason to question the justice of this decision or the propriety of the sentence.