Following examination of the birth registration books for the Great Howard Street sub-district by registration inspectors and the Liverpool superintendent registrar, Charles Chubb was arrested on Friday 8 September 1848.
The following morning, Chubb appeared before Mr Rushton, charged with 'obtaining money under false pretences from the parish officers of Liverpool, by inserting in the registers entries of births, which had never occurred, thus obtaining from the parish fees for the entries'. The Registrar General's inspector," claimed that there were many instances where Chubb had inserted false entries in the birth registers.
Seven cases, which had all been registered on 22 August 1848, were brought before the court. In five cases the mother had made her mark; on inspecting the marks, from a 'peculiar bend' they had, it was evident that they had all been made by the same individual.
A number of witnesses were called. They gave evidence that in some cases there was no such address, or that if there was, no person of the name entered in the registration book lived there. One witness, Eliza M'Kenna of Moss Court, Eaton Street, had given birth on 21 July. She had attended the registrar's office, but incorrect details had been entered - the child, called James, had been registered as Patrick, and the father's name as Thomas, when it too should have been James. She had never signed the register book, therefore the entry of her mark was a forgery.
Three months later Charles Chubb appeared before Sir William Erie, Justice of the Queen's Bench, 'charged under the General Registration Act: that he being registrar of births and deaths for Great Howard-slreet district, did feloniously make a false entry of the birth of Mary, the daughter of Ellen Bibby, of 4 Eaton-street, he well knowing such entry to be false and counterfeit'. There were three other indictments against him for similar offences.
The Attorney General stated the prosecution case to the jury. He went to great length to stress the importance of correct registration and outlined how it was implemented. He then described the events leading to Chubb's arrest:
'The prisoner was the registrar of the Great Howard-street district. He filled the office for some time and had discharged his duty properly, but it was afterwards discovered that the population in that district increased in a very extraordinary manner, for the entries were much greater than could possibly occur in any fair register. This led to inquiry, and it was found that the book contained a number of entries of births which had not taken place.'
He continued:
'The prisoner had registered on the 22d of August the birth of Mary, the daughter of Ellen Bibby, of 4 Eaton-street, which would lead to the conclusion that there was such a birth, whereas nothing of the kind took place. No such person as Ellen Bibby had resided at the house described, no such child was born, and therefore the whole of the transaction was false. The whole of the entry was in the handwriting of the prisoner, and there was the mark of Ellen Bibby, as furnishing the information. It was his intention to offer as evidence the fact that seven entries were made on that day, all of which were false.'
The first witness called was John Eckersley, assistant to the superintendent registrar for Liverpool. On 8 September he had gone to the prisoner and obtained the birth register. He produced a book which contained seven entries made on 22 August, one of which purported to be for the birth of Mary Bibby. All seven entries were in Chubb's handwriting and the informants had all placed a mark instead of a signature.
Under cross examination, Eckersley admitted to having gone round with a register and getting informants to sign the blank register book, taking down the details on pieces of paper, which were later copied into the book by the registrar.
James Jones deposed that he had lived at 4, Eaton Street for about three years and that no person of the name of Bibby lived there or in the street. Mary M'Crudden, who lived in the cellar under Jones confirmed that no child had been born there in the last twelve months and that she did not know of anyone called Bibby living in the street.
John Hughes entered the witness box. He was a clerk, employed by Chubb as an assistant to obtain details of births in the sub-district, for which he was paid one penny each. He had also been employed by Chubb's predecessor, Mr Walthew. Usually he took the register book with him to get it signed, but the details were put in a 'waste book' and copied into the register later. In the waste book he indicated with a cross those that could not write thier name. The entries in the book were, he said, in his own handwriting On 22 August he had not taken the register with him for signatures, he knew this because there were no crosses in the waste book. He added that he frequently found that false information of births had been given and in some cases had told Mr Chubb of it.
On cross examination, Hughes said that he had previously been employed by Dr Walton to keep his books and to carry out vaccinations for him - he was paid fourpence for each child vaccinated. Dr Walton had taken him before Mr Rushton, the magistrate, for charging for more than had been vaccinated, but the case had been discharged.
The defence then paraded a number of worthies who gave Chubb a 'an excellent character for honour and integrity', they included Mr J Eckersley and Mr Lovat
Chubb's attorney, Mr Wilkins, addressed the court
'No doubt several false entries had been made, and presuming the jury should acquit the prisoner of the felony, he must leave the court subject to the charge of negligence and irregularity. In the first instance, Mr. Chubb was in the habit of sending round a person, whom he employed as an assistant, to collect as much information as he could. Mr. John Hughes was so employed by Mr. Chubb, and after a time he unwisely thought that he could entirely repose confident in Hughes, and therefore, Mr. Chubb, partly to save himself the trouble of going round next day, having other business to attend to, he allowed Hughes to take the register book. Hughes still got the information and entered it in a waste book, but he got the informant to sign in a blank, and Mr. Chubb filled up the entry from the information received, taking it for granted that the information was correct. He copied the entries from the waste book, and then put his name to them, attesting that they were correct, implicitly believing that every one of them was correct. The Waste and register book would agree this. It was a fortunate thing for Mr. Eckersley that his confidence had not been abused, for he had done exactly the same as Mr. Chubb. Mr. Chubb was in receipt of between £300 and £400 a-year by his wife, and the same amount was settled on himself by his father. Was it, therefore likely that a man in his position, for a paltry consideration of a few shillings, would run the risk of confiscating the whole of his property, and rendering his wife and children the wife and children of a convict father'?'
After the Judge's summing up, the jury quickly returned a verdict of guilty to the charge of falsely making an entry in a register of births.
Mr Justice Erie passed sentence on Charles Chubb, registrar for the Great Howard Street subdistrict, at the Liverpool Winter Assizes on 14 December 1848, he admonished him with the following words:
'Charles Chubb, you stand convicted for the crime of making a false and counterfeit register of a birth in a register which it was your duty to have kept true. Yours is an offence which, in its consequence, is likely to produce the greatest possible inconvenience to society...........I think justice will be done in your case by sentencing you to be imprisoned in the House of Correction;and kept to hard labour, for the space of six months.'