The Express.
London, England, 1864-02-01 00:00:00

"111 QUIZ ( V. HEASZ.

This was an indictment for pigmy found in the Crated
Criminal Court. and which had been moved into this court
by certiorari with a view to its beteg quashed, on the ground
that the grand jury of the Central Criminal Court had no
juriediction to entertain the matter. The indictment was
for perjury alleged to Save been committed by the defendant
in giving evidence before a naval oourtemartial appointed to
investilate 0111Tiais charges preferred agaiest the prosecutor,
John Armitage. The crown bad interposed to quash the
indictment on the ground that it was a matter connected
with naval discipline, and the objection was that the indict-
ment had been preferred and found contrary to the 22nd and
lied Via, ehap. 17 (the Vexatious Indictment Act), which
provides that no bill of indictment for perjury, Sc., shell be
presented to or found by nay grand jury name the prose-
cutor has been before a magistrate and was bowed by recog-
nisance* to give evidence, kc.
Mr. M. Chambers, Q.C., and Mr. West appeared forth.
crown ; Mr. Bailment Ballasting, Mr. Giffard, end Mr. Y.
H. Lewis for t►e prosecution....

Mr. SerjeautHestia' maid the defendant bad pleaded to
the indictineet, and the came was tips for trial. He ob-
jected to the quashing of the indictment, Bret oe thegroued
that the application was too late. It should have Tess be-
hive sod not after the defendant had pleaded ; secoodly, that
it could not he quaehed on affidavits ; and thirdly, that it
was not Re indictment for perjury, a court-martsal not being
a judicial proceeding.
The Lord Chief Justice—lf it is not perjury what is it!
Mr. Sergeant Ballaatine said some false oaths were is-
thetas* but they were not perjury, amid this cheese was
framed wider the 24th and 25th Vie., cap. 115, sec. 57, the
Naval Discipline Act, which made it a miedennoutour, sub-
ject to iterteis pertalMes, for wilfully sad corruptly giving
false evidence before a court-mart'aL

Mr. M. Chambers urged that it was competent for the
court to quash the indictment after plea had been pleaded,
and so quash the proceedings. The grand jury in this case
had no juriedletioe to eetermie it if the indictment was for
perjury, as he contended It was. The net
was prohibitory In the matter. False .wearing
ia a judicial proceeding had sever ceased to
be perjury, and woe Wilde' established a court of judi-
cial premediog, whether for important or miser come-
quenose, the commas law mooed to the false swearing
perjury. The Naval Discipline Aet did not create as
offence, but merely gave the power of punishing according
to the ;ales gime, sad that called twos the court to esis
upon the affidavits. as well us open the face of the iodic*•
meat, whether ia point of fact the defendaat was not charged
with perjury, whatever the form of the indictment might
be. The ary was alleged to have been committed as
board the • • to a °cart-martial en the prosecutor,
Mr. Armitage, and whatever was the formal affegatios (form
being wade& now) the court mud see it was nothing more
nor lies that as iedietisseet at oorameo law for oommittiag
perjury bikes a duly emintitated judicial tribunal, and that
It required no spaniel set to oonsiltute it web. The harsh-
nem of the peteeedhlp for the met at a prelimWary
Inquiry me exemplified le this ease, the dderat having
hien immediately as his arrival be We eozantil
es
• be knew teething of, but afterward,
as hal.

Mr. thelsrei &baths ill*. Alp so seaffed >tw
sessequist et tressm