The Express.
London, England, 1862-11-25 00:00:00

NOVEMBER 25, 1862.

Lab) intelligenct.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.

William Bayley Bray, a gentlemanlyilooking man, who
was stated to be • civil eagmeer, surrendered to take LIB
trial upon • charge at wilful and corrupt perjury
Serjeant Parry was spacially retained,
to conduct the prosecution. &lila Salentine, who 1011.9
also specially retained, and Mr. oollett, were counsel for
the defendant.
This case occupied the attention of the court for a con-
siderable time, and the circumstances under which the
charge wee preferred were of a complicated and some-
what unusual character. The prosecutors of the indict-
ment'were Messrs. Waterlow,.thelithographers and printers,
of Birohin-lane and Parliament-street, and they im-
puted the offence of wilful and corrupt perjury to the
defendant upon the following facts. It appeared that in
April, 1858, a person named James Crane, who it wan
alleged was jointly concerned with the defendant and •
person named John Arthur in endeavouring to get up •
mining company and dispose of some property in Car-
dingaushire, called the Hafod estate, applied to Messrs.
Waterlow to lithograph certain plans connected with this
property, and as the result certain work of this description
wan done by the prosecutors, the cost of which amounted to
71. 16s. During the negotiation with Crane he errodnced
an agreement purporting to be signed by the defendant
and Arthur, and which had reference to the
projected company, and to the shares that each of
the parties was to receive in the event of the; pro-
ject being carried out successfully, and this agreement
was left in the porcesion of the Messrs. Waterlow. There
appeared to be no doubt that the project for the promotion
of the company. was a failure, and the prosecutors found
some difficulty in getting their money, but no legal proceed-
ings were taken by them with that object until the month
of March, 1860, when an action was brought against the de-
fendant in the Secondaries' Court of the city of London, to
recover the money to which they were entitled for the work
that had been done by them. Upon the hearing of the
cause an endeavour was made to establish the liability of the
defendant by the evidence of Crane, and the production
of the agreement referred to, but the defendant
came forward and gave evidence to the effect that
he had nothing to do with the proposed company, and he
repudiated the agreement altogether. and said that the
signature of William Bray that appeared to it was not hie
handwriting, and that he always signed William Bayley
Bray. Upon this evidence the jury returned a verdict for
the defendant, and at the request of his counsel the agree
ment that had been produced was impounded. Sono
afterwards, however, the prosecutors received further
information, upon which they obtained the grant of • new
trial, which came on for hearing on the 12th of June,
1861, this delay, it appeared, having arisen from • variety
of causes. When this wooed trial came on Crane
was again examined, and he repeated the evidence he
had previously given : the defendant did not appear,
and the prosecutors obtained • verdict for the amount they
defendant was en dto the
Guildhall PoliTh c ee-court to answer • then
charge ofsummone wilful perjury
arising out of the proceedings already referred to, but
upon the hearing which took place before Mr. Alderman
Copeland tho summons was dismissed. Shortly after
this proceeding bad taken place at Guildhall the defend-
ant commenced an action against the Messrs. Waterlow to
recover damages for a malicious prosecution, and the canes
was set downier trialin November 1861, but on the day it was
appointed to take place the attorney for the defendant
withdrew the record. The cause did come on for trial
in the month of June in the present year before sir. Justice
Mellor, when the defendant was examined, and he repeated
the evidence that be had formerly given, and it was upon
certain portions of the evidence so given by him that the
arraignments of perjury contained in the present indictment
were founded. There were several distinct allegations of
perjury against the defendant, but the material ones that
were relied upon were that be had falsely sworn that he
was in no way connected with the mining speculation re-
ferred to, and that tho signature to the agreement was not
his handwriting. It should be stated that upon
the trial of the action for the malicious prosecu-
tion, the case of the defendant, the then plaintiff, broke
down upon his cross-examination, and his counsel elected
to be nonsuited ; and Mr. Justice Mellor, the learned judge
who tried the cause, gave his sanction fur the present pro-
secution being instituted.
A great deal of evidence was adduced in order to estab-
lish the charge against the defendant, • considerable por-
tion of which was of • documentary character, and con-
tinua of letters written by him to Arthur, one of the
persons named in the agreement, referring to the mining
property and the company that was proposed to be formed,
and which appeared to leave very little doubt that he was
a party to the proceeding, and was perfectly well aware of
all that was going on. In are of the letters that was
put in the defendant appeared to have specially referred to
the work that was being done by the prosecutors, and 000
of the witnesses swore that the defendant bad admitted to
him that he had signed the agreement which be sub-
sequently repudiated when under examination upon his
oath. Several witnesses were also examined who expressed
a positive opinion that the signature to this agreement
was the handwriting of the defendant. Evidence was like-
wise given to show that the defendant was not a member of
the lustitute of Civil Engineers, but that a gentleman named
William Bayley Bray was a member of the institute, audit
was suggested that for some purpose or other the defendant
bad &damned the name of that gentleman.
Serjeant Ballantine at the close of the case for the prose-
cution submitted that it ought not to go to the jury, inas-
much as there was • fatal variance between the form of the
charge as stated in the indictment and the evidence, it being
alleged in the former that the defendant committed the
offence imputed to him in the course of an action "duly
tried" by • jury, whereas by the evidence it appeared that
the jury did not dispose of the case at all, but that the
plaintiff consented to he nonsuited. This, be submitted,
was • fatal variance, and that the variance was of such •
character that the court had no power to exercise the right
vested in it by the statute of amending the indictment.
Serjesnt Parry contended that as far as was practicable
the action bad been " duly tried? The jury were sworn,
the witnesses were examined, and the jury were ready to
give their verdict, and would have done so but for the
act of the defendant himself, who withdrew from prosecu-
ting the inquiry any farther.
The Recorder, after some further discussion, said that at
present he did not think there was anything in the objec-
tion, but if, upon further consideration, he should see any-
thing to alter his opinion, he would reserve the point for
further consideration, if such • course should become

necessary.
on behalf of
Serjeant Ballantine having addressed the jury
the defendant,
Several witnesses, some of whom were persons of high
commercial position and respectability, were than examined,
and they stated that the defendant had always borne the
character of a highly honourable man, sod that they had
never heard the slightest imputation upon his morality or
integrity until this transaction.
The jury, after a short deliberation, returned a verdict of
Guilty, but at the same time recommended the defendant
to the merciful consideration of the court on account of the
character he had received.
The learned Judge mid he should defer passing sentence
until he had further considered the point of law that had
been raised on behalf of the defendant, and whether or
not he ought to reserve it for consideration by the Court
of Appeal in criminal cases.
Margaret Thompson, 40, &buxom looking woman, pleaded
guilty to a charge of feloniously marrying ames Quinlan,
her husband, Thomas Hart Thompson, bein J
alive.
In answer to questions put by the learned Recorder it was
stated that the prisoner left her first husband, and when
she had been married a short time to the second she left
him also, and then it appeare she went to the police-
station and gave herself up ore thd e present charge.
The prisoner said that the reason she left her first hus-
band was that be used to ill-treat her.
The Recorder said this was no excuse for her deceiving
the second husband. However, under all the circumstances
of the case, he thought the requirements of justice would
be satisfied by his sentencing her to three mouths' imprison-
ment and hard labour.
NEW COURT.
(Before T. Chambers, Esq., Q.C., Common Serjeant.)
The cases tried in this court during the day were those
prosecuted by the Mint authorities, and it has been ar-
ranged, that for the future all indictments against prisoners
for passing base coin will, in this court, take the precedence
I of the other business.