The Express.
London, England, 1852-06-16 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, WEDNESDAY EVENING, JUNE 16, 1852.

Rath Intelligence.

punishment, sod should only direct that he be further irn-
' ',rimmed to Newaate for cis dap. The effect of this
rentenre would be his discharge on Saturday next, and
he could not help expressing an opinion that he would do
well to follow the excellent advice given him by his learned
counsel, sod refrain front soy further litiga i. 211,

COURT OF EXCIIEQUEIL—YarrsaDAT.
&m.o. AT Mu PAWS AT WIAIMINSICII.-.-BS/0/A TRU CUM
BAIMI A<l, A e 011116•11
CIII:1111 C. ALIIERMAN SALOMON/I.
. . .

This wee an action of debt, to obtain 105001. from the de-
fendant, the amount of penalties alleged to have been for-
feited by hint by illegglly voting three times in the House
of Commons, without having taken the oath of abjuration
in the form prescribed by statute.
The trial came on on Monday, but was not concluded, the
court rising on the conclusion of the pleintifVs case.
The court resumed thecase at its sittings yesterday, when I
Mr. Wines wee heard for the defendant. lie protested
against the attempt which bad been made by the plaintiff's
counsel to create a prejudice in the minds of the jury, the
object of which was to obtain a verdict, if that could not be
otherwise secured. This was not • common case. Mr.
Salomon was a gentleman who, for conscientious reasons,
bed declined to perjure himself by using words to which his l
coascienee could not anent ; and for which he was now
threatened to be visited with penalties of an enormous
amount, besides—ia the words of the statute—autfer-
ing penalties of another nature, by which he would
become incapable of exercising the rights of a
British subject. He (Mr. Willes) had, therefore, thought I
it his duty, and he had exercised his right, of insisting that
this case should ho proved throughout with the utmost
strictness. lie complained of the introduction by Mr.
James of matter into the case which was totally irrelevant
to it, and which was unfounded and untrue. lie had no
complaint to make of the officers of the house, although
they bad certainly shown considerable promptitude in giv-
ing evidence and in the production of documents essential
to the plaintiff s case. Ile would not touch upon the great
question, the root of this action. It might be that the non-
Illitlll,eloll of persons of the Jewish persuasion into parlia-
ment was bigoted. They were excluded by an act of par-
liament, the object of which was not to exclude them,
but to prevent Boman catholics from becoming members of
the house. The action of o. Salomon.' was brought
to ascertain the real state of the law on the case; but this
action was merely brought to extort penalties. The de-
fendant, being of the Jewish persuasion, was duly elected
member for Greenwich, and he had • perfect right to vote
for the election of Speaker, to serve upon committees, and
to exercise all the privileges of a member of parliament, ex-
cept that of voting in the house, which he had also • right
to do upon taking the oath of abjuration, having already
taken the other oaths. The evidence produced to prove
that Mr. &lemons had not taken the oaths showed that he
had taken every oath with the omission of the words On
the true faith of • Christian." Therefore the real question
was whether the omission invalidated the oath ; and that
was for the court, not for the jury. Ile did not know for
how many penalties the plaintiff was suing, but appre-
hended that not more than one penalty could be recovered.
His lordship said ill his opinion only one penalty could
be recovered. If a member of the House of Lords, who
bad not taken the oaths, had voted three or four times in
me night by proxy, more than ono penalty could not be
covered.

THE POLICE COURTS.
MA RLDOIIO G 11- ST REET,
John Ford, John Hone, !format Ailisle, Bober! John
Morris, Thomas Roberts, Alexander Linton, Janata Towns-
end, &beet Cooper, Henry Eltoes, henry John:son, Georye
KetllC, Baynes Wilson, Charles HaMilkM, Thomas Pelee,
Henry King, and Charles Lowden, were brought before
Mr. Bingham, charged with being found in a common
gaming.house,ll9, Jermyn-street, St. James's.
Mr. Otway, Superintendent of the C division, said—l
produce the authority which I received from the Commis-
sioners of Police, and acting upon that authority, this
; morning, about two o'clock, I went to No. 119, Jermyn-
street, known as a gaming-house, accompanied by in.
specters Black and Lester. On arriving at the house I
found the street-door closed, and on ringing the boll the
door was opened by the defendant Ford. 1 then proceeded
along the passage, and found a dour covered with green
I baMe with a small aperture in the centre. 1 knocked at the
dour, and a person looked through the aperture from whom
I demanded admittance, at the same time telling him I was
I a superintendent of police. Directly I had said this, it
appeared to hoe, from the sound, that the bolts of the
door were being more securely fastened. I then directed
the constables to force the door, and on gaining an entrance,
proceeded upstairs to the first-floor, where 1 found the
whole of the defendants, with the exception of Ford, who
had previously been taken into custody. Some of them
were partaking of refreshments, others were at a side table,
and the remainder were in the billiard-room at play. 1
I told them they must consider themselves in custody, and
commenced taking their names and searching them, and
various sums of money, amounting to near 6001., was found
upon them. 1 afterwards searched the premises, but did
not find any implement of gaming whatever. After com-
pleting the search, I found a person in the room who said
he was a aherirs officer, and who produced a warrant for
the apprehension of Keene. I arranged by paying him
60, out of the money found upon him, whereby Keene was
liberated from custody.
Other evidence was gone into, but nothing was adduced
to convict the defendants, who were at once discharged.

---11r:Willes continued—lt would hardly be a matter of
surprise that Mr. Salomous win; not desirous of assisting a
man in an action whose object was to get 1050 W. out of him;
but he (Mr. Salomon“) hail done his utmost to get the clues.
tion in the other action properly and legitimately put upon
the record and fairly tried as a question of Jewish dim.
bilities. That action was now before theEschequer Chamber
on a writ of error. Ile maintained that no °fleecy had
been committed against the act of George I. The evidence
that had been adduced was purely eircumstantiel, and he
denied that any evidence had been shown which could
prove to their entire satisfaction the actual voting of Mr.
Salomona en the house. _ _