The Express.
London, England, 1864-09-10 00:00:00

THE POLICE COURTS.

MANSION-HOUSE.

Oustare Stowell, a German, appaared before Mr. Alder-
man Waterlow, who wits sitting for the Lord Mayor, upon
• summons, charging him with having wickedly, wilfully,
and corruptly committed wilful and corrupt perjury in •
certain affidavit to hold to bail the complainant, made before
Mr. Heath, one of the commiaaioners to administer oaths at
common law.

Mr. Beasley, barrister, appeared for the complainant ;
and Mr. Wontner appeared for the defendant.

The complainer'', Mr. Ferdinand Fraekenhiem, it ap-
peared, bad for some years previous to August in the present
year, carried on the business of • diamond merchant. On
the 29th of that month he stopped payment, and was en-
gaged during that day in obtaining the signatures
of his creditors for a composition deed. The
charge of perjury against the defendant was coutained
in an affidavit which had been sworn to and signed before
Mr. Commissioner Heath, in which he stated that be bed
had • conversation with Mr. Frankenbeim, and thatgentle-
man had expressed his intention of quitting the country for
Paris, and he firmly believed he would leave the country if
not prevented. Upon this affidavit • writ was issued at
the suit of Watson, Cowell, and another, against Mr. Fran-
kenheim, and he immediately proceeded to make himself •
bankrupt and got • protection. There was also it appeared
another affidavit, which was signed by a person named
Bradlsugh, au articled clerk in the service of Mr. laminae
in which the deponent declared that he had reason to be!
lieve that the complainant bad transmitted • large quantity
of property abroad, and also bad raised • large
sum of money by moans of false bills and
cheques, which money he had also sent abroad ;
and lastly that he firmly believed that the defendant
was about to quit the country. To substantiate the charge
of perjury, Mr. Frankenheim stated on oath that until he
met the prisoner at the court, he never saw him in his life
to his knowledge, and certainly did not tell him on the 29th,
the day mentioned in the affidavit, that be intended to go
Paris, and that be never contemplated leaving the country.
On the 30th of August, it appeared, • gentleman named
Rebmann, saw the prisoner, and asked him how he had
dared to make an affidavit that Mr. Frankeoheim bad told
him he was going to leave the °pantry, telling the pri-
soner he bad never seen the gentleman, and he had com-
mitted deliberate perjury. The prisoner said be had not
committed perjury. He said • man named l)uffey bad told
him he could show him bow to earn 101, and took
him somewhere near the Stock Exchange, and
pointing oat a gentleman in a black coat sod white
waistcoat, told him it was Mr. Frankenheim. He then
took him to the office of Mr. Lavinia°, and they went into
Mr. Bradlaugh's private room. He was asked by Mr.
Bradlaugh if be had seen the complainant, and he said
he had ; and be was then asked whether he would make
'an affidavit that he was going to leave the country ; to
which the defendant replied that he had never spoken to
the man. Mr. Bradlaugh told him that it was • mere
matter of form, and would injure no one. The defendant
told Mr. Rebmann that he hail not sworn to anything • on
which that gentleman ailed if he did not have • gook
put into his band ; and, on his replying is the affirmative,
told him that was the oath. The prisoner told him be had
beep promised 10/., and bad received W., and that the
money was paid by Mr. Bradlaugh.
Mr. Woutner put some questions to Mr. Frankenheim,
who swore that the declarations set forth in the affidavit
signed by Bradlaugh ware also entirely false.
It was proved beyond doubt that the defendant had
signed the affidavit alluded to.
' Mr. Wonther made some remarks on behalf of the defen-
' dent, and referred to what he thought the unusual proceed-
ing of the Commissioner having in this instance attended at
the office of the solicitors to sip the affidavit. He said he
thought it would be as apparent to the alderman as it was
'to hint that the wrong party had been brought before the
court, and that instead of the defendant, those who bad
induced him to sign the affidavit ought to be proceeded
spinet to answer the charge of inveigling the defendant into
what was most decidedly as incautious act on his part. The
defendant had cot been long in England, and was not aware
of the customs of the courts. is Germany oaths were
administered before the government officials,and the off-hand
and hurried manner in which no doubt this affidavit had
been made,and there was no doubt it bad been made Ma hurry
from the fact of Mr. Heath being at the office to sign it, had
deprived the proceeding of that solemnity with which it
would be attended in has own country. The question was
whether the prisoner had committed wilful and corrupt
perjury. If the document were not read over to him—and it
appeared from the evidence that it was not, and be was not
aware of the contents, and in the bustle of the moment was
induced to sign it, having been told it was merely a matter
of form—he thought he should have the sanction of the
court. He was not guilty of wilful perjury ; but that the
parties who had allowed him to sign were really the parties
who ought to be proceeded against.
Mr. Alderman Waterlow said he had well weighed the
facto of the case, and the further the evidence went the
more important the case appeared. The defendant, in de.
fence, urged that be bail not committed the crime imputed
to him ; that he was • foreigner, and did not understand the
issportacceof thedocumeut besigned, and that he not havieg
had it read to bins was antiwar., of theeontents,and it seemed
to him that the defendant, as • mall of sense, could not have
thought he would receive • sum even of 31.—be was pro-
mised 10/.—for merely swearing to • document, unless there
was some ulterior motive to be gained by it. Still, at the
same time, be felt there were other parties who bad stissu-
lated the defendant to the act who were, no doubt, more
guilty than he ; but it would be his duty to retain the de-
fendant is custody, because if further proceedings were taken
his presence might be required. He should remand the case,
and perhaps those parties against whom imputations bad been
cast might wish to come forward and offer some sapiens,.
Coe. By that affidavit one of the judges of the land had
been iedneed to issue an important documant, which
authorised the arrest of Fraokeebeim, and he was quite
sum the judge. would feel with him that care ought to be
token to provost them being misled in that way.
Mr. Weston asked that his client might be admitted to
ball, but Mr. Alderman Waterlow declined to accede to his
request.