The Express.
London, England, 1847-06-25 00:00:00

lab) NUMyna..

COVET OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
Nears Lad Demean soda Special Joey.
Ton Quinn v. —Mr. Serjeant
'Wilkins and Mr. Edwin James appeared for the prosecution.
'The indictment charged the defendant with having tom-
witted wilful and corrupt perjury in an affidavit which be
had sworn for the purpose of verifying his aomplianoe with
en order of die linter of the Rolls. In a suit entitled
" Newton o. Askew," the object of which was to determine
whether a certain trait deed, executed by the late Sir R.
Ricketts, in the year 1840, for the benefit of Mrs. Augustus
Newton, his daughter, and her children, was cumulative on,
orb substitute for, a similar deed executed for the same ob-
ject in 1832, the Master of the Rolls ordered the defendant
to show certain books and documents to the plaintiff, giving
him permission. however, to seal up such portions of them as
he should by atillavit verify not to relate to the matters in
(helmet. The defendant exhibited the books and documents
partially sealed, verifying the propriety of the concealment
by an affidavit, which was the foundation of the present in-
dictment. An appliea.ion was subsequently mode to the
Master of the Rolls, which led to an order, made by content,
in virtue of which Mr. Campbell, an equity barrister, took
off the seals, examined the parties, and reported to the court
that some of the sealed portions of the books and documents
did contain matters relevant to the questions in dispute,
Mr. Campbell added that though he differed from the de-
fendant in tie judgment which the latter had exercised, be
arm bound to say that the defendant did not appear to him
to have acted from any corrupt or improper motive. This
indictment was then preferred. At the close of the case for
the prescution, Lord Denman, at the suggestion of Sir F.
monger, who, with Mr. °reeves, represented the defendant,
slaked the jury whether they could discover anythib/in the
'smere tondo of the defendant beyond a error of ju most
He, the learned judge, thought the defendant acted
with marked indiscretion, but conceived that the jury, in the
' absence of any proof of a corrupt motive, would hold that
nothing more could be attributed to the defendant One of
the juror', however, intimated that he thought the case re-
quired an answer.-81t F. Thesiger then addressed the jury
lot the defendant —Lord Denman having summed up, a
feedlot was returned fur the defendant

THY Quuex T. BLOC/L.—MANDAMUS TO RiATORE •
PA.11.1811 CLIRI.—Mr. fierjeant She. and Mr. Gnaws •11.
peared f r the prosecutor, who claimed to be the wink stork
of Walsoken, In the county of Norfolk, end hatidnin Wee
on a return to a writ of mandamus, comnsnedimi the ilehad-
ant, the rector, to restore hint to that once. The quinine
in the cue was, whether the prosecutor, Mr. Worth, bed
• ever been appointed to the office of parish clerk of Walsokm.
The evidence left it doubtful whether the prosecutor, who
set up an appointment by the late rector, and also one by
the defendant, and certainly had discharged the denies and
received the emoluments, had ever received an absolute ap-
pointment to the one. He had first acted durbg the in-
mamisency of Mr. Allington, a former rector ; but It wee tram
the time when Mr. Altin, the former clerk, when hewed
resignation or emotion could not be shown, had Imes tee eld
to discharge the duties. He had received somaddng We en
appointment from a gentleman who had been anted
by the bishop to act for the defendant
latter's unauthorised absence from the livieEttiLathell wean
not avail. There were also entries in the
and ether parochial documents, which ohm teat ins=
dant had acknowledged the prosecutor to be the porbb clerk;
but they left it doubtful whether the acknowledgment ezd
tended to the prosecutor's right to act, or was amesed to
the awn fact that the duties were discharged by him. Bir
P,Thealger and Mr. Bramwell appeared for the defendant,
be wines the verdict was ultimately given. Verdict for the
ilsabadma