The Express.
London, England, 1849-07-19 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

HOME CIRCUIT.

) JULY 18 .

CRIL SIDI.-811,012 ML BAILOR ALDWOX AID ♦ S►CIAL JOLT.
BAYER V. RI:SR.-ALLEGED BRIBERY AT HARWICH.

This was a penal action, brought by the plaintiff, John
Balker, to recover from t►e defendant, George Rusk, two
separate penalties of 5001., for unlawfully corrupting Edward
Saby, a voter of the biroagb of Harwich, to give his vote
to Mr. Attwood, at the election for that borough in 1847
Mr. M. Chambers, Mr. Bramwell, and Mr. Rodwell, were
for the plaintiff. Serfeant Shee, Mr. Edwin James, and
Mr. Whitewall for the defecdant.

The following evidence was given:
Mr. J. R. R iyeer, a gentleman from the Crown-office, pro-
duced the writ end the other papers relating to tho election,
and also the poll books, which contained the name of the
voter Bazby. The letters B 0. wore affixed to the name.
Baron Leiden** inquired what these letter meant ?
The witness said they were intended to show that the
bribery oath had been administered to the voter.
Mr. W. Carrington, a deck in the office of Mr. Chapman,
solicitor, and town clerk of Harwich, proved that he acted
u poll clack at the election in 1847. He also deposed
that, at the request of the defendant, he prepared a bill of
sale of the vessel belonging to the voter Banby, in the tom-
menennent of 1848.

Edward Selby deposed that he resided at Harwich, where
be carried on the business of • fishermen, prior to the clic-
tion in 1847, and at that time he had • vote for the borough.
A atort time tuft re the election took place Lie
boat had been taken is execution as security for
• debt of 4U. odd, which he owed to • person
named Grips. lie expected that Mr. Attwood would come
forward as a candidate, and be bad some conversation with
another voter masted Trundle upon the subject, and &letter
was written to Mr. Attwood on the 29th o: June. A day or
two alter this he and Trundle went up to London and saw
Mr. Arwood at his private resideece in Park-lane, and in
nsequence of what took place there witness went to the
once in Birchin-lane, where he saw the defendant, Mr.
Bask, and while he was talking to him Mr. Attwoed came
in and went into an inner room, and the defendsnt joined
him, and he heard them talking rgetber. Witness shortly
afterwards saw the defecdant alone, and in-
formed him that he was in great trouble about his
boat, and that be wanted to borrow some money to
release it. The defendant replied that he did net see bow he
could to anything for him, but he would try, provided that
he voted for Mr. Attwood, sad that if he promised to do so
he would write to Mr. Hales and get him to release the beat.
Witness thanked him and left the uffic-, and the defendant
told him to call again the next day. Upon this occasion he
did not make any promise to vote for Mr. Attwood, but he
told the defendant that most I.kely he shnuld do so. Oa tke
following day witness called again at the files in Hirelein-
lane, and SAW the defendant, who told him that be bad
written to Mr. Hats, and if he 'grovel to tho terms hi
proposed the boat would be relbaud. Ho then returned
to Harwich, and the boat was given up to him.
Bikes the election came on he saw the defendant canvassing

is the town, and he mid to bias, " I suppose, flaiby, I may
depead upon you ?" Warmss replied that he would not
Et/Ile afterwards voted for Mr. Attwood, a plump:T.
drink es the morning of the election that
be did not know whether the bribery oath had been admi-
nistered to him ; but he wee told afterwards that it was. On
the day miter Mr. Attwood was elected, witness and another
tiseter went to the Cup Hotel, where his committee was
sitting, and they applied to that gentlemen and to the de-
fendant, who was with him, fir soma money to pay their
expenses and loss of time, sad the defeatism, in
shower to the 'pp:ice:Lin, told him that he ought
to be lidded with what he had got already, and that it
ttwhld net be safe to giro him any more, but he said that
whits he ears to London he might bring him some fish, and
Mr. Attwood told him that he:might bring him sumo also.
He afterwards did take them some Bth, and they paid him
for it. He did not have any further communication with the
defendant from this time until the following January, 1848,
when there was a talk of a petition being presented against
Mr. Attwooes return. Aboat this time he mat Mr. Rusk at
Harwich, •
t Mr.

and he told him that there bed been a petition to
unseat Mr. Attwood, and he wished the boat 11:0 be swiped
over to hiss, as he feared it would " but his
seat." Witness told him that he was surprised
at such • request, as he did not expect to have
been required to pay the money back, and the de-
fendant then told him that there was no occasion for him
to be frightened, as he should never troub!es him for it; that
he must see Mr. Hake, and arrange about executing a bill of
sale, which was prepared by Mr. Chapman. and witness
executed it. Witness was efterwards subim-oted to attend,
sad gave evidence before a committee of the House of Com-
aims, and he was examined by the counsel for the petitioner
=the return of Mr. Attwood The witness concluded
demos by stating that after the committee had decided
against Mr. Attwood, his boat was sold under the bill of sale
for 201.
Berjeant Shoe said that, with his lordship's permission. he
should postpone the cross-examination of the witness until he
had heard the rest of the evidenos.

Mr. Hales deputed to the nature of the transaction re-
lating to the boat in the first instance. He likewise pro-
duced a letter written by the defendant, in which he offered
to pay the amount of the debt by a sum of 101. down, and
the remainder by instalments of 51. per month. He (wit-
nt as) agreed to the terms, on condition that the expenses
were included, and he subsequently received the sum of 101
through a London broker on account of the defendant ; and
the instalments agreed upon were also paid. The defendant,
it appeared, in one of his letters to the witnews' had stipu-
lated that when the amount of the debt should have been
paid, all the securities should be banded over to him, end
that ne should be placed in the same patios as Mr. Grice.
Susannah filaxby. the wife of the termer wilt's% deposed
that in February, 1848, the defendant came to her house end
told her that a petition was about to be presented against the
return of Mr. Attwood, and he wished the boat to be trans-
ferred to him by her husband for the amount that had been
advanced, and he at the same time said that he need not
mind doing it, for he should never want the money of him.
In consequence of the boat being seized atter Mr. Ruth had
made this promise, she went to him to plead with bim not to
sell it, telling him what a sacrifice it would be, and offering
to pay the money ley instalments H refused, however ;
and it appeared to her tbat if Mr. Attwood bad not been
unseated he would never have required the money of them.
The boat was ultimately sold for 201. She had cost 1201. two
years before.
The son of the lag witness having given similar evidence,
Baxby, the voter, was then mewled, in order that he
might be cross-examined. In answer to questions put to him
by Serjeant Shoe, he said that when he was examined before
the committee he never snide word about seeing Mr.Attwood
at the office in B.rethin- lane. He knew that he was being
examined an behalf of the petition to uns.at Mr. Attwood.
and he was examined with reference to what took place at
Birchia-lane, but still he did not say a word about seeing
Mr. Attwrioti there.
Seejeant Shee asked the witnem to explain how it wee
that, knowing he was required to state all he knew upon the
subject, he had omitted to inentith the circumstance, if it
was true ?

The witness replied that Mr.Attwood had befriended him,
and so he did nut like to say more than he could help
egainat
Mr. Baron Alderson (to the witnees)—And you at the
same time forgot the solemn obligation you snre under:to
tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Crnveunsination continued—He also omitted to tell the
committee that he mode a second visit to the office in
Binhin-lane. He forgot the circumstance. He did not say
anything about the detendant td Bing him that he had written
to Mr. Halts, Sad that if he agre►d to his terms his boat
woul•l be released. He did not forget this, but he omitted
to state it to the committee.
Berjeant Shee— Were you not distinctly asket by the com-
mittee whether you saw Mr. Attwood on the second °cession
in Lindon ?

Witness— I don't recollect; I forgot the fact at the time.
Serjeant Bhee—And were you not asked the same question
with regard to Mr. Rusk ?
Witness—No; I firgot to state that, too.
Serjeant Shea—Did you not also state that Mr. Rusk did
not promise you an, hing on that day ?
Witness—Yes; I had forgotten it at the time,
Crostexaminatien continued—Witness believed that the
whole of the debt was paid before he executed the deed of
sale to the defendant. He was always in" blue," and drank:
with the blue voters.
Serjeant Shee—And I believe you have frequently de-
clared yourself to be a tory by principle? (A laugh.)
Witness—Yes; I have done so.
Serranti Son—Mr.Aetwood, I believe, professes the same
principles ?—Witness : does.
Re-examined—Had seen Mr. Attwood in court during the
trial. Wou.d swear that he was in the same room at the
office in Birchin-lane at the time he mentioned. When he
gave his evidence before the commie tee be was friendly to
the " blues." Ile was examined by the petitioner's counsel
and he answered him as well as he could. Mr. A'twood
could hear whet took place between him and Rusk.
Mr. Chambers said this was tile case (or the plaintiff.
Berjeant Shee then submitted that there was no case to go
to the jury upon either of the counts in the declaration.
The defendant was all. ged to hare promised to do certain
tinupon condition that Saxby voted for Mr. Attwood ;
e contended that there was no evidence of any such
promise basin.: been given.
Baron Alderson reqnested of Mr. Chambers to point out
the evidence upon which be relied to prove the request on the
part of Sash y and the premier: by the defendant to bribe him
to vote according to the terms of the declaration in the action.
Mr. Chambers submitted, that although no actual pro.
miss had been proved to have been made by the defendant,
yet, that under the circumstances, no other inf rence could
be drawn, from what tack place between the parties, than
that he had agreed to pay the debt upon the condition that
Selby voted for Mr.Attwood.
Baron Alderson said it appeared to him that there was
another difficulty in the ease for the plaintiff, which could
not be got over. The declaration alleged that the promise,
in respect of which the voter was corrupted, was, that the
defendant should Gaya sum of 101. at once, and the remain-
der by instalments of 61. per month, whereas the evidence
proved that the defendant undertook to pay the expenses
that had been incurred, in addition.
Mr. Chambrn contended that this could not be considered
a substantial variation, and be urged that the proof of the
corrupt contract was quite sufficient to fix the defendant
with liability under the statute, without proving the exact
terms of that contract.
Mr. Baron Alderson said that a corrupt contract must bean
'Wetly proved as any ether; and it had always 1), en laid
down in cues of this description, that the alleged act of
bribery should be so distinctly stated as to enable a defen-
dant to plead it in bar to any other action. It appeared to
him, therefore, in this case, that the addition of the ex-
penses to the nrrupt proposition to the voter was a fatal
variance with the declaration, which merely alleged that a
certain sum of money was to be paid in a particular mane r.
Mr. Chambers said, that if by lordship entertained this
opinion, he trusted that he would amend the record, by
adding the words that bad been omitted ; and if this were
not acne, it appeared to him that, although a very strong
case had been made out, yet that justice would be defeated
by a mere ttcht.icality. The amount of the bribery was not
the material question, but the making of the corrupt centrect
with the voter at all was the act which the statute was
intended to reach.
His lordstip said it appeared to him that there was no
evidence to support the allegation that the defendant pro-
mimed to bribe fleetly in the form stated.
Me. Chambers submitted that the promise must be in-
ferred from the facts. The voter went to the defendant
Ind asked him to aren't him, and he was told that
if he voted for Mr. Attwood something would be done
for him in the way he required. This was afterwards
effected, end if it should be held that an abso-
lute promise must be proved, he could only observe that
it would be impossible ever to make out a case of this kind,
because when a voter asked for money as a bribe, it would
only be necessary for the osirty applied to to say be would
see about it, or some such ev sive answer, and although toe
money might be given afterwards, yet, as there bad be en no
distinct promise, according to the ruling of his lordship, he
would not be liable.
Mr. Bramwell, on the same side, contended that accord •
in to good sense, as well as law, the plaintiff in en action of
this description ought not to be required to prove the corrupt
contract in express terms, because it was manifest that it
would be almost impossible for him to do so.
Baron Alderson said it had always been laid down that
the nature of the contract which formed the basis for the
chary of bribery should be distinctly stated. In the case of
Mr. heckler and Lord Egmont, where there was an allega-
tion of bribery, the parties were described as Mr. Lnckyer
and his friend, and in that case certainly the court held the
description was sufficient, because the averment was qualified
by the declaration thst Lord Egmont was the triind of Mr.
Lockysr, and there was no one else to whom the term could
apply in the case.
See rant Shee then said that in addition to the objections
already urged, he should contend that the venue was wrongly
laid in Essex. If there had been any payment of money at
all by the defendant, it was in London when he remitted the
101. to Mr. Hales, end as this was a penal action, the venue
ought to have beta laid in London.
Mr. Chambers and Mr. Bramwell having been heard upon
this point, the learned Judge said be would consult the Chief
Baron upte all the points that had been raised, and he left
the cow:: for that purr n.
His Lordship returned in a short time, and he
thee, said the' the Chief Baron agreed with him in opinion
that the omission to mention the expenses "in the de-
claration was a fatal variance from the evidence. The Other
rents wire arguable ; but with regard to the ver.ue, he
himself felt great difficulty. The omission, however, to
which he had referred was clearly • fatal varlunce ; and
therefore be should direct the jury to return a verdict for the
de
sfbie plrod.ar.
di h
fiCts Chambers, ,3t eor s,
amb:af oretht he edt.cluv r i‘cut
own asr
bruectohrdeedre,
faint:lewd

do so, stating that the Chief Baron concurred with hint in
the opinion thin such a course ought not to be taken in a
penal action.
The jury then, under his lordship's direction, returned •
verdict fur the defendant.

NORTHERN CIRCUIT.
Yong, JULY 17.
xm Pana.—Baseme Ma. JORI= P•ITS110111 AND • SPICULLJUST.
TH. QUINN O. J. OLIADOW AND OTIIIIRI—ALLIOID
COLLUSION BY • Curros-lionsn Omens inn( Smug-
°Line.
Mr. Martin, Mr. Watson, Mr. Otter, and Mr. D'lt4' Sey-
mour were counsel for the crown; Mr. Serjeant Wilkins,
Mr. Hall, end Mr. Aspinall were for the defendants.
Mr. Seymour epeneei the pleadings. This was an indict-
ment on the prosecution of the crown against James Oleadow
and others, for that they, on the 29th of July, 1846, con-
spired together, with other persons unknown, to make a
collusive seizure of a certain article liable to pay duty, with
intent to defraud the Queen of her revenue and customs.
The defendants pleaded net guilty, and thereupon issue was
joined.
Mr. Martin stated the ease. The first charge against the
defendant, Glesidow, was that he enteral into an agreement
with one Bond, for the purpose of meeting a vessel called
the Rising Sun, which brought a cargo of tobacco into this
country on the 29th of Ju1y,1646 ; that he, having the means
of seizing the ship, permitted her to g 0 away; permitted all
the men to escape, but got the tobacco, for the purpose of
reaping the reward, having made a bargain with Bond that
they should share the profit arising from the transaction,
and then urged the smuggler to bring more tobacco, with the
avowed intention of iuformirg Oleadow of it, on its ordeal,
so that be might seize it, again get the reward, and divide, as
in this case, the spoil between them. This ship, the Reing
Sun, was registered at the Custom-house at Hull, in
Bond's name, as the owner, on the 16th of July, 1846;
and a man named Burton, who was originally a chemist
at Hull, but who had taken to be engaged in this smug-
giing transaction, was concerned in the purchase of that ship,
she being bought for smuggling. Oa the 29th of July,
about a fortnight after she was registered, the Teasel came
with a carol of smuggled t thacco to Aldborough, on the
coast, about 13 miles from Hull. He should prove out of the
mouth of Burton that he told Gleadow that this vend would
be at Aldborough on the night of the '29th of July. Accord-
ingly Burton, on that night, proceeded to unload the cario,
and on that same night Oleadow also went to Aldborough,
where be arrived about half-past eleven o'clock. He went
to a public-house there, made some inquiry, and re
mained there wail the whole cargo had been unloaded from
the vessel, and concealed in the cliffs. there was about
4,0.50 lbs. of the tobacco, the reward upon which would
be very great Burton superintenited the unloading, and
when it was finished Oleadow came up, and said to Burton,
" You are in bad hands ; you would have done better if you
had trusted to me ;" and then said, "if you will assist me
in getting this tobacco you shall have a share of the reward."
Burton agreed to the proposal, after consulting with tne
captain act the vessel, and having conducted Oleadow to the
spot where the tobacco was hid under the cliffs, it was carted
away, and the vessel was allowed to sail away, although the
coast guard were close by, and ready to act. The usual
signal in such cues is the firing of a pistol, and when
Oleadow was asked why he had not given that signal, he
said there was not time. The fact, however, he should
prove was, that there was ample time, and that if the least
exertion had been used, both the vessel, cargo, and crew
might all have been seized. After this Oleadow told Burton
that if he could get any other cargo of tobacco, he would
seize it, and they would divide the spoil. Burton pro-
ceeded to act upon this arrangement, but, en the meantime,
an ill'oll2l itioa had gone up to London, a warraut came down
to I:Ceadow for the arrest of Burton, another skip, the Co-
ronation, having arrived with a cargo of tobacco, was seized,
and Burton we. proceeded against, end fined in the Exche-
quer Court, for the offence.
Some witnesses bavieg b.en examined,
The Judge said he was of opinion that there was not evi-
dence to substantiate the count rel. d upon ; and thereupon
Mr. Martin signified his intention of abandoning the case.
The jury were accordingly directed to return a verdict of
Not Guilty.
TIED QuISN v. GLIIADOW AND Mateeztnr.
Theism. cuunsel appeared as in the preceding case.

The offence laid in the indietosentwei the Sam; as in the

preceding ease. The evidence in this case also proved Joni-
keit nt, and verdicts of Not Guilty were taken upon this
and three other indictments which were preferred agehut
the defendant.