The Express.
London, England, 1859-07-12 00:00:00

Sato Intdltionct.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.—JuLi 11.
Sittings at NW Prins is London.—(Before Lord Chief Jus-
tice Methuen and • Special Jury.)
TRIS QUEEN.V. BUM.
Thu was en indictment, charging tamp Bosh, an attor-
ney's clerk, with perjury, alleged to have been committed on
the trial of an action of " Smith v. Wieby" before Mr.
Justice Erie, in January last.
The prosecutor, Smith, is a builder, carrying on business
at Bishop Stortford, and it would seem that in the month of
Noremt er, 1858, he was applied to by a person named
Washy, a resident in the same neighbourhood, and who was
shout to take a small farm from a gentleman named
Hawkins, to go over the farm and see what
repairs were required in the buildings upon it.
Ultimately Wieby took the farm, Mr. Hawkins agreeing to
allow 601. out of the rent for repairs. Upon that Wisby
gave the order to Smith to execute the needful repair, and
il:neth'e bill came to 701. As Smith kid some difficulty in
getting hie money, he employed a Mr. Lay, an attorney at
Bishop Stortford, to take proceedings for biro In the first
place against Mr. Hiwkien. Mr. Hawkins, however, paid
the plaintiff the 601. which he undertook to allow Wish, out
of the rent, and denied his further liability. And now com-
menced the second action, that of " Smith e. W 'shy," teethe
balance of the account, amounting to come 291. or so. At the
trial the contention on the put of the defendant was that
Smith had undertaken to do the whole of the repairs for the
sum of 6UI. ; that hie contract was with Mr. Hawkins, and
not with Wisby; that Hawkins had paid him the 601. due,
and that it was quite an afterthought his attempting to
charge Wioby with the balance said to be due.
In support of Wisby's ease, the present defendant, Bush,
who had been a clerk of Mr. Ley, the attorney originally
employed by Smith, was called, and he swore that in No-
vember, 1867, he had seen Smith's books at Smith's house,
end that the entries in the books having reference to this
transaction made no mention of Wisby's name at all; but
that Hawkins's name stood by itself. That showed
that this attemit to make Wisby shale in the
outlay on the repairs was quite en afterthought. Oa the
other hand, the books being produced showed Wisby's flame
coupled with Hawkins's in every entry bearing upon the
transaction. If, therefore, Bush's evidence was true, Smith
mutt have altered his bootie subsequently to his determining
to sue Wisby. At the trial, the jury, unable to reconcile the
testimony on both sides, was discharged without coming to a
verdict.
To day the question which the jury had to determine
woe, did Bash knowing) y and wittingly *wear to whet was
tisane, when ha declared that at the time be saw Mr. Smith's
books there were no such entries in them as when produced
at the trial ; or, allowing for the lapse of time which had in-
tervened between his alleged inspection of the books and the
trial of "Smith Y. Wisby," was he simply misteken se to
what he saw.
The Jury, without leaving the box, found the defendant
Not Guilty."
Mr. Hawkins, Q.C., Mr. Sleigh, and Mr. G. Peanels,
ap-
peered for the prosecutor; Mr. fierjesat Parry, Mr. Robin-
son, and Mr. J. M. Howard, for the dMeediat.