The Express.
London, England, 1860-07-21 00:00:00

THE Iit:EEN r. MAINLAND.

In this case the .ame learned counsel were for the crown ;
the defendant appeared in person to conduct his own we.
The Solicitor-tienend briefly stated the facts. The de-
fendant was a creditor of • person named Cattley, who
owed him 96!., which ho cotiaidered a bad debt. He had
an interview with • partisan of Mr. Leathern of the name
of Konworthy, and it WIIA weed between them that if the
debt of 96/. wee diaehargml Cattley and the defendant
should vote for Mr. Loathe e. Kenworthy obtained the
money from Mr. Gilbert, and be banded it over to the de-
fendant. A further charge aiming the defendant was that
he offered and promiat d a per: on named Newsome money
if ho would vote for Mr..llatitam.

The jury found the defendaut Not Guilty on the lint
count ; and Guilty on the second count of the information.

TN! QCEIENr. !WELL

The Solieitor•Ceoeral and his learned friends again ap-
peared in this case ; Mr. D. Seymour was for the defen-
dant.
Mr. Godfrey Noble, the defendant, lives at Huddersfield.
He took en active part in the Wakefield election. About
ten days before the election he saw a voter named Speight,
and canvassed him for Leathern He asked Speight whet
nyfizlie would require, end inquired if ISt would be
t. Speight is reply said that would not do,
and the defendant went away. In a day or two
afterwards he had another interview with Speight, for
whose vote he made several bidding'. At first he bid 201.,
tire 251., then 34.1/., then t 51., and finally offered him 401„
which Speight seemed to consider a reasonable sum, and
consented to accept it. The defendant then observed that
if be paid him 401., Speight ought to give him 5/. as a pre.;
neut. Speight, in answer, said, " Leave that to me.
Another voter named Ingham was indebted to a loan so-
ciety in the sum of 2/., and the defendant sew his wife two
or three times on the subject, the result beiog that an offer
was mate for the loan society Is ing settled with, on the um
derstandiug that Ingham wee to vote for Mr. Leathern. No
nionev passed iu either of these eases, but it was alleged
that distinct offers to bribe were made.

In defence, it was contended that no offer of a long fide
character waa made by the defendant.
l'ho jury fouud the defendant t.uifty on the first count of
the information.
TH2 QUEEN V. BOY 2.4-BXV22I.ET rt.tenoNs.
The Boliciter-Genend, Mr. Overvnd, Q.C., and Mr.
Cleanly were for the crown; Mr. K Janie*, Q.C., Mr. Jones,
and Mr. Price for the defendant.
The defendant, Mr. Daniel Boyce, was charged with bri-
bery at the late election at Beverley, mid to this offence he
pleaded not guilty.
The witnesses for the prosecution were all parties who
had received bribes. . . _ .

Mr. Jaunts, Q.C., in defence, contended that the jury
could not place confidence in men whu cmile before them to
avow their participation iu guilt, 11111 that, unsupported :ts
their Latin ony was by any corroboration, his client was
entitled to an aognittaL

The jury retired, and were ah«ent upwards of an hour,
when they returned • verdict of Guitto on the wood count
—Pouffer's case, and Noe Dudley on the other counts.

THE QUEEN r. TATLOR.--IWICIAL JrRY.
The same counsel appeared as in the previous case. This
was a prosecution for bribery at Beverley, but the witnesses
when called were found to be so advanced in drunkenness
that they could not be examined. The crown counequently
consented to a verdict of Na