The Express.
London, England, 1861-11-22 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
(THE DAY.)

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
Battings in Banco.—(Bstore Lord Chid Jostles Cockburn,
and Justices Wightmao and Blackburn.)

THE QUEEN V. BOYEL-THZ BICTIBLZY ZLECTION.-BLNTENLL

ON TUN

The defendant in this ease, Daniel %yes came up thismorning to receive the judgment of the court.:
This was an information Bled on behalf of the crown, charg-
ing the defendant with bribery at the lan general elec-
tion of • member of pediment for the borough of Beverley.
The information wee tried before Mr. Baron Martin of Turk,
at the summer assize of 1860, when • question arose a.>
to whether • witness named Pouger was bound to answer
certain questions which were put to him. The witness claimed
his privilege not to be compelled to answer then
upon the ground that his answers would tend to
criminate himself, and upon that objection being made a
pardon under the Great Seal was produced and handed to the
witness, and accepted by him. The learned judge who pre.
sided at the trial then allowed the witness to be examined.
and his answers were the material evidence to bring hone
the charge of bribery to the defendant Boyce. Objectiet
was taken by the defendant's counsel to the
course taken by the learned judge upon this question,
and also upon the further question which also arose
as to whether the evidence of Pouger, he being an amen.
plice, did not require to be corroborated. The evidence of
the witness was left to the jury, but an understanding was
come to between the learned judge and the present Atka,
ney-General, who then as Solicitor-General conducted the
prosecution, that this court should be applied to, and in the
event of the court deciding that the learned judge was
wrong, the Solicitor-General undertook to enter a polls
prosequi. A rule was accordingly obtained and argued in
February last, when the court decided that there was 201120
evidence of the corroboration, and that no objection could
be sustained upon that ground. The other_ point as to
whether the witness ought to have been compelled to answer
questions tending to criminate himself, notwithstanding that
he had received the Queen's pardon, was argued at
some length, and the effect of the pardon in
making the witness a " new man," and freeing
him from all penalties, &c., was considered. In
the course of the argument, however, a new
point was raised by Mr. Edward James, the defendant's
counsel, which had not previously been made, and was that
the witness wee still liable to be impeached by the House of
Commons, notwithstanding the Queen's pardon. The at-
tention of the court was called to the Act of Settlement,
12 and 13 Win. 111., cap. 2, by which it was expressly enacted
"that no pardon under the Great Seal of England shall be
pleadable to an impeachment by the Commons in parka.
went." Ultimately the judgment of the court was
against the defendant, and he now appeared to receive judg.
meet.
_ _ _

The Attorney-General, with whom were Mr. °mend,
Q.C.: Mr. Monk, Q.C., and Mr. Clessby, prayed for the
judgment of the court.
Mr. Edward James, Q.C., Mr. Price, Q.C., and Mr. T.
Jones appemed for the defendant.
Before the learned counsel proceeded to farms the
court,
The Lord Chief initial mid the notes of the learned judge
who tried the ease were sot before the court, and muse.
raptly the case must stand over till • later period of the
The case was therefore postponed for • few hours.