The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1824-01-21 00:00:00

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, TUESDAY. JAL 20.

[Sittings at Westminster before the 1•031) CHIZT JUSTICIII mid
Special Jorrit..]

PER.II'RV.
TUE ICING V. PII.I.IA]i lIITCIII3II.

Thin came, like that which was tried yesterday, arose oat of the
contest tot St. Ives at the general election in 1620. .
On the trial of Dunn for perjury, before the Committee of the
!louse of Commons, the defendant and Mr. Halve, who was se-
quitted yesterday, were the principal witnesses for the prosecutitin.
lienn, in support of the petition against the sitting members, swore
that on the Ist of March, the day of the canvass, he dined at Mr.
Halve's house, in eumpany with Mr. Evelyn and Mr. Graham, the
candidates, and Mr. liming, Mr. Heise, Mr. Hitching, the de-
fendant. anti several other leading ninnhers of their electioneering
committee; that in the course of the evenings number of voters
cacao into the lobby adjoining the dining-room, and asked for treat-
ing tickets; that liaise frequently, both before and after dinner,
went out of the room to give titiets to these voters, and that in
giving them he spike so loud as to be hard cliitinetly by every
person in the dining-room, and consequently by the candidates.
whose election was' ought to be nutde'void by that aliTettenneor- I
ream in the Corruption•of the voters. It was now admitted on all
sides that this statement of Dunh was false, and be hid been since
tried, convicted, and transported. On the trial of Dunn, the de-
fendant was 'called to prove the falsehood of Thinn's tatimony, and
he had sworn that there were no room in Halite's !rule on the 4,47
of the dinner, and for this statement he was how Ino*.eil for par-
-
jury.
Mr. Pantie opened the pleadings.
Mr. SCAILETT stated the ease for the prosecution, in support
of which the following witnesses were called. '
Matthew Richards an electoi of St. Ives, stated that on the even-
ing of the Ist of March, PM, during the canvass, he went to the I
house of Mr. liaise, in company with 'William Noel, 'Thomas
Noel and his son, and Ephraim Major and his son. The only
persons at Mr. Ilalse's house were Ma. liaise and the defendant.
The defendant took down the names of the witness and those who
went with him. They went there to give their votes. Mr. llalsc
asked Major if be would vote for Mr. Evelyn. Slajor replied' that I
they would all vote for Mr. Graham. Heise said, "If you don't
ive jour votes to Mr. Evelyn, give them to site to dispose of
William Terroboiated rte evklehtlortlie last view's.—
Heise asked whom they would idle for? Witness said,
••• Mr. Graham." liaise then asked to have the other vote left at
hi, disposal. Ncitnetts answered, "No." 'The defendant was Pre-
sent.

Ephraim Major stated that he accompanied the former witnesses
to liaises house on the evening of the canvass. They went to vote
for Mr. Graham. The defendant and Mr. Halse were the only
persons at the horse besides themselves. Witness saw Noel and
the defendant talk together. Tickets were given to witness and
the other electors, with which they went to a public house.
Mr. Wm. Brodie Gurney, the abort-twat' writer, read the volu-
minous notes of evidence which he had taken an the trial of Dunn.
It was the same that lie read yesterday.
It was admitted that nicher& had voted for Mr. Graham and Sir
Walter Stirling.
The Arronstit-Gretrem. then addressed the Jury for the
defendant, who, he said, was a very young man, of unimpeachable
character and conduct. The election in 1820 was the tint occasion
on whirls he had interfered in electioneering tactics t and it was his
misfortune, at the end of so many proceedings arising out of- the
transactiors of that contest, to ling himself entangled its a proses:e-
-1 don for perjury, founded on a supposed diff=ence between the evi-
dence he had given before a Committee of the House of Commons,
and that which he had given on the trial of Dunn. Though he
had used the particclar phrmte laid in the indictment. yet it was
clear that in giving his evidence he had not concealed the fact that
there were some voters in lial•e's house on the dayof the dinner
he had sworn distinctly that the voters did not go into the ball
or lobby adjoining the dining-room, as Dunn had stated.
The LOUD CIIIEF ..11/2TICE interposed at this part of the
Learned Gentleman's address, to ask the Conine] for the prosecu-
tion whether it was intended to carry this case any further. leap.
petered to him (the Lord ChisfJustsso) that, looking at the whole
of the evidence of the defendant on the trial of Dunn, he had used
the word t• house" with reference to the room in which the ram-
Pain' had Ciined• The fact that Nome voters were in another part
of the house, and had conversed with 3lr. Belie, was net incur.. I
sistent with the evidence given by the defendant on the trial of
Dunn.

Mf. SCARLET T said his impression was certainly different from
that of his Lordship • but he would not press the case alter what
his Lordship had stated.
The Jury, under his headship's direction, immediately acquit..
ted the defendant.

ADAMS V. WARNER.

This wat an action of trespass brought by the plaintiff, a brick
and tile maker, at Islington, aguinst :he defendant, the treasurer
of St. Dartitoloniew's llospitai, to try whether • certain hit of
ground in 31aidemlane WAS the pwi,erry of the plaintiff or of the
Governors of St. liariholaniew's IlospitaL It appeared that the
plaintiff had built several houses on the disputed spot.
- • - - - - -

A good deal of evidence was gone into to prove the title of the
parties; but at length it was agreed that the plaintiff should take a
verdict, subject to a reference to a gentyninn at the bar, by whom
it should be decided, if he was of opinion that the property be-
longed to the plaintifF, at what price the Governors of Sc Raab°.
meges Hospital should become the purchasers.