The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1826-01-21 00:00:00

t. 7.--:i.cl .. --. T
tedefeehent. Daring tillt minority of the defendant, belied been
comenolated from rime to rime with• advencer of money by Mr.
itarvey, for which the defendant gave his promissnry notes. %Vh-n
be attained the age of twenty.one years, he (in April, 1820) had a
i .eetesg with Mr. Harvey, and it was managed between them that
:.11 ,he vourliers held for the several advances should be given up,
w,d that a letter should be written by the detiodant to ',lr.
Ilene", acknowledging the eebt which war due to him for such
a4lveeces, preparatory to some nines effectual security being given
'.l he letter was sawardingly written by the defendant himself, but a
Leink.lme an that occasion left for the debt due to Mr. Harr4,
the amount of ro,ich it was agreed should he aecertained on a sub.
teeuent day. The defendant aceonlingly called on Mr. Ilarvey on day appointed, sad he. himself, atter investigating all the do.
currents relotime to the accounts. inserted, 'in figures, the sum of
12191. and a fraetion,.in the blank place left for that purpose. This
Mom was not reosidered as any security, but only an aeinowledg.
recut of the debt, and the matter was left-for a subsequent arrange.
meat. But when the defendant became possessed of property, he
wwellmeltward and reluctant in redeeming his pledge to give an
amnie seenrite, aid sifter much delay, Mr. Harvey was obliged to
bring his action to.retoveethe money due to him. An anion who
acconlingly brought ,by him against 31r. Revert in the Court of
techeques, and his evidence was the production of this Otter ; the
netendrint was in Court during the trial, and the lettelsmiail war
Rrovedto be in the band.teriting of the defendant, and war even
snded to and 'infected by kis Owned, hat not a single objection
was taken to its muttentieiry, and Mr. Harvey obtained a verdict.
Upon this thedefunlant made (immures to Mr. Harvey to pay the
webt by instalment& tint Mr. Harvey did not accede to the prop°.
rein", and the defendant then immediately filed a bill in equity
against Mr. Harvey, the object of which was to set aside the jut*.
mot obtained in the Court of Exchequer. It therefore became ne.
reamer for the defenthmt to enter into details, in the course of
whteh he stated that the letter in question was written entirely by
Mr. Harvey. and only signed by him at Mr. Harvey's request ;
that the blank was kit to be filled up by Mr. Harvey ; that he
paw nothing of the letter afterwards ; and that the blank was ac-
tually tilled rr by Mr. Harvey. Upon an answer being pat in by
.Mr. Harvey, it was a matter of course to refer the account to a
"illaner in Chancery, before whom it became, material to
produce documents to support the charges. Mr. Harvey's
doetaseent, therefore, was this letter, all the other papers having
been given up by him to the defendant when the letter 'nsigned.
lo answer to Mr. H.'si atateroent, the defendant thought fit to file
no affidavit, in which he distinctly and positively denied that at the
teeming on the 24th of April, 111J0, or at any other meeting, it was
ever ascertained that he was indebted to him ( H arir) in the sum
of one thoosnnd two handfed and eighteen pounds twelve shil.
liners and astspeneer or that he ever wrote such a letter or filled up
a blank therein with that or any other sum. 31r.lfarvey was
greatly artenislied to we tide affidavit, because it not only charged
bM with having enramitted perjury in his own answer, but that
be had been guilty of freed by tilling tip the blank in question ;
and he therefore felt it necessary for the vindication of hie own eha.
rarer to institute the present prosecution. By the law of England
no man could be convicted of perjury on the evidence of a single
witness, became the law knew no distinction between one man and
another, butt supposed the oath clone to be as good as that of
another. The law did not petit an the question of character. Re
should therefore adduce the testimony of at Inca two persons, to
neow that the fact sworn to by defendant was false. He 'Wield
prove that the letter WWI written by the defendant himself, and
alheiiatel. copied at his request, that he was desirous of •filling up
thealwek at that dine, and offered to make a mat of doucear to
Harvey, but that that graitletnan declined, as seed the blank could
recent supplied until ail the vouchers had been inspected.He should
alvo prove by a person who knew the defendant's hand-writing, that
1 he graves were written by him, and that he subsequently ackoow.
ledetettlett he owed the prosecutor between one thousand two bun.
tred pound, and one thousaad five hundred pounds. Upon this
Proof being given, tie thought no doubt could remit) in the
ffited'iof Me Jury that this young man bad been guilty of wicked,
verf.i, sell enrwilu pt fiery ; wicked in the most corrupt sense, be.
dtWthe Money was sdeanced to him at a time when he wes to
At runneticodectsbaririfita!at The. 1 and
ra haded njoutannsydmoesns crifdsutphpattiriti.•
olive dated tat the defendant had found it necessary to
1 4141t1 In Chancery against his grandmo.her, and restrain her
firelt,fninitting waste., wad that the prosecutor was employed as
Mtettosney tin :he atCaliati ; but the costs of that proceeding did
neulthim any pan of the stints/. 11181. Its, d. of which he had
alrery had ncemien to speak.
• 'l* eArrottster-Grtttatit. observed that the whole of the
12M. had been paid by tbe defendant into Cote, and that he ii-
derettabd 4Q(ft. of it, which the defendant admitted be owed Ilan,
hairnet:hilly been paid, to Mr. Remy.
' Mr:Geoige Genie. a clerk. from :the Court of Chancery, ',en-
ticed the original bill filed 'by the delksidant against the pro.
nester. • ,
• The Judge's AssoCiate proceed: to read such parts of it as were
melted ht the indictmedt: • I
.
M. °newer Interrupted him, and acid there was an averment
k. li.e declatetion string that Catherine }Oven was the mother of
li • fikt John berett like defendant), while in the answer of .Me.
it *as sworn that she was his grandmother, I
Mt Justice liar ter said, if she. was not the mother, but the '
te.etedreether of the deferidaut, then the bill was unstated in the
retnettnent.
Mr. scAllti tTT said it was sot stated as being in the bill, and
he illbatittell that it war not material to the subject matter, the.
Chdtte of perjury rot being assigned on the bill, but on an affidavit.
life. Juetice lier try—But that Is an affidavit founded upon
tNt.blll. You have miedescribed the suit.. I do not think you can
ettntler thls, 31e. Scarlet.
Mr. SCARLETT asked whether his Lordship did not not think
agrrndmother Iva, atifficienily designated by the term moth.? 2
-141 r. JuNrlce lIA T I.z. r—.!. grandmother is certainty a specie* of
reedier, but not such us to bring her within the term of tins alle.
getice.
The Jttry then, under his Lordship's directions. acquitted the
defendant.