The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1824-11-11 00:00:00

THE BRITISH PRESS.

venience should not weigh with a public grievance arising from the
obstruction of the tree navigation of the river, and submitted on
these grounds he was at least entithll to a rule to 1110 W cause why a
new trial should not be granted.
The LORD CHILI' Jusrict said (after their landshipt had
consulted for a tew minutes together), that as Jostice Bayley
vms of opinion that the question was one of great importance, he
wished the fullest investigation lobe given to it, and the Court were
therefore disposed to accede to the application of the Learned Oen.
denten.

Rule granted.
At the rising of the Court, Mr. IluonEurcx obtained • rule
to show cause, why a new trial should not be had in a case of
a prosecution Mr perjury, which bad been instituted against a 31r.
Hughes. The extraordinary circumstances of the prosecution
formed the ground for the application. .I.llr. Hughes charged two
men with the robbery of his house at Epsom, in Surrey ; they
were acquitted at the trial, and they ',value the principal witnesses
at the prosecution against him. Several witnesses came forward to
show that the witnesses who appeared against Mr. Hughes were
seen about his premises on the night of the alleged rubbery, and
that strong apparent grounds for suspicion of the theft were tendered
iu evidence against them
Rule granted.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, WEDNESDAY, Nov. 10.

CLARKE V. MORSE.
Mr. Sergeant PEEL inured tbw a rule to show cause why the ver-
dict had in this case for the defendant at the last London Sittings,
should not be set aside, or why a new trial should nut be granted.
The Cuter Jusrien—l have received a notice certainly
in this case, but 1 ant at a loss to know on what grounds you make
your motion.
Mr. Sergeant PELL-1 more i: on the ground of a record In a
hrevious case having been received in evidence, such record not
aving been pleaded.
The Cuter JUSTICE—The record was received, because Its
admission was so strongly urged by in; Learned Brother Vaughan,
and apparently supported by such a shower of authorities. I have
since looked into them, and I find they do not bear Man the length
to which he then pressed them.
Mr. Sergeant PaLt.—Truly, my Lord. one of the cases so
cited makes directly against my beamed Brother. In Campbell
and liittchins, Ist Amer/rill and Creswell's Reports, the reeved Is
pleaded. In .Mr. Phillips's book, pp. 367 and 398, it is said, that
where the general issue is pleaded, a record of a former acquittal of
a pany sued a second time, may be received, but at the same time
with cettainqualifications.
Mr. Justice Boanmenn—What is the form of your first
action ?
Mr. Sergeant Pat.t.--in trover, my Lord, to recover certain
promissory notes, which, as assignees to the estate, my clients
thought themselves entitled to.
Mr. Justice Bustrouc-u—SVell, and a Jury tell you that they
think otherwise whin all the facts are benne them ? What was the
form of the second action ?
Mr. Sergeant PELL—In debt, my Lord ; and we object to the
verdict, because the record of the acquittal iu trotter was received as
evidence without being pleaded.
TheCIIIEF JI.STICE-1 know there are cases, Brother Pell, in
which yen can only recover certain things in trotter, and that you
must resort to action of debt for the remainder ; but that is nega-
tived altogether in this case.
Mr. Justice OszErme—What authorities are there to support
the doctrine, that, pleading the general issue, you are nut allowed to
give a remrd in evidence without specially pleading that record ?
Mr. Sergeant PEEL.--Several, my Lord, and there is a recent case
in which the Lord Chief Justice Abbott laid it down, that where a
mconl was to be given in evidence, it must be first specially pleaded
in other to give the other party an opportunity of being prepared to
answer or to explain it.
Mr. Justice Be RROUGII.—M hat ! let in patole evidence, do
you say, to explain a record ?
Mr. Sergeant Per. L.—Linda some circumstances, most certainly.
The Carte JUSTICE—There scans to be 'Dawdling in the
case, and you had therefore better take a rule Nisi.
Mr. Sergeant PELL expressed himself satisfied with this order.
The matter, he begged lease to assure the Court, was cue of very
considerable importance.

PROCTOR V. SYMONS.
Mr. Scrpesnt TARDY moved tor a rule to show cause why the
verdict in this case should not be bet aside, although the damages
were only nominal. But yet the Court would please to consider
that the verdict carried costs, or why a new trial should not be
granted.
The case was tried at the last Assizes for Guildford, before Mr.
Baron Graham. It was an action for assault, and much contradic-
tory evidence tied been adduced. The daughter of the plaintiffwas
one of the principal s itsesses ; and two women, named Saunderson
and Bell, were called to corroborate her. The Learned Judge, in
addressing the Jury, olaservi.d that there 'must be perjury at one
side or the other, and left it to them, upon a mature conatderation of
the case, to say which side they believed. The trial lasted nearly
half the day, and the Juty. atter some consultation, returned with
a verdict for the plainte—damages one shilling.
The defendant now made affidavit that he was taken by surprise
a the trial--that he was not then able to meet, as lie now was, the
ividenee adduced on the part of the plaintiff; whereas be had now
affidavits to ',Low that the woman Saunderson was not present at
the circumstances to which she swore, and further, that she was
heard to soy she was resolved to be a witness. In order to punish or
conquer the defendant. Under such eircucustancts, the Learned
Sergestit sibmitted that a mew trial should be granted, and the
more so as the defendant felt particularly anxious to remove the
imputation which the consuit had cast upon his reputation.
The Conn- Jurrrict, after consulting the other Judges,
observed, that the court, in returieg the rule, did not wash to cast
any imputation on the defendant ; altogether the contrary ; they,
wished to extend the shield of their protection wherever they found
it was required. But what did the affidavits state? Certainly
ncthing which ntight not have been brought forward at the trial ;
and how then could the Court be fairly called upon to interfere ?
The occasionally granting new trials was a wholesome practice;
but when the ends of justice bad been already satisfied, as in this
case, the rule must be refused.