The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1824-08-26 00:00:00

THE tl7fO P. 'MAMAS lirCaTtS.

This was an indictment against the defendant for wilful and cor-
rupt perjury. amp led upon evidence given by him in Putipurt of
an indictment tried at the 3lichaeltilais Surrey Session, 111.22,
charging two respctlatile tradesmen of }:psont, named Jolliet Chan.
filer 'ha Timothy Itarnard, with mewling a turret clock bell,
two linden wcigl.ta, 3114 other mattrials, the property of the de-
fendant. . _

The prosecution was conducted by Mr. 41110T.Pttl'S and Mr.
TIIVISHIEU; and the defence by Mr. liaont.nica and Mr.
CHITTY. _ _ _

appearedJt tha: the defendant had been an auctioneer at Chel.
wham, and iu the month of July, 1822, was in possession of a
house at Epsom. which was undergoing repair.. and had for sale
a considerable litlaliti.• of old building material.. The defendant
had been indebted to Sir. Chandler and Mr. Barnard respectively,
for stone articles which they had sold him in the way of their trade.
The property which they were chatged with basing stolen formed
part of the building materials alluded to. At the Surrey Summer
Assizes in that year the defendant had indicted these individuals
for the robbery, but the Grand Jury ignored the bill. At the
Kingston Sessions following be preferred the indictment above-
, mentioned, upon which Mews. Barnard:sad ('handler wen tried
and acquitted. before the case for the defence sal closed. On that
occasion the delendard. Mr. Hushes, was examined as a whness,
and an hit rto6o.rrallilaallOT Mr. Adolphus denied, among,
other matters, that he had ever said to any body. after the bill was
thrown out at the Guildford Assizes," that if Barnard and Chand-
ler were In any way tnsablesome, he would bring on the case again
in March following, if it cost him 301/., and that they had better
be quiet." Be also Raid that a watchman, named Sugar, had in.
formed him of the robbery the next morning after it took place, and
that Chandler and Barnard had gone together about two o'clock on
the 11th July into the stable, and that he (the defendant) went Into
a loft, where he could see them both, and heard,one of them say,
" Theft is that d—al Sugar with Hughes, telling or splitting upon
!up," Or words to that effect. Upon these statements the perjury
was now at t.itcnc.l. It was alleged that the defendant had In the
first place falsely denied the expression of malice imputed to
him; and In the second, that the statement last mentioned was
completely false from beginning to end. Several witnesses were
examined in support of the indictment. It was positively sworn
by Alr. I tarnanl. and by two persons named Scott and Jeffry. that
the dele:qhmt. after the (hand .bury had ignored the bill, at the
Guildford Summer Aalltra, 111r2, had stated " that if Barnard and
I Chandler were in any way troublesonae, he would bring on the
cause again next March. if it cost him tool., and that they had
better be quiet " Mr. I:handler and 31r. Barnard swore solemnly
that they were never together on the defendant's premise, on the
I Ith of July. as sworn to by him, and consequently that the de-
fendant's assertion in that respect was utterly false. Evidence was
also given to %hew, that although (:handler had been on the pre.
miffs at eight o'clock in the tawnier,. vet that after that hour he
was far away from the premises, and had never been near them the
rut of the day.
Mr. linont Wit addressed the .fury at considerable length, and
the grotto] of defence taken was, that although. in point of fact, it
turned out that there was no just ground for charging ('handler
and Barnard %lilt the robbery, yet the defendant, in g;ving the
evidence which he did, was nut actuated by malicious moues, but
stated, from the information of others, that which was the founds-
aion of his belief in the guilt of these persons. It was insisted that
the assignments of perjury were not satisfactorily proved, and that
at least there was so much doubt in the ease as to entitle the de.
fend.ant to an acquittal.
Several witnesses were called In support of the ground of defence
taken, and it was proved that the defendant hail for a series of years
borne a good character for integrity and veracity.
51r.Anotentts replied upon the defendant', case, and con.
tended that from first to Ma the defendant had been actuated
towards the prosecutors by the intast vindictive spirit, and that the
charge of felony preferred against thona was the result of a foul
conspiracy to prevent them from suing him for money which he
owsd them.

Mr. Justice Run norcu summed up the csse for the Jury with
strict impartiality. leaving it to them to determine whether the
erWence given by the iletendant on the occasion in question was
wilfully and corruptly Use.
The Jury thliberauvl fur some time, and found the defendant—
The judgment will be rescued for the consideration of the
Court mbi,VC.