The National Register.
London, England, 1816-12-30 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT or. CIIANCEItr,. ..tTunDAY, DEC. 21.

- -
CI.ANI)ESTINE Mann' %Gr.—Sir Artlini Pigott, addressing
the Lord Chancellor, soi I, he trusted the rigour of the pre-
aientseason, :tut!the rerittjar situation of fllrs. Bazeley would
sufficiently apologize for again calling his Lordship's atten-
tion to tie iittlije.i of her petition. The lady had. on a
former din, petitioned his. Lordship for a sum 4110001. for the
present relief of her necessities. She stated, that she hail
one infant, eizlit mouths old, and was likely soon to Itecome
tae mother of another; that she was destitute of the means
of proeneinz those comforts and enjoyments, or even the ne-
cessaries of lire, her situation xsupoired.
Lord Chancellor —" Take halt the money."

courrr OF KING'S BENCH, FNIUAY,'DEC. 27.
Special Juries.
THE 19.X0 V. JOHN BARNARD J4r0094, AND ALEX. COHEN.
This was an indictment against the defendants for perjury,
in having• on it trial of Thinnitson cud Foreman v. Barnard
Jacobs, opon a hilt of exchange, sworn falsely as to the par-
ticular place in:which the bill was accepted.
Mr. Gurney,. on the part of the prosecution, stated the
Cafe.
Mr. Topping. on behalf of the dtfendant, took au ohjee-
lion, in point of law, f dal upon the statute of King Wil-
liam. Tbe evidence showed that one of the plaiutitfe in the
criginaksuit-had died before the trial, and no suggestion had
been catered upon the nisi pass record, required by the sta-
tute. Py contmon law the suit was abated by the death of
one of the plaintiffs; hut the act had regulated this point
otherwise ; consequently., as no suggestion had been entered,
there clothl he no action, and no perjury in that action.
This objection was considered fatal by Lord Ellenhorough.
and the defendants were both acquitted accordingly.

TOE KING V. ROBERT ROPER.

This was an indictment against the defendant for wilful and
corrupt perjury in an auswerto a bill filed by certain persons
for a discovery in the Court of Exchequer: I:.e answer was
dated the 19th of December, Il+oB, and was sworn before Mr
llaron Wood. The facts proved on the part of the prosecu-
tion were these. The defendant and two other persons, of
the names of Hucks and Price, were owners of the ship
Which in the year Idit sailed to the Smith Seas on a
whaling voyage ; at that time she was insured to the amount of
3,0001. She proceeded to her destination with a letter of
tuarene, and an her return borne captured several prizes on
the coast of South America : somenf considerable value. In
ceder, however, to secure them, she was obliged to reduce leer
crew of English sailors, awl to take on board some Spaniards,
found in one of the prizes, in their stead. When off the coast
of Peru, the Saanierds rose upon the rest of the crew of the
igilant; and after killing the mate. and wounding some
others, succeeded in carrying the ship into a neighbonring
port. Intelligence of this es eat reached Eagiand by the 24th
July, 1807, by means of a letter written ley a man flamed Joliet
Anderson; one of the seamen of the Vigilant, who made his
escape from a prison of Carthagena. This letter was trans-
mitted by the person to whom it was addressed to Hacks, one
of the gamier., and it appeared that the defendant had also
become acquainted with the contents, fur hr immediately pro-
ceeded to insure the ship .i,tool. beyond the amount origi-
nally underwritten when she left the Thames. The signa-
tures of the underwriters were obtained on the representa-
tion that:the owners had ascertained that lip to July, ISOti,
the Vigilant was in safety 'at the Galapagos Islands. It being
asserted, that soon afterwards the ship bad been lost, actions
we re brought against the insurers, and one verdict was reco-
vered. In the mean tune, however, suspicions were enter-
tained that the owners of the Vigilant were acquainted with
the loss at the time the policies were effected, and a bill in
the Exchequer for a discovery was filed, and on the answer
given to it by the defendant, Roper, and Hocks, and Price,
the other owners, the perjury was assigned : the defendant
there denied " that he, at, or at any time before, he effected
the said policies, underwritten by the said complainants, or
caused the same to be effected, knew, or was informed, or had
any revision to believe, &c. that the said ship called the Vigi-
lant, was not well and in safety at the latter end ofJuly, Ides,
or that she was then in expectation or danger of being totally
lost," &c.
On the part of the prosecution, it was charged, that this
denial was untrue, and that the defendant, before the date of
the policy, July 31, 1807, had seen the letter of John Au-
derson, giving intelligence of the capture of the Vigilant.
The fitst part of the evidence against the defendant was
documentary, and consisted of the bill, answer, and policies.
Mr. Col tttttt m Sergeant, for the defendant, took several
objections, on the ground of variance between the record and
0.! evidence, but they were all over ruled by the Chief
Justice. _ . .

—.....,
Mr. Lavers, an insurance-broker, who effected the policies,
proved the instructions received from the defendant, that the
etip was well fled in safety at the latter end ut Jnly, 1816.
Two months before lie effected the policies in question the
defendant had applied to him tlir that purpose, hut he could
nut procure any signatures on account of the absence ut any
tidings of the Vigil:int.
Witnesses were then called, who brought home the know-
ledge of the loss • to the defendant previous to the date of one
of the policies for 1,0901. on the 31st July, 1831.
Several witnesses swore to an acknowledgement by Roper
that he hat effected a policy on the Vigilant after he knew
of her fuss by a letter of John Anderson. Joseph Price,
who was part owner of the Vigilant, :mil had also swisrn to
the answer on which the indictment was founded, was se-
Ire! ely cross.exantined by the Common ''et
To Common Sergeant addressed 'beim yon behalf of the
defendant, commenting on the little credit doe to the wit-
nesses in support or the peasorrittion. He called two wit.
messes in order to show that previous to the e,.ecting of the
policy the defendant leitl learned front the supercargo and
mite of another South Whaler, that the Vigilant was well
and in satiety sit the latter end ()linty, 1806.
.Itioiney•tienet al replied ; and after a patient slim.
o op by Load Elle tiboiltogl,, the Jury found the defend-
ant guilty,
The Court did not rise till past seven in the evening.

SATURDAY, DEC. 28th.
THE RING V. J. W. HARI EV.
This WIE en iiiilictsittlit for petjury, and it wia a‘giznerl
upon the swearing of the defendant, to it deht of :011. before
t, "ssioLers. Qn the hanktuptcy of persons of the names of
Reynolds and Kend dl. It appeared, that between the bank•
rupts and the defendant, (who formi ly was a banker at
Itovhfort,) there had been eomiderable money trans.tetion.,,
and three accommodation bills for 31101. each. It was al-
edged on the part of the bankrupt, that one of these had