The National Register.
London, England, 1821-12-17 00:00:00

DELAYNE V. WAITHMIIN AND ANOTHER,

This was an action availed the laic Sheriffs of London,
to recover a compensation in damages for aloes sustained
by the side of goods, which the defendants levied under
process sued out in egularly, by a person of the name of

The Sheriffs were merely nominal defendants, being
indemnified by the plaintiff in the snit outer which they
acted.

Arter the cause 11311 proceeded to proof of the plaintiff's
tight to siipport the action, a vei diet was taken by con-
scud fur 501. ilaniagea, anitit et to a rt•frrrncr.

THE ZING C. THE -111AVoR OF t'AIWIERIPGI!.

This.;;;;;KroiventlMl against the Alas or olGiitibridge,
for refusing to comply with toe tet MS of a mandamus, eon-
mandinK I to ailient .Ir. Nash, the son of a freeman of
Condit idge, to the freedom of that corporatism.
Mr. Se it lett, who slated the case, said, he was prepare,'
to prove, by a number of early docitinvots relating to the
power gin en by the ancient borough of Cambridge, that
the usage of the corporation iu bonier days had been to
admit the younger sons of freemen, as well as the eldest
son, to their freedom. The cue poration, if alopeareddied
made bye-laws, and they said, with retereace to the pit -
evening, that no custom, admitting lime younger silos ol
freemett, was in existence. Mr. Nosh, the proseeitt Or 11
014 case, was a younger son, and lie claimed the light of
freedom upon ilie ancient II'OVIC of the borough. The
July had to decide a 111 CollollYlatilk importance
to the cot potation of Cambridge an well as the public at
large. If they decided that the elilvid sons of freemen
only were cm it letito claim the right of freedom, it would
rest, ict tits freedom of election, as none hut persons free
of the corporation could vote to return Nlembets to Pdl.
liament. _ _

Tile learned Counsel produced a deal of doenmentary
and parole evidence, upon whirls the dory, after the trial
had occupied some hum's, Toned the ileferidaut Guilty.
THURSDAY, ore. 13.
PERVIIRY.--THS KING V. MULL..
The defendant, one lit the Won't:oe voters, war tried
upon on informat • filed by the Attorney General, for wil-
fnl and corrupt pet jury, commit, d at the Bar of the Howe
of Lords, during the e carotin it on of witoe•ses before the.
Peers, touching the bribery tran•at lion. in the Borough ut
Barnstaple, during the emotion between Sir E. Thompson
and Sir Si. Lopez. The assig 00000 ent of perjury charged the
defendant with gi•ing answers before the Lords, ist direr t
contradicti iiii to his amaers in the House of Commons. In
the House of Commons he stated, Ihnt nit agent "tiled
Gribble, offered him money to induce him to vote fur Sir M .
Lopez, In the House of Lords he swore that Gribble made

no such offer. The Attoruey•Getteral stated, that in 1818,
an eleettoo took place, sit Barnstaple. The candidates
were Sir M. Lopes and Sir 11. Thompson. On the latter
being throaty out, he petitioned the lionise of Colllllllllli,
eomplaininz that Sir M. Lop, z had been returned by beltway.
The petition was refs.. ed ai a select committee, which ex.
nmined witnes.ts. The defendant on that IN7CdSIOII made his
deposition, lacing the comersation he had with Gribble.—
A bill was afterwards biutight into the Coin 1111 lns to depr,vr
the Borough of Barnstaple of their elective franchise, and
give it to the tieii.libouring Hundreds. The bill %scut up to
the Lords, where evidence wa. also heard at the Bar in sup-
port of the allegations of bribery. The (10.1.111h111t, 011 that
occasion made a second deposititm, in which he dmiied ss hat
he had bworai in the Com 0000000 s. The House of Lords, in
consequence of the perjury, not only of the defendant, but
others, directed the Attorney General to proserut.. In
consequence of that direct' he defendant was this day to
answer fur hi, misconduct.

Mr. W ham, clerk of the journals in the 1-111113 e of Com•
mans, proved the presentatiMl Or a petition un the part of
Sir H. Thuinpson, complitinin4 of the return of Sir M.
Lopez, al.o the examination of witnesses.
The shint band notes of Mr. Gurney and his 'militant were
rend to prove the ansu ers given by the defendant in the
Coininote, and at the lair of tile (rouse ur Lords.
Mr. Adolphus then addressed the Jury fur the defendant.
Ilri complained of a defect in the counts of the indictment,
mid contend. d that it was difficult far a Jury to hod the
defendant guilt y.—Tlie perjury arose ont of the election lit
the Borough of Barnstaple; and it was rather extraordiaary,
that the Attorney-Genet al, Lords and Common-, should
combine to puuieh a poor brick-maker. More had bcru
pressed into the information titan the prosecut would
warrant. The asset 110115 of the defendant were these:—
He was a freeman of the Borough of Barostaple, I lie
voted for Sir NI. Lopez and Sir ii. Thompson. As well as
he could recollect lie tact Juhn Gribble, the agent to Sir M.
Lopez, in Wm khirtpe •Inne, w ho ii,kt:4l the deft (Mont ahi t her
Ina had made up Ili. mind. The defendant told him lie had
not, but lie, w ',lied to do so if lie could have satis.action.—
He meant compensation for lom of time. Gribble told him
he could give him nothing before the election, but would
give it after. Kuril then gave his vote for Sii M. Lopez,
find he was induced to vote for Sir M. Lopez, by promise of
satisfaction. At a substquelit examination in the llouse of
Lords, lie said, is hen Graphic ►poke to him iu Kof khouse-
lane, nu sutisincti nn was given. This sari Aims, the learned
comm.! comended, was not sufficient to become the foun-
dation of a charge of wilful and concept perjury. The first
deposition might he incorrect, but the defendant had three
months after endeavoured to ~,,, end his ►tatement. It wits
impossible for the Jury• to say, without evidence, whether
the perjury nas iii the House of Lord, ur the House of
COMIIIIIIIV.

The Attorm•y General us' heard iu reply, and the Jury
found a verdict of Guilt).

Till ZING V. EDWARD!.

The defendant, ;mother of the Barnstaple ♦oters, was
tried upon an information exhibited by he Attorney General,
charging the defendant with wilful and corrupt perjiery, in
giving his evidence before the House of Lords, lunching the
Lribery in the Borough of liar obtaple dui mg the last elec-
tion. The defendant, before the lline.e of Commons, staled,
that an agent named 'A ilk inborn, offered to give him a 11.
note to vote for Sir Nl. Lopez. At his examination berme
the Lord., lie du tied that any such utter had been made by
W ilk instill.

Mr. Adolphus addressed the Jury for the defendant, and
contended, that there was no proof whether Ilse defend.od
had !worn falsely Is fuse the !fume of Lord, ur the llotwe of
Commons.

The Jury found the defendant Guilty.
/LI2IG V. HARRIS.

This we:: a similar prosecution. The defendant was charged
with bweitilug certain mai tt.rs before the House of Linda
hich %ere false, lit bwory iu the House of eeeee hos, that
\V dkingull tfleled lu n money to vote, a',d I..efore the House
of Lords he ►wore no money was offered.—The Ju'y fouud
the defendant—Guilty.