The National Register.
London, England, 1821-12-16 00:00:00

no such oiler. The Attorney-General stated, that In 1818,
an election took place, at B.trintaple. The candidates
were Sir M. Lopez and Sir H. Toompson. Ott the latter
bring thrown out, he petitioned the House of C01111111)113,
complaining that Sir M. Lopez had been returned by her y.
The petition was idles red to a telect commitee, whit h ex.
ambled witurs.es. The defendant on that occasion made his
deposition, toting the conveisation he had with Os Antic.—
A bill was afterwaris brought into the Commons to depr.ve
the Borough of Barnstaple of their elective franchise, and
give it to the neighbouring Hundreds. The bill tent up to
the Lords, where evidence nos also beard at the Bar in sup•
port of the tillegations of bribery. The defendant, on that
IJCCitIiIUR made a secotid depObitloll, ill which he denied w hat
he had sworn in the Commons. The 'louse of Lords, in
consequence of the perjury, not only of the defendant, but
others, directed the Attorney Oencral to prosecute. In
consequence of that direction the defendant was this day to
answer fop hi, misconduct.

Mr. Whitham, clerk of the journals in the House of Com-
mutes, proved the lamentation of a petition on the part of
Sir H. Thompson, complainin4 of the return of Sir M.
Lopes, also the examination ur witnesses.
TM:short hued notes of Mr. Liuruey and his assistant were
read to prove the answers given by the defelidaut in the
Comm our, and at the bar of the House of Lords.
Mr. Adolphus then addressed the Jury for the defendant.
Ile complained of a defect in the counts of the indietwent,
mid contend, al that it was difficult for a Jury to Mot the
defendant guilty.—The perjury arose mit of the declaim at
the Borough of Barnstaple; and it was millet ex tiaordi eery,
that the Attorney-Gent:tail, Lards und Common•, should
combine to punish a poor brick-maker. More had been
pressed into the information thin the prosecution would
warrant. The assei lions of the deleildniit were these:—
He was a freeman of the Burom,ll of Ilariemple, and he
voiril for Sir AI. Lopez and Sir 11. Thompsum As well as
lie could recollect he met John tiribtale, the agent to Sir M.
Lopes, in Workhuuse•lnue, who asked the del, aidant va h. Bier
lie had made up his mind. The defeutlatit told Lim he had
not, but lie 14 'shied to do 60 if lie could have satisialetion.—
He meant compensatimi for loss of time. Ca Bible told him
he could give Min nothing before the election, but Would
give it utter. then gave his vote for Sir M. Lopez,
and he was induced to vote for Sir M. Lopez, lay promise of
satisfaction. At a subsequent examination in the !louse of
laurels, he said, sa hen Dribble spoke to him in Wail k house-
lane, no satisfaction w.:5 given. This variation, the learned
counsel contended, was not sufficient to become the foul).
dation of a cleirge of vs ilrul an,l corrupt perjury. The first
deposition might be incorrect, but the defendant had three
months after endeavoured to amend his statemmit. It was
impossible foe the Jury. to ,ay, wttllont tvadence, whether
the pei jury as, in the House of Lords ur the House of
Commons.

The Attornvy General %us heard in reply, and the Jury
founda verdict of (Guilt).

THE IRING V. EDWARD!.

The defendant, another of the Barlisinple voter, was
tried upon an information exhibited bs the Attorney General,
charging the defendant with wilful and corrupt perjury, in
giving his evidence beim e Ihr !louse of Lord', touching the
bribery in the lint uugh of Bat nstaple during the last elec-
tion. The defendant, before the lionise of Cumulous, stated,
that an agent named Witkinson, °Weird to give him a IL
note to vote for Sir M. Lopez. At his examination before
the Lords, lie denied that any such oiler had been made by
Wilkinson.

Mr. Adolphus addressed the Jury for the defendant, and
contended, that there was no proof whether the defendant
had sworn fol,ely before the House of Lords or the !louse of
Commons.

The Jury found the defend tot Guilty.
ItiE KING V. lIARKII.

This was a similar prosecution. The defendant ts •s charged
with swearing certain matters before the House of Lords
which w ere false. He swore in the House of Gamow., that
Wilkinson ufrered hLR infancy to vote, mid t efare the House
of Lords he swore no money was ollered.—The Jury found
the defendant—Guilty.
Y•RMSR V. /ROOD.

The pleadings in this case were opened by Mr. Chilly.—
It was au action for a malicious prosecution.
Mr. Gurney, who stated the case, said Mr. flamer had
brought this &XI ion fur the purpose of obtaining a reparation
damages fur a serious injury. This action imputeo to the
defendant, that he had maliciously aunt without CI. use pre •
(erred an indiutinetit, chi-riming the plaintiff with basil'
C J ttttt lit led the crime of conspiracy, in CUlljUllettU/1 Milli it
person named Lee, for the purpose of obtaining money under
false pretences from a foreign Nobleman.—Mr. Marine/ had
been an attorney of that Court Dot less than '2O years, nail
55 noting lit stal4ll Dell berme the Judgra na well as the pi o.
fessouu, had bi might this at aim in or,:er to repel the itiajo.
tation call ou his character. it was wish pain Le had to
state his case. because he ass obliged to introduce the l Roe
of a person of distinction, not at present in this country,
Who WWI CnOCero rod in the transaction which gave rise to the
action. In ISIS a young VlOO MI named ItoOoo. H lilt her
father applied to 51r. Ilat 'tier, in his profcsA.iird char•cter,
mating a lamentable case. It aar i crest ided In him that
hilrt the 3 oung a oman a as honestly earning her liveLls
10 •iins Iv* re used fur her seduction by the domestic of a
foreign nobleman. Overtures wet e made to bar fr. ta 111410
to lone, in the name al' a foreign merchant, who, it was said,
would provide fur her a ith the „reatestlibcrality. 114
aloe sans mentioned as 'Air. Pickard, and -11/ the end his
etfoits acre successful. This youog *soma's was iodated to
live with him in luagiugs, where she passed for the %Le
of Mr. Pick:rid, %ho am no other 1111111 the nobleman.—
They lived together some time, when she became ',regnant.
It ass then said he was de•irous of getlitig rd of tier. She
Ma, far aimmni ed iu pregnancy, and reeuecil to a Slate of
destitutiou. The passim' of her seducer had abated, and
sbe gas wholly without support, alma she made a charge of
his using 11111:111§ to get tid of her. Alr. Ilattukd 1101 neser•
before west her rir her father, aml he Nilo 114,1 O.,lloliCd to
take sudden and hasty proceediuga, hot he theiglst some.
tiiing ought to be dune to obtain for her the mean. of sup.
taut, rod pi e• 01.1 her from rushing to a stale of pro. titation.
...ite knew a ge.menum is. mutinied with the nobleman,
and lie ask4d him to see if may timig could he done 10 pre-
vent exposure. Mr. °Wilms:lb. the ~eaceuutii applied to,
54 as (lathe bUle the notdeinais a amid be much 0n1i,041 to It.
t expel:Mrs./111d begged lie mould go to rigs
nobleman. Ile had uu interview wish hint. The imbh m 4ii
immed the story about the UICIWIII to gel tid of her s but on
1,.1 c 1.4 hating to the keep of il.o young woman,a ed
his ;elm ney num r VII tire otragion. Mr. Fr"nd, the
iletendent, amino zed Mr. limner to advance tile young
woman 51. aril . 11 it iner advanced 51, mole. The dm
fondant pi oposed h, r to the a orkliouse to lie in. NI r.
117111111.1 Slant time 'flu Hpl Iced lit have the ICI. 1111'd; atid


THE NATIONAL REGISTER

I finding he could not get that sum, requested the 51. Mr.
riouil then talked of compelling the young wootan to go
brfore a roa;iatrate to swear the child. Mr. Ilarmer not
being able to het the 101. wrote n respectful note to the
nobleman, and reqiiesied lie might have his 101. He was
much astoaislied after this, to hod, without Huy pies ious
notice, that Mr. Proud Aria to the session., Clerkena eil,
nod prefei r, d an italic ['nem against him.elf and a clergyman,
tor conspiiticy. The clergyman had no know ledge of the
letter sent by Mr. Harmer, but hea.ing of the case, had
written to the nobleman. The plaintiff had notice of the
indictment soon after it WIll! found, and sent to 51r.. natal,
qating th.it he would surrender, and take his tiial on the
Monday following; bat 51r. Flood said lie should conduct
the prosecution in the common way. The iiidictment was '
removed by certiorari into this court, and Mr. Harmer wits
acquitted. This was the plaintiff's ewe, and the Jury
would have to soy whether the defendaut preferred this in-
dictment maliciously. If the evidence made out a case of
malice, the-daniages would no doubt compeusate the plaiu-
tiff for the attack upon his character.
Mr. florney thou called John Lim re, who produced the
indictment found by the Grand Jury it:itinq the plaintiff.—
The same tieing rend by the clerk at Nisi Prins, charged
the plaintiff and auother with conspii mg to defrwud the
nutilcmau.

S,rgennt Wake asked how the family name of the no-
bleman was sin:lli:di
Mr. Abbott said, with nig.
Sergeant Peake then observed, that the name in the de
duration was spelled with is j. vaiianee wu.dd alter
the bound ut the tailor, and make the aCtl9ll apply to a dtf•
ferent person.
The Lord Chief Justice sslted Mr. Cuincy if he was pre-
pared to prove by any pet son who undeibtood Spanish, that
both letters produced the sante sound in she Spanish lan-

gunge?
Alt. Gurney had nn witre., to est:4lll6h that proposition
and tits misnomer being held Wit!, the plaintif unto non-
suited.
IMIDAT, DEC. 14.
PERJURY.-1118 RING v. DREW.

The defendant was indicted for wilful and corrupt reijory,
in stating ut the bar of the House of Commons, ;oat Culintel
Bales, who :duo(' candidate at the late election fur the
botiniAli of 'lesion, in u; bsitire, ullctel lual YUI. or 301. to
vote for Iti.t..

Colonel Bayley bring examined in support of the prose-
cution, denied in the must positive term., that he ever 011 red
the defendant any money, and, wider all the eireurnvtancco,
found the defendant—guilly.

11/11 KING V. DoLsr.
This leas called on fur 16:0. It was a prosecution by the
Constitutional Association, against the defendant, a stationer,
in the Strand, for the 1:n1)1:cation of an alleged libel, entitled
lie " Political Diationary, or Pocket Companion"
Three special jurors appeared in the nog to try the in.
dictineill, **licit an objection wa* taken to the array,
or jury set in order by the Sheriff, in his return oft lie panel.
Mr. Scarlelt challenged the array, on the ground that
John Canto t, Esq. the Sorra!' who returned the panel, was
a itiviiiher of the Constitutional Absth hation, rod consequently
our of th.• pro.secut.prs.
Mr. fiurney, us coun,el for the prosecution, denied that
Mr. flarratt was, at the time of the 117111, I, one of the pro-
beCUturb.

Mr. Scotlett then said, they must go to tune upon the
questioo, and the Judge %Milli appiiiiit triers.
Toe Lord Chief Justice iwniediately appointed two
of the three special juroi• in the bog to try the issue.—
Tile juror., were Willions Nlitcliell, lis:i. and Francis Thad.
deo, E.g.
. . . . .

There being no of jection to the Nil:ointment, the two
gent lemtm %ere sworn :o try whether John Gurrat, Esq. oae
set the Sueriffs of Landon ;LIM Middlesex, at the time of re-
turittog the panel to this Court, %us oue of the prosecutors of
the defendant.

Ali., Seal lett then addressed the Triers. lie vtated that
41 a (Ors LI Oil was, a liettier Mr. Gairatt, the Sheriff of
London, was one of the Gomtitutional Association, and
whether he gave nt that character a list of Special Jurors ?
It would perhaps be said that Able' man Garrott had !been
a member of the Association, but had suit suithdrawa his mane.
I f he had embarked his money w the concern, he was still a
partner, and engaged in the purtnersaip transactions. The
learned counsel stated, that lie should prove Aldermen Gar-
fait was a member of the Society, by the udinisviou of their
own solicitor.

Mr. Davenport, the defendant's attorney, said lie went to
the Grown Office to make inquiry who were the members
cuitipesin; the Consiitutioil l Association, and Mr. Rlur,uy,
tlie Solicitor for the pi usecution, itli a 11.,
ut the pei sum ur subscribers of a body styling thetu.eli e-
tit.: Assuctathon. John Garratt, Aide,
man, %%as our of the names given by M.. IMuriay. tits re.
eirvtl the hat oil the tilth of May lust, and be belie%ert Joint
tutt at that time to be one of the Aldermeu ut the City of
Lottuott.

li..,bertssaid, he was well acto.,itite4 w ith the tier
,t Alderman fiarratt. At the poll ior the Sherd', the
day alter Atithuinater-day, Nir. Atoeroato Garnett oeclored
i.e lot I been a member of the Conitautioutel A,loCi.ttiOn,
hut he had ceased to belong to it. The %%cduesday follow -
lug, in another vetch be made uu the hustings he retracted
(hut declaration.

iie Lord Choler Justice asked the witness the words used
by Aidtrinan Garratt.
The aiutesscould not state %%hat was said. 11l collie
queues- of sonic debate on the host ins lie retracted the de.
Clariltl4lo made on the Monday preceding. Mr. Ciarrall
au, at the head of the poll when lie retracied his declaration.
scarleit then te•certaitied that the indictment was
Nuad on tur 25th of May. The ticchn anon made by Mr.
taariatt was made ou the day alter AI ttleunnuer day.
Ali. Gainey for the prosecul ;aid, the Sherilf certainly
nits teinivally one who returned the panel, told Mr.Scarleit
nos e,a died to object to the retain of the rand, if the
:sae, in* could be made one of the prosecutors. he day after
.11h13.nntn.r day, Mi. Gartutt eeclared lie bad ceased to he
m.vu.itt of the Association, trod Mr. (I..iiatt was in court
to stile that lie a as not a mentbei of Aasuciation.
Mr. laai rail was theta called.,
Mr. Scat lett objected to his examinatio:-, on the ground
tuna he was 110111 competent a itiwsv. Tue objeisk.uu teting
to iii act of n, of a Inch he was the author, 1:c could not be
.1 Lowed to give cvioence on the imbjiit I.
Gamey sulettutteil that this Imo% u collateral issue, the
hzie.lll. had WI inleflNll, and $lllOll 111 the anuutiun 01 any
M.rr ss sinews.

ChielJestice ►ald, as there was no authority on the
iltirlldon, the .der way Wl's to Consider the witoeua
iaeumertent. lit. eu►winauuo M4IG armlet* disernati


us

Mr. SM.. p was then called. lie ts as a prosecutor.
Mr. Sesrlett objet led him no bring • pruseester ; but
the Judge allou ed him to he examined.

The s;itness then deposed. that he was secretary to the
Association, and had been present at n.I the meetings. In
May last SheritfG•Nctt was a niember. He reastd to be
memlat•r loog berme lie became Sherif.
Cross-examined by Mr. Searlett.
What are you, Mr. Sharp /—Honorary Secretary to the
Constitutional Society.
Honourable Secretary to the Society! That is not your
usual business /—I have no business.
You live on your fortune, then /—I live on the Ream I
possess.
Were you ever in business?—Yes.
What/—ln the Munchester cotton trade.
How long since P—T w o years ago.
Is that your only business?—Yea.
Never had any other?—No.
You have beam two years without busistessl—Yes.
You say Alderman Garret became a member of this
Association by becoming n subscriber?—Yes.
And that he ceased to be a mealier I—Yes.
Hare you returned him his money ?—No.
What have you dame with it I—The money went into the
genet al hand.
Ate you treasurer?—No.
Who is ?—A I 'crintin Atkins.

What did you 'neon by toying be ceased to be a member?
—I ter e.ved n letter, circulated with the names of the sub.
►cribets, alid his statue was nut among the members,
Mr. Scarlett then addressed the Jury, observing that
his learned friend, Mr. Gurney, by calling Mr. Sharp.
had strengthened the defendant's case. He did not charge
Mr. Gas rail with bring a member of the Association, but
he had supplied them with funds. His capital had been
embarked in the undertak ins,. and the proceeding against
the defendant commenced whilst his funds were employed
—lie was a prosecutor.
The Lord Chief Justice summed no the evidence, and
left the Jurors to say whether Mr. Garrett was connected
with the piosicntors at the time of striking the panel.
The 'friers delivered their verdict, and found that Mr.
Garrett, at the time of striking the panel, was one of the
prosecutors.
The Lord Chief Justice then directed, that further pro.
ceedings upon the prosecution by the Society, against the
defendant, be postponed, and the event of the issue de-
clared in the return of proceedings in Nisi Prins.
Mr.Thelwall, who was in Court to defend a prosecution
preferred by the Association, addressed the Judge, and
stated, that notwithstanding the decision just come to, he
should prefer going to trial, rather than remain with the
prosecution hanging over his head.
The Lord Chief Justice said, Mr. 'flielwall might appear
to-morrow, and state whether he meant to waive the ob-
jection taken by the other defendants, as in that case the
Jury might be appointed to try the cause.
Mr. Thelwall acceded w the suggestion, and is to de.
Clare his intention after consulting with his legal adviser.
The King u. fienbow, and another prosecution at the
snit of the Association, were called on pro forma, but were
postponed upon the same objections.
Mr. Morley paid the special jurors in every prosecu-
tion.