The National Register.
London, England, 1816-07-21 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCI4.--SATURD %Y.
Tl4ll KING T. DAVI‘ON.—pERJuity•
Mr. Mnrryatt stated, that this was an indictment against the
defendant for wilful and corrupt perjury committed by him
in his evidence, given on the part of the prosecution, in the
celebrated rase of lie Berenger, Lord Cochrane, and others,
for a conspiracy to defraud the Stock Exchange ; and W itlt hav-
ing done so, maliciously and knowingly, for the purpose of
convicting those persons of the cluirge made against them. The
particulars of that ease ware so well known, as to render it un-
tiectosary now to go into it. The present defendant, in his ex.
amination on that occasion, stated, that De Berenger lodged
at his house. On the 20th February, 1814, the day before the
fraud on the Stock Exchange was carried into e&et, he (Da-
',isn't) was sheeting at his parlour window, it being Sunday,
walting for the Asylum clock to strike eleven, at which time
be went to chapel when he observed De Berenger come home :
at this time he had a iaree plaid cloak on as usual ; he con-
tinued at home ten minutes, anti then went out again, having
lint on a coloured mixture great coat ; when he (Davison)
observed to his wife, that their lodger had got a new great
coat. The, was the part of the evidence which constituted the
perjure ; as he should be Able to prove, by several witnesses,
that Mr. lie Berenger, at the time the defendant swore to hav-
ing seen him in LOllllOll, was at Dover; and that be arrived
e about ten o'clock on Sunday morning by the stage.
Mr. Gurnt y, the short-hand writer, produi ed his notes
taken at the trial, and swore to the evidence of the defendant.
David Banzleim was waiter at the Royal Oak at Dover on
the ?Oth of February, 1814. Ifecolleeted a gentleman arriving
by the stage coach from Loudon on that morning, about tan
o'clock. The gentleman breakfasted, dined, and continued
there till eleven at night, when he went away. Witness beard
a few days after of the Stock Exchange hoax, and it imme-
diately occurred to hint that this gentleman was a party con-
cerned. He did not at that time know who the gcutleman
was, but he since knew perfectly well that it was Mr. lie Be-
tenger.
The landlord and chamber-maid of the Royal Oak corrobo-
rated this statement. They hail seen their guest frequently
since the time in questiou, and knew it Was lie Berenger.
Mr. Gurney addressed the Jury for the defendant, and com-
mented with considerable force en the circumstances attend-
ing the present prosecution, which, he said, would have asto-
nished him could any thing coming from the quarter whence
this came have excited that feeling in his mind. He had some
experience in cases of this nature, but this was the first occa-
sion he had ever known in which a prosecutor for perjury
skulked away as if ashamed of' being known. The Jury would
perhaps be surprised to hear that at present the defeudant was
tenorant who was the prosecutor on this occasion. That there
had been abundant perjury nu the trial so often alluded to
after the evidence of to-day, he was persuaded the jury would
no longer doubt, even if they 114 d doubted it belbre; but he was
persuaded they would not he of opinion that the defendant
'Wag the person wino was wilfully perjured. On the former oc-
casiou the whole defence of De Berenger and his friceds con-
sisted in the evidence they brought forward, to prove that he
(De Berenger) was in London on the 20th of February, and
not at Dover on that day, and several witnesses were brought
forward to swear to that fact. Now those who brought forward
the present prosecution felt an equal interest in proving by evi-
dence, on oath, that De Berenger bad not been in London, but
that he was at Dover all that day. The jury would judge. upon
such a proceeding as this. With respect to the crime imputed
to the pre-ent defendant, to find him guilty, the Jury must be
convinced he had sworn falsely ; that he had knowingly done so ;
and, further, that he had done so on a puint material t the cause.
He was persuaded, the Jury would feel that twee of these points
applied to the present ease; and. under that persuasion, he
would leave his client in their WWII,.
Mr. Justice Abbot, w hotried this ease, observed, that the
record set forth that the defendant had sworn falsely and
tnelicionaly, for the purpose of convicting De Berenger and
others. This allegation had certainly not been made out; for,
peen supposing, the defendant had sworn that De Berenger was
in town, that circumstance was the only one which could have
ope:ated to procure the acquittal of that person, and those in-
dicted with him. With respect to the perjury itself, to con-
stitnte perjury, a person must nut only-swear falsely, but he
must do so knowingly, and even deliberately. In the precut
case it did not appear to him that defendant had done either ;
he rather seemed to have sworn her a mistake. It the Jary
should be of lids opinion, the defendant would be entitled to
$n acquittal.
The Jury without hesitation found the defendant Not Guilty.

CON. SISTORY COURT, Jut's,
stoartwout: V. MURTIMORE.
This was a cause of divorce brought by W. Mortintore
mgaiust Eleanor,
,his wife, by reason of adultery, slicked to
base been committed with T. Griffith. It appv.ired, that the
Marriage between the parties took place ou die Vali of Octo-
ber, 1112; lei band was in the service of the Marquis
Welleolq„ anc the wife in the capacity of house-maid, in the
family of Mr. Lee Antoine. in May, lel3, the bush ind at-
tended the Maritais to his country seat, near Itaiwgate ; the
wife still remaiiied in Albemarle-street. lo the summer of
Itil4, Mr. Lee Antoine weut :o Brighton, leaving Mrs. Morti-
sore, with other domestics, iu his house, which he directed to
be painted during his absence. Three men were employed
palatine it, one of whom was T. Griffith, who frepieutly used
tosleep in the lemse ; whets gross familiarities were ebserved
I the servants between Mrs. Mom timore and Griffith; and on
tim2Sth of October he was seen sitting in the bed-room of Mrs.
M. buttoring li's breeches knees, with his coat nll, the door
thereof beiog then open. This was the charge of adultery.—
When this cause was argued by Conn,el in Easter Term, it.was
sitibmittml on the part of the wife, that there was not sufficient
.:aus.i...lisjeltersv, Sir W. Scott, on the prayer of the husband's
ounsel, idiot perim.ten riaa:itio:;a!preof to be produced, and
this day resumed the cause; when the tonrt, alter se.,eed ro.
monks on the nature of the testimony, pronounced a decree of
separation.

TUESDAY. Ray 15. •
SILODOWLRGET E. GREGORY, EALsELY CALLING HERSELF
mzimowcnorr.

This was a talliC of nolhty of m u riage, instituted by W.
Nedslowcroft, Esq. of Liverpool, the father of W. Meadow-
croft, the husband, agaiust Mary Greg ry, his wife, by reason
of his minority, and the undue publication of bairns. It ap-
peared that the harms were pub:kited in FAruary, 181$, at
use church of St. Jame •. Clerkenwell, in the names of
Widdowcroft aad Mary Gregory, widow ; and before the
i• Ilmization of the marriage the name Widiloweroft was
stes.4 into Weddowc.roft,hy tit(' Clerl, of the parish. On the
—orate husband, it was ~,;,,,titled that this was an undue
amd Ut it • marriage was ti.zt clandestinely.—

THE NATIONAL REGISTER.

Sir W. Scott was clearly of opinion, that it was a fraudulent
publication, for the purpose of eluding the notice of those. per-
sons interested in preventing it; and therefore prououuced
the marriage null and void.

. A carious case of false imprisonment was tried in the Com-
mon Plea* on Thairstlay.—.l sugar-baker's servant,nanted Kim-
ble, was lately brought before the Lord Mayor, and by him cone
mined to the House of Correction for a month, for leaving his
work unfinished ; the warrant of commitment, by law, should
have expressed that the prisoner be also " corrected," in other
wordsfloggrd ;—and this twing omitted, Mr. Kieulyte now brought
his action against the Lord Mayor for false imprisonment, en
the ground that the warrant was illegal.—The Solicitor-Gene-
ral, for the Lord Mayor, said, the plaintiff complained, accord-
ing to common understanding, that lie had not been whipped—
(a most extraordinary complaint laileetl)—and it was tor the
Jury to say, what be was entitled to, as a compensation for the
o** oft whippl4g! —The! Jury gave a Fartkieq.doinugu.