The Sun.
London, England, 1864-02-15 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.--(This Day.)

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.

(3ittings at Nisi Prius, before Chief Justice Cockburn and
a Special Jury.)
THE QUEEN V. HEANE-ALLEGED PERJURY.

Mr. Sergeant Ballantine, Mr. Giffard, and Mr. Lewis
appeared for Mr. Armytage, and Mr. M. Chambers for the
defendant.

From the opening of the learned sergeant, it appeared
that his client, a son of Sir G. Armytage, a young gentleman
of great promise and bravery, entered the Royal Navy
previous to the outbreak of the Russian war, and
during that memorable period he served with great distinc•
tion at the storming of Sweaborg, at which place he was
severely wounded. He afterwards served in the attack on
the Peiho Forts in China ; and on the return of his vessel
to England, lie passed his examination for lieutenant, and
was afterwards appointed to the Malacca. When he joined
the vessel the defendant, Mr. Heane, was one of the mid-
shipmen aboard the vessel. While the ship was at Spit-
head the defendant alleged that Mr. Armytage conducted
himself in a highly improper manner, and after the expiry
of eight months a charge was made against Mr. Armytage,
not only that ho hathmade improper proposals b Mr. Heane,
but also that he had been guilty of the same gross conduct
to two other gentlemen about the ship. named Delisle and
Jackson. Mr, Armytage being indignant at the accusation,
wrote to the captain of the Malacca a letter, demanding a
court-martial, and one was held in Malta Harbour ;
and after four days' investigation the decision of the court
was that the charges made by Mr. Heane and Mr. Delisle
had been proved, but; that made by 31r. Jackson had not
been made out. Mr. Armytage alleged that the result of
the trial had been brought about by perjury, as he never,
during the whole course of his service on board ship, ever
made the gross proposals to either of the officers, and the
present proceedings were instituted as the only tribunal
left open to Mr, Armytage to clear his name from the odium
that had been thrown upon it.
Mr. Armytage, examined by Mr. Giffard, said—l entered
the navy in 1855. I was wounded at Sweaborg. I was
also wounded while serving
in the Cruiser in an attack
upon the Peiho Forts. I came home when the ship re •
turned to England, and passed my examination for lieute-
nant. I was afterwards appointed to the Malacca, in which
vessel I served until July 14, 1862. Mr. Heane was a
midshipman on board the Malacca when I joined. He was
a total stranger to me. I have had to reprimand him on
points of duty. I reprimanded him two or three days before
he brought the present charge against me. This must have
been done on the 4th or 6th, as the accusation was made on
the 9th of May, Ho always appeared to be on the best of
terms with me. I recollect being officer on the watch at
Spithead on the Ist of October, 1861. The vessel had been
coaling that day. I should, in the ordinary course of my
duty, be on the upper deck. It would be contrary
to rule to sit down while so engaged. The watch
lasted from Bto 12. The stern gratings were twelve yards
from the sentry on the bridge. There was always a marine
on duty on that part of the vessel on those occasions. He
is to see that no irregularity takes place, and keep a good
lookout for boats approaching. There was nothing to
obstruct the view of the sentry but the mizenmast, and this
would only do so while he was actually passing. It is not
true that on the Ist day of October I and Heano sat talk-
ing together on the stern gratings. Ido not ever remember
to have sat with him on the stern gratings. I never com-
mitted the impropriety charged against me. Nothing of
the kind ever took place between us. No act of indecency
over took place of the nature stated, Delisle is present in
court.

Cross-examined by Mr. M. Chambers—Mr. Heane was
about sixteen years of age. I know Mr. Heane was in my
watch about that time, but whether he kept the identical
watch referred to on the Ist of October I am not tertian.
The learned gentleman put a number of other questions t
the witness, but the result was a distinct denial.of the im
potations charged against him.
Sergeant Ballantine—Did anything improper ever take
place between you and Mr. Delisle ?
Mr. Chambers objected. The matter was quite irrele-
vant to the matter the court was then investigating, viz., a
charge o f perjury against Mr. Heane.
The Court thought the question ought not to be an-
swered.

Re-examination continued—l made every effort to dis-
cover the sentry on duty when the occurrence spoken to
by Mr. H.eane was said to have taken place, but I failed to
do se.

From the numb3r of witnesses to be examined, it is not
expected the case will conclude to-day.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Goulburn.)
IN RE WATTS AND LONG.-JUDGMENT.

- -
These bankrupts were described as of Upper Thames-
street, shipping merchants, and his Honour now gave
judgment on the question cf discharge in tho case of
Watts, Long having absconded with, it is supposed, a large
portion of the assets of the firm. The accounts by Messrs,
Hart Brothers and Hayes, showed a total indebtedness
of about £15,000, and there was a deficiency of about
£12,000.

His Honour said that the trading of the bankrupts had
been founded on the greatest frauds, for goods had been
obtained from all sides, and immediately converted into
ready money by sending it to places where parties were
ready to buy any kind of goods without asking or caring
where they came from, or whether they had been paid for
or not. These places he had heard called slaughter-
houses. Thus Long had got rid of a great amount
of property by these means during the short period they
had carried on business ; the question, however, was how
far the bankrupt Watts was implicated in these gross frauds,
and it was urged on his behalf that his proper trade was
that of a lithographer, and that he lelt the other business
to Long, who also kept the books, and that he (Watts) was
absent travelling for nine months out of twelve. It was
possible that the bankrupt had not taken any active part in
these gross frauds, but there was no doubt he was legally
and civilly liable. His discharge wuuld be suspended for
two and a half years, from the date of the petition, one year
and nine months ago, but protection would be granted.