The Sun.
London, England, 1839-01-17 00:00:00

COMMON PLEAS.-(THIS DAY.)

PYBERS V. SCUDMORE.
THE MAIDSTONE ELECTION.

Mr. THESSIGER moved in this case that a rule which had been ob.
tained by Mr. Sergeant Wilde, on the part of the plaintiff; for changing
the venue from Maidstone to London, be discharged with costs. The
action was one of slander, brought by the late Mayor of Maidstone,
against the defendant, fur having circulated a report that he (the plain-
tiff) had been guilty of wilful and corrupt perjury before the Committee
of the House of Commons, appointed to try the Maidstone Election Pe-
tition, in stating that he saw a gentleman go up a certain staircase to a
Committee-room at the election. The defendant had justified, averring
that the plaintiff had committed perjury, inasmuch as from the position
in which he stood at the election, lie could not see the staircase
in question. The plaintiff; in support of his application to change
the venue from Maidstone, had filed an affidavit, in which he
averred that political excitement prevailed to such an extent, not only
in the borough of Maidstone, but throughout the county of Kent, that
it was impossible he could hare a fair trial ; and to show this he set out
extracts from divers Maidstone Papers, casting reflections on him with
reference to his character, his personal appearance, his political opinions,
&c., stating, among other things, that he had " a squint which ena-
bled him to see round a corner."—(Laughter.) The Learned Counsel
represented these paragraphs as trivial, and as having been published a
considerable time ago, and urged that it would be most absurd to stig-
matise a whole county as so corrupted by party feeling that there could
not be fund in it a single jury, not even a special jury (for this was to
be made a special jury case), to try fairly and impartially the questiou
whether the plaintiff had committed perjury ; and he contended that as,
in order to make out defendant's case, which was, that according to the
situation in which plaintiff had stood, he could not see what he had
sworn he saw, a personal view on the part of the jury would be neces-
sary. That view would be difficult, perhaps impossible to be obtained
if the case were tried in London, whereas, if tried at Maidstone, it
would be perfectly easy.

Mr. CHANNEL followed on the same side.
Mr. Scgeant WILDE argued that the rule must be made absolute.
He urged that it was essential that the administration of justice should
not only be pure, but unsuspected. The question at issue was to the
plaintiff one of most vital importance—his character, his reputation,
his highest interests were at stake. In applying to have the venue
changed from Maidstone, he stated on oath, that he believed a feeling
not merely of political, but of personal prejudice and animosity existed
against him, and which had been excited by the Provincial Press,
which altogether prevented the possibility of his having a fair trial in
that place; and it was not even suggested that he had any other mo.
tive than what he thus stated for his application. There was no four.
dation for stigmatizing the Jurymen of the County of Kent, by re.
movin; the trial to London, though it was idle to say that on political
questions juries were not liable to party feelings. The Learned Ser.
geant went at great length into the authorities on the subject.
The COURT were unanimously of opinion, that, on the plaintiff un.
dertaking to pay the additional expenses, both of the view and of the
trial, he might remove the trial from Maidstone to London.
Rule made absolute.