The Sun.
London, England, 1837-12-21 00:00:00

QUEEN'S BENCH-(THIS DAY).

age t
moweeielnfetu 'quay;
given. a
nD
sl) St
aWb
eo
falsee
dem(.
Tehaisnowra,sinanhaivTnidlin defendant
answerndant f for a
onem i
os -f
the questions which was administered to him by the poll clerk,
at the last election for the county of Middlesex.
The ATTORNF.I.GENERAL (with whom was Mr. ERLE)
stated the case for the prosecution. It appeared that the
defendant is a surgeon, residing on the road to Brentford, in
the parish of Turnham Green ; that he occupied a house, for
which he paid 50/. a year rent ; and was registered for that
qualification, in November, 1836. Subsequently, however,
he left this house, and went to reside on the other side of the
road, and his term of possession expired on Lady-day in the
present year. At the last election for the county of Middle-
sex he was canvassed for Mr. Hume, and promised his vote
to that gentleman. It was, however, afterwards found that
he had lost his qualification, and he was warned not to vote.
He did, however, go to the poll at the Hammersmith booth;
and being then asked by the poll clerk, " Do you still hold
the qualification for which you were originally registered ?"
replied in the affirmative and then voted for Wood and
Pownall. The Learned Attorney-General said, nobody would
doubt, that under the existing law upon the subject of regis-
tration of voters, if a person changed his residence, though it
might be only to an adjoining house, after he had been regis-
tered, he could not vote till his new residence had been in-
serted upon the register.
Sir W. FOLLETT intimated a doubt as to that point. He
thought it had been otherwise decided by Committees of the
House of Commons.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL was quite surprised to hear a
doubt expressed as to the law on this subject. Committees
of the House of Commons, in the Rochester case for in-
stance, had expressly decided that a party who had changed
his residence had no right to vote, even though he retained a
sufficient qualification, until the entry on the registry had
been amended. lie (the Attorney-General) proceeded to say
that the Act of Parliament under which the elections for
Member.; of Parliament were now conducted, enacted that
three questions should be put to each voter presenting himself
at the polling-booths; and that any person who wilfully gave
a false answer should be indictable for a misdemeanour. Now
there could be no doubt that Mr. Dodsworth did wilfully an-
swer the question as to continued qualification untruly, for he
must have been aware of his change of residence ; the house
to which ha removed was only one of 25/. a-year rent and
he had repeatedly been informed that he had lost his qualifi-
cation for the county, and warned not to vote.
The Learned Gentleman then called the following wit-
nesses :
Joseph Williams, one of the Clerks In the Crown-office,
produced the attested copy of the writ of election, for the
county of Middlesex.
Mr. Oliver Teakel, one of the Deputy- Sheriffs at the elec-
tion, was next called, and deposed that he presided in the
Hammersmith booth. There were six eottiortments in the
booth besides that in which witness presided. One of these
compartments was assigned to the parish of Chiswick. Re-
ceived directions from Messrs. Wood and Pownall, two of the
candidates, to put the oath to every elector on the two first
questions under section 58 of the Act, and imme-
diately after to put the third question. Gave orders to the
poll clerks and register clerks in each compartment to follow
these directions, and further, if the voter refused to take the
oath, to refer him to him. Has every reason to suppose that
they followed these directions. As far as be knew no voter
was received who did not answer the third question. Swore
all the poll clerks before the election commenced to perform
this duty.
Sir WILLIAM FOLLETT—By what authority did you do that?
Witness—By the authority of the Act.
Sir WILLIAM FOLLETT—Show me now what clause in the
Act authorised you to put the oath, for we arc sometimes
puzzled as to the construction of the Reform Act ?
Witness—l have no doubt that I had power to put it. I

received a printed form from the Sheriff for that purpose.
The ATTORNEY•GENERAL—Was not the oath which you
say you put to them the oath which they subscribed ?
Witness—lt was.
Colonel Clitheroe, the Chairman of the Central Com-
mittee for securing Messrs. Wood and Pownal's election, was
next called, and deposed to his having sent a letter to the
Sheriffs, giving them directions with respect to the question
being put as to qualification.
The letter was then put in, in evidence.
John Harvey, one of the Register Clerks in the Hammer-
smith Booth No. 3, deposed that he received instructions from
Mr. Teakel that he was to take no vote unless the elector an-
swered the questions he was directed by his instructions to put.
Did not allow any elector to poll who did not answer the question.
Recollected writing the name of Frederick Christopher Dods-
worth in the poll-book. (The poll-book, which was kept in
the compartment, No. 3, was here put in.) The name of
Frederick Christopher Dodsworth was written in the book by
witness in the absence of the poll-clerk, Mr. Banner. It was
the only name which he wrote in the book. He put the oath
and the question as to qualification to Mr. Dodsnorth.
The register of electors for the county of Middlesex for
1836 and 1837 was here put in and read.
By the ATTORNEY-GENF.RAL—Had a copy of the register
in his booth to which he referred.
Sir W. FOLLETT said that his Learned Friend was bound

to prove that the copy produced by witness was the official
copy of the register.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL contended that all that k was
necessary for him to prove was, that the entry of Mr. Dods-
worth's qualification in the copy was the same as in the register.
The objection was over-ruled, and Mr. Harvey's examina-
tion was proceeded with.
Witness stated that when Mr. Dodsworth came up to ♦ote,
he referred to the register, and having put the oath to him,
put also the third question, as to whether he had the same
qualification originally inserted in the register fur Middlesex.
Mr. Dodswor th answered in the affirmative, and then polled
for Messrs. Wood and Pownall.

Messrs. Banner and Cooke, poll and register clerks in the
booth, corroborated the evidence of the last witness, the former
having returned to the booth just as Mr. Harvey was putting
the question as to the qualification, and the latter being pre-
sent when the defendant presented himself to poll.
Samuel Minton, the prosecutor in the indictment, was next
examined, and stated that four or five days before the election,
he canvassed Mr. Dodsworth on the part of Mr. Hume, and
after some hesitation he promised to vote for him. In conse-
quence of information which he received as to his not being
qualified to vote, he called on Mr. Dodsworth to caution him
against doing so, and on not finding him at home, left a mes-
sage to that effect with his shopman. On Saturday, the
second day after the election, he again called in company with
Mr. Finni,, the vestry-clerk of the parish of Chiswick, and saw
Ir.
Dodsworth. He asked him if it was true that he had
voted for Messrs. Pownall and Wood. He said, " perhaps he
had." Witness demanded a distinct answer from him
on the subject, and his reply was, that if he had,
ho had a right to change his mind. Witness then
asked him whether he had received a message from him
through his shcpman as to his having no right to vote; and ho
admitted that he had, but he told him that he had consulted
the Committee of Messrs. Wood and Pownall, and that they
gave their opinion that he had a right to vote. Witness then
left the house, after giving him notice to: his intention to in-
dict him for falsely swearing.
Cross-examined by Sir W. FOLLETT---W as much interested
in the success of Mr. Hume. Was a member of the District
Committee. Had heavy bets pending on the election and lost
them ; of course he was not pleased at losing his bets.—
( Laughter.) Knew that Mr. Dodsworth had taken a house
from Mr. Lawless, but did not know whether he resided in
that or the surgery ; witness's impression as well as that of
the district committee, was that he had a right to vote did
not go to his house on the Friday to bring him up to poll ;
swears that his only object in going there was to caution
him against voting. Was very indignant at Mr. Dodsworth's
conduct.

v Robert
Finnic, the vestry-clerk of the parish of Chiswick,
corroborated the particulars of the conversation which the last
witness stated took place between him and Mr. Dodsworth.
He recollected that in June last Mr. Dodsworth appealed at
the vestry against the Poor-rates, which he said were levied
on two houses, one of which he had ceased to occupy in con-
sequence of its dangerous state. The rate was remitted.
Mr. William King deposed that Mr. Dodsworth rented a
house from him at the south side of Turnham-green, for which
he paid him 601. a-year. He ceased to be his tenant in March
last. . _

Mr. Godfrey Baines deposed that Mr. Dodsworth was his
tenant from year to year for the surgery at the north side of
Turnham-green, at a rent of 311. a-year.
Mr. Howe stated that lie had a conversation with the de-
fendant, in which he (witness) distinctly apprised him that he
had no qualification.
Mr. Lawless was called, but wa,, not examined.
Sir W. FOLLETT then rose to address the Jury on behalf

•
of the defendant, and after sortie general observations with
respect to the uncertain construes idli the ,Reform Act, and
of the Clatise ip particuliir under which this lndktrotent was
laid; several t'ommittees of the House of Comnioil
deeded upon it different way 4, proceeded to say that, as fe,
garded the present case, the edify in the register was of such
a genei-al nature; the defendant's deeiipati3ti !rt Turnham-
gfetirl Reitis;.l;lerely dacrilied at " ofthe valtie of 56L ani^ op-
witi.ds," without sttithlj thto the pfeeige nature of the
occupation, whether household or otherielsci it was in.
sufficient to sustain the indictment. It could not tfe th>ri?ed;
indeed it was proved by the evidence for the prosecution itself,
that the defendant WAS in the occupation of premises to that
amount in tritrilhaftl-gret'n; Even, however, if the allegation
were borne out that the defendant had toted out of
premises which he did not occupy, ft itaS necessary
iti Order to support an indictment for perjury, WhiCh this in
effict Was, to show that he did it knowing that he did riit
posy .ss the qualification. fiti'w it was quite clear, from
what had been stated by Minton, tint! the witnesses
for the prosecution, namely, that the defendant NA him
that be had asked the advice of Messrs. Wood and Nit-
nall's Votnrnitted OU the subject, and that they had given
their opinion in favour of the qualification ; and moreover
that even Mr, flume's Committee, including Minton himself,
were for some time under the same impression ; that
the defendant voted under the conviction that he really
possessed the qualification. Not only was no wilful:inten-
tion of deceiving shown, but on tho Contrary, the entire of
the evidence went to disprove it. Under these elteurwannees
he confidently relied on the verdict being returned in favour of
his client.
The Learned Gentleman called no witness.

Lord DENMAN briefly summed up the evidence, and the
Jury, after a few minutes' deliberation, returned a verdict of
" Not Guilty."

THE FUNDS.-(THIS DAY.)

CITY. TWELVE O'CLOCK.

Owing to the boisterous state of the weather during the
whole of last night, we are this morning without the French
mail; and the Express from Paris still remains due.
Venezuela rapers to the 13th of November have been re-
ceived, by which it seems that a good deal of agitation pre-
vailed in the public mind; but no exact account is given of
the cause. Some of the papers in the interest of the move-
ment party were urging the establishment of a new Constitu-
tion, and the convocation of a national convention. These
papers contain two proclamations to the people—one from the
Vice-President, the other from the President, General Paez,
who lives in retirement. Both these documents arc of consi-
derable length. Their aim is to allay the public discontent,
and any ambitious designs against their liberties on the part of
the Government.