The Sun.
London, England, 1865-03-25 00:00:00

Extraordinary Case of Perjury.

A case was disposed off yesterday at the Lewis Assizes,
before the Lord Chief Baron, of a very extraordinary cha-
racter. Mr. Henry Mowbray, an elderly man of respectable
appearance, and who has for many years held a responsible
position in the* town of Brighton, surrendered to take his
trial upon an indictment charging him with misdemeanour
in having committed wilful and corrupt perjury before the
judge of the county court at Brighton. Sergeant Parry was
specially retained, with Mr. Pearce, for the prosecution.
The defendant, it appeared, contrary to the advice of his
friends, determined to conduct his own defence. The cir-
cumstance under which the charge was preferred was very
peculiar. It appeared that the defendant, in addition to
carrying on a business at Brighton, was an agent for an-
accidental death insurance company, and he was acquainted
with the prosecutor, who is a person of great respectability,
and who holds an official position in the town, and a few
weeks back the defendant, who was upon friendly terms
with .the prosecutor, called upon him, and asked him to
effect an insurance against accident with the company he
represented. The prosecutor expressed his willingness to
do so, and the defendant pressed him to insure to the extent
of a £5 premium, but he would not insure to that amount,
but did so for a sum that required the payment of £1 as
premium, and he gave a check for that amount. Accord-
ing to the case for the prosecution, and which did not in-
deed seem to be disputed, the prosecutor put the proper
amount of £1 on the counterfoil of the check, but he droll'
the check itself for the sum of £5, but owing to the coun-
terfoil being correct, the mistake was not discovered until
he obtained his cancelled checks from the bankers, and he
then immediately applied to the defendant for the restitu-
tion of the £4 that had been paid him in excess. The de-
fendant then seemed to have made the same statement he all
along persisted in, viz., that it was true that he had received
a check for £5, but that he had paid over to the prosecutor
at the time he received it the change of four sovereigns, and
he positively refused to pay the amount demanded of him.
The prosecutor, upon this, instituted proceedings in the
county court against the defendant, and both parties were
examined, and the defendant then declared, upon his oath,
that he had paid the four sovereigns, the change for the
cheque, to the prosecutor. The latter, however, swore as
positively that he had never received the money, and after
a long and careful inquiry, the judge of the court, Mr. Tin'
nor, gave judgment against the defendant. He was not
satisfied with this decision, but applied for a new trial,
which was granted, and as, on account of the sum in dis-
pute being under £5, the defendant himself had not the
right to claim that the matter should be decided by a jurly
the learned judge himself exercised the power vested in
him by the County Court Act, of directing that a jur9
should be empanelled to try the cause, as he considered
the decision of such a tribunal was likely to be more satis-
factory to both parties than his own. The cause accord-
ingly came on a second time, and the defendant and the
prosecutor were again examined, and both swore positively
as before, the one that he had paid awl the other that he
had not received the four sovereigns, but in the result it
verdict was again returned against the defendant, and the
present prosecution was then proceeded with. The evi-
dence now given was of course pretty much the same
that given on the former occasion, except that the defen-
dant could not be examined, and although there were
doubtedly some circumstances tending to confirm the pro-
secutor's statement, still the case pretty well resolved itself
into one of oath against oath-. The defendant-made a long
statement to the jury when he was called upon for his de-
fence, in which he again asserted that he had paid the
money, and said that if he had not he must have bee"
labouring under a most extraordinary mistake, and
he
urged the improbability that he should have sacrificed the
respectable position he had so long enjoyed for such s
paltry sum as the one now in question. He also said that
when he swore that he had paid the money ho had sworn
what he really believed to be true, and that he had never
contemplated committing such a crime as % ilful and cot,-
rapt perjury. The defendant received a high charac-
ter from several respectable witnesses. The learned
Judge summed up the case very favourably to the defend-
ant, and the jury, after having deliberated for some thee+
inquired of his lordship whether, in the event of their
finding the defendant guilty, they could recommend hint t°
mercy ? The Lord Chief Baron said he thought that in tb
case like this they could not, and he observed at the ssn'
time that by their desiring to take this course it would
dicate that they had a doubt of the defendant's guilt, and a
this was the case, they ought to acquit him, and he reminds
them that they ought not to find him guilty, unless 00
were satisfied that he had wilfully and deliberately sworn
that which he knew to be false, and that he had not merely
made a mistake. The jury then retired to deliberate, and`
upon their return into court they gave a verdict of
The learned judge having taken time to consider the matter,
the defendant was placed at the bar to receive judgrnesiti
and he then again declared that; he always had, and a'
still, conscientiously believe that ho had paid the money'
The Lord Chief Baron then said that he thought the de-
fendant had been ill-advised in taking upon himself to con"
duct his own defence, and expressed his opinion that if be
had been defended by counsel, a different result would have
been arrived at. The jury, however, had found him guilts'
and he was bound to pass sentence upon him, and that
sentence would be that he should be imprisoned and kept
to hard labour for four months. He would, however, sal
that if the prisoner, or his friends, chose to memorialise the
Secretary of State, either for a pardon or a commutation
of the sentence, and if he was applied to, he should give his
opinion in reference to the case.