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 big
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 106°
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 veil
peculiar. It appeared that the defendant, in addition to
carrying on a business at Brighton, was an agent for all
accidental death insurance company, andhe 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 ag
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 drew
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 thattad 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 itthe change of four sovereigns, and
he positively refused to pay the amount demanded of hiln•
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. Tur-
ner, 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 jury,
the learned judge himself exercised the power vested in
him by the County Court Act, of directing that a it'll
should be empanelled to try the cause, as he considered
the decision of such a tribunal was likely to be more sails"
factory to both parties than his own. The cause accord-
ingly came on a second time, and the defendant and the
prosecutor wore 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 a
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 89
that given on the former occasion, except that the defen-
dant could not be examined, and although there were un-
doubtedly some circumstances tending to confirm the pr°:,
secutor's statement, still the case pretty well resolved Use°
into one of oath against oath. The defendant made a lea
statement to the jury when he was called upon for his de-
fence, in which ho again asserted that he had paid the
money, and said that if he had not ho must have been
labouring under a most extraordinary mistake, and I.l°
urged the improbability that he should have sacrificed tne
respectable position he had so long enjoyed for such 9'
paltry sum as the one now in question. He also said that
when he swore that he had paid the money he had swop
what he really believed to be true, and that he had never
contemplated committing such a crime as vi ilful and cor-
rupt 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 tnne,.
inquired of his lordship whether, in the event of the r
finding the defendant guilty, they could recommend him t°
mercy ? The Lord Chief Baron said he thought that in
case like this they could not, and he observed at the satu°
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 relninue
them that they ought not to find him guilty, unless WI
were satisfied that he had wilfully and deliberately alvOril
that which he knew to be false, and that he had not morel):
made a mistake. The jury then retired to deliberate, ella
upon their return into court they gave a verdict of gal'
The learned judge having taken time to consider the matter,
the defendant was placed at the bar to receive judgment,c
and he then again declared that he always had, and did
still, conscientiously believe that he 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 cow'
duct his own defence, and expressed his opinion that if ho
had been defended by counsel, a different result would hay°
been arrived at. The jury, however, had found him gulltY!
and he was bound to pass sentence upon him, and that
sentence would be that-he should be imprisoned and 1014
to hard labour for four months. Ho would, however, say
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, ho should give ins
opinion in reference to the case.