The Sun.
London, England, 1862-11-20 00:00:00

POLICE INT LLIGENCE.—Nov. 19.

BOW-STREET.—CHARGEOFPERJURYAGAINST
A NOBLEMAN.—WiIIiam Henry Tennison Percy,
Earl of Limerick, was summoned before Mr. Corrie,
to answer the charge of having, on the 25th of July
last, in a certain affidavit sworn at Lincoln's Inn-
fields, committed wilful and corrupt perjury.
Mr. Wontner, solicitor, of Bncklersbury, appeared
for the Earl.
Mr_ Gifford, counsel for the prosecution, opened
the case by stating the circumstance under which
the affidavit in question wasmade, during an action
pending between his client, Mr. James W. Deal, a
shipping agent, as plaintiff, and the Earl of Limerick,
defendant. The false allegation was in these words:
—" I swear I had left London for Ireland on the
27th of April previous (meaning the 27th April,
1861), and did not return to England for some
months." He should show that the earl had been
seen at Southampton after the time specified, and
the motive for this assertion, therefore, was
presumed to be his desire to escape the consequences
of disregarding a legal process. The action of Mr.
Deal was to recover the amount due for shipping
certain goods from Jersey to England, but there
being great difficulty in serving the writ personally
upon the earl, a judge's order was obtained pro-
nouncing the service at his lordship's occasional re-
sidence sufficient. The writ was left there accord-
ingly bYthe process server, and an endorsement made
to the effect that it had been served on the noble
lord ; and it was in answer to this endorsement that
the affidavit was made which formed the subject of
the present summons.
Formal proof having been given in reference to
the affidavit, and also of the service of the writ at
the residence of the earl (which was not a personal
service, as the endorsement seemed to imply,
Michael Fowler, of Little Bushy Farm, near Wat-
ford, proved that he was at Southampton ;on May
31, and saw Lord Limerick by the waterside. He
knew his lordship very well, and had some conver-
sation with Mr. Deal, who was also present, about
him.

Cross-examined—l was at Southampton four days.
I know the exact date from the circumstance of its
being the annual fair. 1 was there with some cattle.
Mary Mitchell deposed that she was, in 1861, a
hook-keeper at the Dolphin Hotel, Southampton,
and she saw Lord Limerick in the house from the
22d to the 24th of April, and also from the 31st of
May to the Ist of June.
Benjamin Goater, a waiter at the hotel, and the
porter also, gave evidence to the same effect. They
remembered that his lordship was joined by his son,
Lo-d Glentworth, and on May 31st the Countess of
Limerick arrived from Jersey, the defendant being
present to receive her, and subsequently accompa-
nied her to Ryde.

In cross-examining these witnesses Mr. Wontner
detected one or two discrepancies as to alleged dates,
but they were not material to the issue.
Mr. J. W. Deal also proved having seen Lord
Limerick at Southampton on May 31, and again a
month afterwards at the Waterloo station, London.
Mr. IN orltner addressed the court at some length
for the defence, at once admitting that his lordship
had made an erroneous statement or mistake in say-
ing he was not in England on the 27th of April,
1861, although when he made the affidavit be was
speaking under the firm conviction that such was
the fact. But the event was 13 months antecedent,
end a man might be well mistaken in his impres-
sion as to dates after so long an interval. It was
not pretended now that the service of the writ was
personal, and all his lordship meant to imply was,
that he was not in London at the time when it was
served at his supposed residence. Mr. Wontner
showed the unconscious fallibility of witnesses by
reference to the blunders which the witnesses for
the prosecution had themselves made during his in-
genious cross-examination, although no one would
suppose them guilty of " wilful and corrupt per-
jury." He claimed the same consideration for the
noble lord, who had made a similar error, and
against whom the charge of wilful intention was
equally preposterous.
Mr. Corrie said there appeared to be some reason
for the belief that the mistake was unintentional,
and therefore he should dismiss the summons.

LAMBETH.—CIIARGE OF CHILD MURDER.—
Eliza Somms, aged 20, was brought np from Lb,m-
both workhouse, in custody of Sergeant Coshead,
14 L, and placed at the bar before Mr. Elliott on a
charge of wilful murder.
The first witness called was Mrs. Ann Dalby,
who deposed that the prisoner had been in her ser-
vice for some time, and when she came to town four
months ago she brought her with her and obtained
her a situation in the house where she lived, in
West-square. On the 18th of last month she found
the prisoner in bed, very ill, but this she attributed
to a bad cold, and said she had something made up
at a chemist's for it, and thought she should get
better. On the following day witness had occasion
to go to the closet, and seeing something to excite
her suspicions she called th' prisoner and asked her
how she could account for it. The prisoner
i
g
admitted that she had venabtirtthhetochaild aschwild.
She subsequently admitted that
born dead, and she had placed it in the copper,
in the wash house, where it was subsequently found,
perfectly lifeless. The prisoner further said she