The Sun.
London, England, 1862-07-17 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

HOME CIRCUIT.—HERTFORD, July 16.
(Before Mr. Baron Bramwell.)
George Farr Arnold surrendered to take his
trial, for wilful and corrupt perjury.
Mr. G. Denman, Q.C., was specially retained,
with Mr. Willoughby, to conduct the prosecution;
Mr.. Serjeant Parry, also specially retained, and
and Mr. Woollett, appeared for the defendant.

This case stood over from the spring assizes, and
it created some interest, not only from the nature
of the charge, which was rather a peculiar one,
but from the position of the defendant, who carries
on an extensive business as a builder at St. Albans,
and who is one of the town councillors. The alleged
perjury was contained in what is called in legal
parlance an affidavit of increase—an instrument
which it is necessary to execute in order that the
the successful party in an action at law may re-
cover his costs from his opponent. It appeared
that last year a person named Proctor, who was
the prosecutor of the present indictment, brought
an action against the defendant in the present
Court of Qucen's Bench, and upon the trial the
latter obtained a verdict, and in due course the
defendant sought to obtain his costs, and he made
the affidavit in question before Mr. Annesley,
the commissioner appointed for that purpose at
St. Albans. Tho total amount of the bill of costs
was
£3B 16s. ; and among the items the defend-
ant alleea
that ho had paid 15s. to three witnesses
named Perkins, Beau, and Wright, and 225. to
two other nitnesses, and also a sum of £3 16s.
for rail way fares, cab hire, and refreshment for
the same witnesses • whereas it turned out that
at the time the affidavit was made he had only
given them a few shillings. It appeared, however,
that the affidavit was a joint one by the defendant
himself and his solicitor;
and Mr. Annesley stated
that at the time he swore to it the defendant did
not read the contents, and that he said he saw it
was signed by his solicitor, and he supposed it was
all right, It also appeared that the sums mentioned
in the affidavit were subsequently paid to the seve-
ral witnesses.

Mr. Sergeant Parry made a very able address to
the jury on behalf of the defendant, and he urged
that, although be might have acted carelessly in
swearing to the affidavit without reading it, still
this was all that could be fairly alleged against him.
He submitted that it was extremely improbable that
a person in the respectable position of the defendant
should have been guilty of so serious a crime in
order to obtain a paltry sum of a few pounds, and
that there could be very little doubt that seeing the
instrument war signed by his attorney, he thought
it was a matter of course that he should also have
to sign it, and did so without intending to do any
wrong.
A great many respectable witnesses were called
to speak to the defendant's character, and they all
described him to be a man of the highest honour
and integrity.
Mr. Baron Bramwell, in summing up,
very important that affidavits of this kind should
be correct, and he could not subscribe to
perjury the doc-
trine that a man did not commit said it was
ry because
he professed to he unacquainted with the contents
of the instrument to the truth of which he was
sworn. The jury would, however, take all the eir-
camstances of the case into their consideration, and