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, I
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 Queen's Bench, and upon the trial the
latter obtained a verdict, and in due course the
defendant scught to obtain his costs, and he made
the affidavit in question before Mr. Annesley,
the commissioner appointed for that purpose at
St. Albans. The total amount of the bill of costs
was £3B I€s. ;
and among the items the defend-
ant alleged ',hat he had paid 15s. to three witnesses
named Perkins,
Beau, and Wright, and 225. to
two other vitnesses, and also a sum of £3 16s.
for railway fares, cab hire, and refreshment for
ew it thnee s sa ef
affidavit
d;
avit whereasw aa imt a
dt ue r nheed
hoaudt
onlyt at
tahtethseamtime
given them a few shillings. It appeared, however,
that the affdavit 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 oil behalf of the defendant, and he urged
that, although he might have acted carelessly in
swearing to the affidavit without reading it, still
this was al that could be fairly alleged against him.
He submitted that it was extremely improbable that
a person is 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 he very little doubt that seeing the
instrument was eirned by his attorney, he thought
it was a matter of course that he should also have
to sign it, sad 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. Barn Bramwell, in summing up, said it was
very important that affidavits of this kind should
be correct, and he could not subscribe to the doc-
trine that a man did not commit perjury because
he professei to be unacquainted with the contents
of the instrument to the truth of which he was
sworn. Tte jury would, bowever, take all the cir-
cumstances of the case into their consideration, and