The Sun.
London, England, 1853-08-23 00:00:00

with the transaction, and immediately repudiated all
connexion with the party in question. In order to con-
vict the defendant of the charge that had been at-
tempted to be brought against him there must be sub-
stantial evidence adduced to establish that which was
essential to a prima facie case in matters of this de-
scription--namely, that the defendant had been a will-
ing party and had assented to the proposition of the
person whose name had not transpired. In this in-
stance Mr. Wilkinson bad not acceded to such a pro-
position, but, on the contrary, his learned friend, Mr.
Clarkson, had felt himself compelled to admit that the
result of the alleged negotiation had been highly credit-
able to the character and honourable feelings of the
' defendant, who, the moment he saw that anything un-
fair or illegal was about to be practised, felt it his duty
to withdraw altogether from any further participation in
the matter. Looking at the charge in a mere tech-
nical point 01 view, he (Mr. Bodkin) submitted that
the Lord Mayor had no jurisdiction over the al-
leged offence, as no evidence had been adduced
with reference to the spot in which the conversa-
tions between the unknown party and the de-
fendant had taken place, such conversations might
have occurred in the City or might have occurred out of
the kingdom, and until satisfactory proof was given of
the particular locality where the alleged negotiation was
said to have been carried on a party could not be in-
dicted for an offence said to have been committed in the
city of London which might in reality have been com-
mitted in some other part of the country. The learned
counsel submitted that in the first place, upon the evi-
dence as it at present stood, there was no charge for
the defendant to answer—no proof whatever, on the
part of the prosecutors, of any corrupt contract or agree-
ment or conspiracy; that even if there were a scintilla
of proof of this fact there was no evidence to show that
the magistrate had jurisdiction to put the defendant on
his trial. He apprehended that the law was very clear
as applicable to the present case. Mr. Wilkinson was
living within his lordship's jurisdiction, and such being
the case his lordship had the power of calling him be-
fore him at any time, and if those who had now preferred
a criminal charge against another found it an infirmity
in their case—that making it out with all the power and
influence which they possessed, and the means and dili-
gence which they had been able to employ, they had yet
failed in showing where the offence was committed, it
was a natural consequence that the defendant ought to
be acquitted. His lordship would not impose upon a
citizen of London the necessity of appearing before the
Central Criminal Court to answer a charge which had
not been made out, which could not on the present evi-
dence be substantiated, particularly in the case of a de-
fendant who was always to be found at any time ready,
to answer any charge which either the East India Com-
pany orany body else might have to prefer against him.
Mr. Clarkson, in reply, observed that his learned
friend had studiously forborne any reference to the sta-
tute under which his lordship had granted the summons,
because he must have known that the words of the act
were so strong with regard to negotiations commenced,
proceeded with, and concluded, that it was impossible
for
re
his ey
withe to theth
e
fact
partiesof thefor
whommeritshe
(Mr. Clarkson) had the honour to appear.
layor had been
On the ap-
plication
abundantly satisfied of there being a sufficiently prima
facie case to warrant his calling upon the defendant to
taenayseo being
fno one to
tthe
o altogether shut
summonses, the Lord
appear before him, and he (Mr. Clarkson) submitted
that this view of the case must be thoroughly confirmed
by the additional evidence which had now been given on
oath, by the only witness whom the East India Com-
pany had it in their power to call. It had been clearly
proved that a negotiation had been begun and proceeded
with by the defendant and a person whom the witness
did not choose to name, and it had only been broken off
because the defendant Mr. Norman Wilkinson did not
choose to pledge himself to a false declaration, he having
said to his friend with whom he was in treaty—how is
it possible I can sign such a declaration, when you
know I have agreed to give a consideration. The
Lord Mayor, it was to be borne in mind, was not sit-
ting to try this case, but had simply to determine
whether sufficient grounds had been stated to in-
duce him to send it for adjudication before a supe-
rior tribunal. The learned counsel continued—Al-
though upon the last occasion I asked the witness,
Mr. Wilkinson, whether he had learnt from his brother
where these conversations took place, and he said he
had not, I am perfectly satisfied that your lordship will
not allow a grave offence of this sort to be disposed of
upon a technical objection. If you hold the defendant
to bail to appear at the Central Criminal Court, where '
is the mischief or the breach of the law ? lam quite
sure that if your lordship feels there has been a wrong
done, and that wrong is attempted to be supported by
the circumstance of Mr. Wilkinson refusing to detail
the whole truth, which he has the power of doing, that
your lordship will not put an end to this case on any
technicality, but will hold the defendant to bail if you
agree with me that there has been a contravention of
the statute.

The Lord Mayor (after consultation with the City
Solicitor and Mr. Goodman, the Chief Clerk)— I think
that the subject brought before me is of so much im-
portance to the public, to the East India Company, and
to all the parties affected, and necessarily my know-
ledge must be so imperfect, and my experience so limited
upon a subject of this description, that it would be more
consonant to the ends of justice that I should defer
expressing any opinion until I have carefully gone over
the evidence. Under these circumstances, and in order
to enable me to consider the technical objections which
have been advanced by the learned counsel on either
side, I will postpone my decision to a future day.
Mr. Clarkson—l may as well state at once, that what-
ever may be the result of your lordship's decision, I
shall be under the painful necessity, supposing the mat-
ter to stand as it does now, of applying to your worship
to commit Mr. Wilkinson.