The Sun.
London, England, 1854-11-10 00:00:00

LA TV INTELLIGENCE.-(THIS DAY.)

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
QUEEN V. ALLETNE AND OTHERS.

It will be remembered that in this case two persons
named Alleyne, both formerly in the army, and Capt.
D'A rcey, were some two or three years ago convicted
in this Court of conspiring to defraud Capt. Kennedy
of 7,5001., and sentenced by the Court to fine
and imprisonment ; the terms of imprisonment being
limited to six, twelve, and' twenty-four months. The
conspiracy arose out of a bet of a fabulous amount rela-
tive to a trotting-match, in which the defendant backed
a well-known
‘
ricabnuttr,otbtyer,frcaauldleaduPigeon, e
ptroesdeon
tlaB
miles .
hour,itlliri.thAeme
tion, Captain Kennedy was induced to compromise the
%,
bet for the above-mentioned sum of 7,5001. Immediately
after the conviction of the defendants, they quitted the
country and remained on the continent for some time,
until at length a writ of error was served out at their
instance for the purpose of setting the conviction aside
on the ground of some technical errors committed in the
course of the prosecution. This writ of error was allowed,
there being no rejoinder to it on the part of Captain
Kennedy, but it was alleged that the absence of a
rejoinder was attributable to the fact that 5,5001.
was paid by the defendants to prevent it, and
the matter now came before the Court again, ex a rule
calling upon the defendant to show cause why the writ
of error should not be quashed, on the ground of the
same having been sued out with a view to a compro-
mise of the original prosecution. The writ of error
having been allowed by the Court, in default, one of the
defendants, namely, Alexander I.l.`Geachy Alleyne,
proceeded to indict Captain Kennedy and his
attorney, Mr. Morris Newton, of Lanoaster-
place, Strand, together with Ignatius Francis
Coyle, the chief witness in the trotting case, for a con-
spiracy in preferring the original prosecution ; and the
rule for setting aside the writ of error, was issued at the
instance of the two latter defendants, the Captain being
en duty in the East Indies.

The rule was supported by Mr. Sergeant Shee, with
whom was Mr. Ruddiest on and Mr. Temple, and op.
posed by Mr. Edwin James and Mr. Hawkins. The
arguments on both sides, which occupied the attention
of the court for nearly three days, were brought to a
close this morning.
Judgment was reserved.

BAIL COURT.
QIIBEN V. HENRY PORTER.

Mr. M'Mahon applied to the court for a rule calling
upon the magistrates of Staffordshire to admit the de-
fendant in this case to bail. It appeared that the defen-
dant had been committed by the justices of Leek on a
onpo
Hann
cock
prosecution
preserve
foswena
vfeos i
indicted
id perjury,nie poaching,t
Staffordshire.et
aahanenf docmrot
eih misdemeanour d
trespassingi eon committing mthewearhn aoc
tTuh rfi naveaepr iwuopsti,reihcnstrlegnusoeoictsnk outsoefoiwitnesses
on the
trespass,
had
morningso wneo rant hat
looffpilaitheitienfig2l:t: of last June, while the defendant
was called to prove as alibi, and he swore that he saw
Hancock in his own house at five o'clock on the morning
in question. Nevertheless *Hancock was convicted, and
thereupon the magistrate committed the defendant on
the charge of perjury, refusing, at the same time, to ad-
mit him to bail. It was contended, however, that the
evidence of the defendant was quite consistent with that
in the game case, because it was just possible that, after
the trespass, Hancock hurried home, and was thus seen
theby t
defendant
thendan two
talmwosittneasns.
about the same time as that
sworn
Application granted.