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

LAW INTEL.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
QUEEN V. ALLEYNE 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 American trotter, called Pigeon, to do 1S
miles within the hour, but, by fraud and misrepresenta-
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 fur 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
IN joinder 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, on 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 M`Geachy Alleyne,
proceeded to indict Captain Kennedy and his
attorney, Mr. Morris Newton, of Lancaster-
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
on duty in the East Indies.
The rule was supported by Mr. Sergeant Shee, with
whom was Mr. Huddleston 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.
QUEEN 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
charge of perjury, the misdemeanour arising out of a
prosecution for poaching, in which a person named
oosmwnnHancockoeorarannti
nphgrat e
loos:
-ef
pars
aesvt
sehei
tin: dfii
seeing
five,
ett
Hs, eh dtaaaonnfff
fdocol for
Hancock
ktes
trespassingho committing
e June,r a
wtT hfi i nvel
ee witnessess
th' pursuithceleo d tkeorffeeosngni dahatamsahnsdeel
was called to prove an 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
by the defendant almost about the same time as that
sworn to by the two witnesses.
Application granted.