The Sun.
London, England, 1831-11-23 00:00:00

THE KING V. HEALING.

The defendant was found guilty at the last Norwich
Assizes of having bribed a freeman of Norwich, named
Lamb, to vote for Mr. Stewart, a candidate for the office
of Alderman of that city. He now appeared in Court to
receive judgment.
On the part of the defendant a great number of affidavits
were put in giving him a good character; his own affidavit
stated that he had for ten years been a corn-merchant in
Norwich, and that he was ignorant of having infringed tho
law by bribing Lamb to vote for Mr. Stewart, as no
bribery oath was ever administered. The Jury had also
recommended him to mercy.
On the part of the prosecution, the affidavit of the
prosecutor was read, stating that bribery to a very
great extent had been practised at all elections in Norwich
for the last thirty years, and that it led to scenes of a
grossly immoral character, and beseeching the Court to
inflict such a punishment upon the defendant as would
have a beneficial effect in future.
The ATTORATEY.GENERAL and Mr. KELLY addressed
the Court in mitigation of punishment, stating that it was
true the system of bribery bad been carried on at the Nor-
wich elections for a long time, but the defendant expressed
his sorrow at being induced to fall into this error; he had
already been put to a large expence by these proceedings,
and any severe punishment would wholly ruin him. The
Court should also bear in mind the excellent character
which the affidavits of persons of high respectability, and
of each side in politics, had stated he bore.
Sir JAMES SCARLETT addressed the Court on the part
of the prosecutions, and in allusion to the passion for
bribery at Norwich, he stated that the elections, from the
office of Mayor clown to the lowest freeman, were one mass
of corruption. He therefore hoped the Court would visit
this offence when once detected, when such offences were
so difficult of detection, with a proper punishment,:
_ _

Mr. ANDREWS and two other Counsel followed on the
same side.

Their Lordships having consulted together,

Mr. Justice J. PARKS delivered the judgment of the
Court. He stated that from the evidence adduced at the
trial there could be no doubt of the guilt of the defendant.
The Court were, however, much surprised to hear the al-
fidavit of the defendant, that he was ignorant that in
bribing a voter he was committing a violation of the
law, for, although there was no statute imposing
penalties for it, and although there was no bribery
oath administered, common sense must have convinced
him that he was acting with great impropriety. It was
necessary that all elections to offices of responsibility should
be fairly and purely conducted, but it appeared that in
the city of Norwich the system of bribery had prevailed
to a great extent for a great length of time. The Court how-
ever hoped that the punishment in this case would have the
effect of putting an end to it. The judgment of the
Court was, that the defendant be ordered to pay to the
King a fine of 1001., and to be imprisoned until that fine
be paid.
The defendant thanked the Court, and observed that
he hoped this would have a good effect upon the freemen
of Norwich.
The defendant paid the fine and left the Court.

EXCHEQUER COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

JUDGMENT.-POOLE V. POOLE.

The LORD CHIEF' BARON gave the judgment of the
Court in this case this morning. He said the case turned
upon the construction of the Act of 3 Geo. IV. The
parties were married at Chester, both being under age, the
husband making affidavit that they were of age for the
purpose of procuring the licence. After living together
for a few months the husband left his wife, and always
afterwards denied that she was such in law. He died a
year and a half afterwards, during which time it was
proved that they had not met. The wife then entered the
present suit (which was argued on a demurrer this term)
for dower. The Act of 3d George IV., required
that the parties should have lived together as
man and wife up to the time of one of the par-
ties' death, or to the time of the passing of that
Act, before they could legally become man and wife
under the provisions of that Act. In this case it was
distinctly proved that the parties had not lived tog; .thet for
a period of seventeen months before the 4sath of the hus-
band, and during all that time he denied the legality of the
marriage ; also that his death took place six years before
the passing of the Act, therefore it could not pessib'y
apply to this case. One fact much relied ,k,„on in the
argument on the case was, that during the separation
wife had received relief from the pa;iah to the amount of
61., which auto was afterwards paid out of the rent of a
farm belonging to the husband, but there was no evidence
that it was done by him or with his consent.
On these grounds, the Court had comct to the conclu-
sion, that the wife was not entitled to the dower she sought,
and therefore they dismissed the suit.

JIVCIIE9 V. MARSITATA,
This was an action for the recovery of a bill for refresh.
menta furnished by the plaintiff' to ittr. Slaney's friends
at the late election at &hrewsbury, in which Mr. Black.
burne obtained a rule to chew cause why there should not
be a new trial early in the term.

Yesterday afternoon Mr. GODSON sheweA cause against
the rule. The point in the cane; tqued upon the pro ber
construction of the Act of earliament, commonly called the
" Treating Act."
dig ninrniog Lord Lii-Nnitvaar delivered the judgment
of the Court. The Court were of opinion that the case
did not come within the provisions of the Treating Act,.
in which opinion they agreed with the LearT4 ...tudge
before whom the case was tried. To bring tee ease within
that Act, the candidate must Ly Limself or his agents be
c"ncerned in the transaction ; in this case there ty4;, no
such evidence, neither was there any evident:, lo show that
the entertainment was furnished 1.4 persons who voted ;
but otherwise, it was pt.o. that persons who, Lad no
connection with tha election were part4!iers of the re-
freshme:hts furnished, such as carriers, &c. On the trial
there was nothing to show that the conduct of the can-
didate was and therefore the plaistif,T could recover.
Besides the amount of the ball, .v 5/., was se aural
considering the number of persons treated up-
wards of one hundred a day for three days,
not much more than Is. 6d. for each person, as to thew
that no bribery could be intended, but rather that it was
for the necessary refreshment of voters, or °elms WhO 'e
-ad
come from a distance. We are cp.r4on that no case
has been made out t' LIT-1;T 'kb; cMAdoot of tlgi defendant

illegal, therefore there is no reason why tho plalut:tTssteold
not recover.—Rule discharged.

The Court was occupied all the rest of the morning iu
heating the case of " Blukett
.v. The Royal Es,:chnge
Assurance Company." The arguments were not finished
when our reporter left. We will give the judgmLut wheu
their Lordships decide.