The Sun.
London, England, 1822-08-16 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

WESTERN CIRCUIT.—WELLS, AUGUST 14.
SUBORNATION OF PERJURY.
THE KING, ON THE PROSECUTION OF SIR T. S. CHAMP.
NEYS, BART. V. MESSITER.
Mr. C. F. WILLIAMS opened the case, and Mr. Sergeant
PELL stated that this Was an indictment preferred by Sir T.
Champneys, who was then Mr. T. Champneys, but had since
arrived at his title by the death of his father, against the de-
fendant, Mr. Messiter, charging him that he, Mr. Messiter,
had tampered with our persons to induce them to peejure
themselves, and to give false evidence against the said T.
Champneys, in a cause pending between him and the de-
fendant. Sir T. Champneys was a gentleman residing at
.his paternal estate of Orchardleigh, near Frome, who was
well known in the county, and of whom the Learned Coun-
sel would merely observe, that his life had been marked by
an uniform course of imprudence and misfortune up to the
present time, and of whom he would express his strongest
hopes that that part of his life which was yet to come
would be marked by greater discretion. The defendant,
Mr. Messiter, was an Attorney of respectability, residing at
Frome, of long and extensive practice. In the year 1820,
at the Wells Assizes, Sir T. Champneys brought an action
against the defendant for having uttered respecting him
foul and slanderous language, and upon that action gained
a verdict ; but it was a verdict which, as it respected Sir
T. Champneys, was particularly unfortunate. Mr. Mes-
siter was on that occasion charged by him (Serjeant Pell)
with having unduly interfered with the witnesses; and the
present proceedings against Mr. Messiter were afterwards in-
stituted in consequence; and he was now charged, that he,
with a view to this cause, did solicit and instigate four per-
sons to give evidence on that trial, and falsely swear that
Sir T. Champneys had attempted to commit an horrible offence.
Nothing could be more serious than a charge of subornation
of perjury, nor could any charge of subornation be of more
importance, not only as it involved the character of Mr. Mes-
siter and Sir T. Champneys, but as it regarded the higher in-
terests of public justice; and the Learned Counsel called upon
them for the sake of all these high interests to dismiss from
their minds every thing which they had before heard respect-
ing the parties out of Court. The Learned Counsel proceeded
to animadvert in eloquent terms on the nature of the case,
which he was assured from his brief he should be enabled to
prove against the defendant, and having done that, he should
rely wan security on their verdict. What the nature of the
defence was to be, he could not anticipate; but on the part
of his client he was instructed to give every opportunity,
and to challenge the defendant to the proof of the foul charge
which he had uttered against the prosecutor.
Mr. Justice Rtcriannsoer here said, that that could not
become the subject of inquiry there.
Mr. Sergeant PELL resumed and said, if that attempt was
made, his client was not the man to resist it, and he had in-
structed him to make no technical objection against the admis-
sion of such evidence if any such might be offered, and he was
ready to come forward and repel the foul charge. He always
sought every opportunity of setting himself right and vindicat-
ing his claim to the situation in which he appeared. It would
be seen whether the defendant would act in the same manner,
and meet the case upon its merits, instead of attempting to get
rid of the accusation upon technical objections. It was fortu-
nate, that what was done there that day, would go forth far
beyond the bounds of that Court, and would be investigated by
a tribunal with which his client was most anxious to stand well,
he meant the public ; and whatever might be the decision of
that Court, he was sure of passing in triumph through the tri-
bunal of public opinion.
Mr. Charles Harrison produced the office copy of the indict-
ment, which was read.
' James Kinston was then examined, and deposed that he
knew the defendant, who was an attorney at law, at Frome,
near where, at Orchardleigh Park, Sir T. Champneys re-
sided. He was formerly T. Champneys, Esq. He remem-
bers Mr. Messiter coming to him, on the Bth of May, 1820,
and witness went out from his workshop ; it was about 20 mi-
nutes past seven in the evening. The witness was led to
take particular notice of the time, because he did not like
Mr. Messiter's conversation, which took place in the high
road near the house. He asked me whether my name was
not Kinston, and whether I had not worked at Orchardleigh,
and I answered " yes, but that I did not work there now.'
I said, I suppose you are come about that fifteen pound bill
which you discounted for me. He said yes; but not altoge-
ther about that, but about that nasty report and that dirty ac-
tion of Mr. T. Champneys. The witness said he knew nothing
about it. Upon which Mr. Messiter said, " If you will come
'forward and swear against Champney, I will not only forgive
you the bill, but will make you a gentleman as long as you
live." Mr. Messiter was reputed to be a rich man. Witness
said. he knew nothing of that (the report), nor any thing against
Mr. T. Champneys; upon which Mr. Messiter said, if the
witness did not come forward and swear he (Mr. M.) would
imprison him and enforce the payment of the bill, and that
he would nevertheless subpoena him on the trial. Witness told
him he might do as he liked about that. Witness never was
subpoenaed.
The witness underwent a long cross.examination from Mr.
Gazelee, in which he stated that Mr. Millar, the attorney, serv-
ed him with some paper. On that occasion the witness did not
say that Mr. Messiter had never asked him to tell any thing
but the truth. Had never said he would not stir until he had
201. Mr. Miller served the witness with another notice before
the last Taunton Assizes. He only read the notice paper to
the witness. Mr. Millar did not read or state any thing rela-
tive to their former conversation. Witness did not say lie
would not stir without compensation, but he did say that he had
been running about the country, and had been greatly out of
pocket by it, and he did not wish to be called again about it.—
Witness knew a man named Bird, a pavier. He never im-
puted any thing to Sir T. Champneys in a conversation with
Bird.
Mr. Sergeant PELL re-examined the witness.—Upon his
solemn oath, any charges against Sir T. Champneys, as far as
related to the witness, was false. When Mr. Miller called there
was, on each occasion, a person within hearing.
A witness named James Fry was then called, but his evi-
dence was, inadmissible, on the ground that he was a convicted
felon.
William Saunders was then called, and he stated that he
now resided at Lichfield. In June, 1320; Mr. Messiter called
upon the witness. He had never seen the defendant before.
Ile called in the shop, and asked where Tamworth-street was,
and whether he knew one Saunders, a butcher in the town.
Witness said he was the man. Defendant said he had some
questions to ask him, but that was not the proper place to ask
them. He desired the witness to go to the George Inn ; and
the wither:3 met him (Mr. M.) there alone, in a private room,
at his request. He then asked the witness whether he knew
any thing of a concern between Sir T. Champneys and a man
named Cosener ? Witness said he never heard of such a man.
—Mr. Messiter said Cosener lived near Orchardleigh.
Witness said he never knew such a person. Witness had
lived with Sir T. Champneys.—Mr. Messiter then asked the
witness whether he had not heard of such a report? Wit-
ness said he had ; but it was amongst low people and that
he utterly disbelieved it.—Mr. Messiter then said a man,
named Cornish, near Orchardleigh, had informed him that
the witness could prove a charge against Sir T. Champ-
neys ? Witness repeated that he knew no more than what
he had heard from low people.—Mr. Messiter said that
what he had heard would strengthen the case, which he had
with Sir T. Champneys at Wells, and said he must call upon
the witness to give evidence ? Witness said he had no one to
entrust his shop to, and had much rather not come, as it
would be highly inconvenient to him to leave his business.—
Mr. Messiter pressed the witness for a considerable time, and
at length he pulled out a note. Witness could-- not say of
what amount. He immediately said that he was not that kind
of man to take money in such a way. Mr. Messiter pressed
the note upon him, saying it was independent 'of his expenses.
The witness took up his hat and left the room, without saying
a word, and had never seen the defendant since. Witness had
lived as gamekeeper for twelve years in the family of Sir T.
Champneys, at Orchardleigh. 'Witness was never called to
give evidence on the trial.
On his cross-examination the witness said he had had some
correspondence with the defendant, and a letter was produced
which the latter had sent to him, but it contained nothing ma-
terial, and merely in courteous terms invited him to come up
to the Assizes as a witness, offering him the payment of every
expense, and every comfort during his stay. This was the case
for the prosecution.
Mr. GAZELLE, for the defendant, contended that the cha-
racter of Sir T. Champneys was in no way at issue upon the
present case, for the verdict of 2001. damages, of which lie
complained so much, as being insufficient, had sufficiently
set that at rest : and he ought to have been satisfied with it.—
The Learned Counsel represented this as an unnecessary and
vindictive measure, which, however, the evidence entirely
failed to support. He commented on the evidence at consi-
derable length, contending that the only one who had offered
any thing like proof was the first witness, Kinston, who was
not to be believed, for his story was utterly incredible. Mr.
Messiter, it was not denied, was a man of a respectable sta-
tion, who had an extensive practice. No professional man
who had common sense could have ventured upon the dan-
gerous experiment of suborning a witness to commit perjury
in so imprudent a manner. The details, he contended, were
such as were beyond belief ; for, could any one believe that
Mr. Messiter would threaten to subpna such a witness ? As
to the testimony of Saunders, the Learned Counsel said that
he had utterly failed to substantiate the charge against the de-
fendant ; that he had endeavoured to seduce the witness to
swear that which he (the defendant) knew to be false, as the

• •
defendant had not asked this witness to swear to any thins
the rumour, and not to the fact. There was nothing init but
the fair mode of seeking evidence, and the defendant mos ,pro-
bably believed Saunders to be in the possession of facts, Which
he was unwilling to reveal. No evidence at all was offered to
prove the charge as to the subornation of the perjury of the
two other witnesses except that of the convicted felon, whoge„
evidence it was his (Mr. Gazelee's) duty to object to.
was his duty, as Counsel for the defendant, to get rid of the
charge as quickly as he could, and it was not for him to
accept of any Quixotic challenges, or to admit that course
of proceeding which the law did not sanction. In conclusion,
he called upon the Jury to consider how fatal in its mole"
quences to the character, the fortune, and the future prospects
of Mr. Messiter, a conviction must be, and called upon dl,ell,
seriously to deliberate and give him the benefit of doubts Ivor.
might arise. The whole depended upon the testimony of "i 2;
first witness, and his evidence, the Learned Counsel urged, w"-
utterly incredible and unworthy of belief.
Mr. Justice RICHARDSON, in summing up the evidence,'
gave it as his opinion that the charge of this foul crime of sub-
ordination of perjury did depend upon the evidence of Kinst,on"
But although the defendant did not appear to be guilty to t',i,e
extent of the charge with respect to Saunders, he was mime
festly guilty of great impropriety. In this, as in all owe.?
cases where a person was charged with the commission
a great crime, the Jury would give the party the benefit
every doubt, and it was for the Jury to say, upon the evi-
dence, dence whether they were fully satisfied as to the intention
the defendant.
The Jury retired for more than an hour, when they retn°
ed with a general verdict of Guilty against the defendant.