The Sun.
London, England, 1807-06-06 00:00:00

CRIMINAL INFORMATION,

Mr. GA R ROW, on behalf of Gen. Gwynne, mOved
for leave to file a criminal information against Lieut.
-Col. Richard Watson, now Major of a Regiment of
Dragoons, for an accumulation of libels, and also for
a 'gross and violent personal insult. The Counsel
stated, that it unfortunately happened that General
Gwynne was Presick-tnt of a Court Martial on Col.
Watson, who, among other, offences, was charged
with lanoffieerlike and .ungentlernanly conduel, in
drinkin.g,in company with same oon,commisiioned
Officers, &c. He had beeen found rsuilty upon "all the,
charges, and suspended until his Ktojesty's pleasure
should be known.. His Majesty afterwards confirm.;
ed the sentence of the court Martial, and he 'got
leave to sell out. This was the Only provocation Oen.
Gwynne gave this Gentleman, who had, since
continually - persecuted 'him with - the most gross
and scandalous• libels, accusing:him of turning his
b.ick in America, and acting as a traitor to his coun-
try ; repeating various opprobrious epithets, all of
which were utterly. unfounded. _Rut ail this, the
Learned Counsel_ said, his client .did, not mean to
trouble the Court with, until a. few days
‘ago, when
he received a gross personal insult. He was. walking.
down Oxford-steeet, conversing with a brother Odi,
cer, when the Defendant.came up, and' pointing a
stick-at him, said, in a loud voice,:“ you. are General
Gwvitne, you robbed me of my property, by de-
priving rue of my commission, and ruined my fa-
mily; you are a scoundrel and a rascal, and I will
go into this shop, and.pnst you fora coward."
Mr. GARROW was then proceeding:to state more
of the circtimstances, when Lord ELLENBOAO,U9H
told.ltim he liad..--stated Pule,
accordingy granted. .
_THE,K.ING V.- BARNETT, ATTORNEY.

Mr. MARRYArr applied to enlarge the time for
estreatiwg the hall in this ,case, The'Defendant had
been convicted of perjury the Sittings after last
Hilai-y Term, in' a transadion between hint, the
Marqravine olAnSpach,•and I,ady:Granard, as men-_
tioned in a former Paper. The Learned counsel
said, that immedizt,tely after his conviction, Mr. Bar-
nett left this country, and his bail .had not been able
to learn where he was, ever since. They had made
diligent search for him, and expeded he would
surrender himself for judgment next November
Term.

The motion being in due course, the Court granted'
a conditional rule.

COURT OF CHANCERY, idea 5.
cHuacif v. BARCLAY.
This was an argurnenrupon, a Demurrer. The
Plaintiff filed his "bill in this Court against the De-
fendar r, a quaker banker; praying a discovery of
evidence and relief against a verdia obtained against
him in an action of ejeelfnent, , tried in Cambrido-e
shire, in which' he claimed certain premises, called
Cambridge 4,eath, as a freehold. The bill, chared,
that the Defendant had obtained a verdi& on .the
trial, by fraud, so gross and criminal, as amounted to
forgery,
_perjury, and subornation' of perjUry, as
Mr. HART, one of •the Defendant's Counsel, con-
tended the charges in the • bill amounted to•,; 'he,
therefore, trusted the Court would not interpose its
authority in a case stated totleso,flagrant as amount-
ed to incredibility.
Mr: HART contended, that if his Client had pro-
cured false or forged deeds and evidence at the
trial, it was a crime at common daw,•and there pu-
nishable only. That if the Steward of the Manor
had produced, on the trial, a forged copy of a
Court floh, to chew that the premises were not free-
hold, but copy hold, which could not be recovered

. .
;by ejeatnent, tbat .Steward vitas- sultea to-ail •
dielmern at law, and thfit the - proper mode 'for tii°
Plaintiff. to proceed WAS .-by a motion for a Ile'
,trial in a Court of Common Law; .he_-tontende.d,
I that it was not the practice of thecourt to, intertoe
with other jurisdictions, as appeared in the case
Johnson, the bankrapt, 'a,few days ago, where the
Court refused to-interpose in his arres during h;S, at-
tendance on the Commissioners.' It was contend,
likewise,' for the Defendant; that this was not
the case of an unfair verdict, obtained under art -is'
sue direEted 'from this Court,_ where -it will alwai4
grant relief ; .and; in some cases, even against tip
Most fair and impartial verdict,. if a , party injur
shall discover material evidence, subsequent to th°
trial ; as where a party found a receipt. of his -2'4'
versark for the identical demand recovered 2100
him by the verdid, or books containing a clear ac:
count of such payment. It was finally submittO
,to the Court, that the eminent atrornies,' Messrs'

Lockart and Smith, concerned for the Defendant i 0
this cause, would not lend their names, to any anigiC
proCeeding.
The LORD CHANCELLOR stated, that the bill cow
tained sufficient matter of equity 'fat relief and dio'
ccivery, although, on his first perusal of it,. he lutclail
doubt ; and even if it had not contain,:d such mg'
ter, he would grant liberty to amend it, in-a 614
where it appeared that forged and false. evideni:e was
procured to pass a copvliold upon -the Judge:3o
Jury instead of a freehold, to the injury of
Plaintiff, who not `ordy suffered, hr the verdi°'
again:it him, the '1055-'Of the land in question; -401
likewise darnnes in an ataion for the mean rate';
under another instance of
.the .name fraud, it- ap
peared, that different lands were des,:onated by lb°
evidence thus procur9d„Oom the.latids; compfised
the declaration of ej:tament. It .was clear, said tlrc
CHANCELLOR, that tire charges in the bill were trues
as the Defendant had demurred to, instead -of an'
i swering t ; the demurrer _admitting the fatts de'
marred to be true. The. Defendant did net apper,
at first to support his demurrer, but, by favour of
the'Court; was-let in to re-argue it. His Imds-lv?
disallowed the demurrer, and directed the Bill to. t)
answered.