The Sun.
London, England, 1831-12-09 00:00:00

COURT OF KING'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY,

CHAMBERS'S BANKRUPTCY.—THE KING v. PHILIP SELBY'
This was an indictment against the defendant, who wise
a Sheriff's officer, charging hint with committing wilful
and corrupt perjury. The cause of the indictment arose
out of the apparently interminable litigation conneetd
with Messrs. Chambers' bankruptcy. The charge against
the defendant was, that on the trial of the action brought
by Mr. Chambers the elder against his assignees, 10
the Court of Exchequer, the object of which rots
to try the validity of the commission of bankruptcy, the
defendant in his evidence for the assignees swore to havi4
had warrants, against Mr. Chambers in June and No*
1825, that he frequently applied at Mr. Chambers/
cottage at Paddington, and Mr. Chambers was denied to
him, and that ha was answered through a grating in the
door of the front garden door, whereas it was alleged dist
he had not those warrants, that Mr. Chambers had not
been denied to him when he (Mr. C.) was, in fact, st
home, and that there was no grating whatever in the doer,
Mr. CAMPBELL, with whom was Mr. For.LETT, stied
the case for the prosecution, and adverted to the hardshiP,
experienced by Mr. Chambers on being so long deprived
his liberty by the conduct of his assignees, and of the coy'
tinued expenditure of such large portions of the v 0
funds which had been collected, and which would have,
paid all the creditors under the commission. The Learned
Counsel enterod at some length into the proceedings which
had been taken to support the Commission, to assist
which he stated the perjury of the defendant was employed'
and concluded by calling the following witnesses :
Mr. Hodges, a short-band-writer, read the evidence
given by the defendant on the trial in question, after
which
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE stated that some parts of 08
evidence in chief alleged to be false were so far explained
by the cross-examination, that the allegations in the ill'
dictment in that respect could not be supported.
After some discussion, it was at length agreed to rote
fine the case to the alleged perjury regarding the grating
the door.
The defendant swore upon the trial that in Nov., 1825,
he looked through a grating in the door, and was so'
swered through it by a servant.
In support of the allegation of perjury Mr. CAllyatt•!
called Mr. Chambers the elder, Miss Chambers,
daughter, besides his servants, and other persons, who sl',
positively swore, that they had known Mr. Chambers
cottage for many years—some of them even from the
period it was built—and that there had never been, tire I°
the present time, any grating whatever in the door.
Mr. Chambers, and Mr. Green, his present attorney
were cross-examined at considerable length respecting the
legal proceedings which have taken place since his baoe,:
ruptcy, the whole of which have been so repeated')
before the public, as well as Mr. Chambers's cell!,,
nection with Mr. Wilton, his late attorney, wheP:,
he met in the King's Bench prison, where Mr. Wiltone";
a debtor. It appeared that by Mr. Chambers's directioe'
_independently of the actions already tried—his assigneli.
had been arrested for a sum of 45,0001., and he had brotegl,
120 actions against as many of his creditors for a Vele'
of covenant in revoking the letter of license.
The door, which was sworn by the defendant to hs, /1
had a grating in it, was produced in Court, and all t"',
witnesses swore that it was the same which had alsfel;
b,en at the entrance of Mr. Chambers's cottage, and neee
had a grating in it.
Sir JAMES ScAmArr, in his lengthened reply, dery
cited the continued litigation that had already taken PIW:IS,
and was likely to continue, and attributed it entirely ,
Mr. Chambers' desire to keep it up so long that the et!,
Lute of limitations would interpose and release him fro
all his simple contract creditors. The Lear'''
Counsel then stated that the Jury would be Burps
to hear that he was prepared with abundant
to show that not only was the door now in Court a or,
one, put up within a few years, hut that for many Ye%s
there was a door with a grating in it there, though
what particular time it was removed could not be Pts,
cisely proved. d
Daniel Sired, a nurseryman, proved that he had p
tags,maayned harse knewwork thedaet
aid d
the garden
yhoifci lt, lwr.asechearmtanbeilryes h,C;
ing in 1825, and it had a grating in it. The door 0°
in Court he stated to have been afterwards put up in Note'
quence of the other being much worn.
(The cause was proceeding when our reporter left.)

evideot;