The Sun.
London, England, 1836-01-18 00:00:00

KING'S BEN Z,7Ii:(THIS DAY.)

THE -KING V. O'GORMAN MAHON.
,The defendant in this case, - who was convicted at the
sittings after last Trinity Term of an assault upon Henry
Rodolph Wigley, an attorney, appeared this morning for
the purpose of receiving the judgment of the Court. Our
readers will recollect that a few terms ago an indictment for
perjury was preferred by Mr. O'Gorman Mahon against
Mr. Wigley, when the defendant was acquitted, and that,
after the trial had terminated, an altercation took'place in
one of the passages leading from the Court between Mr.
Mahon, Mr. Wigley, and some of his friends, the result of
which was the assault in question. Mr. Mahon was on the
instant sentenced to three days' imprisonment for his con-
tempt of Court, and subsequently at the trial offered no
defence, and was found guilty.
A very long affidavit of the defendant was now put in and
read, and also one made by Samuel Grierson, of Surrey-
square, Old Kent-road. Both these affidavits detailed a
variety of circumstances connected with the indictment for
perjury preferred by the defendant. The defendant, in his
affidavit also alleged that, at the trial for the assault, he
had several witnesses, who would have proved that he (Mr.
Mahon) had been assaulted, in the first instance, but the
trial having come on at a very early hour, contrary to his
expectation, these witnesses were not in attendance, and he
was taken by surprise.
Lord DENMAN interrupted the reading of the affidavits,
by observing that the defendant, in his affidavit, had sworn
to facts which amounted to a justification of the assault.
Had the Court been fulls aware of all these statements at
the time the new trial was moved for, it could not have
avoided calling upon the other side to answer them. The
defendant swears that he was insulted by disreputable
names, and assaulted from behind ; and it is very question-
able whether that does not make out a justification.
Mr. PLATT, for the prosecutor, observed, that if a rule
Nisi for a new trial were now granted, they should be com-
pelled to take out office copies of all these affidavits, the
expense of which would be very great, and would ultimately
fall upon the prosecutor, who had not yet received the costs
of the former trial. _ _

O'Gorman Mahon begged to set the Learned Counsel
right. Mr. Platt had stated that the costs of the former
trial had not been paid, but he held the receipt now in his
hand for their amount, 671. odd, and had showed it on a
former occasion to Mr. Justice. Coleridge.
Lord DxisimAN—We have nothing to do with that matter.
O'Gorman Mahon—But my Lord, when such statements
are made, I feel it my duty to contradict them. If the
prosecutor wishes, I shall myself with great pleasure furnish
him with copies of the affidavits as soon as they can be
written out.
After giving some instructions to the defendant as to the
remodelling of his affidavit, the Cou. t fixed Monday next
for hearing the arguments for a new trial. The defendant
then withdrew.

COMMON PLEAS.-(THIS DAY.)

LEVI. V. WALTERS.

This case was before the public last week, Mr. Ser-
jeant Andrews having then moved for a rule to set aside
a warrant of Attorney, given as a collateral security for a
play debt. The defendant had taken his passage to India,
and his luggage put on board, but was arrested on Saturday
last on the judgment signed upon the warrant of attorney.
The Learned Serjeant now moved for a rule Nisi to
set aside the warrant of attorney and the money returned.
—Rule granted.