The Sun.
London, England, 1825-11-30 00:00:00

PRICE SP;;VENPENCE.

LAW INTELLIgF;NCE,

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Nov. gg.-
;int:JURY-THE KING 71. SPENCER.

This was an indictment for perjury against the defendant, a
pidnter and glazier in the Hackney-roed, preferred at the in-
szance -Of James Edwards, of Margaret-street, 'Heaney-fields,
a builder. The perjury was'assigned on an anSwereef titede-'
fendant to a bill preferred in, Chancery by the prosecutor?, ter •
the specific performance of an agreement fora lease of
By thrit agreement, which bar.e. 'date on the 25th" of Alarcl.,
liM2ethe defendant stipulated to grant tit the prosecutor ilea:4
of a piece of land, on which he was to build two houses, sr d •
give hint aright of way across the ditch ; and the questida,wae,
whether the following words-which had been originaffyiniert-
ed, qualifying the gram," as long as the saute belongs tO.Dire
Spencer; by paying :dr. Pritchard for the use thereof," were
:truck cut before or after the execution of the agreement. Thi
defendant swore, that they were not erased till after the agroe;•
meat was executed ; and on this perjury was assigned. A •
forrher indictment had been tried for the same cause, bet tote
defendant was acquitted on a matter of form.
SCA.R.LEi"f and Mr. HUTCHINSON. for the FC'OSLTJ,
tio,ll call Vaughan, a publican, and who had been as attot, .
ney!s cierkeone of the subscribing witnesses to tfie agreement;
vFluert,eiri., a t!i!Zirit;sat
Eothdt,erarwdistnsweeosr:e
tanhadt,Eadrwtearrtdhse,
mtltietteprrohsead-
bwn di,icussed, the words•were erased by Vaughan before flee •
agreement was signed by spencer ; but Ewel stated thatZd-
Wards did not put his mark to them till after the erasure, but he:
did nut see Spencer sign at all, or go tothe table. The narree
of Spencer was signed hcfore.that of Edwards. There were
two parts of the agreement, and that left in the possession of.
Spencer, being produced by his Counsel on notice, exhibited a
Similar erasure. It appeared that offers had been made to re-
frain from pressing the criminal chaige, if Spencer would ex-
ectite the lease and pay the costs of the suit in Chancery. •
1111% GURNEY (ith whom was Mr. Law Es) addressed the
jury for the defendant, Commenting on the discrepancies in the
evidence. for the prosecution, on the improbability of the defend-
ant granting an absolute right, which tie had not to convey, lad
on the difficulty of giving credit to a case sustained by persons
who had used an indictment for perjury as an instrument of
torture, to extort from a party a surrender of his civil rights.
Three witnesses of respectability were called, who gave ttet
defendant an excellent character. _ _ .

-----
The LORD CHIEF ..TI:STICE left the case to the jury, desir.
ing them to give the benefit of any doubt to the defendant.
'7l'he jury, after deliberating for 20 minutes, returned a vat.
dict of Guilty.
The following notice was issued this morning, by order of
the Lord Chief Justice, in the Court of King's Bench :
" Whereas by a rule made in Easter Term, 33 Geo. 111., 1793,
it was ordered by the Court, that the writs of distringas, ard
the records in causes which stand over from one sittings tc,
another, be regularly re-sealed, previous to the sitting to which
they stand over; or in default thereof the causes be not tried ;'
now, for enforcing obedience to the said rule, it is hereby or.
dered by the Lord Chief Justice, that the Marshal do not, after
the present sittings, insert in the daily list of causes for trial,
any causes wherein the writ of distringas and record shall net
have been regularly re-sealed previous to the sitting to which
the same cause may stand over, according to the said recited
rule.—Dated Court of King's Bench, Nov. 29, 1825."

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nov. 29.
(Sitting's at iViSi Pri:ts.)
BcAre Lord Chief Justice BEST and a Common Jury
CHILD v. GRACE.

This was an action for an assault: Mr. Serjeant WILL
stated the case to the Jury. From his statement, and the evi.
dence of two witnesses whom he called to support it, it appeared
that the plaintiff kept the Cannon Tavern, otherwise the Coliseum.
in Portland-road, in June last, and had about that time sold his
interest in it to the defendant. On the day named in the action.
the plaintiff and defendant had some words about the plaintiff
Having refused to mix some spirits and water for persons who
. came in at a late hour, and the words ended in the defendant
knocking Mr. Child, the plaintiff, into a cradle, and giving him
a black eye.
The defendant pleaded the general issue, and also son assault
demesne; and Mr. Serjeant 'ratan., after addressing the jury
on the trivial nature of the transaction, and I::nerving that even
if it were as the plaintiff's witnesses had represented, it would
entitle him only to nominal damages, called a witness who gave
another version to the affair. According to his account, the
plaintiff and defendant differed about the price which the latter
had agreed to give for the Tease of the house. Defendant said
he would make a profit of the house, on which plaintiff called
him a scoundrel. On this a scuffle arose, and the plaintiff came
to the ground.
The Jury, after hearing this evidence and his Lertiship'c
summing up, gave a verdict for thePlaintiff—Damages 51. ar d
40s. costs. _ _

There were some other cases tried ; but most of them were
undefended, and none of them were of any interest except to
the parties immediately concerned.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Nov. 29.
(Before Mr. Baron GAHROW.)
KIXG v. BAZENACH.

This informaation, which it was expected would have °eel:-
pied the whole of the day, was called on for trial at the sittingS
this moring. Only five special jurors attended. The Sozac t-
Toi-GENErtax. refined to pray a tales for the Crown.. The
case, in consequence, could not be tried.
Mr. Jtavts, for the defendant, complained of the expence
which this occurrence would occasion to his client. lie hat
once before brought a witness all the way from Bordeaux le
give evidence in this case. That witness was here now ; by. t,
in all probability, fresh expence must be incurred in bringfrng
him a third time to this country.
Mr. Baron °ARROW took occasion to animadvert on the
non-attendance of special jurors, and gave this case as an in.-
stance of the evil which gentlemen summoned to attend some-
times inflicted on unoffending parties. by not doing so. He
trusted that he should not again haVe to complain:of their non-
attendance during these sittings, or means might be taken to
Compel it.
As the parties were not ready in any other causes, the CW'i
adjourned at a few minutes after ten o'clock.