The Sun.
London, England, 1813-07-29 00:00:00

. ,
t,.91 '-------7rucker, to meet hint in a hac'kney-
cniielt, ~vinch she did ;' With employing her t 0 per-
sr''ittt Entabeth*George to keep out of the way,
holding oat .to lter,' that he .would settle her for
-life it'. !dte Would he'sif his side ; with aeknoW-
le d;.!:itig to Iteb'eeea- Tricker, ' that his name ‘e,:s noi
Cordoti, butt 'Verekt, and that he had taken to.
LLanor 'Grey, beewhe his wile had'excladed him
from her bed. These different allegations the
prc,iCat dofendant had negatived gy his answers,
v,.oin io he him on the 2d September last, before
Saltily! :Pearce Parsons, Votitor of Laws, Surro-
gate 10 Sit 'William Scott, Vicar Ge»eral to the
Archbishop of Canterbury, and Chancelhar.of the
. Diocese of London ; and on:these diderent nega-
tives, asAgnments of perjury were laiol by'the
present indictment. . .
Mr. ScAttLerr, in stating the case, informed
the Jury'', that the defendant, who wis it gentle-
titan Id' fortune, had, in the year:lso3, married
the dinghter of a gentleman, alo of family and
fortune, Al iss iferbert,danghtt r of the presentMem-
!bet. for the county of Kerry, a lady highly accom-
plished, and of an education the best which this
country , could afford. filer fortune wits con3i-
derable, and she had an estate of which her hus-
band became tenant for life. Th 6 greatest misfor-
tune to both parties waS, that there was no fruit of
'the marriage. The present, deCendant afterwards
brought an action iu Major Staples for Prim.
Can. with his wife, in which lie obtained a verdict.
through what means the Learned Counsel should
not say. Ile then •went into the Ecclesiastical
(.:ourfior a dieorce against his ttid'e. This was the
first time she was actually a:party to the- proceed-
ings ; and finding it impossible, consistently with
her own honour, or that of her family; to be
longer silent, she felt herself no longer called on
to conceal what had conic to her knowledgeagainst
a husband, wlto had done all in his power to Tulin
her.fame, charactstr, and honour. She accordingly
put in 11,r * 1,;.1.1,,,titi0n in question, in whieh she
char ,r ,v,it:;,;:,..1 only With carrying on a criminal
contieciitlit :Eleanor Grey, but also with the
additional incidental and corroboratory circum-
stances above alluded to. 'The direct charge, as '
he was by the rules of the Court entitled to do;
the defeodant declined answering, but to the
other allegations tic gave in the answers for
which he was ,now charged with the crime of
perjury.
..
The libel, the' allegations, and the answers,
thereto, duly sworn before Dr. Parsons, Surrogate
to the-Vicat-General, Sir Wm. Scott, mere then
put and proved.
Dr.-Parsons was then called, and being asked
by Mr. Scarlett how long be had been Surrogate .
to Sir W. Scott ?
..

Mr. PARK objected to proof of the fact by pa-
role, where the appointment was in writing._
Mr. SCARLLTT contended, that where all officer
bad so iong acted, it was sufficient that he bad
been uniformly recognized as such.
Lord ELLEtqaottouoit• thought it, prima fact,
an admission of his hearing that character, and
that it' put, on those objecting to prove that he
held no such character.

Mr. PARK said, then he objected that Dr. Pa-
rsons's appointment was impurfeet, as being con-
trary to the canons.

The Registrar's book was then put in on-the
entry ..o1•14th May, 1793, appointing Dr. Parsous
Surrogate of the Court, was read, from which it'
appeared that there was a blank as to the notary's
name. present.ilt the time, and required to verify
the appointment.—This being so,
Lord ELLENIIOrtOUGH cuuitl 'not say, in the cir-
cumstances of the case, that it uppeured to him
there rags here any compatent authority to admi-
nister the oath. •

His Lordship then informed. the Jury, that in
order to have 'a competent ►authority to administer
an oath in s►►ch a case as the present, the office
inn►st' he conferred on the person executing it, in
tt►e Way which the act points out. Hire the act
?chaired the pi esence of the registrar, deputy re-
gistrar, Or of ►c notary public. In the present in-
stance, tl►e appointment affected to rest on the
authority of a notary public, but none such was.
named.. There could he oh peijury, if there was
.no authority in the p e ;ou administeringthe
to 'administer it.--The Jury accordingly found the
defendant Not Guilty,

THE KING V. WM. PRESTON.

My. SCARI.EI'T Stilted this bean indictment
for a similar otrence agaiust the defendant, who
hail been exatnined as a witness, both,in the ac-
tion before his Lordship, mid in the snip in the
Ecclesiastical Court. The same objection, he was
sorry to say, would be found in tiliS case which
liad been sustained in the la,t ; that was his only
reason for not proceeding, unless, indeed, his
Learned Friend would wave theobjection.
Mr. YANK said he would not. It was k)ectilittr-
ly his duty not to wave such an objection in a case
like the p resent, where the witness might have
been indicted, if there was any ground fur indict-
ing him, for the evidence be gave before his Lord-
ship.,'but the otherparty.wiives ,that, and indicti
'him for his.evidence iii the Ecclgsiastical court.
—The Jury foUnd the defendant