The Sun.
London, England, 1836-12-06 00:00:00

COMMON PLEAS.--(THIS DAY.)

(Before Mr. Justice PARKE and a Special Jury.)
RAPHAEL V. DUNCONIBE.
This was an action brought by Mr. John Raphael, the
Returning Officer for the borough of Finsbury at the last
election, to recover the sum of 381. from Mr. T. Duncombe,
M.P. for Finsbury, this being the balance alleged to he due to
the:plaintiff in respect of the expense incurred at the last elec-
tion, when Mr. Duncombe and Mr. Wakley were last elected.
It appeared that each of the candidates, previous to the nomi-
nation, had deposited the sum of 401. with the Returning Of-
ficer, as a security for the expenses necessarily incurred in
preparing polling-books, and paying poll-clerks, &c. The sum
deposited not being sufficient to cover the expenses to which
the returning officer was put, and the defendant, or rather
the Committee who conducted his election, refusing to pay
his share of the remaining expenses, the present action was
brought to recover the sum of 381., that being a moiety of
the amount of the expense to which the returning officer
was put beyond what was covered by the deposits. The
election, it will be recollected, took place in January, and
one of the deputy returning officers said it was so dark that
they were obliged to have gas-lights in the booths.
Mr. Justice PARKE.—Mat is a reason why there should I
not be a general election in winter.
Mr. Serjeant WILDE.—I hope your Lordship's sugges-
tion will he taken into consideration.—(A laugh.)
Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD appeared for the defendant,
and contended that the expenses to which a candidate
could be put were strictly defined by act of Parliament,
and that several of the. charges on the present occasion
were unjustifiable. The returning officer took that dignity
subject to certain charges, for which the candidates could
not he made liable. Lord Ellenborough, in the celebrated
action brought by the High Bailiff of Westminster against
Sir Francis Burdett, laid down the law respecting charges
of this nature. He said that " a candidate was liable to
no expense except such as the statute law casts upon him,
or which he takes upon himself by express, or implied con-
sent." In the present case there was a charge for a share
of the expense of the indenture of return, for which the
candidate was not liable.
Mr. Sergeant WILDE—That is the last charge I should
think a candidate would object to.—(A laugh.)
Mr. Justice PARKE—You are both experienced men ;
you ought to know.—(A laugh.)
Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD contended that the expenses
were strictly defined by the Act of Parliament, and it was
of the utmost importance that the Court and jury should
settle the question.
The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, for the full
amount.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT,

(THIS DAY.)

OLD COURT.
Joseph Fisher Perkins was indicted for stealing five steel-
lined thimbles, a pencil-case, and other articles, the pro-
perty of John Richard Morton, his master.
Mr. Mosely, the agent of the prosecutor, a manufacturer
of jewellery at Birmingham, stated, that he carried on bu-
siness at Hatton-garden, and some time since employed the
prisoner as an assistant at a salary of 21. a-week. It was his
custom, by the desire of Mr. Mosely, to take out a quantity
of jewellery every morning for the purpose of selling them,
and on his return in the evening to give an account of
what he had disposed of. The articles were so numerous,
that no memorandum could well be made of the quantity
taken out. About the 18th of November, some suspicion
arose, and some of the property was missed. On that morn-
ing„ the prisoner coming as usual to his employer's shop,
was told he need not go out, and a search was made upon his
person, when the articles named in the indictment, together
with the key .of his house, were found upon him. He was
given in charge to a policeman, but Mr. Mosely having
then stated that though he had no right to their possession,
yet he might have had them for the purposes of sale. The
Learned Judge did not think the indictment could be sus-
tained, and the Jury. accordingly acquitted the prisoner.
Joseph Fisher Perkins was again put to the bar, charged
with stealing various articles of jewellery, to the value of
200/., from Jelin Richard Morton ; and 'Emma Cephisa
Thornlcy alias Perkins, was indicted for receiving the same,
well knowing them to have been stolen.
• Mr. BODKIN appeared for the prosecution, and having
referred to the circumstances of the last trial, said he would
be able to show that an extensive system of depredation
had been for some time carried on by the male prisoner,
and that the female at the bar was a party thereto. A
question would arise as to the degree of coercion under
which she might be supposed to have acted as the wife of
Perkins ; but it would be shown that he was in 1834, con-
victed of bigamy, having intermarried with Emma Thornley,
his first wife being then alive.
William Moseley—l am the town agent of Mr. More-
ton. The prisoner was in his service. His business was
to take out goods in the morning, and on his return to give
an account of what he had sold. When my suspicion was
excited I asked him about six watch-keys that were missing ;
he said he knew nothing about them.• I then asked about
some cameo bracelets ; he denied all knowledge of them.
On the 18th of November he was taken into custody. I
told him I suspected him of robbing me. The officer took
the key of his house, No. 11, Carter-street, Walwortb, from
his pocket. We went there and found several articles.
(The property was here produced, and consisted of a
great variety of jewellery.) Among these I see many
articles marked, and all I know to belong to Mr. Moreton.
In consequence of some information I went to the Pan-
theon in Oxford-street. I found on a stall belonging to a
person calling herself Stanford, several articles which I