The Sun.
London, England, 1849-02-15 00:00:00

BROWN V. LORD ALBERT CONYNGFIAM.

Sir F. Thesiger and Mr. Corrie appeared for the
plaintiff, and Mr. Sergeant Shee and Mr. Bramwell for
the defendant.

The defendant in this action (Lord Albert Conyng-
ham) had been the chairman of the managing committee
of the Ennis and Galway Grand Junction Railway Com-
pany, and the action was brought to recover the sum
of 370/. for taking the traffic on a portion of the pro-
posed line.
A person named Fynn, who said ho was called to the
Irish bar in the year 1835, was produced as a witness by
the plaintiff, and swore that the defendant had joined
the company in October, 1845, and, having paid the de-
posits upon his shares, acted as chairman about that
period. On cross-examination, the witness said he was
the registered promoter of the line, and had acted as se-
cretary. He also stated, that some years since he had
been appointed Chief Justice of Tobago, but had not gone
out to assume the duties of his office. He (the witness)
had sent over to Ireland the deed in which were
entered the names of many persons as having paid
up their subscriptions who had not in fact
done so, and among the rest wero bis own name and that
of his wife. The witness also said he had issued a pro-
spectus, with the names of several persons as having
paid their subscriptions who had not done so. He had
been in prison in Paris, but was released along with 250
other persons on the day after Louis Philippe was
obliged to fly from his capital. He had not been offered
a sum of money as an inducement to give such evidence
as would fix the defendant with liability in the present
action, nor had a promise of more money been made if
the plaintiff should obtain a verdict.
A letter was then put in and read, which purported to
come from the office of the plaintiff's attorney, ad-
dressed to the witness, and his handwriting upon it
showed that he heti received it, containing an offer to the
witness of 20/, to cpme over and give evidence for the
plaintiff, with a pratnise of more money if the plaintiff
should obtain a verdict.

Lord DENMAN expressed his condemnation of this
letter in very stromr. language.
Sir F. 1 IiESIGER said he hoped to prove the plaintiff's
case by other evidence than that of this witness.
The witness said, the money was merely to enable
him to come from France, and that he did not under-
stand it as an offer of money to give evidence of any
particular sort. The money was not sent, and he was
afterwards arrested in Paris, but on his return to this
country he was subpoenaed. lie had offered to go out of
the country if a sum of money were given him, and if
he had done so, the plaintiff could not have proved the
defendant's liability.
The plaintiff then called several other witnesses in
support of his case.

Mr. Sergeant SREE, in addressing the jury for the
defendant, said that the evidence of the principal witness
was not to be believed, and the plaintiff's case had there-
fore entirely failed.
Lord DENMAN, in summing up the evidence to the
jury, again censured very strongly the writing of such a
letter as that which had been read, and said that every
witness ought to come into the witness-box free from
every influence of fear, favour, or affection, and prepared
to speak the truth, and that only.
The jury then returned a verdict for the defendant.