The Sun.
London, England, 1841-02-17 00:00:00

MORNING EDITION.

know nothing at all of that. I presume that the '
depositions will be before this high tribunal in
the same- manner as they would be before the
Central Criminal Court.
The LORD HIGH STEWARD—After looking
over papers in the cause, the depoSitions re-
turned to the House appear to me to have -been
taken on the 28th of September. The House
has none of an earlier date.
Sir Wm. FOLLETT (to the witness)—If I under-
stood your answer right, Sir, you were examined
. OR the 14th and the 19th ?
The LORD HIGH STEWARD—Sir Wm. Follett,
do you mean to go into the examination of
the 14th ?
Sir WM. FOLLETT—Yes, my Lord.
The LORD HIGH STEWARD to the • 'tness—
Was your exaimination—were the statements
made by you on-the 14th, taken down in writing?
Not to my knowlege, my Lord.
Sir WAI FOLLETT—Was any statement taken
down, Sir ?—Y es, but not all.
The LORD HIGH STEWARD—Was any part of
Your statement taken down in writing ?—Yes,
some parts, my Lord, but not all.
The Earl of HADNOR—Was that taken down
and read over to you ?—lt was.
And did you sign it ?-1 signed it as far as it
went,
my Lord.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—I am utterly igno-
rant of this deposition, my Lords; but the
Clerk to the Magistrates is in waiting, and, with
your Lordships' permission, I will call hint.
Sir WILLIAM FOLLETT I have something
further to ask this witness. I understand you to
Say, that on the 14th you made a statement,
some part of which was taken down, which was
read over to you, and signed by you ?—lit was.
Were you examined on the 19th of September?
"—Yes.

.NVS your statement then read over to you ?
It Was.
Were you asked if you had anything to add
toit?-1 do not recollect that I was asked that
question in the second instance.
I ask you, on your oath, was not the question
,put to you whether you had anything to add to
Your former statement' !--I do not recollect
that question being put to me on my second ex-
amination.
I ask you did you not say that you had nothing
to add (lid not say so.
Now attend. I ask you did you swear that
You were not asked whether you lAL..d anything to
add, and whether you did not say, I have nothing
to
,say ?—When I was asked if I had anything to
add I answered No.
Sir W. FOLLETT (to the House)—My Lord, he
1341_375) I was asked whether I had anything to
,add, and I answered " No." (To witness)—
"hen did you state what Lord Cardigan said to
You ?---On the 14th, and I repeated tile same ob-
servations on the 19th.

Had 3411.-;ct heard a great deal about the duel
in the meantime P—No, I am not sure that I had.
I heard some talk about it.
Did you not read a good deal about it in the
newspapers think there was a good deal
about it in the newspapers.
Were you bound over to prosecute in the case
of Lord Cardigan was not bound over in the
ease of Lord Cardigan, but of Captain Tuckett.
Who was bound over in Lord Cardigan's ?
Superintendent Picton.
Why was he bound over ?—Because he was the
head of the police in the district where the duel
took place.
By whom was he bound over ?—By the Magis-
trates at Kingston.
Were you examined on all the bills ?—I do
not know; I was examined twice before the Grand
Jury.
Were you examined twice at the same time ?

I come now to another part of your conversa-
tion. You say that you asked Lord Cardigan if
he had been fighting with Captain Reynolds.
Nov I ask you, Sir, did he not say, " It is not
my principle to fight with officers under my
command 2"—No, he did not, I told you what he
said.

I ask you, Sir, did not Lord Cardigan say,
It is not my principle to fight with officers
under my command ?"—N ; what he said was,
Do you think 1 would fight with one of my
own officers ?" •

Re-exarahied by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL.—
when you were examined on the 14th, did you
Make the same statement?

Sir W. FOLLETT..-1 object, Mr. Attorney-
General, to your putting that question, unless
You put in the depositions. You objected to my
putting the some question, without the deposi-
tion, and my Lords decided that it could not be
Put. If it cannot be put on the part of Lord
Cardigan, it must not be put by Mr. Attorney-
General.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—My question is not
the same.
Lord BROUGHAM—Let the short-hand writer
read his notes.
The short-hand writer then read his notes of
all that part of the witness's cross-examination
which referred to his alleged conversation with
Lord Cardigan.
Lord BROUGHAM—That is all I want. Now
Which of the accounts do you abide by—the
statement that you were asked if you had any-
thing to add, and that you said no—or that the
question was not put to you ?—I was simply asked
the question, my Lord, " Have you anything;
to adil to your former statement ?" Of course 1
took that to be the statement which I made at
large, and I replied, " No, I have nothing to
add to the former statement," because 1 then
made use of the exact words which I have now.

SIT W. FOLLETT-1 ask you when your former
statement taken down in writing was read over to you
before the question was put, whether you had anything
to add to it?—l think the book was open and it was
said " Hive you anything to add to your forme' state-
ment?"

I ask you upon your solemn oath if that former
statement was not read over to you, and if you were
Lot asked whether you had anything to add to it ?—I
think the question was asked upon the books being opened
in this way—" Have you anything to add to your former
statement ?"

Answer my question.—l will do so. I was asked
" Ilave you anything to add ?"
It was read over to you, and then upon its being
read over you were asked if you had anything to add,
and you said that you had not ?
Lord ELDON—Does the Learned Counsel mean to
ask whether the witness said he had anything to add
to the statement made, or to the record that was taken ?

Sir W. FOLLETT—If I understand you, the former
statement that you made was read over to you—was it
so ?—Yes, the portion that was in writing was read.
The statement that was in writing was read over to
You ?—Yes.

And then you were asked if you had anything to add ?
►-Yes.

And you said no ?—I said no.
The Earl of RADNpa—Was it the whole of the state•
'tent that was read over to you ?—The whole statement
Was not taken down.

Si! W. FOLLETT—With deference to your Lord-
ablps, the question is as to the contents of the deposi-
tions, which we are not allowed to examine into.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—My Lords, there can
be no difficulty on tha part of my Learned Friend, for
the depositions are in Court.
Sir W. FOLLETT—On the contrary, their Lordships
have told me that the Magistrates only returned the
depositions of the 28th.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL-4 am informed by a
gentleman who is now at the Bar that the depositions
of the 14th and 19th arc here, and ready to be laid
before the Court.
Sir W. FOLLETT—Here ! But they ought to have
been presented before.

The Earl of RADNOR—When you were examined
till the 14th of September did you make that state-
me.* to the Magistrates or the Clerk, that he
might prepare the statement for the Magistrates ?
I made that statement to the Magistrates. I was asked if
I bad :Nark that statement on my subsequent ex-
amination before his Lordship. I then said to
Mr. Adolphu.% that I had made that statement
in the first instan.le, and I appealed to his Lordship, and
lie did hot deny it.
Now, you made tb,At statement to the Magistrates in the
Ilsearin of the Clerk ?--I did.
And the Clerk said it was not relevant?
Sir W. FOLIATT—.I beg your Lordship's pardon; I
should suggest that is not a proper question.
The Earl of RADNOR—I ask him as to what the Clerk
said on that occasion ; that is my question, and the whole
of my question. I submit that the question is perfectly
legular, and that it should in put down upon the minutes
with the answer.

A PEE2.--Was everything pet down by the Cleik ?
It is 1:(ir t custom to take down the whole depo,ition in
full. A no,aute is made, !,ufficient to justify the Magis•
times in ternandiog the party for re-examination, until the
whole of the ecider.ce can he gone into at length.
The witness then v..i!hdrew.
Charles William Waltham was then called and sworn.
lixarnii-led by Mr. WALMINGTON—Mr. Waltham, do you
reside at No. 99, in the Poultry ?—I do, Sir.
Are you a chemist?-1 am.
Carrying on business there?—Yes, Sir.
Do you know a Captain Tuckctt ?-1 do, Sir.
Does he occupy A reem in per house ?_He occupies
Reoccupies rooms in your house ? Yes, Sir.
For what purpose does he occupy them?-,As offices.
Dues he carry business on there ?—Yes, Sir.
How long has ha carried on business in these offices ?
Nearly
fifteen montha.
Where is his house—where does he live ?-11arnilton-
Place, New-road.
What number ?—No. 13.
me what his Christian name; are it you know them.
.Nt W. FOLLETT—Wait a me.ncnt. You say Captain