The Sun.
London, England, 1824-07-05 00:00:00

COITRT OF KING'S BENCH, JULY 3.

TIM UNTO rv. TIMOTHY POWELL, ESQ.
This was an application for a new trial. The defendant had
been found guilty upon an indictment for perjury, which was
alleged to have been committed •in his answer to a bill filed
against Messrs. Powell and Co., of Bristol, on the subject of
the sale of some Spanish wool in that city, in which the firm of
Jones, Wellington; • and Co., dealers in wool, had a conjoint
interest. The present object was to set aside the verdict, on
the ground that further evidence wag now ready to be produced
on the part of the defendant, which would obviate the impres-
Won created upon the

The Lord Chief Juittice was engaged until 3 o'clock In rend.
ing the notes of the trial. •
A long affidavit, filed this day, was then put in, and read on
the-part of the defendant, in which both himself, his partner,
and two clerks, depose fromentries which they have since dis.
covered in their books, that there was no ground for the mein-
, sion drawn upon the trial, and that they can remove that im-
pression, if allowed, on a new trial, to adduce the fresh evi-
dence which they have since obtained:
Mr. SCARLETT submitted, that on a motion for a new trial,
the aflidaot of the defendant ought, according to the rule of
Court, to be filed within the four first days of Term. This
affidavit was dated this day, any if, under such circumstances,
it could be received, the rule of Court would be rendered nu.
ga!nry.

• ./ -
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL' said, that the postponement
took place by an arrangement made at the beginning of Term,
and if the affidavit wait not to be delivered over to the opposite
side, during the first four days of Term, there was no reason
why it should at the present time, and therefore no disadvan-
tage accrued to the prosecutor from the fact of the affidavit
being only this day sworn.
The Loan Chlcr JUSTICE said, that, as the defendant
might have supposed, owing to some lenity in the application
of the rule of Court, that he was entitled to put in the affi-
davit, when the motion for a new trial was made, the safer
course would be, on the present occasion, to allow it to be
read, taking care however that a positive rule should in future
be had down, to obviate a recurrence of so inconvenient a per-1
mission as was for the present allowed to this defendant.
The affidavit being received, the ATTOILNEY-GENERAL,
for the defendant, submitted, that thiseharge resolved itself into
two branches ; first, respecting the 101 bags of wool, in which
the defendants and the house of Jones, Wellington, and C 0..,
were conjoint owners. Now, ho would chew there was no ground
for supposing that the defen-dants had made ashen% sale, for the
purpose of putting the goods to their own account at a particular
valuation, and that the evidence wasincomplew; and secondly,that
as to the 178 remaining bags of wool, thereouglit to be a new trial.
It would be recollected, that the wool buitiness, in which the de-
fendant was engaged,
was solely conducted by Epsworth, the
broker, and the late R. Mitchell ; the Powells being bankers and
.
dry-salters, anti Mitchell undertaking, for the concern, to carry
on the wool branch of business, in a separate counting-house..:-.
%Vhen Powell made the affidavit which was the ground of the
prosecution, he deposed, to the best of his belief, upon the
statement in the books made by Mitchell ; he could of him-
self have known nothing about the particular transaction.
It being near four o'clock, the Court postponed the further.
argument of the Attorney-General in this cause.

THE NINO V. THE CORPORATION OF PORTSMOUTH.'
This was a rule obtained by Mr. Merewether, calling on the
Mayor and Corporation of Portsmouth to show cause why they
should not hold a meeting to consider the propriety of re-
moving five Aldermen of that borough for not residipg within
its limits.

Mr. SCARLETT, Mr. ADAM, and MT. ERSKINE now shewed
cause against the rule, on the ground that the charter of Ports.
mouth did not require residence; and that the case on which the
rule was granted, « the King a. Truro," did not apply.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL., Mr. GASELEE, and Mr.
MEREWETITER, in support of the rule, contended that the
very nature of the functions of Aldermen required that they
should reside, and that in a place like Portsmouth the residence
of all the local Magistrates was necessary, especially in time of
war, to the preservation of the public peace.
The Cana'r thought there was not sufficient ground for
making the rule absolute. It was not shewn that any evil had
resulted from the non.residence of these Gentlemen, nor was
any complaint made by the other Aldermen on whom the bur.
den was cast by their absence. They therefore discharged the
rule, hut without coatis;