The Sun.
London, England, 1849-01-02 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
JUDGES' CHAMBERS, Jan. 1.

PRIVILEGES OF A PEER-M'CARE V. LORD HARLEY

On Saturday an application was made to Mr.
Baron Platt by Mr. Corfield, solicitor to the present
Earl of Oxford, who was detained in the Queen's
Prison as the Hon. A. Harley, commonly called Lord
Harley, for his discharge, he having succeeded, by
the death of his father, to the title of the Earl of
Oxford. The necessary documents were produced,
and his Lordship, after considering the matter,
directed the attorneys of the several detaining
creditors to show cause why the Earl of Oxford
should not be discharged from custody, he being a
Peet of the realm. The summonses were made re-
turnable to-day (Monday), and several attorneys
attended on the part of creditors. In some cases the
parties consented, and orders were made for the dis-
charge of the noble defendant, but in the above-
named cause the application was resisted by the de-
taining creditor's attorney. It was submitted that a
Peer was not entitled to his privilege until he had
taken the oaths prescribed.
Mr. Baron PLATT said he had no doubt that a
Peer was privileged before he had taken the oaths,
and requested to be furnished with cases which would
show that he was not. His Lordship adjourned the
summons for an hour, in order that counsel might
appear for the creditor.
At a subsequent period of the day the matter was
resumed. A barrister attended, and admitted that
he could not cite cases to the effect that a Peer was
not privileged until he had taken his seat.
His LORDSHIP made the order in this as well as in
the several other cases for the discharge of the Earl of
Oxford from the Queen's Prison.
In this case a point was incidentally mentioned of
a novel and important character namely, whether
the discharge would extinguish the several debts of
the detaining creditors, or whether the judgments
would survive the discharge by his Lordship. It
seems that there is no case on the subject, and the
question will decide whether an execution by opera-
tion of law will extinguish a debt in the same manner
as a discharge by the act of a creditor.
Orders in the several cases were drawn up, and
the Earl of Oxford discharged from the Queen's
Prison.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.
OLD COURT.

William Ward, 39, and Gavan Rickards, 30, were
indicted for a misdemeanour in obtaining money by
false pretences.
Mr. Ballantine prosecuted, and the prisoners were
defended by Mr. Payne and Mr. Parry.
It appeared that the prosecutor of this indictment
was a person named Arnold, who, in August last, was
confined in Whitecross•street Prison for debt. It
was alleged that the defendants had introduced them-
selves to him, and under the pretence that they could
get bail for him obtained 50s. from him, that sum
being raised by the wife of the prosecutor pawning
her clothes and almost everything she possessed for
the purpose.
Mr. PARRY, at the close of the evidence for the
prosecution, took an an objection that it did not make
out the allegation in the indictment, that the money
was given upon the consideration that the defendants
had provided bail, but merely went to show that they
professed their intention to do so. The Learned
Counsel also took a technical objection to a secocd
count in the indictment. _ _ _

The RECORDER expressed an opinion that the ob-
jections taken by the Learned Counsel were fatal to
the present indictment, and under his Lordship's di-
rection the jury returned a verdict of Not Guilty.
William Parker, a person of respectable appearance,
was then arraigned upon a charge of wilful and cor-
rupt perjury.
Mr. Ballantine prosecuted ; Mr. Sergeant C. Jones
and Mr. Prentis were for the defendant.

The Learned COUNSEL, in opening the case, said the
had only been instructed a few minutes before he
sitting of the Court, and really was not able to detail
the nature of the evidence. He would, however, call
the witnesses, and the jury would say whether the
case had been made out or not.

Evidence was th9n adduced, but from the result of
the proceeding it will not be necessary to give more
than a brief outline of the circumstances under which
the indictment was preferred. It appeared that an
action had been brought by a gentleman named
Palmer against a person named Castellini, upon a bill
of exchange for 301., and upon the trial the present
defendant was called as a witness to show that the
acceptance was the handwriting of the defendant in
the action, and upon this evidence the present indict-
ment was founded ; the only question being whether
the defendant in his evidence as to the handwriting
had spoken truly or not.
The first witness, Mr. Palmer, put an end to the
case for the prosecution, for he expressed a belief that
the acceptance to the bill was the signature of Castel-
lini, and the account he gave of the circumstances
under which he had received the bill left no doubt that
the defendant Parker had acted with perfect truth in
the transaction.

The RECORDER having remarked that the evidence
had entirely negatived the allegations of perjury,
Mr. BALLANTINE said he was instructed to call the
brother of the defendant, but he was, of course, an ad-
verse witness to the prosecution.
The brother of the defendant was then sworn, and
he stated that at his request he went with the bill in
question to the house of Castellini, and gave it to his
wife-for her husband to accept, and that she brought
it back to him with her husband's name upon it ; and
he also said that he believed the signature was the
handwriting of Castellini, the defendant in the action.
. _

Mr. BALIANTINS said that after this evidence, he
could not think of going on with the case. He as-
sured the Court that he was perfectly ignorant of the
circumstances under which the prosecution had been
preferred.
The RECORDER said no complaint could be made of
the conduct of the Learned Counsel, but he must say
that he was very glad that, under the circumstances,
he had not postponed the trial.
Mr. BALLANTINE said, that if he had known the
real facts of the case, unquestionably he would not
have laid it before the jury.
Mr. Sergeant JONES remarked, that he had no com-
plaint to make of his Learned Friend, but he did hope
that the defendant would leave the court without the
slightest stain upon his character, which had always
hitherto stood without reproach.
The RECORDER said, that as far as the case was
concerned there did not appear to be the slightest im-
putation upon the integrity of the defendant; who,
upon the application of the Learned Sergeant who
defended him, was immediately discharged from
custody.
Francis Maser, 25, and Eliza Stevens, SO, were
placed at the bar to receive judgment.
These prisoners were convicted at the last sessions
of stealing a considerable sum of money, the property
of an old lady in whose house they had occupied
apartments as man and wife. Judgment was respited,
in order to enable the prisoners to make some atone-
ment to justice by restoring a portion of the stolen
property, and also to give the constable who had the
case in hand an opportunity of making inquiries re-
specting the prisoners and tracing the property.
The constable now stated that the prisoners had
refused to give him any information, and he had been
unable to obtain possession of the stolen money. He
had, however, discovered that the female prisoner was
a married woman, and that she had left her husband
to go and cohabit with her male companion.
The husband of the prisoner Stevens, a respectable-
looking young man, got into the witness-box, and said
that Macer had behaved like a great villain to him.
He had always lived happily and respectably until
he allowed him to enter his house, but he had seduced
his wife, and been the means of breaking up his home
entirely.
The RECORDER, in passing sentence, said that the
reason why a difference was made in the punishment
of the prisoner was, that the Court could not help
feeling that a man who could passess so much in-
fluence over the mind of a woman as to induce her
to forget her duty to society and to her husband, and
to leave her home and cohabit with him, might exer-
cise the same influence to compel her to assist him in
committing an offence of this description. Still, how-
ever, the offence was a very aggravated one, and
although the Court would not go to the extent of
passing a sentence of transportation, it was necessary
that a punishment of considerable severity should be
inflicted as an example to others. The male prisoner
was then sentenced to be kept to hard labour for two
years, and the woman for one year.

NEW COURT.
(Before Mr. BULLOCK.)
Charles Geld, a respectable-looking man, upwards
of sixty years of age, surrendered to take his trial on
an indictment charging him with having stolen eight
printed books, and some articles of body linen of
trifling value, the property of Mark Crashaw.
Mr. Ballantine defended the prisoner.
It appeared from the evidence of the prosecutor,
who resides at Glossop, in Derbyshire, that on the
29th of December he got into one of the Paddington
omnibuses, having with him a bundle containing the
goods in question, which he left on the seat when he
got out. As soon as he missed it he ran after the
omnibus, and then found that the prisoner, who had
also been a passenger, had walked off with his
bundle. He was overtaken by the conductor, and
when brought back offered to bet the prosecutor a
sovereign that the bundle was his own, adding, that
he had brought a bundle into the omnibus with him.
In cross-examination the prosecutor said the prisoner
was near his own house when he was taken. He had
been beside him all the way in the omnibus, and was
by his side asleep. The prisoner told the conductor
that he had a bundle with him, but he did not know
whether it was the case. The eonductor was not one
of the witnesses here today.
Mr. BALLANTINE, for the defence, said the whole