The Sun.
London, England, 1840-08-18 00:00:00

ASSIZE IN TELLIGENCE.

MIDLAND CIRCUIT—IVAIvIcE, AUG. 15.
MUNTZ V. STURGE.

This was an action to recover money expended in
erecting polling-booths at the last Birmingham election,
at which the defendant was a candidate.
Mr. Hui. addressed the Jury, stating that in this
case Mr. Philip Henry Muntz, Mayor of Birmingham,
was the plaintiff, and Mr. Josech Sturge, of the same
town, a respectable tradesman, the defendant. The
defendant had paid 661. 12s. 9d. into Court, but that
amount was not deemed sufficient. It would be re-
membered that in the beginning of the present year Mr.
l'hotnas Attwood, who represented the borough of Bir-
mingham, accepted the Chiltern Hundreds, and there-
upon a writ was issued for the election of a mere ber to
supply the vacancy so created. Mr. Muntz, the plain-
tiff, was at that election the returning officer, and Mr.
Sturge, the defendant, a candidate. The amount
claimed was for the defendant's share of the expenses in
respect of that election : Mr. Sturge having paid a
certain sum into court, the question now to be considered
was, whether that amount was sufficient ? The plaintiffs
brother was also a candidate of the same political party
as Mr. Sturge, and eventually Sir Charles Wetherell
was brought forward by the other side, as was supposed
in consequence of the Radicals having split themselves
into sections in support of their respective friends. The
day of election was fixed for the 23d of January, and
as was his duty, he ordered booths to be erected in cer-
tain parts of the borough. He had waited, through his
solicitor, Mr. Mills, upon Mr. Morgan, the agent of the
defendant, to request him to enter into an agreement
with the other candidates to defray the expenses atten-
dant upon the then approaching contest. This was done
by the Mayor in order to free himself from the personal
responsibility which was by necessity imposed upon him
as the returning officer. On the 20th of January, in
answer to the requisition sent to Mr. Sturge, a note was
received from his agent by the Mayor (which was put
in), the purport of which was that Mr. Sturge was not a
candidate, and that those persons bringing him forward
were considered by him responsible for any expense
incurred on that account. Upon receiving this letter
the plaintiff consulted his solicitor, who very pro-
perly advised that gentleman to do what he thought
necessary for the preservation of public order, taking
upon himself all responsibility in accomplishing that
important object. At that time the electors amounted
to 4,619, and by a late Act of Parliament it is enacted
that to every 300 voters one booth should be erected,
making it necessary that 15 should be built. A letter
was then read, wherein Mr. Sturge's intention of be-
coming a candidate was mentioned, provided the show
of hands on the day of nomination should be decidedly
in his favour. Mr. Muntz, the plaintiff, had incurred
an expense of 3601. 9s. 2d. for booths, stationary, de-
puties, &c. ; in general there were the returning officer's
under-sheriff, or deputy, and fees to legal gentlemen
acting for him, but in this case there were none. It
was not to be expected that the office of returning
officer should be one of profit, and there were charges
which, by the Act of Parliament, candidates were not
hound to pay ; but there was seldom any disinclination
in them to pay their proportion, rather than the return-
ing officer should sustain a loss. The question would
be more for his Lordship's consideration than for the
jury, and he begged to call his Lordship's attention to
the 67th section of the 2d William IV., fixing the day
of election or nomination, the time of polling, the erec-
tion of booths, and the equal distribution of the expenses
amongst the candidates.
Mr. BALGUY observed that Mr. Sturge denied his re-
sponsibility, as he took no general part in the business,
and he maintained that he was not a candidate at con-
tested election. Mr. Hill had read section 67, but had
omitted to read 68, wherein the words " contested elec-
tion" were used. The question was therefore at what
moment did the " election" commence. The booths
were not erected till after the nomination was over.
There was a point which he disputed. The defendant
had paid into Court 601., which he considered his share
of the expenses up to the time of the show of hands,
and the remainder fell upon Sir Charles Wetherell
and Mr. Muntz, the successful candidate. The Learned
Counsel considered he had now shown the Court that
the course which he intended to adopt was to make it a
special case. The returning officer, moreover, was not
only Mr. Muntz, but with him the High and Low
Bailiff.
Mr. HILL thought that Mr. Sturge could not object
upon that ground. Mr. Muntz was returning officer
under the Municipal Corporation Act, and the High
and Low Bailiff under the Reform Act.
The Learned Counsel for the plaintiff', to prove the
amount of expenses incurred prior to the nomination,
called Mr. Wills, the solicitor to Mr. Muntz, the
Mayor of Birmingham ; and also Mr. Smith, a builder.
Mr. BALGUY then said, that there having been three
returning officers, there should be three plaintiffs.
Mr. HUMFILEY replied, that the question was pend-
ing as to the validity of the Manchester charter. At
• that town the Boroughreeve and Mayor had fixed the
l election for two different days, and two returns had been
made. Mr. Muntz, therefore, as would be seen from
) I Mr. Wills's evidence, had acted in union with the High
and Low Bailiff ; and he thought his Lordship would
be of opinion that he had acted for the best.
His LORDSHIP directed the jury to find a verdict for
the plaintiff for 120/.

I -
CROWN COURT.
James Titton was indicted for the wilful murder of
Isaac Parsons, at Foleshill, in the month of June last.
The prisoner, who appeared to be in the last stage
of a consumption, was a blacksmith, and the deceased,
who was an illegitimate child, was apprenticed to him
by the parish before last Christmas to learn his trade.
The charge against the prisoner was, that he had
struck the boy on the back, and had also forced him
to sleep on a damp bed, in consequence of which he had
contracted a mortal distemper and died. With respect
to the damp bed, however, it appeared, that owing to
a particular infirmity to which the boy was subject he
himself had caused the bed to be wet ; and as to the
wound in the back, there was no evidence to show that
the prisoner had inflicted it, except a declaration made
by the boy under circumstances which did not appear
to the Learned Judge, after consulting the Lord Chief
Justice, to warrant him in admitting it in evidence.
The Jury, therefore, under his Lordship's direction,
returned a verdict of Not Guilty.