The Sun.
London, England, 1847-03-01 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Feb. 27.
The Court was engaged all the morning with a trading
case, 't Entwistle v. Dent," as sing out of a dispute respecting
some mercantile tranactlons between the plaintiff and de-
fendant, the representatives of houses in Manchester and
London respectively.
The case, • dry and uninteresting one, was not expected to
close before the rising of the Court.

COURT OF- QUEEN'S BENCH, Feb. 27. •
(Sittings at Nisi Prius, before Lord DJ NNAN and a

special jury:)
TIM QUEEN v. DUNN.
Immediately after the openieg of the court, it was
crowded to excess, and much curiosity was evinced tie
see the parties in this celebrated cause. Tile circum-
stances of the case are too well knoWn to the public to
need recapitulation, and it may he sufficient to say, that
the defendant was indicted fer perjury, in swearing that
an order of Miss Burdett Coitus, on the hank of Messrs.
Coutts and Co. for 100,0001., was genuine. The trial
had been removed by cer,i4rari from the Old Bailey to
the Court of Queen's Bench, and Sir F. Thesiger, Mr.
Clarkson, and Mr. Hawkins, were retained for the prose-
cution. Mr. Dunn conducted his own defence.
Miss Burdett Coutts, who was accompanied by Lord
Sandon, sat upon the bench with the Lord Chief Justice,
and*gave her evidence with much calmness and self pos-
session: She, with Mr. MarjoribankS, Sir Edward An-
trobus, and a clerk in the bank, proved the application
at the bank, as also that no authority had been given to
Mr. Dunn to draw upon the bank by Miss Coutts.
The several Witnesses were cross-examined by Mr.
Dunn, and the declaration for the writ of certiorari was
read, the substance .of which was. that the defendant
Would elsewhere be deprived of a fair trial.
Mr. DUNN then entered upon his defence, and said
that be stood before them in what Sir F. Thesiger had
called a painful position. He dins not take the shield of
weakness; of intellect, being in the full posseasion of his
mental faculties, and with ill the Means for tupporeiiig•of
his own eefence. He might have employed some .legal
advocate to state his case, but, by the oath which he
was ready to take, he felt assured that the jury would
come to the conclusion that he bad net acted with any
fraudulent inte.'t. It shi ,uld be recollected that the law did
not consider a man guilty of perjury if he made an
assertion in mistake. While a prisoner in the Fleet, at
Mies Burdett Coutts'a instance he received a number of
letters
-signed A. B. C., to each of which he had sent a
reply, and had in all twee obtained a rejoinder. He
way prepared to prove that these letters had been sent
and replied to with the same signature, and all were
dated iron .No. 1, Stratton-street, Piccadilly. What
would. they, the jury, have dune, had they sent letters
and received replies, as he bad done, with these signa-
tures acknowledgine their letters—would they have at
all hesitated to say that they came from the party by
whom they professed to be signed? He would produce
these letters, and would, by the evidence of his servant.
who had been with hire during the four years of hi-; im-
prisonment, show that these signatures were ap
parently genuine. He would prove that the sig-
nature of Attie !a Burdett CouLts was precisely the same
as that,which was affixed to the. letters which he bad
received. But what would they think when be told them
that the judges wire acted with the Noble Lard on the
bench had unanimously discharged him from custody.
These letters had been forwarded through the post-
office of this metropolis, and was it to be believed that
they never reael!ed her hands. He would ask them if
Hiss Burdett Coutts had received those letters i,f his,
whether she hae Lot committed as gross aid wanton
a fraud upon win as was ever committed against any
man? If she did receive these letters, why did she not
F seed some intimation to him of her indisposition to con-
tinue the connexion? Whichever way they might de-
cide, one thing was evident, and that was that some trick
had been played upon him, either by Miss Burdett
Coutts or by some other person, sod he thought that if
he had been guilty of the annoyance to her which
he was represented to have occasioned, the only
thing that could be done, when he offered to retire from
her presence for ever, was to return him the letters
.which he had sent to her. But this had not bet n done,
and the only aim appeared to be to save her pocket from
the payment of the sum of this cheque. The defendant
then put in the articles of the peace sworn by Miss
Burdett Coutts at Harrowgate, in which the circum•
stances well known to the public were detailed. He
then endeavoured to read Mr. Edward Majoribank's
letter, several of which had been written during the
negotiation fir the delivery of his letters. but the Lord
Chief Justice decided that they were beyond the date of
the present action,
_ as they were all dated as far back as
the year 1838. The defendant then went on to say that
from the hour when his letters were written to the pre-
sent moment, be had got no denial whatever that
the letters which he had received wire genuine.
Further, did the jury believe that when he had applied
to Mr. Majoribanks, stating that he had authority from
Miss Burdett Coutts, authorising him to draw a
certain sum from the bank, that that gentleman would
not either have gone or have written to No. 1, Stratton-
street, to inquire whether this authority had been given
or not. If then he put in these letters, and showed that
the signatures to them were the same as that attached to
the articles of peace, he at least was entitled to a formal
assertion, that, the..letters which he .had received were
not written Burdett Courts. Why did she riot
give sash an seeiritoa ?
r THESIGZA i d.erposed with a reinerk that Mira
Burdett Coutts had etrereet re write such assertion,
but tied been prevented by biro, _ •

Mr. Duxt4 Proceoed to that there could not be any
renvion foi the refection of this assertion. but some object
which would present the whole truth from comit:g b-foro
the jury. lie had compared the signatures of the letters
which he bad received, wit's the signatures in the Crown
Court. and helieved.dhem to be identical. Further than
that he had evidence to show that the_ signatures of
these letters' was' precisely the same as that which had
barn affixed to :eaters addressed to Lord James Stewart.
Lird. DENmax said that he could not admit such
assertions as-these; but the facts might be brought out
in evidence.

Mr. DeNN then went on to say that he had twice
been diseharged by Lord Denman, and on the last occa-
si ,n he had stated, in the prestice of his L,rd,hip, that
if Miss Coutts watill come forward and say teat his
attentions were oppressive to her, he would flt once
ab.ltain from airy t urther pro,ecution of his suit. There
was a cearaAer about :he handwriting which, however
it might be twisted about. Vi 11 still indelibb , :mod that
character sva•t' evident iu the signatures of ell the letters
which he had recei,ed He had ,addre,,sed a letter to
Mr. Majeribails, to stare that he had rece•ved a letter
from Miss l'eutts, authorising him to draw upon the
bank fir comp7.,nsation, ar.,d this letter, he thwight.
threw a great colour on the case. Afar a number of
assertions; to the ex. et, that through the instremewitnty
of Mis 4 Cowts, he had been driven from Lis pr f sse,n,
and bad bs•en deprived .-ioth of pi.operz,y amid cosracter,
Mr. Thum read his etwo eomtounietion to Mr, Mejeri-
beaks, and ataed his h-liet Veit on:y was the aothu
city to draw gentile., but that an underst,ndinte laitO
been come to b:- twcen that g,n,lianan and Nile Coutts,
so that it: the eveet ef tit irawiii;4 (or a small sum. :!
would be allowed to pies ; while it he drew tor a la,g:
sum he would be pulled u,t Bu, he had at the ~ne,
time written to Miss Cou• and wiam h- ee.et,
!Tan the letter, he put it ieto Mr. 31,jotitiaiiks'
and asked him whether that was Miss Coutts's i,and-
wri:ing. When he did so, that •genti, man put on
svetieles, had held it for some time, and t,:•,th had called
a clerk to state that the writing was not Miss Coitus's.
File very eireinn,tanee of this hesitation to his mind was
convincing pi ci,f that the letter was genuine, and he
went away, telling Mr. Major banks that he should
act upon the authority. Mr. Dunn then read
the authority, whien is written in verse, desiring
hint to go to the bank and get compenstvion for the in-
caret-ration which he had suffeaed. Wnen he had saris •
fled himself of the genuineness of this document, he
asked himselt what the compensation was to which h•
was entitled, snd he came to the conclusion that one year%
income would be an equivalent for the suffering which
he had endured, and for this he hail given notice to Mrs
Marjoribank that he intended to draw upon the bank.
On his application to Sir Edmund Antrobus he was told
that the authority he ptes,nted was no authority at all.
but upon it he had made the affidavit for which he was
charged with perjury. When this cause came before
Mr. Justice Pattesen he had made a statement of the
same facts which he had related to-day. At that time
Mr. Bodkin had prayed for time for a riply, and t;.,ur
ays had been given, but at the end of that time no
reply had been made. If this letter were nut genuine,
why did they withhold the satisfaction to which he was
entitled, and refuse to give him the assurance that the
document was a fabrication. After ~capitulating his
arguments, Mr. Dunn called
Sarah Northfloat, had acted as ,er:,ard iluttug
the year 1842. when he was art 13,0 eh, and
who testified to the re.-Tipt of letterA, and the posting el
letters addressed to Miss Burdett Cuutts, when he was
in the Peet and Queen's Bench prisons.
Miss Turner confirmed this esideuce.
David Law, an accountant, testifird to an interview be-
tween the defendant and a past.n of the name of
but bis evidence was objected t••, and it was ultimately
postponed.
Nathaniel Wells stated that he h.id had an interview
with the defendant, and the object of that interview was
'o convince him, that from a comparison of the letters
received by him,
the letters in the possession of tln, de-
fendant were not the genuine letters of Miss Coutts, and
he had told him
;that he believed they were not her Irt-
t-rs as he could ceriity from his knowledge of her hat d-
writing.
David Law being recalled, stated that at the interview
between Mr. Dunn, Mr. Wells, and himself, the two
letters addressed to Lord James Stewart were producid
by Wells; and, on exateination, it was agreed that there
was a great lik,,ness between the signatures, Wells had
also at that time stated that he would produce those let-
ters in e•mut.

Jahn Smith, postmaster of the Que2n's Bench pt.:son,
testified that the post-marks on the letters addresse.i to
the defendant were genuine.
J. Jonas, clerk of Mr. Clark, of the Centr,l Crlminal
Court. merely t, that an incLcttnt-Lt ha.i been pe-
lt rred a4sirit the deioidant.
Mr Dunn then endeavonred to put in the letters in
evidence, but they were declined, and
Sir F. TIIESIGER, in reply, said that, never in his life
had he felt great-r difficulty to repress his feelings than
on the present occasion. When he opened this ease, he
felt it but due to the defendant to suffer the jury to
judge whether he was a person of sufficiently sound
mind to be responsible for his actiotis, but the result
of this painful inquiry had shown not only hat he was
i a person of sound intellect, but also of considerable e.,
genuity, and quite competent to carry out any previ-
ously devised scheme, and who, relying on the indispo-
sition of the prosecutrix to undergo a public ordeal,.
expected to escape with impunity from this trial. W
th
unnecessary cruelty he had put into the hands of]Liss
Burdett Coutts the writing of her deceased father. and
in the course of his observations had charged all the
witnesses for the prosecution with deliberate perjury.
arch, 1846,
When he made the aftadavit on the 31st Pa