The Sun.
London, England, 1841-12-11 00:00:00

LAW ris TE LIGE N CE.
VICE CHANCELLORS' COURT,. Dec: 10.
(Before Vice-Chancellor BRUCE.)
SILLICR V. 130:ATFI.

This case came on before the Court on exceptions from
the Master's report. The bill was filed to egablish a
will, and the sole question was, whether two sons of the
testator, who embarked in a vessel bound for Demerara,
and were never afterwards heard of, were or were not
living at the time when their father made his will.
His HONOUR, after considering the frequency of hur-
ricanes in the West Indies, and the absence of all in-
formation as_ to the sons after their embarkation, said
the probability was that they had died in the father's
lifetime, and he must therefore allow the exceptions to
the Master's report.
(Before Vice-Chancellor WICIR m.)
SCOTSON V. GA WRIT'.

His Hosoult, atter looking at the record, said the
plaintiff must be taken to have had sufficient notice of
the trial, and for that reason he declined to grant the
injunction.

of respectable honest, and honourable character,
The Learned Counsel then complained of the manner in
which the Counsel for the prosecution had conducted the
examination of Jones, so as to induce the Jury to sup-
pose he had been bribed, when, on his cross-examina-
tion, it appeared that that which, by the dexterous ma-
nagement of the Attorney-General, had been made to
appear a clear case of bribery, was really one of the most
legal, honest, and friendly transactions in the world.
With regard to the evidence of. Morris, after the Attor-
ney-General had concluded his examination of the wit-
ness, after he (Mr. Kelly) had declined to cross-examine
him, Morris, fearful he had not earned the wages
of his infamy, said, that long after these transactions
M'Namara had offered to bribe him to get out of the way.
It was utterly false. What interest could M'Namara
have to get him out of the way? Besides if Morris had
chosen to say the same thing of any one of the Jury, or
of his Lordship on the Bench, it would be impossible to
contradict him, because he represented that no one else
was present, and if juries were to convict a man on the
evidence of au unscrupulous villain like that, trial by
Jury, instead of being a blessing, would be a curse and an
oppression.. Would they convict :any human being upon the
testimony of such a viihn as that, who since he had come to
years of maturity had lived upon felony ? And would
they consign Mr. M'Namara to poverty, ruin, and a
gaol, upon the testimony of a wretch like Morris, steeped
to the lips in perjury, infamy, and crime ; and yet the
Learned Counsel for the Crown called upon the Jury
to believe this four times perjured villain. God forbid
that the hair of the head of any human being should be
touched upon the testimony of such a man. Such evi-
dence as his was discreditable to any case in the support
of which it might be brought forward.
Mr. PAYNKsaid that after the able and powerful ad-
dresses of his Learned Friends who had preceded him, he
should say nothing on the general topics of the case.
With regard to the indictment, he had never seen it to
that hour, for it was so extensive that his client was too
poor to go to the expense of procuring a copy of it. There
had been 52 witnesses examined, and six long lists given
in, and the prisoners had never been furnished with co-
pies of the depositions of those witnesses or with copies
of those lists. He appeared for two of the defend-
ants, Silverthorne and Powell. The evidence against
Silverthorne was confined to the testimony given by
the tainted lips of that unblushing wholesale per-
jurer Morris, .who, as the Attorney-General had mildly
phrased it, had been a participator in the offence.
Was such the mild manner in which the highest law-
officer of the Crown ought to have characterised the
conduct of such a man ? Not any other witness had men-
tioned Silverthorne's name, and by all the rules ofjustiee
and common sense they could not convict Silverthorne on
the testimony of such an infamous man as Morris.
With regard to Powell, Christie, who had been employed
by the prosecutor in hunting up witnesses, said, he saw
Morris and Powell together during the election. That
proved nothing, any more than his being seen speaking to
M'Namara. Fitch saw Powell once go to tho poll booths,
but did not see him vote—that proved nothing. The
strongest evidence against Powell was that of Harker,
but no act of any individual could support a conspiracy.
As to Powell's identity, he had never seen Powell be-
fore the election, and Harker, who had taken 1,000
votes at the election, might, without casting the least
imputation on his character for veracity, be supposed to
be mistaken as to his identity. He put it to the Jury
whether it was not impossible for them to say that the
case against Silverthorn and Powell had been made out.
Mr. HEATON, on behalf of the defendant Trye, submitted
that there was no evidence to prove conspiracy against his
client. If he were interested in showing that it was not
true that Trye had falsely represented himself as a livery-
man of London, he thought he should be able to show
them that there was not evidence sufficient to convict him
of that act, because he contended it was impossible for
any man situated as Harker was, to be very certain as to
the identity of every one of the thousand or fifteen hun-
dred persons whose votes he had taken, ; and if not, was
there any reason why he should recollect Trye in particu-
lar? He did not even recollect the day Trye had voted, how
could they then suppose that he was accurate in his re-
collection of the person ? He did not cast any imputa-
tion on the integrity of Harker, but he doubted his accu-
racy. Besides, no sufficient proof had been given that he
was not a liveryman. The Clerk of the Livery knew
nothing of any W. Tyre having been ever on the livery;
and, subsequently, one of the witnesses for the prosecution
proved that there had been a W.Trye a liveryman, who was
dead. Now if it were possible for one W.Trye to have been
a Liveryman without appearing in the clerks' lists, why
might not two, others ? But the question was not whe-
ther he had committed perjury—whether he had falsely
represented himself as a liveryman, but whether he had
conspired with the other defendants. Now there was
not a tittle of evidence to connect Trye with any other
of the defendants, and therefore he was entitled to be ac-
quitted of the present charge.
On Mr. CHADWICK JONES rising to address the Jury
on behalf of Brookes,
Lord DENMAN said that he found there was no evi-
dence whatever against James Brookes, and therefore he
must be acquitted.
Brookes was acquitted accordingly.
Mr. THOMAS then addressed the Jury for the defend-
ants Murray, Hogg, and Shervill, and congratulated the
Jury on his being the last Counsel to address them.
The whole case against his clients rested entirely on the
uncorroborated testimony of Morris. The first witness
who named any of c. his clients, was Harker, and he en-
tirely concurred with his Learned Friends in the obser-
vations they had mach on his testimony. The conduct
pursued in identifying the prisoners in the Bench, was
improper and unfair. The Jury should recollect that they
were trying the defendants not for perjury, but for con-
spiracy, and Harker's evidence left that point untouched.
The only evidence which touched Hogg was the fact of
his having changed some sovereigns for silver, with
which he had paid the men ; what men it did not appear;
it might have been a legal payment to men for carrying
boards. He submitted: that there was not evidence
enough to fix on any one of his clients the crime of
conspiracy, and that therefore they were entitled to an ac-
quittal. He asked them to strike out the evidence of Morris,
and then there would be no evidence to convict his clients
No man could be safe if the testimony of such a dis-
gusting beast as Morris could be admitted. The way
in which this indictment had been managed was op •
pressing poor men, because it was impossible for them to
obtain a copy of such a voluminous production under a
cost of at least 18/.
The other defendants declined to address the Jury, and
no witnesses were called.
Lord DENMAN,in summing up, could not forbear re-
marking that the principal offence with which these
persons were charged, was with taking a false oath, and
the Act of Parliament expressly provided for the minish-
ment of perjury and subornation of perjury in such
cases, and he thought it would have been better to have
indicted these persons for such acts, even if it had
been necessary to indict these eighteen persons for con-
spiracy. It would have been much better to have in-
dicted them generally and shortly than to have indicted
them in such an indietmOnt as the present, containing
eighteen counts, of which he doubted if any one
was proved. He would go through the counts,
and he hoped the Counsel for the prosecution would
state on-which counts they intended to rely. (His Lord-
ship then went through the different counts of the in-
dictment up to the ninth, none of which lie considered
proved.) The ninth was a most curious one, it indicted
Trye for conspiring to bribe himself. The 14th and 17th
counts seemed to him to be the only counts on which
there was nny evidence (the Attorney General inti-
mated his assent) ; those counts were to provide by
false, fraudulent, and corrupt practices to procure
the election of Gibbs, and the 1 ith, by the same means
to prevent the election of Mr. Ledger. The defendant
Simpson had applied for a particular of the charge, and
it was stated it was for procuring persons to vote far
Gibbs who had no right to vote, and for procuring per-
sone to personate voters. Now, lie hardly thought
there was any evidence to show any conspiracy. Nothing
could be more proper than that the facts should be brought
rorward as matters of criminal charge, but he regretted
it hail, not been done with greater simplicity: There
was nothing to . show that this was a measure adopted
by a disappointed candidate, and therefore no
imputation could be cast upon the prosecution on that
score. He would merely observe in passing, that if a
similar practice had been adopted on the other side, he
hoped it would alscOhe made the subject of judicial
inquiry, but in a more simple manner than had been
adopted on the present .iiccasion. .His Lordship then
proceeded to read the evidence of the different
witnesses. On reading the evidence of Harker,
his Lordship observed, that -the first introduction
of Morris was in the actual commission of that crime
which he had subsequently charged on others. On
coming to the evidence of Cayle, his Lordship said
he thought that witness had laid himself open to the
observations which had been made upon him. Parties
ought to state the whole truth of what had occurred or
their testimony would be shaken. With r gird to the
non-production of Croucher, who had been *Ledger's
agent, perhaps they were afraid,to subject him to a cross-
examination. If Croucher had been guilty of similar
practices, he hoped he would be prosecuted, but he was
not before them at present. If they believed the evidence
of Perkins, there certainly was a proof that Mr. M‘Narnara
had been talking very freely of using unscrupulous means
for the purpose of carrying the election. Morris was a
witness of a very peculiar description. The evidence of
an accomplice was always to be looked at suspiciously ;
yet stilt it was admissible evidence, and the Jury must
exercise their own judgment in believing, or disbeliev-
ing, his evidence. The credit due to witnesses was
peculiarly a subject for the exercise of the judgment of
the Jury. His evidence did not tend at all to implicate
Simpson, and it went to implicate M`Narnara only
slightly, even if they believed the whole of his testimony.
Morris was no doubt a person of most disgusting character.
He (Lord Denman) had not been aware of any expres-
sion of public indignation when Morris had concluded
his evidence, or the Court would have checked it. What-
ever might be the disgust and indignation excited by
conduct such as that of Morris, a Court of Justice was
not a proper place for giving utterance to such feelings.
The evidence of Troume, if they believed it, seemed ma-
terially to affect the defendant Simpson, although it !did
not much touch M'Namara. They hid the whole evidence
before them, and it was for them to say if they considered
the charge of conspiracy had been brought home to any
or all of the defendants. It was evident an extensive system
of fiaudulent voting was in operation at the election ;
and
uts iNfr
oirte waiedrieu miandecuortri
ut Ira
it a
onuyt,o
it ltdh ebdeeftehtei
their-
duty to convict them. With'
mwaosnyon.
regard to Silverthorne, he
would convict him
_mon Morris's: unsupported. testi-
they only spoken to by Morris and he hardly thought
situation. barro' hl
movne,v
earn dwSans o
twa k •ne ruep
in ttihm
ee
ascatmuef
tendering a fraudulent vote, and 'nd the evidence as to Brad-
stock was also very precise. Trye, Shervill, Haggett,
Darrow, and Bradstock were undoubtedly engaged in
putting bad votes on the poll. If they believed Simpson
twhaesm for it,
thenntofthey whatvv would
yd
sass) were
h ee
Was guilt
and had paid
guilty
but if they entertained any doubt, then they with them;
would ttc-
iuit
CR

The Jury then retired ; and, after an absence of an
hour and a half, returned with a verdict of guilty against
Trye, Bradstock, Jones, Powell, Darrow, and
Ila.ggett ,• and acquitting M'Namara, Simpson, Murray,
nogg, and the other defendants.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Dec. 10.
(Sittings at, Guildhall before the LORD CHIEY JUSTICE
and Common Juries.)
CAYARD V. CLARKE.

The plaintiff having deposited in the late London
and Dublin Joint Stock Banking Company, of which
the larger part was drawn out before the stoppage,
brought this action against the defendant a 3 a shareholder,
for the balance of 151. The verdict was found for the
plaintiff, with leave to the defendant to move for a new trial.
WEST V. FRANKLIN.

This action was brought to recover a balance of 1,0311.
13s. Id. for work and labour done. The circumstances
were these :—The plaintiff was employed by the defend-
ant to alter and repair, upon contract, certain premises
iii Hanway-street and Tottenham Court-road. The
work specified was contracted for at about 700 L, but
considerable deviations were made from the specification
in the contract, and the defendant refusing to pay the
demand made by West ab3ve the contract, this action
was brought. The plaintiff subsequently assigned the
alleged debt to a person named Arnott (the real plaintiff
in the case),and since that became an insolvent.

For the plaintiff, two surveyors stated that they had
surveyed the work at his desire, and that they found the
specification had been altogether departed from, so that
it could not be traced in any part. They estimated the
work at a sum which, deducting cash received, would
leave the balance laid in the declaration.
For the defendant it was endeavoured to show that
there had been a special contract for every alteration ;
and that the plaintiff had actually been paid more than
he was entitled to relbeive according to those fresh
contracts.

Mr. Sergeant CHANNELL interrupted the defence, by
observing that he, on the part of the plaintiff, was quite
willing to refer the case. He agreed with Mr. Sergeant
Talfourd, who was for the defendant, that it was im-
possible to come to a satisfactory decision of such cases
in Court. A reference had been recommended by Coun-
sel in the first instance, but their advice had not been
taken. He believed, moreover, that the defendant was
now disposed to yield to the suggestion.
The defendant was understood to resist the proposition.
The Loan CHIEF JUSTICE said to the defendant's
witness in the box, a Dissenting clergyman—" Sir, could
not you influence your friend to take the reasonable
course suggested to him ? lam sure it would be best
for all parties."
The witness declined to interfere, but at length
Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD said he was gratified at being
able to inform his Lordship that a reference had been
agreed to.

—Thus, after occupying the Court for several hours, and
the incurring of vast expense on both sides, the case was
disposed of in the manner suggested by Counsel at the
outset.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Dec. 10.

RIDLEY V. WESLEY.
This was an action upon a bill of exchange for 301.,
which was drawn by Joseph Wesley, and accepted by
his brother William Wesley, a bookbinder, in Warwick-
square.
Mr. PLATT and Mr. JAMES appeared for the plaintiff;
and proved the hand-writing of both the drawer and
acceptor. The bill was dated Jan. 1,1839, at three months.
Mr. THESIGER, for the defendant; said, the answer
which the defendant had to give to this case was,
that another bill had been given in lieu of the one in ques-
tion, by which it was rendered of none effect. The
facts of the case were these. The defendant had a
brother named Joseph, who, being in want of some money,
got his brother to accept the bill in question, which was
discounted by the defendant, who gave for it 201. 12s.
in cash, and a gold watch. Before it became due
Joseph Wesley found that he was not prepared
to retire it. He applied to the plaintiff, and upon
the payment of a bonus of 21., it was agreed that he
should take a bill for 301., accepted by Joseph Wesley,
in renewal of the other. The renewed bill was given and
paid when it arrived at maturity. Joseph Wesley ap-
plied upon two occasions for the return of the first bill,
lout some excuses were made, and it was retained.
Now, to account for the delay which had taken
place in bringing this action, it was necessary for him to
state that most unfortunately the defendant's brother
Joseph, who had been in the employment of a firm in
Bermondsey, made free with their money. He was
arrested, tried, convicted of embezzlement, and sen-
tenced to twelve months' imprisonment. It was
then that the plaintiff; thinking the defendant could
bring forward no evidence, attempted to put the
former bill in force. An application was made to the Court,
and upon the circumstances being brought before them,
the trial of the cause was postponed till the term of Jo-
seph Wesley's imprisonment expired ; of course the evi-
dence of Joseph would be open to strong and severe com-
ment on the part of his Learned Friend, but it would be
corroborated by a disinterested witness, a clerk in the
bank of Messrs. Hankey and Co., and if so, notwith-
standing his misfortune, the Jury would be bound to be-
lieve him.
Jos. Wesley was called, and proved the facts stated.
In his cross-examination by Mr. PLATT, the Learned
Counsel said, " And so you are a convicted felon ?" A
Juryman appealed to his Lordship whether that was a
fair question.
Lord ABlNGER—Certainly it is, as to the credit of
the witness.
The Juryman—lle has expiated his guilt by serving
out the time of his imprisonment.
The clerk from Ilankey's could prove nothing, except
from the books of the firm. They were not in his hand-
writing.
Mr. THESIGER—On our application to the bankers we
were told this was the clerk who could prove all.
Lord AnINGER—The only way to deal with bankers
is to subpeena the whole of the clerks.
Mr. PLATT animadverted strongly upon the unsup-
ported testimony of Joseph Wesley, who, he said, was the
real plaintiff.
His Loausurp having summed up the Jury found for
the plaintiff, with damages and interest.
CARTER V. BALL.
This was an action to recover compensation in da-
mages for false imprisonment and trespass.
Mr. THESIGER said the plaintiff was a man in humble
life, filling the office of in-door porter at public inns. He
was engaged as such by the defendant, who is landlord
of the Queen's Head, Newgate-street, and being so
engaffed to sleep in the house, he did not tell
the defendant that he was a married man. He slept on
the defendant's premises up to the 9th of June, on the
evening of which day he was induced to sleep at his own
lodgings, hoping to get in in the morning without the
knowledge of the defendant. He expected the door to
he opened next morning at five o'clock by a fellow ser-
vant, but in place of that he found the defendant up, and
the door opened by him. Some conversation took place,
and the plaintiff was discharged. It being so early the
plaintiff walked about the streets for a time alone'
with one of the porters at the Bull and Mouth. In the'
meantime the defendant had told a policeman to look
where the plaintiff went to, and on being informed of it,
told the policeman to take him into custoiy, which was
done. and the plaintiff taken to the station-house, where
the defendant charged him on suspicion of stealing va-
rious articles from him. The prisoner was asked were
he liTed, and on being told, the defendant and a police-
man _went to his lodgings and searched them,
even to the pockets of his wife. They took
away some duplicates and some knives and forks, which
the defendant thought were his. The plaintiff was
locked up, and was taken through the streets as a felon
he was placed at the telon's bar, before Alderman Brown,
who, on hearing the charge, immediately ordered him to
be discharged.. Now, character was a most precious
thing to all men, but to the plaintiff it was the bread
of his family. Though he was poor he must
not be trampled upon, and be trusted the Jury would
mark their sense of the value of character by the amount
of compensation they gave for such outrages.
The case was proved by the police employed. In their
cross•examination they said the plaintiff; while in cus-
totly, attempted to escape, and that while before the Ma-
gistrate the defendant said he did not wish to press
upon the plaintiff', but said he had been losing much
property, and the plaintiff had no right to sleep out.
Mr. &WHEY addressed the Jury in mitigation of da-
mages. The plaintiff had, by his conduct, brought all the
trouble upon himself. He represented himself as an
unmaeried4 man, yet Mr. Ball .found that he was in the
habit of pretending to go to his bed in the Queen's Head;
and after the family had gone to rest, go out clandes-
tinely, and stop out all night. Mr. Ball found that
much of his property had been taken away, and
tindiug such to be the conduct of the plaintiff, was it not
natural that he should suspect him ? The conduct of
the defendant was most natural, and was the immediate
consequence of the conduct of the plaintiff. He submitted
that the smallest coin of the realm would amply recom-
pense the plaintiff.
His Lordship having summed up, the Jury found for
the plaintiff, Damages, 201.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, Dec. 10.
THE CORNWALL MINES-CAVE'S BANKRUPTCY.
A meeting of creditors being appointed for this day,
the bankrupt and several witnesses were re-examined.
John King, who had been the keeper of Mr. Cave's
extensive and valuable gallery of pictures, was examined
concerning the removal of paintings and furniture from.
the bankrupt's house, at Grosvenor-gate, to Carlton
Cottage, New Kent-road, in August, 1839, which was his
property, but occupied by Mr. Bellamore. He said
he understood that a bill of sale had been executed of
all the furniture of Grosvenor-gate, in favour, of Mr.
Bellamore, by the bankrupt, previous to his departure
for the Continent ; and the furniture had been subse-
quently sold at Oxendon's, but what it realised the wit-
* ness, e as unable- to state.
Mr. Chisholme, a gentleman who had been in partner-
ship with Mr. Bellamore, said that the bankrupt, had
been married in Edinburgh, in February, 1839, and
subsequently at St. George's Church, Hanover-square.
There had been deeds of settlement drawn up at
the marriage. 'The bankrupt had advanced him and Mr.
Bellamore considerable sums of money when they entered
upon their partnership.
The deeds of settlement were handed in, and Sir C. F.
Williams, afterperusingthem, said, it appeared that Mrs.
Cave's property amounted to upwards of 2,0001. per
annum ; but it was so settled as to be quite independent
of the .bankrupt, until her death.
After a desultory conversation Sir C. F. WiLuAms
desired the attendance of
Mr. Cave, who, in reply to the Learned Commissioner,
said that he had given 100/. as an outfit to a Reverend
Gentleman to canvass for shareholders at Algiers, as he
(the Reverend Gentleman) was acquainted with a French
capitalist there, who was about to invest 100,000/. in spe-
culation at that place, and it was considered better to in-
duce him to take shares in the Cornish mines.
Sir C. F. WlLLtams said he found one item in the
bankrupt's book, under the head " Gifts, loans, &c."
Here he found such donations as were unite unbecoming