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

THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY, DECEMBER 11, 1841.

Lord I/enemas, in summing up, could not forbear re-
markinsi, 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 punish-
ment of pet jury 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 indictment 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 he considered
proved.) The ninth was a most curious one, it indicted
Trye for condpiring to bribe himself. The 14th and I7th
counts seemed to him to be the only counts on which
there was any 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 17th, by the same means
to prevent the election of Mr. Ledger. The defendant
Simpsen had applied for a particular of the charge, and
it was stated it was for procuring persons to vote fer
Gibbs who had no right to vote, and for procuring per-
sons to personate voters. Now, he hardly thought
there was any evidence to show any conspiracy. Nothing
could be more proper than that the facts should be brought
forward as matters of criminal charge, but he regretted
it had 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
sc ire. He would merely observe in passing, that if a
similar practice bad been adopted on the other side, he
hoped it would also be made the subject of judicial
inquiry, but in a more simple manner than had been
adopted on the present occasion. 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
coining to the evidence of Cayle, his Lordship said
he thoaglit 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 regard 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 he prosecuted, but he was
not before them At present. If they believed the evidence
of Perkins, there certainly was a proof that Mr. M'Namara
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 still 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'Namara 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 had 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 fraudulent voting was in operation at the election ;
and if it were made out that any or all of the defend-
ants were aiding in carrying it out, it would be their
duty to convict them. With regard to Silverthorne, he
was only spoken to by Morris ;, and he hardly thought
they would convict him on Morris's unsupported testi-
mony. Langley, Salmon, and Snow were in the same
situation. Darrow, however, was taken up in the act of
tendering a fraudulent vote, and 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
was cognisant of what they were doing, and had paid
them for it, then they would say he was guilty with them;
but if they entertained any doubt, then they would ac-
quit him.
The Jury then retired ; and, after an absence of an
hour and a half, returned with a verdict of guilty against
Trye, Shervill, Bradstock, Jones, Powell, Darrow, and
Haggett ; and acquitting M'Namara, Simpson, Murray,
Hogg, and the other defendants.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Dec. 10.
:Sittings at Guildhall before the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE
and Common Jades.)
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 as a shareholder,
for the balance of 151. The verdict was found fur 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
in Hanway-street and Tottenham Court-road. The
work specified was contracted for at about 7001., but
considerable deviations were made from the specification
in the contract, and the defendant refusing to pay the
demand made by West abave the contract, this action
was brought. 'rhe 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' froth; 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 receive 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
Talfburd, 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, tkeir advice had not been
taken. Ho believed, moreover,,, that the dpfendant was
now disposed to yield to.the, suggestion.
The defendant was understood to resist the proposition.
The LORD 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 tvitness 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
dispeAcd of in the manner suggested by Counsel at the