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

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF CHANCERY, Dec. 10.
The Lord Chancellor did not sit in his Court in Lincoln's
Inn Hall to-day, having to attend her Majesty at Windsor.

ROLLS COURT, Dec. 10.
SMITH V. JEYES.
The Court was occupied all the morning in hearing the
further arguments in this case, which being concluded, the
Master of the Rolls said he would consider his judgment.

VICE CHANCELLORS' COURT, Dec. 10.

His Honour the Vice-Chancellor of England took unopposed
petitions and short causes to-day.
THE NEW ORDERS.

Mr. JEREMY applied yesterday, under the 21st of the new
orders, in a cause in which an infant was the defendant, for
liberty to the plaintiff to file a note in the Six Clerks'-office, to
the effect that he intended to proceed with the cause as if the
defendant had filed an answer, traversing the case made by the
bill, and the plaintiff had replied to such answer, and served a
subpcena to rejoin.
His HoNouit observed this morning that he had stated
yesterday that he did not think the order applied to the casa of
an infant, grounding that opinion upon the language of the
order ; since then he had learned that such was the opinion of
Lord Langdale, Vice-Chancellor Wigram, and another learned
gentleman who had been greatly instrumental in drawing up
theorders, and therefore it must be taken to be the true con-
struction of the order. Such being the case no order must be
made on Mr. Jeremy's application.
The following are the words of the order on which the appli-
cation was made .—.‘ That after the expiration of the time
allowed to the defendant to plead, answer, or demur (not de-
murring alone) to an original bill, if the defendant shall have
filed no plea, answer, or demurrer, the plaintiff shall be at li-
berty to file a note in the Six Clerks' .office, to the effect that the
plaintiff intended to proceed with his cause as if the defendant
had filed an answer traversing the case made by the
bill, and the plaintiff had replied to such answer, and served
subpoena to rejoin."
The Court then proceeded with the hearing of unopposed
petitions and short causes.

this on which the Jury could act. Not one of the wit-
nesses to that fact but what had acknowleged he had for
7s. 6d. risked his immortal soul by perjuring himself.
Had they been convicted of perjury their evidence
could not have been taken, and could they trust
their evidence because they stood self-convieted
of infamy ; the parchment record only being
wanted to prevent their ever polluting the witness-
box of a Court of Justice by their presence ?
Not a single untainted witness had been brought forward
to depose to any of these acts. He could not conclude
his address without commenting on the manner in which
the prosecution had been conducted, There had been
the most studious desire to prosecute and harass the un-
fortunate defendants, and to procure their conviction by
any and every means. As an instance, he would men-
tion the conduct of Coyle, who, failing to obtain anything
by his threats, went with another witness, expressly
sent to the Bench to drink and smoke with two of
the defendants, in hopes to wheedle and coax out of them
something like a confession. There was no evidence of
any conspiracy and concert, except from the polluted
evidence of Morris, and even that did not touch Mr.
Simpson. He regretted as much as his Learned Friend
could the system of personation which had been adopted,
but he must consider that such a prosecution as this,
emanating as it did from the disappointment of Mr.
Ledger, and supported as it had been by such testimony,
was not calculated to repay it.
Mr. KELLY, on behalf of Mr. M'Namara, put it to the
Jury whether they would, by their verdict, stamp him, a
man hitherto of irreproachable character, with that in-
famy and degradation which would most justly be his
lot if he had been guilty of the crime laid to his charge.
He regretted and detested, as much as any man could do.
the system of perjury, bribery, treating, and personation
which seemed to have prevailed at the late election for
City Bridgemaster ; it was disgraceful to the City of
London, it was disgraceful to the nation at large. But what
evidence was there to connect Mr. M'Namara with that sys-
tem? Mr. M'Namara well knew that he had not been guilty
of any illegal act; that he had not incited any other person
to the commission of an illegal act; and that, until the
matter became a subject of public notoriety, he was ies•
norant of any illegal act having been committed ; and
there was not a scintilla of evidence to show that M'Na-
mara had either given, or procured to be given, any
single illegal vote. If any member of a Committee at
an election were to be, therefore, held cognizant of
everything that might be done by any agents or other
persons, then no man could venture to exercise his un-
doubted legal and constitutional rights, without running
the risk of being utterly ruined by being charged with con-
spiracy. If the City of London could prove that Mr. M'Na-
mara had instigated one single person to vote illegally, why
did they not indict him for that one fact, instead of in-
cluding him in a sweeping. charge of conspiracy, merely
because he had been seen in-the Guildhall speaking with
Powell after he had come from voting, although no per-
son had heard what they were talking about? If such
evidence as that was sufficient to prove conspiracy, in
what situation would Marker have stood if he had been
made the twentieth defendant in this indictment, when
he himself said that PosZell spoke to him
(Harker) immediately after he had voted ? If every
word that the witness Perkins had said were true, he
should still call upon the Jury to act on the wholesome
maxim of putting the most favourable construction on
ambiguous words, and not to convict his client of a most
atrocious crime—for a most atrocious crime it was to
suborn a man to personate another, and to give a false
vote, on words loosely uttered in conversation; but could
they stamp a man with infamy on the testimony of such
a witness as Perkins, a warm political opponent, and who
said he had not bribed voters in 1837, but bad given them
I/ a piece for coach-hire from Clerkenwell to Guildhall.
From what little experience he (Mr. Kelly) had had
in election matters—(A smothered laugh)—he should
think it exceedingly improbable that these voters had
each come up from the Committee-room in a separate
coach ; and, when pressed, Perkins had represented he
had spent 101. when he had spent but 61, and had put '
41. in his own pocket for one day's expenses in eating
and drinking ; and could they convict a man like
Mr. M`Narnara, of the most unblemished repu-
tation, on the testimony of a political opponent,
and that opponent such a character as Mr. Perkins ?
Could they believe that M•Namara had avowed to Per-
kins, his most active opponent, his intentions to do that
which would enable them afterwards to avoid the election.
It was monstrous, incredible, and impossible to suppose
such a thing could have occurred. Thompson, who was
the Secretary to Mr. Ledger's Committee, was stated also
to have been present; and yet the Counsel for the prose-
cution had not ventured to produce Thompson to confirm
Perkins. Could they, on such testimony, consign to
infamy, as long as his life should last, a man
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
kola, honest, and friendly transactions in the world.
`Pith 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 an unscrupulous villain like that, trial by
Jury, instead of being a blessing, would be a curse and an
oppression. Would thy convict any human being upon the
testimony of such a man as that, who since lie 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 fur 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. PAYNE said 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 of justice
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'Narriara. Fitch saw Powell once go to the 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
imptitation 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. HEATOtS, 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 lie
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 lie 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
n-
re aeh
onlyct 3vi
must he 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
uncosrobora:ed testimony of Morris. The first witness
who named any of his clients,. was Harker, and he en-
tirely concurred with his Learned Friends in the obser-
vations they had made or, his testimony. The conduct.
Pursued in identifying the prisoners in the Bench, was:
improper and unfair. The Jury should recollect that they,
wernzieigdy defendantstdihhieaeannregkeee(which
shsie:vnilevidence
teonsinc)cole,hteleref(colf
itr,Ht
rp:lolseagrtj,fupororly%i
point
ut fo r c
untouched.o
bhoi"ards.. Ile submtitietemd
which he had paid 1
conspira and that it •submitted'
what
there men e n
litertsansdt iitndathlsoseenitdlot
cttieereoaryi piamfdapnee'cevn ac-
and evidence
Might have bsen lei
aal payment to men for carrying
enough to fix on -
eorneeto
reef
hheiys
werecli e n
ttal. lie asked the
then there woulic11:14o strike out the evidenee of Morris,
No man could be safee evidence to convict his clients
beast as Norris if the testimony of such a dis-
gusting could be ad
mitted. 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 eit least 18/

The other defendants declined to address the Jury, and
no witnesses were called.