The Sun.
London, England, 1833-06-24 00:00:00

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, JUNE 24.

THE KING V. LADY B RISCO.

This was an indictment against Lady Brisco, the wife
of Sir Wastel Brisco, Bart., for wilful and corrupt perjury.
Mr. Sergeant ADAMS stated the case for the prosecution.
The defendant in 1813 was, from her misconduct, sepa.
rated from her husband. He allowed her a yearly sum
sufficient to maintain her in respectability ; but in 1827
she was found to be living in open adultery with another
man. In 1828 an attempt was made by an action,
" Davis v. Brisco," in the Court of Common Pleas, to
make Sir Wastel liable for debts contracted by her Lady-
ship. Sir Wastel set up as a defence to that action the
fact of adultery on the part of Lady Brisco, and to prove
that fact a witness of the name of Quinnan was examined.
The result of Quinnan's evidence was a verdict for Sir
Wastel. Lady Brisco subsequently preferred an indict-
ment against Quinnan IT perjury, and was herself the
principal witness in support of that indictment. The
present indictment arose out of the evidence which Lady
Rrisco had given on that occasion. She swore that she
had never lived with a M. Wylie, at Lisson-grove; that
she had never slept with him, nor been called by the
name of Wylie ; that Mr. Wylie did not live with her in
Tonbridge-street ; that she knew no such person as Joh n
Robertson, nor Francis Wells, nor that person's wife ; that
she never left certain articles of dress and furniture in the
keeping of Wells until she requested a return of them in a
written paper addressed to Mrs. Wells, and she denied all
knowledge of such a paper. In the course of her evidence
several tradesmen who had served her as Mrs. Wylie with
goods at Lisson grove, and who were in Court, were
desired to stand up before her, and she was asked whether
she knew them; she denied all knowledge of them, and
she also denied the fact of her having had a parrot at
Lisson-grove, and made some denial as to a dog which she
had at that place. He should now produce witnesses to
prove that she had committed perjury in all these state-
ments and denials.

Robert Robertson, a victualler—Formerly kept the De.
vonshire Arms at Lisson-grove, which he left in 1824.
He then took a house at No. 8, Lisson-grove, Marylebone.
He lived there two years. Knew Lady Brisco. She lodged
at that house. She came there about April, six or seven
years ago, and lodged there five or six months. She came
in a hackney-coach with a gentleman, who declined giving
his name at the time when he took his apartments; but
witness took the number of the coach, and went to Ton-
bridge-street, where he ascertained their residence. They
passed afterwards by the names of Mr. and Mrs. Wylie.
John Wells, a tradesman, stated that Mr. Wylie and the
defendant, Lady Brisco, lodged at his house in 1827. They
passed as man and wife. Witness stood up in court on
the former trial, while Lady Brisco was being examined,
for the purpose of being seen by her. She then swore that
she had never seen witness in her life. That was false.
Witness lodged at his house with Mr. Wylie. Never knew
her but as Mrs. Wylie.
Mrs. Wells, wife of the last witness, corroborated his
testimony. She was present at the trial, when Lady
Brisco denied all knowledge of her. That was a falsehood.
The jury returned a verdict of Guilty.

HIGH COURT OF DELEGATES, JUNE 22,