The Sun.
London, England, 1851-08-06 00:00:00

SPRY, KRT., V. lICCIIIN.

Mr. M. Smith and Mr. Coleridge were counsel for the
plaintiff ; and Mr. Crowder and Mr. Smirks for the de-
fendant.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, Sir Samuel
Spry, who was a candidate for the representation of
Bodmin at every election between 1832 and 1847, to re-
cover 271. for principal and interest due upon a promis-
sory note for 20/. which the defendant had given to the
plaintiff, fur, as it was alleged, a loan of that sum in the
year 1843.
The defendant pleaded several pleas—lst. That he did
not make the note. 2dly. That the money was given as a
bribe for a vote the defendant had given for Sir Samuel
Spry at the election in 1843, and for a vote he was to
give for him at a future election; idly, that he (the de-
fendant) had paid the money; 4thly, that the plaintiff
had discharged him from it; and sthly, that he did not
mako the promise.
For the plaintiff the promissory note was proved to
have been signed by the defendant, and was put in and
read. It was dated the 21st of June, 1843, some time
after the election for that year.
For the defendant it was contended that the 201. was
given as a bribe to the defendant, a grocer in this town,
in consequence of his having voted for Sir Samuel Spry
at the election of 1843, and to induce him to vote for him
at the next election, and that the signing the note was
merely to hold the defendant liable in case he broke his
promise. The defendant had not paid any interest on the
note, but at the election in 1847 he split his vote, voting
for Spry and Lacey. The election was won by Wylde
and Lacey. In 1848 Sir Samuel Spry presented a peti-
tion to the House of Commons against the return of
Wylde and Lacey, but the petition was dismissed, and
very shortly after that the plaintiff caused an action to
be brought against the defendant upon the note. It was
then submitted that it was clear the money was given as
a bribe, and therefore the note was void, and de-
fendant would be entitled to a verdict. The following
was the evidence adduced:—

Richard Bray—l am town clerk of Bodmin. In 1841
the defendant voted for Vivian and Leicester against
Spry, but in 1843 he voted for Spry. In 1847 he voted
for Spry and Lacey. There was a petition in April,
1848, presented to the House of Commons by Spry
against the election of Wylde and Lacey. Mr. Cum-
mins drew this note; ho acted as agent for Spry in 1843
and 1847.

Cross-examined—Mr. Cummins is the present mayor
of this town, and his father is the oldest attorney in the
county. It is difficult to say of what politics Lord Lei-
cester was; he was a nondescript sort of a man. Sir
Samuel Spry was a Radical when ho first came here, but
afterwards turned Conservative and Protectionist. The
defendant is a grocer.
Re-examined—The agents are generally very respect-
able and very zealous.
Thomas Cummins—l am a little deaf in one ear. I
am an attorney of this town, and have witnessed many
elections here. I have taken en active part in
them. Spry was a candidate from 1832 to 1847.
I acted as an agent for
and 1847. I knew Hochin. He had Sp
ry in
elnB4la, IvBo4te3r,
ever since I knew him. Ho voted for Spry is 1843. I
was attorney
claim
h
for
h©
Pbaeadrucep,ewnhilocacpbpinli.ed
Itow mase
ewnintshtarnetfley-
renee to a
applying to him for the interest of a mortgage. Hochin
came to my office about it. He asked if Spry would pur-
ktnhoew whetherdefendant I
chaie the Golden Lion. I told him I did not think it
wished
electionto
would suit Spry s purpose. He. then said that he could
would negotiate a loan of 201. fur him, and he mentioned
came to Spry, and told him he intended to support him.
interest.
t t
I told him I would apply to Spry about a loan. I re-
nsoptryr,a6isneamteh.e
ferred to his solicitors, Smith and Roberts, of Truro.
On the 9th of June, 1843, I had an interview with Mr.
Smith. Ho knew Hochin had voted for Spry. The
result was that the money was remitted to me. I spoke
W Alr.fluids; upon the subject 01 other loans to other i