The Sun.
London, England, 1802-11-11 00:00:00

iv R TP,D Rt

COURT OF KING's rENcri, Nov: in,
't`Hp• greater part of the day was taken up with
Motions for new Trials; the most material of which,
in poincofinterest to the Public, were the fulluw-
ing ;

STEVENS V. WHISLER.

This W 33 an ACtion for the Defendant's keeping
a Gun for the destru6tion of Game, and for having
killed Game, viz. two Partridges, he not being
qualified by Law to kill Caine.

It appeared at the trial, (hat one John Hicks saw
the Defendant out in the fields, one ddy in January
last, with a gun, under an hedge, in which fields
there was no foot-path. On the 16(h of January,
the Witness saw the Defendant shoot something on
the ground. At another time, he saw two Partridges
sit, and the Defendant shot through an hedge at
them, and when the Defendant saw the Witness, Ire
ran away, on which the \Vitries said- to him, it
was of no use for him, as he had killed them. The
Witness then went to the spot where the Partridges
were lying, and picked them up. He had known
the Defendant for ten years. Be saw the Defendant
out for three days following.

Another Witness, of the name of T. Hughes,
swore, that on the t7th of January last, he screed
the Defendant with notice in this aaion, and he
asked the cause of the action ? The Witness said he
did not know ; on which the Defendant said, "
will tell you, this is all for shooting two birds." The
Plaintiff had intended to bring this case forward at
the Quarter Sessions, but observed, that a Gmtle_
man was to sit there, who was the friend of the De-
fendant, and therefore he would not bring it for-
ward there : unon which the DOendant said, " he
thought he had as good a right to shoot birds as
any roan in the Parish, as he had done it often, be-
fore."

•An Alibi was attempted to be proved on the part
of the Defendant, hut the Jury believed the evi-
dence given on the part of the Plaintiff, by,Hic!;,t,
the first Witness, and Hughes, the Sheriff's Gffieer,
who served the Defendant with notice, and tiko-e-
-fore a verthel was found for the Plaintiff, for the
Penalty specified by the Statute.
A Motion was now made, on behalf of the IX-
fendant, for a Rule to skew Cause why there should
not be a new Trial, on the ground that the case, or.
:he part of the Plaintiff, was supported by Perjury;
in support of which Motion, there was an Affidavit,
made by a person who had been servant of the De-
fendant, and who had left him soon after the rime
of killing these Birds, and was not heard of in that
neighbourhood until the August followliig. He
swore, most positively, that he was the person who
shot the very Partridges in question, and he caTue
forward to say so, the moment he heard that his old
Master had a trial for doing it.
Another Witness swore that he was present
when Hughes, the Sheriff's Officer, served the
Defendant with notice in the att►on, and that he
did not hear any such conversation as Htw,hes
stated to have past between him and the Defendant
on the subjet of shooting the partridges ; upon
which it was contended, that tliere ought to he a
new trial, for that the testimony of the Sheriff's
Officer was a surprize upon the Defendant, and if
he had been aware the Sheriff's. Officer would have
given such evidence, they would have brought for-
ward for the Defendant this Witness to contradict
hitn. It was urged, that if the Court should not
grant a new trial in this Case, the Defendant
would be driven to prosecute the Plaintiff's Wit-
nesses for perjury, a course he did not wish to
pursue.

Lord ELLENBOROUGH said, the Witness could
not he under any mistake as to the person of the
Defendant in this case, having seen him three suc-
cessive days. In this case there must be perjury on
one side or the other; but it would be infinitely
dangerous in its probable consequences, if a con_
vieled man was to he indulged with a new trial,
merely_. because he had found a servant to take
upon him the delinquency, especially when he
knew the time was elapsed within which any penal
consequences could legally attach, for then it was
only assuming guilt when there was no risque in it,
which was the case here, t;)r ‘vfich reason Mr.
NIIILLFs, who moved for the new trial, took no-
thing for his motion.