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

THE KING v. GOODEY.

This was an Indictment against the Defendant
for wilful and corrupt Perjury, and on which the
Defendant was found guilty before my Lord Chief
B,lron, at the last Assizes for the County. of
Kent. The evidence on which the Defendant was
indided was given on behalf of a Smuggler.
Mr. MARRYAT moved for a new trial upon three
grounds. That the Defendant was charged with
more than was proved lie swore, and that such
over-charge :jetted the consideration of what was
proved he did swear ; and therefore might be
said to have possibly influenced the Verdi t. That
what he was proved' adually to have sworn, was
not sufficient to support an averment of perjury ;
and that the Learned Judge said some things to the
Jury, that were extra-judicial.—Such as, that his
Lordship commenced his charge to the following.
elfcet.—" That it had long been his fate as At-
torney General, in prosecuting Smugglers, and
afterwards as Judge, to observe, that in 19 cases
out of zo, the parties accused were guilty ; but that
their cases were supported by perjury. That
poaching, smuggling, and insurance in the Lot-
tery, led more persons to the gallows than any
other crimes. That when a Smuggler was tried
it was considered as mere matter of compliment to
commit a little perjury in support of him."—Why
these general observations should have been made
in a Case depending upon a dry question of fad,
the Learned Counsel professed himself at a- loss to
account ; and then he proceeded to argue the
other points, all of which were over-ruled by the I
Court, and upon this occasion,
Lord ELLENBOROUGH said—" I really think it
is too touch to make such observations as we have
heard on the Learned Judge in his charge to the
Jury, for it tends to spew that a Learned Judge
ought not to be alloWed to make, foe the benefit
society, observations upon the frequent COM. A

rith,:sion ctinies, And on the enormity of vice,
or t remind the Jury of the course by which it is
pursued. _I do think that such exceptions to a
charge made to a Jury, are not so resnedful to a
Learned judge as may be expeeted. I think that
the way in which this charge came from the Learned
judge, did riot deserve any animad version."
The new trial was refused, and the Defendant,
;,t,-ho, by order, attended the Court at the time the
motion W:JS made, was committed to Pris;ll, to be
brought up to rcceiee judgment when the Court
shall order.

Tat RTEL V. THE HUNDRED OP MITFORD AND

LEATIIINCLAIt:D.

Mr.GPORGE WILSON Moved far a Rule to shew
Cause why time ncnsuit in this case should not be
set aside and a new trial had. This was an action
against the Hundred to rec4;ver satisfaaion for the
los3 the Plaintiff sustained by his barn having been
wilfully set on fire. It was an aetien tried b;_ifore
Mr. jutiee CR(a and the question turned en_
tirely cam the sufficiency of the examination of the
Party before the Magistrate, previous; tn the aaion
being bt-ughr, whether the Plaintiff then disclosed
ail that the A.q of Parliarn,fnt required in thry- par.-
ticular. ? Having stated the whole of that examina-
tion,.,the seaion of the Ak't of Parliament which
requires it,. and the material averment in the De-
cjaration, Mr. WILsoN s7A:..rnitted, that this Non..
suit should be set aside, and a new trial had.
Rule to shew Cause granted. •

WILLIAMS V. THE kik,T INDIA COMP ANY•

T ne Plain tiff was Owner of the Princess Amera,
a ship chartered to the East India Company. While
in their service a quantity of combustible oil was
put on hoard of her, this taking fire, she blew
up. This Aftion was brought for her value, and in
the Declaration
,it was stated, that the Defendants
well knew the nature and effects of this oil. In
of this allegation, scarcely any evidence was
offeted, save that every thing is put on board these
ships by the Company's orders and by the ,Com-
pany's servants. Lard ELLENBOROUGH nonsuited
the Plaintiff.

Mr. ERSK INE now moved to set aside this. non-
,uit, upon the gr and that the best evidence had
bc,en offered, of which the nature of the case was
capable. The Chief A►te, who took the oil on
board, had perished, and no other person whom the
Plaintiff conic! calif was cognizant of the transac-
tion. He represented the case as one of peculiar hard-
'Ship, although the Direaors, being
,trustees, per-
haps were not to be severely- blamed for standing
upon the rigour of the Law.—Rule to skew cai;se
granted.