The Sun.
London, England, 1851-08-12 00:00:00

la real or supposed difficulty, and tendered his evi-
ldence for its removal, it was essential that the evidence
' should be true, or, if false, should be attended with
punishment. The facts on which this charge was
founded were these :—On the 27th of March last there
came on to be tried in the next court a cause called
" Doe one the demise of Thomas Richards, v. Lewis
Lewis." It was an action of ejectment brought
by Thomas Richards to recover possession of
certain leasehold premises held by the defendant.
Mr. Philpotts acted on that occasion as the
attorney for the plaintiff. The premises in dis-
pute were held under a lease granted in 1822 to two
persons named Rhys Morgan and William Joseph.
In that action the plaintiff claimed through Rhys
Morgan, and it was therefore necessary for him to
show that Morgan was the survivor of the two
lessees, and that Joseph was dead ; and accordingly,
in the course of the cause, the plaintiff's counsel put
in with that view a document which purported to be
an office copy of the will of William Joseph, and it
was proposed to be read in order to show that Joseph
was dead. It was objected that this office copy was
not evidence, and could not be read as an office copy
of a will in any shape or way. On this Mr. Philpotts,
after communicating with his counsel, was called as
a witness, and swore that he had compared that docu-
ment with the original will in the Consistory Court
of Llandaff. It was then objected that this did not
make the document evidence, and the Learned Judge
who presided (Mr. Justice Talfourd) said to the
counsel who led for the plaintiff, " An examined copy
of a will will not answer. You must have the pro-
bate or act of probate." On which Mr. Philpotts
swore that he had examined the document proposed
to be read with the act-book and the act of probate
in the Consistorial Court. This appeared rather
strange. It was strange that he should have exa-
mined that document with the original will and with
the act-book and the act of probate. Accordingly,
the counsel for the defendant in the action cross-
examined Mr. Philpotts very strictly, so that
there should be no mistake in the matter; and he re-
peated distinctly, again and again, that he had ex-
amined the document with the original will, and with
the act-book, and with the act of probate ; and on
being sifted in cross-examination, he gave the time at
which, the place where, the persons with whom, and
the circumstances under which he made the examina-
tion. He stated that he went, in the month of Feb-
ruary last, to the Consistorial Court of Llandaff, and
examined the document with the original will, and
that there were prevent during the examination a Mr.
Evans, one of the clerks to the registrar of the court,
and a clerk of his own named Smith. He was asked '
about other persons being present; but Evans and
Smith were the only persons mentioned as being pre-
sent on the occasion. The whole of the material parts
of this statement would be proved to be totally and
entirely false, and false to the knowledge of the de-
fendant when he swore them. It would be shown
that he did go on the Bth of February to the Consis-
torial Court of Llandaff; that he asked to see a copy
of the will of William Joseph ; that there is a book in
which wills are copied; that a copy of that will was
found in that book by the officer of the court ; that be
read it and asked for a copy ; and this was between
four and five o'clock on Saturday, the Bth Feb!; that
the officer told him that he could not have a copy that
day, as the office hours had nearly expired ; that the
defendant replied his clerk could make one in ten
minutes, but was told that they never allowed
strangers. to make copies of documents in theteccle-
siastical courts, and that if he wanted a copy one
would be made out and sent to him on Monday
morning; that be then asked what was to be paid for
it, and was told the sum, and paid it and went away ;
and that the copy was made on the Mond4y and
transmitted by post. In fact, there was not a !single
portion of the material parts of what he swore true.
It should be added that the document was still ob-
jected to by the counsel for the defendant as inddmis-
Bible, and the Learned Judge said to Mr. Alexander,
the counsel for the plaintiff, that he would receive it
if pressed by the plaintiff. Thereupon, the plaintiff's
counsel said he would withdraw it for the present.
That was a circumstance which would probably be
relied on by his Learned Friends to show that the
legal crime of perjury bad not been committed But
he submitted that the document being tendered in a
cause under judicial investigation and objected fo, and
this false evidence being given in order to obviate
the objection and render it admissible, the legal'crime
of perjury was that moment complete, whether
the document was afterwards withdrawn or
not, and that its being withdrawn made no
difference in the crime. This case was analo-
gous to those in which perjury was assigned oti affi-
davits, the jurats of which were so defective that they
could not be used in court. Another ground of de-
fence might be that the defendant went to the court
in the month of October, and by mistake said Fe-
bruary for October. But it would be shown that
when he went in October it was to go and see ano-
ther will, and not that of William Joseph, and that at
no period whatever did he compare the document in
question with the original will of William Joseph, or
with the act-book or the act of probate. It would be
shown that the original wills were kept in the record
room in the cathedral, which was a totally different
place from the office where Mr. Philpotts had been.
The practice of the Llandaff office was to keep wills in
bundles according to the date. and when after the
trial at the last assizes a search was made the original
will of William Joseph was found in its proper place,
never having been exhibited to Mr. Philpotts or any
other person. It appeared that, when a will was ap-
plied for, it was taken out of the office in the cathe-
dral, and taken to the registrar's-office, and there put
in a bundle by itself and kept there for a year or so,
when it was replaced in its proper place. These were
the facts on which the prosecution rested, and he sub-
mitted that they constituted the legal as well as the
moral crime of perjury. If the defendant's statement
was false, it must be to his own knowledge, for it
must be observed that when he produced the
document he stated that he had compared it with the
original will and the act of probate and the act-book ;
whereas the document was made out after be left the
office and sent to him by post, and he never compared
or examined it with anything in that office. This
statement was fully established by the evidence in
every respect, except that it was not clearly made out
for what purpose the copy of the will of William
Joseph was tendered in evidence on the trial of the
action, the counsel for the prosecution now contending
that it was for the purpose of showing inferentially
the death of Joseph, and the counsel for the defendant

saying it could not have been ^ any evidence of that
circumstance, and that it was to explain something in
another will, which, however, did not more fully or
otherwise appear on either the former or the present
trial. On the close of the case for the prosecution,
the counsel for the defendant submitted that the con-
tents of William Joseph's will were utterly immate-
rial to the determination of the issue in the action of
ejectment. His Lordship said that was clearly so. The
Learned Counsel then contended, that as the contents
of the will were utterly immaterial to the issue in that
action, everything sworn by the defendant in
reference to them was immaterial, and conse-
quently could not be the subject of an indictment for
perjury. The counsel for the prosecution, on the
other hand, contended that though the contents of the
will were immaterial to the issue, yet the death of
Joseph was most material to it, and as an examined
copy of the probate of the will was some circumstan-
tial evidence, however slight, of his death, everything
sworn by the defendant in order to get that examined
copy admitted in evidence, 'was sufficiently material
to maintain this indictment.

His LORDSHIP laid, that though his own private
opinion was that the law ought to be that whatever
was sworn in the course of a cause in a court of jus-
tice should be the subject of an indictment for per-
jury, yet he bad not the least doubt that as the law
now stood that which was the subject of an indict-
ment must be something more capable of supporting
the issue. He would not now determine this ques-
tion, but reserve it for the Court of Criminal Appeal,
if the verdict should be against the defendant.
Mr. Sergeant ALLEN then addressed the jury for
the defendant.

After his LORDSHIP had summed up,
The jury deliberated for four minutes, and then re-
turned with a verdict of Guilty.
The defendant was then admitted to bail till the
next assizes, in order that the point reserved may be
decided in the Court of Appeal.
Francis Davies was indicted for a burglary on the
7th of January, in the house of Miss Hannah B. Da-
vies, at Usk, and Anne Denham for inciting him to
commit the same. •

Mr. Skinner conducted the prosecution, and Mr.
Smythies the defence.
This case was remarkable for the train of circum-
stantial evidence by whiqh the guilt of the woman
was established. The principal witness was a man
named Clarke, who was under sentence of transpor-
tation for another offence. He stated that he had been
a lodger in the house of a man named John Denham,
the husband of the prisoner, who had been an officer
of Monmouth gaol, and afterwards set up the trade of
a marine storedealer ; that he and the prisoners and
John Denham planned the burglary in question, and
that the prisoner Anne told them that they would find
a gold watch on the mantelpiece and some wedge (a
cant word for silver plate) in a short round thing
like a stool, in the house of Miss Davies, and de-
scribed the house to them; that, following her direc-
tions, Davies and himself got into the house and broke
open a cellaret, which they thought answered the de-
scription of a short round thing like a stool, but
found no plate in it ; nor did they find a watch on the
mantelpiece, but they found some plate in other parts
of the house, and took it away, and also a stick, which
had belonged to an old gentleman who had resided in
the house, and a pack of cards and a bottle of spirits,
which last they drank on the road back, and which
made them intoxicated. They had used as a wedge
for forcing open a door a wooden mesh for netting,
and, in their burry, left it behind. On their gr.