The Sun.
London, England, 1833-06-20 00:00:00

THE KING V. JESSELL

This was an indictment against the defendant, charging
him with wilful and corrupt perjury.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL, Mr. POLLOCK', and Mr.
KELLY, appeared for the prosecution ; Sir JAMES SCAR-
LETT, Mr. CURWOOD, and Mr. PLATT, for the defendant.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL stated the case for the pro-
secution. He said the defendant, Mr. Zadoc Aaron Jes-
sell, was indicted for perjury in an answer to a bill filial
in Chancery by Mr. Joseph Millingen. The parties were
in the scinie line of business, viz., jewellers, the prosecutor,
Mr. Millingen, living in Well-street, Hackney, and the
defendant in Finsbury-square, and they had bad very ex-
tensive dealings with each other. In June, 1831, the
defendant, who was a creditor of the prosecutor, held in
his hand certain bills of exchange and a check, amounting
to 334/. 2s. 6d., which be had received from the prosecu-
tor. The prosecutor sold the defendant a ring and gold
watch, of the value cf 34/. 2s. 63., thereby reducing the
amount to 300/. An arrangement was then entered
into by which the defendant was to give back all those
securities, on the prosecutor's accepting five bills of 50/.
each, and giving a check for 501., and in pursuance of
that agreement the 501. was paid, and the five bills were
accepted by the prosecutor. One of the former bills was
for 116/., which was accepted by Louis Abrahams for
the prosecutor's accommodation, and in older to get
it back, Abrahams gave a check for the 50/.
which was paid to the defendant. Although the new
bills were accepted and the 50/. paid, the old securities
were never returned by the defendant. About the same
period the defendant applied to the prosecutor for a dia-
mond necklace (valued at 250 guineas), which he stated
he had a customer for, and the prosecutor let him
have it. However, the customer did not purchase it,
and although the prosecutor made repeated applica-
cations for it the defendant never returned it, and at last
was obliged to debit the defender for the amount,—viz.
250 guineas, which he had given for it. The price of
that necklace, and the 50/. paid by Louis Abraham's
check, made the defendant indebted to the prosecutor
12/. 10s., the debt between them previously having
been reduced to 300/. However, the defendant
brought an action in the Court of Common Pleas
against the prosecutor for the original securities,
taking no notice whatever of the diamond necklace,
nor of the five bills which the prosecutor hail accepted in
pursuance of the agreement. Tie prosecutor was conse-
quently obliged to file a bill of discovery to make the de-
fend int disclose the circumstances respecting the whole
transaction, and it was upon the answer which the de-
fendant put in that perjury was assigned. The defendant
then swore that the prosecutor had violated the agree-
ment by accepting only three instead of five bills of 501.
each; he swore, secondly, that the 50/. which lie had
received had no reference to this, but to another trans-
action ; and thirdly, he denied that there was any
agreement that he should take the ni cklace at the price Of
250 guineas. Those three declarations were charged by
the prosecution to have been false, and they formed the
substance of the indictment.

The Learned Guns 1 then proceeded to call his wit-
nesses. The case is likely to last nearly all day.

COMMON PLEAS.-(THIS DAY.)