The Sun.
London, England, 1851-09-02 00:00:00

Did you call at the house in Arlington-street ?—I
did; but I saw from the kind of house it was that
there was no use in calling for money.
In answer to questions from the Bench the witness
said it was shortly before he met the prisoner in Pall-
mall that he called in Arlington-street.
Cross-examined—During the time the prisoner
was in your service did he conduct himself well ?
Yes; and that was the reason I trusted him with the
property.
I want you to fix, as nearly as you can, the date
when you last applied for your property ?—I think it
was in '4B.

By the Bench—What is the amount of property he
owed you ?—The things were valued at 45/. ; but I
offered to take 251. and to take weekly instalments for
the use of the property till he could pay that sum. I
have received about 41. 103. only.
Mr. Henry Verne], partner of Mr. Upperton,
clerks to the magistrates, proved the minute in the
books relating to Nottage being tendered as bail.
Joh❑ Lang said he was an officer in the Brighton
police, and o❑ Friday last received a warrant to take
the prisoner into custody, and did arrest him at the
Argyle Larder in Panton-street.
Did you read the warrant to him ?—I did. It
charged him with wilful and corrupt perjury. (War-
rant produced and identified.)
After you read the warrant to him did he say any-
thing ?—Yes ; he said he was getting up a dinner for
some gentlemen, and that I must wait till he had
done ; I however brought him away.

Did he say anything to you ?—Yes ; before leaving
the room he said—What is the meaning of perjury ?
I said false swearing. He said—Can you tell me
when I foreswore myself? I said no; they will tell
you about that at Brighton.
Did he say anything else ?—He said—l will make
some one pay for this.
On your road to the station did you meet a person
of the name of Bignell ?—We meta person, and the
prisoner said—Oh, here is Mr. Bignell ; and address-
ing him, said, " I am in custody."
What did Bignell say to that ?—He pointed to a
person beside him, and said—You go with him and see
about it.

Would you know that person P—l think I would.
Is that the person (pointing to a man sitting
beside the prisoner's solicitor) P—Yes ; I think he is.
Mr. Upperton, recalled by Mr. Sill—Do you
know that Charles Staden was in custody on a charge
of conspiracy and fraud ?—Yes ; I was present at the
time.

Was it with reference to that charge the prisoner
offered himself as bail ?—lt was.

Mr. Sill said that was the case against the prisoner.
Mr. Seale said he appeared for the prisoner; and
he submitted that to constitute the crime charged
against him, it must be shown that the prisoner had
stated something false that was material to the point
at issue, and that he had stated that falsehood wilfully
and corruptly. Some stress had been laid on the
fact of the prisoner having been described as a
gentleman ; but it was to be remembered that
on the prisoner being asked the question, he had
without hesitation stated that he was a cook and con-
fectioner. The whole case resolved itself into the
question, what wag the perjury in the case ? It
amounted to this—He said he owed no money, and
that he had stock in the Three-and-a-Half per Cents. in
the Bank. It might be true that he owed Mr. Du-
bourg money, but it did not therefore follow that the
prisoner committed perjury. He might not at the
time have remembered it. The statement might be
untrue, but it is not, therefore, wilful and corrupt
perjury, especially when they took into consideration
the time that had elapsed. The debt to Mr. Dubourg
might be of a kind which that gentleman would be
justified in claiming, and also which the prisoner
would be justified in refusing to pay. But the pro-
secutor had failed to show that the prisoner was so
poor a man as had been represented. So far from his
being poor he (Mr. Seale) would now show a lease
which the prisoner possessed of the house No. 2, Ar-
lington-street, Pimlico, and for which he had paid,
within a recent period, 385/. His furniture is worth
9001. The prisoner came to the court with
the conviction that he had property which would
warrant him in being taken as bail. He was,
doubtless, a very ignorant man, and did not know
what perjury meant, and what the word " abode"
meant ; and when he said he had property in the
Bank of England, he meant, doubtless, the property
that he had been possessed of. Although the prisoner
might be subject to great censure, be (Mr. Seale)
submitted, that upon the case brought forward the
Bench would not, he hoped, consider him to have
been guilty of wilful and corrupt perjury, and con-
sidering also that the prosecutor would be put to
great expense in such a prosecution, as well as the
prisoner, he trusted they would not decide against
him. Mr. Seale concluded by exhibiting the lease
which the prisoner, he said, held of the house in
Arlington-street, Pimlico, and the assignment of which
bore date August 7, 1850.

Mr. Sill remarked that there was no signature to
the receipt on the deed for consideration.
Mr. Seale next produced the broker's ticket for the
sale of the prisoner's stock in the Bank of England.
The Chairman remarked that that made the case
worse.

Mr. Seale explained that the prisoner was an
ignorant man, and had an idea that he had not got
rid of the stock.

The Chairman said they had no doubt on their
minds of their duty to commit the prisoner on that
part of the charge relating to the 5001. stock.
Mr. Seale hoped, if that was the decision of the
Bench, they would think it was a case in which the
prisoner might be admitted to bail.
Mr. Sill observed that ho would say nothing on
that part of the case, except that the prisoner was a
person who had endeavoured to get the prisoner Ste-
den out of custody by the statements he had made.
The magistrates having consulted fora few minutes,
The Chairman said they would admit the prisoner
to bail, himself in 5001., and two sureties in 2501.
each ; forty-eight hours' notice to be given of bail.
The prisoner was then removed, and Mr. Chase, the
chief officer of the Brighton police, was bound over to
prosecute.
Mr. Superintendent Otway was present, having
been summoned on the part of the prosecution, but he
was not called.