The Sun.
London, England, 1834-02-10 00:00:00

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, FEB. 8.

'Sittings before the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE and a Special
Jury.)

HERTFORD ELECTION.-ALLEGED PERJURY.-THE

KING V. THOMAS RUSSELL DAVIES.

Sir J. SCARLETT (with whom was Mr. FOLLETT)
stated that this was a prosecution against the de-
fendant for having committed wilful and corrupt
perjury in his examination before a Committee of
the House of Commons appointed to determine the
merits of the Hertford election petition.
The Jury, after hearing evidence, returned a ver-
dict of Guilty, but recommended the defendant to
mercy, on the ground that there had been great
bribery and corruption at the Hertford election.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, FEB. 8.

(Before Mr. Baron VAUGHAN and a Common Jury.)

LECOUVIRE V. ORR.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, Mrs.
Lecouvire (alias Metcalfe), a native of France,against
Mr. Orr, of Burton.street, for false imprisonment.
The plaintiff had been a lodger in the house of
defendant in September last, and on the 21st of that
month the defendant gave plaintiff in charge to the
police for an alleged felony in unlawfully pawning a
d canter, the property of defendant. Plaintiff re-
mained in custody, being all the time treated as a
common felon, for some hours, after which she was
admitted to bail. On the 23d the parties appeared
before Mr. Laing, of Hatton-garden, who, on having
the case submitted to him, dismissed the charge of
felony. The Magistrate advised the parties to ar-
range the matter between themselves as regarded
the unlawful pawning. The parties followed the
advice given them, and arranged the business.
Verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 5/.
STARLING V. BONYTIION.

This was an action brought against the defendant
for the violation of an agreement.
The plaintiff is a respectable gentleman residing
in Leicester-square; the defendant is connected with
the Marine Library at Dover, whither it appeared
the plaintiff's family went to pass the summer of
last year. On their arrival there the defendant let
them apartments in the house, No. 13, adjoining the
library, at a weekly rent of three guineas and a half,
for which he was to furnish them with plate, linen,
and attendance. It was stipulated by Mrs. S'arling
that she was to have undisturbed possession of the
apartments for six weeks, and to this the defendant
consented. Before, however, the first week termi-
nated he informed the plaintiff's family that he had
a larger offer for the apartments, and that he would
require possession of them at the end of the week,
and added that he could accommodate them with
apartments in another house. To this proposal
Mrs. Starling refused assent, upon which he ob-
served to her, " I do not wish to disturb you, but
if you refuse to leave the apartments I will send
men in to pull the beds to pieces and remove every
thing in the house." Mrs. Starling did not, how-
ever, think that he would act so, and on the Thu's-
day that her week was up she went out to walk
with her daughters. Oa their return they found
several men and women engaged in hammering and
removing furniture ; the beds were stripped of the
sheets, the carpets pulled up, and everything re-
moved from the larder. In this predicament they
knew not how to act, and were unab;e to procure
apartments until past ten o'clock at night.
The Jury found for the plaintiff—Damages 201.