The Sun.
London, England, 1860-07-20 00:00:00

44 ,Y,I• t, A
-with him. He said nothingCi"
.„,.,D. - ....
4.
, kg
.c,...,, 47 ,
„,v,„z
G
„,_
er. He was not courting her, a shii S
emotive should injure her.
The jury,-erter an. absence of nearly an hour,
returned into court with ii.-verdiet of not guilty on
the ground of temporary insanity.
CIVIL COURT.
(Sittings at Nisi Prius.—Before Mr. Baron Martin.)
THE QUEEN V. LEATLIAM.—BRIBERY AT WAKEFIELD.
The court was crowded this morning, in Ca
quence of the learned judge having fixed to-day
for commencing the trial of the electioneering bri-
bery cases from Wakefield and Beverley.
The Solicitor-General, in stating the case, ob..
served that it was a criminal information filed by
.-
the Attorney-General, for whom he had the honour
1 to appear that day, against Mr. William Henry
Leatham, for bribery at the Parliamentary election
which took place at Wakefield in the month of
April last year. The charge against the defendant,
who was one of the candidates at that election, was
twofold—namely, for advancing and providing
money for the purpose of bribing the electors
of that borough ; and secondly, that the
money which he had so furnished he caused
to he actually expended in bribing various
individuals. On the occasion of the election
to which he had referred there were two
candidates in the field. One of them was the de-
fendant, who appeared on the Liberal side of poli-
tics ; and the other was Mr. Charlesworth, who
espoused Conservatism. The defendant was elected
by a very small majority. It was found necessary
to challenge the return of Mr. Leathern on various
grounds, a petition was presented, and Mr. Leatham
was unseated. An address was presented by the
House of Commons praying for a commission of in-
quiry. On the 20th August following a commission
was issued by the Crown. The commissioners had
summoned before them a large number of persons,
and those persons whose evidence was given in a
satisfactory manner received a certificate of indem-
nity again:A any criminal inquiry being preferred
1 against them. Amongst others who were examined
was the defendant, and after he had made a state-
ment before the commissioners they declined to grant
him a certificate of indemnity, his examination not,
being deemed satisfactory. In addition to the de-
fendant, other parties were examined before the
commissioners, and although it was clear they were
concerned in the bribery that took place from their
own statement, the commissioners believing, to make
use of a common phrase, that they " had made a
clean breast of it," acquitted these persons from the
penal consequences which attached to them by
granting them certificates, and they would be called
as witnesses in the present investigation. The So-.
licitor-General, after a review of the leading facts of
the case, contended that Mr. Leatham had know-
ingly expended a large sum of money in excess of
what was legitimate and proper—an amount which
had never come before the election auditor.
The several witnesses alluded to by the learned
gentleman having been examined,
Mr. James, Q.C., for defendant, contended that
the information was not made out on the following
grounds :—First, that there was uo evidence of any
authority from the defendant; secondly, it did not
appear that the process was issued within 12 months
of the act committed.

Mr. Mellish, on the same side, contended that
the indictment set forth that the money was paid
by the defendant to Gilbert, and was no evidence
in support of any such allegation.
Mr. Quinn contended there was no proof of any
authority given by Mr. Leatham to Wainwright
to pay the money to Gilbert.
Mr. Baron Martin, without calling on the Soli-
citor-General, said, in construing this Act of Par-
liament, he should hold that there was no proceed-
ing for any penalty or forfeiture, but a prosecution
for a misdemeanour. He saw nothing in this Act
of Parliament to prevent this prosecution being
instituted by the Attorney-General for the Crown.
As to the second point, his opinion was that there
was evidence to go to the jury that Mr. Leatham
had thought proper to place this money in the hands
of Mr. Wainwright to use as he thought proper for
the purposes of election.

. .
Mr. James asked for leave to have a special ver-
dict entered, in order that his Lordship's ruling
might be reviewed.

His Lordship had no objection if the Solicitor-
General assented.

The Solicitor-General, on the part of the At-
torny-General, had no objection to any course
which would enable the opinion of a Court of Error
to be taken on that single objection.
Mr. James then proceeded to address the jury on
behalf of the defendant, a gentleman of station and
character, who was charged with a degrading
offence, which he was authorised to say his very
soul abhorred.

Mr. Baron Martin having summed up the
evidence,

The jury, after'an hour's deliberation, returned a
verdict of guilty.
There are yet seven other cases of this descrip-
tion to dispose of, three against persons on the
Liberal side at Wakefield, and four against per-
sons on the Conservative side, and two against per-
sons implicated in charges of bribery at the Beverley
election.