The Sun.
London, England, 1803-12-07 00:00:00

LAW'REPO R7'.

COUR,TOrKING'i,I3ENCI3; Dscg 6.

THS KING.V. NICHOLAS ISRADRY.

Tuts was an indietment for wilful' and corrupt
Perjury, stated to have been committed by the De.
fendant in the-Cdurt of Exchequer, in a Cause Which
was tried before. the Oilier BARON, upon an 'ln-
formation . filed, by the- .AVroltisaY ‘,GENEtiAL,
against a person of the.qame of Gay ford, whereby.
ht w.as charged ~with haying landed on the toth
of January last, a certain, large quantity of Brandy,
Hollands, and other-spiritous liquors, in a contra-
, band inanner. Bratley on Ahat :occasion swore that
he was there when this contraband liquor was land.
ed at Dulwich, and that: there w_,re present at that
landing several persona whom he named, and parti-
cularly a person of the name of Major. There being
~
several other Witnesses who swore the same. thing
Gayford was convided in large. penalties in :the
Exchequer„'hut it was afterwards sworn that_the"
whole of this was a wicked Conspiracy to charge ;
this person falsely, and that:there was no such thing
as' this contraband landing—that the whole was, ah
invention of Bradey and others, for the sake of ruin- •
ing this person, and to profit by. this false accusation.
Of this 'Affidavits being made, an application was
made to. the CnUtt 01,,Exchequer fur a new trial,
which the Court; ordered, and in the mean time
Gayford' undertOok to prosecute these men for
perjury*.
The ArroRNEYET;EitM. consented that this
new trial.should'r.itt;t conic on until this inui.,'.lrrient
for perjuryilmitld be disposedof ; for if these per.
sons on. vitirUle:eltlitinee'Gayford was founitgalfry;
should be convided otiserjary, there would he.Ap
end of the 'other case, for then he would press the
matter no further,. butAin the mean time hf should
riot withhold.froth these men any assistance, pro-
fessional'or other Wise, which they might stand,in
need tif, 'and the'refore he took care they shQutl
itavestietraid; they were accordingly defended by
Gavernltent.
It was propOS',ed b 7 Nr.r;•Easiiiii, to 'give parol
evidence that this treat i'iiiik- place in the COurt of
Exchequer, instead 'Of producing the Nisi Pr;u: re.
cord ; • but Which was brought into Court while 'the
stalled of the admissibility of parole evidence of
its contents was discriteed,
Lord ELLerraotedir6kt observed, 1110' it Was
pmper :Should deliver his opinion do this matter,
although it was.at,an end, as- fir as regarded this
eaase, by. the produflion of the Nisi Pthts reeor3;
because such a ..point as this' should 'not. remain' in
doubt. .Ho certainly should-nor have received any
evidence.'of. any such recordc:.or of aft thing 'it
contained, without producint,,it. It -was perhaps
hardly proper: to allude 'to a wageCtl/Xin this tscea::
sine}, and yet he could, riot refrain)ftorn doing-it
for the sake of the point which was,establisbed by
A Qentleman. of. the name of Lee had. laid
Witg't-Twith tl.*.litteAr..W.nt.t.ncs, that a certain
ne.qceeding was had in the ,House of Commons on
a.cettain sight in a certain Sealien of Parliamen“
and to prove it, he produced .a Witness...to swear
he was in.the gallery
_of that House on the night
in question ; that he saw the Speaker in the-Chair,
and heard *the proceeding in .question discussed. But
Lord MANOTELD held that this was not legal proof,
because the prOccedings of a, Session. of Parliament
Ire 'Matter Of 'record, and are to he proied, by the
produCtion of "records; Mr. Lee was a very sensi.
hie and ingenious Man, lint he failed upon this pOiht.
Sti lierett was not .enough for a Witness to have
heard 'the trial 'of an issue, it was 'stated in the
Nisi Friar record, 'and that record Must be' pro.
dueed. The record was prOdnced and put an end
to that question.
The trial then went on, and it appeared in evi..
dente, that Major, the person .whom the I)eferlant
Bradcy had sworn to be at Dalwich on Ilse tc,th of.
January, "superintending the landing 'of ;these con-
t taband goods, was tit Held on the eitlC6ria—nuary,
where he arrived from Holland as a prisoner; that
he contirideit Hull until the aoth'of Januaii, when
he 'tialleltfor stria arrived there on the 24. th.
This was sworn itilty the Captain of the vessel in
which he ailed, Wirt) had given-him tis'passage for
nothing, been)* he had been aytiioner irl Hdllanti;
and could not afford• to.pay. for It. This 'walolfroVed
by others as well as by this .
also, that 'BradeY,the Defendant was, On- the day'he
swore that he saw this' landing of the contribatid
liquor at Dulwich, and had been long'befbre,. and
was long after it, 1 prisoner in: the Fleet Prison
that unless all these witnesses were petjurtd, 'rot.
the lupposition of which there: was filo. pretelidef
this was an atrociouth.conspiracy between. the Dew.
fendant, Braley and others, to make up.this false ac.
eusation against. Gayinfd:to charge: hirwayaSsungp:
glee,
,for the purpose of ruitiing.hitn by:pertaitier. •
Mr. GA ltrtow, in, tholltiStive of the,ATTOltNitin
GONARAL, addressed the .Juty for the.ackollimli
knd left it to
.them to consider if the Defendant
might ;rise haveaCled under sorneconfutiOn.or. mis.
take with respedto dates in this business. . If they
Ought this a coesPiracy to make up this false.ac.
cusation,.as it.imported on the lace of it to be, to be
sure 'astonishment was lost in the horror which this
tranaaetion occasioned.
tfte Jury; Without the least hesitation, found
Mr. GAR ROW said that this unhappy matt had
souse time ago burst 'a bined.vessel, and on account
of the ri:ih,,,croth; state of-his health had beenadinit.
tad to Bail.