The Sun.
London, England, 1866-08-13 00:00:00

Central Criminal Court.—This Day.

OLD COURT.

The August sessions of the Central Criminal Court com-
menced this day at the Old Bailey before the Lord Mayor,
Aldermen, and Sheriffs.
The calendar contains a less number of prisoners for
trial than usual, and the offences charged are not of that
heinous character which for the last few months have had
to be disposed of by the court. There are charges of wilful
murder against a mother for attempting to drown her chil-
dren, and afterwards to commit suicide, in Somer's-town,
but she is not in a state of body and mind to take her trial
at the present sessions.
The Recorder having charged the grand jury, the trials
in a short time commenced.

THE PERJURY BEFORE THE MAIDSTONE ELECTION COM-

iIITTEE.

Henry Chambers, blacksmith, was indicted for having
committed wilful and corrupt perjury before a select com-
mittee of the House of Commons appointed to try the
merits of a petition presented against the return of Messrs.
Leo and Whatman at the last election for the borough.
The Solicitor-General and Mr. Poland prosecuted, and
Mr. Sleigh and Mr. M. Williams defended the prisoner.
The facts of the case, briefly related, are as follows :
The prisoner is an elector for Maidstone, and shortly before
the last election he was at the Sun public-house, where he
was introduced to Mr. Lee, one of the Liberal candidates
About a week after prisoner alleged that he again met
Mr. Lee, who asked him if £2O or £3O would be of service
to him ; he, however, said he should not under any cir-
cumstances vote for Leo and Whatman, as his views were
entirely opposed to theirs. After this he alleged Mr.
Whatman mine to him as he was working at his forge,
and the sum offered him was then increased from £2O or
£3O, to £3O or £4O. He still refused, when Mr. Lee, who
was with Mr. Whatman, told his colleague to leave de-
fendant to him as he had had some conversation
with him on a previous occasion, and that they
perfectly understood each other. Defendant further
alleged that Mr. Lee told him he was a great fool for re-
fusing, and that when he left he slipped a small packet
into his (defendant's) pocket, which on examination he
found to be two sovereigns, and which he supposed was
given to him to spend in drink. He did not vote for
Messrs. Leo and Whatman, but for their opponents, the
Conservative candidates. This was the nature of the
evidence given by the defendant before the Election Com-
mittea, but both Mr. Lee and Mr. Whatman declared that
there was not one word of truth in the whole statement ;
that, in fact, it was one tissue of falsehood from
beginning to end. The committee eventually decided
that Messrs Lee and Whatman had been duly elected, and
they also reported that Chambers had been guilty of wilful
and corrupt perjury, and the present trial was the result of
such a representation.
Messrs. Lee and Whatman, the sitting members, both
attended as witnesses at the court this morning, and re-
peated that there was not the slightest truth in the asser-
tions of the prisoner.
Mr. Sleigh, for the defendant, addressed the jury, and
said he should call before them witnesses who saw the
members going to prisoner's forge on the evening the pri-
soner asserted they did, but that he could not of course go
further than that.

Mr. Hawkins said he resided at Maidstone, and recol-
lected the last election quite well. Ho recollected at the
election time, while he was sitting at a public-house at
Maidstone one evening, seeing Mr. Lee and Mr. Whatman
coming out of Chambers's forge in Pudding-lane. Mr.
Brown called his attention to the fact.

By the Solicitor-General--He was engaged on the side
of the opponents of Messrs. Lee and Whatman during the
late election. He was in London during the trial of the
petition the first two days, on one of which Chambers was
examined. He did not know that Chambers was to be
examined, but he learned that fact after. He did not go up
to London to give evidence on the petition, but only
because he took au interest in it. He did not attend
to the evidence because he had nothing to do with the
proceedings. He had no other business in London except
taking an interest in the proceedings. He was in the room
when Chambers was examined, but not during the whole
of the time. He was against the petition being pre-
sented, but it was a matter of perfect indifference to
him how the matter went. Ho was paid for the services
ho rendered to the Conservative candidates at the late
election. He was an inspector of voters, and he got a
guinea for his services. There were other inspectors as
well as himself ; they also got a guinea. He followed no
occupation at present; he lived upon his property. Fifteen
years ago he was articled to the law. He could not
veture to swear it was not later than 'six o'clock in the
evening when he saw Messrs. Lee and Whatman coming
from the forge. He had already sworn it was later than
seven. He had spoken to Mr. Goodwin, the solicitor for
the petitioner, but only casually. It had nothing to do
with the evidence. Ho would not swear before the trial
of the petitioner commenced, he did not talk to Mr. Good-
win on the matter. He would not swear there were not
five people in the forge. He would Lot swear there were
not six. He could'nt say possibly how many there were.
Ho did not know what evidence was to be offered with the
exception of that of a person named Kirby. When the
petition was going on he first mentioned that which he
had spoken to-day relative to Messrs. Leo and Whatman
coming from Chambers's forge. Ho told them that he
thoughts ho had seen to the best of his belief Mr. Leo and
Mr. Whatman coming out of Chambers's forge. Ho could
only go the length of saying this to the best of his belief ; he
would not go further than that. He first mentioned the fact of
seeing Messrs. Leo and Whatman leave the forge to three
or four friends in the course of a casual conversation.

Re-examined by Mr. Sleigh.—He had no doubt the two
persons he saw coming out of Chambers's forge were
Messrs. Lee and Whatman. He was not in the committee
room five minutes while Chambers was under examination.
He read the evidence given by Messrs. Lee and Whatman
on its publication in Maidstone
Joseph Brown said he recollected about eight or nine
days before the election he was in Pudding-lane, and he
there so w Messrs. Leo aad Whatman between eight
and nine in the evening. He saw them go into
Chambers's forge ; he knew the gentlemen perfectly. He
afterwards went to Smith's beershop in Pudding-lane, just
opposite Chambers's forge. He saw Hawkins there, and
he had a conversation with him. He had to pass the forge
to get to the public-house, and he there saw Messrs. Lee
and Whatman. About five nights before the election he
saw Messrs. Lee and Whatman in Chambers's forgo talk-
ing to them. He had no doubt about the two persons he
saw being Messrs. Leo and Whatman.
By the Solicitor-General—Ho did not take much in-
terest in the election, neither did he come to town during the
trial of the petition. Hawkins was going home with him
when they saw Messrs. Leo and Whatman, and he (wit-
ness) said to Hawkins " They are working that man's in-
side out." (Laughter.) He could not say how long this
second occasion of seeing them was before the nomination
day. It might be four or five days, but he could not be
positive. He could not say when ho first mentioned the
matter, but he told Mr. Goodman, and it might
be a week ago. He, however, had mentioned
the matter to other person; but he could not say
to whom or when. The forge was open to the street ;
any person could see who was in the place if he wished,
and took the trouble to walk by. He would undertake to
say it was later than eight o'clock when he saw Messrs.
Lee sad Whatman in Pudding-lane. He and Hawkins
had come up from Maidstone together, and had been in
company up to the present time ; but the nature of the
evidence which they wore going to give that day never
formed the subject of conversation.
Re-examined by Mr. Sleigh—lt was after Chambers's
evidence and Messrs. Lee and W hatman's denial had been
published in the newspapers that the matter became the
public talk in Maidstone. He took part in the general
conversation like other persons.

William Diprose said he saw Messrs. Lee and Whatman
go into Chambers's forge four or flvo days before the elec-
tion.

Eliza Harris also stated that she saw the two members
go to Chambers's forge four or five days before the elec-
tion.

Mr. Denton, a solicitor engaged in the prosecution of the
petition, said when he heard the nature of the evidence to
be given by the defendant, he cautioned him as to the con-
sequences of his being wrong in his facts, telling him that
he would most certainly be prosecuted for perjury if the
matter was denied by Messrs. Lee and Whatman.
Mr. Sleigh then addressed the jury on the evidence he
adduced, and contended that the prosecution had alto-
gether failed to make out a case against the prisoner.
The Solicitor-General, in replying to the whole case,
put it to the jury whether gentlemen holding the position
of Messrs. Lee andWhatman would wilfully come into that
court and, in order to obtain a conviction, state that which
they knew to be false.
The Recorder summed up the case, and
The jury, after a few minutes' deliberation, returned a
verdict of Not Guilty.
THE ADELPHI 'PIC-NIC.--The
pic-nic of the Adel hi Theatre Company
day
was passed.
on Thursday last, when a moat de
• 12.zgen Company's Boats),
The River Queen (one of the seventhn y too took an
lace
Citizen
chartered expressly
commanded by Captain G. AYres,
amidst
up with great
for
spirit os c ceaxs icoenn,
yd
ob,P:most substantial dinner was
Twickenham Ait, where a
ardscaenecdbieandnod t o the Island Hotel,
chAamtteoinigest the company we
served by Mrs.
Y 1 I's. A. Mellon,
Miss Furtado, Mrs. Billington, Miss H. Simms, Mr. Benj.
observedsp iritthe
mwrhs.olKe
Keeley, Mrs.
themdrasy. .
Webster, Mr. W. S. Webster, Mr. Benjamin Webster, jun. ,
J. L. Toole, Mr. Paul Bedford, Mr. J. W. Anson, Mr.
it. Phillips, Mr. Leicester Buckingham, Mr. Billington,
and Mr. Furtado.

THE NEEDLE-GUN.--The invention of the needle-
gun, it appears, is now claimed by Ireland. Captain James
Whitley is named as the inventor, and as having had a
breech-loading needle-gun made in 1823 by BlesPrs. Tru-
lock, of Dublin. Discouraged by the indifference shown
at Woolwich to Captain Norton's elongated shot, Captain
Whitley did not carry out the design he had of patenting
his invention, the secret of which has been mastered by
1190 M, %Wit the ot9ry tyld ill Wand,