The Sun.
London, England, 1859-04-04 00:00:00

NORFOLK ClRCUlT.—Nonwicn, APRIL 2.

Mr. Sergeant Tozer sat yesterday and to-day in
the Guildhall, and disposed of marry of the criminal
cases.

The bill in the case of child murder was ignored
by the grand jury.

NISI PRIUS COURT.

'Before Chief Justice Cockburn and a Special Jury,

CLARKE AND OTHERS v. PAIN AND ANOTHER.

Mr. O'Malley, Q.C., Mr. Power, Q.C. and Mr. •
Cherry were counsel for the plaintiffs ; Mr. Keane
and Mr. Couch for the defendants.
The plaintiffs were the owners of a schooner
called the Martha, and the defendants owners of
the steam-tug volunteer.
The action was to recover damages caused to the
Martha by the negligence of those on board the
steamtug while towing the Martha into Yarmouth
Harbour from the Roads. The defence was that the
accident was owing partly to the plaintiff's own
negligence, and was partly unavoidable, owing to
the shifting nature of the sands where the vessel
took the ground.
Witnesses were called by both parties, and the
case, which was commenced yesterday morning, was
concluded at two o'clock to-day, the jury giving a
verdict for the plaintiff for the amount agreed upon
between the parties.
CROWN COURT.
(Before the Lord Chief Baron.)
The Lord Chief Baron, in theicourse of summing
up the evidence in a charge of rape, made the fol.
lowing remarks :—A policeman, who might possibly
have given important evidence in support of this
charge, has not been here to give that evidence.
He lives at a considerable distance from this place,
and it is said that the present scale of allowances
made to witnesses in criminal trials is wholly ina-
dequate to insure their attendance. I allude to this
in order that these remarks may reach the ears of
the Secretary of State. I wish what I now say to
be heard beyond the precincts of this court. Com-
plaints have been loud and general, and, I believe,
well founded, not only all round this circuit, but on
others, that the expenses allowed to witnesses are
not sufficient to insure the due administration of
justice. Crimes remain unpunished because prose-
cutors and witnesses will not put themselves to the
expense of coming, the allowance made to them
being wholly inadequate. If an application had
been made to me in this case I would have made an
order for the attendance of the policeman.
The prisoner was convicted of the offence, and
sentenced to penal servitude for 15 years.
Robert Stolady was indicted for having commit-
ted wilful and corrupt perjury on the occasion of
the hearing of an information before magistrates,
against John Blackburn, for trespassing in pursuit
of game.
Mr. Couch prosecuted ; Mr. Palmer defended the
prisoner.
On the hearing of the information Mr. Norton,
the occupier of the land, and two of his men, swore
that they saw the defendant, Blackburn, whom they
knew personally, on the land on a particular Sun-
day morning. Stolady being called as a witness by
Blackburn, swore that Blackburn lodged with him
at Norwich, and that he never was absent from his
lodgings on any Sunday morning during the time
he was a lodger, which included the Sunday on
which the alleged offence had been committed.
His lordship was of opinion that the attention of
the defendant ought to have been called to the par-
ticular day as to which he was asked to speak, and
that a general allegation such as had been made
in this case, including all Sundays within two fixed
dates, was not sufficiently precise on which to
found an indictment for perjury.
The jury, under his lordship's direction, returned
a verdict of not guilty.
Mr. Couch said, that in the case of John Parker,
which arose out of the same transaction, the same
objection would apply, and he therefore should not
offer any evidence in support of that change.
William Dent was indicted for perjury, com-
mitted at Gressenhall Petty Sessions on the occa-
sion of an application for an order of maintenance
under the Bastardy Act.
Mr. Couch prosecuted ; Mr. Drake defended the
prisoner.
It appeared that on the hearing of the informa-
tion Edward Carr, the defendant in the information,

called William Dent to prove that the young
woman had, in conversation with him at Hoe
Church, on the Monday in Whitsun week, stated
that the child was not Carr's. Perjury was as-
signed on this allegation, and the young woman
and her father were called, who swore that she
was at home all that Monday, and she herself
swore that she never said either to Dent or any one
else that the child was not Carr's.

After Mr. Drake had addressed the jury for the
defence,

The Chief Baron interposed, and said, that it ap-
peared that there was only the evidence of one per-
son—namely, that of the young woman herself—to
the fact of her never having made the statement to
Dent. She swore that she never made that state-
ment, and her oath on this point was uncorrobo-
rated. His lordship was of opinion that this was a
material allegation. There might be difficulty in
the proof necessary to support the indictment ; but
the answer on which an indictment for perjury is
to be founded should be repetitions of the questions
put to the witness, and those questions should be
so framed as to draw his attention to time, place,
and circumstance. This had not been done in the
present case.
The jury, under his lordship's direction, returned
a verdict of not guilty.
Mr. Couch said that the same objection would
apply to the case of Wm. Cooper, which arose out
of the same transaction, and he therefore offered no
evidence in support of that charge.

OXFORD CIRCUIT.-GLOCESTER, April 2.
CIVIL COURT.

',Before Mr. Justice Crompton and Common Juries.)

WATSON V. WILLETT.

Mr. Serjeant Pigott and Mr. H. James appeared
for the plaintiff; Mr. Huddleston, Q.C., for the
defendant.

The plaintiff in this action, W. Watson, was a
commission agent of Cardiff, and he sued the defen-
dant, John Willett, a coalmaster at the same place,
to recover damages for maliciously and without
reasonable or probable cause causing him to be
taken into custody, locked up. and taken before a
magistrate on a charge of embezzlement.
The case commenced yesterday, and occupied
several hours this day, witnesses being examined
on both sides, but in the result, the parties agreed
to withdraw a juror Sand discharge the jury from
giving a verdict.