The Sun.
London, England, 1803-05-02 00:00:00

EDWARDS v. EVANS•

This was an aaion to recover soot. penalty,
under the Statute against 'Bribery at Eleftions, anti
-tried before Mr. justice LAWRENCE at the last
.Assizes for Hereford.

The Plaintiff. is. an Attorney at Leominster.— t•
The Defendant is What they call a Waterman, that
is, a person who carries water about the town, in a
cart, to serve the Inhabitants. He is an Elelor
for the Borough. ..It appeared that while Mr. Kin.
.• naird was canvassing, the Defendant came up to
him, and asked him ten guineas for his vote, say- •
ing, that .he could have that sum of money for it
froin'the other side., Mr. Kinnaird said, he would
.not have any thing- to do With him. This !aim •
was brought'upon the Statute which subjeCts' a per.
son to the penalty of s°ol. for an attempt to bribe .
at an Ele6tion for a Member to serve in Parliament,
and therefore there •'was no doubt the anion .would
lie. .
Mr. Kinnaird was called to prove that the De.
fendant made this application to him. He was ob-
jetted to, as a Witness interested in the event,
.and
one who, theretbre, ought not to be examined,
because the Statute on which this anion was founded
had a provision by which not only he was exempted
from the penalty of bribery himself, but had a cer-
tain. reward if he was the first discoverer of the
offence, and was not himself previously convided.
• This objection was held good, and a Mr. Bradley
was called, .and he carried the conversation between
the Defendant•and Mr. Kinnaird further. back than
Mr. Kinnaird himself, so that then Mr. Bradley
was deemed to be the4rst discoverer, and then the •
same objection was made to •him aka Witness as
had before been successfully Made against Mr. Kin.
naiad. The Learned Judge' allOw.ed the validity of
the objedioo,.' and that made Mr. K.innairti a Wit-
,. nest.. He was accordingly examined, and he proved
that the Defendant came up to him and asked hiM
tea guineas, for his vote, saying he could' have that
money by the other side,. and that he said he would
not have any tjiing to do with him.
'Mr. Mitts proposed •to examine Mr. Bradley,
who heard this conversation between the Defendant
and Mr. Kinnaird, but the Learned Judge did not
think he was a eterpetentWitness.
The defence was that the Defendant had no real •
intention, of offering his vote for ten guineas : that
it was a mere elation hoax, as they called it, that
therefore the crime prohibited by the ACI of Parlia.
scent in this.case, namely, that of offering to take a
bribe, was not ,committed, and consequently that the
Defendant was entitled to a verdid.
The Learned Judge left it to the Jury 40 consider
whether the Defendant was in jest or earnest, for
that if he was in earnest, the offence under the Sta.
tute was completed, and the verdia must be for the
Plaintiff—if in jest,, tot the Defendant.
The Jury -thought it was a joke, and so found a
verdia for the. Defendant.
Mr. Moats now moved for a new trial, on
the ground that Mr. Bradley was a competent
.Witness in- this case, and, that •he was impro.
perly rejected by the Learned Judge.: it was
said that he 'Was incompetent, because he might
• 'cave the reward as the first discoverer of this atl of
Bribery, under the M of Parliament ; hut that he
denied, fur the reward under the An of 'Parliament •
did, not accrue to him until somebody was convidad
• of the penalty—this was presuming, first, that an
Aetion would be brought to entitle the Witness to
this reward; secondly, that, the Defendant would
be convided upon that charge ;
,and, thirdly, that.
Judgment would be entered up on tjtat Conviction':.
all these must happen before Mr. Bradley could'he,
• said to be an interested Witness in this case, and,
conseceiently. incompetent. He, on the contrary,
contended 'that he was a 'competent Witness ; and
that, as he was offered as a Witness, and rejected
by Leirned
,judge, there ought to be a new 'l' rialt
• Ju
'lt was said, and he admitted it to be true, though
in such a case as this, he was riot bound to make any
such admission, that Bradley only stood by and
heard the conversation between. Mr, Kinnaird and
the DefeiAant,' and that it Was imPossible he-should
carry it further than Mr. Kinniird had 'done, 'anci,
therefore it: would have been useless'to examine hin't
To Which he ans-sered, that this was ,not a reason
for rejecting his testimony, if ,he was a competent
'Witness; besides, he inikintaiuld it to be quite im-
. possible to know what impression his evidence
might have made upon the Jury if he had been ex.
;trained, for although it might appear to be a•joke,
from the mamter in which it was felt and related by
Mr. Kinnaird, yci it might, from the manner it
was felt and related by another Witness, have ap.
peated a serious thing to the Jury, and, so,the ver.
!la might have been otheraviseupon these grounds
lie.contendut there ought to be anew