The Sun.
London, England, 1835-02-10 00:00:00

BENCH-(THIS DAY.)

THE KING V. HAWKINS.
Thia was _an indictment for perjury. The circumstances
vreeeroergberilieflaywia:isr;if,ollows. In the year 1825 the defendant,
fter, had for his solicitor a gentleman named
wh° r'pplied to the prosecutor, James Hall,a geutLinan
borrow resident at Weymouth-place, Nc,:v rcerd-road, to
The •w Sun of 3,500/., to be secnred by an annuity of 442/.
3,r The
accordingly sold cut stock to the amount of
4°ol-, and delivered a check upon the Banking-house of
vwies, Lloyd, and Co. for that sum, to the defendant's atter-
leY, Roster. Hawkins attended at Boster's office when the
anoneuity-deed was executed and the money paid over to him by
Haawt.keri,nsa:nl,,the following acknowledgment was signed by
On theA day of the date of the within indenture,
_.'lleceived of and from James Hall, the sum of 3,500/., which
71F full consideration within stated, for the purchase of the
f,',t in:named annuity. I say, received the same, George
awluns. Dated 11th January, 1825." This was witnessed
two clerks in the office of Mr. Boster. Notwithstanding- that
re prosecutor had thus fulfilled his part of the agreement, be only
received one quarterly payment of the annuity. An by only
Powas subsequently made to set aside the annuity, on the
und that the consideration had not been
properly made ;
the rule obtained for this purpose had been discharged.
th e prosecutor then filed a bill in the Court of Chancery for
Purpose of obtaining an injunction to restrain the defend-
Mt from selling out certain stock which he possessed. The
action would have been granted as a matter of course if
the facts were not denied, and it was in the answer put in by
the defendant to that bill that the alleged perjury was corn-
'flitted. The bill alleged that Hawkins received the full sum
°f 3,5001. That was denied by Hawkins, who stated in his
answer that he bad only received from Mr. Boster three sums,
making in the whole 3471.
Sir JOHN CAMPBELL and Mr. CLARKSON appeared for the
prosecution, and the SOLICITOR- GENERAL and Mr. Huai-
Priazys for the defendant.
The bill filed in the Court of Chancery and the defendant's
liuswer Were put in and read.
William Griffiths, one of the subscribing witnesses to the
acknowledgment, recollected the money being produced, but
could not say whether it had been handed over to the defend.'. ant
Tor not.
he SOLICITOR-GENERAL, for the defendant, contended
that the indictment could not be sustained. The defendant's
answer was perfectly consistent with the fact, which was that
*nlY 3471 had been paid by Boster to bim, and that Boster
had retained the balance and plated it to the defendant's credit.
Lord DENMAN observed that the indictment was not properly.
laid with reference to the answer put in by the defendni, And
the
Not GJury,lty. under his Lordship's direction, returned a verdict of
Guilty.

THE RING V. BIETT.
On
This was In indictment for an assault and false imprisonment.
the 1 ith of January, 1834, Edward John Bath and Wm.
Cooly,',) two Excise officers, accompanied by iin assistant
narced Clarke, having received private information that an
Illicit still was at work, proceeded to a cottage adjoining the
residence of the defendant, who was an inspector of police,
residing in White Hart-lane, Tottenham. The two officers
of over a paling into the defendant's farm-yard, leaving
ularke outside, and asked a man at work if they could they see
Mr. Biett. He directed them to the back door, at which they
knocked, and on Mr. Biett making his appearance they intro-
titteed themselves as Excise officers, and stated that they had
Private information against the adjoining premises, of
which he was the landlord, and asked him what was the
character of the tenants. Biett said they were respectable,
and offered to send for a police force to assist them. This was
declined by the officers, and Bath was about to leave the room
When the defendant caught him by the collar, and told him he
Was in custody. Bath remonstrated with him, and he and
Cooke pulled out their cznrimissions to shew him that they
were excise officers. The defendant said he did not heed a
.bit of dirty parchment, dragged Bath into the yard, and handed
bun over to the custody of the man at work there. He then
brought out a dirk, which he flourished over Bath's head, and
twk Cooke and Clarke, who had joined them, also into ens-
rY• He sent for the police, and he and the servant were
,Priging the officers to the station-house, when they met a po-
'iceman, who was ordered by Bictt to handcuff Bath and
Cooke, which was accordingly done. They were then con-
ducted a distance of two miles to the station house, charged by
Bleu with housebreaking, and locked up. In the evening
they
Were brought before Dr. Robinson, a magistrate, by whom
ue.y. were discharged at half-past eleven at night.
the
he ATTORNEY-GENAAL and Mr. WIGHTMAN appeared for
prosecution.
...Witnesses were examined who proved the above facts.
There was no defence, and the Jury immediately found the
defendant GUilty.
There was another indictment against the defendant, which
Wlti not proceeded with.
ri The ATTORNEY-GENERAL prayed the judgment of the
84
`tirt, and quoted the section of the Act authorizing his Lord-
iP to award judgment during the sittings.
Lord DENMAN said there was a good adeal of violence exhi-
bited b_y the defendant, but evidently he laboured under some
misconception. The sentence of the Court was, that he be
imprisoned in the King's Bench priion for six months ; and had
appeared that the ':zefendant was at all connected with the
Proceedings carrying in the adjoining house, the sentence
Would have bun much heavier.

tXCHEQUER COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

,lIIDOMENT.—DEARA C. TIIE SECRETARY-AT-WAR.
This case came before the Court upon demurrer. The
plaintiff and his father, from the year 1794 to 1797, were the
!gents to two Regiments of the Durnbarton and Lanark
rencible Cavalry. In that capacity Certain accounts passed
between them and the Secretary-at-War, which the plaintiffs
alleged to have been settled a.Dd concluded by certain war-
lants. The defendant contended that the plaintiffs accounts
'Lad not been settled, aura the Attorney-General and the Se-
!hcretary-at-War filed an information against the plaintiffs, for
e purpose of e''.,mpelling them to produce thcir'accounts. The
Mformation 'de...* still depending. The plaintiffs knowing that the
Iliefender:is were in possession of all documents connected with
a t
he a`:.eounts, and that the production of those documents would
eearly'shew that they were all settled, filed a .cross bill
against them, for the purpose of compelling the production of'
those documents. To this bill the defendants put a general-
demurrer which came before the Court for argument some-
time since.
The LORD CHIEF BARON gave judgment this morning, over-
ruling the demurrer, upon the ground that the defendants,
although the demurrer was overruled, would have all the ad-
vantages that they would have upon any equity arising upon
denrzrer.