The Sun.
London, England, 1835-12-19 00:00:00

THE KING V. LEWIS.

Mr. EaLE (with whom was Mr. BALL,) stated the case.
This was an indictment for perjury, and the facts were
extremely simple. The alleged perjury was committed on
the trial of a cause, "Seymo v. Prince," which was an ac-
tion for the recovery of a sum of 601. Abraham Prince,
the defendant in that cause, and the present prosecutor,
who is known to the public as the proprietor of Prince's
Russian Oil, married a daughter of Lazarus ,Isaacs, the
great diamond merchant in the Strand. Her health became
very delicate after having had a large family, and by the
advice of her medical attendants, a separation took
place. The defendants, Kensington Lewis and Ben-
jamin Seymo, were married to sisters of Prince's
wife, and Prince being in difficulties, a proposal
was made to him by his wife's relations, that he
should consent to a divorce, on payment of a sum
of 401. It was fully arranged that he should receive 601.,
the expenses of the divorce also to be paid by her relations,
and the divorce did take place in March, 1834. Lewis
then paid 511., deducting 91. for the expenses of the di- ,
vorce, although the understanding was, that he should not
he charged with the expenses. Prince was not very well
pleased, and published some statements, the consequence of
which was, that he was arrested at the suit of Seymo for
the 601. so paid him by Lewis, and when the cause came on
for trial, Kensington Lewis swore that the money was only
a loan, and it was for this testimony, which they alleged
was false, and wilfully false, that the present indictment was
preferred.
William Simpson Patteson, solicitor, produced an exa-
mined copy of the cause " Seymo v. Prince I tiraS pre-
sent at the trial. I saw the defendant Lewis in the Wit.
ness-box. He stated, to the best of my recollection, that
(10/. was lent by him to Mr. Prince, by direction of Mr.
'ffeymtn
by Su. F. Pottaii-A tdnk
Cross-examined note of
what the witness Lewis stated. lie Wag IWO e'itartiiria-
He gave a detail of all the circum-
fiat five or tan minutes, and under cross-examinationtOf
the transaction, and they were ex-
snteaanrelyesheanlfnnarotehteodttrwl
tracted on cross-examination For the purpose of showing that
it was a loan. The case was tried on the 18th February.
ant not aware that atiy statement of mine has been taken
down in writing since that period. I cannot swear to any
of the precise vvgrds used by the witness on that occasion.
hoes Itsy-1 was PfMtit at the trial of the cause
" Stynin V. Prince. I recollect the examination of Ken-
fano•ton Letkrill his examination in chief he stated that
the precise words, but that was the substance.lcio not recollect
the money was a loan, and not a „"!ft.
Cross-examined by Mr. PLATT—I am a professor of
music, and have been niOt or nine years acquainted with
Prince's family, I know lie yeungcst daughter, and I be-
lieve I know his
Mr. Low-'her •
eritttloytitent. He is not living with his fat ,
(I'/.;est son ; don't know that he is in
I.
teelieve he is iiVing with Mr. Lewis. I believe the youngest
daughter is with her mel_ler,
took no note of Mr. L
knewewis'
Ihhimave by knownany
other him , forn an sets?e7 s
'osr
s,.
evidence. I recollect his being asked if he was a Jew, and
s
is
be said he wac not., but
that in father Mr. Lewis s
'--Qtreet,
a silversmith, carrying on bit •
since
te.
Abraham Prince—l have been
was married to Miss Jane .ts °-
Isaacs, the diamond
her. I ' •