The Sun.
London, England, 1835-11-12 00:00:00

VICE-CHANCERY.—Tins DAY.

IN THE MATTER OF THE PRISONERS IN THE FLEET
in
.
coming
to
His Honour the VICE-CHANCELLOR, on cong
Court this morning, stated that the Bar would ct
recolle,
about a fortnight ago, a man and a woman had been corc:
mitted by him to the Fleet prison for contempt. He hat°
this morning seen Mr. Brown, the Warden of the Fle,'
who had stated to him that those persons, together wit'' ,
several other prisoners in the Fleet, were in the greatest
state of destitution. His Honour was surprised to hear
this, as by the Act, giving the power to the Court to comfol
persons to the Fleet, it was provided by the 7th rule tote,
15th section, that one of the Masters of the Court shoe
visit the Fleet on the 30th of March, the 30th of Julle,
the 30th of September, and the 30th of Deer saber.
,d
On inquiring of Mr. Brown, whether any Masters vlsi •:„
the Fleet, his Honour was answered by that geatlemail
the negative. • • (1.•
His HONOUR was sure this had happened through Ina
at
vertenee ; and he mentioned it publicly now, in order t
in future one of the Masters might visit the prison, t tag,
o
certain the wants and condition of the prisoners comroitto
there by the Court.

INJUNCTION.
THE EARL OF FALMOUTH AND OTHERS V. ALDEDSOS,,,
• Mr. KNIGHT applied this morning in this case ex Pall
for an injunction to restrain the defendant from worhl
.
tin mines in Cornwall. The Noble Plaintiff being entitle,
as Lord of the Manor to the waste of Tregare, groteat
a set of mines to the other plaintiffs, who up to the date,
the disturbance of which they complained, had been in tb°
actual working of the mines. On the last day of Septett'i
ber persons acting under the direction of the defendant,
forcible possession of the mines, turned out the 001
men of the plaintiff, and were at the present moment, asef
was sworn, working the mines in a wasteful and imPrtg,l3l,
manner, and against the custom of the county of Corn`,
It was also sworn by the affidavits on behalf of the plain.tlit;
that the defendant had been a bankrupt in 182.5 ; th'
1830 he went through the Insolvent Debtor's Court, ar' t
that it was believed- he was insolvent at the present motion
His HONOUR immediately granted the injunction.

KING'S BENCH-THIS DAY•

BRIBERY AT THE LAST CAMBRIDGE ELECTION•

THE KING V. CANHAM.
• .

commit

This was an indictment for an alleged attempt to be
bribery, by the defendant, a journeyman bookseller, at '0
last Election for the Borough of Cambridge. The cBO3,
was tried before Lord Chief Justice Denman, at the C'de.
bridge Summer Assizes, and the defendant offered n°.
fence, permitting a plea of guilty to be recorded gall'

himself. ell
Affidavits in mitigation and aggravation having 'e
put in and read, .4r
Mr. BYLES addressed the Court in mitigation of pioro.
ment, stating that the defendant had been previously P;,(1
scented for a similar offence at the same election, 0,
penalties to the amount of 5001. recovered against bittij
A writ of capias ad sat. was issued ; he was arre!ree
and thrown into gaol, where he remained for t"oe
months, and was ultimately discharged on application t° coo
Insolvent Court. There was no allegation that any P,e„r'rt,
had been actually bribed in the case before the td'i,c.
The offence' alleged was committed in the heat of an eco
tion ; and as the defendant had a wife and five childrrts
depending upon him for support, he prayed that the Criir
in consideration of this, . and the previous punishnle°'
flicted upon him, would deal lightly with rjo ert
Mr. ANDREWS and Mr. GUNNING addressed the -
on behalf of the prosecution. There were fourteen c°°,,,f,
in the indictment, charging the defendant with havitlfiess
fered sums of five and ten pounds, and goods, to 11° for
than nine different persons, to induce them to vote ,
James Lewis Knight, one of the canditates. inc cireti°
105
stance of the defendant having offered no defenCe, it tot
contended, was no mitigation of his crime, as that had.o
been done until the case had come into Court, and 311,1
id
expenses of the prosecution had been incurred ; 3n7yis
only object could have been, to prevent the details
offence being- made public. 101'
'3 . idant 115'

Mr. Justice ParrEsciq addressed the defendam the
lows :—Robert Canham, you have been convicted at ,ith
Cambridge Assizes upon an indictment, charging you
attempting, by bribes, to induce persons corruptly trt,,r
their votes, at a contested election for the borough of v;id
bridge. The indictment charges you—first, after
that a writ had been issued for the election of twei "05
gesses for the borough of Cambridge, and that Mr. l'eejoire
Knight was a candidate on that occasion, that you, bot
the election, and while it was expected to come on, intel',,e-ot
wickedly and corruptly, as much as in you lay, to Pre',ll,
a fair and indifferent election of burgesses for said boroueo
and by illegal and corrupt means to procure James Ile of
Knight to be elected, did offer to Joseph Macbie a glfltler
51. to vote for the said James Lewis Knight. The °-
counts charge you with attempting, by offers of mon<o
goods, to induce a person named Clarke, and other Perol
named Stevens, White, Ison, Bunting, Hall, GodfrePtriolp
Watts, to vote for the said James L. Knight. On thjorill
you offered no defence, thereby admitting that you bau cot,
mitted those various offences. It is unnecessary to go jetooio
details of the 'case ; but it is quite clear, that any Oe, of
to prevent a fair and indifferent election of Wolf —tllo
Parliament is a very serious offence, and one
Court cannot pass over lightly. It has been alleged' 40
Ligation, that the expressions used by you were mere ri;
words, and that you had no intention to commit briy
but the Court cannot put that interpretation 00
Another excuse is, that you are in a low situation e'
and that penalties to the amount of 5001. have beeo pre'
viously recovered against you, under the 2d Go9llfletitel
Second. As that action may be taken as having no.l-cierr,
in the same transaction, the Court will take into con
tion the punishment you then suffered. It is furthertbe
m
in your behalf, that these offences were comitted.lolo°
heat of an election canvas ; but that cannot weigh'i 40'
Court, as the same excuse might be alleged for eyed; oe"
lar offence, nor is it any mitigation that no money sTs3tioo
tually tendered or received. Taking into consicler,bich
what you have already suffered, and the disabilities to of the
your conviction has subjected you, the sentence °bridge
Court is, that you be imprisoned in the gaol of C311,,,150
for three calendar months, and, in the meantime, trep
remain in the custody of the Marshal of the Marsha
The defendant was then removed in custody.