The Sun.
London, England, 1832-01-16 00:00:00

CRIMINAL INFORMATION.

Sir JAMES SCA KLETT [DOV,Ii to file a criminal
in-
formation against Samuel Harris, Esq., a Magistrat,, f
the county of Pembroke, on account of hi, conduct to-
wards Mr. David Harris. The application was made
upon a variety of affidavits, and the case arose out of the
last election for the county of Pembroke. Previous to
that election Mr. S. Harris wrote to his lan'llo'd, Mr.
John Harris, of Fishguard, the father of Mr David
Harris, and who had considerable landed property, re-
questing him to exert his influence with his tenants to
vote in favour of Mr. Greville, whose cau,e was that of
" the King and Constitution."
Lord TENTERDEN observed there were three perso,,s of
the name of Hai ris.

Sir J. SCARLETT said there were several, but he would
distinguish the.o by their Christian names. Mr. J. Harris
could not vote, being a Custom-house officer, but some of his
tenants voted on the opposite side, and a, ong them was
his son David Harris, upon which Mr. S. Harris declared
he would be revenged upon him. Mr. S. Harris then
issued a summons against Mrs. Harris, David. Harris's
mother, requiring her to appear before him, a distance of
16 miles, (although there was a Petty Sessions only two
miles from her home) to answer a charge of assault upon
some female. Mrs. Harris had made an affidavit, in
which she denied having assaulted that female, but ad-
mitted she had had a few words with her. On going
before Mr. S. Harris, be told her he was determined to
have her son before him for an assault he had committed,
and that he would " put him fast enough for polling at the
last election." He served David Harris with a warrant
for assaulting one Thomas, although D. Harris, by
his affidavit, swore he had committed no assault.
The Learned Counsel then proceeded to enumerate other
circumstances in which Mr. Harris held D. Harris to bail,
once for assaulting Thomas, and another time for inso-
lence to him, Mr. S. Harris, while in the execution of his
duty as Magistrate ; that he gave bail in one case, that of
Thomas, and was committed to prison until the Sessions
upon the other; that at the Sessions he was liberated,
neither Mr. S. Harris nor Thomas appearing to prose-
cute. There were various other circumstances detailed,
and it was sworn that not only was Mr. S. Harris the
judge in his own case, signing the warrant and the com-
mitment, but that he wrote to other Magistrates and Com-
missioners of Taxes to attend the bearing of the charges.
The Court granted a rule to show cause.

EXCHEQUER CHAMBER.-(THIS DAY.)

Mr. Baron BOLLAND sat at nisi Arius in this Court to-
day with Common Juries.
His Lordship was occupied with undefended causes up
to the time when our reporter left.

EXCHEQUER COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

DATCHETT V. WILLIAMS.

The above action was tried before the Loan CHIEF
BARON, at Westminster, at the sitting after last term.
The action was brought by the plaintiff on behalf of the
Provident Insurance Company, to recover the sum of
6,0001. on a-policy of insurance on the life of a gentleman
named Stevenson, entered into between the Directors of
the Provident and those of the Hope Insurance Company.
It appeared on the trial, that Mr. Stevenson being rather
embarrassed in his pecuniary affairs, insured his life with
the plaintiffs for 12,0001. in the early part of 1826. In
the June of the same year the policy which formed the ground
of the present action, was entered into between these parties.
Mr. Stevenson died in France in the year 1829 of a most
loathsome disease, when the Hope refused to pay their
policy on the ground of fraud, they alleging that Mr.
Stevenson was diseased to such a degree as would shorten
life, at the time of effecting the said insurance. An im•
mense deal of evidence was gone into at the trial, great
part of which was very contradictory, but ultimately the
Jury returned a verdict for the defendants.
This morning Mr. ATTORNEY- GENERAL applied for a
rule to shew cause why that verdict should not be set aside
and a new trial had on the ground that the verdict was
against the weight of evidence.
The Court consulted a long time, at last the LORD
CHIEF BARON asked that the depositions on each side
should be handed up to the Court, when they would give
it their serious attention.

BAIL COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

STAFFORD V. JONES.

Mr. FOLLETT opened the case.
Sir J. SCARLETT stated the circumstances, from which
it appeared that the plaintiff, who was a solicitor, was
driving in :his stanhope along Fenchurch-streer, on the
19th January, 1831, when he was met by a cart driven
by the defendant's servant ; the road was very wide, and
there was ample room for the cart to pass, but the carter,
instead of moving on the proper side of the road, drove
against the plaintiff's stanhope, broke the shafts, and other-
wise damaged it. The coachwaker's charge for repairing
it amounted to 131. 95., for which the present action was
brought. _ _ _

When the first witness was called, Mr. KELLY, the de-
fendant's Counsel, offered to allow a verdict against his
client for 121, and the mere costs ~ut of pocket.

Sir J. ScaeLETT said his client wished to take no ad-
vantage, and Le would accept the offer.
His LORDSHIP thought this proceeding very honourable
to both parties.
The Jury then found for the plaintiff.—Damages 121.