The Sun.
London, England, 1859-02-26 00:00:00

POLICE IYTELLIG.ENCE.—Feb. 25.

GUILDHALL.—George Bush, described as an attor-
ney's clerk, residing at Bishop's Stortford, Hertfordshire,
was charged with wilful and corrupt perjury, alleged to
have been committed in an action tried before Mr Justice
Erle, in the Court of Queen's Bench, Guildhall.
Mr. Sleigh appeared for the prosecution ; and Mr. Ro-
binson for the defence.
It appeared from the evidence of several witnesses that in
1856 a Mr. Hawkins let a house in Bishops Stortford to a
Mr. Wisby, and in the presence of Mr. Smith, a builder,
and the prosecutor in these proceedings, agreed to allow
Mr. Wisby £5O towards the repairs and. alterations Mr.
Wisby contemplated making, and the amount was to be
paid to Mr. Smith, who was employed to do the work, out
of the rent, which amounted to XlB a-year, an arrangement
which Mr. Smith acceded to. The work was finished, and
upon application being made by Mr. Smith to Mr. Wisby
for £94, the amount for the repairs, that person denied his
liability, and then upon the advice of Mr. Leigh, an attor-
ney of Bishops Stortford, he proceeded against Mr. Haw-
kins, who at once paid the sum of £5O into Mr. Leigh's
hands, alleging that was the extent of his liability. Under
these circumstances Mr. Smith sued Mr. Wisby for the ba-
lance, and on the trial, which took place before Mr. Justice
Erle, Mr. Smith's books were produced to show that he had
entered Mr. Wisby as the responsible person with Mr.
Hawkins. The defendant, Bush, was in the employ of
Mr. Leigh, who at that time was acting for Mr. Wisby,
and he (Bush) was examined with reference to those books,
when he stated that on the 27th November, 1857, he
called, by Mr. Leigh's direction, upon Mr. Smith, to in-
quire the amount of his claim against Mr. Hawkins, and
on that occasion he examined the books, and observed that
the pages were blank at the headings, and that the name of
Wisby was not entered in any way in connection with the
work in question. Upon this evidence Mr. Justice Erlo
suggested, as the jury could not agree, that a juror should '
be withdrawn, and afterwards directed a stet processus to
issue. Under these circumstances Mr. Smith commenced
the present proceedings to relieve himself from the odium
attached to him in consequence of the result of that trial,
and on being sworn declared that the books produced were
in precisely the same state as they were at the trial, and at
the time the defendant alleged he had examined them that
the name of Wisby appeared, not only upon the heads of
the different folios containing the account of that work, but
that the index contained the nams of Wisby and Hawkins
under the letter " W," while there was no entry of either
name under letter. " H," and further that on no occasion
had the defendant either looked into or examined his books
until he was put into the witness-box and examined at the
trial. Mr. Smith, jun., gave similar testimony, denying
the defendant's examination of his father's books, and a Mr.
Brazier said he had been in the habit of being associated in
business with Mr. Smith for years, and in Feb., 1857, he
had occasion to go through the books with Mr. Smith in
reference to some work, and he observed that the books
were then in the exact state in which they now appeared
with regard to the name of Wisby in the headings and
indices.

Mr. Smith, sen., admitted that the defendant called upon
him on the 27th of November, 1857, in reference to the
account of another person that Mr. Leigh had received in-
structions to sue, but he did not examine the books.

Mr. Summers, an auctioneer, said he examined Mr.
Smith's books some time in October or November, 1867,
for the purpose of making a valuation of the work, and he
was prepared to swear it was his firm belief the name of
Wisby was on the head of the folios, and that he found out
the names by.referring to the index for them. This witness
said he was examined as a witness at the trial by Serjeant
Parry, but he never asked him a single question as to the
state of the books. r
Mr. Sleigh said this was the evidence for the prosecu-
tion' and if the magistrate thought that a prima facie case
had been made out, he would ask him to hold the defendant
to bail to answer this charge at the Old Bailey.
Mr. Robinson said if the defendant was mistaken as to
the state of the book when he gave his evidence, there was
not the slightest ground for imputing wilful and corrupt
perjury to him on that account, particularly after the course
adopted by Mr. Justice Erle upon the trial.
Sir F. G. Moon said there was, in his opinion, a strong
prima facie case to go to a jury, as he believed the state-
ments of Mr. Smith, and the witnesses for the prosecution
were honestly given. If the defendant wished for an ad-
journment he would grant it; if not, he was prepared to
commit the case for trial.

The defendant was, after some discussion, committed for
trial, and held to bail in one surety in ,t 0) and his own re-
cognisance in a similar account.

CHARGE AGAINST THE MASTER OF
THE VINE HOUNDS.

Yesterday (Friday) Mr. Thomas Marsh, master of the
Vine Hounds, was summoned before the bench of magi-
strates at the Kingsclere petty sessions, Mr. Melville
Portal in the chair, charged with causing and procuring a
fox to be cruelly ill-treated and tortured, on the morning
of Sunday, the 30th of January last, contrary to the pro-
visions of the 12th and 13th Victoria, cap. 92.
The prosecution was instituted by the Society for the
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, in whose behalf Mr.
Cave, solieitor, of Newbury, and Mr Middleton, the secre-
tary of the society, were in attendance.

From the evidence of William Searle, head-whip in the
service of the defendant, it appeared that on Saturday, the
29th of January, a fox was run to ground near Kingsclere.
It was dug out and brought to the kennels, when the master
ordered it to be chained up in the dairy. On the following
morning (Sunday), about 20 minutes More 8 o'clock, Mr.
Marsh came into the dairy, and told witness and the under-
whip to take the fox, and cut its left hind leg off. They took
hold of the fox, and Mr. Marsh asked the whip which leg
would be best to cut off. Witness said in reply, "We had
better cut the fore leg off." Witness, with the assistance of
the under-whip, cut one of its fore legs off, just above the
first joint, the under-whip holding the fox by his ears while
it was done. Mr. Marsh stood by watching him, and said,
"You had better injure another leg, to prevent its getting
away." Witness did not injure another leg, but put the
fox into a sack by his master's orders, and took it to Mr.
Taplin's, Rough Bank, a short distance off. His master
followed him to the place, accompanied by the under-whip,
both on horseback and wearing scarlet coats, and 26 couples
of hounds. After dragging the fox a little way in the sack
ho let it out. The poor creature at first would not run, but
after having been hit with the sack, it ran round several
times, and then started off, and ran about 200 yards, the
dogs after it, and the master taking the lead on horseback.
The fox went dreadfully lame, and the hounds immediately
ran into it and killed it. Witness cut off the brush and
gave it to his master.
Mr. Marsh, who conducted his own defence, cross- exa-
mined the witness, but did not shake his testimony on the
material points. He stated, however, that Mr. Marsh had
told him on the 31st of January he might leave if he liked,
but had not discharged him until Thursday evening, at
nine o'clock, the day before the hearing.
Several other witnesses were examined, and corroborated
the above statement.
Mr. Marsh, in defence, admitted that he had given orders
to turn the fox out on Sunday morning, but most positively
denied having given any orders to the head-whip to maim
the fox in any way. He could most solemnly swear that
although he was a great enemy of foxes, yet he had never in
his life caused a fox to be maimed, and it was not likely
he should do so at his age. He regretted the fox had been
turned out before the hounds on a Sunday morning, but it
was done without a thought.
The under-whip was called, who said that he had never
heard his master give any instructions to the head-whip to
cut off the fox's leg.

bench retired for a few minutes, and on their return
the Chairman said they had fully considered the evidence
in all its bearings, and although they could come to no
other conclusion than that a gross cruelty had been perpe-
trated, as well as an outrage to public decency and public
morality in the defendant taking his hounds out on a Sun-