The Sun.
London, England, 1861-02-01 00:00:00

SMITH V. SMITH.

Mr. A. Staveley Hill appeared for the petitioner.
Henry Smith, the petitioner, is an omnibus
driver, and he was married to the respondent, then
Elizabeth Guthrie, at St. Pancras Church, in
February, 1848, They lived together in different
parts of London until 1854. In the June of that
year Mrs. Smith left the petitioner's house, and
took lodgings under a false name in another part of
the town. She there received the visits of several
gentlemen. On one occasion the landlady discovered
that she had allowed a gentleman to pass the night
with her, and immediately sent her out of the
house. _ _ _ _

Decree nist granted for the dissolution of the
marriage.

STRETTON T. STRETTON.

Mr. F. H. Lewis appeared for the petitioner.
The marriage in this case took place in March,
1854, and the cohabitation continued until the
middle of 1857. The petitioner was a pork butcher
in Lambeth. The respondent was a woman of
drunken and dissipated habits, and it was proved
that since the Reparation she had led a life of pro-
stitution.

Decree nisi granted, dissolving the marriage.

CENnIAL CRIMINAL COURT.—Jan. 31.

OLD COURT.
(3efore the Recorder.)
Henry Hart, an elderly man, who was stated to
be an attorney, was indicted for wilful and corrupt
perjury.
Mr. Ernest Tones conducted the prosecution ;
and Mr. Sleigh and Mr. Taylor were counsel for
the defendant.

The prosecutor in this ease Was Mr. Merton, the
landlord of the Castle publichouse, in Portugal-
street, Lincoln's-inn-fields, and the charge against
the defendant was preferred under the following
circumstances :—lt seemed that he carried on his
profession in the neighbourhood of the prosecutof, §
house, and that he was in the habit of frequenting
the Castle, and was on somewhat friendly terms
with Mr. Merton. In October Mr. Merton had re-
ceived a bill for £23 10s. from a lodger who was
indebted to him, and a few days before it became
due the defendant asked him to let him have pos-
session of the bill, no doubt with the object that,
in the event of its being dishonoured, he might
take legal proceedings, and obtain the professional
costs to which he would be entitled. The prose-
cutor consented, and the defendant handed him
£23 75., the sum of 3s. being kept for his expenses
in going to the city to present the bill, and there
was an understanding between them that if the
bill was paid Mr. Merton was to keep the money
the defendant had given him % and if it was not that
then the money was to be returned, and the defen-
dant was to take legal proceedings upon the bill.
When the bill was presented it was dishonoured,
and on the following day the defendant went to
Mr: Merton's, and he gave him back the money he
had received from him, and the defendant gave him
a paper indemnifying him from all legal liability
for costs in any proceedings that might be taken
upon the bill, and the defendant also gave him a
receipt for the sum of £23 10s. The prosecutor,
after this, heard nothing more of the matter until
the present month, when, to his surprise, he re-
ceived a summons to attend at the Westminster
County Court, to show cause why he should
not pay the defendant the sum of £3 10s., which
he claimed as the balance of the sum of £23
10s. which he bad received from the defen-
dant under the circumstances above stated.
The matter came on in due course for hearing at
the County Court, and the defendant then swore
that Mr. Merton only paid him £2O, and that this
was done about three weeks before the summons
was issued, and not in the month of October, when
the bill was dishonoured ; and, with regard to the
receipt, he admitted that the signature was in his
handwriting, but he swore that he could not account
for Mr. Merton having possession of it in any other
way than that he had stolen it from his office. The
result of the hearing at the County Court was that
the present defendant was non-suited, or rather a
verdict was given in favour of Mr. Merton, and the
present charge was immediately preferred against
the defendant.

The above facts were clearly proved by Mr. Mer-
ton, who produced the documents referred to, and
his evidence was materially confirmed by his sister,
Miss Emma Merton. The prosecutor was cross-
examined at some length by Mr. Sleigh, but nothing
whatever was elicited that in the slightest degree
tended to affect his testimony.
Mr. Sleigh, in his address to the jury, said it was
a very painful thing to see an old man, verging, as
he was informed, upon 70, and who was also an
attorney, and whose was at present upon the rolls
of one of her Majesty's courts of law, standing at
the bar of a Criminal Court charged with so seri-
ous a crime as wilful and corrupt perjury, and he
said he felt assured that the jury would not convict
him cf that offence unless upon the most clear and
positive evidence. The learned counsel then called
their attention to the facts of the case, and urged
that it was possible that the defendant, being old
and decrepit, might have forgotten the real facts
of the matter, and that he had not wilfully sworn
to what was false. -

The Recorder having summed up the evidence,
the jury immediately returned a verdict of Guilty.
When the verdict had been delivered his Lordship
inquired the age of the defendant.
Mr. Sleigh said that he was informed that he was
72. He was also instructed to state that his mental
faculties were very much impaired by his age and
infirmities.

The Recorder said he could not listen to a mere
statement of this kind. There should be some evi-
dence, if the fact was as stated.
Mr. Ernest Jones said he thought it right to in-
form the Court that the prosecution had been insti-
tuted by the direction of the Judge of the County
Court, who was well acquainted with all the facts.

The Recorder then addressed the defendant, and
said that he had been convicted of an offence of the
most serious description upon evidence that was
perfectly satisfactory to the Court, and which left
no doubt that he had committed the crime of wil-
ful and corrupt perjury by deliberately swearing
that which he knew to be false in order to enforce
an unjust claim for 70s. His offence was greatly
aggravated by his position as an attorney of one of
the superior courts of law, whose duty it was to
assist the administration of justice, but instead of
doing so he had endeavoured to poison it at its very
source by the commission of this offence. Nothing
but his age prevented him from passing upon him a
sentence of penal servitude, which undoubtedly,
under ordinary circumstances, would be inflicted for
an offence of this character, and he should also take
into consideration that he would undoubtedly re-
ceive another punishment, by not being permitted
to remain upon the, roll of attorneys for another in-
stant after this conviction. Taking these facts into
consideration, and also his great age, he should re-
frain from passing upon him a sentence of penal
servitude, but his offence was a very serious one,
and he felt called upon to pass a severe sentence.
He then ordered the defendant to be imprisoned
and kept to hard labour for 12 months.

NEW COURT.
(Before the Common Sergeant.)
John Jelf, 32, labourer; John Percival, 30,
labourer ; John Preece, and Robert M'Gregor (the
latter two had been out on bail), were indicted,
Preece, Jelf, and Percival with stealing 511 b. of
metal, value £2, and M‘Gregor with receiving the
same, knowing it to have been stolen.
The ease, which occupied the Court the entire
day, and lasted until late in the evening, did not