The Sun.
London, England, 1857-12-24 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIgENCE.—Dec. 23.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
(Sittings at Guildhall, before Lord Campbell and a
Special Jury.)
TEES QUEEN V. BOBINSON-PEItJURY.
At the sitting of the court this morning,
' Mr. Sergeant Byles replied on the part of the
planti ff.
Lord Campbell then summed up the evidence.
It was a case that must create the greatest anxiety
to all who were connected with it, and anxiety al-
most as great to the judge and jury as to the parties
interested. They had to decide a variety of ques-
tions, upon conflicting testimony, which could in no
way be reconciled ; and they were to say whether
there was perjury on one side or the other. The
defendant was indicted for that he committed wil-
ful and corrupt perjury when examined as a witness
in the ecclesiastical court in a divorce suit brought
by Mr. Evans against his wife. There were various
assignments of perjury separate and independent,
which would require their special attention, and he
would ask their opinion severally on the main ques-
tions on which their verdict would ultimately de-
pend. Those questions, which he had reduced to
writing, were these :—First, did an illicit inter-
course take place between the defendant and Miss

Carrington, is a fly, on the road t 3 Charlton, in
February, 1849 ; second, did the defendant speak
in the club at Cheltenham, in 18;5, the words
which were imputed to him respecting tha marriage
of Mr. Evans with Miss Carrington ; third, had the
defendant a latchkey while Mrs. Evans was lodging
in the Edgware-road, in July, 1853 ; fourth, did

the illicit Intercourse take place between the de

fondant and Mrs. Evans, as stated by Mann, iu

August, 1853 ; fifth, did illicit intercourse take
place between the defendant and Mrs. Evans, on
the 4th and sth of July, 1854, while she was
lodging in Bryanston-street. Lastly, did the defen-
dant attempt to tamper with Mrs. King, as

a witness, in August, 1834, before they first
trial, as stated by ber It would be for the

jury to answer those questions of fact. Hap-
pily, by the constitution of this country, ques-
tions such as those, where there was conflicting
testimony, were to be decided by a jury—the best
tribunal for such a purpose that ever was invented
by the wit of man ; and he entreated them, in

ai IA Tering those questions, to be entirely guided by
their own opinions, formed upon the evidence on

both sides, bearing in mind the able discussion it
bad undergone, and the powerful speeches they had
heard by the gentlemen who had addressed them.

It was not his habit to read over the whole of the

from the jury, stating, that if they were confined
till Doomsday they would not agree.
After a pause, his lordship asked if both sides
agreed that the jury should be discharged ?
Mr. James (who appeared for the defence) was
quite content to leave the matter to his lordship.
Mr. Hawkins (in the absence of Mr. Sergeant
Byles, who led the case for the prosecution), said
he was not authorised to consent.

The jury were then sent for by the direction of
Lord Campbell, and came into court at 6 o'clock.
His Lordship explained to them that he bad
framed the six questions in order to avoid puzzling
them with technicalities. If they agreed in finding
them all in the negative that would be a verdict of
not cruilty ; but if they agreed in finding them all
the a°ffirmative that would be a verdict of guilty,
because it would clearly show that the assignment
of perjury was formed. if they found some of them
in the affirmative and others in the negative, they
would tell him so.

The Foreman—We have considered these mat-
ters over, my lord, and we cannot agree.
Second Juror—We cannot agree upon any one of
the questions in the affirmative, but we have found
two of them in the negative.
Lord Campbell—Until you ara all agreed upon
the different questions I must send you back.
Another Juror wished to be furnished with the
indictment. _

Lord Campbell—You may have it, but I think it
will rather embarrass than assist you. I should
have thought 12 intelligent gentlemen would have
had no difficulty in coming to a decision on the six
plain questions of fact which I have submitted to
you. His lordship having re read the questions,
sail they must agree whether the defendant was
guilty of having sworn falsely in regard to any or
all of these matters.

A Juror—lf five agree, my lord, to any one of
these propositions, what will be the effect?
Lord Campbell—lf you agree to any one of them,
then that would be a material assignment of perjury.
The jury again withdrew, taking with them the
depositions as to the conversation at the club. After
they had been absent an hour,
Lord Campbell came again upon the bench, and
stated that he had received a communication from
the jury to this effect "My Lord,—We cannot
agree in the affirmative on any one of the six ques-
tions submitted to us. On the general question,
whether the verdict shall be for the crown or the
defendant, we are about equally divided, and there
is little or no probability of our agreeing." Under
these circumstances (continued his lordship) I of
my own authority, discharge the jury.
Demonstrations of applause followed this an-
nouncement.

Lord Campbell observed that the case would be
tried by another jury, who, he hoped, would be
unanimous one way or the other.

evidence in cases tried before him, because, gene-
rally speaking, that had a tendency rather to per-
plex than assist the jury ; but in a case of this sort
it was his bounden duty to read over the whole
evidence, and to draw their attention to it, and, so
far as he could, to assist them by any observations TICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT.
he might make on its bearing and effect ; and he (Before Vice Chancellor Sir W. P. Wood.)
implored them not to be influenced by any one of BROWNS V. THE LONDON NECROPOLIS AND NATIONAL
those observations unless they entirely concurred MAUSOLEUM COMPANY.
in it. His lordship, in proceeding to deal with the The Vice-Chancellor gave judgment in this case,
first question, said he should have to read, in the which has recently been argued at great length,
first instance, the evidence which went to prove and fully reported in The Suit of December 18 and
undue familiarities between the defendant and Miss 19, and said that the difficulties presented by the
Carrington before her marriage with Mr. Evans. defendants in answer to the bill were twofold—
The learned counsel for the defendant, in the die- Ist, as to the form ; and, 2d, as to the substance
charge of his duty, objected to the reception of of the suit. As to the-form, he had thought that
that evidence. He (Lord Campbell) felt it his duty, there was considerable difficulty in saying that the
without hesitation, to admit it ; and on reflection bill could under any circumstances be sustained.
he was clearly convinced that he was right, because The bill was in effect for specific performance of an
the defendant had sworn in his depositions in the agreement of the Ist of April, 1851, by which Sir
ecclesiaatical court that he never on any occasion, Richard Broun and Mr. Sprye were entitled to re-
either before or after marriage, took indecent liber- ceive c ,nsiderable advantages from the London
ties with Mrs. Evans, and never committed adultery Necropolis Company—the plaintiffs in theasuit do-
with her. If he had not so sworn he should have riving their titles thus :—Sprye mortgaged his
still had no hesitation in admitting evidence of what interest in a sum of money secured by the agree-
took place before marriage, because it was most ment to Thompson, who became bankrupt after
important for the purpose of explaining what took having assigned the mortgage to one Browne, since
place afterwards, and showing the probabilities of deceased, and of whom the plaintiffs were execu-
couffieting testimony, that thy should see on what tors. The sub-mortgagees, therefore, were seeking
footing Miss Carrington and the defendant were specific performance of the agreement, which
prior to the marriage, and what had been the inter- secured certain benefits to the mortgagor, for the
course between them. His lordship then real over purpose of getting their mortgage satisfied. He
the whole evidence in detail. There could be no had not recollected any suit of this description,
blame imputed to Mr. Evans for suspecting that but still it would have been painful to dispose of
that there was an improper intimacy between his the case upon a mere defect of form, while a substan-
wife and Mr. Robinson, because it appeared on the tial point remained to be determined. He was satis-
case for the defendant that though there might not fled, however, from the very able reply of Mr.
have been illicit intercourse, yet that be, a married Cairns, that, though no direct precedent might be
m an, s3parated from. his wife:kept up'an in timacyw th found for such a bill, still, looking at the case of
her, which was unbecoming and improper. There- " Bellamy v. Sabine', (2 Phillips', 425), where pro-
fore Mr. Evans was perfectly justified in employing perty was to be found in the hands of persons whose
all proper means to discover whether any illicit in.- title was miler a purchase, any person an assignee
tercourse had really taken place between the parties. of the vendor, might assert the vendor's rights
The evidence of Mrs. King was open to great sus- under the agreement to purchase, and thus obtain
picion, but they were to say whether, corroborated the benefit of his charge through the medium of
as it was by Mrs. Groeott and Mrs. Price, they specific performance. In a case so circumstanced
could disbelieve it. En regard to the occurrence& the parties in possession having got the very thing
at Bryanstoce-street a :nest important witness for contracted for, and obtained the benefit of the con-
the defence would have been Ellen Davis, Mrs. tract, effective justice might be done by the Court.
Evan2a maid, who must have known all Mr. Robit- He had in the course of the argument taken the
son's movements, but also had not been called, avid precaution of obtaining from Sir Richard Broun
no excuse had bten offered f,r her absence. - The and Sprye an undertaking to be found by the de-
learned judge dismissed the evidence for the prose- cree to be made in this "suit, and thus he considered
cution, by saying, if they believed it, adultery had himself in a position to adjudicate upon the merits.
clearly been established, but they would consider Then it was to be considered how far the company
the great improbability of some of the allegations, were bound by the agreement of April, 1851, so
On the part of the deem?, Mr?. Evans herseT was that Sir Richard Broun and Sprye could obtain the
called, and if she was to be believed the case for the full benefit of their lien arising und,rthat argument
prosecution fell to the ground. Both she and Mr. independently of the act of 1852, incorporating the
Robinson, of course, knew the truth. There seemed company ; further, how far the difficulties as to the
to be a notion that any act of this sort might be agreement hadbeen removed.ornot bythe act. Upon
denied by the parties who committed it. He hoped the demurrer by the company to the bill filed by Sir
no such opinion was generally entertained. The Richard Broun to enforce this agreement the diffi-
denial of the act was only an aggravation of the sin culties were many and serious, but he then thought
committed, by adding perjury to unchastity. But that the saving clause is the act of 1852 removed
they would saywhetheriVlrs. Evans was toba beiieved the difficulties (upon the case as made by the bill(,
or not. He wished to cast no reflection on the memory and. that Sir R. Broun might be entitled to relief at
of Mr. Carrington; but he thought it much to be la- the hearing. He had according overruled the de-
mented that he hid so incautiously allowed Lis murrer. What, then, were the specific infirmities
daughter to remain in the company of the defendant. attaching to the agreement, independen.ly of the
Mrs. Evans categorically denied all the charges act of 1852 1 He entirely rejected the Attorney-
which had been made against her. He owned be General's theory, that all the parties to the agree-
would aye had a better opinion of her evidence if ment must be regerded ascombininginonegreat con-
she had admitted the familiarities which took place spiracy for the purpose of defraudiugthose who were
at Miss Maxwell's and at her father's house, and afterwards to become shareholders in the company,
were not venial or grossly improper. They were and that the apparent discrepancy and conflict of in-
deposed to by Mrs. Griffiths and by Crash, the 'bat- terests between the contracting parties was fur the
man, who seemed to have no inducement to tell an purpose of beguiling the world into the belief that
untruth ; and,if tire jury believed them, Mrs. Evans they were filling the relative positions of vendor
had stated an untruth with regard to matters abut and purchaser. He did not think that this was the
which no reasonable doubt could be entertained ; case. In 1849 the idea, which was certainly a very
and if she was determined to deny everything happy one, suggested itself to Sir R. Broun and
which cast the slightest imputation upon her cha- Mr. Sprye of forming a general cemetery at a con-
racter, that circumstance shook her testimony its a veuient distance from the metropolis, this being at
considerable degree when she came to speak of a time when the question of intramural interment
more serious matters. His lordship then went was much discussed. He could not think that the
carefully over the evidence for the defence which motion was of small importance, or other than one
went to prove an alibi in regard to the 4th and sth of great value and ingenuity. A correspondence
of July, 1854, when it was supposed the defendant was entered into Lord Onslow, the owner of
committed acts of adultery. If there was merely the Woking property, by which Broun and Sprye
conflicting evidence, it was for the jury to say on purported to treat with him for the purchase of the
which side the truth lay ; but it might be that the land for a company hereafter to be formed, no com-
balance was so nice that they could not safely form pang being either formed or registered at that
a conclusion, and if any reasonable doubt existed in period. Certain t. rens were proposed, including
(their mind the accused party was entitled to the the het editary presa'ency of the company to the
benefit of that doubt ; but at the same time if there Earldom of Onslow, and the erection of a chapel
wee no reason to doubt, the jury would do their t for his family, asea The correspondence, however,
duty, and the law would be enforced. His lord- merely amounted to an expression of Lord Onslow's
ship thou handed to the jury a paper containing the readiness, as soon as a company should be formed,
questions in writing, to enter into an agreement for a sale of the land.
The jury expressed. a desire to have the letter Contract binding upon him there was none, there
which Mr. Evaus wrote to his wife at the time of being no one with whom he could then contract.
the separation. Brouu and Sprye, however, might be said to have
Lord Campbell said he had not taken any notice secured the " go( d-will" of this sort of treaty with
of that letter, as the terms on which they parted Lord Ouslow. On the sth of February, 1850, the
did not seem to him material in regard to what company was provisionally rogistered. His Honour
followed afterwards between the defendant and then detailed at great length the proceedings inter-
Mrs. Evans ; but they were quite right in asking vening between that period and December, 1850.
for that or any other document which they might At that time an agreement between the four pro-
themselves consider material. visional trustees and Broun and Sprye, for the pur-
The jury then retired at twenty-five minutes past chase of their interest in the contract or neg stia-
three. Shortly afterwards the foreman returned tion with Lend Onslow, in their negotiations with
and asked Lord Campbell whether he had written the South-Western Railway, and with the com-
the questions simply fur their guidance as to the moners of the manor of Woking, and generally in
material points, cr whether he wished them to the pre ject,- was in course of arrangement. Lord
answer each question ? Onslow, by his solicitor, moat clearly and
Lord Campbell thought it would be more satis- unequivocally at this plied repudiated
factory and proper to give an answer to each of everything connected with the former nego-
tae six. tiations with Broun and Sprye, and declin-
The Foreman—Absolua ly. el, in peremptory tsrms, to enter into any
Lord Campbell—l think the case cannot be pro- contr :et with there. It apt eared clear that tire four
p. rly disposed of unless you do so. provisional trustees concluded their contract with
Tee Foreman then retire I. Broun and Sprye after full notice that Lor I Ouslow
BRITISH BANK PROSECUTION. had repudiated all negotiations with them, and if
During the absence of the jury, they had been acting merely as individuals, and not
Load Campbell intimated to the bar taat in the on behalf of a company, ho should have no hosita-
e ase, of the prosecution against the directors of the tioniu enfor&ng the compact entered into iu Des.
os)Yel British Bank, he had fixed the trial t I begin 1850, against them. It was important to the posi-
ltpr. first day of the sittings after Hilary Term. tion of Sprye that he knew they were acting as
James said thatwould be very convenient, directors of the company and as trustees of the f
Mr.NEWS FROM LUCKNOW. money to be raised from the futu o shareholders.
NEWS FROM
handed up to his lordship a He ought to hive been very guarded in all his
import knte and
interest
was of considerable dealings with them, treating as he we.s for the pav_Lor Calupbell, h •
went to himseli of trust moneys. 13 tile
'in.,' read the document, said, proposed agreement, with the recitele only, was
as it gave imperaanaaawaic
scieformation, he would read, to which the boa, dat ached their signatur.s
request the associate to road
for the benefit of the in token of adhesion. These recitals were very pe-
peisiorr.is preseCampbell,nt
thc, associate, enae, culiar. (His Honour referred at ere ale-teeth to these
see esseraes,
emphatic mann(r, t 1 read, in an recitals, which datiuctly represented that Broun
unouncur, the and ,Sprye Lad entered into contract with Lord
relief of Lucknow by Sir Colin °anrelseli,
a le,
received with two loud bursts of appluu:e Wti; Onslow for the purchase of his livid, and that they
spectators, the court at the time being
aensel would ve,ll and effectually pet feet this contract at
the verdict in it own costs and charges.) In the agreement of
crowded in anticipation of
Pte. Dec. 18, which contained these recitals, was an
with that
ceding case being returned every minute.
express and expliCit covenant by Brow". and Sprye
Lord Cambell said he found no faultthat timh
ee
two.uld at their own expense perfect their
ebullition of joy at the happy news which had thus
with Lord Ouslow. by which the land
been received, but he trusted that now all perawa veinal pass to the coin any. This aet cement was to
of April 1
which
e allbt to alteration on technical grounds by
would conduct themselves with the propriety
so letter ' The alteration, however, which
a court of justice required. Spry(,),, .
su bsequentay to.olpBlsalc,e,andia_ppearad in the agree-
Silence was then immediately observed.
, as
it
weeonU. 9.0 nt oht ba described as
Lord Campbell remained on the bench a consider- ment
able time waiting for the return of the jury, and merely teehuicaa
e very root of the
then retired into his private room. At a quarter matter. To revere eoweet t
ver--on Dec.. 17 the four
to six he came into Court, and said ho had a message provisional trustees plulaQ,l
neoet improper rts lu-