The Sun.
London, England, 1844-07-26 00:00:00

POOR-LAW.

The order of the day for the further consideration of
the Poor-law Amendment Bill was then read.

Sir J. GRAHAM proposed certain verbal alterations
in several clauses, which were agreed to. _ _

Captain PECHELL moved tit° omission of clause 11,
which placed parish apprentices under the control of the
Poor-law Commissioners. lie considered the whole
clause was totally inapplicable to the sea service. The
clause was not only looked upon as an interference by
boards of guardians, but by the mercantile service.
Sir JA HES GRAHAM said that the clause had
been, fully considered and discussed on a former occa-
sion, and he could not, therefore, consent to its omis-
sion. The clause was not intended to apply to merchant
seamen apprentices. It was intended to introduce a
Seamer,s Service Amendment Act, which would con-
tain a clause that would altogether supersede this clause,
so that the Gallant Officer need not entertain any ap-
prehension of the interference of the Poor-law Commis-
sioners. He hoped the House would adhere to the
opinion of the Committee, and not allow the clause to
be admitted.,
Mr. WAKLEY considered the clause about the best
in the Bill. It was inserted, he was convinced, from
feelings of humanity, and all he was afraid of was, that
it did not go far enough. The clause was a most ame-
liorating clause, and one for which Ministers ought to
receive the commendation of that side of the House, and
not their opposition. He trusted the House would re-
tain the clause, under the conviction that something
more would be done for a class of persons who were the
most ill-used in the empire.
Captain PECHELL then withdrew his amendment
without a division. The Gallant Member then pro-
posed a proviso to the effect that the Act should not apply
to poor persons bound to the sea service, or interfere
with the Merchant Seamens Act.
Sir J. GRAHAM would consent to the proviso as far
as it related to the non-interference with the Merchant
Seamens Act.
The proviso, as amended, was then agreed to.
Sir J. GRAHAM then proposed certain verbal
amendments in clause 26. The words in that clause
were so wide, that they might lead to abuse. The altera-
tion he proposed had met with the sanction of his Hon.
Friend the Member for Norfolk.

The clause, as amended, was then agreed to.
Mr. WAKLEY should like to see the clause in print
before he decided on it, and asked when the Bill would
be read a third time ?
Sir J. GRAHAM said the Bill would be read a third
time to-morrow ; but if there should be any doubt on the
matter, he was ready to lay the clause on the table in
order that it should be printed and in the hands of Hon.
Members before it passed. The clause had the full con-
currence of the Hon. Member for Norfolk.
Mr. WAKLEY implicitly believed that the Right.
Hon. Gentleman fully intended to give effect to the
clause, but he was not sure that, as altered, it would be
sufficient for the purpose. If the Right Hon. Gentleman
would assure shim of that fact, he would not say another
word on the matter.

Sir J. GRAHAM said the clause, as worded by the
Hon. Member for Norfolk, would have been wholly in-
operative, and for that reason alone he had altered it.
He suggested that, perhaps, it would be better he should
have the clause printed to-night, and placed in the hands
of Hon. Members, and any objections to it might be
urged to-morrow.

The words were then inserted pro forma,' and agreed
to the clause to be passed to-morrow.
Mr. HAWES then moved the addition of a clause
regulating the power of the Commissioners with respect
to the payment of disputed accounts. As there was
some difficulty in wording the clause, the Hon. Member,
after some conversation, withdrew it, in order to move
it in an amended form on the third reading.
Captain PECHELL then moved the insertion of the
following clause :—" Provided always, that when the
relief of the poor has been hitherto administered in any
parish or parishes by guardians or directors appointed
under a local Act, and not by overseers of the poor, if
such parish or parishes according to the last enumeration
of the population, published by authority of Parlitur sat,
contain more than 20,000 persons, it shall not be lawful
to include such parish or parishes in any such district
for the audit of accounts ; and in every such parish or
parishes, provided such parish or parishes have not at
present auditors elected under the provisions of an Act
passed in the second year of the reign of King William
the Fourth, intituled, An Act for the better re-,
gulation of Vestries, and the appointment of Au-
ditors of Accounts in certain parishes of England and
Wales,' the ratepayers thereof shall, within forty days
after the passing of the Act, proceed to elect in vestry
some one person who shall thenceforward act as sole
auditor of all accounts whatsoever of any guardians or
directors, vestrymen, or other officers or boards having
any control over any part of the parochial expenditure
of such parish or parishes relating to the poor, and they
shall fix a salary to be paid to such auditor out of the
poor-rate of such parish or parishes, and such auditor .
shall continue in office until he be dismissed by the
guardians or directors • and every auditor so appointed
shall exercise and fulfil, with regard to all the accounts
of such parish or parishes, all rights, powers, and duties
to be exercised and fulfilled by auditors to be appointed
under the authority of this Act ; provided also, that
the accounts of such parish or parishes shall be audited
once, at least, in every six months (that is to say), after
the 25th day of March and the 20th day of September,
in every year, after due notice given in the manner
hereinbefore provided."
Lord A. HERVEY seconded the clause. He did not
want to deprive the Commissioners of the powers which
they now possessed, but he hoped he would not be ac-
cused of factious opposition if he resisted the extension
of their power. The effect of the audit clause in the pre-
sent Bill was to deprive all populous parishes governed
by local Acts from having the control of their own ac-
counts. This would entirely annihilate the independence
of those places which were governed by local Acts.
There was nothing in the mode in which those places
under local Acts were governed to justify the Committee
in depriving them of the control over their accounts. He
knew this was the case in the place he had the honour of
representing. He trusted that the Right Hon. Baronet
would alter his opinion on this subject while there was
yet time.—(Hear, hear.)
Sir J. GRAHAM said that he could scarcely regret
the renewal of this discussion, since it afforded them the
opportunity of listening to the excellent speech of his
Noble Friend. But he could not, after fully considering
the subject, agree to the proposition of the Hon. and
Gallant Member, which was so well supported by his
noble colleague. Both the Hon. Members for Brighton
referred to the excellent way in which the accounts of
the town of Brighton were managed. He was placed in
a cross fire between them, but it did so happen that he
had an account of a meeting, held in Brighton on the
21st, in which, on Mr. Holford, who had been auditor,
made a speech. He did not know to what party Mr. Hol-
ford belonged; but that gentleman,in his speech, said that
there were a great many items in the accounts which
were unauthorised by law ; that the expenses of getting
up meetings and petitions were paid out of the rates ;
that on one occasion 501. had been raised to pay certain
expenses of going to Court—(Laughter)—and that he
knew hundreds and thousands had gone through their
hands for matters which he was certain were illegal.
It was not enough that the ratepayers should have the
power of appointing an auditor, the question was who
should have the power of dismissing him ? He hoped
the House would confirm the decision to which it had
already come, by a large majority.
Mr.:WILLIAMS regretted that the Right Hon. Ba-
ronet had expressed his intention to stand by the Bill in
its present shape. The great objection to the Govern-
ment clause was, that it introduced an officer into
parishes to be paid out of the rates, at the discretion of
the Poor-law Commissioners.
Mr. DARBY opposed the clause.
Mr. MUNTZ supported the clause. He did not know
any one who could be so safely intrusted with this mat-
ter as the ratepayers themselves.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For Captain Pechell's clause
Against it
Majority against the clause —42
Captain PECHELL admitted that, although the
Right Hon. Gentleman had not consented to all the
alterations proposed, he had conceded many of them.
He should offer no further opposition to this Bill, think-
ing it desirable that it (should now pass through the
House as speedily as possible.
The Bill was then ordered to be engrossed, and read
a third time to-morrow.
The Joint Stock Companies Registration and Regula-
tion Bill was brought asp for a third reading.
The Bill was read a third time and passed.
RAILWAYS BILL.
Mr. GLADSTONE moved the order of the day for
third reading of the Railways' Bill.
This Bill was also read a third time and passed, after
one verbal alteration.
The Earl of LINCOLN moved the third reading of
the Duchy of Cornwall Bill.—lt was read a third time
and passed.
The Duchy of Cornwall Lands Bill was also read a
third time and passed.
Sir J. GRAHAM moved the third reading of the Lec-
turers' and Parish Clerks' Bill.—lt was read and passed.
Sir G. CLERK moved the third reading of the Three-
and-a-Half per Cents. Bill. It also was read and passed.
The Report on the Turnpike Trusts' Bill was brought
up and received.
Sir J. GRAHAM mentioned some alterations which
he had made-in this Bill, the most important of which
were the obliteration of clauses 7,9, and 95 from the
Bill ; also the power given to Turnpike Boards in clause
85. The alterations also gave the Commissioners in-
creased powers over trusts. .Also other alterations of a
merely verbal nature.
Mr. COLLETT wished to know what interest was to
be paid for the 25,0001. proposed to be raised by the Bill.
Sir J. GRAHAM replied, five guineas per cent.
Mr. VIVIAN expressed his satisfaction at the altera-
tions which had been effected in the Bill by the Right
Hon. Baronet.
The Bill was then recommitted, and passed through
Committee.
Mr. WILLIAMS called the attention of the House to
a petition which he had presented a short time ago,
praying the House to place the cost of the maintenance
of a certain bridge in Carmarthenshire on the county-
rate.
Col. TREVOR did not think the prayer of the pe-
tition ought to be granted. He would, however, bring
the subject under the consideration of the bench of ma-
gistrates at quarter sessions in Carmarthenshire.
After some further discussion, the clause was agreed
to, as were the remaining clauses.
The report was then received, and the Bill was ordered
to be read a third time to-morrow.
CRIMINAL JUSTICE (MIDDLESEX).
Sir J. GRAHAM moved the committal of the Crimi-
nal Justice (Middlesex) Bill.
Mr. MACKINNON objected to the measure on the
ground that its provisions were altogether unknown to
the law as it at present stood. He wholly objected to
the appointment of the chairman being in the Crown,
because the principle, if admitted, might be applied
throughout the country. He did not wish to detain the
House upon the question, but he had another objection;
the City of London was exonerated from all ex-
pense, and the rate was placed upon the county of Mid-
dlesex. Making the chairman independent of the other
magistrates would produce great anomalies. He would
pay no regard to their opinion, and they would be
equally regardless of his.
Mr. WILLIAMS said this Bill entailed a heavy
charge upon the public. Why should the Chairman of
the Middlesex Quarter Sessions have a salary any
more than the Chairman in any other county? The
Westminster Sessions were to be abolished altogether,
and the business transferred to Clerkenwell ; the people
bf Westminster would thus be put to the greatest incon-
venience. The appointment of this new officer gave no
new facilities for the trial of offenders, as the chairman
was bound by the Act under which the sessions of the
Central Criminal Court was held, as much as the chair-
man was under the old system. The whole object and
purpose of the plan was to carry out the more general
adoption of the Right Hon. Baronet's plan of the sepa-
rate system of imprisonment. He was aware that this
question would be supported by the Government. The
Hon. and Gallant Member for Westminster, and the
Hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Duncombe), had
attended, night after night, to oppose the Bill, and he re-
gretted they were not then present. A sense of public
duty compelled him to oppose the Bill. If it were ne-
cessary, the City of London, he believed, would be ready
to establish another court, or even two. There were
other objections which might be urged against the Bill,
, but from the appearance of the House he thought there
would not be much use in going to a division.
Mr. WAKLEY said that though two long speeches
had been made on this subject, he had beard no facts to
induce the House not to go into Committee. What were
the facts ? It was notorious that the gaol of Newgate
was in a most wretched condition, and that the pri-
soners there were most inconveniently crowded, while
Middlesex Bridewell was nearly empty, and for this
reason, that the magistrates of Middlesex could not
send prisoners to it. He bad heard several complaints
made by jurymen with regard to the time they were de-
tained at the Central Criminal Court. The cost of every
case in that Court amounted on the average to 2L 10s.
At the Sessions it was only 1/. That was a great dif-
ference. The Hon. and Learned Member for Rochester,
nwsl ol
cpractised d at
whoth e
ad Sessions n
remained
a d a
int
ttohwe Centralnfura Cr
week
account of it, had authorised him to say that it was his
intention to give the measure his support.
Mr. BROTHERTON thought that such a Bill ought
not to be introduced at such a late period of the night.
wHaestobe
objectedpaitod
otuhte
ofm :bites alsouprueblie fubnedcsa. because the chairman
Sir J. GRAHAM said that no Member of the House
ought to be more desirous that the House should not
prolong its sittings than himself. But this Bill was an
important one, which he thought ought to be passed this
sme
as sni own
a. s W
toi tbhe regardvant
ht oa
tt he
sf umn da t t ferro
omf
dweht t
and
c:vs
ha ier-
n
tthhae?'
hceamoeugthot
tiot,beheptahidouoguhttofhtebecpouubldheshpouwrsteh.e HAsoutsoe
the appointment of any particular person, he would keep
also from that subject ; but if the person was paid out
of the public funds, the appointment of course would
rest with the Government. The absurdity of the
present system had been pointed out by the Ilona Diem-

Ever for Finsbury, and loudly called for a remedy.
The Bill now introduced would prevent the gaol of
Newgate from being so crowded, and the prisoners who
were committed for trial would be speedily tried. It
would be a great saving to the county of Middlesex.
The only objection against the Bill which he beard, was
that bugbear word "centralisation." That was the sole
objection which he heard against the Bill. He thought
it was full time to prevent the evening sittings at the
Central Criminal Court.—(Hear, hear.) The Right
Hon. Baronet then read a letter from the Middlesex
Magistrates, and concluded by saying he hoped they
would be permitted to go into Committee op the Bill.
The House then went into Committee on the Bill.
On clause 1 being proposed,
Mr. WILLIAMS objected to the clause, which was
passed without further opposition, as were the other
clauses of the Bill up to clause 9, which referred to the
chairman's salary.
Mr. BROTHERTON objected to the clause, and pro-
posed the following, omission, as an amendment, " out
of the Consolidated 1± of Great Britain and Ireland."
He moved that the salary be paid out of the county
rates.

Sir JAMES GRAHAM said, if the amendment were
carried, it would have the effect of defeating the Bill
altogether. If the salary were paid out of the county
rates, it would have the effect of making the Bill a
private one.
Mr. BROTHERTON said he did not wish to defeat
the Bill ; but considered this provision so obnoxious
that he would divide the House upon it.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the clause
8
Majority
For the amendment
ority

The clause was then agreed to, as was also clause 10.
Clause 11 was omitted.

Clauses 12, 13, 14, and the remaining clauses were
agreed to, with a few verbal amendments, and the report
was ordered to be received to-morrow,

The Marriages (Ireland) Bill was read a second time,
and ordered to be committed on Monday.
The Books and Engravings Bill was read a second
time, and ordered to be committed tc-morrow.

Tho Militia Pay Bill was read a second time, and or-
dered to be committed on Monday.
The report of the Grand Jury Presentment (Dublin)
Bill was received.

THE SUN, LONDON, PRIDAY MORNING, JULY 26, 164.1._

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, July 25.
IN RE CHARLES ALEXANDER COOPER.

The insolvent's petition was opposed by Mr. Nicholls,
on behalf of Messrs. Jarvis and Baring, for having been
guilty of a breach of trust. It appeared that theinsol-
vent had been appointed a trustee over certain property,
and in that capacity had appropriated a sum of 1621. to
his own use and benefit.

Mr. Commissioner LAW considered that the charge
of a breach of trust had been fully established against
the insolvent, and ordered him to be remanded for six
mouths from the date of his vesting order.
The Court was again thronged this day by petitioners,
who vainly waited for the operation of the new Bill for the
abolition of imprisonment for debt.

MAYOR'S COUR7', GUILDHALL, July 24.

WILLIAM ARTHUR PRICE, CLAIMANT V. THE MAYOR, &C.

OF LONDON.

This was a case for compensation, in consequence of
the premises, No. 17, Maiden-lane, in the City of Lon-
don, of which the claimant was the freeholder and occu-
pier, being required by the City, for the purposes of im-
proving the approaches to London-bridge, under the
authority of an Act of Parliament of the third year of her
present Majesty.
Mr. Kelly, with Mr. Minden and Mr. Laurie, supported
the claimant; and Sir Thomas Wilde, with Mr. Ryland,
appeared for the City of London.
It is understood that the claimant demanded 4,2031.
as the total amount of compensation for his premises.
It was stated in Court that the Corporation of London
made an offer, previously to going to trial, of 2,0001, and
that the claimant refused to take less than 2,100/.
Several witnesses were called in support of the claim,
but it was not considered necessary to call any on the
part of the Corporation.
The RECORDER summed up the case with great mi-
nuteness ; and, after a short deliberation, the jury re-
turned a verdict, awarding to the claimant the sum of
1,9501, being 50L less than had been offered before the
trial. The value of the fixtures bad been agreed upon,
between the respective valuers, at the sum of 79/. 2s.

SUMMER ASSIZES.
ROME ClRCUlT.—Maidstone, July 25.

The Court was occupied tho whole day with the case
of " King v. Nunn," in which the plaintiff sought com-
pensation for the seduction of his wife by the defendant.
The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages,
One shilling.

OXFORD ClRCUlT.—Worcester, July 23.

CIVIL SlDE.—(Before Mr. Sergeant ATCLIERLEY.)
At the sitting of the Court, at nine this morning, the trial
of Auyustus Newton, for perjury, commenced.
Mr. Godson, Q.C., and Mr. Greaves were retained on the
part of the Crown ; the defendant was unrepresented by
counsel.

As Mr. GREAVES rose to open the proceedings, he was in-
terrupted by the defendant, who claimed his right to have the
indictment read aloud to the jury.
The Learned JUDGE left the Court for the purpose of con-
sulting the Lord Chief Justice on the subject, and, on his re-
turn, observed—" I have spoken to my Learned Brother, who
informs me that he never in his life heard of such a proceed-
ing, but if the defendant thinks that any good is to be got by
it, let it be read."

Newton— Then, my Lord, I say, let it be read.
The Learned JUDGE—I have already said so, Sir.
The officer of the Court then commenced reading the docu-
ment in question, which was said to be nearly ten feet in
length ; the perusal occupied fifty minutes.
Mr. GODSON, in opening the case for the prosecution, said
that a most painful duty devolved upon him, entailing as it
did a duty equally painful on the jury and on the Learned
Judge before whom he had the honour to appear ; and pre-
mising his observations with some further remarks, the
learned counsel stated that the facts of the case were few and
simple, as would appear from the subjoined statement,
The defendant, Augustus Newton, who resided at St. Paul's
Cottage, Cheltenham, happened some time since to be sued by
a wine merchant of the name of Healey, for the sum of
121. 14s. ; to this action he made no defence, and judgment
was taken for the full amount by his own consent, on the 2d
of May, 1843. On the 28th of June, the defendant being at
the time at the Gloucester sessions, was arrested by the
sheriff's officer for the above debt, whereupon he claimed his
privilege of freedom from liability to arrest, which was at
length conceded by the Learned Serjeant Ludlow, who pre-
sided. on condition that the defendant would not take the
benefit of such discharge. In order, however, to prevent any
misunderstanding, it was suggested that the terms of the
undertaking should be put into writing, whereupon the fol-
lowing document was drawn up and signed :

"HENLEY V. NEWTON.

" I hereby undertake not to bring any action in respect
of any arrest in the said action made this morning against
any person or persons ; and I hereby undertake that the
plaintiff in the said action shall be at liberty to execute, or
cause to be executed, the said writ, in the same manner as
if no such arrest had taken place ; and that the case shall,
in all respects, be considered as if in point of fact no such
arrest had taken place as aforesaid.
" 28th June, 1843. " AUGUSTUS NEWTON."
An affidavit was afterwards made, as was alleged, on the
part of the prosecution, for the purpose of doing away with
this undertaking, the law not permitting two arrests for the
same debt, unless the party arrested have consented to take
it out of the general rule ; it became, therefore, in some de-
gree necessary that the defendant should give some such docu-
ment as the one above set out ; being discharged, he duly
attended the sessions, and afterwards retired to his cottage at
St. Paul's, Cheltenham. Acting on the undertaking which
had been already given,the offlcer proceeded to make a second
arrest. The cottage was surrounded by its own grounds,
having in front a lawn. The sheriff's officer rang the bell
at the front door, inquired for the defendant, and was
answered in the negative, the door being slammed in his
face. Thereupon the officer climbed over the wall at the
back ; and being aware that a large dog was kept upon the
premises, took with him a loaded pistol, as a necessary pre-
caution against the animal ; nor did this appear to be a
needless step ; for no sooner did the servant girl observe him
making an entrance in the way described than she loosed
the dog in question, which was only taken away under a
threat Of shooting him. In a short time considerable ex-
citement prevailed in the neighbourhood, and a large body
of the populace collected around the house. The officers then
made their way to the rear, when Mrs. Newton inquired of
them their business. The warrant was shown to and was
read by her through a window, consequently it could not be
supposed but that the defendant was well aware of the errand
on which the officers had come. The house was stated to
have been as well protected as theliberal use of bars, bolts,
barricades, &c., would admit ; and from half-past eleven till
one o'clock the officers remained hovering around it, the
crowd in the immediate neighbourhood gradually increas-
ing in the interim. The officers, consequently, concealed
themselves near the back door, under the shade of some pop-
lar trees then in leaf, watching attentively the only mode of
egress in the rear. Their patience was finally rewarded, by
seeing it at length gently opened. They waited no longer;
but rushing forward, pushed it fully open against the wall
behind. On forcing the door thus, they met Mrs. Newton in
the passage, saw one of the defendant's sons near her, and
Newton himself, whom they instantly arrested, at the foot
of the stairs. The defendant did not hesitate to charge the
officer with breaking into his house, reiterating repeatedly
his complaint, which was over and again denied, though the
charge would seem, at length, to have been admitted. The
defendant, upon his arrest, was taken to Gloucester. On the
Bth of July he made an affidavit for the purpose of procuring
a writ of habeas corpus, which he obtained. On the 14th of
July he was brought from Gloucester gaol before Mr. Justice
Maule, and thereupon alleged two reasons for his immediate
discharge : the first of these was, that the plaintiff having con-
sented to his liberation upon a previous occasion, was stopped
from again taking him for the same debt, the second arrest
being illegal ; the second allegation was, that he ought to be
discharged from prison, because he had been arrested by
means of a forcible entry into his house. It was upon these
two grounds that the defendant was charged with perjury;
no mention was made of the undertaking already adverted
to. When before Mr. Justice Maule, the defendant asserting
that two arrests had been made for the same debt, was about
to be released from custody, when the undertaking was pro-
duced, and the Learned Judge. considering that the second
arrest was not illegal, ordered him back to custody, on which
occasion he was transferred to the Queen's Bench Prison. It
may be as well to mention here, that an action of trespass was
brought by the defendant against four of the individuals who
were to be witnesses against him to-day, for the forcible en-
try into his house detailed above, a verdict passing against
them for the sum of 50/. • they, however, being all made
parties to the record in that instance, were of course incapa-
cited from aiding each other by their evidence.
The above is a condensed statement of the whole of the
facts connected with this somewhat extraordinary case, as
they were detailed in the opening speech of counsel ; the
proceedings, as will be seen shortly, were brought suddenly
to a close, in consequence of a deficiency in the evidence ; it
is, therefore, out of our power to draw an intelligible account
from the imperfect testimony adduces' on the trial.
William George Stratford, clerk in the rule department of
the Court of Exchequer, produced the affidavit of the de-
fendant made on the Bth of July, and also two writs.
Charles Thomas Lewis, officer of the Queen's Prison, pro-
duced a writ of habeas corpus, from the office of the Queen's
Bench Prison.
__ _

Robert George Whatley, attorney at Cheltenham, and
Commissioner for taking affidavits, proved the swearing of
the affidavit in question, his own signature and that of the
defendant ; and added that he attended for the purpose of
taking the affidavit at the defendant's request.
James Boodle, solicitor at Cheltenham, was attorney in
the cause of Healey v. Newton. Was present at Gloucester
in Court when the defendant was discharged, by an order of
Mr. Sergeant Ludlow, on the 28th of June, 1843. It is not
true that Augustus Newton was discharged out of custody
by any order, direction, or consent of mine, but I told the
sheriff's officer that I would not bring any action against the
sheriff if he would let the defendant go. That was after he
had signed an undertaking in my presence. He was there-
upon discharged. I stated what I have already mentioned,
in an under tone, to the officer. The defendant claimed his
privilege as a barrister attending sessions, and the Learned
Sergeant Ludlow (the Recorder of. Gloucester) said he would
make no order, but that the privilege should be allowed.
Mr. Sergeant ATCHERLEY—DO you think, Mr. Godson,
that that amounts to perjury?
Mr. GoDsoN—l submit that it does, my Lord.
Boodle's examination continued—Mr. Justice Maule stated
that a discharge for privilege would have been right, and
would not have prevented a second arrest. The application
for defendant's discharge on the ground of a second arrest
has failed. This undertaking answers that ground.
Cross-examined by the defendant—James Bennett arrested
the defendant in the Shire Hall, at Gloucester, and took him
before the Court. Sergeant Ludlow said that the defendant
should be protected during the sessions, on each party under-
taking to bring no action. After the undertaking was signed,
Boodle told me no action should be brought against the she-
riff. I let him go at liberty in consequence of that. I should
not have done so otherwise.

Mr. Sergeant ATcuEaLEr—The question is, whether per-
jury can be assigned or not on these facts. Chief Justice
Tindal agrees with me that as the officer would not have dis-
charged the defendant but for what passed between Boodle
and the officer, though there is a suppression of truth in the
affidavit, yet an indictment for perjury cannot be maintained.
G. Wilson, constable and prosecutor, gave evidence rela-
tive to the mode of making the arrest. -
The cross-examination of the witness by the defendant was
continued at great length, relative to irrelevant matters, when
it was interrupted by
Mr. Sergeant ATCHERLEY, who inquired, " What on earth
has this to do with the subject before us ?"
Defendant—lt goes against the credit of this witness.
Mr. Sergeant ATCHERLEY-DO you wish to discredit a
witness favourable to yourself ?
The Foreman of the Jury—We are afraid, my Lord, that
the defendant will do his case an injury.
Defendant to the witness—Did you ask Mrs. Newton if I
were at home ? Witness—Yes ; she said that you were %ot,
but that she had pistols, and would shoot me.
Re-examined-•I am the prosecutor in this case, I said to

the defendant, " I did not break open the door, and you
know it." The door was opened from the inside purposely.
After some further conversation, the Learned JUDGE, ad-
dressing the jury, told them that he thought the evidence in-
sufficient to support the indictment, at the same time he con-
sidered the case one very proper to be inquired into.
The jury accordingly returned a verdict ofNot

NORFOLK ClRCUlT.—lpswich, July 23.

The Commission for the county of Suffolk was Opened this
afternoon, and it is said that the Courts will be opened for the
dispatch of business at an early hour to-morrow. The ca-
lender is a very heavy one indeed. It contains the names of
fifty prisoners, the majority of whom are charged with the
frightful crime of arson. This document is now before us,
and in order to give some insight into the state of this county,
we think we cannot do better than show the names and ages
of the respective parties :