The Sun.
London, England, 1850-12-05 00:00:00

Pope into attempting the invasion of Eng-
land ; but it was said the Roman Church
could not exist without bishops. Well, the people of
England had no objection to their having them, but they
must be congregational and not territorial bishops.
These demonstations must be followed by acts. The
law had been broken and her Majesty's prerogative set
at nought, and it was the duty of the Government to
vindicate the one and protect the other.—(Cheers.)
Mr. 'Wm. LOCKE seconded the resolution, and said if
Parliament did not take up this matter vigorously and
send the cardinal and his bishops back to Rome, it
would be the duty of the Queen to dissolve it.
The resolution having been supported by several
speakers, was put and carried unanimously.
A memorial to the Throne based upon the foregoing
resolutions was adopted, and thanks having been voted
to the Noble Chairman, the meeting broke up.

QUEEN'S BENCH.—(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings at Nisi Prius, at Westminster, before Lord
CAMPBELL and a Spacial Jury.)
THE QUEEN V. ANN LAVEY.

This was an indictment for perjury against Ann Levey,
a Jewish widow, she having, en the 9:h April last,
sworn, when examined before Mr. Sergeant Manning, at
the Whitechapel County Court, in a suit in which she
was plaintiff and one Robert Hannah defendant, that she
had never been tried at the Central Criminal Court fur
forgery or any other offence; and, further, that she had
never been in custody at the Thames police-station, or
any other station, which was false.
Mr. Prgndergast, Q C., and Mr. Macnamara, were
counsel fir the prosecution; and the defendant was re-
presented by Mr. Ballantine and Mr. Huddlestone.
Mr. John Hodgson, the attorney for the prosecution,
produced certified copies of the proceedings in the W hitt-
chapel County Court, in the case of " Levey v. Hannah,"
and proved that Ann Levey was plaintiff in that action,
and that it was heard on the 9th April last. Witness
appeared for the defendant, and Ann Levey was called as a
witness and duly sworn. She was examined by Mr. Felhare,
her attorney, and swore that the debt, amounting to
161,165. 6d., was justly owing from Mr. Hannah, the:de-
fendant, to her. Witness cross-examined Ann Levey,
and asked her when she was last at the bar of the Old
Bailey ? She replied, " Never." Witness said, " What,
never for uttering a forged endorsement to a seaman's
advance-note ?" She answered, " Never, I am
surfrised at your question and your insolence."
Witness then asked her, if she had not
been tried three years ago at the Old Bailey
for some such offence? She replied, that she
never was. Witness then asked if she had
never been tried at the Old Bailey for any
offence whatever? She said never, and she would swear
that on the oath she had taken. She also stated she
was never in custody at the Thames police-station,
or any other police-station, and that witness knew it.
Witness now produced an examined copy of the record
of an indictment preferred against Ann Lavey, at the
Old Bailey, for forgery.
Cross-examined by Mr. BALLANTINE—Wrote out the
notes he had taken of Ann Lavey's evidence at the
Whitechapel County Court the same evening. Had since
endeavoured to have the case of Lavey v. Hannah tried
again, but he had been unsuccessful.
Mr. Thomas Vesey, as attorney, corroborated the
preceding witness.
James Ham, a police-sergeant (21 K) said on the Slst
August, 1843, he arrested Ann Lavey at her own house,
and she was locked up all night at the Thames police-
station. Took her into custody on a charge of forging
a seaman's advance note for 255. The seaman who
chargediber was named Yates, and was present on the
occasion. She was taken to the Mansion-house before
the Lord Mayor, and was then let out on bail. On the
following Thursday she was brought up again and com-
mitted for trial. She was afterwards tried before Mr.
Baron Rolfe at the Old Bailey.
BfMr. B ALLINTINE—The judge stopped the case on
the ground that as she was indicted for forgery, and as
forgery could not be proved, she ought to have been
indicted for obtaining the money by means of a forged
order., '

A copy of the record of the indictment of the defend-
ant at.the Old Bailey was then put in and read, and this
closed the case for the prosecution.
Mr. BALLANTINE addressed thejury for the defendant,
complaining that the prosecution had not ventured to
question her testimony at the Whitechapel County
Court, so far as it respected any of the matters really in
issue in the suit there, but had brought this charge
against her on a thing wholly irrelevent and immaterial
to that issue. He submitted that the extreme probability
was, that her statement, alleged to be perjury, was meant
to convey, not that she had never been tried at the Old
Bailey, but that she had never been convicted there on
any charge whatever, and had never been in a station-
house upon any charge whatever on which she was con-
victed.

Lord CAMPBELL summed up the case. If the jury
were of opinion that the defendant was questioned at
the Whitechapel County Court upon a matter which
there was reason to think she had forgotten, or even
if they thought she was interrogated upon a thing wholly
immaterial, it would be their duty to acquit her.
":The jury found a verdict of Guilty, with a recommen-
aation to mercy, and
Lord CAMPBELL sentenced her to be confined for
twelve calendar months.