The Sun.
London, England, 1821-12-14 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

IOURT Qr.:Apio's BENCH, DEC. 13.
Before the Loan CHIEF .6-FricE and a Special Jury.
THE SIXO V. 1101,1ERT
This was an infbrmation against an tlector of 13arnstaplefor
wilful perjury at the bar of the Hoiise of Lor4,
Mr. LITTLEDALE ciPened the pleadings: .The two first
-counts charged the defendant with swearhis to falsehood at the
bar of the House- OrLords`;' the remaining counts alleged a
contradiction between the evidence -given by the defendant in
the House of Lords, and former evidence, given by in the
_ .

House of Commons. • ' '
The ATTORNEY-GENgnese., M stating, the PASe7,CTlltimed
upon the enormity of the defendant's conohict.„At, the general
election in die:Year 1816, thfee "Gentleinen, --SielWitnitsSeh Lo-
pez, Mr.- Onimaney, and -Sir Henry Clement. Thomson, were
candidates for the representation of the borough of Barnstaple.
Sir Manasseh Lopez and Mr. Ominaney were returned. The
losing candiCatte, Sir Henry Clement Thomson, petitioned on,
the ground, of briery and corruption, and a Committee was
appointed to investigate the case ; that Committee' examined
various witnesses (among others the defendant, who had voted
for Sir Manasseh Lopez); and, in the result of the inquiry, the.
election was declared void. The Coinmittee thus deputed, hav-
ing concluded their labour, presented a report of proceedings
to the Ilouse.ofXoremons, in which eel stated.: that, at the
late election for Barnstaple, bribery had been employed by the
agents -Of Sir Alanasseh Lopez, and left it to the House to
punish' such offence as it might think fit.• ;IneConsequenee
of the -report so made by the Committee, a bill was brought in-',
to anti passed by the House of Conimons, for the better SecUritk
of the purity of'election within the delinquent bordfigh of Berne
staple. That bill;. having passed the lower... House; was fleet eie
to the LOeds ; and, as it is not the practice of either .of those as-
semblies- to pet upon' evidence taken before the 6th6r, it was
read a first timee• and arvorder made to examine witnesses
at the bar. The defendant. Knill, who, before the Com-
mittee of the House of Can:mons, had made out clear bri-
bery in his own person' 'against Sir Manasseh, Lopez, was
then called in to support,. the bill ; but to the surprise of
the House, and of every, one who heard him, he gave an evi.
dence af the bar of the -House 'of Lords in direct contradiction
to that which he had givenhefore the Committee of the House
of Commons. Upon the motive of the defendant's conduct the
Jury could have little doubt. It was an ohjectin the Borough
of Barnstaple to prevent any alteration in the state of the Elec,
tive Franchise ; that object, by the perjury of the defendant and
°theme- was accomplished ; and the bill, although it passed the
Commons, was lost upon the second reading in the 'Lords. The
present prosecution (the Attorney-General continued) was in..
stituted- at the -=express command of the House of Lords ; and
the case, although unfortunately not quite novel, had yet some
features of singularity about it. In ordinary cases of indict-
ment for perjurye-cases in which a mantled sworn only once—
it was necessary to call witnesses to shew the falsehood of that
which he had sworn ; but in the present case, sueh evidence
would not be requisite: The defendant having sworn twice,.
and sworn to colnradictions, must, of force, upon one occasion
have perjured' himself. The perjury would be proved, there-
fore, in the present case, not by shewin the falsehood of the
defendant's allegations, but by producing leis several statements
upon oath, and comparing those statements the one with the
other. The leaned Atterney-General Concluded his Address,
by citing a case in-which similar proof of-perjury had been held
sufficient. The case was a case of " The King v. Booth,"
, tried before Mr. justice Yates at Lancaster, in the year 1761
and the Learned Counsel quoted from a manuscript note taken
at the trial by Mr. Justice Chambre. A riot took place in Lan-
caster on account of the high price of corn ' • Booth, who was a
miller, had his mill dismantled by the mob, and he laid an in-
formation before Justices of the Peace against three women, for
being concerned in the attack upon his premises. When the in-
dictment Caine on to bectried at the Seesions;'Booth, who had:
been tampered with, swore that the prisonera hadinet been cone
cerned, inehe riot. On the trial of Booth for perjury, no evi=
dence was given that the women had actually been in the riot,
but his deposition before the Justices was soroductil against his
evidence at the Sessions;_he was found guilty; and ,his sentence
was affirmed by the Cottrt.
The +gist of the perjury alleged was this swore be=
fore the House of Goininons . that a Alr. Peibble•had promised
him satisfaction, if he would vote for Sir Manasseh Lopez. He
swore, at the bar of the house of Lords; than Dribble had
not promised hint. satisfaction if he-would so vote.
This was the case on the part of the prosecution.,
Mr: o t.Pnus (for ' the defendant) subMitted that. there
was no case to gatoehe Jury. The Learned Gentleman then
objected to the form. of the indictment, and commented upon
the loose authority from which the Lancaster case had been
cited. , . •
The LORD CHIEF iUsT,ICE (according to his then opinion' )
was disposed to ask tfi Jury if they believed that the defend-
ant had sworn wittingly;a.nd wilfully on both occasions ? If
the Jury did think that the defendant had so sworn, his Lord-
ship proposed advising -them' to find a verdict of guilty ; but
to find upqnsthe,thitil. and ,fourth counts only; He -would take
that course-(the Learned: Judge. said), because he thought the
question merited: )v 'mgst grave consideration 4-end it would
come most conveniently for solemn decision, if it assumed the
form of a conviction:
Mr. ADOLPH us objected to the form of the third and follith
counts, as not setting out with sufficient eeactness the date,
place, manner, and other circumstances of his client's offence: •
The Loan CHIEF JUST WE thought that, if the general
form of the indictment was good, the third and fourth counts
were sustainable= The •,question (as to the form of. the indict-
ment) might be brought in, the most convenient shape, either
by motion, arrest of etidginent, or writ of *ere into a course
of decision. .Alr.
,AdOlPhus'e objection. would'. be upon the
record. . - . : • •
The' A.. r ORNEY-GEz,T. pat said, that, with-submission'-to
submission eo
the Caine, he :was not prepared to give up the first and second ,
counts of the indictment. He contendedethat a man who ad.
mitted the, falsehood of that which he had sworn; unghthe 'con-
victed of perjury _Upon :thet admission, without further evi-
dence.. . • - • •
The Lone) Cutsr. Jusr ICE- wished to have that propoii-
tion fortified.by authority. • - • e
The T onNEY-GENERAL could not see that, perjury
fered in its nature froni any other crime, He treated the ad-
mission as confession, and confession, even in cases of' murder,
had been-received as sufficient evidence.
The LORD CHIEF JD sTIcE wished. that he could see the
record in. the Lancaster case.
The ATToRNEY-GENERAL had sent to the office, but found
that the record was not in town : Lancaster being a county pa-
latine, it remained there. From the form of the note, however,
taken by,Mr. J4tice,Chambre, lie (the Attorney-(general) had
great reason to helieve that it was in similar form with, the pre-
sent indictment,. The note said this--speaking of the women
whom Booth swore not to-have been in theindictment—" evi-
dence was'notgiren that, the women were in the riot,, which was
the perjury assigned, but the deposition, before. the Justices was
produced against the defendant's evidence at the trial ; and Mr.
Justice Yates, directed the Jury to find the defendant
The sentence was confirmed, .
The Loan.-CHIEV JUSTICE 'thought, upon that note, that
the,leancaster record must have been in the form of the present
indictment. ~ - -
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL then submitted that the first
count vf the 'present itidietnient was tenable. , The charge in.
that Count was, that the
_defendant had sworn falsely in the
House of Lords : the charge at Lancaster was, that e defen-
"dant hid sworn *falsely at Sessions. In theLadeester case;
the contradictory statement before the Justices was received i-as
sufficient evidence 'and, the contradictory statement before the
House of Commons Was entitled to similar &het hi:the-cap be.
fore the Court. " e. -
The Loan CHIEF JUSTICE desired to hear the Counsel for
the defendant. •. , ~ •
Mr. ADOLPHUs admitted that where there was .ccintradic-
forrevidence, the swearer must one *ay ,or the Other have
sworn falsely : but lie relied, on the other hand,upon the great
principle of law, that an accuser wAs.bound to state a case, and
to make out distinctly. that. case •by evidence. If a man
swore two thine; a prosecutor Was •at liberty to elect. He
might charge that the one. was false, and wove it ;eel he might.
charge that the other was false, and prove it ; but he could not
upon a prosecution for perjury set Up both oaths, and say—
" You must convict, because one must be untrue." The cora:
parison of the •:defendarie.a -contradiction to-confession; was a
'Comparison Where no, similarity existed. • •
Fuasrets JoxEs (on the same Side), applied hiniself to
distinguishing between admission, and confession. Even taking
the. defendant to haVe.edmitted in one place that he had
.sworn
falsely in another, streh:lachnission could not amount to a con-
fession of perjury, because to constitute confession of perjury,
a nian mhst confess that he had wilfully and corruptly been
forsworn.'
The LORD Clime! JUSTICE,. pat p resent advised, would
direct the Jury they were of opinion that the defendant
had sworn falsely before' the House of Lords, then they' should
find him guilty generally. If they were net satisfied opdifthat
'point, they should acquit theilefenclant upon the-first and 'se-
cond counts of the indictment—'finding him gtiiltton theintbse-
"quent counts, if they thought that he had sworn differ and
deliberately' in the louse of Lords and in 'the otTOrnr
Bat constitute', the ern* af .perjeiry; .-woidd be a•lspiestien ifor
Mons.. Whether the fact of a man's heving soofs.;v4e,
future decision rn did :rt 14mide
a,t,tifrbfouuenhtti,inwaysatinijoeui,ways,,.f(*.6l,
.portinee,'Eft It COH • . - •
'arunient befote highet tribunals.- 1113- leehip• thert"'.
mgated to Mr. Adolphus that he was at libererttly to additis the

Jury, if after what had falleitAllittli.c Court he judged it ne-
cessary or expedient Wdo-so.:-, •
The'Sot.ic,rrqt,ll-iNOtt,4l4:fiiime length replied.
••-There':iiiasAttl.tgc IV.Wl:Actalpittiirs defence, or •in the -re-
Whietl44l44.in *the -asen'atif)llxf
ati4reise44ythk-441.rnett-I,6eittletettiledgfudge, been Ore,-
v11.4'31Y . •
Lone eitti 1.; 1113 as f 01104414
q,eatlemen of the `juryit'llhiS(.ls cinfoination:filed
Aitonicy-General against thelefenHitinfi-Frbbert krill, for ittil-=
fug and corruni:perjury. Th*lidge is divided into two pats,
and each is totally distinet..r the, other. The first part of
the informatkon, al eges . that ie 'defendant„ on a given day,
swore in' his eliinihation lierore the'lTouie-of LOT ;: thafile
had not been-promised satisfaction? by. a. certain Mr. Dribble-,
.a3:14 that he bad net given his vote at the Barnstaple eleetionrOr
Sir M. Lopez in .c.onsequenee -of ' such promise; and ;then= it
states that the matter so ',gamin by the defendant wasSalsear
The second. branch •of the accusation though unusual in its
form, is . extremely plain and simple. It say that the 'a&
fendant, being examined before: the House of :Commons;
swore that Mr. Drew did, promise
,him satisfaction, &c.; ,and
that, being afterwards examined at the bar or the House-of
Lords, he swore that''.lr. DreW did not prothise him -satisl.
faction, &c.-;. and- thelO ,it charges, that. in so oppositely
swearing the defendant. was guilty of wilful and corrupt per,-
jury. The substance, "therefore, of the last part of th ae-
casation is, that a mail sswearingeng one thing on one occa-
sion, and directly the contrary
.on another, must,. upon one
occasion, have sworn falsely.; and if he hai sworn on both
those occasionswilfully and knoWingly, then of necessity lie
must have committed ,perjury,' :Now, -.whether swearitig..9ne
thing at one time, and a contrary thing at the other, will, wits-,
out evidence of either statement being false, amount ter the criiiie
of-perjury; is a pure question of law: With that question • you
have nothing to-do, your duty is only to decide as to. the fact„r-
Now to sustain the first :and second counts of this indictment,
the prosecutor must prove to yoUr satisfaction,- that what Abe
plaintiff swore at the bar of.the House of Lords—to wit, that be
was not promised satisfaction by Dribble, &c., was wilfullyand
corruptly false. If ft tsas false; you will probably be of opinion
that it was wilfully false., By the rule of common law, the.eyi-
dence of one witness is sufficient to convict a man upon anyin,
dictment, except for perjury ;,but the crime of perjury must he.
proved by two. his contended, however, in support of the pre-
sent information, that this,, rule of, law has one exception ;,and`
that if it be shewn that the patty himself has sworn the Contrary,
on one occasion of that which he had sworn at.another, a jury may
be allowed to be satisfied, upon such evidence, that the swearing.i.
upon either of these occasions, has been untrue. In support of
the form of the present indictment, a case decided in the year
1764 by Mr. Justice Fates has been 'adduced. The value Of
that learned persor.copinion is understood in the profession,
and upon the authority, of, that decision, I think myself called
on to leave the present case to ybu thus.—lf you are satisfied
that what the defendant swore at the bar of the House of _Lords
is false, find a verdict,of guilty generally. -Ifl am in.error, my
direction will be set right, and the Plaintiff will not suffer: If
you are not satisfied, upon • that 'first poiat, then lOok.Wt,ihe
second. A man.swears•one thing on •one .day, and a contrary
thing.on another. Do you believe that he has so sworn know,
ingly and willingly ? If you believe that he did so swear
ingly and willingly, all that is alleged in the declaration
is proved ; and you should find, as to the question of fact,
upon.the last counts of the inforMation, a verdict of' guilty.—
Whether in so swearing in his own contradiction, the defendant
has committed a crime; is not a question for you, but a point of
law ptirely. That point will hereafter be carried to a higher
tribunal, and argued with •the solemnity which its iniportance
deserves. •
The Jury, after a short consultation, found a verdict of guilty
generally.