The Sun.
London, England, 1810-11-06 00:00:00

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS.

MONDAY, is'ov. 5.

FrOncis 13ruith
waitewas indieled for perjury. It
appeared that the prisoner had sworn to a circum-
stance grounded in falsehooe, as it wag asserted in
an affidavit exhibited in ttle Court of King's Bench
on the 30th of Jute; f 808, foi- the purpr,se of ob—
taining a Rule of Cbtirt,-.cAillig on one Rimber
io'deliver up certain dew's winch Francis Brbith-
waite swore that he kid lett in the possession of the.
said Pember, at the ilesire aid request of John'
Kay.

Mr. PooLEY observed to the Jury, that that state
meat was- untrue; that Kay never so advised
Braithwaite as the latter had sworn, nor had any
deeds been received by Pen-iher-Trom the person at
the bar; •

•
William Martin, Clerk of the Rules, produced
an office-coil' Of the Rule, for the produEtton of the
deeds, and Braiti,vaite's affidavit, 'on which Rule
was granted.
Charles Boyd, Clerk to tl,e Master in theCOort-of
King's Bench, proved 1114 the signature to the
affidavit was the hand...writing of Master. Foster,
which sign tried that be had swot n Braith-
waite.

Mr. Pember a.vore that the signature at the hot,
torn of the affidavit w, s the band writing of Braith-,
waite, as did Mr, Carl.

The affidavit, which was a very long ore, was
than read, when

Mr. KNAPP took an objeaion to the indieirnent,
contending that a sufficient quantity, of the of
was not contained in it,; than a few line.; bad been
•exitatted, after which the prosecutor had thought it
sufficient to aver the MU.

Mr. POOLEy, on the contrary, contended, that to
have extracted. more of the attidavit would have
been justly termed by the Court impertinent and
superiluous; and he held that it was necessary to
aver that such was ti:Jt done with the deed as the
davit stated. . -

Mr. KNAPP farther contended, in -support of
his objection, that the averment in the indidment
was not sufficient; for- when alluding to " deeds"
mentioned in that part of 'the affidavit extracted,
.the indictment said, and only said, " the said
deeds."

Mr. POOLEY replied,that the deeds alluded,to
Were those as. averred•in 'the Rule in these .words,
" to shew cause why the saiit Richard Pember
should not deli% tr up to the said Francis Braithwaite
the title-deeds alleged to have 'been left with the
said"Richaid Pember, by the-said Francis Rraith=
waits :y •

One; of the' Bench observed, that the indiannent
sa;.(l,,,firSt,-•" certain 'deeds f' then ever afterwards
anded W-4' the said deeds ;" and thought they
ought to have been specifically, named; but after
it had been._ contended that the slime deeds were
meant, as Braithwaite termed I.‘ title-deeds" in his
affidavit, the prosecution was alloWed to go on.
Richard Peuiber swore;that he never received any
deeds tr.-dm-Braithwaite, that had been handed over
to hint by -JAI) Kan- arid'Air..kay swore, that he
lad so. advised- Braithwaite as fte latter had
sworn in riis affidavit; but twin the manner in 'which
these tN o witnesses, 'particularly the former, give
-their evidence,

The p..)urt..seerned to be of opinion that the fact
of perjifry was not brought so dearly boi-ne to Ebb
prisoner as the Jury.had a right to desire.
The Jury inum.-diatelyreturnecl a verdia of—Not