The Sun.
London, England, 1842-05-31 00:00:00

COURT OF QUEENS BENCH, May 30.

IN THE MATTER OF ALDERMAN THOMAS WOOD.
In this case, which arose out of the disputes existing among
the Shareholders of the Talacre Coal Company, Mr. Roebuck
had obtained a rule in lest Michaelmas term, calling
upon Alderman Thos. Wood, who was one of the Directors of,
and, in conjunction with his partner, Mr. Ellis, Solicitor to this
Company, to answer certain allegations made in the affidavits
of the applicants, and also to show cause why he should not (b.--
liver up to the applicants certain papers belonging to the Com-
pany in his possession.
The Solicitor-General and Mr. Butt had shown cause
against the rule last term, and Mr. Kelly, Mr. Jervis, and
Mr. Roebuck had been heard in support of it. On that occa-
sion the Attorney-General had attended to watch the proceed-
ings on behalf of Mr. Alderman T. Wood's co-trustees in the
Company'
The Con :at this morning gave judgment in the case, dis-
charging the rule without costs.
JUDGMENT.-THE QUEEN V. HART.-BRIBERY AT CAM-

The defendant in this case, Robert Hart, had been con.
vie.ted at the last Cambridge Assizes of having, on the 27th of
June, 1841, bribed one William Topping Large, by giving to
him a sum of 101. to vote for Lord Cosmo Russell and Richard
Fo,ter, jun., Esq., who were at that time candidates for the
representation of the borough of Cambridge in Parliament. He
this morning appeared upon the floor of the Court to receive
judgment.
The affidavit of the defendant himself, in mitigation of pu-
nishment, was then put in and read.
%Ir. 13. ANDREWES, in mitigation, urged that, although it
was impossible to attempt to justify the conduct of the defen-
dant, yet it was much to be regretted that those who had em-
ployed the man were not standing there to receive the judg-
ment of the Court instead of the wretched instrument. The
defendant had already suffered some punishment; he had been
arrested in Cambridge on a Sunday, and had been kept in soli-
tary confinement on the felons' side of the gaol for 24 days upon
the authority of a warrant, which Mr. Justice Patteson had sub-
sequently decided to be illegal. It appeared, moreover, that
the defendant was a stay-maker, a business requiring his per-
sonal superintendence, and that he had a wife and three chit-
dren depending upon him for support. On these grounds he
tt usted the Court would take a merciful view of his case.

Mr. KELLY then addressed the Court in aggravation of
punishment. He agreed with his Learned Friend, Mr. Andrewes,
that justice could not be done until the real criminals, those who
employed persons in the situation of the defendant to commit
the crime of bribery, should be brought to the bar of that Court.
But who was to blame if the real offenders escaped from jus-
tice? It was persons who, like the defendant, became the
willing instruments of those who engaged them in the commis-
sion of this crime, and whe refused to give up the names
of their employers. It was the defendant and the defendant
alone who could bring those who had been really guilty to
justice. The defendant stood in a peculiar situation. He was
not a man residing in the place of election, and ardently at-
tached to a political party, who might yield to the unwonted
excitement of the moment, and give a bribe and repent of the
offence which he had committed, immediatelyafter its commission.
He was a total stranger to the town of Cambridge. He was
unconnected with either of the candidates. He came over
from Norwich under a false name, for the purpose of carrying
on a regular system of corruption in the town of Cambridge.
There was nothing in the circumstances of the case
to palliate the offence of which the defendant had been con-
victed. He did not ask the Coutt to disregard the fact of the
defendant's family being dependent upon his exertions for their
support, but he would just remind the Court that in all proba-
bility those whom the defendant concealed and_ protected were
able to do what was necessary for his family. Unless some ex-
emplary and ,evcre punishment were inflicted open those who
lent themselves to be the instruments of this crime, it would be
a vain attempt by legislative enactment, or by any other means,
to pet down the offence in this country.
Their Lordships having consulted together,
Mr. Justice Parrissox delivered the judgment of the Court
as follows —Robert hart, you are brought here to receive the
judgment of the Court upon an indictment charging you with
having at the last election for Members to serve in Parliament,
for the borough of Cambridge, bribed a voter named Large, by
giving him a sum of 10/., to vote for certain candidates in whose
election you took an interest. This indictment having been
found was removed by you into this Court, and you were tried
and found guilty. It appears that you have already suffered
some imprisonment, for twenty-four days I think, before you
were admitted to bail, and you also state that you have been
put to some expense ; the chief part of this, however, has been
incurred by the removal of the indictment into this .Couft,
which was your own choice. The offence of bribery is an of •
fence which this Court will visit severely in ever) case which
may be brought before it, more particularly where the bribery
has taken place for the purpose of influencing the elections of
Members of Parliament. It is of the utmost importance to
the interests of the community, and of every member of it, that
the elections of Members of Parliament should be kept free and
pure, and that all persons entrusted with the valuable franchise
and privilege of voting for Members of Parliament, should be
suffered to exercise that franchise and privilege without any un-
due influence whatever, more especially without being influ-
eneed by any consideration ofa pecuniary nature. It appearsfrom

It appeared that, on the afternoon of Sunday se'nnight, the
prosecutrix was informed by one of her neighbours that the
prisoner had thrown a log of wood at one of her children, and
was then pursuing' it up the court, and threatening to murder
it. Upon receiving this information, the prosecutrix ran,.ut
and asked the prisoner what he meant by such violent conduct.?
Upon which the latter, who had a knife in his hand, immedi-
ately raised his arm, and exclaiming, " You - I'll cut your
head from your body," he made a stab at her face, andin-
flicted ase \ ere wound, extending from the, eye to the side of
her month. She fell to the ground, and was afterwards con-
veyed to the shop of Mr. Burton, a surgeon in the neighbour-
hood, who dressed the wound, and ordered her removal to tit.
Bartholomew's Hospital. The prisoner was given into trki
custody of Police Constable Mansfield of the N division, who
took the knife from him, which was covered with blood.
Mr. Burton said that the wound was about four inches in
length, and a quarter of an inch deep. The prosecutrix was
now out of danger.
In his defence, the prisoner said that the children had been
in the habit of incessillly annoying him; he was in the act of
repelling an aggression of the sort, when he was attacked by
the prosecutrix, who was accidentally cut in the struggle that
ensued.

One of the officers said that the prisoner was convicted last
year of a similar offence, for which he suffered six months' &m-
-prisonment. The prisoner uas committed for trial.
Baron Rehausen, the Swedish Charge d'Affaires, occupied a
seat on the Bench the greater part of the day.
UN/ON- HAL L.

IstrunENT ROBBERY —John Morgan, a well-dressed young
man, was committed on a charge of stealing a watch, the pro-
perty of Air. Reid, a watchmaker on Newington-causeway.
AGG RAVATED A SSA ULT. —John Cockrell, a man of respect-
able appearance, was charged with throwing a red hot poker
at his wife, setting fire to her clothes, and injuring one of
her legs.
The complainant stated, that on Friday evening, a; she was
sitting at the fire, the defendant, to whom she brought a for-
tune of 2,0001. on their marriage, drew the hot poker out of the
fire, and threw it at her. It struck her on the leg,, and set fire
to her clothes. She added, that she had been subjected to ill-
treatment from the defendant ever since their marriage.
The defendant said that the poker dropped out of the fire by
accident and did the injury.
He' was adjudged to enter into his recognizance of 100/. to
keep the peace.