The Sun.
London, England, 1827-10-24 00:00:00

the prosecutor having been arrested that very morn-
ing, while in attendance to give evidence ; and he
(the Learned Counsel) understood at the suit of the
defendant; he, :however, trusted, that the Court
would order the Marshal of the King's Bench prison

to bring his prisoner into Court. •
Mr. ADOLPIIUS contended that the Court had no
power to interfere. The prosecutor (Mr. Oldfield)
had been for some time a ruler of the King's Bench
prison, and the Court being out of those limits; the
Marshal had taken Mr. Oldfield, which he had a
tight to do, otherwise he would have been liable to
have a bill filed against him for the debt and costs
for which he was in custody, amounting to 8501.
The Learned Counsel, therefore' trusted the Court
would adopt the usual course under the peculiar cir-
cumstances of the case.
• The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Hedger) was clearly of opi-
nion that the Court had no jurisdiction in the case.
A pause now took place; and in the mean time
Mr. Harmer; the attorney for Mr. Oldfield, dispatch-
ed his clerk for, a habeas, in order to secure the at-
tendance of his client.
The necessary authority having been procured,
Mr. Oldfield arrived in Court once more in the eta,
tody of the Marshal's officer.
The following was the evidence' adduced :
Edward Baylis, clerk in the Rule-office of the
Court of King's,Bench, produced the several sen-
tences from the above Court against the prosecutor.

The amount of lines awarded against him was

4,5001.
Mr. ADOLPHUS took an objection to the framing
of the indictment : it was, however, over-ruled by
the Court, and the case proceeded.
Frederick Oldfield, the prosecutor, deposed to the
following effect :—I was a 'prisoner in the King's
Bench Prison in 182,1. In July in that year I had
an interview with my attorney, Mr. Rice, who
stated that he had seen the defendant on the subject
of my liberation. Subsequently, the defendant
called at my room in the King's Bench, and having
introduced the above topic of conversation, said that
he could obtain my release from prison. He then
entered upon the business by enjoining me to the
most strict secrecy, remarking that Mr. Rice was on
no account to be made acquainted with what passed
between them, adding, that he made it a point never
to let a third person know the transactions they
were then about to enter into. He then lamented
the unfortunate situation I was placed in, say-
ing, that he could get the fines of 4,500/. awarded
against me remitted, if I would advance a sum of
1,0001., and that it would be saving 3,5001. to my
large family. lie alleged, that if I managed to
raise that sum, he should obtain my discharge
through the interest of a man of rank, who had
powerful interest at the Treasury. At the interview
I told the defendant that I was not then possessed
of the sum required for my liberatiofi, upon which
he said that it was of no 'consequence, intimathigl
that he would advance the money to the " man of
rank" himself if I would give him (the defendant)
my I. 0. U. for the sure. I consented to this ar-
rangement at 'first, upon which the defendant drew
from his pocket a paper which he said was the copy
of a letter which he wished me to write to him, in
order that he should show it to the man of rank.—
I requested him to give me the letter, which he re-
fused, saying, that he should dictate it to me. I
consequently wrote to his dictation. After the let-
ter was finished, I gave him my I. 0. U. for 1,000/.
and in five or six days afterwards I saw him again,
when he remarked that the man of rank was pushing
things forward in my behalf. In the next interview
I had with the defendant, as he was pressing me for
the 1,000/., I said, as I had not the money by me,
I should morgage some property I was possessed
of and hand it over to him. I saw the defendant fre-
quently during the period I was endeavouring to
raise the money, and on all occasions he said things
were going on as well as he could possibly wish
at the Treasury respecting my discharge. On the
28th of August, having succeeded in obtaining the
1,0001., 1 wrote a letter to the defendant, describ-
ing that the money was ready for him, He came
to my apartments on the receipt of it, and pre-
vious to parting with my money, I requested that
lie would fix a period when my discharge would
come down from the Treasury, which he promised
would be in six weeks. I then gave him a cheque
for 1,0001., and on receiving it, he remarked that
he should immediately proceed with it to the man
of rank, and hand the sum over to him. He should
not accept d
remuneration for himself, he was
perfectly
of any
disinterested ; and hinted that a dressing-
case would be accepted, merely in remembrance of
having restored a husband to a numerous family.
During the period that intervened between the six
weeks, at the expiration of which I was to have
had my discharge, the defendant called several times,
and on all occasions mentioned that the man of rank
was working hard for me. The six weeks, how-
ever, having elapsed, the defendant began to drop
off in his visits ; I wrote to him, requesting that the
cheque might be returned, he not having obtained
my discharge according to the stipulation. The de-
fendant called again, and having described that the
man of rank would positively clinch the business in
a day or two, he' then asked me to make affidavit
that I was only worth 101., alleging that he wanted
the document to show to the man in power. I re-
fused making any such affidavit, and urged the re-
turn of my money, upon which the defendant refused
and went away. I wrote, to him again respecting
the money I had advanced on his representations,
and he returned en answer, stating that he should
not give it up to me, but that he would pay it into
the Crown-office. The prosecutor concluded by
stating that he obtained his discharge in February,
1827, but not through the intervention of the de-
fendant, or the person of " high rank" that 'he al-
luded to. He added, that he had never received back
the sum from the defendant, or any part thereof.
Cross-examined by Mr. BRODERICK.—He and
defendant at the interviews were always alone. He
was convicted upon four indictments for keeping
two separate gaming-houses. Has been nearly five
years a prisoner in the King's Bench. Had been
indicted for perjury, but no evidence was produced,
and he was acquitted, Never paid any money for
the suppression of the evidence. Had been prose-
cuted by the Excise for fraud, in consequence of a
servant in his employ drawing a permit without
sending out the wine. He paid the Excise fine,
which amounted to 500/. The fines for the keeping
the gambling-houses were remitted. lam now in
gaol for the recovery of money lost at play. It was
not at either of my houses. Previous to my having re-
ceived a letter from the defendant. Neverborrowedme-
aey of the defendant. I mentioned to him that if my
liberation
influence
Statefor t hwase
of
unoo the
mtoo mother
rtbtpalepneadsm efe the latehnolrittl,y,
olbt ishouldSecretary
eithroughrtetnairmyself
o
sel
ft
on her arrival from the continent. Never made ef-
forts that the matter should be arranged without
going to trial.
Being asked why he delayed preferring the indict-
ment until now, he replied that the defendant intl.-