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

NEWCASTLE-UNDER-LYNE.

The examination of Mrs. Wayte, continued from our After-
noon Edition :—lfer husband was examined, and admitted that
he had applied to Mr. Harding, the attorney of Mr. Harris, the
sitting Member, for the expenses incurred at the Cock by the
committee. He said that the only liquors served to the com-
mittee, or by their order, were wines, ales, and cyder. He
v
denied that an spirits were ever served to the burgesses.
Eliza Davis, servant to the two former witnesses,
being examined, said, that she saw Mr! Harris the sitting
Member, three times in the committee-room, at the Cock.-
She had also seen, on one occasion, spirits served to the voters,
whe had become very clamorous, and declared that they would
net vote for Mr. Harris, unless they were served with spirits.
The Committee adjourned at Four o'clock.

QUEEN S BENCH.—(T HIS DAY.)
'ME QUEEN v. ALLEY NE.—JUDGMENT.
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition.)
Lord DENMAN interrupted the reading of this portion of the
affidavit, by asking if it was necessary in the present ease to go
into those circumstances ? Are there any affidavits relating to
the immediate cause of the challenge?
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (who appeared for the prosecu-
tion) said that he had affidavits showing that the conduct of
defendant was such as to justify suspicions being entertained
as to the fact whether Mrs. Hemming was his sister.
Lord DENSIA.N...-It is to be regretted, if such be the case,
that no justification was pleaded in the other trial.
The Soucrroa-Ges ERA L said that no justification could
have been pleaded without proving a marriage, as the words
imputed bigamy.
Lord Derrstaw thought it was much to be regretted that
the defendant had not accepted Mr. Power's offer, to leave the
matter to the decision of gentlemen to be chosen by part par-
ties. Mr. Power bad acted with the greatest •eropriety in
making the offer. It appeared, from dfendant s own affi-
davits, that he had put himself in the wrong, because the mar-
riage had taken place in a false name, and under a false descrip-
tion. There was not the slightest doubt, however, but that
the defendant and Mrs. .Hemming were brother and sister,
and the suspicion to the contrary, therefore, was totally un-
founded.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said, if the Court thought the
reading. the affidavits unnecessary, he would not press for
their being read; he would merely mention the fact that he
had an affidavit from a person, named Baker, stating that he
had taken the house No. 7, Wandsworth-road, alluded to in de-
fendant's affidavit, from a person named Rhoda Mary Chard,
the daughter of Henry Chard, since the marriage of Mrs.
Dempster Hemming, and that he had seen Mrs. Dempster
Hemming, who was not the same person as Rhoda Mary
Chard, fro
whom he had taken the house.He ought to add
that it was not his intention to read any affidavits for the pus.-
pose of showing that there was any improper connexion between
the parties.
Lord DENMAN thought that since the fact was distinctly
admitted, it would be useless going further into the fact of the
case. The question really was whether a gentleman standing
on the floor of tle Court should be fined one shilling or twenty,
and that was the narrow foundation on which it was proposed
to build up this monster process.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said he proposed to show that
the reports did riot originate with the prosecution—that they
were in circulation throughout the country, and that they had
their origin in the misconduct of the defendant.
Lord DENMAN—The reports were that they were not
brother and sister, but man and wife. Now as that imputa-
tion is withdrawn, it strikes me that all the rest is unimportant
to the present case.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL suggested the propriety of
having those parts of the affidavits read which went to show
that the prosecutor did not originate the report.
The reading of the affidavit of Mr. Power was then con-
tinued, from which it appeared that the defendant had repre-
sented himself and his sister to be the nephew and niece of Sir
Reinhold Alleyne, and that, on the discovery of the falsehood
of that representation, various reports derogatory to the cha-
racter of defendant and Mrs. Hemming were circulated, and
that the prosecutor drew the attention of defendant to these
reports, but that defendant neglected to take any measures in
consequence. The affidavit of Baker, alluded to by the Sw
lieitor-General, was likewise read, and also the affidavit of Mr.
.f. W, Moore, who had.known defendant and his sister when
they resided at Finchley, as Mr. and Miss Alleyne. It ap-
peared from Mr. Moore's affidavit, that he had at that period
fallen in love with Miss Alleyne, but the defendant refused to

permit him to be introduced to her until he (Moore) had paid
down 3,000/. Moore did lodge 2,000/. in the bank of Glyn
and Company, in the name of trustees, of whom defendant
was one, for the purpose of making a settlement on the mar-
riage. Moore gave the receipt to Alleyne, who drew out the
money. The day for the marriage was fixed, when Alleyne
informed Moore that an aunt of his sister's had died at Croy-
don, and that consequently the marriage must be postponed.
Alleyne asked Moore to accompany them to the funeral, and
they set out in a mourning-coach for Croydon. As they were
proceeding down Milbank-street, Miss Alleyne was taken sud-
denly ill, and the defendant asked Moore to take her home;
he consented to do so, and returned with Miss Alleyne accord-
ingly to her brother's house. On inquiry it turned out that there
had been no funeral at Croydon on that day, nor had any person
of the same name as that represented to have been the name of the
aunt died at Croydon. Various excuses were made for post-
poning the marriage, until at last Mr. Moore heard that the
lady was about to be married to Mr. Hemming. He threat-
ened to prosecute Alleyne and his sister, when the former
gave Moore a cognovit for 2,0001., the money he
had drawn from the Bank; and after some difficulty Moore had
got his money back by instalments, but not until he had
threatened a prosecution. Another affidavit was put in, to
show that Henry Chard had been a bankrupt, and that his ex-
amination had been adjourned sine die by the Commissioners.
Lord DENM A N—From the affidavits it appears that there..is
strong evidence against the defendant and his sister for a con-
spiracy, but we are not now tryinc, him for conspiracy. I do not
say that they may not have some effect in the sentence to be passed,
but it is obvious that the defendant ought to have an opportunity
of answering them. It appears to me that the best mode would
be to give him an opportunity of answering them if he thinks
proper, and after that the prosecutor may bring the defendant
up for judgment if he thinks it necessary.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL—We had better, then, hand the
affidavits over to the other siee. _ _

Mr. Sergeant GouLnuaN, on the part of the defendant,
would take any cowse the Court might think fit.
Lord DENMAN—Copies of all the affidavits shall be handed
to your client. If he is desirous of answering them, he shall
have the opportunity.
Mr. Sergeant GOULBURN—When will your Lordship fiz for
bringing up the defendant for judgment?
Lord DENMAN—We will not fix any time.
The defendant then withdrew.
THE QUEEN V. HARVEY.—QUO WARRANTO.
In this case a rule nisi had been obtained calling upon the
defendant to show cause why a writ of quo warranto should
not issue calling upon him to show by what right he exercised
the office of Alderman of the borough of Liverpool.
It appeared that on the 29th October, 1841, Mr. Harvey had
been elected an Alderman of Liverpool. Among the qualifi-
cations to hold this office, it was enacted that the person hold-
ing such office must be entitled to be upon the burgess-
list of the borough. It was admitted that Mr. Harvey
was not upon the burgess-roll which came into
operation on the let of November, 1840, that he was entitled to
be in the list made out by the Overseers on the 15th of Septem-
ber, 1841, approved by the Assessor on 15th of October, 1841,
and which would become the Burgess-roll on the Ist of Novem-
ber__,_lB4l.
Mr. KELLY showed cause against the rule, and contended
that the fact of his being on the new list was his qualification,
and that the Legislature intended the qualification to be, that
a person should be on the list of burgesses in contradistinction
to this roll.

Mr. meTow followed on the same side.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL contended that the qua

liflcation was, that a person must be on the burgess-
roll; that the distinction attempted to be drawn between the
list and the roll was fallacious; and that the Legislature in-
tended that the roll, and the roll only, should be the document
to which reference was to behad to prove a qualification.
Mr. WORTLEY followed on the same side.
The CouaT took time to consider its judgment.

COMMON PLEAS.-(THIS DAY.)
(Continued from our Second Edition.)
THEILHEIMER V. COLBATCH.
The plaintiff in this case was a merchant at Hamburgh,
the defendant an eminent warehouseman at Globe-yard, Lower
Thames-street, and this action was brought by way of
trover, to recover two casks of bristles, warehoused with
the defendant for the plaintiff. The statements on both
sides at the trial were very conflicting. The'principal witness
for the plaintiff was Miss Mary Anne Theilheimer, his sister,
who swore that she entered the goods at the defendant's ware-
house, iq her brother's name. For the defendant, on the contrary,
his clerk, Mr. Day, swore positively that Miss F., on entering
the goods, gave her name Blumenthal, at the same time re-
questing not to acknowledge to any one that the goods were
her's. He accordingly sent for the goods, and had them brought
from on board the Neptune from Hamburgh. Shortly
aftewards he received a notice from the owners of the Neptune to
detain the goods for freight, and subsequently two attachments
were served upon the defendant from persons alledging that
they had alien on the property. Miss Theilhemer, however, swore
positively that she never gave the name of Blumenthal, and
that the entry in the name which was produced could only have
been made by the mistake of the Clerk. The Jury found for
the plaintiff. and a rule was obtained to set aside, the verdict
as contrary to evidence.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE this day, in giving judgment,
said this was one of the cases in which the Court found great
difficulty in deciding, but in which they ought to abide by
the general rule, unless there was something pecu-
liar to make it an exception. It was impossible
not to say that the motion for a new trial involved a charge of
perjury against Miss Thielheimer, and therefore the rule ought
not to be granted on that ground, unless the preponderance of
evidence was clearly against her. It was not denied
that there was strong evidence on both sides, and
it was not denied that the incongruity was pointed out to
the Jury, leaving it to them decide to which witness they would
give credit. They, therefore, having everything before them,
and having decided one way upon that evidence, why should
the Court send down the case for a new trial contrary to the ge-
neral rule. He thought the case ought to remain where it was,
Mr. Justice COLTMAN was not satisfied that a charge of per-
jury was made out against Miss Thielheimer, and he thought
there was no ground for impeaching the verdict. A good
deal of doubt might exist about the case at the time after trial,
but it had been fully submitted to the Jury, and he was not
prepared to say that they did not came to the right conclusion.
Mr. Justice ERSKINE said there was a direct contra-
diction between the plaintiff's witness and Mr. Day,
and the Jury believed her in preference. If he (the Learned
Judge) had been on the Jury, he might, from the evidence,
have come to an opposite conclusion; but still he could not say
that the Jury were wrong, and that there should be a new trial.
Mr. Justice Canssww. concurred with the other Judges,
and the rule for a new trial was discharged.

WORSHIP-STREET-(THIS DAY.)

Joseph Johns, a young man of fashionable exterior, was
charged with having created a disturbance in Spital-sguare.
Police-constable H 49, stated that shortly after one o'clock
this morning he noticed a crowd of persons in Spital-square,
amongst whom was the defendant, who had thrown off his
coat, preparatory to engaging in a fistic encounter with one of
the bystanders. He desired the parties to move on, and the
defendant's antagonist immediately did so, but the defendant
refused, and he was compelled to take him to the station-house.
In his defence, the prisoner said that he was returning home
from the City of London Theatre, when he met three men, one
of whom insulted a lady who was under his protection, and he
was about to chastise his insolence, when the policeman came
up, and although he heard the man abuse him in a gross man-
ner, he allowed him to depart, and took him (defendant) into
custody.
The Magistrate considered that the policeman had not ex-
ceeded his duty under the circumstances, but as the prisoner
had already suffered sufficiently he should discharge him.