The Sun.
London, England, 1842-05-09 00:00:00

ROLLS' COURT, May 7.

Lord LANGDALE disposed of some motions in the early part
of the morning, and then proceeded to hear the remaining
petitions.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL D. REEVES.

Mr. PEMBERTON and Mr. TINNEY addressed the Court in
this cise. The question involved related to a point of practice.

VICE-CHANCELLORS' COURT, May 7.
(Before Vice-Chancellor BRUCE.)
His HONOUR disposed of unopposed petitions during the early
part of the morning.
• ARMYTAGE V ARMYTAGE.
The question in this case arose upon a settlement executed
on the second marriage of the late Sir George Armytage, in
ovember, 1791, by which a sum of 10,0001 was given to him
by the will of his father, to be divided equally amongst the
children of the marriage.
( Before Vice-Chancellor Wm RAM.)
COOK V. FRIER.
In this case, which was heard a few days since, his HoNoux
pronounced judgment this morning, leaving it to the parties to
consider whether or not they would agree to a reference by
consent, to see whether it would be for the benefit of all
parties to confirm the settlement. If not, a reference was
directed under what circumstances the Southampton articles
were entered into, with liberty to state special circumstances.
LECURING V. STERRALT.
In this case the minutes were agreed to, with the addition
that the reference before the Master should include an inquiry
as to the legacy duty.
His HONOUR disposed of several unopposed petitions and
short causes of no general interest.

COURT OF QUEENS BENCE, May 7.
THE CAMBRIDGE BRIBERY CASE.
THE QUEEN V. SAMUEL LONG.

The defendant in this case had been convicted at the last
Cambridge Assizes of bribery, in a prosecution instituted by
order of the House of Commons. A rule nisi had been ob-
tained by Mr. Andrewes for a new trial, on the grounds—first,
that previous to the trial one of the Jury had made use of
certain expressions which proved that he entertained strong
prepossessions against the defendant ; and secondly, that when
the Jury had retired to consider of the verdict several persons
had had access to them.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (with whom were Mr. Sergeant
Stocks and Waddington) showed cause against the rule, and
contended that the affidavit on the other side had been com-
pletely answered ; that no expressions were , used which
would justify the Court in considering that one of the Jurorshad
come to a toregone conclusion ; and that there was nothing to
show that any communication had been held by the Jury with
persons from without.
Mr. ANDREWS and Mr. O'MALLEY, in support of
the rule, contended that the Juror accused upon the
affidavit of several persons, one of whom was a member
of the University with
.having made use of the expressions
alluded to, had not sufficiently denied the use of those
expressions, and had given no corroborative testimony in
support of his denial, which he might have done by calling upon
his friend, in whose presence and house the expressions had
been used, to make an affidavit. It was also contended that
the affidavit in support of the rule having shown that the officer
in charge of the Jury had left the door of the Crown Court, to
which the Jury had retired to deliberate, unguarded, so that
persons might have had access to it, that was sufficient to in-
duce the Court to grant a new trial, more especially as that
officer bad made no affidavit.

Lord DENMAN, in giving judgment, said that if the rule
had been applied for on the first ground only, it would most
undoubtedly have been refused. The first objection was one of
a most suspicious nature, especially in cases of trials for bri-
bery. It certainly was not improbable that in many cases
Jurors might come to the trial of cases of this description with
prejudiced minds, and it was equally probable that there were
persons constantly on the watch ready to catch at any chance
expression which a person summoned to be Juror might drop, in
order to torture it into the expression of a preconceived opinion.
If any person had heard any such expressions drop from a per.
son summoned to serve on a Jury, it was the bounden duty of
the party so hearing such expressions, to lose no time in in•
forming the defendant, or his legal advisers, of what he had
heard, and no doubt in such case the Judge would have called
upon the Juror so accused to explain those expressions before
he was permitted to be sworn. But in this case a member of
the University, who stated that he had heard such expression,
waited for three weeks or a month before he said anything about
it ; and then the Juror stated to have made use of such impru-
dent expressions was at once to be treated as a criminal, and
to be put upon his trial ; and itwas contended that it was to be
assumed that he had used them, because he had not called his old
and intimate friend to contradict them. Now it appeared the old
and intimate friend kept a public-house in the town of Cambridge,
and there was no reason to expect that he should be biased more
in favour of the person who resided at a distance than in favour
of his friends and neighbours, and therefore there was the in-
ference to be drawn against the accusation, because they had
not called upon the man to corroborate it. He hoped never
again to hear such charges made against aJuror. With regard
to the second ground, it would be lamentable if, through
the misconduct of an officer of the Court, who for aught
that appeared to the contrary, might, in a case in which such
political feelings were excited, have been induced to act as he
had done for the purpose that such a crime as bribery should
escape unpunished; and the Court could not forget that Long
himself had made no affidavit on the merits. But it was the
duty of the Court to see that the rules proper to be observed
had been acted on. The Court would not proceed to judg-
ment until the affidavits had been minutely examined.
The affidavits were then handed up to the Bench, and the
defendant left the Court.

BAIL COURT, May 7.
APPLICATION FOR A CERTIORARI.

Mr. KELLY moved for a rule to show cause why a certiorari
should not issue to remove the order of the Poor-law Commis-
sioners to the Guardians of the Union of the parish of St. Pan-
cras, in Middlesex. The ground on which the order was
sought to be impeached was that the Commissioners had ap-
pointed two relieving officers, and also pointed out the duties
they were to perform ; whereas the Guardians, under a clause
in the Act of Pat liament,had already appointed relieving officers,
which also pointed out the duties they were to perform.
Ruleg ranted.

MURDER OF A POLICEMAN.
CLERKENWELL.

Mr. GREENWOOD took his seat on the bench shortly after
10 o'clock. The Court was not much crowded. The prisoner
seemed hardly able to totter into the deck. His face was hag-
gard in the extreme, and altogether he
.presented a most de-
plorable appearance. He was dressed in the same manner,
with the exception of a clean check shirt. He folded his arms
and placed them on the front of the dock, leaned hie head on
them, which he seldom raised ; when he did, it was but for a
moment, stared wildly, and resumed his former position.
The first witness examined was a lad named Grove. He
proceeded to say, It was in a field just opposite Hornsey-wood
House, and near the Seven Sisters'-road, through which there
is a footpath, that I found a hat and gloves. This is the hat.
(An old Carolina bat was produced, which belonged to the pri-
soner, and a pair of white gloves which belonged to the police-
man.) There were some spots of blood on the gloves. The
policeman was first standing at the end of the field; afterwards
he walked into a lane, exclaiming, " Help, help !" When
he got into the lane, be fell. When I met him in the
lane, he asked me why I had not come sooner. He
fell just opposite Hornsey-wood-house. No. 34 came up,
and he sent me to the house to ask for assistance. Young
came. ( Young's depositions appeared in yesterday's Sun.)
Young and I pursued the prisoner towards Highbury. 1 kept
the prisoner's hat all along till I came to the police station in
Islington. I did not reach Highbury Park until Daly was
dead. I gave the hat to Inspector Thatcher.
John William Young was next examined.
At this moment Waddington announced that the prisoner
was no longer able to sit in Court. Dr. Drewry was called to
see the prisoner, and he ordered him to be removed to the
gaoler's room. The prisoner hobbled out with an agonised
expression of countenance.
He returned into Court in a few minutes; the Magistrate
asked him, on his return, did he wish to have the cue ad-
journed ?
Prisoner—No ; I would rather go on with it, and have done
with it.

Young went on to depose, that from what he heard he
went on in the pursuit towards Hornsey-lane, crossing the
Seven Sisters'-road. He met Howell, now present, in a cart.
(This witness merely deposed to what has already appeared.) He
was examined for the purpose of taking his evidence in a legal
form, the Clerk having merely taken notes of it yesterday.
The Clerk compared his notes with the evidence of the wit•
nets as he went along.) This witness further stated that he
heard the prisoner acknowledge the hat fuund in the field to
have been his.
/Ur. GREENWOOB—cave you heard what he says?
Prisoner—Yes. I did not say that I would shout two, but
that I would shoot the first that came to take me.
John William Howell was next sworn.

The prisoner, who had been for some minutes trembling
violently, here fell back, a:id was carried into the gaoler's room.
Mr. GREENWOOD, after consulting with Dr. Walton, of
St. Bartholomew's Hospital, ordered him to be remanded fur
an hour.

At the expiration of that time, Waddington, the gaoler, said
the prisoner was in a very debilitated condition. tie was not
able to stand firmly on his limbs, nor yet to sit without reclin-
ing. He wished to be brought into Court and be placed on
the stretcher, if his presence was necessary, during the remainder
of the proceedings.
Mr. GREENWOOD said such a course was very unusual, but
as the prisoner desired a speedy termination of the proceedings
here he would not object.
The stretcher was then brought in and placed in the dock.
In a few minutes after the prisoner was carried in by two con-
stables and the gaoler. Being placed on the stretcher he
leaned his head on his arm, looked towards the Bench, and
again fainted away.
The medical gentlemen hastened to his assistance, and were
about to relieve him there, when
Mr. GREEN woon said—Really I consider that proceeding
further in this case at present, under such circumstances, would
be very indecent. I will, therefore, remand him until Monday
next. If not able to attend on that day, let the Doctor report,
and I will further remand him.
The prisoner was then taken back to the prison.

GREAT NORTH OF ENGLAND RAILWAY.—FATAL
ACCIDENT.—On Friday morning, the 6th instant, one
of the plate layers on this railway was killed by a luggage
ti ain passing ever him. No blame whatever can be attached
to the engine-driver, the usual signal having been given. The
man, whose name we could not learn, stepped aside to allow
the train to pass, but by some means or other staggered back
again, and was knocked down by the engine, which passed over
him. Ile only breathed once or twice after he was taken up.
This is the first fatal accident that has occurred since the line
was opened in January, 1841.
PROVIDENTIAL ESCAPE.—A curious anecdote is
related of Captain Souter, of her Majesty's 44th Regiment, in
one of the letters we have seen. When the troops were
attacked at Jugdulluck, he tore the Queen's colour from the
staff, and wrapped it round his body, to save it, as he hoped.
from falling into the hands of the enemy. Just as he had done
so, a ball -lodged in hii new. made cummerbund, which was
thus miraculously instrumental in preserving his life.— Cal-
cutta Englishman.
The keeper of a wine-shop near Nantes, a few days
since, while in a state of„inloxicatiou, drank off a quart of
brandy at three draughts, and Immediately fell'sellieless on the
the door. lric ezpind on the same day.