The Sun.
London, England, 1811-02-07 00:00:00

. .
et suing Out :the . wit, by any paints looking to
either or each' of 'the writ et warrant. This be-
ing the, state of the evidence for the prosecution),
be (the Onlntion Serjeant) went with confi.
dence, to the Jury, knowing, from his instruc.
lions 'that he should be able completely to cut
up Mr. Smithson's evidence ; knowing also, that
ft was an established rule of proceeding, that in
indictments for pciury, oath against Oath was
not enough to warrant a conviction, but that in ad-
dition thereto, the charge of guilt most be borne
out by documentary evidence, or by aututehing eke
sufficient to give it a fair and retetottable preponder.
ante. In 111,S C4O there was mantle to support
Hataisun's evidence, if :hat o! Smitesun's was cut
off; and that no reedit could be paid to it lie lead
clearly ettewn..-419t wittleSS having seturti three (lit.
facet times over, that lie had seen, vatti his own
eyes, the. ifidorsemetit of the date of she writ mark-
ed in the cornier of the ‘,4 air aor , although 03 pro.
tittetioll of the warrant by the Shedd, it plainly ap.
peared that there was no such itsdorsemeni, nor any
peatance of erasure on the warrant. On the face
of the writ there was nothing to support Harrison's
evidence, if that' of Smithson was cut otf ; because,
in a writ of fi. fir. there was no accredited officer to
give authetiticity to the indorsement, as was the
',ante in wt its issuing in Nestle Process. Neither the
person belonging to the office whence the writ was
issued, nor' toe person by whom naves sealed, was
called mete indorse a writ of ,fi. fa. or in any other
way to. welch to it any mask of authenticity. The
person who sued out'a writof,fi.p. henget' put the
iedureemetit upon it, and that was only fits own set.
It was to be observed too, that here the levy had
been tirade Oil the t ills, after the plaintiff lied givett
notice 01 dissolving injunction, but hetiee it had
le est 'dissolved; so it must have been eitreineli
conet idea for him, if lie could puree himselt from
contempt ,by an act of his own. He submitted to
the Court, theiefure, that to prove this tatattlfitti part
of the ease, there was nothing het llarrison's, own
evidence, , anepetted I,ty hie own writing, Which
coald be nu het ter them liis r Wester, audCeuld not
add to it, whether true or (i+e. 'ate evidence as
to the falsity uf Smithson's testimennyvhatiliVer, did
riot rest here, but the oticer also swore that there
was nothing on the wartatit to import that the %V lit
issued on the eilt of Aptil ; Ots the contrary, that he
himself bellevial at the time thin it had trot issued
tilt that day, being the t ito April. Common
Serjeent, there=fore, weet to the Jury wills deal-
denee that, ue such evidenee• they could not find
the defeedant guilty. The Attorney Genets! him.
aelt did not enable motet upthe evidence of Smith-
son, but told the Jury, that because Harrison swore
that the writ was sued hut on the eth April, and the
writ itself told the ' same thing, that therefore they
must-take the lea to be so. But what was this but
the evidence of Harrison himself, confirming by
his oath his own testimony in writing ? Teere
could be no doubt, buweter, /hat the Jury warede.
ceived by this ingenious device of the Attorney (le.
peal, and Isere induced to take this, which amount-
ed to nothing, as a coafitteation of Harrison's les-
' tiiriony. Common Seljeant athnitted that Mr.
.Xing was far hoitt being excusable in making the
etS.tavit be had made. Fie submitted, howet er,
that he *as not the cabled of punishment, deceived
a, he bad been by the infinniattoo he had received,
marled at it was with csery probability attentiing
the case. ilatrison, it was admitted, ells a needy
Item and.yet, with an elocution .for against
the defectileit, was it to. be presumed that he should
have remained in a state of inaction, with, this exc.
cution in his pocket tiont the 4th to the t ftli„April
xr ts is situation, houever, the levy not being made
till the t I tit, the dee indent eersonally waited on the
001%er, Wit,isitig to t e litiUitnetl Ot the date of suing
oet.the writ, whou'the officer cola him it had not
beets sued out tills that day. Not satisfied, !weever,
with tfits infietnatioe, he sent a messenger to the
°dicer, biought back similar information in
wilting. The oft .er was caned on die trial, and
sewed that hi' had so informed the defendant; that
lie believed this to be the tact at the time; and that,
if put to his oath, he Would hate sworn that rather
thanotherwise. The infottiaation to thedelendant,
htnveverot direct, aid in sweating upon such in-
formation, through lee might have acted-tacautiottaly,
—is was by _no Means apparent that he did so know-
ingly, falsely,tar corruptly. The Noble and Learned
Jodge put it to the Jury, if they believed that this
was. done from a colourable motive ?
lord Eetatisat eouon said, as he thought thi, a
case of inaportatice, he had stated front writing the
greeter part, of what he had addresard' to the Jury.
It was to this Calla, whether the Deliiudant was to
cooaidt red as having used ail fair, reasonable,
and proper means of ietonnasion ;or wash u* a C
lour and contrivance for laying a.f,iundation for the
attachment in the first instance, and a defeece
against. the charge of petite y afterwards ?
Mr. Cestame SaIt.IBANT eantinited. He had hi-
e sted on the trial, that no knowledge of the dent of
lilting out the wii, could have' been eolleaed hum
the office, they knowing of the date °false 1 nth of
Aprii alone, and that this information could' be got
unly titan the party against, him. He now atte.
mitt d, that the evidence of Harrison, and of the
lielotteree .t. on the win, were one and the same,
colisisficg of his own testimony tmeoefirmed, ex-
cept by th,' ink, which with a ttn he had put on the
back of that ern. Eveet as against property such a
test tinotty fousi be uitgoestionable; bus, in a question'
as to crime, it was ody as oath against oath, and
thereto,' kkas not to he 'listened to.' Their Lordships
need h. idly be told of how great impqrtanoe such a
question as thiswas to the public. .If the defendant
was to be coocluded guilty by this verlia,it was hi the
rwer of the Court to imprison hint for ease, two,
er snore years, and they bad the power, its addition
to this, to lake front bun any part of his property
that might still remain to him. They might once,
twice, or oftener, inflia on him the most infamous
tied disgraceful punishment known in this country,
61),1 alter all, might banish him beyond seas for seven
years. Such constquences as these, he submitted
to the Cowl, woe hot to be incurred on slight evi.
(levee. He did not ask of the Court to find the
defendant not guilty; than the law would not al.

1,014 DON: Printed by itICHAk
Sit this Sus-PrP,