Star.
London, England, 1825-08-16 00:00:00

SUMAIEII ASSIZES.
•,i.....

BItIDGEWATER, AUGUST 13.
This morning, Walter Brooks and his son, Hobert
Brooks, who had bcen yesterday convicted, under very
peculiar circumstances, of sheep-stealing, were put to
the l)ar for the purvse of receiving sentence.
Mr. Justice LIII TLUDA LC ordered sentence of death to be recorded
against the two prisoners, at the same time intimating the probabi- •
I.ty of the extreme sentence of the law being commuted, which
however could only take place on the condition of their being sent
out of the country.

PERJURY.-THE KING, ON TUE PROSECUTION OP JOHN

GIBBi, V. SA NIVEL ROWLEY.

This was an in hictment for wilful and corrupt per-
jury, and it was s't forth that, in an acacia for trespass
and assault, in which John Gibbs was plaintiff, and
Robert Ford defendant, and which had been tried at
the Wells Assizes on the Ist September. 1824. it uas
material to prove whether the plaintiff was in a gig
with one William Evans in the month of November,
I 523 ; and whether the raid plaintiff was thrown out
of the g:g, the said William Evans then 31 d there fall-
ing on him. The iodictment then went on to state that
the defendant.Sarmiel Rowley was dilly sworn to give
evidence touching these matters, on the occasion of thy
trial aforesaid, rind that he falsely, wilfully, and cor-
ruptly gave evidence in substance to the effect follow-
ing, namely—ls That in the month of November, as •
aforesaid, the plaintiff, John Gibbs, was in a gig with
Wm. Evans, of the Angel Inn, which gig br, ke down
while he, Samuel Rowley, was within a tew yards of the
spot, and that the plaintiff fell out of the gig, and William
Evans upon him"—whereas, in fact arid in truth, the
plaintiff and Wm. Evans were not in a gig which broke
down as described, in November List; the defendant
.vac not within a few yards of them; and neither the
plaintiff nor Wm. Evans fell oitt of the gig, as had been
falsely sworn by the prthent defendant.
The defendant pleaded Nut Guilty.
Mr. C. F. WILLIAMS prr.ceeded to state the case. to.
the Jury for the prosecution. It was a very, trite,,
but not on that account leis true observation, that
on the due idmiaistr4tiun of justice mainly depended
'rfiesproiperity and a eltAre of the countty, and all-
that was dearest to Englishman property, liberty, and
life itself; were closely connected with this grand prin-
ciple in our free Constitutien.....an equal distribution of
civil rights to every subject of t ese realize. But the

V

aqual administration of justice could not be accom-
plished without a strict regard to the sacred and bind-
ing nature of an oath, a proposition su clear and oaf-
evident, that the necessity of maintaining the aavio-.
lability of that • bligation most be apparent at'once
to the most humble as well as the m st elevated in-
dividual. Ueder thosealietnnstan:es, when t c iyed
ban ier of an oath was broken down, and a wilful and
corrupt perjury appiared to have I ecn committed, it
was proper that an offence of so grave a nature should
be duly considered by the proper !taintd, and ade-
quately punished. Such, he pledged himself to prove,
was tie peseta case—one in which the most dari ig,
agrant, and corrupt peijuty had been openly com-
mitted, for purposes the most shameful that could well
be conceived. An action of trespass and assault, in
which Mr. John Giblai was the plaintiff, and Mr. Robet t
Ford the defendant, had been tried at the Wells As-
size, for 1824, and in course of this action it was ma•
ter.al to inquire whether Gibbs had sustained injuries
of a very serious aature, occasioned by a violent k•ck re-
ceived final the def:nd int on the lawer put of his back?
Tie inito ies a h ch formed the ground of the action,
were of a nature so serious and so calamitous in their
effect upon the unfortunate plaintiff, that from the
time he received them up to the peseta moment, his
life had been one scene of suffering, with but little pros-
pect of mitigation or relief. Such was the nature of
‘:.e pkaitttrtt * case at the Wells Summer Assiz .s of last
year, and in the progress of the defence it became im-
ortant to lord, the defendant, to prove that no such
injury had been inflicted by him, and that the miserable
and unhappy plaintiff was inertly affecting sufferings
I.c had i•ever frit, for the purpose of bringing the
aarge la, ougirt against the defendant into a profitable
speculation, in order to gratify his own mercenary de-
siloa, or else that the injury had originated from a
cause cif erent from that assigned. However, the
Juty, who would have Mr. Gibbs placed before
them, would have it in their power to form their
own estimate of that miserable maxi's situation, and
could, therefore, come to their own conclu ion on the
subject. On tie occasion of the original trial, in order
to shew tire I laintiff's illness did not arise from Ford's
assau:t, but ano.her and distinct cause, the present de-
, fendant, Samuel Rowley, was brought forward as a
witness, and deposed that he had seen Mr. Gibbs with
111 i. Evans, r f the Angel Inn. in a gig, on the 30th of
November, on wit' ch occasion he swore the gig was
ovprtnrned, and Mr. Gibbs ft 11 out first, and Mr. Evans,
,on the top of him. In this manner it had been intended
to,persuade the Jury who flied the cause, that the suf-
. ferings:of Mr. Gibbs did not arise from the kick in.
flicted by Ford, but from the consequences of this pre-
tended cident ; but on the previous trial the Jury
pea ceived there was not one syllable of truth in tf e de-
fendant's account, and they laughed his evidence to
• acorn. The fact was, Mr. Gibbs and Mr. Evans were
not. as described by the prisoner, in a gig at the time
ilatad, and at no period of their lives had they even suf..
fere'dany such accident as that described in the evidence
of the present defendant. This being the case, itappeared
equally a public as well as a private duty to bring this ,
prtsoner into a Court of Justice, where lie would be likely
to receive theteward of his shameinl, audacious conduct.
Perhaps the Jury would lie astonished to hear that no
such occurrence as that-sworts to by the prisoner ever
• tatoi lace and. that at the time when the overturn of
the gig Was .state) to have occurred, the unhappy man,
v hose just :claim's. to compensation it was meant to
deitaarbt.mcant.of perjury, was stretched upon his
tied; and quite itinstpae of,rising therefrom, in sons*.
quNice of the effects of the outrage he had previously
expel ienced from the defendant, Ford. It was an act
that could scarcely be characterised as it deserved, to
step forward for the purpose of cheating Mr. Gibbs of
the iiradequate compensation in the power of the law
tn. aff ad him for the grievous injury he had sustained.
• This •had bean the conduct of the man now at the bar,
:aid lie culled on the Jury to prove by their verdict the
!..k use they entertained of the enormity of the offence
it•at had been committed, and to hold out to the pri-
toaer, and all other persons who were disposed tb
trice with the serious obligation of an oath, that a de-
parture from truth was always certain sooner or later
to ca!ry its own punishment along with it.
The evidence for• the prosecution turfy supported the Learned
Caunsrl's statement. Among the witnesses examined was
Mr. Jahn Gibbs, at whose instance this action was in.
sti..t.te I, and the plaintiff in the former cause. He was
bete carried into Court. He appeared quite helpless
from the effects of the injuries be had received, and
was partly supported on crutches and partly by atten-
dants while he gave his evidence. He was placed near
the Bench, on the left hand of Mr. Justice Littledale,
:and the side nearest the Jury ; and exclusive of the in-
jai ias he seemed to have sustained, was a fine-looking
mans apparently about fifty years of age.
Z.lr. Basun addressed the Jury for the defence.
Mr. Justice LITTL.EPALE charged the Jury, and pre-
vious to summing up the evidence, observed, it had
tieen stated by the prisoner's Counsel, that the Jury
could not rely on the .proof given of the evidence of
ti.e prisoner in Gibbs v. Ford, because that. proof was
Only furnished by the unsupported testimony of a single
witness. However, he could tee no reason to doubt the

eildence a that witness. and thought the fact was suf-
; &Study established by him, and, the:efore, corrobo•
naive evidence was not necessary.
-The Jury found the prisoner Guilty, without hesitation, and the
Coact sentenced him to twelve months' confinement to hard
tahecr iu the House of Corre.tioa.
WARWICK, AUGUST 12.

Mr. Justice HOLUOYD. at the Close of the Assizes,
passed sentence of tleAth upon James Pattera, the pri-
tsmer convict:d of x rape, at the same time intimating
to him tl:at he cool) hope for no mitigation cf his sen-
tence. The prisoner was left for execution. All the
other cate in which true bills were found were larcenies
a no general interes,.