Star.
London, England, 1822-11-11 00:00:00

a“,

, as“

LAW INfﬂLLIG’SNCE. ‘

COURT OF KING‘S BENCH, NOWHERE e.
k noun "untrue-routs o. OAIDNII. -
.~' Mr. An‘lm moved for It llule to shew cause 'why
’ in this case a new trial should not be had, or’the
judgment arrested. It was an faction on the Bribery
Act for penalties alleged to have been incurred by
receiving money for giving avote at the List elecﬁon
for llcltester. The case was ' tried before Mr. Justice
Richardson at the last Assizes for Somerset. when a
verdict was found for the plaintiff. At the trial there
was no evidence, except that the defendant in the
September after the election, which took place to
June, admitzed that he had received money for giving
his vote, and all the counts in the declaration “fed
the expression “ fut giving,” butrtnt “ for havrng
given.” nor did they charge any ‘O"."Pt “Ewe“
previous to tlte‘electinn. Now the Statute, rightly
- considered, merely referred to prospective receipts or
engagements, and not to monies given after the elec-
tion when no corrupt bargain ha previously existed.
There was also another objection, that the poll-500k
\vi’s not given in evidence to prove for whom the de-
' fendant had actually voted, but it had merely been
. shewn by parole testimony, that he went up to vote
for the party charged-as giving the money.
The Count observed, that there might be bribery
although there was no contest, and consequently no
poll-book ; and that though the poll-book, was re-
ceived as evidence before a Committee of the House
: of Commons, sworn to try the merits of the election,
:3 it did not follow that it was evidence in a Court of
‘ Law for collateral purposes. They, however,thought
both questﬁ'ns worthy of consideration, and granted
a' Rule to shew cause.
me KING 0. runaway.
Our Readers may remember, that the defendant,
a fustiawcutter at Manchester, was indicted by the
Bridge-sheet Association for selling Carlile'r New
Year's (ii-t to the light-mars, and on the trial at the
Assizes for Lancaster, was found Guilty. He after-
.' wards made an application to the Court for a new
trial, on the afﬁdavits of himself and others, directed
ti shew that the witnersuho swore to the purchase
of the work had spoken falsely; and obtained a Rule
to shew cause. These afﬁdavits were answered by
others on “the part of the Association ; and, accord-
ing to the uniform practice of the Court, when the
statements on behalf of the applicant are denied by
positive depositions on the other side, the Rule was
discharged, and the‘defendant received judgment.
The Association then preferred a bill of indictment
against him ‘for perjury, which was found by the
Grand Jury at the Lent Assizes for Lancaster ; was
traversed by the defendant; and stood for trial at
the Summer Assizes. The subsequent proceedings
formed the ground of that application which we have
low to report. '
Mr. Bnouonau moved for a Rule to shew cause
why the writ of ceiliorari, granted in this case, should
not be quashed, and a procedemlo issue; and why
certain persons, named Murray, Atkins, and Sewell,
should not pay to the defendant his costs for not pro-
ceeding to trial, and the costs of this application; and
why Murray, being an attorney of the Court, should
not be called on to answer the matters contained in
the afﬁdavits. He moved this on the afﬁdavit of the
defendant attd of a man named Jeremiah Garnett,
which stated that theindictment for perjury had been
found at the Lent Assizes, and was traversed till the
Summer Assizes. Notice of trial was given by the
prosecutors for thOse Assizes. The Commission day
at Lancaster was on the2lst'of August; and on Mon-
day, the 26th, which was the earliest day upon which
the case could be taken, the defendant was in radi-
rtess, with no less than nineteen witnesses, brought
from Manchester, where the facts in question oc-
curred ; and the expenses of whom pressed most
heavily upon him, for he was a poor man, almost
destitute of resources. On Wednesday, the 28th of‘
August, the case stood for trial before Mr. Baron
Wood, and the defendant was ready to meet as}
answer the charge. But on that day an application
was made to the learned Judge, on behalf of the
rosecutors, to put off the trial, on an aﬁdavit of
R’lnrray, the Attorney for the prosecution, stating
that a material witness—one oi the Police-ofﬁcers of
MancliesierT—was necessarily absent at Chester, and
was expected on the following day. On this appli-
cation. he (hlr. Brougham) and his learned friend
Mr. Evans. objected, on the ground of the additional
expense which would be thrown on the defendant in
the continued maintenance of his witnesses, which he
was so ill able to sustain. The learned Judge put 05‘
the trial till the next day, when he said it must cer-
tainly proceed. In all this there was every appear-
ance to induce belief that the application was made
bonaﬁdc on Iccount of the detention of a material
witness at Chester, and no hint whatever that on the
next day the issue would not be decided. On the fol-
lowing motning, therefore, the Counsel for the de-
fendant came into Court ready to goon: the wit-
nesses were all in attendance, when, to their utter
astonishment, and no less to thelastonishment of the
learned Judge, a cem'orari was produced, which had
arrived that morning from London, to take the case
out of the’jurisdiction of the Judge, 'a'nd to suspend
all the proceedings. An application was made to
Mr. Baron Wood for costs, but he said he had no
power to grant relief; but the defendant must- seek
it elsewhere. V ‘ ; ‘ ' '
Mr. Justice Bas'tcv—Would'the case have come
on for trial on Wednesday if the application 'for post-
ponement had not been made ?' ~
Mr. BuouctlAu—Undoubtedly it Would have been
tried in‘the course of the day; for the delivery of the
jail was completed, and nothing remained for trial
but the traverses, which, with the exception of this,
were all disposed of between eleven and twelveo'clock,
and Mr. Baron Wood assisted in the trial of causes.
_..The prosecutors in this case are persons who have
subscribed a fund for the purpose of prosecuting inl
cases of libel, and Murray is their attorney.
.-Mr. Justice Bavuv—We can have nothing, you
know, to do with that here. .
Mr. BaoucuAu—Yes, my Lord; because my
motion is, in part, directed a aiust John Atkins. Esq.
and Sir John SeWell, Kur. wlio are sworn to be mem.
bers and ofﬁcers of the Prosecuting Society, ailing
itself the Constitutional Association. » . '{t
- _Mr. Justice Bur—Were they at Lancaster during
the trial ? ' ‘ ‘
Mr. Baoucnntb-No, my Lord ,- but I submit if '3‘.
sons subscribe to a fund to put certain law in action,