Star.
London, England, 1805-01-28 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

I
COURT OF KING'S BENCH, J. 1%. 26.
THP RING V. THOMAS PRICE.
This day Mr. Ertkine moved for a rule to Thew
caufe why a new trial thould not he granted in this
cafe, the verdict of the jury being contrary to evidence.
The charge laid againit the defendant was that he
being a perfon kr.own by the name of Thomas Price,
had appeared on the haings at Brentford, on the
fecund day of the Litt EleCtion for the Ciamtv of Mid-
dlefex, and had there polled Per Sir Francis Burden,
under the name of John Wright, piiirelling a freehold
fituated in No. S, Bell-yard, Gray's Inn-lane, which
he atilt occupied. The cafe was tried before Lord
Ellenborough on the lad day of Sittings after lad
term, at Wedmintter, and the Jary found the defen-
dant Guilty.
Mr. Easicia II dated that the material evidence ad
duced on the trial, indeed the only evidence which
went to fupport the indi.lment to its foil extent, was
that of a perfon of the name of Henry Bret!. His
tellimony, however, taken even as he himfelf would
reprefent it, exhibited loch a train of improbabilities
and of extraordinary coincidences, as it would have
required the molt unblemilbed charaCter for veracity
and integrity, and the moll perfea confiftency in his
mode of giving his flatement, to gain Credit with any
Jury or with an' man whatever. This perfon fseore
that he had known the defendant for i z months, but
was not intimate with him, or in the habits of fre-
quently feeing him. Yet he fwore that he, having no
intereft in, or conneCtion with, the Niiddiefex Elec-
tion, but purely by accident, n,et the defendant in
Fore-ftreet, Moor fi. :Ids, on the morning of thefit:fidav
of Li'e Election ; law hint again On ti:flew/delay, alto
purely by accident, on the hutting; at BeentlOrd, at
the Poll-booth of the Holborn Divifion, and there
heard him take the oath and hail as John Wright, No.
8, Belbcourt, Gray's Inn-le:ie. Altivnierit he knew
this neither to he his name noe p'-ice , t ahode, he al-
lowed the cireamcrance to p ,l, in ilia,-;.e. Havinz
lift the hoftings, aryl Fr,:-;:te it on the I.:I'. r R,..d 1.:,-ai
at Brentford, :re a...ain c;-,-Al to.mee• the aefendant
and there beard lii.n, in the prefenre -f about :::ae:,%,
pelforts, boalt that he had dote the :lick I'or .iir F.
Bordett, and that he wonlei ii,r it a-rain. On tnc,'::,:e
evening, he again, dill by accideat, nitt tile defendant
at the Tit:cc Mariners, in Foee-Erect, ,loorlieleh.
where he far the defendant receive from a pee2on of
the name of Taylor a guinel for the vote he had
given. On the fourth day of the cleflinn, lie • .;;;13:1
met the defendant, in company with Tayleoa at I
the door of the Uinta! tavern, in Moargate, and
heard the Defendant inlOrm Tay:or that he was ad- ,
vertiled for polling for Sir F. L. and that he mud
get him .mfmcy from the Gentlemen of the Com-
mittee to tat:e him out cf. town. Again on the Sa-
turday, or fixth day of the eled:an, he met thc De-
fendant in the fame piat.e. Taylor came up, and
they went together, Brett accompanying them, to a
public houfc, rhere T. gave the Defendant 21. to
carry him out of town. He once more, dill by ac-
cident, met the Defendant in thee fame neighbour-
hood, on the Wednefday following, being the ni•ok
day of the Eleniun. Taylor again came up, laid
the Defendant Mould have been nut of town, and
gave him another one pound note. Thus had Brett
in no repel a confidential fiend, or even an inti-
mate acquaintance of the Defendant, and, according
to his own account, in no refpecEl employed or in-
terefled in the Middlefex cleCtion, but a poor jour-
neyman weaver, who ought to have been attending
his own bufinefs, been prefent, if his dory could at
all be believed, while the Defendant, under a name
which he knew not to be his, was guilty of the mull
grols and wilful perjury. Leaving the Huflingc, of
all the places in the world where he might meet with
refrethment, he feleCted a bottle where this fame De-
fendant again made his appearance, and in the pre-
tence of twenty other pertons faulted of his own in-
famy. This was a coincidence rather of an extraor-
dinary kind, and nut exaCtly within the common
range of human occurrences ; but the remainder
of the dory was of a (fill more extraordinary, and
even miraculous nature. For, as this perfon had done
witnetied, and being confcious of the beginning of
this nefarious tranfaftion, to be was deftined to ap•
pear at the critical moment in every after nage of the
loninefs ; and, as if intlinetively, or-by fpecial ap-
poimment, to hear the Defendant confers his guilt,
fee hint receive the 'Updated reward, acquaint hi,
employer that his crime had been deteeted, that he
WAS advertifed and mutt conceal hiinfelf, and on
two different occafions fee him receive motley to .ena
ble him to go to the country to &Ape dilcovery. All
this Mr. Ertkine admitted was within the bounds
of potlibility, and therefore, if a Jury were war-
ranted in having, or could have, implicit confidence
in the integrity and veracity of flue witnefs, they
might give effeCt to his tcilimony. On the crofs-exa-
mination of this witnefs, however, circumflances had
occurred which completely deprived him of ail claim
to credit. He had been guilty of the mod dire& -and
felt-evident perjury ; not incautioufly, or in conk.-
quence of being taken by Itirpgife, but advifedly, and
%%jilt more than ordinary time to recolleit himfelf.—
In the condi of crofs-e eat-Hitting the witnefs, the
Learned COunfel oblerved that he held clofely in his
hand a paper, which when fird called on, he retitled
to produce, arid did lo I iii.ily saidi relliaance.—
When examined, it WA% f',101.: to concern the cafe in
quedion, being a memorandum, in two places, pur-
porting that, " 7 bona! Price had on the fe:o,oi day !Me
A 14.,,,,,, p,,q,,1 at 11, 114,0 n Diviinn, an yol:n IY",;:;11t,
No. ti, it,ll-,-,,m; t, Way': inn-:ane." When examined
Brett fleaufailly maintained that both parts of the
memorandum were in Ili; hand writing ; that he
wrote them on the hudings ; that they WCTC written
at one time, and with the fame ink. In every one
of there refixes it was obvious, from infpeftion of the
paper itfelf, and particularly from examining a copy
of it written by Brett in Court, that he had deviated
from the troth. infpeCtion of the memorandum was
alone fuaicient to thew that it was written in different
hands, at different times, and with a paler and darker
kind of ink. One part of it was written in a bufitiefs
hand, and was properly fpelt ; the other part was
miferably written, and entirely mil-fpelt.
From there citcumttances, Mr. ERSKINE contend-
ed, it was impollible to give the molt diftant credit
to any part of -Brat tefiimuny. Indeed, the learn-
ed Lord who tried the cafe expreffed that opinion in
his charge to the Jury. Laying his tellimony there-
fore out of the ciustlion, the only other evidence
which went to afied the Defendant as having at all

pc,;k3 at that elation was, aat of 2 perfon 0:
came of join Denbigh, who furore that he law
Defendant on the huttings, with the book in his has?,
as in the ad of voting, but that he did not hear
what paired, or by what name he rl!ed. Now, Mr.
F.rikine maintained, that to corviCt a perfon of the
crime of prjury, Two witoctres were neeeffary.--
Thiowin!, It rell's teftimuny, however, out cf the quef-
tion, there was not the finalleft evidence, except that
of Dentist:, that the Defendant had been at the huf•
tings, or in any fituation which could induce even a
fuji,icicn that he had at all voted at the eleCtion. But,
ftippoting the cridence Dent I, to the extent it
wtiit, to be of itfelf fulficient, to v..liat did it amount?
That the Defendant had voted as John Wright, No.
8, Bell',-court, Gray's Inn-lane ? By no means. But
that he was fern with the bock in his hand, from
which it was prefuniable that he might have polled.
It was, however, equally to be relearned, that his
vote might have been objected to, and that he might
have quitted the hustings without committing the
crime which, fuppofing him not to be a Freeholder,
the taking of the oath would nectiftrily convey.—
Allowing, however, to Denbigh's terlimony its full
weight, and fuppofing that the Defendant did aflu.
ally poll as a Freeholder, that was nut sufficient to
convict him of the crime charged in the indiitmenr.
The Defendant might be a bad perfon, and might
have polled at that elation without having a free-
hold ; but to conviet him of the crime charged in the
indictment, it mull be fatisfattorily made out, that
he had polled as john Ito. 8, Bell court,
Gray's ,nn-lanr, of which, laying afide the teftimony
of Brett, there was no evidence wha!ever.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH.—." On the evidence of
Denbigh, it appears the Defendant laid,' I am afraid
I be pulled for my bad vote.' There is no quel-
tiem if the man committed perjury ; the only doubt
is, if he committed the particular aft of perjury, at
the time, and under the circumftances charged in the
indian.elit.—Take a Rale to thew caufe."