Star.
London, England, 1822-01-28 00:00:00

THE Kir: FDWARDS.

The defendant in this case was one of the indivi-
duais convicted before the CIIIEF JUSTICE, of per-
jury, in the evidence given by him in the Barnstaple
election inquiry.
111-. JONES now applied for a Rule in arrest of
judgment, or for a new trial, on the following
grounds :—There were several counts in the declara-
tion, in, some of which the defendant was charged
with direct perjury at the bar of the house of Lords,
on all these counts the defendant was acquitted ;
but there were other counts in which it was charged,
that defendant gave evidence before a Commiitee of,
the House of Commons, and that he gave evidence,
directly contrary before the House of Lords, and the.
Jurors upon these counts found the defendant guilty,
without saying in which case the perjury was com-'.
mined ; this was his point, in arrest of judgment.—
In support of his application for a new trial, he had
to submit that the evidence at the trial was not suf-

ficient, there being only one witness to prove the per-
jury, whereas two were required, otherwise it was
only oath against oath.
Mr. Justice BAvLey said, there must be two wit-
nesses; or one wituess and circumstances giving a
preponderance to 1. is oath.
Mr. Justice BEST —ln this case the defendant had
sworn to facts directly opposite to each other ; had
not the July a right to draw a conclusion that one
was fidse ?

Mr. JONES observed, the Jury had. not stated that
they drew such conclusion, or if they had, they had
not said which case constituted the perjury. Besides,
to concti Lute perjury, it was necessary a person should
swear wilfully and corruptly.
The Cities JUSTICE said, he had put this point dis-
tinctly to the Jury, and they had found a verdict of
guilty. his Lordship thought there was no ground,

for a new trial, thopgh on the Set point, there
be a Rule in arrest of judgment.
Tire rest of the Coulee being of the nose opinion,
the Rule in the arrest of judgment was granted.
TO.f. 'KM v.ftAntics. ait.
This was a similar case, and Mr. Jonas applied on
the same grounds, for a Rule in arrest of judgment.
The COURT granted the Rule.
THE COUNT DU DELLOID V. LORD WATtIiPADIC.
This was an action on a promissory note given by
Lord Waterpark in 1787, • whilst his Lordship was a
young man, and at Path, to the Count du Belloir,
for a sum of money, alleged to have been advanced
by the Count to his Lordship, then Mr. Cavendish,
by way of loan. The action was brought recentl7,
and tried before the Chief Justice at Guildhall, in
December last ; when the Jury, after hearing the evi-
dence, inquired of his Lordship whether they were
bound to give interest on the note? and his Lordship
intimating to them that they were not, they found a
verdict for the amount of the bill only.
Mr. MANNING now applied to have the verdict in-
creased, by adding £'2Bs to the sum given, as interest.
Mr. Justice BAYLEY—I think your action was for
a demand of 40 years standing.
Mr. MANNING—The note was made in 1787.
Mr. Justice BATLEY—Then, 'think, you are very
lucky to have got the principal.
The CHIEF JUSTICE—I confess I did not expect to
hear of this case again.
Mr. Justice BATLEy—I think for about 20 years it
would have been illegal for the defendant to have
paid the principal, and during all that period no in-
terest could have accrued.
The CounT was decidedly of opinion the verdict
should not be disturbed.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, JANUARY U.
ROBINSON, ASSIGNEE OF HANLEY, V. GRAY.
Mr. Serjeant VA (MBAR moved for a Rule to show
cause why the verdict for the plaintiff should not be
set aside, and a new trial granted, on the ground
that the verdict of the Jury was contrary to evidence.
The circumstances of the case were, that a sum of
£6OO had been paid by the bankrupt to Miss Gray,
on the eve of his bankruptcy, which, it was alleged,
he had borrowed from this young woman nine months
before; and when Miss Gray was examined before
the Commissioners of Bankrupt!, her answers touch-
ing this transaction being found to be false and con-
tradictory, the Commissioners ordered her to stand
committed for prevarication.
The Cocax granted the Rule Nisi, on condition
that all documentary evidence in the cause should be
produced be.loie the Court.
At one o'clock the Court adjourned to Guildhall.