Star.
London, England, 1803-01-06 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'; BENCH, DEC. 3, tBol.
PERJURY!-THE KING V. MILES.

Mr. ALLEY having opened the pleadings,
Mr. Serjeant BEST Rated, that thiS was an in-
didment for wilful and corrupt perjury, commit-
ted in an affidavit, filed by the defendant, in an-
fwer to an application to the Court of Common
Pleas, to fct afid an award. An ac ion had been
brought by a perfon of the name of Clarke againil
a Mr. Bacon, for Rainier of a very grofs and icanda-
lons nature, to which the defendant had pleaded
a jußification. The caufe was called on to be
tried at Guildhall, before Lord AtvaN LEY, when
it was agreed, that it fhould be referred to two
Gentlemen, who, in cafe they could not agree
in making their award, were to appoint a third.—
The defendant in that adion, was extremely ansi•
ous the mire fhould be tried, but was prevailed on
by Miles, to content to a reference. It related to
a tranfaflion of a very unpleafant nature, very un-
fit to be Rated in a Court of juilice. The arbitra-
tors were, Mr. Miles and a Mr. Timberell, who,
as they could not agree, appointed a Mr. Sims,
Umpire. It was cxprefsly underflood between the
parties, that it was not the objed of the plaintiff to
recover damages, yet the Umpire thought proper
to award the fum of 3001. An application was
made to the Court, to let afide this award ; and,
in fupport of it, two perfons, of the names of
Rowell and White, made affidavits ; in anfwer to
which, Miles made the affidavit on which the per-
jury was affigned. Rowell (wore, that he was with
the defendant (Miles) and Mr. Bacon, the defen-
dant in the anion, at the Mitre, in Mitre-court,
Aldgate, and heard him fay, he had leen the plain-
tiff,who had told him, that in cafe the caufe went to
arbitration, he did not defire that any money
Should be awarded to him as damages; that he
was prefent at Guildhall, on the day appointed
for the trial, when a converfation took place be-
tween a Mr. Mann, on the part of the plaintiff, and
the defendant, when the former Rated it was the
with of the plaintiff the caufe fhould go to arbitra-
tion, and that the arbitrators fhould award (mall
damages, upon which Miles laid, the coils were to
be the only fubjed of their decifion. The affidavit
of Mr. White ftated,that he was alto prefent at the
Mitre, when the parties exprefred their deGre the
caufe fhould not be tried, and obferved, that da-
mages were not expelled. In anfwer to thefe af-
fidavits, Miles, by his affidavit, denied that any
converfation had taken place between him and
the defendant, Bacon, in the pretence of Rowell
knd White ; on the contrary, that White was not
in the room, neither, to the bell cf his belief, was
Rowell there. The Learned Serjeant laid, he did
not expel to be able to convit the defendant on
the latter part of his affidavit, but it was on the
former palfage, in which he had taken upon him
Pelf pofitively to Rate, that White was not in the
room. If, therefore, he fhould prove that
White was in the room, he fhould %aye made out
all that was neceitary to cenvid the defendant of
perjury. It might, perhaps, be laid, that this was
miffalle 6n the part of the defendant, Mr. Miles-
lie however, the Jury would not come to
?if a conclulion, upon the bare affertion of his
Cuunfel, but that they would require tome fad to
be proved, on which they might tearotably pre
fume it was a millake.
the Clerk to the Affociate of the Common
Pleas produced the record, in the caufc of Clarke
and Bacon, and the order of reference, by which
power was given to the two arbitrators to appoint
a third in writing.
Mr. ERSKINE laid, it was r:glit to inform the
Court, that it was an action brought by Clarke,
againll Bacon, for having charged him with an'
attempt to commit an unnatural crime, to which
a juilification had been pleaded..
Richard Sims laid he had,been appointed Umpire.

The s:fendant's Counfei atkct (him, whether his
appointment was in writing ? lie replied, that he
had recsived a note from Mr. Timberell, in conic-
quence of which, be met Mr. Miles and Mr. Tim-
betel', %Ill° told him they had nut been able to
ab ree.
The witnefs was arked, if he had an appr•int-
ment in writing from both the arbitrators ? He raid,
he had not. _ _ . . .

The order of reference requiring that it liionld
be in writing, the objedion was fatal, and the de.
fendant was imenzdi.itely acquitted.

DECI 6.-oxF•ittAm T. LFIINEI4..

The whole da; was occupied it:
ti.e coa,liers-
r;on of thus cattle, which, howev.r. is net at all
intetelling except to the posies. The adion was
brought for a trefpafs, and the point to be decided
was the right to a flip of ground about five feet
broad, near TAtehliam-!beet. A Mr. Ilorlefall,
the defendant's lace, had built a ral.,;c of houfes
here, and the plaintiff contended :hit they en•
certain premites v..10..11
l'he boundaries tit the two
iElly the fame witli the bou::darirs of
les of St. Pancras and 3t. Mary-la•
iJcacc fit ite platoste, :Lea

chiefly regarded the latter. Witneffes were called
who had known the ground in the neighbourhood
for near half a century, and who had been em
ployed to perambulate the parithes. They all
~wore that the place in difpute was within the pa-
,Oh of Pancras. and that HorlefalPs honles en-
croached between five and (e feet into the Goodge
Mate. There was a pairage near Mr. Oxenham's
ivorkthop, through which a cart could formerly
be driven, and which the new buildings a.mon
completely blocked up.
The defendant's cafe was, firft, that at prefent
rc great a fpace was kft to Mr. Ozenham as WAS
defelibed in certain old leafes of there premiles.—
Upon infpeaion of the leafes, this teemed pretty
well ellablithed. In the fecond place an attempt
was made to prove that the new houfes were com-
pletely within a line which had been hated by the
plaiotitr witnefres to b: the boundary of the two
; but here the evidence did not come alp
tc what had been opened. iallly, it was con-
tended that this difpute had been fettled in favour
of the defendant fume years ago ; and, to be lure,
a bricklayer, of the name of Egan,•fwore that he
was prefent at fuch a tranfitaion ; but he teemed
to have (pent the morning in an ale-houfe, and his
evidence was dilbelieved.

The Counfel for the plaintiff' did not think it
worth while to reply. n r the Learned Judge to
t:p the evidence. The jury, without Ifellta-
tion,lound a verdia for the plaintiff, damages 4cl.
colt Cu that the boufes mutt all be immediately
knoLkzd down.
POLICE, &c.

ncrc, anu I{lC
crr.tclied upon
under Mr. Coa
elatec are cc:IZ
I,le p.trii!Ac
1, .anc. CA