Star.
London, England, 1804-12-11 00:00:00

. name and dercription Is if John Wright,
Bell-court, Gray's Inn.lane." The defendant
aide Red Lion, Brentford, addrelling him-
ticolarly to a perfon of the name of Stephen
who WAS prefent, faid he had done the trick
Francis, and ufing an oath, faid he would
tain. Taylor anfwered, he need not care how
t did it, he fhould have a 11. note for every
voted. The defendant faid, he had a great
.o do it again, and went out, but whether he
again or not this witnefs cannot fay. The wit-
w the defendant again the fame evening at the
Mariners, in Fore-ftreet, in the back parlour,
wetly with feveral perfons, and among the
!phen Taylor. Taylor had papers with him
he examined, faid it was all right, and that
pay the defendant his money. He accord-
did give him near a guinea, and begged he
' come next morning, with as many more
sas he cuttlcl get. Taylor faid, if he had not
Ids, he could get freeholds for hilts. The wit•
iv/ the defendant again on the fourth day of the
ion, in the fame place in company with Tay-
Th defendant told Taylor, he was advertifed
polline g for Sir Frandls Burdett. That be (Tay-
), mull fee the Gentlemen of the Committee,
get him fome money to take him out of town,
e mull not be feen. Taylor faid he would fee
Gentlemen, and would do the bell he could for
This was at the Globe Tavern, Moorgate.—
witnefs law the defendant on the Saturday fol-
Ig at the fame place, in the ftreet. Taylor came
tom the Globe, told the defendant that he had
to the Gentlemen, and had got foenething
forhim. They went to a public houfk. where
Mr gave the defendant 21. which he told him he
got for him to defray his expentes out of town. He
'd the defendant a good fellow, and bid him go
The witnefs Caw the defendant on the Wed-
.y following, in the fame neighbourhood.—
tor came up, and faid the defendant fbould have
out of town. The defendant faid he could not
tout more money. Taylor gave him another
te, and the witnefs faw no more of the defendant,,
he was brought up to Hat'nn Garden Office.
:tofs-examined by Mr. EISKINA.—He is by trade
weaver, and is the fon of Henry Brett, who was'
time fince whipped at the Old Bailey. What !
rat paper you have in your hand ? Shew it me.
by no mean..—Do you take on you to (wear that
does nor concern this caufe ? It is a minute of my!
,n.—And do you not chufe to (hew it ? I
'fume yon took it at the moment and on the!
.lings ? Yes.—Did you go there of your own'
tecord, without being direfted or engaged to go
Yen
ny,
aof the candidates ? I went to iatisfy rny
:n cutiofig, as many others diti.—Disl you hap-
en to light on any perfon elk that morning,
lbout whom to take a minute ? No.—So you took'
at minute from mere love of juftice Yes.—Who
re you the paper ? I had it in my pockett—Where
you the ink ? I had it in my pocket.—Are ycu ac-
lamed to carry a bottle of ink to your pocket ? I
id it to take down a note of my work.—So you
,aw this man poll by the name of John Wright, and
then wrote down a minute of it ? I bad no (ufpicion
- would poll.—You were (hocked, were you not, and
id you not tell the poll clerk fo ? No.—How came
when you went and took a minute of the tranfaOion
tor the mere fake of public jntlice, that you did not
tiller endeavour to prevent the perpetration of fuch
crime ? Could you not have faid, Price, what are
su going to take a falfe oath ? I could not fay that
had not a freebold.—How, man I Did you not
:now that his name was not John Wtight ? And
then you thought it fo odd a thing as to induce you
take your pen and write it down, would it not
aye (hewn a greater degree of honefty, a greater
abhorrence of the crime, and a ftronger love of pub-
ic jullice, at once to have capofed it ? I did not
:now but I might be wanted —On your oath, did
you take any other minute or memorandum that day?
No.—Did you mention to any perfon what ynd had
feen ? Yes ;to Armtlrnng and Vicary, two officers.
When you law the Defendant at the Red Linn, did
•ou remind him of what he had clf,ne ? No.—Did it
not Item to you as fnmewhat remarkable, after
having fern one man among fever.' thoufands take a
falfe oath, and no one ell-e, that you lhould immedi-
oely afterwards meet with that man in a public houfe
m which you went by accident ? No anfwer. Did
you not think it an odd call of the dice, that having
leen one perfon in CO great a crowd take a Nile oath,
you Ihould immediately afterwards meet with that
iirfoit in a public houfe, and in a public company
hear him boaft of what he had done ? Yes, I thought
it rather ttrange.—But t take it for granted you, in
addition to your minute, put down what he then laid
as to his having done the trick ?—No. Did you not
rebuke him for having taken a falfe oath ?—No, it
WAS no intereft of mine. But you met him again
in London, about ten miles dillant, that fame even-
ing, in another public hook ? Did you not think it
miraculous, that of all the birds in the air, you
%mild, for the third time that day, meet with a ;,er•
fon in whom you alone was privy to In foul a crime ? I
did nut taped to meet him. lie ttequented that public
houfe.—Then you (wear you met with the Defendant
on all the other occafions yon have mentioned, when
every thing relative to the bufinels you have related
was tranta&ed, at all of which Taylor was prefent,
and that all theft meetings were on your part purely
accidental ? I fwcar fo.—Sow, Sir, I than have that
paper. Look at it again, Sir ;do not fay I take you
by fitrprifc : and on your oath, is it all your hand-
writing ; all written at the fame time, as you have
Rated, on. the Istrftings, and all written with that
bottle of ink which you laid you had in your pocket?
1 ?wear that it is.—The witrifs was here putting the
paper into his pocket. Mr. Erflcine—Come, Sir,
don't take away the paper. WAS it diftated to you,
or did you write it nt your own accord ? I wrote it of
my own accos J. Then pray. Sir, now copy it. Af-
ter a onfidcr..ble time, the witnefs made out a copy
of the paper, when Mr. Erfkine Chewed the variatiohs
is the difFrent writing. The memorandum confitl•
ed of two different pieces of writing. The former in
tosnrof like hand, and pripcily (pelt ; the latter
00,,,,bnug a duplicate i f the oilier, and ;pelt thus ;
No. iteli's Cott, Grailing Lainit." 'the col y
in Lourt re:embled the Inter writing in the me-
nu ...Tolstoi, bit,. Was rah:- e witnefs
laid Le had never (hewn the paper to any pertain till
he (hewed :11n Mr.
hn Denbeigh has ln,wn the D:kr.Jant e:,,loesn
ruc.i.ths ; law lam on :Le Slit dAr,,i the Llama at

a bode opened far Sir Francis Burdett, along with
Taylor, who was called the Recruiting Serjeant.—
Taylor defiled the Defendant to go down. He went
next day, and the witnefs faw him poll. He was at
too great a diaance to hear what was Paid, but he
faw the ciefendant with the book in his hand. The wit-
nefs faw the Defendant afterwards at the Stump and
Magpye, at Ikentford, where, in pretence of feveral
people, he Paid that he had done the trick, and would
do it again and again. He law him again at the Ma-
riner's in the evening, when he grumbled that Taylor
had not paid him fulaciently for what ne had done.
The freehold and occupation of the honk in quef-
tion were clearly proved not to be in any perfon of
the name of John Wright.
Mr. ERSKINE in a, very eloquent Meech called the
attention of the Jury to the nature of the evidence on
which his client was attempted to be found guilty of
fa ferinus a charge. He feparated his cafe altogether
from the merits of an eleftion, and maintained that
it was a ample matter of fad, was his ehent the per.
Inn who reprefented the John Wright mentioned in
the indiament? That Brett was clearly perjured
there could be no doubt. The writing which he fwote
to be entirely his, and written at one time, written
obvioufly by different hands and with different co-
lours of ink, kit no doubt of the f La. T. his evi-
dence, therefore, the doarine offalfum in unofallum in
omnibus. clearly applied, and it fell to be throw out
of the quaion.—The only otherevidence then which
remained was that of Denbeigh, whole teilinsony
could not do in this cafe by itfelf, as to prove the
crime of perjury two witneffes wet e required, but even
it alto laboured under many of the fame imprubabi.
lilies add fulpicions which clutched to the other. He,
therefore, did notfwear that he was near enough to
hear what palled, of courfe, he could never fupport
this indiament charging the Defendant with (wear-
ing that he was, yobs wright, No. 8, Bell yard,
Grey's Ise-lane."-There was, however, another point
which, without infringing on the merits, he fubmit-
ted to the confideratton of his Lordfitip, if the. cafe
could at all go to a Jur)r.there being no proof of the
requilltion of the candidate that the oath fhould be
taken as prefcribird by the aft.
Mr. GA/ROW addreffed the Jury in reply, when
Lord ELLe'waOaoucN Paid, that the ohjeftion in
law to which the Learned Counfel had called his at-
tention, feemed to him fufficiently obviated by the
agreement which had taken place between the candi-
dates, as explained by the Under Sheriff, fronv,which
it appeared that the oath was never difpenfed with
but by confent of parties ; and this agreement, coup.
led with the circomaance that the agents for the can-
didates, who were all along prelent, were equally
entitled with the candidate to make the requilition,
feemed fufficiently to comply with the Aft. The
queftion then remained, was the guilt of the Defen
dant, in having on the fecond day of the Eleaion,
perfonated a perfitn of the name of John Wright,
and under that name having taken the Freeholders'
Oath, and the Oath againti Bribery, fufaciently
made nut ? The material witnefs in the cafe, and
one, undoubtedly, to the credit due to whole teßi-
mony throng objeftions lay, was Henry Brett. The
perfun bad unqueltionably (worn what the Jury could
not believe to be true, that a paper which had been
procured from him by accident, but in a manner
both intereding and important, and with a degree
of (kill and ability which he had feldom feen equal
led in any cafe, was wholly written by Itimfelf. If
the Jury &could be of opinion that it was really his
meaning to fay fn, as he furely had, they would
judge, if any, or what weight was due to his tetti-
many in other refpeas? His Lordfliip then recapi-
tulated his evidence. If the Jury ihould be of opi-
nion that the circurnitance which he had before no-
ticed rendered it (medley fur them to throw his tel
simony out of confederation, they would then go ti
I that of Denbeigh, which laboured under no fuch ()b.
jeaion : and here it was proper fcr him to Rate that
the objeftion urged by the learned conflict (Mr.
Easels c) that two witneffes were neceffary in a
cafe like the prefent, did not here apply. Two
witnelles were undoubtedly nectfrary to prove
I the corpus ski3i, or aftual perjury, which had here
been proved in the clearelt manner, it being made
out beyond a doubt that no perfon of the name
of John Wright was either freeholder or oc-
cupier ~f No. 8, Belhcourt, Gray's Inn-lane. To
prove the identity of the perfon, in this as in every
other cafe of identity, one witnefs was fufficient.—
Denbeigh then had (worn that he law the defen-
dant on the findings with tire book in his hand,
though he WAS at too great a dillance to know the
words which paifed, or by what name the Defendant
i had naffed. Being, however, teen on the hulling, in
this tituation, obvioufly going to thicharge the right
!of a freeholder, it was for the Jury to judge, if this,
1 with the other circumflances which the witrefs had
depofed to, as pa(linsr between the Defendant and
Ta)lor, both prior and potlerioi to that period,
was not firflicient to fupport the indiament ; the more
particulatly, as it was in the power of the Defendant
had he been in the lituation (worn by the witnefs,
polling either in tis own right, or in any other name
than that of John Might, it was in hi. power to have
brought forward evidence to that effeft ; and the
not brining forward any evidence, the Jury would
perceive could not proceed from any with to secure
the lalt word, as the Couniel for the profecution was
already entitled to the reply in cenfeeptence ri the
written evidence given into Coin t by Mr. Erfkine.—
On the whole little doubt remained in his Lord-
(hip's mind as to the Defendant's guilt. The Jura,
however, would judge how far it was made out to
their fatisfaSion.
The Jury, a!'rer confulting for a kw minutes,
found the pi dotter Guilty. _ _ . _

BIRTH.
On the 23 MR. at Rollo:Run Hook, Stalfordlhirt, the Lady of
Sir Edward Monty, Bart of J foto and heir.
MARRIED.
Wednefday lalt, at Windfnr, the Rev. Richard Gn.lley, Fellow
of King's College, tambri.lre, to Mrs. Proctor, widow of the late
George Prodlor, Efq of Cleaver.
On the 2ad uh. at Aberdeen, the Rev. Wm. Skinner, to Mifi
Jean Johanna Brand, diughter of Jan. s Brand, Efq.
At Bray. Captain s• u I alward Rain, 01 the 2./.1 Regiment of
Foot, to Mc. I ranee, Jane Julkfte. dasghter of the late
Wm. Jolline, Isfq. MaasLar fur Patcraht 14.
___. . _ _

H 111). _ . ___ _. __ _ -
Au Saturday, at her horde au urr- Cl•an. ate, t, the lii:j.t
Hut, Cady Carotire I.eirh. Her 1.a.1a CI 4i, rya% the Jr. gh•er ..t
H...ra 11,lac of Ch•ado. by ht• hrtt wife, the litteld Hon. I.ady
M.ry Ifruce, daughter tat Clarks Earl 4 A,lzflogry.
.—.

MOH WATER AT LONDON ■RIM/. TO-MORROW,
m,,,T,ing • • •• •• 3, ••;.Jute after IF
After:woe • • • •• zwniaute• 'Ur 11