Star.
London, England, 1819-07-16 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

•COURT OF KING'S BENCH, JULY 1.5.
THE KING V. SCCRRAII.
This was an indictment for false, wilful, and cor-
rupt perjury.
Mr. CAMI.ECLL opened the pleadings, and Mr.
GURNEY stated the case to the Jury. The defendant,
in an affidavit filed in the Exchequer Office, had
sworn, that in June, 1815' a person of the name of
John , Dayley, residing in Suffolk-street, in the Bo-
rough, called on the defendant, and stated that a friend
of his had a quantity oicontraband goods to dispose
of, which he proposed that the defendant should pur-
claase ; that a few days after this interview, Dayley
introduced the defendant to Mr. James Whalley, of
Gloucester, who said he had a quantity of contraband
goods to dispose of, and agreed to bring them to the
defendant on the following day that accordingly,
as the 12th of June, 1815, Mr. \VT:alley brought the
goods, consisting of Cachernere shawls, silk scarfs,
stockings, gloves, and various other contraband ar-
ticles, and left them with the defendant, who agreed
to purchase them ; and the defendant farther swore,
that he afterwards sold these goods to Mr. James
Laing, merchant, in London. In consequence of this
affidavit, a capias had been issued by the Court of !
Exchequer against Mr. Laing and Mr. Whalley, and
both of them had been arrested for penaltiei amount-
ing to nearly £.5000. Mr. Whalley, however, had
made such a representation to the Commissioners of
Customs as clearly proved that the whole charge was ,
a fabrication ; and on the representation of the Com-
missioners to that effect, the present prosecution was
instituted.

The affidavit on which the indictment was foun-
ded having been put in and read,
Mr. James Laing was called into the witness-box,
and sworn. In June, 1815, he had sold a quantity
of hemp to the defendant, and not receiving pay-
ment as he had been promised, he had found it ne-
cessary to arrest him. To this he attributed the ma-
licious affidavit which the defendant had sworn against
him. He declared that he never, either in June, July,
or August, in 1815, or at any other time, purchased
from the defendant any shawls, scarfs, or other ar-
ticles. At the time the affidavit was sworn, he resided
in Butcher's-row, East Smithfield, but he had also
a country-house at Westham in Essex ; and although
the defendant had sworn, that he was in the habit of
seeing witness frequently on evenings during the
months of June, July, and August, 1815, the fact
was that during the whole of that period he never
spent an eveningat his house in London. It was his re-
gular practice to proceed to Whitechapel the moment
'Change was over, to take a chaise there, and drive to
his country-house. In the months of March and
April, 1819, witness received rwo letters from the
defendant, then in the King's Bench prison, profes-
sing great contrition for what he had done, and im-
ploring mercy in consideration of his family.
The letters referred to by the witness were then put
in and read.

Mr. Laing re-examined.—He had been arrested on
a cipias issued by the Court of Exchequer, in conse-
quence of the defendant's affidavit.
Mr. Jame Laing, junior, (nephew of the former
witness) corroborated every part of his uncle's evi-
dence. He had never been ordered out of the room
when the defendant was with his uncle. The sale of
the hemp, mentioned by his uncle, was the only trans-
action that had taken place between the parties ; to
this he could speak confidently, as he kept his uncle's
books, and was his confidential servant.
Mr. James Whalley was next examined. He stated
that he resided at present in Westgate-street, in the
city of Gloucester, and that he also resided there in
1815. He never in his life had any dealings with the
defendant, nor had he ever seen him before the 16th

of October,lBl7. On that day he called on the de-
fetl4Unt at his lodgings, within the Rules of the
I .. s Bench, in consequence of the affidavit, by
•• '"he had implicated witness in a smuggling
ha
ion. In June, 1815, the time at which the
nt had sworn that witness called on bins with
, goods, witness was in Gloucester ;he remained
tta
during the months of July and August; nor did
lii•return to London till November, 11315. He had
1-: d the affidavit read that day in Court ; and it
*as, from beginning to end, a most vile fabrication.
He could not conceive what had induced the defen-

dant to pitch on him ; but he knew that at the time
the affidavit was sworn, a person of the name of
Henry Hickman was confined at his suit in the same
prison with the defendant, and that Hickman and the
defendant were intimately acquainted. Witness knew
no such person as John Dayley, of Suffolk-st►eet, in
0)e Borough.
Mrs. Elizabeth Whalley (the wife of the last wit-
ness) confirmed every part of her husband's evidence.
• The apprentice of Mr. Whalley also swore, that
his master had been at home at the time the transac-
tion was alleged by the defendant to have taken
place. He produced his master's books, in which
wire entries in Mr. Whalley's hand-writing, .day by
day, for a considerable time before and after the
period at which the defendant had sworn that Mr.
Whalley called on him.
Several other witnesses, respectable inhabitants of
Gloucester, were called, and swore that they had had
personal transactions with Mr. Whalley, at Glouces-
ter, in June, July, and August, 1815.
Mr. Steel, one of the officers of Customs, was called.
He stated, that he received a letter from the defen-
cant, then a prisoner in the King's Bench, requesting
him to call on the defendant as soon as he could, in
order to receive information respecting the buying
and selling of some smuggled goods. Witness did
call, when the defendant named Mr. Laing and Mr.
Whalley as the guilty parties, and at the same time
gave a paper purporting to contain a list of the con-
traband goods. (Th►s paper was produced and read.)
In consequence . of this ►nformation, a capias was
issued by the Court of Exchequer against both these
persons, they were arrested, and a prosecution was
commenced against them by the Attorney-General.
This closed the case for the prosecution.
The defendant had no Counsel. On being called
on for his defence, he said, he should have been able
to prove his innocence had it bee►► in his power to
produce witnesses. But from this he was prevented,
ci Cwo must material witnesses, the one was at
present at Glasgow, and the other in France.
The CHIEF JUSTICE summed up the evidence, and
observed, that in the case of Mr. Laing there was a

motive which might induce a person of a bad mind,'
in the situation of the defendant, to endeavour to in•
jure him—namely, his having caused the defendant
to be arrested. 'The animus was not quite so clear as
to the implication of Mr. Whalley in this transaction.
This, however, was proved—that Hickman, a person
confined by Mr. Whalley in the same prison, was in-
timate with the defendant. He left it with the Jury
to give to this circumstance whatever weight it
might in their opinion deserve.—The Jury, without
hesitation, found the defendant Guilty.