Star.
London, England, 1820-04-06 00:00:00

ACQUITTAL OF RICHARD OWEN.

Richard Owen was next put to the bar, charged
with wilful and corrupt perjury, in having sworn at
the New Bailey, in August last, that be saw Moor-
house on the hustings in company with Mr. Hunt,
on the day of the Meeting on the 16th. He was
given in charge to the Jury; and Mr. C. Pearson,
and the other witnesses on the back of the indict-
ment, being called on, but not appearing to give
evidence, the Judge directed an acquittal. 1(e was
of course discharged.—The Court then adjourned.
MONMOUTH, MARCH 29.
THE RING V. THE REV. THOMAS PROSSER.

This was an information, by way of quo warranto,
chariging, that, upon the 27th July, 1819, the defend-
ant did, without legal warrant, exercise the office of
-Mayor of Monmouth.
Mr. Juivis addressed the Jury on the part of the
Crown. Although the pleadings, the Learned Coun-
sel said, had run into length (there were 97 issues),
the question would be a short one. The Jury, were
simply called upon to decide whether the Mayor of
Monmouth should be elected by the Common council
from among themselVes, according to an alleged itn-
memorial'custoni, which could not be made out, and
according to an asserted by-law, which was not
extant ; or whether the Mayor should be elected by
the resident Burgesses of the town, from their body at
large, according to the Charter of Edward VI. which,
in opposition to the Cliarer of James I. he should
contend was the governing Charter of the Corporation.
Mr. Hewlett, secondary of the Court of Common
Pleas, produced a variety of ancient documents.
Mr. Thomas Phillips, Town Clerk of Monmouth,
was examined at very great length. This witness
produced, from the chest of the Corporation, the re-
cords of the Hundred Court, containing the , entries
of the Elections of Mayors, some of them as early as
Henry VIII. and the records of the proceedings of
the Court of Common Council ; and; uponinspection
of those books, it appeared that, froin the year 1694
to the:present time, the mode of election supposed to
have been set forth by the by-law had been adhered
to, except in those particular instances dwelt 'upon
by the • Counsel for the Crown. The witness then
proceeded to describe the scene which took place on
the 29ih of July, at the election of Mr. Prosser. Upon
the 29th July, he said, the Common Council came
into the Hall ; and, the nomination of Mr. Prosser
being read, the Crier proceeded to make proclama-
tion. The.proclamation called upon any person who
would obect to Mr. Prosser to come forward, and
his poll should be received.
Mr. Thonias Philpott then did come forward, and
said, " I claim the right, as a BUrgess, to put a Bur-
gess in nomination as Mayor." .
Mr. Burgess Bryan, also a Burgess, added-6c I
protest against the .introduction of anything from
the Common Council." Mr. Philpott then nominated
as Mayor Mr. C. Heath, of Monmouth) Burgess and
printer ; and a chew of hands, for and against Mr.
Heath, was called for. The Recorder interfered, and
refused to permit the name of Mr. Heath to.be put
to the vote ; at the same time requesting witness to
take the votes of such Burgesses present as chose to
vote for Mr. Prosser. A Burgess, named Harris, then
came up, and asked the Recorder, what he would do
if the Burgesses voted against Mr. i'rosser, and re-
jected him? Mr. Bathurst answered, that the Com-
mon Council. would nominate some one else. Harris
then asketl,what would be done in case all the Com-
cnori Council should berejected ? To which the Re-

. ,

„ti,~_ .t