The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1833-06-28 00:00:00

LAW REPORT

COURT .OF RING'S BENCH, SATURDAY.
THE KING V. LADY BRISCOE.
- .Mr. Sergeant Adams, the Common Sergeant, and Mr. Platt,
conducted the prosecution.
The defendant did not appear, nor was any Counsel in-
structed in her behalf. Her Attorney, however, was in Court.
Mr. Sergeant Adams stated the case, and said that this was
an indictment, charging the defendant, Lady Briscoe, with
having committed wilful and corrupt perjury. The defendant
had been separated 'frnin her husband for several years, and
some time ago she atteMpted to render him liable for extra-
vagance. On the trial which took place a witness was exa-
mined of the name of Mary Quinan, and Lady Briscoe thought
proper to charge the individual with perjury, instituted a prose-
cution against her, and upon that trial the present defendant
swore to several facts in opposition to Quinan's statement—uame-
ly, that she had never lived with Mr. Wiley ; nor had been called
by the name of Mrs. Wiley. She also at the same time denied all
knowledge of several individuals who had been pointed out to
her in Court. These.persons, however, were called, and upon
their testimony Mary Quinan was acquitted. The learned
Sergeant concluded by saving_ that the question for the 'Jury
was, whether upon that trial Lady Briscoe had been guilty of
perjury ?
A number of witnesses were then examined.
Mr. Edward Groom was called, to produce the indictment
and record of the trial, which took place at the Old Bailey.
Mr. George Cooke, a short-hand writer, produced the notes
of the trial, which took place before Mr. Justice James Parke.
The learned Judge said that it appeared by the record that
the trial took place before Lord Teuterden, and it was conse-
quently erroneous.
Mr. Cooke was proceeding to read the evidence of that trial,
when
Mr. Sergeant Adams requested his lordship would insert the
name of Lord .Tenterden in the present indictment, instead of
Mr. Justice James Parke, an alteration which the learned Ser-
geant said was justified by the usual fiction of law.
The Lord Chief Justice said, if the application had been made
to amend the record, it could not have been acceded to; but he
would make the alteration in the form it had been requested.
Robert Robertson, a victualler, who formerly kept the Devon-
shire Arms, proved that Lady Briscoe lodged at his house, No.
8, Lesson-grove, six or seven years ago, for five or six months;
that she came with a gentleman who lived in Tunbridge-street,
and that they passed by the names of Mr. and Mrs. Wiley. He
said Mary Quinan often came to fetch linen, and to do needle-
work in the drawing-room. Was present at Quinan's trial,-and
was desired to stand up to identify Lady Briscoe. He met Mr.
and Mrs. Wiley (Lady Briscoe) six or seven months after they
left his house, walking arm-in-arm together.
' • John 'Wells also proved that Lady Briscoe lodged with him
in 1827 as Mrs. Wiley, and that on the trial alluded to she po-
sitively denied having ever seen bins.
Mrs. Wells, the wife of the last witness, gave similar testi-
mony.

Mary Quinan examined—l remember Lady Briscoe when
she lived in Tunbridge-street, in 1827. I was a laundress, and
tiseolln "come backward and forward to her. Mr.. Wiley then
visited her. Lady B. then removed to Robertson's, at Lisson-
grove, and she there went by the name of Mrs. Wiley. She af-
terwards removed, with Mr. Wiley, to Albany-street, and I then
went to reside with her. She still went by the name of Mrs.
Wiley, and Mr. W. and her lived together as man and wife.
I lived with them from May, 1827, till March, 1828. I was the
defendant on the trial for perjury.
Counsel—Do you remember her having a parrot?-0; yes, I
do—well, I do—and remember it dying. It is stuffed at present.
I remember her having a dog also, and met her with it the other
day.—[The witness here proved the hand-writing of Lady Bris-
coe, and stated that the articles mentioned had been left at Mr.
Wells's.]
Several other witnesses were examined, who gave similar tes-
timony, and who stated their perfect knowledge of Lady Bris-
coe as Mrs. Wiley, and proved likewise that she denied having
ever known them when they were placed before her on the
fornier
The case for the prosecution, having been concluded,
The Lord Chief Justice inquired whether any one appeared
for the defendant, or, wished to give evidence in her behalf?
No one, however, answered.
His Lordship then observed to the jury that, in the way in
which the indictment was tried, it was at the 'option of the de-
fendant whether she gave attendance in Court or not. The
learned judge was then about to sum up the evidence, when
The jury intimated that it was unnecessary to do so, and they
immediately returned a verdict finding the defendant—Guiity,

LIBEL ON THE DUKE OF CUMBERLAND.
THE RING V. PHILIPS.

Mr. Jelf opened the pleadings, •and stated that this was a
criminal information filed by the order of this Court against I
Josiah Phillips for a libel on his Royal Highness the Duke of
Cumberland, contained in a book entitled "Authentic Records
of the Court of England for the last 70 Years," of which the '
said Josiah Phillips was the printer and publisher-
Sir C. Wetherell (with whom were Mr. F. Pollock and Mr.
Follett,) stated the case for the prosecution. The information
about to be tried had been ordered by the Court of King's
Bench, at the instance and on the application of the illustrious
individual above-mentioned, against the defendant, for the pub-
lication of a gross, scandalous, and malicious libel upon the
Royal Duke, and the question for the jury to decide would be
whether the allegations in that information were sustained by
the evidence which would be brought before them. He need
not say that if they did consider that those allegations had
been fully made out, it would he their duty to convict the de-
fendant, and he was convinced that they would be made out
by the evidence which he should produce to their entire satis-
faction. Before entering upon the details involved in the pre-
sent case, he would take the liberty of troubling the jury with
a few observations in explanation of the nature of the proceed-
ing under the form of whiclr the defendant was now brought to