The Statesman.
London, England, 1822-01-28 00:00:00

i~

i

~~

I.llw INrscideENCll.

OF KINGS BENCH, SATtramor.

TIM KING e. SMARM.
The Behadaet in this case was oue of the indivi-
duals convicted before the Cate► Jorrics of perjury.
in the evidence given by bins in the Barastaple Blee•
time lagairy.
Mr. Jowes new applied for a rule hi a►rest ofjedg-
meat, or for a sew trial on the following grounds :
There wen several eoents is the declaration, is some
of which the defendant was charged with direct per-
jary at the har of the House of Lords. Os all t►ese
roosts the defendant was acquitted ; but there were
other counts in which it was charged. that defendant
Rave evidence before a Committee of the House of
Consumme, and that he pre evidence directly the
contrary before the Hoes* of Peers, sod the ja►en
upon these 'counts found the defeadant guilty, with-
out saying in which cam the perjury was committed
this was his point in arrest of judgment. In support
of his application for a new trial. he had to submit.
that the evidence at the trial was not sufficient, there
Wise may not witness to prove the perjury, whereas
two were malted, otherwise it was only oath &phut
oath.

Mr. Justice WITLIT said there must be two wit-
wenn or °es witness. and circumstances giving a
prepoaderauce to his oath.
Mr. Justice MRST.—Is this case the defendaat had
Aiwa to fasts directly opposite to each other: bad
not the Jury a right to draw a conclusion that one
was lase ?
Me. James observed, the Jury had sot stated that
they each eencin4oo, or if they had, they had
net said which ease constituted the perjury. Besides,
tones Hate perjury, it was necessary a person should
mar wilfully red corruptly.
The Cuter Jurrica said be had put this point die-
tiaetlytothslury,and they had fond • verdict of guilty.
His Lordship thnght there was no ground for a new
trial, though ea the first point there should be a rale
is most of judgeseet.
The rest of the Court being of the same opinion,
the rale is arrest of judgment was greeted.
Tat RING V. naants.
This was a similar case, and Mr. Jones applied on
the same groaads,for a rule in fjadgateat.
The Court granted the rule.
IRO COUNT DU DILLOIX O. LORD WATRIFARK.
This was an action oe a promissory note gives by
Lord Watevpark la 1787. whilst his Lordship was a
_young we., sad at Paris, to the Count De Belloix, for
a sum of rainy, alledged to have beta ad d by
the Comet to his Lordship, then Mr.Caveedish, by way
of lean. The *Woe was brought recently, sod tried
before the Chief Jastice, at Heildhall, in December
last; "rhea the Jury, after hearing the evidence, is-
' • gutted of his Lordship whether they were boned to give
introit on the mote ; and his Lordship intiesatieg to
• them that they were not, they fogad a verdict for the
amnia of the Bill only.
Mr. MANNINO ROW applied to ban the verdict
Iseressed, by adding 2851. to the arm gives as hi-
nny*.
Mr. JO** MATLRY..+LIMAILINWL.AWIDIS WAS for
a demand 040 years standing.
Mt. Maxistwo.The note was made is 1787.
Mr. Justice Havi.H.—Tben, 1 think, you are very
lucky to have got your principal,
The Cuter JUSTICI.—i confess I did not expect to
bear of this again.
Mr. Justice BAILIT..-11 think for about twenty li
years it would have been illegal for the Defendant to
have paid the principal, and daring all that period no
Jones( could have occurred.
Tin Counr was decidedly of °pinkie the verdict
should not be disturbed.