The Statesman.
London, England, 1819-02-27 00:00:00

Till MVO V •ROOK[.

This was an Indictment against the Defendant, a
respectable law bookseller and printe►, for snood
wilful and corrupt perjary, assignor, upon aw ai•
davit swo►n in this Coort..ow a notion for Kiting
aside the award of Mr. Gaudio, the Barrister, In a
cause where the Defendant was plaintiff. and a Mr.
John Frederick Archbold was the defendant.
Mr. Denson, with whom was Mr. Adolphe',
coudacted the promotion ; and Mr. Scarlet% the de-
fence.

The Wading circumstances of the cuss were these :
—Mr. Archbold, the prowcator, a member of the
profession of the law, bad entered into en agreement
with Mr. Brooke for the publication of an lades to
the year bouts. and of all the law reports, from the
earliest period down to the present time, Mr. Brooke
undertaking, on his part, to supply Mr. Archbold
with two copies of all the reports, for the purpose of
emoting the work; one of which he was retain in
his hands in part consideration of his labour after the
work was completed. Mr. A. hiving failed in his
part of the agreement, se action was brought spinet
trim by Mr. 13. for the breech thereof; and the ease
bring twilight to issue, was referred to Mr. Gantlet,
who made an soard in favour of Mr. Brooke.—
An application was afterwards made at the instance
of M►. Archbold, to set aside the award ; and apse
consideration the case was referred back to the same
arbitrator, who made a second award more 'aeries,.
able to Mr. Brooks t►us to Mr. Archbold ; and as.
other application having been made to the Court by
Mr. Archbold to set •side this award, Mr. Brooke,
on-showing cause pine the role, filed an affidavit
upon which the present indictment was founded. In
that affidavit Mr. Brooke lied deposed to the fact of
his basing willies! Mr. Archbold with copies of re-
ports according to his agreement, for the purpose of
completing the lodes in quintiles+, with the inception
of certain reports of which it was impossible, from
their scarcity, to procure copies. The affidavit stated,
that see est of the copies bed been purchased by Mr.
Brooke of the Prosecutor himself, and that the other
bad bees supplied by him (the Defendant) at an
enormous espence, namely, 2401. The assignment
of priory upon this affidavit was, that the Defends
ant, In troth and in fact, had not furnished Mr.
Archbold with copies of thew reports, in consequence
of which he was enable to perform his egreentent as
to the esecution of the abose•mentioned contract.
IN report of the prosecution, the several awards
end other docomeotary evidence were prorlaced; in
addition to which, the testimony of Mr. Gemara and
of Mr. Doughty, the Solicitor of the Prosecutor in
the action alluded to, was ■ddeced, from which it
appeared that at the two several investigations before
the arbitrator, the subject of the books in question
had ewer been discussed, sod that the fact of their
having been supplied to Mr. Archbold was admitted,
or, at least, undisputed. Upon this evidence
Mr. SCARLZTT objected that the perjury was as-
signed %monis circumstance which was out material in
the issue in question ; and therefore that the indict•
omit was not sestainable.
The Cuter Jorrics was clearly of this opinion,
and said, that the taste, isl fester, of the inilictinvot,
turn supposing it to h.se hoes isi.ll-adtised, had
inasmuch as there OS/ on proof of soy wilful
or corrupt intention on the part of the Defendant.
Mr. DVOIAM said, he bad discharged his duty iti
submitting the case to the Court and Jory, mod
confessing his inability to rrsi•t the jedgment of his
. Lordship, the prosecution must fall to the ground.
The Jury, under the Crusted Judge's direction,
I found the Defeodant Not Gaitty.
Several other Common Jury cases were tried; and
the Court sat till a law hour of the evening for the
purpose, if possible, of clearing the paper of •great
sinenNer of cruses s►t down for trial at these Sittings,
this bring the last day for the Sittings in Westmin-
I seer; bet gene of Ow eyes were of general interest.