Court Of King's Bench, We...
The Times, 1824-02-05T00:00:00

The ATTOSNEY.-GrENERAI. praved the juAgmcnt of the Court I on this dlefendalnt, who was convicted seven years ago on an indict- nent for keeping a coimnon gaining house. Om the part of the defendant affidavits of inedical men were read, wlhichl stated that his hcalth was so much impaired as to render exer- cise and t'requent ehange of air peculiarl, requisite. An affi(lavit by hIimself alleged that he laad never kept out of the way to avoid being called up for judgment and that for about two Years he had ceased to play or bet. and ha(l not been directly or indirectly interested in any establishment for gaining and an affilavit of- his attornsy, Mr. Staffoerd, confirmed the lattef statement to the best of hlis know. ledge. Mr. ADoi.p1uvs addressed the Court in mitigationof punish- I ment. He said he felt so strongly on the suhject of these prosect;. tions, and(' his sentiments were so different from some whicl were Dopularly expressed. that he felt the extreme delicacyoof the sitoation in whichl he stood; but he should best discharge his itity to his client by suppressing those feelings, and saying only a word on the parti- cuilar case. The Court wouldi recollect that this was a prosecution in. stituted seven years ago, for an offence, according to the indictmeent, of seventeen davs' i' duration, and not aggravated by the least ssispicion'of unfair play, or by any attempt to allure and etitice the unwary. So far was the defendaiit from using excitements, such us once were emnploved to allure the inexperienced anti the young, that he placed barriers in their wav. and allowed no one to be introduced except through the medium of some frequenter of the house. There had, indeed, been a subsequent prosecution against him * but Fo far was hie from apprehending conviction, that he ruled the prosecutor to try, though, unexpectedly, lie was convicted; and the casewas still in suspense on a poitut of law. The Court, then, would consider the date of the charge, due entire reformstion in the defendant's con- duct to which he swore, and would suffer no colDateral subjects to influence that judlgrment whiuh thie defendant resDectfitlly awaited. M r. CuisrTry UfDolwed on the same side. The ATToNswY-.GENERsA;., for the prosecation, obAerved, tlat no doubt could exist chat the defendant had. bv collusion with tile I prosecutor, deferred sentence till the present period. It appeared also by his own affidavit, that, after the first prosecution, he con tinued for five yea;s to carry on the sante lucrative but most mis. chlievous trade until he was a second time convicted. He diid not ask for a seve, rer punishment than the circumstances warranted, buc for such a sentence as would check a practice productive of great miserv. The defendant hegged, as allusion had been made to the second conviction, that an affidavit of himself and a man nared Cousins miglht be read, fraon which it would appear that he was entsrely in- I nocent of the charge. The LoaD CHiEF JuST:CE replied, that a corxpliance-vithu ibis request was not agrceable to the practice of the Court, nor was it ne- cessary to the interests of the defendant, as nothing would be consi- dered but the prosecution now before the Court. The Judges consulted for some time, after which, MIr. Justice BAY LLEY proceeded to pass sentence, whiclh, after ex- patiating on the evils of gaming, and on the probable means adopted bv the defendant to av-ert the consequences of his conviction. lue de- clared to be, that he should be imprisoned in Ne-gate for one months, pay a fine of 3,0001., and find seHurity for good behaviour for five years, himself in 5,0001., and two sureties in 2,0001. each. THlE KING V. Tl1O03AS BIGNOL.D, SEN. The defendant was indicted at the instance of the directors of at insurance soci-ety which he form ed in London after the model of th e Norwich Union, for perjury, in an answer to a bill exhibited against him in Chancery at their suit. The bill was for an accOunt of monies in his hands, and contained an interrogatory, asking wshether he had not agreed to invest the sum of 10,0001., in the name of trustees, for the benefit of the institution. To this iMlr. Bignold answered, that he had not so agreed; tiiat his contract was not to advance the money, but to guarantee the society to that extent; and that if the deed con- tained an agreement to advance, it was inserted witho`ut his privity. i On this allegation perjury was assigned, and Mr. Biznold founl guilty. A rule was obtained in the alternative for arresting tbe judgment, or for a new trial; the ground of the former being that the matter assigned as perjurv neither appeared nor was averred to be, material to the object of she bill; the reason for the latter, that MIr. ! Farren, Alr. Bignold's attorney, had refused to deliver up papers I material to the defence till paid his bill, and 'hat the defendant could i not venture to Gall him at the trial ; but as he had since said that he i cuuld have obtained au acquittal, Afr. Bignold nov wished to ex- amine him as a wvitness. Mlr. SCARLETT was heard against the rule; and ihe ArToR- NEY-GENERAL, the C01storos--!iERoEANT, Ilr. CHITTY, and ilr. AssDERTo--O;, in its support. The COURT granted a rule, calling on Alr. Farren to attend with the drauc:ht of the deed, and deferred giving their opinion till they find sepn it COURT' OF KING'S BENCH, WESTMT[ISTER, FEB. 4. 'T}F. 197IC. V'. FIFT.DFR.