Court Of King's Bench, Tu...
The Times, 1824-01-21T00:00:00

Thits v'was an ini tnii Qgalnst. iMr. Hich ens, the pa rtner of . ilalso, 'whosetease svast-rsed ohMonday, andarnsing oustofhe qlne' pr6oeediugs-Zhis indictment, himever; was not, like ttfioairmci, fratned on evidence gieirb-ay the defendant ett Ciataui Dturn's trial. liOt on h'is istin'ibnybetforetheC'oumritteC of the louse ofCommons. lt nar4y refeIred to the-question, whether Air. Halse used-the "eq. Pr iolits fttoieIs~ which Pws in issue yesteydiv; but it als a.ssgn- CdI pogjury on the'st'atements of-Mfr. Ilichens' thatduring theAeer. 'obn of the '1sf of March, ,1820, no voters cameto the house itt'lj;r. Hals'e,thatthie' defeudant sq *'.thit he di not know that any voters eanIe4othe!house of'AIr. Tlalsd that eVening, and that oni the can- vess ~ordt-rathet-day, the.pasQtycanvaspng did not call:at-the-shop of Jht'neg HosTinf; a~b lhsmith, whilch xvere averred to be niateriapl to the-issne of the petition. ,' '-- 3n r.SC LrST, for theproseeotion,abandoned that-par oftbe' easevch'wCdfouadCd on the -pressions imltatedt to-? ir Ialsqj, and'wilch r ver the iubject-ofthe trial, on Aoinday: The 'loArned' counsel, in additionto the other,eidencein i5e 'clase, reEed ori the citcumstaticql*that the 'defe-dfidt iad sw6ra on- the 'trial of lnn, inconsistentl# with hisevidenceileibre the commnittee. The avidal~enee lThnn befar~ ie pl use vf`CommonsS ind ihat c' the' defeh't',ant, wlio ~wa- called toicontrnadiet him, zere read t lroi tben6t.otc,, ofth horshand-writermwho. atseiuted that inuttiiry:' It app'earied thftiDaniniin order toi fix the charges c irnpiopq Lreu;tins oin the siPxess'fnl candi lates; sqare that hr was: prettllt. att a dinner at Hilt HIe'twhere the candidates, Mr. lichens. ard several otheipersons, vwere present; that-therevean acVd avoters inthe 16bby adjoining the dining-room, avaiting to reivetlekets for hc,uor; thav ., Hglse -wias 'repeaidlidcalled otit toespeak'to them, did so; lioIding.thl d6orvini4is hand; that the candidateseresotuear, thai thtey idist 14ii teaid what passed; and that one of theu, itade use of language'whibli-anife5ted beyohd all doubt lil entire knuw. ledge or 'e'roode-bv .sbh his'*ends *ere promotig his imterests. DIr.'Hichens positvely contradieed alIt s sttent; and;,n the course -of his evidence, svore in gener eis thhedidnot: -se ny voterSVat the house of Mr. tiaLte ,that evdnm Ig4 and: aJtht ts e canM sstparty did norcall at the oiee oo'ikiiis.; andthat itiol. t-ias1e.idlnotiJtos voters ta roitie dervn ? hirs ionse, or they would get nothiing. The 1ionnCmrn'.F Jts'TTcE observed, that the iiiestion-%0hether ihe-party called at thelhonse of Hoskinisdid' nbt'alipea to hint to be material tn the merits of-the petition: !'%jiWethier ihev swax and talked ;with:ah'inAidoal,'mjight be verv. important bitt the exprcsnlon ot lIr:-IIi&iehi!.jwus confio:ed to a. 'n'egative of calling at- the house, while headmitted.thit thdy passed the door; and had thev seen Hoskins-intheroad, the effett v:oulda have been the same. On a re- feren'cb ioTYunn's evidence, jt app&irtdthat 1his statement was, that thev s'awi alid conversed with the man near the shop, nbt is it;' andl thierjeiFthe q^uestion whether theg callted did not eves arise on the case of' the petitibnera. '-,'- - JMlr; ScAnLEsTan yielded to this sugre-stion, and thus the case was brought to the sjmjle issie,whethler the defendant comrnitt6d per- nr3 in asserting-fluat-he saw-nb voters at the house'of Mr. laise on the. Monday evefung.' '.establish the case for the froeecution on this point, Matthiew RiCiards, *Villiai Noall, i1d Ephraiitn ' jor; oters tbr St. ives, were called, trim stateI thlat -tliey,wtlviAlexanidct h'oall and Thomas MOUlMll -were at -I. Halse's in the eveling of lyc lst of 7Marichi 1820, where they-saw-both Mr. Halse- andlMrli. kilciens 'i thc servalnts'. hall,arid tljeir ilndeiver'etiketrLd'own i'rt a-book. They represented AMr.l ichientas tliking part in the cinversation, and Ricbards thougltg thatt it wacIlie who took gd,ovttbe names of the voters. AMr.-.r.- B. GURNY read ilis notes of the deferdant's'cvidence on Dttn'n'strial. It aipearea that, on his crQsS.examiilatiOn, he said -six or.seven,voters c4me- down in the evening-these wvere alihe saw;'he saw them in.tlse,servants-hall. Ile thought it was not only after dinner, but after tea. Alexander-Noalland Tibmas ioall were caUcd on tieir subpcenas. Thi!l was the ease for the prosecution. The ATTrORiNEry.GENE I,nL addressed tie jury for thedefendlnat, whiom he described as a very young man, who had osily lived a tew years at St IVts, wvho w.as entirelk, unpractised in electioneering pro. ceedlings, anji .wh6 had always sustained a most fair and irrepro cI- able charaeter. Atthe cilof eighteen proceedings. instituted bythe proiecutor qn account of the last election, 'an attemnpt was made io eniangle this young gentlemnan in a conviction for perjury, on a point altqtgelher non-etnsential to the merits of the case whici hbe was eCllCd to establish. The jury"'were not now to try any ques. riots of bribery though really iio one acquainted withi Coriisli boroughs could refrain from ta smile when he' he3rd of the, indig- nation -f sir Chiristoliher Hawkins agaiust that offence ; it was soinmewhatlik-e tie Devil reprehending sin. What was it that Aslr -Atdni'iwore? ' He stated a scriesot tranisactions at a dinner, i the presence of the membrts, witTi a crowd:of voters at the door,to fix on theit a knovledge of. bribery, 'every word of which had been proved to Ve& ireltly Iflise- iinT rno tittle of which it was even io-,v coii- tended was true. l'Vhen Alr. flichens, aniong others, was- ealled- to contradict this story,-Iis nitenition was, of course, directly pointed to the alleedl transactionsat the dinner, and. when he swvore that he sa no v6ter. at the house, he must beiunderctood a,, referring to this part ofthe. house and this periuld of thie. That he did not wishi to represent:tbat no voters caine to the lhouse on that day, was obvious from another pare of his examination, Where he stated that Air. Halse onc6 left'the ioom, and, on his retuton said " There was a anothier votcr conic." And were thesegeneral expressions, restricted IS thev were y tle contest, to ifnvolve the defendant in this most serious charge' -which should be supported only. on pregnant evilence of' evil and cormpt design? The l,oitn (utlEr JtUsTIE here interposed, and expressed his opinion,ltbrnied ona perusal of the whole evidence, that though in terms the defendant had sworn that he saw nio voters at the housc on the Ist-of March, yet that lie mnst, in candour, be taken to have referred only to the particular time and place in which the menibers could be fixed with a knowledge of sinister procemdings. Mr. SCA1RtETT, on this suggestion, declinedl to proceed further. The LonD CnirF JusrTiCa explained to the jiury the ground on wehicli he thougthit the charge had failed, and direcred therm to ae- quit the defendant. The jury accordiogly returned a verdict of ANot Gilty. - COURT OF -IN ( TWEsUAY, JA.x. 20. TME! Kt94. ONT 'r'PDSECUTIO2 OF SR -C. ERNKINs,. I1 . .* iT-TTilr TJTICt s '. ' ' _