The Sun. — 1815-05-13 (London, England)

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, MAY 12. PERJLIIIY.—THE KING V. LANE. This was an iudictinent for perjury, at the prosecution of Mr. Birch. The parties were both surgeons and apothecaries, and the defendant had . purchased the prosecutor's business at Pentonville, for 5001. for securing the payment ot 1501. of which he had given a warrant of attorney. The prosecutor c3ttcred up judgment on this security, and the defendant obtained a rule Nisi to set the judgment a,ide, on the ground that 101. over and above the legal interest had been taken- by the prosecutor upon this Warrant of attorney. Upon the defendant's affidavit to this effect, the present indictment wits tonnded ; and ;he prosecutor now attempted otherwise to account for the payment ot this,,lol. at the time of executing the warrant of attorney ; but the Court and Jury being of opinion, from the- facts which came nut on the prosecutor's cross-examination, (viz, that he bad made out a list of patients to hand over to the defendant, many of whom were dead or removed, and some of whom had never employed, or had  'rnpior t‘iat the proleentor tvns not thi,:t unexceprionabkklviinestip6i, whose ti,...5-timonY timonY tiwy ‘l/4-01110. wArranted 'in. ,convicting a bmn o'f the 'crime perjury-, Ine rid l'Or the prosecution gaves up the cise, a!ld.the defence was not ini-ther entered into, the 'defenlfound Not Guiis:y. ant being inithecliatelv  eguRT or i.:O-mmoN pLE-As, NlA;tr 12. • AZ47'ol:lll' V. MORStIEO', 13,11:T. This Was au.action brought by Moni..Antoine, a bunker in France, ugiinst Sir. Frederick i\lor's;head, legal representative of Sir George Moris7 heads to recover 31271. the amount of five bills of exchange, accepted by Sir G. Morshead at the time he was a piisdner at Verdun, in 1806% The plaintiff represented, that lie ,advanced the Money for the laudable purpose of supplying the necessities of Sir G: Morshead, and other Gentlemen; While they were prisoners of war. Among the bills there was one for 20001. indorsed by Sir G. Morshead. The defence to this action was established on the .9th of Anne, which renders void all securities given for money lost at gaming. 'ro bring the case within-The Statute, it was stated, with respect to the bill of 20001. that Mr. Estwick, an Officer in the British Navy, lost at a gaming-house in Verdun, kept by a person named Balby, 10,0001. Balby having on one occasion recommended Estwick -to give a Bill indorsed by Sir George Morshead, the 20001. bill was drawn, indorsed '.by Sir George, and delivered to Balby. It then found its way, with others, into the bands of the plaintiff, who apparently gave a valid consideration for it. - Mr. Prescot,"an officer in the navy, being called as a witness,- stated, that he was a prisoner, at Verdun 1806 ;he knew Sir George Morshead, who • was also a Fisoner. Balby, the Commandant at Verdun, kept a gaming table, and • Estwiek in 1806 lost near 10,0001. at it ; witness saw the 20001. bill in question, indorsed by Sir. George Morshead, delivered by Est wick to Balby..' The bill was given for money lost at play by Est-.. wick ; Sir George- Morshead never lost any money himself. Balby aftewards committed suicide. This being the usual substance of the defence, it was contended the plaintiff could not recover. Mr. Serjeant BEST, in reply for the plaintiff, considered it a most mischievous .defence. Monsieur Antoine, he said, stood in the situation of an innocent holder, and the Jury would not tell a. man, who had liberally assisted the subjects of this country, while prisoners of war, that he might return to France, and inform his countrymen there was no justice in England: Sir VICARY -GIBBS having stated the law with respect to the question, observed, that it ought not to be supposed that this country could with— hold its gratitude for liuneaae assistance afforded his fellow-suhjects.by foreigners in France or elsewhere, yet a Judge and British Jury were not to shut their eyes against an iikgal transaction. If  the Jnry believed the evidence of .Air. Present, 'viz: that the bill was given to [Lay for a gaining, t100..-it vas void by the law of England, and could not be enforced. If they believed it was not giyen under such circumstances, they would find for the plaintiff. The Learned Judge did not t,ee that t'hc objection to the 20001. bill applied to the, others. The Jury found for the plaintiff, damages, inchiding interest, 15501. Counsel have liberty to move to set aside the verdict, on points of law arising Out of the cast.