Court Of King's Bench, We...
4%-. 6CARttETT begged to mention these caset, which were before thv eard Chncellor on Mlonday. The plaintiff had been put to Qa?ex pense.in bringing witfnegses to town, in expectation that tlhev aulttbe trota ; -and If the trial were to be postponed, the defendatit T,he?LbfjUtklp Jusnlcg said this could only be subject of |?cationg t on aeffidbaevlit eas he should 6it here to-morrow, the tsar, SCABUETT said he believed the motion would be, that a day heould be a~puinted for the trial, or that the defendant should pay THE XING V. THOM1AS DUNSTON. 'Tbis was an indictment for perjurT, in answer to a bill in Chan- *v. The complainants, Wood ana Sinmons, alleged that the Eendants, Dunston and Robinson, had a4iroprtated to thennselves, f It peron named Flanders, a very beneficial contract for the sale o anestate, in which they wereinterested in equal moieties. They charged, that baviny been often concerned in the purchase of estates by speculat,on, in 1820 they negotiated with Dir. James Spiller, wh o was agettt for the sale of an estate called the Beauvoir Estate, at ttlebridge, and proposed to Dunston and Robinson to JoiD wvith them in the purchase. By the terms of the eont?att, Dunston and Robinsen an attorney, in Charter- house-square, were to advance t we whole of the purchase- money, andweretorecciveback their capital and five per cent. interest, but the surplus profit was to be divided among the four partveres. Mlr. Robinson, however, procured the whole interest to be conveyed to himself, Dunston, and Flanders, without the con- currence of the plaintiffs, who therefore prayed, that on the payment of their proportions of the purchase-money, a declaration of trust shbuld be exetuted, securing to them their interests, or that propor- tuonate parts of the estate should be conveyed to them, and that the dTei-ndahts should account for all monies which they had received. To this bill, Air. Robinson and Mr. Dunston put in their answer. v'hey relied as to any agreement on the statute of frauds; but also itwore that they were the sole purchasers-that Wood was ultimately a mere ageuLfor them-that it was never agreed that WVood or Situ- mons shoul liave any interest as partners-and that they never ad- mitted the. e?ilstence of such partnership. On these allegations XSwigttausTt o~ perjury were now founded in this indictmeent against M8r. Duniston. The ATTOteREY-GzEERAL (wit. whom were Ar. LAW and Mir. ULODERICK) stated the case for the prosecution; and, admit. bnti~at llir. Dunston wa.s in a respectable condition of life, observ- ed tit it rarely happened that in prosecutiOnS for perjury on an an- svwer, tht the. assignments were so direct, or the issue to be tried so $e rns te*al parts of the bill, and the whole of the answer, were Mlr. SCARLETT, for the defendant, submitted that before the prosecutor could proceed further, he must sbow that there was an agreement in writing between the parties; as the defendant had, in his' answer, refered to the statute of frauds. The denial was of a legal agreernet, which coultd only be in writing; and if taken as ap- pbcable to aparole agreement*, was wholly immaterial to the object of The ATTORtNE-tYGGENERAL contended that a denial of a parole agreement for an interest in lands was sufficieutly material to be made the subject of an indictment for perjury. The LORD CIIIEF JUSTICE held othervise: and that, witlhout evidence of an agreement in writing, there was no foundation for the procoeedings. No agreement wvas produced, and accordingly the jury pronounced 1-le defendant-A'ot galAty. THE KING V. LAWSON AND OTiiERS. This was an indictment against Air. Lawson, the Clerk of the Peace for Aliddlesex, for a conspiracv. A fu}l special jury did not answei, and no one appeared on the part of the prosecution to pray a tales. The ATTORtNEY-GENERAL, for the defendants, produced his own warrant for a tales, and a full jury was sworn. The ATTo0'rEYGENERAL rose and said, "H Hereare six most resacetablegentlemen indicted, and no prosecutor appears." The LoaRD CHIXF JTrSTICE immediately directed an acquittal. The Jury immediately found the defendants Not Guilty. LUFFLUM V. AlMMSTRONG. This was an action of trespass, for driving a cart over the infant Child of the plaintift, whereby he was put to expense, and lost the child's services. The plea was " not guiltv." The plaintiff was a market-gardenr, at Pulham, near Hounslow, and the defendant a laker in the same place. On the 18th of December, about four o'clock in the afternoon, the child, of about eleven years of' age, was playing in the road, and was run over by the cart wrhieh the defendant was driving, ac- companied by his son. According to the testimony of the wit- nesses for the plaintiff, the horse was galloping at the time of thb ac- cident along the road. which was wide enough for three carts to pass. The little boy 'nimself was examined, and said he used to assist his father in the garden, anti was playing in the road, when the cart went over him. The cart ran against him, and not he against the cart. Mir. Armstrong wert1 on after the mischief. The child was under the care of a surgeon for three weeks, and the charge was 21. 3s. Mr. CHrTTY addressed the jary for the defendant, and expressed his confidence that he should slhow his client ftree from blame ; that he was driving at a preper pace; atid that the child was improperly plaving irn the road. To prove this case, hte called Thomas Armstrong, the defendant's son, who swore that kis father was driving at a moderate pace, anti that the children were running backwards and forwards in the road. The LORD CIIIEF' JnISTICE observed, thatif this-witness were not contradicted, he proved the plaintiff's case; as he said the chil. dren were playing in the road, and there was no unavoidable neces- sitvfto drive over them. CHIT-Y, however, called anotber witness, who did not carry the case much furtner. The LonD CHIEF JUSTICE told the jury, that, as in this action they could not take into consideration the suffering of the child, small damages would snffice. The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff-Damages, 31. CoUfty OF KING'S BFNOR. %Vv;+k+N.itvb T7i .T+i 9f MACAtTLA'V. 1A(iYT_