Page images
PDF
EPUB

་་་་་

REPORTS OF CASES

ARGUED AND ADJUDGED

IN THE

Court of King's Bench,

DURING THE TIME

LORD MANSFIELD PRESIDED IN THAT COURT,

FROM

Michaelmas Term, 30 Geo. II. 1756, to Easter Term,
12 Geo. III. 1772.

IN FIVE VOLUMES.

BY SIR JAMES BURROW, KNIGHT,

LATE MASTER OF THE CROWN-OFFICE, AND ONE OF
THE BENCHERS OF THE HONOURABLE SOCIETY

OF THE INNER TEMPLE.

THE FOURTH EDITION,

WITH THE ADDITION OF CRITICAL NOTES AND OBSERVATIONS, AND
REFERENCES TO OTHER REPORTS AND AUTHORITIES.

VOL. III.

From Michaelmas Term, 2 Geo. III. 1761, to
Trinity Term, 6 Geo. III. 1766, inclusive.

LONDON:

PRINTED FOR W. CLARKE AND SONS, AND J. BUTTERWORTH.

[blocks in formation]

MICHAELMAS TERM,

2 GEO. III. B. R. 1761.

1235-1236

THI

SULSTON versus NORTON.

Monday, 16th
Nov. 1761.

[S. C.1 Black.
317.J

HIS was an action on the statute of 2 G. 2. c. 24. § 7. "for the more effectual preventing bribery and corruption in the election of members to serve in par- Action for "liament."

16

not vote.

bribery will The declaration contained five counts: first, that the lie, though defendant corrupted one Moore to vote for Lord Villiers and the party do Sir Robert Burdett, by giving him five pounds five shillings; secondly, a corrupt agreement to give Moore five pounds five shillings; thirdly, a corrupt agreement to lend him. five pounds five shillings upon a promissory note; fourthly, a corrupt agreement to deliver the note to Moore on voting; fifthly, for giving the note and counter-note hereafter mentioned. A verdict was found for the plaintiff, and entered on the first count.

Mr. Serjeant Hewitt, on behalf of the plaintiff, shewed cause against setting aside the verdict; which had been moved for, on the part of the defendant.,,

Mr. Caldecott, on behalf of the defendants had objected, when he made that motion,

First, that the man did not in fact vote for the persons he promised to vote. for; but, on the contrary, voted for their opponents: and therefore the defendant, as he did not by any corrupt agreement procure Moore to vote for them, cannot be said to have corrupted him to do so.

Secondly, That the verdict ought not to have been taken on the first count, which was for giving him the money. To the first objection, the case of Bush v. Rawlins in B. R. P. and Tr. 29 G. 2. was said, by the Serjeant, to be a full answer, being in point.

And in answer to the second objection, he alledged that the evidence given very sufficiently supported the taking the verdict on the first count; and for the truth of his allegation, appealed to Mr. Justice Foster, who tried the

cause.

[ 1236]

Mr. Justice Foster reported the evidence to have been, "that the defendant gave Moore five guineas, to vote for "Lord Villiers and Sir Robert Burdett; that Moore gavev "him a note for it; and the defendant gave him a coun

VOL. III.

B

« PreviousContinue »