Skip to main content
Hide Articles List

11 articles on this Page




[No title]

[No title]

[No title]





ALLEGED PERJURY. At the Mansion House, on Friday, Mr Charles Fitch Kemp, a public accountant, appeared before the Lord Mayor on a summons imputing to him the commission of perjury. Mr F. H. LewiQ, barrister, appeared to prefer the com- plaint and Mr Sergeant Ballantine for the defence. On The complainant was John Maule Sutton, M.D., and a deputy-lieutenant of the county of Pembroke, and it ap- peared, as the case was put on his part, that towards the end of 1865 a suit of Stanley and others against Coult- hurst and others, was pending in the Court of Chancery and that the defendant, Mr Kemp, acted as receiver in the suit. Dr Sutton, the complainant, according to his own account, in Michaelmas of that year took the Land Shipping Coiliery from Mrs Mary Ann Stanley, one of the parties to the suit, upon an agreement for four years, at a rent of £200, stipulating with her at the same time to pay, in the event of his procuring a lease for forty years, X400 a year, payable half-yearly on the 30th of January and the 30th of July. He was at the same time lessee of the other property upon the same estate. He entered upon the colliery and proved it at considerable expense, forming in October, 1866, a company to work it. In point of fact, however, he never obtained a lease of the mine, though he had reason to expect that one would have been granted to him, and he incurred ex- penses in anticipation of it. The accusation of perjury was assigned upon an affidavit which the defendant, Mr Kemp, made in the Chancery suit on the 19th July. 1¡¡67. and in which he deposed in effect that there was then due from the complainant, Dr Sutton, £457 odd for rent and arrears of rent of the premises occupied by him, in- cluding the colliery, to Midsummer, 1867. The com- plainant, on the other hand, contended that on the day on which the affidavit was made Mr Kemp had in his hands, to the complainant's credit, a sum of £4,1 odd, instead of the complainant being indebted in respect of the rent of the premises. He also attributed to that part of the affidavit ou which the alleged perjury was assigned the refusal of the chief clerk in Chancery to sanction the grant of a lease, and a loss of a considerable sum of money which he had expended upon the colliery in anticipation of a lease. For the defence it was elicited in evidence, that the affidavit in question was originally prepared with a blank as to the amount of the rent due at the time it was made, and that the sum was inserted before it was sworn, hut by mistake as to the amount; that the attention of the Master in Chancery was afterwards called to that mistake, which the defendant admitted to have been made; and that admission having been made on one of the d 'ys on which the.affidavit was used, the decision of the Master in refusing the lease was arrived at after the admission. On the part of the defendant it was also elicited from the complainant himself that the latter had, in April, 1866, paid £ 400, the receipt which he took, and which was produced in court, describing it as one year's rent of the colliery. Eventually, without calling upon the defendant, Mr Kemp, to produce witnesses, the Lord Mayor decided the I case in his favour, and dismissed the summons, believing that a mistake had been made by him in the affidavit in assuming the rent was £ 4C0, instead of X200 a year, pnd that in making that affidavit he had no intention what ever to injury or prejudice the complainant.