been produced; that in fact the evidence given was no more than parol evidence of what ought to have been proved by record, or some other recognised and authentic document, and that the prisoner was entitled to her acquittal for want of *proper evidence. The learned [*395 Recorder, however, ruled the contrary, and as the other necessary facts were proved to the satisfaction of the jury, they found the prisoner guilty; but considering it doubtful whether he was right in his ruling, the Recorder postponed judgment on the said indictment, and committed the prisoner to the gaol of Newgate, in order that the opinion of the Judges might be taken upon the subject.

On Saturday, the 24th January, A. D. 1852, this case was argued before JERVIS C. J., ALDERSON B., COLERIDGE J., WIGHTMAN J., and CRESSWELL J.

Payne, for the Crown, submitted that the evidence adduced to prove the fact of the trial of William Day was sufficient, that trial having been in the same Court in which the indictment against the prisoner Ann Harriet Newman was found. It was urged at the trial by the Counsel for the prisoner, that by 14 & 15 Vict. c. 100, sect. 22, it was necessary either that the record, or a certificate containing the substance and effect of it should be produced; but John Horne Tooke's case, 25 St. Tr. 447, shewed that where the proceeding was in the same Court as that in which the former trial took place, the minutes produced by the officer of the Court were sufficient.

No Counsel appeared for the prisoner.

JERVIS C. J.-The Court entertain no doubt that the evidence was rightly admitted, and was sufficient to prove the fact of the former trial. The officer of the Court produced the caption, the indictment and the

minutes, shewing the proceedings at the trial, and the judgment of the Court.

ALDERSON B.-The officer of the Court, in fact produced all the materials from which the record must have been drawn up. That surely is sufficient.

The rest of the Court concurred.

*396]

REGINA v. THOMAS BOULTER. 1852.

Perjury was assigned on a statement made by the prisoner upon a trial at Nisi Prius, that in June, 1851, he owed no more than one quarter's rent to his landlord. The prosecutor swore that the prisoner owed five quarter's rent at that date; and to corroborate the prosecutor's evidence, a witness was called, who proved that in August, 1850, the prisoner had admitted to him that he then owed his landlord three or four quarter's rent: Held, that this was not such corroboration as is necessary to sustain an indictment for perjury.

Ar a session of Oyer and Terminer and Gaol Delivery, holden for the jurisdiction of the Central Criminal Court, in December last, Thomas Boulter was tried before the Right Honourable James Stuart Wortley, Q. C., Recorder of the city of London, for perjury. The indictment alleged that the defendant had been a tenant to one George Healey (the prosecutor) of a certain dwelling-house and premises, under a certain rent, and that in the month of June, A. D. 1851, the said George Healey had distrained upon the defendant for certain arrears of that rent.

The indictment assigned for perjury that the defendant Boulter had, in substance, falsely sworn amongst other things upon a trial at Nisi Prius, upon which the question was material, that there was only one quarter's rent of the rent aforesaid due at the time of the said distress.

Upon the trial before the Recorder, Mr. Healey, the prosecutor, positively swore to the fact of there being five

quarters of the rent due at the time of the said distress, viz. in June, 1851, and produced his books, by which he refreshed his memory, and proved the last payment of rent to have been for the rent due at Christmas, 1849.

For the purpose of corroborating his statement, and shewing by the oaths of two witnesses the falsity of the matter sworn to, John Healey, the son of the prosecutor, was examined, who deposed to a conversation with the defendant in the month of August, A. D. 1850, and that in that conversation the defendant Boulter #admitted that three or four quarters of the said rent were then due.

[*397

A receipt from the prosecutor to the defendant was produced upon the trial, purporting to be a receipt for the said rent to Christmas, 1850. This receipt the prosecutor swore had been given through error, and ought to have been a receipt for the rent to Christmas, 1849, only. No evidence of payment of rent was given by or on behalf of the defendant subsequently to August, 1850.

It was contended on behalf of the defendant, that the fact of more than one quarter's rent being due at the time of the distress, was not sufficiently made to appear by the oath of two witnesses for the case to be left to the jury; that the statement of John Healey, as to the admission of the defendant, went no further than to establish the fact that in August, A. D. 1850, rent was due, but did not confirm the prosecutor in his statement of the five quarter's rent being unpaid at the time of the distress, or in his explanation of the error in the receipt.

The learned Recorder, however, overruled the objection, and left the matter to the decision of the jury, who convicted the defendant; whereupon the Recorder postponed judgment upon the said indictment, and committed the defendant to the gaol of Newgate, in order that the

opinion of the Judges might be taken upon the aforesaid facts.

On Saturday, 24th January, A. D. 1852, this case was argued before JERVIS C. J., ALDERSON B., COLERIDGE J., WIGHTMAN J., and CRESSWELL J.

Clarkson and Hance, for the Crown. O'Brien, for the prisoner.

O'Brien. It is apprehended that the only question. that arises in this case is, does the evidence of

*398] John Healey, *as to the state of accounts between

the prosecutor and the prisoner in the month of August, in the year 1850, afford corroboration to the oath of the prosecutor as to the state of the accounts between these parties in the month of June, 1851, or as to his statement respecting the error in the receipt? It is submitted, that it is no corroboration whatever. The perjury assigned is, that the defendant swore there was only one quarter's rent due in June, 1851; George Healey, the prosecutor, in contradiction to this, swears that, at that date, five quarter's rent was due. Now what is brought in corroboration of the prosecutor's statement? Proof of an admission made by the prisoner to John Healey in August, 1850, that three or four quarter's rent was then due by him. This affords no corroboration of the fact in issue. In all the cases from that of Rex v. Muscott, 10 Mod. Rep. 192, which was decided by Parker C. J., to that of Reg. v. Parker, Car. & M. 646, which was a case before Tindal C. J., the rule has been that there must be two witnesses to disprove what has been sworn, or one witness with documentary evidence, some admission or some circumstances to supply the place of a second witness. It is submitted, that the corroboration must be that which goes towards the proof of the fact of transaction in issue, and which would be some evidence of it

if it stood alone, and not that which tends only towards its probability. It was indeed ruled by PATTESON J., in Reg. v. Roberts, 2 Car. & Kir. 607, and Reg. v. Gardner, 8 Car. & P. 737, that there need not be two witnesses to corroborate every fact, as if the false swearing be that two persons were together in a certain place at a certain time; but in all these cases there must be two witnesses, or something instead of a second witness, speaking to facts which go to prove the circumstance in question. CRESSWELL J.-Assume this to be the case; per[*399 jury *assigned, that A. B. and C. D. were not together at such a place upon a particular day. You have two witnesses to disprove this. One says, I saw them together in the place; the other swears that he saw them somewhere else together in the direction of the place, on the same day; that would tend to prove the fact of their being together in the place in question.

COLERIDGE J.-Suppose a man swore that he was not at Plymouth on such a day. One witness swears that he saw him in Plymouth on that day; and to corroborate his evidence, a person is called who states that he saw him in the railway train between the terminus and Plymouth?

ALDERSON B.-The perjury here assigned is, that the defendant swore that there was only one quarter's rent due in June, 1851;—and the prosecutor swears that five quarter's rent was then due. This is only oath against oath. His son, who is called in corroboration, speaks to an admission of the prisoner, that he owed three or four quarter's rent a year before. But that money may have been paid intermediately. There are not two oaths to one fact in the case.

O'Brien. The question of fact in issue, is the state of accounts in June, 1851; how can the state of accounts in August, 1850, go to prove that?