Star. — London, England, 1811-11-12 00:00:00

~-~.-~ IRELAND. out by tiolr, and others, his eontettpottries. An. opinion delivered in the reign of King William, when those countries breathed nothing but assertions of free dom, and when their jealousy in all cases in which constitutional liberty was concerned was proverbial at this period, he said, an opinion delivered by a sit ting Judge must be considered tolerably free from a spirit f obsequiousness to Royalty; but he would in the mean time remark that a constitutional opinion may at any-period of our historybe expected from Holt. The opinion he alluded to was strong, conclusive and satisfactory. The person who gave it was a volunteer on theoccasion —he made it specific and definite: he had it qualified with no" seemeth" but delivered it expressly and unconditionally from the Bench on a great ques tion. The case on which itwas delivered was that of the King against Sir Wm. Parkins and ethers. (4th State Trial, 631.) It was not a Grand Jury case ; it was not a case in which Counsel challenged a Grand Pan nel for a half-accused man : but ont in which a Jury sat upon life, property, and inheritable blood. Sir Vim. Parkins challenged several of the pannel, al ledging that they were the King's servants, he chal lenged to the favour—.the Attorney-General thought proper not to struggle the point; the prisoner stood by to make his choice. After he had taken exception , - of those to whi.:l; the attention of the Court had been already called. The case was recent ; that of the Ring against the unfortunate Shears ; and the opi nion of Lord Carleton. and the entire Court (among whom was one of the Judges now on the bench) was very remarkable. 'lt was to this effect (which was taken down by his friend Mr. Ridgeway, whose ac curacy is well known), that the plea of abatement which had been made did not s:and as a substitute for a challenge, the parties not being present when the Grand Jury were sworn—if they had been present they were at liberty to make the challenge. He had to make another remark to their Lordships. There is a statute, the 4.6 th of the King (and he would advise Mr. Sheriff to look to it), which probably would set the question ab.3ut police magistrates at rest. This Istatute enacted that no police officer should sit on a Grand Jury, for a very good reason, because those gentlemen were required to sit in their offices from ten in the morning till three, and from six until eight, and not in a Grand Jury Box.— (A general laugh.) I Cit IPS i UST ICZ••—SiIeNV me the Statute, Mr.M'Nally. Mr. MNA LLY. —Here it is, my Lord (handing it up), and you may take it home with you if you choose. Mr. *Nally rcintinued to say, that the law, looking with an - of jealousy on the Police Magistrates, CATHOLIC DELEGATES. DUBLIN, NOYEMSER 7. The Court of King's Bench was uncommonly crowded this day, to hear the adjourned discussion of the objections made " to the favour" by Mr. Kirwan. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL was heard on the part of the Crown—and Messrs. Bonnowes and M'NALLY on behalf of Mr. Kirwan. The Bench was divided 4 opinion, and the Judges therefore delivered their Opinion s e riatim. The CHIEF JUSTICE, with Mr. Justice DALY, and Mr. Justice OsanttNE, were decidedly of opinion, that at Co: .mon Law there existed no challenge " to the favour" against a Grand Juror, because if an impro per person w•eie on the Grand Inquest, there would be a remedy in a subsequeht stage of the proceedings by a plea in abatement to the indictment—while Mr. Jus:ice DAY argued at considerable length, that an (oe.ctiun lay, at Common Law, against a Member of the Grand Panne], though he admitted that a challenge " to the favour" would not lie against the Crown.—The Jury were therefore sworn. 17 to • . . eye . jealousy on the . —___ I FURTHER PARTICULARS. - to the second perion, 'Lord Holt addressed him, prohibited on penalty of £5OO a lawyer from giving • This day the Court assembled about half-past 11, saying, o you have challenged two Jurors, namely, a legal opinion ; there was no restriction especially and as the swearing of the City Grand Jury was the Hancock and another, which you alledge are King's imposed on a magistrate not a lawyer, because it was first business to be proceeded upon, Alderman Na- servants. I see no cause for the challenge, but the supposed needless, however by the spirit of the act he thaniel Hone was ordered to take the book. King 's Counsel do not mean to contest the point.-- - was affected as well as the lawyer ; and yet, though Mr. Gooch rose, and said he was directed to persist However 1 would not have it understood that the be was so affected, and though no statute was as he in taking an exception to Alderman Hone, the ferns p r inciple you go on is good ; for it is indecorous and described, he saw seven Police Magistrates, from Al of which he had fotreally set down, and which he unconstitutional to throw out an insinuation, that denim Hone down to Major Sirr, who though last would read to the Court. when the King does not stand in his personal charae- was not least in dear favour, standing candidates for The Souctroa-GeNitam. rose, and observed, that ter, a collusion exists between him and the Jurors." ; .situations of legal inquiry. (Aloud and general laugk.) the impression on his mind yesterday, on the regu- This was the opinion of Lord Holt, and such were Mr. M'Nally proceeded to give an animated picture larity and legality of challenging a Grand Juror, had his ideas.of challenging the King in his public cha- of the duties of a Grand Juror. He received hii ideas not been altered by the opporttmity he had of con- ratter to answer whether he had or had not a secret, ' on the subject not long since from the Learned Judge {erring with the Attorney-General. He had indeed illegal, and corrupted understanding with the Juror. (Day) on the Bench. It a Grand Juror is a consti. consulted with as many as the interval since yester- There is no question of course that had not the At- tutional guardian of our rights, why should he riot day would permit ; and the result of the enti re only torney-General yielded Lord Holt would never have be as independent of the Crown as a Judge ? . Why confirmed him in the view of the question he had permitted a demurrer. The Solicitor-General con- should he be shackled by apprehensions of giving first taken. No instance was on record of an ex- eluded by stating the points theCounselfor the Crown ' displeasure ; and why should the fear of being pu ception being taken to a Grand Juror before a bill insist upon. In the first place, no exception can be ; nished by such a visitation as George LidwilPs, put of indictment was found; and if there was no pre- taken to a Grand Juror, as the nature of the office, ' the liberty of the subject in jeopardy ? cedent to sanction such a proceeding, he conceived , and the situation of the accuser negative the itha.-1 CHIEF Justice—You accuse a party who is not himself warranted in - - ing the - demand that was And he ins i ste d in the second, that,in general terms, presentur accusation. _ _ - opposing the e...... made, and in taking the sense of the Court upon Ino challenge to the favour could lie to a Petit Jury, 1 - Mr. M'NALLY—•. True, my Lord, I find lam irre the subject. The idea of asserting a right for an ac- e and of course not to a Grand Jury. I gular ; but when the heart- and understanding are cubed party, of coming into Court oli the first day of ' Mr. BURROWES obooyed, that this day, for the first carried away by the same impulse, there is a liability Term to scrutinize—of desiring him to be active, for time in his life, he heard it seriously argued by his to error." He said that he was endeavouring to thew the Grand Jury were about to be sworn—of audio- I Learned and eloquent friend the Solicitor General, that the Grand Jury in such a case as the present rizing him to search out the countenance of his ! that a Grand Jury were not materially instrumental should be as free as possible from any degree of con friend or his foe on a mere presumption that he was !in advancing the ends of Justice, and thet they should to be brought to the bar of his country to answer for' not of consequence be subject to the same casual scru- holders ; and he would object thit ac an imputed offence, was indeed a novelty which he , tiny that affects a Petit Jury. The boast of • great count without stopping to enquirewliether they were was little prepared to- expe't. He put it to their our Constitution is, that no man can be legally tried f ttego-iumr.—(4 boom of laarghter - Lordships, whether in the whole course of their prat - without the unanimous concurrence of Juries , , A differ two - " 1°""" or difference of opinion prevailing in the C ourt re tice they knew any decedent to sanction such a pro- I without the concurrence of twenty-three to find a bill . 1 • the objecti ons B ettye toj of Mr. M'NALLY and Mr. ceeding. He examined his recollection—he searched of indictment, and twelve to subsequently accededelivered U . RR . OWRS, the four Judges . their opinions books, and no trace of this proceeding could be found. 1 upon its merits. This is the g reat boast of our Con ' . - , :mama, three of them against the validity of tlie ex- The only th ing that furnished any support to the de- ' • ' • i solution—without a Grand Jury we would conceive 1 , ceptions taken, and one of them (DAY) for those ex rnand that had been made of this Court, was a quo. 1 our liberties endangered—both are necessary—both , ce p t ions , i n , cep n as . far as they applied a is not to o the favour." taken from Bacon's abridgement of Haw hint ' s Pleas, l equal — but this day, for the first time do we bear , are r The following an accurate list of the Grand Jury: Chap. of Indictment, and 16 Sec. and the language , it maintained that an accused party feels an interest Alderman Nathaniel Hone, Foreman. of this quotation was singularly vague and indefinite, in the integrity of one, and a perfect indifference in Alderman Esshaw Alderman Alley He could not conceive a more monstrous absurdity the character of the other. If, then, a Grand Jury is Alderman Howison Alderman M`Kenny than to establish in our Law Courts a principle by lan entire ceremony, a mere formal business, and ins- A A lderman R Worthlngton M. West tdermui id B. Nevill, sea. which every fellow who was chargeable with crime, I material antecedent to something that is to follow, Alderman Andrews B. Nevin, jun. from high. treason to lireeny—eve, y pick-pocket and whet, he woalrisk, is the meaning of their being Alderman Thorpe Wm. Cope petty thief could challenge a Grand Jury as when Freeholders of certain income— their being probi d Alderman Darley Wm. Lindsey dictated. In the first place no one could tell whether /cps/a—persons of integrity, character and conscience, A l de rma nAl,lerman Stamen J. Paisley - M. .1 . Hay the infoimation would be found er nor, or the Tra- to whom life and liberty may be confided. There Alderman Cash T. Hamilton verser called on his recognitance ; but reducing the is no subject upon which the Constitution has been Alderman Bloxham J. Blacker. probability, of his being called, t o a cer t a inty, what more jealous than upon guarding the purity of Juries. The Grand Jury of the City having been sworn, 1 right ca n any man have to impede the cturcrit of =-It wisely furnishes the subject with two classes of Judge DAY addressed the City a nd Count y Juries. publicjustice ? What in reality was the duty of a objections for the preservation of his liberty—one After his Lordship had dwelt briefly on the Grand Juror ? lie was nit sworn a true verdict to I arising from the character of the person arraying a topic of presentments, and economy in the de give according to the evidence. His chief province Jury, and the other from the individual characters bursement of public money, he recurred to the was to inquire into the local concerns of his country of the persons impannelled—and never did he hear it subject of public tranquillity—and observed, that —to leave, as the technical phrase was, no things pre- before urged that those objections were applicable the Criminal Calendar in the City and County of writable unpresented. His duty was different from alone to one Jury. It was an unfair point to rest Dublin, and every other part of the Kingdom that of a Petit Juror ; and he was not subject to the upon, that it was indecorous and unconstitutional to i was extremely light. This fact proved, that any same exceptions. insinuate that the King in his public character had a lefforts which had been made to agitate the public [Here Judge Ononez asked the Solicitor what collusion with a Grand Juror; for we know what mind, were entirely fruitless ; and it was a circum impression was left on the Solicitor's mind by the sycophants and minions of another party may eonsti. stance upon which he had to congratulate the re power that a Judge got, of calling another Grand tute a Grand Jury, of whom the Sovereign had no spectable Gentlemen he was then addressing. He Jury, it an indictment was to be found in the mfddle knowledge, and to whom his name alone was lent as said, that the legal discussion which had caused the of an Assizes ?] a shield of protection, while the business of depriving delay of public business on that day, was one upon The SOLICITOR-Greteeee answered, that this power his s ubjects of their rights was going on. This, my which he would make some few observations. That gave no idea of any peculiar relationship subsisting Lord, was unfair; and it was equally unfair in my when he bad the honour of sitting in an Irish Par between a Grand Juror and a prisoner. It merely Learned Friend, to make a kind of handle of the , liament, he bad often strenuously, and to the ut regarded an oath of formality ; for it was known that 1 word " Pickpocket," in order that his pictures of the most of his abilities, supported the claims of the the Grand Juror was sworn after concerning things humiliation of the Sovereign should ba rendered for. Catholics to Emancipation ; and while they conti alone that occurred before the assizes, and therefore cible and strik'ng. There is a class of individuals nued to prefer those claims with temper and decency, he was bound by no vow in determining upon mat- tailed Pickpockets, low, mean, and pitiful; but there if they did not experience relief to the full measure tens which happened after. The Solicitor proceeded. are higher classes of the community who must be of their wishes, at least he was sure the Catholics He again contended, that forms constituted the best affected by the prerogative with which my Learn- would be treated with tenderness by the Adminis evidence of the principles of the law. This was a well ed Friend wishes to invest a Grand Jury. A man tration. But the present conductors of their affairs inown maxim ; and upon its authority, if he had no of dignity, rank and consequence, must share the have spoken any language but that of supplication : other, he would be content to resist the challenge of rigidity my Learned Friend wishes to adopt towards they have attempted, by clamour and violence, that a Grand Juror. He asked, was any man able to the pickpocket ; but if he were not to share it, there which is only due to dispassionate argument and chew him an instance in which a challenge was ever is a principle in our Constitution which is not regard. solemn deliberation. Much of the language of made before? not one could be found, and he there- less of distributing impartial justice even to the pick. intimidation had been resorted to ; and he would fore insisted that instead of the Counsel for the Crown I pocket. My Learned Friend is probably not more say , that any G overnment which could crouch un being obliged to demur to the challenge, the Court 1 ingenious in endeavouring to provide against the in- der the threats of his subjects, or be intimidated into should say that they would quash it and not reduce 1 convenience that would result from establishing the a compliance with their wishes, would not deserve to the King to the humiliation of answering it. He tight of challenging a Grand Jury. He talks largely exist. If it became once an established opinion, that --asked, would it be established as a precedent, that, ef the number of exceptions, that may possibly be every man in the community, who thought himself where the King stood in no particular character but taken, and the time that would be consumed in the aggrieved might beard his Governors, and enforce' -as a representative of the public at large, that the assertion of this privilege; but my Learned Friend ,by violencethose claims which should never be granted Law would regard any individual as favourable to must recollect, that such inconvenience, proceeding I but to respectful and submissive application, it was him ? . The very proposition was alarming and revolt- as an alloy from a good general maxim, is no novelty not di ffi cult to foresee what the consequences would ing to the feelings. ' What ! was it to be borne that in our jurisprudence. It is no novelty, my Lord, Ibein a free state. There was another, and a very every man who stood a chance of bang indicted for and, in order to avoid it, it would be necessary to 1 material point to which he would call their attention a low theft, for a petty misdemeanor, for an insigni• bring a bill into Parliament to obviate all inconvenience !—a matter which, in the present state of Europe, de ecant larceny—that every pickpocket and low ruts- what:weer ! Now a culprit can take exception alter ; raanded from them more than ordinary vigilance-- creel:: should have a privilege of challenging his So- the indictment is found, as a plea of abatement. The ,it was the conduct of the public press. The Mans vereign to answer whether or not he stood in a corrupt same cause of objection that would actuate him to : gers of Catholic Petitions have, in their several capa.' • led dishonourable relationship with a Grand Juror? inconvenience the Court le/intim', if our principle was , cities, been very intemperate ; and in all violent and No! the question should not be argued in this granted, 'would influence him to make application j intemperate proceedings they have had a very powerful Court; there was a constituannal indecorum in it.— a ft erwards ; and therefore is it not better that the in- auxlliary,indeed, intheDublin Press. It would appear Those principles were deducible from a case which convenience were given before any further proceed- ; that several newspaprs were leagued in this union of he was about to quote. It was laid down by an au- ing, than when all the trouble of finding and trying folly and violence—a folly which, in his opinioo, thorny as competent and respectable as Hawkins, that the bill had been gone through. ' Here the Learned , instead of promoting or forwarding the wishes of in a case where the Crown was concerned , an excep- eeentleman recapitulated the arguments that had been : the Catholics, had thrown considerably back that tion to the favour was not allowable even when a urged on his side. He thought that Hawkins and cause which they had been advocating. It was not Petit Juror was concerned. lie referred their Lord- Bacon ought to influence their Lnrdships, when those , only disgusting, but criminal in the extreme, to i ships to Coke Lyttleton , page lb 6, in which pag e a authorities were borne out by reason and constitu- observe die. gross personalities against several dige particular exception is acknowledged to lie to a valet, tional maxims. 1 nified Members of the Administration, with which or menial servant belonging to the King. There was Some conversation then took place, in which Mr. ' the Press of the present day abounded ;—and lie another case to which he would allude, not as high Justice DALY, Mr. Justice DAY, Mr. Buenown, and would observe that those outrages on personal feel, -constitutional authority, but merely to shew that this .the SOLICITOR.GEMIIIAL took a part, when ing were as unprecededted as they were wicked.... was the prevailing opinion. He should not refer t o Mr. M'NALLY rose.—He had a case to cite which The libellous and inflammatory matter it contained ; the opinion of Judge *greys, if .lie were not bow i was not less Interesting or less conclusive , thaw any the false RDA distorted ea t% it gave to every fact •„,. , • • - . .. . . • . - _ ........._ I , . , . • whirls could keep alive irritati , n anti discosiVote-• the hopes it exci:ei in the seditious and 14 .ffec;ed, ; and, in short, its subtle poi on had inshiisatea iterif into almost every class, and more particularly ifsat laborious and useful class the peasantry, whom he did' not doubt it contributed to make very di,e-ns. tenteJ and unhappy. To suppress this unetampled licentiousness, required their • utmost care an I Attn.. ; tion.—The Lil;erty of the Press is, in a Free Stste, • ' I and under such a Constitution as ours, an invaluable , blessing. Its licentiou boss m ty, if unrestrained, bring misroi tunes of the heavie .t nature on us, and en tail them on our posterity. He woul l txt loops- rres ; pass on their attention; he had not occupied tli&r time at any consi lerable length on t'ioie aubjects which he generally called their attention to, knowing that it was unnecessary to say more than merely to remini them that an attention to certain objects made a part of their duty; and he had thus purpos4 refrained,ein order that he might direct their vigilance to affairs of greater moment to the empire. Jahn Huddleston, commonly called Captain Hud ' dleston, an English Gentleman, who used to attend the - Catholic Meetings, in quality of a Reporter for the Hi&rnian Journal, was on Thursday last brought • into the Court of King's Bench, Dublin, and usher-. . ed into the Grand Jury Room, for the purpose of be. ing sworn, preparatory to the Bills of Indictment be ing found against the Catholic Delegates. , . LAW INTELLIGINCi. COURT OF KING'S BENCH, NOV. U. rICKERINO V. RUiX. 1: Mr. A rrowcav-Grsinta L moved for a new trial of this action of trover for hemp. Tise plaintiff had bought the hemp through' the medium of Mr. Swal low, the broker, but had given him no directions to dispose of it again ; but Mr. Swallow, in satisfaction of another contract, had delivered the plaintiff's hemp to Messrs. Hayward and Co. whose assignees the de fendants were. The hemp was lying at two wharfs, is one of which it was entered in Swallow's name, and in the other in the names of Swallow or Pickering.— Lord Ellenborough was ef opiniol at the trial, that the hemp's having been transf•rred int Swallow's name, authorised him to deal with it quo ad third parties, unless the custom trade altered the circumstance, I a fact which was in this instance left to theJurv. The Attorney-General now contendea, that the plaintiff could not, against the justice and right of the case, be bound by the broker's act ; and said, that the prin . - eiple was the same as that which-he maintained on Saturday, that a factor could no: pledge the goods of his principal, and in which our Readers will recol- I lett that Lord Ellenborough protected an innocent purchaser from a factor, clothed with all 'the indides of property. The Aftorney-General now cited the 'case of M , Coinbie v: Davies, (i Last. 533, in which it was considered that the def-nidant's taking an as signment of the tobacco in the King's warehoule by way of pledge from one Codd in, a broker, who had purchased it there in his owo name, for his principal the plaintiff, (after which as ;;gamest the tobacco stood in the defendant's name in the warehouse, aneKil i r could only be taken out by his authority), and the de fendant's refusing to deliver it to the plaintiff after , notice and demand by him am sainted to a conversion; and the action having gone to a 57C3114.1 trial in con- j sequence of that opinion of the Coact, the plaintiff ul timately recovered. The Learned C•ainsel contended that a broker, could deal with the goods of his p;inci pal only as the principal auth wised him ; if the au• thority was to sell, he could not pledge ; if neither, a _fortiori, he could not sell. Lord Eianuisonouou said, that if the goods had been entered in the names of Swa 1)w and Pickering, the plaintiff would have been s ife : hut as t'ae pro perty was considerable, and the qu :stion to what ex tent an owner was bound by the act of his broker was very important, he would grant a Rule to shew cause. HULL V. COOPER. Mr. MARRTAT mov.:(1 for a rule to thew cause why the verdict for the plaintiff shOuld not be set aside, and a new trial granted. It was an action upon a policy of insurance from Heligolanl to the Baltic ; but it was not stated to the Unierwriter, that the ship was then in the port of London, and was intended to Fps eed thence to lieligalatid, in ballast. The vessel !eft the river Thames on the 27th of August for He-. Egoland, and the single point was, whether, where the assured was conuz:tnt of a previous voyage to be made, it was incumbent on him to disclose the fact, or upon the underwriter to enquiry into it. In the case of Beckwith v. Sidebothans, 1 Campbell, 116, Lord Ellenborough held. that if it was necessary for the assured to have disclosed to the Unierwriter a letter, saying, that the ship would require some de tention for repairs, as governing the time when the ship would sail, it would in all cases be necessary to inform the underwriters where any repairs were wanting ; and he believed it very frequently hap pened that a ship must have something done to her before she could slit on her homeward voyage. If the Underwriters wished to have particular informa tion on the subject, his Lordship added, they ought to have asked for it ; ind if they were disposed to in. sure.,only a voyage made during a particular season of the year, they should, as was commonly done with Jamaica ships, have insured a warranty in the policy that the ship should sail on or before a certain day. Mr. Marryat thought it right to mention this case, - which differed from the present inasmuch as here was a previous voyage •to be performed, which surely ought to have been disclosed. Lord ELLENEGUOUGH said, that when a broker pro pounded a policy at and from a place abroad, it was to be presumed that the ship was either there already or would be within a reasonable time. Did this ex ceed the reasonable time ? The voyage to Heligoland might be made in 4.cr 5 days. Mr. Justice BAYLEY—That was left to the Jury.— Rulerefused. The LIGHTNING sloop cf war has arrived at Ports mouth from the River Plate. Up to the 14th of September, at which time the sloop sailed, Monte Video had not fallen, nor was these any immediate prospect of it. The Naaxvs frigate had sailed from the River Piste to the Brazils, previous to the sloop coming away ; but we do not learn what progress had been made in the .ner ciation between the cam tending parties. -A _ _