The Sun. — London, England, 1840-01-27 00:00:00

EV NIN G EDITION. UNIVERSITY INTELLIGENCE. CAMBRIDGE, JAN. 25. SMITH'S PRIZES.—The Examiners yesterday evening adjudged the first prize to Dr. Ellis, of Trinity College, Senior Wrangler; and agreed that for the second prize Dr. Goodwin, of Camas College, and Dr. Wooley, of St. John's College, were so nearly equal that they should be subjected to re-examination on Monday next. CLARE HALL.—On Saturday last, the two silver cups, left by Dr. Robert Green, of Tamworth, were adjudged to Hervey and Green ; the first as the reward of regularity of conduct, the second of general learning. The Rev. W. C. Twiss, M. A., of Caius College, in this University, has been presented to the Vicarage of Eye worth, Bedfordshire ;--patron, Lord Ongley. The Rev. Thomas Massey, B. A., formerly of St. John's College, in this University, has been presented to the Rectory of Hatcliffe, Lincolnshire, in the patronage of the Collegiate Church of Southwell. The Rev. Henry Isaac Nicholson, formerly of Jesus College, in this University, has been presented to the Vicarage of Great Paxton, Huntingdonshire, vacant by the death of the Rev. Isaac Nicholson ; patrons, the Dean and Chapter of Lincoln. The Kev. Mr. Stoneham, M. A., formerly of St. Peter's College, in this University, son of Mr. Stoneham, of Springfield, Essex, and late Minister of Wrockwardine wood, Shropshire, has been preferred to the living of Ket ley. in that county. The Rev. G. N. Turner, M. A., formerly of Jesus Col lege, in this University, has been presented to the Rectory of Kettleborough, St. Andrew, Suffolk, vacant by the death of the Rev. George Turner ; patron for this turn, the Hon. and Rev. F. Hotham. On Thursday last, the Rev. Augustus Langton, NI. A., formerly of Caius College, in thistUniversity, was instituted to the Rectory of Little Farnsham, in Norfolk, on his own petition. At a meeting of the Norwich Diocesan Committee, held en Wednesday week (the Lord Bishop in the Chair), the Rev. Alexander Bath Power, M.A., of Catharine-hall, in this University, Curate of Keswick , Cumberland , was una nimously elected Clerical Principal of the Norwich Dio cesan Training Institution. The testimonials transmitted by the Rev. Gentlemen were of the highest character, in cluding letters from the Rev. Dr. Turton, Dean of Peter borough, the Rev. G. E. Corrie, Norrisian Professor of Divinity, and Dr. Southey. At an Ordination at the Cathedral, Chichester, on Sun day, the sth inst., the following gentlemen, of this Uni versity, were admitted into Holy Orders by the Hord Bishop. DEAcoN.—John Henry Theed, B. A., Sidney Sussex'.- PRlESTS.—Berkely Addison, B. A., St. Peter's, Geor. ge A. Clarkson, B. A., Jesus, Frederick J. Durkin, B. A.• Trinity, Henry Cogan, B. A., St. John's. THE PRIVILEGE QUESTION. The following protest is being handed about in West minster Hall :-.... " PROTEST OF THE ENGLISH BAR. " The undersigned members of the English bar consi der it to be their bounden duty to express their abhorreinca of the course the House of Commons has a lopted in its Attempts to set up a boundless and irresponsible authoi'ity in opposition to law. It is true that the courts of law have too frequently succumbed to the claims of privil( tge asserted by the House of Commons, and, in earlier tim es, perhaps, the Courts were right in lending their assistance to that assembly against the usurpations of the Crown on the one hand, and the clamour of Burdett mobs on the other ; but in the present day it has been reserved for the courage of a Denman to curb the encroachments of a d'e rnocratic body, and by acting on the universally received maxim, boni est judicis ampliare jurisdictionem,' to pre serve all the portions of our revered constitution withint their due limits. What nobler function than this can be discharged by man, and in whom can it be more safely placed, with regard to impartiality, than in the judwes of the land? Of this Lord Chief Justice Denman is a brilliant example. Raised to the bench, as is well know n, by even ultra- Liberal opinions, he is the first to attack ti to excesses of the popular portion of our constitution, and iii no one of his decisions can the slightest trace be found of any inclination to his farmer bias, even where the justi, of the case might appear to warrant it. It may be safel y esserted that, under his held aid unflinching auspices, e. the preposterous so-called privileges of the House of Com.. mons will graivally disappear. Under what pretence, for irietance, can the public good be consulted, in allowing a. Member of Parliament to slander his fellow-citizens with impunity within the walls of St. Stephens ? It m a y be• said that the bar possess a similar privilege, but in this casee it i 3 exercised in the face of the Courts of law, is never- abused, and is confessedly enjoyed solely for the benefit of the public. " The undersigned, therefore, call upon their fellow- . countrymen ,to rally round th e J u d ge: of the land, and to support them in their conflict with a factious and tyran• nical majority, falsely professing to represent the people, . and they hereby pledge themselves individually to lend_ their professional assistance to the humblest individual in. the land, who may think fit to bring an action against the. House of Commons."— Chronicle. LAW INTELLIGENCE. COURT OF CHANCERY, JAN. 25. WARMOLD V. MACINTOSH. This appeal, which was partly heard yesterday, wee against a decision of the Master of the Rolls, who had re fused the testimony of a Mr. Price on the ground that le was an interested witness, under the following circum stances :—Mr. Price was security for the defendant, Mirc intosh, to the amount of 1,0001.. for which sum he had: at counter security on the estate of Macintosh. It was con tended by the plaintiff that Price could not be damnified etr benefited by any evidence he might give, and was, there fore, a competent witness ; on the other aide it was argued that the/tendency of Price's evidence would naturally be to protect his own interest. The LORD CMANCELLOR said he would read over the Master of the Rolls' judgment before he gave a decision. ROLLS' COURT, 'IAN. 25. CODRINGTON V. JOHNSTON. This was an objection to the Master's report on a matter of account of various mortgages granted on an estate in the island of Grenada, in the West lodges, reaching over a term of 75 years, during which time the claims had been several times divided among the relations of Lady Bath, Sir i'jartin Follies, Bart., and others. This day the reply was heard, and Lord Langdale confirmed the Master's re port, overruling the exceptions, with costs. RAY AND OTHERS V. GILES—OH.ES V. RAY. This was a bill by the executors of Edward Sedg wick, deceased, against ,James S. Giles, his partner, as corr,-factors in Tower-street. The executors claimed . 2 %,000/. and upwards as the amount of capital be— longing to the deceased at the time of his death. The bill stated a variety of circumstances connectes with the transactions of the house of Giles, Son, an 3 Sedgwick, from the time of the partnership in 1819 up t .o 1835, the date of the death of the testator, relating '.o many dealings in corn and accommodations in money trans actions, which it would be unfair to publish before th e defendant's answer to the allegations were heard. 0 n the executors demanding of the defendant the settlernir at of the accounts, he denied that anything was due to A/ r. Sedgwick, stating that that gentleman had abstracted fri ,m the funds of the firm upwards of 300 sums of money dui ,n g the last ten years of his partnership, which in the ti amounted to more than the 21,000/. claimed, and that . he had appropriated them to his own use. The further is ear )ing of this cause was adjourned until this day, and, will most probably continue for several days. Mr. Pemberton, Mr. Kindersley, Mr. Stinton,, .Mr. Richards, and other Counsel, held briefs in this en se, each containing five or six reams of brief paper, bo and as books, and on which fees of 250 guineas each. wet e I endorsed. COURT OF EXCHEQUER, JAN. 25..: CASE OF FROST, WILLIAMS, AND JONES. (Continued from our Paper of Saturday.) Sir FREDERICK PotLocK said, that the Attorney-Gmeral had seen no reason to ask the Court to interfere about the _ . list of witnesses; his only difficulty had been about the Jury. The Attorney-General could make out the list of witnesses himself, and deliver it along with the copy of the indictment. The point he (Sir F. Pollock) was m2king was this. The statute expressly said they should be delivered at the same time; his Learned Friend said that those words meant within the same interval of time; he (Sir E P.) said they did not. The three must be delivered together at the same moment. It was not sufficient that the list of the witnesses, the list of the Jury, and the copy of the indictment, should. be delivered within ten days before the arraignment, but they must be delivered simui et sensel. The rule obtained on that occasion expressly said, in order that such list migi,t be delivered to the prisoner at the same time that the o cop, to of the indictment is delivered. That cou ld not be done vriai . tout difficulty ; but the Court, to o b v i a t e this, interpoe s d an d made a\rule upon the Sh er iff, ca lli ng uponi- him to return the lists of the Jury prematurely.. If the argument of his Learned Friend, the Attorney.G, meral, were right, there was no occasion for any rule at all ; I put, in order to comply with the statute, it was held necessary t o call upon the sheriff to make a return of the persons to serve on the jury prematurely, in order that the list might be deliver e d at the same time with the copy of the indictment. There, could be no difficulty of the same nature about the list of with eases; but his Learned Friend contended that the law on this point was altered by Peel's Act. Now the provisions of tit at Act were confined exclusively to Jurors, and, in order to sin Air that the words " same time" could not mean same interval of time, he would call their Lordships' attention to the latter par t of the clause to which he had referred, which showed plainly tchat the words " same time" meant not the same interval of thane, but at the same moment. A copy of the indictment must, ti ierefore, be delivered at the same time with those two lists. Baron Ar.roxasos observed, the Act of Parliament did not affect the Queen's Bench. _ Sir FREDERICK POLLOCK resumed—Just so, and it ;appeared to him that the reason for adopting the practice in the Queen's bench did not lessen the force of the :1 ument. What, he asked, was the meaning of " the same time ?" not the same interval, but the same moment—on the same in stant— and further, leaving the construction of this statute, ;let him call the attention of their Lordships to one other point in the statute of Anne itself. The provisic n was this, that a copy of the indictment was to b e de livered, with a list of the jurors and witnesses ; art d that the copy of the indictment with suc h li st s h olld be delis and to the party accused ten days before trial, in the presence .of two or more credible witnesses. See how that stood—if .." with such lists" did not mean the lists were to be delivered ' sitit the indictment, he did not see how they were bound to dell ver them I in the presence of two or more credible witnesses ; for, exc.qpt by the use of the word "with," two witnesses were not necessary. Having shown the course taken when first that Act came into operation, he begged shortly to state the uniform, unvar.'ed. _ unbroken practice which had obtained ever since. In the trials 3N1.7 of Hardy and Horne T oo k e, i n the 24th vol. " Sta to 7.Tri 'p. 219, their Lordships wou ld fi n d i t stated that e nsk r r e y, Oct. 14, Mr. White, th e so li c i tor for the Treason, r, c ',LI vefed to the prisoners copies of the indictments, lists of 61 e J u Nis'erapanelled by the Sheriff, and of the witnesses sub ..- _ ix ara by the Crown for the purp ose o f proving the indict -. t we re— ,- and the same course of proc ee di ng was specific:all y bt „ ted - ii , the case of C rossfield, in the 26th vol., plge 't, w hiji /I* mentioned for a mo m ent o n ly b ecause t h e Attorne, /.. 1 us tn eitpf that day, in addressing the Jury, observed (page 1 4) . It is likewise required that at the same time w h en a copy of `t, f -- ' the indictment was given to him, a list of the Jurors should be given to him, and that a list of the witnesses who are to be produced to establish the charge shall be put into his hand. That was the cbservation of the Attorney-General of 1796, whom afterwards became Lord Eldon, and he there stated, that the trial of Lord George Gordon was the first in history in which the legislature had adopted the application of the statute of Anne on the point, and was addressing the court, for the legislature had not ventured to apply the act, and its application did not revive until about twenty years ago. Now that exposition by the Attorney General must clearly support what he (Sir F. Pollock) was contending for, namely, that the lists must be delivered at the same time, because the Attorney General said, " at the same time a list of the witnesses must be put into his hand." He (Sir F. Pollock) would merely state the instances in which this occurred, without reading what was doubtless familiar to their Lordships. In the case of M'Laine, which was tried at Quebee in 1797, in the 722 d page in the same vol. of State Trials, a simultaneous delivery oc curred. So also at page 798, in the case of O'Quigley ; and he did not know whether he need trouble their Lordships to take down the reference, or do more than give the name of Watson, tried in the spring of 1817 ; of Brandeth, in the au tumn of the same year ; of Thistlewood in 1820 ; and Despard in (he thought) 1803 ;—in every one of which cases a simul taneous delivery had occurred; and he could not find that en any occasion any other practice had prevailed. His Learned Friend, somewhat triumphantly, when he came to answer the objection, had said that ,he (Sir Frederick Pollock) could produce an authority to prove that delivering the lists at a different time was bad. The reason of that was, that no one had ever before thought that at the same time meant at a different time, and the Statute having ordained that the acts should be done at the same time, they had been so done, and because on every one of those occasions it had been understood that "at the same time" did not mean a different time, his Learned Friend asked their Lordships to-day to de cide that it did mean a different time, because no Court of Justice had ever decided to the contrary—that was the whole of his argument ; but if he (Sir Frederick Pollock) showed that in every case where they had the means of inquiry the statute had been complied with, it was no answer to say, that because the blunder had not occurred before, there was no authority on the subject, and the court should say that the words "at the same time" meant at a different time. He would here say a few words more, because it was probable his Learned Friend would enlarge on this part of the case, in protesting that their Lordships had nothing to do whatever with the ob ject of this, or the utility of it to the prisoner. The inquiry on a solemn occasion like the present was not, what did the Legislature mean, but what had the Legislature said—not has the prisoner substantially had the same benefit it was supposed or suggested he should enjoy, but had he had that which the law said he should have—by protesting that he was not bound to show any benefit to the prisoner—but he would point out one or two important matters in which the prisoner might experience much inconvenience if a laxity of practice were permitted in this case. In the first place, he said, that if it did make, in any way, the smallest difference whatever to the prisoner—if it produced the anxiety for a moment—if it created the trouble of once more pacing across his cell than he otherwise would have done, their Lordship could not say it did not deprive him of any possible benefit, or throw upon him the I least possible inconvenience. No. In the first place, the deli very together was necessary to connect the documents. He happened to have in his hand the very document that was produced in Court, and presumed their Lordships would not think him irregular for referring to it. It was headed—" A List of the Witnesses to be produced on the Trial of John Frost, upon an indictment found against him and other persons for High Treason, for proving the said Indictment." There might have been two indictments—there was no evidence on the trial that there were not two, it was not then proved that Mr. Frost could rest have made any mistake; it was not for l i Mr. Frost to prove it, but it was for the Crown to prove that no mistake was made. Indictments against him there certainly were for ether offences, and he would ask how it was possible for Mr. Frost, when he received his list, to know that he must connect it with an indictment received five days before? How i could the prisoner tell but that as they had omitted the list of witnesses when they delivered the copy of the indictment, at the last indictment they had omitted this copy of the indictment and the list of witnesses ? How was h e to connect the delivery of the 17th with the de Livery of the 12th, and know that they made the complete and perfect delivery within the same time, but not at the same time? He would not deviate further from that. The great experience of their Lordships—so much superior to his own—would immediately suggest to them its great im portance, and when he came to the question of the Scotch au thority, for the very reason pointed out, the practice prevailed tnere ; but this be should introduce at the proper place. And this was not the only matter. If the list of witnesses might be delivered on a different day, so might the list of the Jurors, because nothing was more stringent even in Sir R. Peel's Act. Indeed rather less so, because that admitted an ex.. planation a little more lax, or rather not quite so strict. Were they to take it, then, that all this was (lone at the same time, when the indictment might be deli vered on the 12th, the list of witnesses on the 17th, and the list of Jurors five days after; and that if a party under two in dictments might have delivered in any order the list of wit nesses, then the copy of the indictment, and then the list of witnesses relating to the other matter, and so on, and so nott i only prevent the prisoner from being able to connect them together, but giving him the trouble of frequently communicating with his attorney, and sending to his advisers to call upon him, and this incurring expense ; for in this matter it was impossible entirely t ,, so exclude the question of expense, although undoubtedly , in a ; 1 matter so grave and affecting the prisoners in such a manner, it might seem rather beneath the dignity of the occasion to ( .speak of it ; and if additional expense was thereby incurred, it is as not right to forget that it was occasioned by a lax construe tic''r that would be prejudicial to him. ?fr. Baron ALDERSON—Can the Act of Parliament be con strued with more or less convenience for a party? Sir F. Poei.oeic—No, my Lord ; I protest against it. Mr. Baron ALDERSON—Is not the rule of construction that you are to take the literal grammatical meaning, unless it leads • to an absurdity ? Sir F. Poeeoce had cases to refer to, in which lie would s call their attention to that point more particularly, and also in I 'is reply to the Attorney-General's case, when he trusted that k e should occupy their Lordships' attention for a few minutes. I le stated that, not because he thought himself bound to use at Lett an argument, but that he might give his Learned Friend tl e Attorney-General every benefit of answering his (Sir F. P ollock's) objection, and he (Sir F. Pollock) had had the la nefit of hearing the answer, such as it was. There was, how es 'er, another objection. He would at present merely ...lance at it.. H e (Sir F. Pollock) said that they had no right, with " sregar s l to the construction of statutes, to snatch from an indi- NOual one advantage and profess to give him another. It -was of the utmost importance, when a prisoner received a copy 'of the indictment, that it should tell him who were the wit. :•nesses to appear against him. For from that alone could the prisoner get information of the crime imputed to him, and he .(• Sir F. Pollock) said that they had no right on the 12th of :December to deliver a copy of the indictment, leaving the as isoner two days in gaol, uncertain as to the case intended to Le made against him. They were bound to give the witnesses at the same time, that the prisoner might see what the charge as 5, and what it related to. He (the prisoner) was in an 2412 iety of doubt and uncertainty at not knowing what part . o r 1 as conduct the indictment levelled at. He was entitled by law to I lave the list of witnesses. From that he might haveobtained - th e benefit of knowing the transaction to which the matter re la: :e d—he was deprived of that, and left five days in a complete at, tie of uncertainty as to what part of his conduct the Crown lab ned at by that particular indictment for high treason. Two witnesses were required to form a complete and satisfactory te. eimony as to the delivery. One witness swore that he for nd the list on the prisoner, with the indictment that he bad ret dived on that day, leaving no doubt that the lists were de liv erect ten days before that time, and, therefore, the statute we ..e satisfied. Now he (Sir F. Pollock) submitted that it was no t satisfiedond he wouldAtherefore, pass on to the authorities, going only so far as the meaning of the statute was clear and incapable of doubt. The course of practice was unbroken and - unquestioned. He would then proceed to cite a few cases that had occurred on the subject of the construction of the statutes. ' Their Lordships were familiar with many of them. He ad vlressed his argument as a professional argument, and he had no desire to make a single remark or address a solitary observa tion which ought not to be addressed to their Lord s hips as Judges sitting there to expound the law. 1-:.e would beg to refer to the case of Lovelace v. Curry, in the 7th Term Reports, p. 621. It ws , s an action of trespass and false imprisonment that the: defendant had committed, as Justice of the Peace, at Northampton. It appeared that the notice required to be de livered by the 24th Geo. 11. c. 44, was not conformable to the S tatute in some respects, in not stating what particular writ was intended to be served out, or what form of action was in teasded to be commenced. And the case of Strickland v. Ward was cited. The objection was overruled—the case proceeded, and the Court desired the formal objection to be argued before the full Court. Their Lordships would find a full note of Strickland and Ward in the note-book of Mr. Justice Yeates. Lord Kenyon said they were bound to decide according to law, and find out, without considering whether the Legislature de cided when the notice was given,which was required to be given by the statute. Mr. Justice Laurence said that the statute pre.acribed a form—that form was to be implicitly followed, and admitted of no equivocation. He (Sir F. Polloek) refused to go into the circumstances of that case. He believed he had omitted nothing that made the other way. The next case was Taylor v. Fenwick, and Bosanquet v. Fuller, p. 553. Lord ;Mansfield in that ease said the Legislature had thought lit to prescribe certain forms, whether right or wrong it was of no consequence. The notice did not tell the place of abode, and She words of the Statute were, " must tell his place of a 'lode." He (Sir Frederick Pollock) might say, once for all, that the situation of the prisoner, c barged with high treason, entitled him to the strictest inter pi vtation ofathe law; and their Lordships were aware that, in st sad of there being a relaxation, when they came to a quasi ;don of criminal law the rule prevailed; but there should be. a greater strictness of construction, and no permission of rela: :alien ; but their Lordships would find that the tendency of rt iodern decisions had been to include relaxed constructions of ally Act. He (Sir F. Pollock) had taken the liberty of stating before Lord Tenterden that he disliked the whole of the ex pression of a limited construction of any Act of Parliament. Ir quire the true construction of the rule, and that true con st ruction would not be the imagination of what the Legislature in :tended, but what it is found they had said. In lst Neville as id Manning, page 307, there was t he case of Ross v. Rolland, also found in Barnewall v Adolphus, 525. In case of an action for penalty against a clergyman for non-residence, the Act resmired that notice should not be served on the clergyman per- Aoraally, but on the Bishop, at the Registry Office. Now the neatice was served on the Registrar personally, not at his office. The Court of Queen's Bench held that it was no proper ser vi te; and said, "We ought to put a strict construction, as far • aspessible, to gi ve e ff ect to a ll t h e wor d s of the Act ;" and Mr.. Justice Taunton emphatically observed, "If we con stri to the statute differently, a new case will arise farther still from the exa c t words of the Act, then another, and .so on. So that th e on l y safe course is to adhere to the exact words of the Act." The Act, expressly that the notice should - leftsaid the Court,. requires vvoul'il be no answer to that to sa y l) that theat the no t i lt o e eg a i f s t t e r r y w . foun d its way to the Registry. I t Somigoht Sr might not—if it on the Act 19 himself,eo. 11., in y, an I did, st , witawso.onu,ldl9b4e,piutrwenascheiedlednutp.afterwards in Rex v. Harve in the Act indictment against a man for not surrendering there the place required proclamation at two market town g s, ; Ipswich, 36 pro where the offence had been committed. And clamations at Hadleigh, 42 miles distant Lower toffe, 6—but as there were three other market towns;aaodt the di: >twice of 6,8, and 14 miles, it was held the Act had n n been .complied with. It w as no answer in that case, as the t Attorney-General had attempted to make it at Monmouth, to say ~ you have something, in fact, better than what the Act required—you have acquired an advantage by the error." In the case cited the proclamation had been made, in the v er)' parish where the party resided , still it would not avail. Again, in a case, Steer v. Smith, 6 E sp s n a.sse, 135, where an attorney described himself as of New lan, London, the description was held to be bad, because New Inn vas not in London, but in Westminster. Yet stronger was t'ne case of Ikey v. Nokes, where an attorney's bill had been delivered, rot at the party's place of abode, as the statute re qui; •ed ; but it was clear the bill had reached the party—it was hat 1 a bad delivery. And to cast light on the subject of show ing documents, it would be well to quote the case of Ward v. Marshall, 3 Perrott, 228, where it was reported to be the prac tiee that the original writ should be shown when the copy was delivered, and that the cases where the copy was allowed to be served without the original were only exceptions ; and in another case the Court expressly held that the rule required the showing of the original with the - • x 4 ' - THE SUN, LONDON, MONDAY, .1 k NUARY 27. 1840. copy; and that the strict practice ought to be adhered to. On :the 26th July, 1675, for some reason the diet was ' Further, the courts had held that if the copy were served in the deserted. There it appeared the objection was:that the list morning, and the original showed at a subsequent period, it was not delivered. Their Lordships said that the defen would not be a valid service, unless the copy was re-procured dant had not got the list in time, and therefore the diet was and re-delivered to the party at the same time, deserted. His Learned Friend the Attorney- General said the Mr. Baron ALDERSON —No doubt that would be law, objection must be made before the trial commences—he (Sir F. otherwise the party could not compare the copy with the ori- Pollock) said that such was the case. He now came to the ginal. case of David Stowell. Stowell objected that he had been Sir FREDERICK—WeII, my Lords, then your Lordships served with a list of witnesses not subjoined to the copy of the have a strict judicial decision as to the meaning of the word at indictment. Their Lordships found that his objection was valid. the " same time." Mr. Baron ALDERSON—Was not that process in Scotland Mr. Baron ALoEgsoN—Otherwise it would rest with his equivalent to what they call quashing the indictment ? recollection. Sir FREDERICK—Not equivalent. Sir FREDERICK POLLOCK—IR the case of Akett v. Stocks, The ATTORNEY-GENERAL — Where the diet is deserted, 1 Moore and Payne, 346, which was an action against pro loco et tempore, the prisoner may be proceeded against. a magistrate, Mr. Justice Parke said he always felt Again, if it was simpliciter, he could not be proceeded against disposed to go every possible length in favour of the a second time. plaintiff's case. In the case before him the question was Sir F. Poteoce—Their Lordships would fled that the Court whether the notice contained a sufficient notice of the plaintiff's would only desert a diet, pro loco et tempore, with the cause of action, and it was decided in the negative, and the consent of the party. plaintiff was nonsuited, notwithstanding it was stated that the The ATTORNEY-GENERAL had the authority of the Lord conduct of the defendant was disgraceful, and that the objection Advocate for saying that it could be done without the consent was taken merely to defeat that one course of law. He would of the party. now come to another exposition of the words "at the same Sir FREDERICK POLLOCK—Nobody could doubt that the time." Their Lordships were aware, that by the Statute of wording of the Scotch statute was adopted in the statute of Frauds a will of lands was to be executed in the presence of three Anne, with this alteration, that the copies were to be deli witnesses. It had been held, however, that the three witnesses vered not only at the time, but that time should be ten days might be present at three different times, and that an acknow- before the trial. He (Sir F. Pollock) thought their Lordships ledgment of the execution, or running a dry pen over the name, would, therefore, in some measure be influenced by the Scotch and the three witnesses seeing that ceremony gone through at statute. three different times, was a good execution. In the case of Lord DENMAN thought they were not bound by the Scotch Jones v. Lake, 2d Atkins, 176, and cited also in Cruge's Di- statute, for it was no authority. gest, the Lord Chief Justice observed, " the three witnesses Sir F. Poeeocx then said the cases had been stated correctly. were to attest the signature of the testator, but they were not There was a case of a party accused of killing deer ; the objec required to do it at the same time—the act was silent in that tion was taken before the Sheriff, but the prisoner had not particular; it would therefore be making a new requisite if been served with a copy of the list of witnesses, and the She they required it to b e d one a t th e same ti me . If th e testator riff postponed the trial for three weeks. Mr. Baron Hume reiterated the act in the presence of each of the three wit- said of that case, that the . process had fallen 'altogether. nesses, declaring it to be his last will and testament, that was Certain other forms belonging to the Scottish law were sufficient." If there was any doubt upon the point, it was re- introduced by their Acts. He should merely observe, that on newed by the late act, 1& 2 Victoria, chap. 76, in the case of all those occasions it appeared that the law should receive the Foss v. Jackson, 3d Spence 198, where a form of conviction most strict construction. Nothing had ever been taken was given by the statute far an offence, and, provided that the as an equivalent or a substitute, or, according to conviction should be in that form, it was contended in behalf of the expression of Scottish lawyers, as an equipollent for the the defendant, a magistrate, that it was optional with the justices observance of these forms. He had read a passage in which to draw it up as they pleased; the statute having created an offence, the writer had expressed an opinion somewhat unfavourable to it might be pursued at commonla w. Lord Kenyon said," No, his present argument, but he calls at the same time various the conviction must be drawn up according to the form pre- authorities, every one of which is at variance with his views. scribed."- The conviction was, therefore, decided to be a nullity, He believed that the passage was not to be found in any of the old and the plaintiff, who was thus illegally convicted, received editions of the work; and if it could have any weight against the damages. In the case of the King v. Richards, sth Adolphus prisoner, it would be that of a comment made after the action had and Ellis, which must be in the recollection of several of their gone by, and giving that comment a value above law. The Lordships, it was held that the Court could not follow the sub- passage was in page 250—it was but the comment of a bygone stance of a Statute, tut only the very words that were used. law, and it did not appear to be the proper mode of explain- By the 57th Geo. 3, chap. 147, the object of which was to ing the question. The learned writer gave an opinion unfa substitute certain acts in lieu of very expensive proceedings in vourable to him, but he acknowledged that practice did not the Ecclesiastical Court, which had become a sort of oppro- sanction his views. In the case of Mackenzie in 1816, the brium in the eye of the law, it was provided that a significavit objection to a misnomer of witnesses was held to be in due should be under the hand or hands of the Judge or Judges, time at the trial, and was accordingly sustained. A like course was whose commands were disobeyed. In a case where three taken with respect to the witnesses in a case before Lord Gillies. Judges gave the command and two signed the significavit, the The objection was allowed in that case after the jury had Court held that that was not sufficient, and the proceedings been sworn. In the present case the prisoner got a copy were held to be vicious. In Innes v. Sparke, Ist Term Reports, of the indictment on the 12th, and on the 17th got a 44,where a question arose about a qualification to kill game, Mr. copy of the witnesses; and he had certainly a right Justice Ashurst said, the game laws are rather to be considered to say that that was an illegal practice, and that as positive rules than founded upon reason. It is safer, he was not bound to take any care of his defence. (The therefore, to adopt what they say, than to suppose what they learned counsel here entered at some length into the practice meant to say. According to such a construction, we must of the Scottish Courts, and adduced some cases to prove his suppose that it was intended to exclude the father when it gave interpretation of it.) He thought the law in Eng a qualification to the son. In " Rex v. the inhabitants of land was to the same effect, and that the statute of Anne Barham," Lord Tenterden said—" Our decision may, perhaps, was framed on the statute of Charles the Second. defeat the 57th Geo. 111., but it is better to abide by this The true construction of the provisions of the Act appeared to course than to put another construction upon the words him, and their Lordships would find in looking into the autho in order to give effect to what we may suppose to be rities, that the prisoner was to have a copy of the indictment, a the intention of the Legislature." And in another case list of jurors, and a list of the witnesses. When was he to ob the same Learned Judge observed, it rests with the Legisla- ject to the indictment? That was settled by the old statute, ture to make what alterations it pleases, but the duty of the but he believed never by the new, and he was very far from Court is merely to give effect to the provisions of the statute." saying that even if the delivery of the copy of the indictment In the case of Brandling v. Barrington. which was in the was irregular, and not in the presence of two witnesses—he was 6th Barnewall and Cresswell 475, which was a case of seizing far from saying that in such case he would be too late to goods by virtue of a writ, in the county of Durham ; and the take an objection at the trial. He by no means admitted that question was, whether the writ was in the nature of an exe- it at the close of the trial, by calling the solicitor of the Trea eution, in order to allow the landlord to get his rent under sury into the box, it should turn out that the prisoner never the statute of Anne. In that case, Lord Tenterden said the had a copy of the iedictment or a list of the jurors, he by no plaintiff had no right of action, because the words of the means admitted that a man could be found guilty and executed action had not been complied with, and it was upon a proceeding so entirely adverse to the Act of Pasha always safer to abide by the plain words of the statute. ment. But he protested against being called upon to admit Again in the case of Vaux against Hansard, Ist Bosanquet that it would be a good proceeding; for if their Lordships and Puller 224, the Court held that there was a broad distinc- discovered that so Important an omission had taken place, they tion to be drawn between a thing done on the same day and at must decide in favour of the prisoner. A Magistrate must have the same time, and in Bates v. Billing, 4 Follett 231, the clues- notice, and if it were not proved that he had had proper notice, the tion was, whether the defendant had, in fact, been arrested— action could not be maintained. In the case of a constable the the writ wes sued out, of which fact the defendant was aware, a , tion could not be maintained without demanding a copy of the and he went and put in bail—there was no actual arrest, and warrant. the Court held that the act bad not been complied with, and Lord AIIINGER—The statute says the action can still be main the rule was refused. In Wachet v. Shaw, 3d Campbell, it was elined. held that an application for the cost of a special jury would not do Sir F. PoLLOCK had not the Act, but he was pretty certain that if made the day after a trial—the Act saying that it was to be the action could not be maintained unless the party previously slid made after the trial, and the Court held that that meant imme- , i) and so. Even the good sense of the thing would show that the diately after the trial. Again in Richard 5. Stuart, 10th Bing time to object to the indictment was when the party was ham, 320, Lord Chief Justice Tindal laid it down that the called on to plead, to the Jurors was when they were called special words of the A..t of Parliament must be strictly coin- an to answer to their names, &rid to the witness was plied with, otherwise it woul Ibe opening a door to conjec- shen he was put into the box. He would be glad to tore as to the meaning of the Legislature, and that judg- know how the objection could be taken at any other time. merit was coincided in by Justices Bosanquet and Alderson. Observe, the prisoner was not an actor in ally of those proceedings. Again in Smith v. Crump, Ist Dowling's Practice, Mr. Baron ile was called from his dungeon to be told that au indictment had Parke said the writ was vicious, inasmuch as the form laid aeen found against him—that was the beginning of the case. He down by the Act of Parliament had not been complied with. wes visited then by a person who brought him a copy of the in.. In 3 B arnewell and Adolphus, 250 and 887, the Courts se , .. ictment, with or without a list, as their Lordships might decide, aside proceedings for a misdescription, and in 4 Barnewall and .nd he was then called upon to plead whether he was guilty or not. Adolphus, in the matter of Flounders the Court set aside the i'hat was the only question put might o ig h h im t . ing :V ir b e a i t nt e . O i u t r ? se was he proceedings in consequence of an irregularity, which was rake? 'Was he to decide aye or no in a matter which their Lord. He was aware th a t islitnye.ebtuhte that t z w v as a the non-compliance with the Act of Parliament. Lord hips thought of sufficient importance to adjourn from Monmouth DEN ]IA N doubted indeed, but was over-ruled by the rest , o London, that all the Judges he to o of the Court, and the rule was di sc harged, The ground :se deprived of the benefit of an objection which every Justice of the of this decision was, that the delivery was in such a way that Peace was entitled to make ? if the opposite party had moved as they might have done, on lion of the point, the prisoner had been found the first day notice would have been sufficient. So that 'art to be urged against him. He stood there clothed, with the the bare possibility of any injury occurring was held to make permission of his Hon. and Learned Friend, in the same defence as the notice bad, though in point of fact, and at the time when .f the trial had never taken place. the motion was made, the notice was good. He would now Lord ABINGER—NO doubt of it. proceed to cases connected with the Scotch law. He might say Baron ALDERSON—You are arguing the question as if it were at with regard to the authorities on this head that the point Monmouth before the triai had proceeded. regarding the time for taking the objection was so blended with Sir F. Pora.ocis was arguing the question merely to show that the point of the objection itself, that it would be impossible in the guilt of the party was no element in the question. He would citing these authorities to separate the one from the other. ask at what period the objection had been taken—by what law or Now he would first refer to the second volume of Mr. Baron authority could the objection have been taken at an earlier stage ? Hume's Commentaries on the Law of Scotland respecting He was not without some guide which would possess considerable Crimes, published in 1829 ; the chapter on the ex ecution of authorit y with their Lordshi p s. It was the solemn reco g nition b y the libel, page 262. The law of Scotland upon the subject of the twelve Judges of England as to the period when the objection giving to the accused the copies of the indictment or charge— should be taken to the Jurors. It was published in 1709, ,and, as the " diet," as it was called, and the list of witnesses, was very Judge Foster said, by direction of the House of Lords, and, as had ancient, so far back as 1672, 16th Charles 11., which contained been admitted by Baron Gurney, on the trial of Brandon, was the many directions as to criminal proceedings and civil. After stat- form of proceeding recognised by the twelve Judges. In page 20 ing it to be of the highest importance that all matters relating to of that book he found an important marginal note, that a witness criminal proceedings should be determined in the most solemn, must be in attendance at the time of the prisoner pleading to prove exact, and regular manner. The Learned Baron proceeded to the delivery of thecopy of the indictment. give various directions, and he stated the 11 th p revision to be, Baro n ALDERSON—What is the date of the resolution ? 66 When any criminal libels or summons of execution are given Sir F. Portocx—lt has no date, but appears to have bee n against any party, at the same time lists of the witnesses to be published in 1709. summoned for proving the said libel, and the persons to pass Chi e f.. Ju st ice T INDAL —The order of the House of Lords is upon the inquest, shall be given t o him.' Now this, Sir dat e d 20th Ap r il, 1709, and i s subscribed by all the Judges. F r rederick observed, could admit of no doubt. Nothing was Sir F. POLLOCK would then call their attention to the form said about ten days, or any other period, but "at the same presented by the resolution referred to. In page 20 of that expo. time." sition of the law made by the Twelve Judges in 1709,it was laid Mr. Justice CoLTMAN What do yon understand, Sir clown that it copy of the indictment was to be delivered at least Frederick, by the word " execution ?" live days betore the party were called upon to plead, but there was Sir FREDERICK—" Serving," my Lord. this important direction, that a witness must attend the Court at The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—NO; citation, the time of the opening of the business, in order to prove the deli- Sir FREDERICK — My Lords, execution means servin g. very of a copy of the indictment to the prisoner if there should The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (referring to the Lord-Advocate be occasion. The inference he drew from this was, th a t w h en who sat behind him)—Yes ; but the service is the citation. a party was called upon to plead he might say that he had required Sir FREDERICK—That is of no moment. The mere point a copy of the indictment and had been refused, therefore the pro. was, that there was no ambiguity at all in the statement. 'stone. secutor was to have a witness in attendance to prove the fact. He could conceive of parties desirous of getting over the conse- Whether that was now obsolete was not fur him to say, b u t acs quences of some oversight or blunder—he could conceive—in- cording to the statute of Anne the Clown was bound to deliver a deed it had been so argued in his hearing, or he could not have copy of the indictment to the prisoner whether he asked for imagined it. It might be said that the statute of Anne, which it or not—it was directed that the prisoner should be asked positively said, the service of all shall be at the same time,— if the copy bad been delivered. 'What was the meaning of and that one thing shall be done ten days before trial. that ? The House of Lords called upon the Judges to settle It might be argued, that "at the same time" meant "at the proceedings—they approved of a certain form which was pub_ different times." But the statute he was now considering, fished by authority, and part of that form was, that the prisoner 'would admit of no excuse for such an argument. It was dis- was to be asked if he had been served with a list of witnesses, and tinctly and positively enacted, that the things shall be all if the said No, then the prosecutor must be prepared to prove the done "at the same time." These were the statutes of Mary fact. His learned friends contended that the objection ought to and James, which did not bear on this particular question--and have been taken when the prisoner was called upon to plead. the only one that did affect this particular point was the Act Now suppose that the prisoner had received a list of witnesses, in of Charles, whi c h positively directed, that it shall be "at the all respects regularly delivered in the presence of two witnesses, li same time." And those words had been copied in the statute but with the names and without any additions—or with ad of Anne. There was in that statute an additional (Miens but without any place of abode—clearly upon the face enactment, that the copy of indictment, with the list of that not a single witness could be called—when was the of witnesses, should be delivered ten days before the proper: time to take the objection except when trial—but the former part of the statute of Anne the witnesses were called ? Was it the duty of the prisoner to directing that the indictment and lists were to be delivered send to the Solicitor of the Treasury to say " You have not "at the same time," was copied from the Act of Charles 11., propetly served me with the lists—they are not according to the and must, therefore, mean the same thing. Now he found statute—pray come and cure the mistake?" When that the practice of the Scotch Criminal Courts depended on could the objection be taken, except at the moment what were called " Acts of Adjournment," framed by the when it was proposed to examine the witness ? Judges, as " Acts of Sederunt" were by the Civil Courts, and Although it was directed that each service should be contempora as rules were by the English Judges invested since the ncous, still there were three distinct things. Let them suppose passing of the late Act with the authority of law in the list of witnesses had been delivered without any addition or certain cases. But these " Acts of Adjournment" could place of abode, and the prisoner pleaded guilty on being arraigned, not contravene the Act of Parliament. They might, he (Sir F. Pollock) said that the circumstances of his being put on as they had done, further the Act by settling how the his trial did not alter the case, as regarded the prisoner's right to notices should be delivered together, but they could not object. He (Sir F. Pollock) urged that, where the law had not so alter the law as to provide that they should be delivered been complied, there was a preventive of the consequences of that separately. Now the Act, commonly called Sir William Rae's, law taking effect. He asked, on what principle it could be said that which did away with some objections formerly utterly fatal, did a man pleading not guilty, supposing he admitted the proper and cor not a pply but to Scotland ; there was no such provision in the rect service of the indictment thereby,that he admitted the copy ofte e Engli s h law, which stood in this respect upon the statute of jurors had been correctly served. There was a case in the Statute Anne. He did not mean to say, in proceeding to state the books, where the list of witnesses had been served; but the address or judgments of the Scotch Courts, that they were quite conclu- designation of the chief witness was wrong, and that flaw was sire with their Lorships ; but still he would respectfully urge found out. Even in that case, although the prisoner found on i that in a case of the highest charge which could affect a who the witness was, the law said the list was wrong, and subject, their Lordships would not depart, against the pri- was thereby excluded; and it was no answer to say that soner, from these decisions. Now the Learned Baron the prisoner had pleaded to the indictment. He (Sir F. Pollock) ( Hume) proceeded to lay it down thus :—" The substance contended that they had a right to consider the case as one in of the citation is the serving the panel with a copy of the libel, which no list of witnesses had been delivered at all ; for it was a or diet. to which is subjoined a copy of the citation, under the bad delivery, and it therefore was on the same footing as if there hand of the officer, wherein the panel is charged to appear had been no list. He would ask their Lordships whether the pri_ at such a time and place to under g o the law for the offence set soner was bound to make the ob j ection. How did he forth in the diet; and the panel is to be at the same time served know who the Crown intended to call ? At Monmouth many with a list of witnesses, that he may be prepared to make com prisoners had been acquitted without a witness bein g called. How, petent objections. The Judges have not been used severally in these cases, could the pr i soners know their fate. If the list of to bold the copy to the original, except in substantial particu- the jurors had not been delivered, we re they to infer that the Crown lays. On this, as on other occasions , they have been in the intended to enter a non e prosectui ? habit of considering chiefly the object an d t h e sp i r i t L or d Chi ef J ustice TINDA If no list had been delivered they of the regulation, which is plainly this, and nothing could not have called i any w i tn esses. more—to inform the panel of the nature of the Sir F. Pou.oce— crime alleged against him, and also of the evidenc e one delivered not under the statu t e ? He thought that now the which is to be adduced against him : and a varia- question was b rought to an en d. He said the Court could not tien from the record is nor held fatal, unless it leads the panel measure the de gree of irregularity , now measure how far the lif e into some error . New he ( Sir Frederick ) woul d observe to of the prisoner might w as the difference between no list and their Lordships , that in the law of Scotland the ori g i nal list of and its prosecutors. ght be sported He (Si Frederickwith b h PolthelocGovernmentk) confidently the witnesses , and the Jury, formed part of the record. There said that if the list - n ,ad been d elivered less than ten days was nothing analogous to that in England. Hence, in Scot- before the trial, t h e prisoner wo uld have excluded the witness. land, when there we r e variations in the co py from the Record, He had now raised all the poin ts which he could ; and he had oc the panel mig ht refer to the Record. In E ng l an d, it was co pied more of their time than h e s hould have wished. He could it material to keep in mind, th e i n di c t men t was t h e on l y one o f n ot help saying, that as this objection was known before they had the things a copy of which was delivered to the prisoner, assembled at Monmouth, his Learned Friend should not have per which forms p art of the Record. The Jur y panel severed in his error, if erro r it was. He thought it would have been could scarcely be said to belong to the Record. There better if it had been stated to the Judges at the Commission, and was no list of witnesses before th e C our t, or to w hi c h if they were made parties to the proceedings, and had been asked the Judge could refer. Insomuch that according to the law of their advice. He tho ug ht it would better bec ome the administra. England if the prisoner refused to take notice of the char g e, the lion of justice if the mi st ake had been avowed, and the proceedings Judge had no means of checkin g the p rosecutor to see what corrected, if correction could have been administered. Though witnesses were _Produced duced whose names were not delivered to visit on the part of his _pro this might hav e i nvolved a s econd the prisoner. which he had beers referring, several cases cited — him some mortification and inconvenience, it would have and regarding • the lists of witnesses the doctrine would be been better if all the Judges of England had been as Counsel for the prisoner, thought that, respecting the list delivered right Friend might h omitted 11l to the he had a to say—though his Learned say e had found analogous to that e the libel—that if the consulted. He name of any witness was . prisoner—or if there was an error in the name—the blunder no right to form an opinion on the subject—lie would, however, at had waited for the moment (or the juror) from serv i n g or when he should have to take the objections. He had been now thirty would not be pleaded to the extent of " dismissing the libel," least, say, that hour after hour he but only to exclude the witness .. declared before God and the country that lists five days after the copy of I he was left at a appearing. But in: the ;English law, an objection, for in- I years at the bar; and he stance, to the delivery of the that loss when to take that objection, and that he be indictment—it pointed to this—that 1 lieved for hispart have keen taken before the jury was an objection . . that it could not II h a the e what the Scotch Judges had decided as to the serving of the cases that had been put, an l he had adva d all the prinsi? es d need, there h a d b e en no service at all. Now let their Lo r dships s e e i was sworn. When their Lordships shou . ld have considered lists. In 1672, March 1, in the case of a Wm. Clifford, of For- . thought they would coincide in his opinion, an that they would far, the Lords " desertedthat it was when the Jury had been called, and then only, that the considered equivalent to giving up the prosecut! . the diet," an expression Sir F. 'on—or rather, • prisoner could have objected to the calling of the witnesses. If the l• ' ' listwere statutes, then to giving u that prosecution, —for o p the desertion simp iciter not served in strict conformity with the and for ever, would b e absolutely but there might be desertion there had been in reality no list delivered ; and he submitted that should have the benefit of that illegality. lie was citing .. , he Loris deserted the diet, because the lis l4 ' T h e ATT°RNEY-GENenst, thought that no one would deny that pro loco e t temp ore , f o r that time merely—but in this case the prisoner were not delive re d t o the parish at the same time his Learned Friend did well in reserving his objection till the Jury with the citation. In another case they deserted the diet, be- had been sworn. fie night, however, have taken it most cause there was no distinct e vidence of the delivery of di° un q uestiona bly when M. Frost was called on to plead; he might lists with the original of the libel, —and then, by con- have taken it to be a valid objection when he (the Attorney-General) sent—the prosecution was continued to a n other p eriod, had moved that Mr . Frost should have first taken his tur n . N o o b- Those were the prce ee di n e ~ he believed. not in eases of' 1 - 411 )ection had been made in one cr other o f those stages--such a pro. treason aid felony, but in the criminal proceedings in Scotland. eeseling would haye only led to a postponement, and could not have been drawn forward as a means of defeating justice. The question now was, whether the objection was well founded, and whether it could be taken after the jury had been charged with the indictment ? If it were a valid objection, and if it had been taken at the proper time, Frost was certainly entitled to be discharged. But whatever might be the result of this deliberation it would give him heartfelt satisfaction to know that the alleged illegality could not have produced any in jury to the accused party; on the contrary, he thereby de facto enjoyed an advantage—he had a greater opportunity of preparing for the trial than he was by law entitled to. His Learned Friend himself had not suggested any ease of hardship towards the prisoner which could result from the course pursued. There were two con siderations, however, the first was whether the objection was well founded; and the second, whether it had been urged at the proper time. Whatever the forms of the law might be, he allowed that they should be observed, and that the question for their Lordships was, not whether these forms were advantageous to the prisoner —whatever this prisoner was entitled to by the Act of Parliament that specific advantage he had a right to demand—but then in endeavouring to ascertain what was the meaning of the Legislature it was most material to see what was its object, and how that object could be best accomplished. What was the object of the 2d Wm. 111. ? Was it to enable the parties ac cused to elude the law by starting objections after the trial had begun ? The object of it was to enable him to prepare for his trial—to know the charges against him—the jurors by whom he was to be tried, and the witnesses through whom the Crown was to try to bring home the charges against him. The object of the statute of William 111., and of Mary, was to give persons accused of treason, and of misprision of treason, all just and legal means of defence. If the 11th section of the 7th of Anne, like the various acts referred to by his Learned Friend, would bear only one construction, and merely required simultaneous service of the copy of the indictment, with the lists of jurors and witnesses, he allowed, that the objection, If taken in time, must prevail, their Lordships had no power to relax, and he (the Attorney-General) would never call npon a Judge to do so. If that statute was like the Scotch Act of 1672, to which reference was made, and which he admitted required simultaneous service, undoubtedly the objection would prevail, but the other statute un. doubtedly admitted of two constructions. He admitted that one construction might be that the service should be simultaneous, but there was another which it admitted of, and if he showed their Lordships that the object of the Legislature ,could be much more efficiently carried out by the latter, then they could find no difficulty in giving the words that interpre tation. Now, what were the words " that the list of witnesses, and the copy of the indictment should be delivered at the same time." His Learned Friend would stop there, but he (the Attorney-General) contended that he was not at li berty to do so. He must go to the end of the sentence—" And that copies of all indictments with such lists shall be delivered to the party ten days before the trial, and in the presence of two or more credible witnesses." That gave the time within which the act was to be done, but the question was whether " the same time" meant the same instant of time, or the same in terval of time ? If it meant the same instant, the service should be simultaneous ; but if meant the same interval, it showed that the Legislature only required that ten days before the trial copies of all these documents should be served on the party. He contended that according to the construction of the sentence that was the proper meaning to be applied to it. In fact the whole objection of hie Learned Friend resolved itself into the point—admitting that the sentence would bear two interpretations or construc tions—that the prisoner had been served prematurely, that he had had too much time to prepare for his defence. He could not see what inconvenience could arise to the prisoner from its being admitted that he had been well served on the 12th of December. It was not denied that on the 17th when he was served with a list of the witnesses, he might have been served with a fresh copy of the indictment and list of jurors. What advantage would that confer on him when it was admitted that he had been served with a copy nine days before ? The objec tion most undoubtedly would arise under Peel's Act for high treason, because there, before arraignment, there was to be a copy of the indictment,and after arraignment the list of the jurors was to be served. Did their Lordships suppose that persons placed in such a situation would be allowed to stand on what his Learned Friend painted as most deplorable ? The Legislature having done that in one instance, as in the case to which he referred, the Act 6th George IV., i bowed clearly that they did not consider the separation of the lists any hardship or injustice. In many cases, the list of witnesses, with their professions and places of abode, could not be made out until some time after the indictment was found. The making up of the 1 st was a matter of great anxiety and difficulty. If the doctrine of his Learned Friend were held to be good, then s ll who were placed in Mr. Frost's situation wore to be deprived of the advantage which he had enjoyed, of having five days extra for con sulting his Counsel as to the validity of the indictment, and several days for inquiring into the character of the witnesses to be pro duced against him. If the objection were held to be a valid one it might benefit Mr. Frost, but it must prove very detrimental to the cases of any one who might hereafter be placed in his unfortu. nate situation. According to the statute of William there were three distinct times for the service of the indictment and lists. By that of Anne all were to be delivered at least ten days before the trial of the prisoner. Was it any forced construction to put upon these words to say that "at the same time" means " within the same interval of time," and not at the same point of time The words of the statute admitted of a double construction. His Learned Friend had contended strongly that the delivery of the iists and indictment was to be but one act, and in proof of that he cited the fact of the act requiring the presence of two wit nesses, but the two witnesses might be in attendance upon each of the several services. There would be no real inconvenience to the prisoner in being served with the copies of indictment, and lists of jurors and witnesses before the time fixed by law, but if the objection prevailed much in convenience must arise in the administration of justice. In the first place there would be a difficulty in saying what was the same time. Would his Learned Friend contend that all the three papers should be stitched together, in order to snake a good simul- taneous service ? Would it not be a good service if a copy of the indictment were given to the prisoner, which he might read, then he might be served with a list of the Jury, and afterwards with the list of witnesses—the party serving being in the room all the time? He would contend that the service was good, even if the party serving had gone out of the room, and re turned each time. If the literal construction were put upon the Act that was contended for by his Learned Friend, much injus tice must arise in the present ease, as well as in others that might follow. Under the statute of William, it had happened several times that the jurymen summoned had been exhausted by chal lenges. The course then taken was to require the Sheriff' to sum soon more jurymen ; and the Court then adjourned to give time for a list of the jurymen so summoned to be served upon the prisoner. Several instances were mentioned in Foster on Criminal Law, p. 63. Their Lorships would find in I East's Pleas of the Crown, p. 113, a case in which so many jurymen were challenged that not enough were left to try the prisoner. The Court awarded a new panel, and adjourned .o give the prisoner time to view the copies and panels. According to the doctrine of his Learned Friend, Sir Frederick Pollock, in such a case as that the prisoner could not be brought to justice. Mr. Baron PARSE—On a fresh indictment he could. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—Not by any possibility on the firs,. Mr. Baron PARSE—Unless the plea be struck out he could not be tried on tho first indictment. The ArTORNEY-GENERLL—He could not. He (the Attorney-Ge neral) said that if his Learned Friend's doctrine was to prevail there, it would be the most awful perversion of justice. He would then ask their Lordships whether, when there was a double con struction, their Lordships were to take the words without looking at the intention of the Legislature. He contended that if their Lordships were to hold that one error as to the profession of a wit ness, were to vitiate the whole of the proceedings in the case, he contended that such would be against the intention of the Legisla ture. And Lord Chief Justice Tindal might recollect that many Jury men were rejected because they were not properly described, but that only went to the poll, and not to the array. Again, the statute of Anne said that there should be ten days be fore trial, whereas it bad been held that this was ten days before arraignment—yet trial and arraignment were very dif ferent things. So the statute of William directed the pri soner to be served with the lists returned by the Sheriff of the Jury. But the Judges saw that the object of the Legislature was, in this enactment, to secure to the accused a knowledge of those by whom he was to be tried ; and they held that it would be a sufficient conformity with the Act, if the prisoner received the lists before they were returned by the Sheriffs, yet the departure from the exact words of the statute was considerable. Again, it had been enacted of certain objections, that they must be taken " before evidence given;" but the Judges had held—and it was laid down in East's Pleas of the Crown, that these objections must be urged before pleading. Here were, therefore, many strong cases in which the Judges had departed from the ►iteral words of the Act—considering that thereby they more conformed to its real meaning. Now, as to the dictum of Lord Eldon, when, as Attorney-General, he was ad dressing a Jury—their Lordships would surely not attach much weight to it. Nor indeed had his Learned Friend quoted authori. ties to show that the service of the three documents were to be simultaneous. Whereas Blackstone, Foster, Stevens, and others, held that within ten days was sufficient. And Blackstone, when enumerating those guards and defences which the law threw around a person charged with high treason, never alluded to this simultaneous service. Now he would briefly dispose of the cases cited by his Learned Friend, which, without disputing their authority, had no applicability to the pre sent. As to Lovelace's case, the Act required the notice to state process, and no process was stated ; why, that was a clear violation of the Act. So in the case requiring service at the registry—where there was not. So in the case wherein, instead of proclamation at the " near" market towns, it was done in market towns not so near as others. So in the case of the notice stating a residence at New Inn, London, whereas it was in Westminster. All these were clear violations of the Acts. It was quite unnecessary for his Learned Friend to quote cases in which parties were accused of contempt for not obeying a subpmna, when the original was not shown at the same time, because he allowed that in such cases a different time could not be inter. preted as the same time. Then, as to the Statute of Frauds, as to the execution of wills, it was not the same time required, but the time at which the witnesses signed it might be different times. The Attorney. General then cited a variety of cases to illustrate his point, and proceeded His Learned Friend had said Lord Tenterden had protested against the equity of the statute ; but be (the Attorney-General) did not rely upon its equity. It was to receive an equitable construction. He thought it was not necessary to occupy more time In commenting on the cases quoted—he neither disputed the point decided, nor the doe. trines laid down by the Judges in pronouncing the decision of the Conrt. Before became to Peel's Act, he must shortly advert to what had been said on the Scotch Act of 1672, but he would reserve for the second branch of his argument the main body of the observations he should deem it his duty to •ffer on that decision, as he was now upon the statute of Anne, which was to be construed according to the statute of Charles 11. But in the commencement of his observations on the Scotch law, he said that their criminal law was so essentia:ly different from ours in enactment, and still more In the manner of administration, that there was the greatest difficulty in drawing any inference from the one to the other—there were great admissions made—a public prosecutor who prepared the indictment—there were upon that, as his friend had most correctly stated, by way of record, a list of the witnesses to be examined, and of the jurors, and unless all those things were rightly done no witness could be examined and no juryman sit upon the Assize. Then there was a peculiarity in Scotch law, of which the law of England knew nothing, namely a citation ; if the party accused were in custody he was brought to trial, and a citation was not necessary; but if he was at large he must be cited, and what was termed inducite of fifteen days must inter vene between citation and trial. Now a citation was serving the party accused with a copy of the libel; but there was no such form in the English law, : nd therefore with these essential points of difference it was extremely difficult to trace any analogy be_ tween the laws of the two countries. Nov it was said as the Scotch statute of 1672 required simultaneous service, the statute of Anne must necessarily require it also—that the 37th Anne, introduced the treason law of England into Scotland, was undoubted, but it was the treason law of England into Scot land, not that of Scotland into England, and not only so, but all the machinery by which that law was administered was introduced from England into Scotland, and after that on trials for high treason—there was no citation—the Act required no alteration of the law of high treason as administered in England, it simply intro duced it into Scotland, and they had a Grand Jury ; the bills of indictment were found exactly in the same manner as in England, —a commission under the Great Seal of Great Britain, for which reason it was suppc stl to be an Imperial Court, in which. the Bar of both countries might practice. Now the 7th Will. lII_ certainly abjured simultaneous service, and it was im. Possible to say that any one thought of simultaneous ser. vice until the death of the Pretender, when the 7th Anne came into operation, If his Learned Friend were allowed to take one clause, or one number rather of a sen. tence in that section of the 7th Anne, he might say there was some analogy between them. But when the English statute gave them the way in which this service must be done, but no time in which it must' be done ; the Scotch statute must not be continued as the 'simultaneous service, but the service must be the same as the English service, which admitted clearly of EV - EN:NG EDITION. Mrs. Wilson—Not, by no manner of means. I owns as the mangler's got, a pre'ty hard place on it, but then he's only at work from six to six. The COMMISSIONER—What I twelve hours at the mangle? Mrs. Wilson—That's all, and he has 20 minutes for breakfast and 20 minutes for dinner. But as I was a say ing I gives the driver 3s. a week more than the mangler, because he's got a sitivation of rersponserbility, and rer sponsibility afore labour for high wages all the vorld ever. The COMMISSIONER (to Jones)—Are you prepared to swear that you agreed with the defendant for 18s. as man gler? The plaintiff said he was. " Never made sich an hagreement in all my life," said Mrs. Wilson, passionately. Jones--And she agreed to give me a week's notice. " Oh, lor," cried - Mrs. Wilson, looking quite savage at the plaintiff, "you falsifying waggerband, I never gives no notice, and never don't want none." The COMNIISMJNER—But that is not the custom, Mrs. Wilson. Mrs. Wilson—lt's my custom. I keeps 15 hands at the tub, and never gives no warning, and never has none. If I has a woman as I don't like, I washes my hands on her at once. Lor, sir, only look here. Suppose I was to take a hand as couldn't wash or iron ?—why, afore her week was up, she'd spile me of a matter of—lor, how is it pos sible to tell—p'raps a whole wash of fine linen as would come to 41. or 51. The COMMISSIONER—But I presume that turning the mangle does not require much skill. The lad could not spoil that ? " No," said Mrs. Wilson, grinning broad nonsense with a stare. The COMMISSIONER—Then your custom would appear not exactly to apply to him ? " Oh, yes, I serves 'em all alike," said the good woman. The COMMISSIONER—I'm afraid you'll have to pay this one. " Pay !" exclaimed Mrs. Wilson. " Why, I'll bring all the laundresses in London to prove as such a thing as a week's notice wasn't never given in the trade, not to washers, ireners, manglers, nor nobody else as belongs to us. Why, sir, look here." And Mrs. Wilson wanted to argufy the absurdity of giving notice in a laundry, when The CommissioNee stopped her, and said the case was one for the jury. The plaintiff was sworn to his statement, and a verdict was at once given in his favour. Mrs. Wilson—After this we shall have all our women coming agin us for a week's notice. And if you (address ing the jury) was to know what a regular drunken set of— The COMMISSIONER—The case is dismissed, Mrs. Wilsonr " Oh, for I" said the good woman, with a ponderous sigh, as she left the Court. " But never mind," she ob served, shaking her head, " that there young feller owes the chandler shop 19s, and the cobbler ss. 3d., and I'll see as he pays both on 'GM out of this here money." POLICE INTELLIGENCE. UNION-HALL. THE LATE SOUTHWARK ELECTION. -- On Saturday, a strong, robust man, dressed in the garb of a coalheaver, entered the Court at the conclusion of the night-charges, and, addressing the sitting Magistrate, besought his advice under the following circumstances:— Applicant—Your worship, I begs your pardon—l was employed in the election over at the Town-hall the last two days, along with a lot of other poor fellows like myself, and we were to have five shillings a-day and a good break fast for our services. The first day we had a good break fast and was paid our five bob a-head honourably. The second day—that was the day the candidates went to the poll, and the voting begun, we had the breakfast, but when we went for our five shillings each, not a mag could we git, though we had twice as much to do the last day as we had on the first. MAGISTRATE—What side of the question were you on— Whig or Tory ? Applicant—l thinks they called them the Tories; I supported Walters, the poor man's friend; but I thought that they would not act so shabbily as not to pay me what they promised. If Mr. Walters know'd it, I think for the honour of the cause he would make his under strappers dub up the blunt. MAGISTRATE—How were you employed during the two days that yon speak of? Applicant—The day of nomina tion I backed up the Tory candidate by loud huzzaing " Walters for ever 1" so as to drown the woices of those as was against him, whilst the speechifying was going forrud, and I helloed out so long and so loud that my throat has been ever since as if it was all on fire—(Laughter)—l do assure you. MAGISTRATE-Then you must have had quite enough to do? Applicant—The day the poll was open I had to do the same work over agin, besides keeping the way up to the hustings clear so as to give the gemmen what wanted for to wote room to go up, so as they should not be shoved about bete and there. MAGISTRATE—You appear, then, to have been well em ployed, and if all you say is earnest, I think that you de serve well of your employers, and ought to be paid for your services on the occasion. Who did you apply to for the last day's wages? APPLICANT—I went to the committee-room, and saw a lot of gemmen there together, and when I asked for the ss. they told me to go about my business; that it was all over with them, and that I ought to be thankful for what I got. " Now," said applicant, " I thinks that lam intitled to the 55., and that was the reason I comes up to ax your worship if I could make them fork it out by any manner of means, for the loss of the money to me is a hobject, I do assure you. MAGISTRATE—Perhaps the accounts are not wound up, and then, if the money is due, you will yet get it. You must not despair, and tell the gentlemen of the committee the important services you performed for the unsuccessful candidate, and they, no doubt, will act honourably towards you. Applicant—l'll tr 3 'em again, your Worship, at your recommendation, and if they still refuse me, why then, blow me, if I don't go to Mr. Walters his self, and tell him all about it, for I don't believe he knows what has been going forrad.—( Laughter. ) MAGISTRATE—I don't think you will be obliged to have recourse to that alternative, if you call on the committee again in a proper manner, and describe to them that you neglected your work to forward the business of the election• The applicant then made his obeisance and retired. ICELAND AND LAPLAND.—If anything were wanting to prove our English passion for travelling, it may be found in the fact of an English gentleman, of rank and fortune, publishing to the world the results of his observations, made during " A Winter in Iceland and Lapland." The highlY entertaining volumes, so called, by the Hon. Arthur Dillon, deserve, and will repay, all the attention which their announce ment excited. The more immediately curious and interesting portions of them will of course be found among the singular personal details of actual life which they include,—the existing condition of manners, morals, mental cultivation, &c. But the volumes claim a more important position in oar libraries than those features alone would give them, since, it a very compen dious and convenient form, they embrace all that is known of the east fortu nes o f, per h aps , th e two most s i ngu l ar countriea in Europe. THE NEW PORTABLE ALARUg size of a small Snuff Box, can be placed on the Dressing-table and set to ring at any hour that may bo required. Pries Three Guineas. T. COX SAVORY, Goldsmith, Silversmith, &c., 47, Gornhill (Seven doors from Graceciurch:stret), London. SILVER PLATE of LONDON MANUFAC TURE.—A. B. SAVORY and SONS, Working Gold smiths, 14, Cornhill, London, opposite the Bank of England. The best wrought SILVER SPOONS and FORKS, Fiddle Pattern, 7s. 9d. per ounce; the King's Pattern, 7s. 4d. per ounce. Pie following are the weights recommended, but the articles may be had lighter or heavier at the same price per ounce. oz. s. d. .Z. s. d a 19 Fiddle Pattern Silver Table Spoons 30 at 7 2... li 15 12 ditto Dessert ditto 20 7 2.., 7 3 : 12 ditto 'table Forks OO 7 2... 10 15 : 12 ditto _Dessert ditto 20 7 2 . .. 7 3 7. 2 ditto Gravy Spoon s lO 7 2... e ll • 1 ditto Soup Ladle 10 7 2... $ll 3 4 ditto Sauce ditto lO 7 P... 316 * 4 ditto Salt Spoo ns ( g ilt strong) 1 • 2 1 ditto Fish Slice 12 ditto Tea Spoons lO 7 5... 2 16 • 1 pair ditto Sugar Tongs (strong) 12 King's Pattern Silver Table Sp oons 40 at 7 4... 14 1 3 12 ditto Dessert ditto 30 7 4. 0 1,1 8 40 26 7 7 4 4...... b i l ,T , : 1 4 12 ditto Talyc Forks 12 ditto Dessert ditto 2 ditto Gravy Spoons l2 7 4... • n *" 6 1 ditto Soup Ladle 12 7 4... 4 • n t 14 4 ditto Sauce ditto 4 ditto Salt Spoons (strong gilt) 12 7 1". 2 0 1 ditto Fish Slice 12 ditto Tea Spoons l4 7 10... 5 9 p„ 1 pair ditto Sugar Tongs 1 5 .., N.B. A Price Current, Stamped as a Newspaper, contain ing drawings, and every information relative to the purchase of silver or Sheffield plate, may be had on application, or will be sent into the country, free of postage, in answer to a paid letter. BIRTHS. On the 22d inst., at Hardwick, the lady of H. E. Pow'', Esq., of a, daughter. On the 19th inst., the lady of Mr. Baker Peter Smith, of Ina-grove, Camberwell, of a son. On the 23d inst., at Prince's-place, Kennington, Mrs. Jaine 9 Thredder, of a daughter. On the 24th inst., in Woburn-square, the lady of Georg e Capes, Esq., of a daughter, still horn. On the 24th list., in Guildford -street, Russell-square, Mr s ' R. B. Uptcr, o f a son. On the 24th inst., at Tooting-common, the lady of Charles' Lee, Esq., of a son . On the 24th inst., at Clapton, Mrs. Freese, of a daughter- hARRIED. On the 23d inst., at Sedburgh Church, George Warden, Wansfel Holm Windermere, Esq., to Nancy Elyetson, younges t daughter of Thomas Fawcett, of Gate, York, Esq. Di RD. On the 211 o f A ugus t l ast , a t H o b ar t- town, Van Diemaill Land, 'Mary Ann, eldest daughter of William Carter, Esq.,° Hobart-town. On the 29th of September, off Lisbon., on board the East India ship Vernon, Auchmuty Francis William, the infant se' of Captain and Mrs. Auchmuty Tucker, 9th Bengal CaiaoP aged ten weeks. On the 15th inst., at Charlotte-square, Edinburgh, Harri ett Sarah, daughter of Charles Hutchins, a ge d 6 years and 3 month s ' On the 15th inst., at Ashburnbam Vicar age , the Rev. e ward Warneford, leaving 11 orphan children, only one of 'AI' is provided for, to lament his loss, aged 62. On the 17th inst., at Hatfield, Herts, of which parish b e , was curate, the Rev. Henry Comyn, eldest son of Major-. 66 natal W. Comyn, East India Company's Service, aged 28- „, On the '23d inst., James Watt, o f Southampton-street, re" tonviile, aged 55. On the 23d inst., in St. Helen' s - p l ace, the Charles Edwin , the infant son of Samuel Solly, E sq . On the 24th inst., Elizabeth, the wife of Mr. B. C. 3fi auctioneer, Southwark, aged 43. On the 23d inst., Ann, daughter of Thorn;' ,s Waugh, of the Grove, Camberwell, age d 16. l a of On the 23c1 inst., in Upp er B rook -street, Emma, the wi'" Thomas buncombe, Esq., of C opgrove, York. London : Printed and Published by M URDO YOUNG the county l t yl2, of S i‘ t i r i a d n d d i e , s a e t x i‘ e S o n u on ay,O fi j c a e n , T a i a o r y . 2 11 7 2 , . 184 S t roa.nd 10 a different interpretation —namely, the same interval of time.— The Act of Parliament he referred to left the service of the list of witnesses exactly as it was under the statute of Anne. That Act directed, that in trials in the Court of Queen's Bench ' a copy of the indictment should be delivered within the time and in the manner aforesaid. ' What was the meaning of that word aforesaid? It could not mean simultaneously, because the list of the Jury is not to be served on the party till after he is arraigned. The list of the Jury eould not be service at the same time with a copy of the indictment—they might possibly serve a list of wit nesses but they could not serve a copy of the indictment—they could not serve all three together. The service of the list of witnesses is left as under the statute of Anne. Sir P. Peel's Act made a distinction between the arraignment and the trial. Baron ALDERSON said, that the Act went on the supposition that the arraignment and the trial were the same thing. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that arraignment made a plea— the party is called on to say whether he is guilty or not guilty, and that was an arraignment. He should say, that if the statute of Anne contained any thing against his position, it was by the statute of Sir R. Peel repealed ; and he should say, that they had literally com plied with the law as it now stands. Frost was served with a copy of the indictment ten days belore trial. They had complied with Sir Robert Peel's Act, even supposing it to be capable of the con struction put on it, by serving the defendant at the same time with a copy of the indictment and a list of the Jury; and they had complied with the statute of Anne, by serving the party with a list of the witnesses by the time required. Baron ALDERSON would take a case in the Queen's Bench, in which the arraignment and trial were two different things. He thought it would be necessary there to allow more than ten days for serving the list of witnesses. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—Most undoubtedly. His second position was, that at all events the objection came too late. It was extremely material that they should bear in mind what the objection w as. It was that no list of witnesses had been served, but that was directly contrary to the fact, as one had been served on the 17th Dec. strictly and bona fide in pursuance of the Statute. It was alleged that it was not served at the same time with the list of the jurors, and the copy of the indictment. That could not be considered, at the utmost more than an irregularity—it could not be considered a nullity. Lord ABINGER—You mean that it works no prejudice to the party. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL replied in the affirmative. He con tended, however, that such an objection could never be brought forward as a substantive defence. Acording to all the rules of law, such an objection could not be taken at such a time. If Mr. Frost did not take the objection at a proper time—when he was called upon to plead—it might then be urged as a ground of de. fence. The objection might have been urged when Mr. Frost was ar. raigned ; then it could be entertained by the Court, and the arraign ment postponed. Again, when he (the Attorney-General) moved that Mr. Frost do take his trial, he had ample opportunity of showing cause, inasmuch as the motion was made in his presence and that of his Counsel. In the case of Zephaniah Williams— Sir F. Pou.oca had nothing to do with that case, and he trusted the Attorney-General would not provoke any allusicn to it. Chief Justice TINDAL—It is better not. You can put a hypo thetical case. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—Again when the prisoners were asked whether they would join issue in their challenges, the objection might have been properly taken. All these opportunities had been permitted to pass by, and the objec tion was taken at a time when it was urged not as a ground of postponement, but as a ground of acquittal. If no objec. jection was made when it ought to have been taken, he (the Attorney-Geller il) contended that that amounted to a waiver of the objection. He apprehended that it was a rule in civil and criminal cases that any objection •n the ground of irregularity should be taken at the earliest possi ble period. Mr. Baron ALDERSON—If there are certain things to be done before arraignment, and that the objection was not then taken, could the party after trial make the objection when he could have prevented it in the first instance ? The ArroaNEv-GENEttaL apprehended not. It was a principle in the whole range of civil and criminal law, that if a party did not make the objection when it arose, he was afterwards barred from taking any advantage of it. The Learned Counsel cited several cases to show that such a rule had always prevailed in Courts of Law. Crisp's case was cited at the trial, but in that case the objection was taken at the earliest opportunity that offered. He contended that the objection ought to have been taken on the arraignment—if it was held as a valid objection then it might have been taken after the tenth witness—nay, even after the case for the Crown had closed— nay, it might be made the matter of a substantive defence. He would then try to answer what had fallen from his Learned Friend, respecting the state of the law of treason in Scotland. The Judges consulted for a few minutes, and the Lord Chief Jus tice said it was their opinion that, on that part of the case the Learned Attorney-General might be very brief—they were of opinion that it had little to do with the case before the Court. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL would be very brief in his remarks, and would confine them to those cases only which had been brought forward by his Learned Friend. Not one of them was at all parallel to the one in question, for in those cases where the public prosecutor had deserted the diet, the lists were altogether nullified—but here there was not only the service of a proper list, but it was served more than ten days before the trial. He (the Attorney-General) said that by the plea and the permitting the trial to commence without any objection, was a conclusive admission that the list had been served. Mr. Baron PARKE—And the Crown must, when an objection is taken, identify the list as the list served. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—Certainly. And in conclusion I beg to state that if such an objection as that might be made at so late a period of the proceedings, when, for all useful purposes, it might have been brought forward at an earlier period, he feared that the worst apprehensions of Mr. Justice Foster would be realised, and that that which was intended for the protection of the innocent might be turned into an instrument for screening the guilty. His Learned Friend had said that no list of the witnesses was served, but that was not the fact. The list of witnesses was Lena fide served in pursuance of the statute. If it had not been strictly served simultaneously with the other two lists, it would have been but irregular. Sir FREDERICK here adverted to the Attorney-GenetaPs conduct in the trial of Zephaniah Williams, and thanked God that he (Sir Frederick Pollock) had nothing to do with that case. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL appealed to their Lordships to know whether his conduct had not been, in that case, most straightfor. ward and proper. The JUDGES affirmed that it was. Sir F. PoLtocx was happy to find that he was mistaken ; he was sure that the Attorney-General would be satisfied with his ex. pressing his regret. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL was only anxious, that before that august tribunal his character should be justified. Sir F. POLLOCK proceeded to say, that if there had been any op portunity of objecting to the proceedings, it should have been taken by the Crown. He would say that the Act of Parliament was in his favour. The question was, whether the objection made was a good one or not—if it were a valid objection, the question of its being more or less so could not lead to much. The prisoner should have had the benefit of a simultaneous delivery; he would have derived three advantages from that, as he had already shown. Sir Frederick Pollock proceeded to explain his own views on the subject. The practice was, that the prisoner be asked whether he had a copy of the indictment and a list of the witnesses, and their Lordships could not waive the objection if this form had been omitted. He had only one more remark to make, which was, that it was not for him to quote authority where these was none, because the statute had been regularly observed in every case. It was not for him to say the point was clear beyond all doubt, but for their Lordships to say whether or not it was so far a doubt; whether tho statute in question was not in this matter so far dark, so uncertain, so without authority, that their Lordships might not, for aught he knew, come to an unanimous decision one way or the other, or en. tertain different opinions on one or both of the poit.ts involved. Tho LORD CHIEF JUSTICE ustice then said that the Court would now adjourn, and would sit again on Monday morning (this day) at ten o'clock. The Court adjourned at six o'clock. INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, JAN. 25. On Saturday, William Thomas Bray, late of Totten ham-court• road, was opposed on the part of Mr. John Hill, a goldsmith in Clerkenwell, to whom he was in debted 1371. while the whole of his debts only amounted to 2711. There had been a fire on the insolvent's premises in September, and two witnesses from the Fire-office in which he was insured were examined, and gave a detailed account of property on the premises, consisting of watches, chains, and other articles of jewellery. The insolvent's Counsel here stated that the property was ready to be given up ; and, at the same moment, to the surprise of every one, a box was brought into Court, which the insol vent said had been kept in his house, but had been inserted in his schedule ; such, however, was not the fact, as he had stated in his estate paper that he had no property. It was proposed that the box and its contents should be placed in the hands of Mr. Cafe, auctioneer of the Court, and that a list should be made of the articles, so that it might be ascertained what was missing. Persons who had left watches to be repaired were inserted in the schedule as " creditors for their watches," and it was stated that they must attend on the adjournment day and claim them, The case was adjourned till Friday, and the insolvent was given into custody, as the Court refused to enlarge the bail. Goodman Levy, who had been twice before the Court, came up for judgment. He had kept the oyster and wine rooms at the corner of Bow-street, Covent-garden, and been fined for allowing gambling in the house, whichhe declared to have been a false charge, and took upon himself to say he was the " honestest insolvent as ever appeared." He stated his house bad been frequented by sporting characters and distinguished persons—that his son was Goody Levy, who kept the Saloon in Piccadilly—that he had no interest in any gambling establishment—and had sold same wine warrants he had from Mr. Franks, a few days after he had got them, because the wine was " bad." It was alleged he had committed a kind of robbery on that creditor, and the Learned Commissioner told him his condnct had not been that of a very " honest" man. He was remanded, at the suit of Mr. Franks, for five months from the date of the vesting order. MIDDLESEX COURT OF REQUESTS. " I never gives no notice to quit." Custom no less than a sense of justice had established, we fondly thought, in every class of society an understand ing that " both master and man," and " mistress and maid," were bound to give each other a certain "good and suffi cient notice to quit." Even the " Yes can do" Indian, who in Calcutta or Madras beats the sailors' linen clean between two pebbles, (how primitive I) would think him self hardly treated if "poor Jack" who employed him on the first voyage should turn him and his pebbles out of his service on his second one without notice. Not so Mrs. Wilson, the washerwoman :—" She never gived no notice, and never didn't want none." • This lady was summoned by a cleanly industrious look_ ing lad named John Davis for IL 12s. He had engaged to drive Mrs. Wilson's cart and deliver the linen at 18s. per week. Unfortunately he fell off the cart and broke his arm, and before he was able to resume his work, Mrs. Wilson had kindly filled up his berth. She then employed him to turn the mangle. Jones said that he agreed to per_ form the latter agreeable labour at the same wages that he had for driving the cart, while Mrs. Jones declared he was to have but 15s. Jones asked for a week's notice to quit, and Mrs. Wilson " couldn't think of such a thing." The COMMISSIONER asked Mrs. Wilson what answer she had to make to the claim ? " Oh, a very good answer," said the "good woman," who appeared to be as well entitled to the term as the head less lady who adorns the portal of the Italian oil and pickle warehouses. " State to the Jury your objection to the claim," said the COMMISSIONER. " In the first place," said the good woman,' " I took this young feller out of the streets ; he was a keeping of a hoyster-stall agin the Green Man, where he didn't git a sixpence a day." . .. " That is no answer to his claim, Mrs. Wilson," said the COMMISSIONER. " I know that," replied she, impertinently, " but for all that I've got a very good answer. I only mentioned this just to show you what a hungrateful sort of young feller he is. In the second place, I never gives the mangler not so much by 3s. as I does the driver." The COMMISSIONER—Is that because the one works like a horse, and the other has a horse to do the work ?