The Express.
London, England, 1866-01-24 00:00:00

exercised a right slisc;etiou coder the circumstances- .

Mr. Justice Blc-kburn said there could be no doubt that
lie acting cause in the judge's mind wen the approach of
Sunday, and not the commission day, in order that he might
know what to do with the jury on Sunday morning if they
bad not agreed to a verdict.
The Lord Chief Justice said there could be no doubt that
taking a verdict was a judicial act.
The Solicitor-General said the only alternative was to
lock them up on Sunday and then came the question who.
tiler they were to have refreshment
The Lord Chief Justine—That is the alternative difficulty.
The Solicitor-General said the " Doctor sad Student"
says it must be given.
Mr. Justice Blackburn—But he puts a query to it.
The Lord Chief Justice said that our ancestors while
they insisted on perfect unanimity in the jury were perfectly
unscrupulous how it was obtained. He hoped in modern
times it was not desired to coerce a jury into a verdict
because they could no longer bear the pains of hunger and
thirst. _

The Solicitor General said the jury could not have been
supplied with refreshments, and the use of the words of
Lord Chief Justice Ede, that a pressing need for their dis-
charge presented itself, was better than a pressing nea
newity.
The Lord Chief Justice said there was no other difference
in the words than that one was • Saxon one, and the other
a Latin ou, and Lord Chief Justice Erle wu singularly
happy in the Saxon garfish which he used. However, it
was not necessary to discuss the meaning of the words.
The Solicitor• General said unless the jury could be dis-
charged they might be locked up until one of them died,
when the act of God would intervene, as urged for the
issuer, to legalise the discharge of the other eleven.
That would be a species of coercion repugnant to the
pectin of modern times. He contended on his last
pint that an abortive trial was no bar to •
soma trial for the same offence, and he quoted
tram eases in support of that view both in
default of the judge and the jury, where a
warm de novo had issued, and in conclosioo he reiterated
the three grounds he had urged in support of the convictiou.
With regard to the legal admission of Harris's evidence, he
fluted several cues and texts written upon the subject,
dating that a prisoner indicted with another could be called
re a witness, provided he was not at the time upon his trial.
liz. Folkard was beard in reply, contending that the
pry were interrupted in their deliberations and called into
pert and discharged, when a few moments later the
pry might have acquitted the prisoner. Tbat was • mani.
!est error on the Fart of the learned judge, and by
at. the prisoner had been prejudiced. On the first
teal it was evident the prosecution was incomplete, and it
was only by calling au accomplice, with, he might say, a
halter round her neck, that they had been able to convict
the prisoner.
The court gave judgment for the crown.
The judges delivered their judgments seriatim.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
rhino in B tout —( Before Lord Chief Justice Erle, and

Justicm‘Willes, Keating sod Smith.)

KAY V. WHZILIM.
This was a epacial case, stated without pleadings for the
*nice of the court, and the circumstances ware these :
The defendant was the owner of the ship Victoria,
en board which Messrs. Wilson, Richie, and Co.
shipped at Ceylon a quantity of coffee consigned to
the plaintiff, • merchant in the City. The bill of lading
wu in the ordinary form. and therefore the goods were to
le carried safely and securely through the perils of the
Nas the acts of God and the Queen's enemies only ex-
'Vied. When the vessel arrived in London it was found
that rats had gnawed the bags, and committed damage to
he extent of 231. The defendant denied his
islAity to pay for this damage upon the ground
*at it had sot occurred through any fault on
his Part. He stated that proper precautions bad been
taken to dear the ship of rats before she started, and that
two cats and two Cingaleee ferrets were placed on board
for the voyage.
Sir George Honeyman, for the plaintiff, maid that it was
=ieterons for the defendant to say he was not liable,
be had taken precautions to rid the ship of rats, for
the lea did not arise from any of the excepted perils. He
did sot know whether his friends on the other side meant to
conked that the loss was caused by the " perils of the ma,"
orYj " the Queen's enemies." (Laughter.)
....xi Justice Willes--He would probably say that the
msgs arose from the perils of navigation.
George Honeyman--The Court of Exchequer had
ddiveled an elaborate judgment in,the MAO of " LaTronwl
v• wry." to the effect that • supervisor " was not ex-
Saud from damage by rats, notwithstanding he kept cats on
boare
MO. W. Williams, for the defendant, tried to distinguish
cuss from that of " Lave:rosy v. l)ooery."
furtive Smith said the only distinction seemed to be
4nat Ix
t4t , this ease there were two ferrets in addition to two
, board.
••-i• Janice Willa* thought that it was a barbarism that
I Miler should be more liable than any other bailee, but
nth eas the law.
The court held that they were bound by the decision in
e_ff'"°ne) v. Denary," which if questioned meat be quo.
awned is the Court of Error.
J'aifinast for the plaintiff.

. COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Goulbure.)
• 14011-COMPLIANCE ITTTH THZ HOLM ON COURT.
Bu Honour said he understood that out of eighteen
"a" hl his paper to-day for examination and discharge,
ante had only been filed in seven al them and in two
n'as ths accounts had not been filed In time. As he had
iatimated, it was momeary to adopt some more
`"lntss t rule in such cases, and at his request, the re-
amilr had prepared a rule whir& would henceforth be
0% ie Nees where the bankrupts made default.
• .".• aselstrar Hiatt then reed the following rule :
Al to matters in which the amounts are not filed et