The Express.
London, England, 1866-01-23 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, TUESDAY EVENING, JANUARY 23, 1866.

while the proper service of the train is attended to,
and proper superintendence exercised over those
who are for the moment cut off from all the safe-
guards of civilized life, they say what is contra-
dicted by our reason and by our experience.
It is daily becoming more clear that what is
wanted is not mechanical devices for giving notice
to stop the trains—a remedy at once precarious and
perilous—but a system which shall give to evil-
doers the dread, to well-doers the comfort, of
knowing that they may at any moment be brought
under the eye of an officer. We want our rail-
' ways to be like our streets, secure ; because,
though there may be no policeman in
sight, it is a hundred to one that there
.
is a policeman round the next corner,
whose regular beat includes the spot on which
we stand, and whose arrival may be at any
moment. We repeat that such arrangements for
the regular and safe passing of the guard through-
out the train, for his attendance whenever called
for, and for his occasional appearance even when
not expected, have been made and can be made,
with no other difficulty than a moderate outlay in
altering our carriages. And till they are made—
as the public, which has created railways by the
grant of exceptional privileges, is moat justly
entitled to require—we must hold the directors of
our lines morally responsible for every act of vio-
lenoe or horror perpetrated in the carriages over
which they alone have control, in so far at leant as
any such act might have been obviated or forbidden
had the means been provided by which defence or
succour might have reached the victim.

OUR CONTEMPORARIES.
(THIS DAY.)

alienated one who seems to have been among his
oldest Meade, and was undoubtedly his benefactor. He has
areleseeesded in dragging down load Brougham, nor has
Lord Brougham's Persons/ eonemsemee been auffloient to
save Mr. Edmunds. The latter has only made it clear
both to the public and to his old friend that he is not a
desirable confidant or guest. The final report of the two
commimioners exhibits him in a not len unfavourable light•
It is wonderful that with such a chief, who neglected his
duties to a degree that is almost incredible, the Patept•offioe
got on at all The Times loots to the ensuing session for a
complete discussion of everything relating to patents, and
then the present report with its recommendations will no

doubt receive due attention.

The Post thoroughly agrees with the commissional' that
the Patent•ofce fees were not intended to be raised prima-
rily in the general interest of public revenue, but to carry
out the patent organisation to its highest degree of effi-
ciency. The Post also, after noticing the looseness of admi-
nistration under Mr. Edmunds, endorses the other recom-
mendations of the commissioners, such as the appointment
of an efficient chief officer, the enlargement of the library,
and the placing of the library and museum under one roof.
The Telegraph enlarges upon the expedient now officially
recommended of a preliminary examination into the merits
of inventors' claims, though it is puzzled by the expression
that the chief clerk is to advise the law
officer whether the invention is one " for which •
patent ought to be granted." It it be his duty merely to
inquire whether each new applicant is as he represents
himself, "a true and first inventor," the task in the ma-
jority of oases would not be difficult ; but of course it is
assumed that even then there would be some mode of
appeal from his decisions. The Telegraph adds, that to
have any referenoe to the law officers of the crown at
all is an absurdity, simply kept up that those gentlemen
may retain their fees. The present proposal is, not to
impose upon them additional duties, but to constitute a
new officer who shall be to these legal lions • kind of jackal,
providing them with prey. We fall to recognise the
equity of the arr►ngement.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
(THIS DAY.)

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.

Sittiap in Banoo.—(Bdoe; the Lord Chid Judi" wed
Justion Biackbtuz, Mellor. and Lash.)

WINSOH V. TEI QIIZEZ.
The arguments in this etas took place today. It will
be recollected that the convict Charlotte Whoa was tried
and convicted of murder at the lad summer wises of the
county of Devon, holden at Exeter. lost term • writ of
error wee lodged against the conviction on the greeted
that she had been already tried and the jury wrongly
discharged from giving a verdict. Winsor with • young
woman, were put epee their trial in March last, for the
revolting murder of Harris's infant child at Torquay. The
*lel commenced on Friday, the 17th of March, and was
continued by adjournment till the Saturday, when the
'amnia/pup was concluded and the jury retired to con-
sider their verdict about 7 o'clock in the iv=
About 12 o'clock they were called into
and informed Mr. Baron Channell, who tried the case, that
they bad not agreed to their verdict, and were not likely to
do so • whereupon the learned baron mid that es that wee
the last day of the commission and the following day was
Sunday he should discharge them, and they were ward-
ingly discharged. At the trial there was no statement
of any illness or faintness among the jury, or any
actual impossibility of their continuing their de-
liberations, and it did not now appear that
there was. The jury were, however, discharged, and the
prisoners were remanded into custody until the last summer
assizes, when they were again arraigned, but before Mr.
Justice Keating. The counsel for the prosecution called
Harris as • witness, and on her statement of the manner in
which the child was put to death Wilmot was convicted and
left for execution. The learned counsel for the convict urged
at the time of the second trial that it had been begun at the
previous assizes, but that it had been unlawfully interrupted
by the discharge of the jury, and had been unlawfully pull
off or adjourned. The learned judge, however, overruled
the objections and continued the trial, the verdict, and
judgment, saying that the question must be raised by writ
of error. And in deference to some doubt entertained
the Attorney•Generel granted his fiat for • writ of error,
and accordingly a writ of error bad been lodged in this
court, in order that the objection might be argued.
The record of the proceedings on both trials
sets forth the particulars ea briefly narrated above. Error
wee consequently argued, raising 24 different points for the
consideration and decision of the court. 1. That she bad
not been tried and convicted • to law. 2. That the
jury on the first trial were without agreeing to
• verdict, 3. That they wore discharged without the consent
or motion of the convict or the prosecution. 4. That there
was no Hiner on the part of any of the jury rendering
it necessary to discharge them. 6. That. the jurors were
not, or either of them, incapacitated from giving • verdict on
the evidence. 6. That there was no sufficient cause shown
why the learned judge took upon himself to discharge the
jury. 7. That when he found the jury could not agree, the
learned judge ought to have directed the jury to return a
verdict of not guilty. 8. That the jury having been
so discharged, Winger ought to have been discharged
and not again put in peril of the same murder.
9 is a similar objection, and the remaining errors,
though varied in form, are the earns in substance, except
that the evidence of the approver was illegal.
The court was densely crowded, mostly by barristers.
The convict, who was present, was brought up in custody
from Margate, where she has been confined since last term.
Her general appearance had much improved since then.
She was accommodated with • seat on the floor of the
court near the witness box.

and Mr. Hannan appeared for the
crown ; Mr. Follcard and Mr. Coiling appeared for the
convict. . .

wilZiolkard having read the record and referred to the
errors assigned, said he proposed to deal first with the first
ten errors, as they had reference to the discharge of the
jury, and then taking the others in the order of postpone.
ment of the trial, the convict having being in peril, &a.
It was impossible to disguise the fact that this case bad
summed a wide notoriety, and had been the subject of great
discussion throughout the country ; but he was happy to say
he had to plead before a tribunal that would discharge its
duty without prejudice, and decide only upon the facts
and the law that will be urged in this case. As to the un-
happy woman, though all the world frowned upon her, and
his was the only voice that would be raised in dier behalf
this side of the grave, however feeble his efforts
might be, and however unpopular the cause, no
earthly consideration would induce him to shrink
from his duty. The question he bad to argue
was one of vital importance, for it involved
the question whether trial by jury was to continue to be
the great safeguard of our liberties. The learned counsel
was about to refer to the earliest information we have of
trial by jury and true it down to the present time. but
The Lord Chief Justice said that was unnecessary, and
it would be much better for the learned counsel to come at
once to the point of importance in the case.
Mr. Folkard said he would do so. He said that in the
Third Institute, pogo 110, it woo Lid down that on any
person being indicted of treason, felony or larceny, and
pleading not guilty, and the jury sworn they could not be
discharged without agreeing to a verdict. He also quoted
the First Institute, 227 B, second Hates, pleas of the
Crown. 294 ; Hawkins, pleas of the Crown, 619 ; Blackstone,
page 360 ; second Hales, page 313 ; Beeves' History, second
vol. ; Viper's Abridgment Trial, X He 21 vol., p. 337, and in
the latter "sworn was meant to refer to the finishing of
the evidence and the summing up of the learned judge.
Mr. Justice Blackburn said it was more favourable to
the prisoner. The prisoner was given in charge by the
Clerk of Anise. It wee of no matter whether the judge
had spoken or not.
Mr. Folkard said in the case of the " King v. Legenhant,
Ist Ventries. 97," it we. stated that if a jury did not agree
they were to be carried in carte after the judge, so that
they might give their verdict out of the county, which he
(the learned counsel) contended showed that a jury could
not be discharged in a criminal caw.

The Lord Cgs( Justice said a time must come when the
jury must be discharged if they do not agree to a verdict.
What was to be done with them when the whole business
of the circuit had been disposed of ?
Mr. Folkard said certainly there must come a time when
they must be discharged if they did not agree to a verdict, a
but although that might be done it did not follow that
prisoner could be tried again.
Mr. Justice Blackburn said there was no case on record in
this country where a jury had been carted, but there was
one in Ireland, according to the " Year Book," and Lord
Lyndhurst explained it by saying it was to be done in the
hopes of the jury agreeing to a verdict at the last moment.
There was no case where it had been actually done, so
far as be knew.

--hii. folkaidsaid he was not aware of any cams on record,
except the one in Ireland, which had occurred within
modern times, relating to the discharge of a jnry.
The Lord Chief Justice asked if there was any authority
for a verdict being given beyond the confines of the county
sad beyond the learned judge's jurisdiction. He knew of
no such we.

I. Justice Blackburn said, if be remembered aright, the
jury were to be carried to the confines of the county, where
the sheriff having no further power over them some horse
play took place, and they were shot into a ditch.
Mr. Folkard slid—No. It was that they might be taken
into another county, where the verdict might be taken.
The Lord Chief Justice said he could not reconcile it with
principle that a verdict given out of the jurisdiction was •
valid verdict.

Mr. Folkard 'said that Haim said it was so.
Mr. Justice Mellor said he quoted the doctrine from
Hales.

The Lord Chief Justice said a judge adjourning a cue and
coming back into the court to take the verdict would be
unintelligible. AU the writers quoted referred to the case
in the " Year Book" as their authority. Oo looking into the
case of the " King v. Legeobam.' in the first modern
reports, where the cue VISA given in detail, the words
quoted by the learned counsel had nothing whatever to do
with the question of discharging the jury.
Mr. Folkard was then about to refer to the power of the
judge in fining a jury it they refused to give a verdict, &c.,
when

The Lord Chief Justice said that was not the question.
What they were called upon to decide was, whether a judge
bad the power to dismiss a jury, and if so whether it was
properly done in this case. if • judge were to take a jury
round with him, then came another question, were they to
be " kept without meat and drink r
Mr. Folkard said be thought they must be fed.
The Lord Chief Justice said there were authorities that
they were not to fed, and that was • cogent reason for
believing that it was idle talk about carrying them from
county to county.
Mr. Folkard then quoted Bacon's Abridgment, Chitty's
Criminal Law, 6th Term Report., he.
The Lord Chief Justice said that on looking at the en-
tries in the book of anise there was an entry of the verdict
having been taken out where the trial took place, but in
St. Clement's Church, which was not in the district, and the
learned judge then said, " We should take the jury with
us till they did agree, and so ought the justices of mein"
There was • second entry, where eleven jurymen were one
way and one the other. On being asked if he agreed with
his brother juryman, he said he had not, and would
sooner die in prison than do so. Thereupon
he was committed to prison, and the verdict of the 11 was
taken. The verdict was set aside, and the prisoner was
discharged. At the end it stated, " the justices of nine
ought to have taken the jury round with them in • cart."
It was an obetur dictum, sad from this loose dicta
the proposition had found its way into the text
books, and so had been handed down, but then
was no decision on the point, which was contrary
to the fundamental principle that the jurisdiction of the
judge was limited to his commisaion. The court did not
know under what commission these USW/ were held. The
Court of Queen's Bench was ambulatory in those days. The
learned judge be bad quoted, said " We should have taken
the jury with us," which was very different from saying '
they should be taken from town to town.

Hr. Felkarti rid it shisweltia7av;r7iict might be taken
lbeyoad the jurisdiction.
Mr. Juatioe Blackburn thought not. That question was
not raised in this ore. No one had said that the judge
ought to hare taken the jury with him.
Mr. Folkard then quoted from 7th Howard's rata
trow trials, p. 79. the cane of " Whitbread end Fenwiok" for
el in 1669.

The Lord Chief Justice—Them Gould be no doubt that