The Express.
London, England, 1861-01-31 00:00:00

THE LASH. OF MIIREVisDURY F. LEVEIL.

In this ease—which was reported in imr journal Tedenll7
—the arguments were cwocinded and judgment reserved.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.-JAN. 90.

&tinge in Bineo.—(Before Lord LW Justice Cock.
born, Mr. Justine Trigktiman, Mr. Jwdice Crompton,
and Yr. Janda, Hill)
THE ROAD MURDER.
THE QC= r. STLVENTNE.
(Cooeißded from yontorday's Express.)
--•-- - - -

. .
After the close of Sir F. Kelly's address,
The Solicitort :entre! said he would spare the time of the
court by at "ma stating, that even if their lordships were of
opinion that the iapusition was informal account of its
being returned on duper, yet as they had pronounced against
the issuingof the uew writ on theother ground, the object of
the crown, which way of course, to re-open the whole
question, would not be served by their lordships declaring
the inquisition to have been informally returned.
The herd Chief Justice said the aim of the legislature was
to place inquisitions upon the same footing as indictments,
and therefore the court hail power to amend them in mat.
tern merely formal.
Mr. Justice Crompton aahl his brother Hill reminded him
that the eseeption respecting manslaughter and murder
only applied where a indolent could be founded on the
inunimuon.
_ _

The M44icittw.General then proceeded to vindicate the
course which the crown hail taken in cloying for this rule.
He would not, however, argue that the affidavits which had
been produced that day bad not served to dissipate some
doubts ; but there remainwl the fact, that 4..aue twenty
persons had depcoed that the coroner had used the language
complained of, whereby he limited the functions of the
jury. Were those persons guilty of perjury It might be.
indeed, that the excitement and confusion which prevailed
affected the clearness of expression of the coroner and the
apprehenaivenew of the jury. Perhaps the jury understood
bun in a sense which he did not Illegal himself to be under-
stood in. The learned gentleman then referral to the aft.
davit of Mr. Peacock.

The Lord Chief Justice—lt might be, Mr. Solicitor, that
the ouruner wr anxious to prevent the jury from giving a
verdict which he furesaw would be mischievour ; and that
in ►i anxiety he weed some of the language attributed to him
ix the affidavit&

—Hr. Justice Wight/nap—You must see. Mr. Solicitor, how
detrimental it is to form verdicts upon insufficient grounds.
Had the verdictof the jury charged any one with the murder,
the party must have been tried at the last winter assizes ;
whereas by waiting and by the pronouncing of an open
'robe' time was allowed fur further examination.
The Lord Chief Justice- The only iuggestioa is that an-
other person ought to have been examined who was himself
impacted ; and would it be consistent with justice to order
• fresh inquisition, in order that that person night he ex-
amined
The SulicitorGeneral could not of course ask their lord-
ship. to conic to • conclusion differeut from that which the
facts warranted, but, in justice to those who had
the present application, he was hound to say tarrhtt
must have been a considerable misapprehension somewhere.
The Lord Chief Justice What we really have to deter-
mine is, has there been such judicial misconduct as to
amount to • miscarriage of justice. All that is charged
minst the coroner amounts merely to an act of indiscre-
It might have been proper for him to have examined
Kent on hie evidence being tendered, but his omission
to do so does not reach to judicial misconduct.
Mr. Justice Compton—lt sea very nice quoition whether
it was not better to return an open verdict than run the
risk of having to go to trial in • hurry at the winter assixes.
The Lord Chief Justice—ln my humble judgment the
coroner would ham acted more advisedly if when the soli-
citor of Mr. Kent had tendered his evidence the coroner had
examined him. But that is no more than an indiscretion.
And even supposing that the ommion amounted to such
misconduct ea that, it does ott follow that under the par-
ticular circumstances of the case the writ ad niches in-
quirendsuu ought to issue.
Mr. JustieriCrompton— We should see that some desirable
obtest is to be attained.
Mr. Jimstke Hill—That public justice required it.
After a few further °leer rations from the loaned Solicitor-
General,
The Lord Chief Justice will—lt is not necessary to give any
lengtheueil or elaborate judgment in this 01110. The view of
the court has been sufficiently intimated in the course of the
discussion. The only ground on which the application now
rests is tlic alleged judicial misconduct of the coroner in
lemming down the investiiptioe, and not accepting the
evidence of Mr. Kent when tendered. I have already pro-
nomeed that I think the coroner would have observed •
sounder discretion, and one more 'satisfactory to public opi-
nion, if be had accepted the offer then mete to biro. I can't
say, however, that that involves anything more than an
error in judgment, and it is not upon an error of judgment
that we would be justified in issuing a writ of
ail melee inquirendum. I 'or province falls very short of
that ;we do not sit here as a court of error. We an•
simply authorised to interpose where there has been •
'Masteringe through judicial misconduct. But even if the
omiamion of the coroner did amount to a species of judicial
misconduct, then there remains the very seriousquestion,
whether we ought to issue a writ of further inquiry until
we are satisfied as to the scope of that inquiry. Whet we
are asked to do here is neither more nor less than to
climate a number of suspected person. separately, in
order to ascertain which of them shall be charged. We are
not here to examine into the policy of the law, but to ad.
minister it as we find it.

The rule nisi was aco:ntliogly ordered to be discharged.
COURT OF COMMON PLEW3.—JAN. 30.

Sittings at Nisi Prins in Muldiesex.—(Befors Mr. Justine
Byles and a Common Jury.)

NALTKARSH r. MA ME. - A GENTLEMAN IS DIRICL'LTR7.
This was an action to recover 175/. odd —l5O/. theamount
of a bill ivyable in seven days, and the remainder for goods
sold.

Mr. Pearce and Mr. Martin appearol for the plaintiff ;
and Mr. Hawkins and Mr. Hannan fur the defendant.
Mr. Pearce said the defendant was the son of General
Burke, and be had been for some time an inmate of the
Queen's Prison, detained at the suit of thirteen creditors,
and in all probability be was likely to remain there for a
coosiderable time logger. The plaintiff was • publican,who
had kept the Baltic Shades, near tho Royal Exchange, and
subsequently the King's Arms, in the Poultry. His hominess
in the last establishment did not succeed well, and in cons.-
, q ience there was a negotiation for the esta.
blishinent to • Mr. Median, but the bargain bargain was
not completed, sad Mr. Median brought au action,
which resulted in the plaintiff becoming an inmate
of the Queee's Prison, and afterwards acquainted with
the defendant. Mrs. Soltmarsh at this time lived in
Trinity•square, and she was constantly backward@ and
forwards to the prison. The defendant wrote numerous
letters to her requesting the advance of small sums, for he
was so distresoed for money that he bad not the means of
paying a telegraphic message, or even the postage of letters.
la consequence, various sums were lent, and the defendant
peel that if the plaintiff, or rather (Mrs. Saltmarsh) for
it was her money, would supply him with money and goods
to the amount of 774, he would give the plaintiff a bill for
U"&. The consequence was that the defendant was sup-
plied with mosey, cigars, sherry, and • greet number of
meat pies, of which Le was particularly fond, tLe whole
value of what the ilefernLiut received being about 1001., of
which about W. was OWL The bill in question, which
warn dated the 13th August, IWO, was given in respect of
751. worth of the property ; and the defendant now paid
rol. into court in satisfaction of the money counts, and
pleaded that the bill was an accommodation bill.
The plaintiff was called to prove this statement. He
said that the value of the cipus sop died was 121. lls. 6d.
sherry, W. ; pies, 2/. 7s. ; sad in addition to what had been
istaW, the was a claim for 174 Is. oa account of ex-
pelages sad time impended in endeavouring to settle the
defendant's affairs sifter witness got oat of prison. Os ems
occeeioa the defendant gave him • cheque fur 1501. on an
Irish bank, but the cheque was not paid.
Cressmamined- -The defendant told him he was entitled
to 2.0001. • year himself ; but after witness 'applied the
, and money he learnt from the defeadaat that he was
for mosey rpm Gieszl Baits. Hs would sot