The National Register.
London, England, 1820-05-15 00:00:00

THE NATIONAL REGIST'ER.

LIW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF KING'S MACH, Moen*, MAX S.

THE KING V. HUNT. BAMFORD. 3.)IINSTON, AND

HEALY.

Mr. Iltint's motion for a new trial has occupied the
Court of King's Bench several dabs. He concluded all
be had to urge hi favour of his motion on Saturday last,
and then solicited that the Judges would take till the
Monday 1011 owing to consi•'er the subject ; they acceded
to lus request, and their Lordships this morning deli-
vered their judaments se, mint.
The Lord Chief Jostice.—Although this matter has
occupied a considerable portion of that time and atten-
tion which is dedicated to the geueral administration of
justice, it has not presented to my mind any doubt
whatever; and I will deliver my opinion upon the
everal points with as much brevity as possible.
The first objection taken by the defendants was to the
rejection of es idence as to the supposed misconduct of
the military in the dispersion of the meeting; and, in
my opinion, that evidence was perfectly irrelevant to
the matter in issue. The matter in issue was the object
or purpme of the assembly, and the conduct of the peo-
ple prior to the dispersion. if, however, any doubt upon
that point could exist, the verdict of the Jury, narrowing
the charge to the 4th count, would remove that doubt
altogether, because ;he count does not charge the defen-
dants with any a ioLlice at the time of the meeting.
The second point of objection is the admission of the
resolutions of the Smithfield meeting; and the objec-
tions to this point of evidence are two-fold ; first, that
the best evidence was not produced which the circum-
stances might have afforded ; and, second, that no evi-
dence ought to have been admitted upon the subject.—
With respect to the first of these objections, the papers
which were produced were proved to have beets ieceived
i'rom the hands of one of the dependants at the time of
the meeting, as the resolutions which were to be passed
at the meeting; and therefore, as against that defendant,
no better evidence could exist. With regard to the
latter objection, it was in proof that these resolutions
had been recently proposed by that defendant at a very
numerous meeting held for the alleged purpose of parlia-
mentary reform—the avowed purpose of the meetitig in
question—at which the sante defendant, a stranger m
Manchester, was invited to take the chair; and as re.
garded the question of intention, I have no doubt that it
was competent to show, as against that defendant, that,
at a similar meeting, held for an object professedly
similar, such matter had been proposed under his im-
meditite inspection. Having now disposed of these ob-
jections to the law laid down in the case, I shall take no
notice of what has been called misdirection as to this or
that particular point ; I shall only say, generally, that
the whole effect of the evidence appears to me to have
been left most properly to the Jury : that the jury were
not directed to presume against the defetidants any thing
which was not well warranted hy the evidence; and that
they have not come to any conclusion which the nature
of that evidence did not fully justify. I therefore think
that this is not a case in which a rule to show cause
shoulddte granted.
MI. Justice Bayley said, that as he had tried the cause
he would rather postpone his observations until his
learned brothers had delivered their opinion.
Mr. Justice Haroyd fully concurred in the opinion
delivered by the Lord Chief Justice.
Mr. Justice Best.—l have never entertained the least
doubt upon the subject; and I also agree entirely in what
has been stated by the Lord Chief Justice.
Mr. Justice Bayley, if he entertained ally doubt upon
the matter would certainly state that doubt in the
strongest language to she Court; but, after giving the
closest attention to the arguments which had been used
by the defendant, it did appear to him that there was
no foundation for granting the present application
With respect to the conduct of the soldiers, it appeared
to him, the Learned Judae said, that he should have
forgotten his ditty if he had permitted ally evidence upoo
that head to be admitted at the trial. He conceived,
upon that occasion, that the jury were trying, not the
demeanour of the soldiers, but the misdemeanour of the
crowd. If the soldiers had misconducted themselves,
they were liable liar that misconduct to be put upon their
trial ; and it would have beta' most (diktat to prejudice
the question against them, unless such a course had been
absolutely recess try for the purposes of the defence. That
description of evidence did not apply to the charge upon
the face of the indictment ; and, as far as it could ap-
apply to any evidence alien by Mr. Holton, or by Mr.
Eutwistle, the evidence of those gentlemen had been
combated by the most complete admission of evidence,
to show non-resistance upon the part of the people.—
With respect to the second point of oltjection—the
atitnission of the Snit:Wield resolutions-alas Lordship
had no donut that tho‘e resolutions had been regularly
:old properly proved. Not only hail those resolutions
tweil really dt-livered, but a copy of thCl44 had 60.'11 giVell
to a certain individual by one of the dektulatits as a
transcript of those which were to hr proposed at the
Smithfield meeting Tnutiodividual Ma compared that
primed copy with the reaulutions actually propounded
to the meeting, and had found it correspond with them.
With respect to die other point of objection, he had not
been able to bring his mind to &iotat that these resat,-
dolls were most powerful evidence in the case. 'la
mall was :ken similarly encuinstanced at two places
within a short period tut tunic, was it not to be presumed
iliat his conduct at ohe of those places would he consist-
ent with its conduct at the other? If he had at mie
meeting, for the alleged purpose of retain, proposed
certain resiolutious, wasp not probable that, at a SCCOMI
meeting, for the same purpose, and tame barely subse-
quent, be woad propose simllar resolutions? It
been said by rite defendants that Kink ought not to be
presumed. Ile (Mr Justice Bayley) entirely concurred
at that sentiment; but If ht Were slreatll in sly that a
Jury were not entitled to draw front evidence, that pre-
sumption which would be the natural result of suet'
evidence, then he entirety differed from that doctrtue,