The National Register.
London, England, 1821-07-09 00:00:00

MURDER BY SOLDIERS.

On the Jury returning a verdict of " Wilful
Murder" against the soldiers engaged in the riot
and attack upon William Code, since dead of his
wounds, that they (the Jury) requested Mr.
Gell, the coroner, to address a letter to his Royal
Highness the Duke of York, representing to him
the conduct of the foot guardi, on the two lust an-
niversaries of the battle of Waterloo, and request-
ing that some steps might be taken to prevent the
like occurrence in future. Mr. Gell accordingly
addressed a letter to Sir Herbert Taylor, the mili-
tary secretary to his Royal Highnessthe Duke of
York, to which he has received the following most
gracious answer:—

" Horse Guards, June .11). 141.

" have had the honour of laying before the Commander
in Chief your letter of the 47th instant, and I am directed to
convey to you his Hord Highness's thanks for the toms in
which you have communicated to him the sentiments of the Jury
who were summcned to inquire into the cause of the death of
W. Cogle, and who returned a verdict of " Wi.ful Murder"
against 11•Carthy and four privates of the guards, at other
withers unknown.

His Royal Highness requests that you will assure the Jury
that he is sensible that they have conscientiously and correctly
discharged a painful duty, f which no person can lament the
necessity more sincerely than he does, and that he is obliged to
them for calling his attention to the circumstance.
" His Royal Highness has ever felt most :Amiens to check
any excesses committed by the soldiers, and to enforce orderly
and peaceable conduct in their intercourse with all classes of
his Majesty's subjects. Ile deeply regrets the melancholy
edicts of their disorderly proceedings upon the anniversary of a
day so honourable to his Majesty's arms ; and he trusts that you
and the jury will give him credit for a sincere disposition to use
his beat endeavours to prevent a recurrence of such excesses in
future. He does nut wish to offer any excuse fot them on this
occasion; but he cannot help observing, that the mischief may in
great part be ascribed to the fortuitous circumstance of two hat.
Clii(111E of the foot..cuanls, which had fought at Waterloo, being
at the penal of the two last anniversaries distributed in quartets,
and not placed in barracks, where they would have been more
within the reach of due and close contrail.
" I have the honour to be, &c.
" IL TAYLOR.
" T. H. Cell, Esq. Coroner, ate."

In future, it ib understuoil that on the annirerssary
of the battle of Waterloo the soldiers will be re-
strained, in a commemoration of the memorable clay
to barracks, or under the immediate observation of
officers apointcd for the purpose.

On Monday •e'nnight a favourite blood mare,
the property of Mr. Humphreys, of Coed, Carman.
thenshire, foaled foisr colts; and what makes this
instance of profusion in nature more extraordinary,
they were all of a brilliant jet black, the data being
a bright bay.

I

IMPORTANT QUESTWN RELATIVE TO THE
TRIAL BY JURY.

HOUSE OP LORDS, JULY 2.
WOLFE, APPLLLANT.
The appellant in this case was une of the parties who,
together with Kinnear and others, was indicted and
convicted in the Court of King's Bench about a year and
a half ago tier what was at the time termed the Com-
mercial conspiracy. lit the course of the trial, it will be
remembered, the court adjourned, and the jury, by the
erection and permission of die court, were allowed in the
interval to at large. 'I his separation of the j.iry was
subsequently made the ground fur an application for
n:w trial, in support of which some attempt was made
to shew that one of the jurymen had been tampered
with, but it failed, the party who had sworn the ath•
davit not beiog to be found as described ; the applica-
however, was refused, upon the groomd neat nu
proof had been given that any injury had been suAained
by the party in consequence of the jury having separated,
thus leaving the question of law, witether or no the
jury could legally be allowed to separate before verdict
given in a criminal Case, wholly untouched. A writ of
error forum *ohs was subsequeinly obtained, arid the case
heard belOre the judges, woo delivered the judgment sot
as it is termed i. e. without afsig,ning their
reasons, affirming the previ,ms decisions in the Court of
King's Bench, refusing the tiew trial. In this manner
the case came on by writ of et Fur in the House of Lords,
on Monday, for the reversal of the whole proceedings
upon the asAnuption of the illegality of the separation of
the jury.
After hearing the aratuneuts of counsel on both sides,
The Lord Chaucelldir took a view of the proceedings
in the case and remarked upon the circumstance that the
new trial had been refused upon the gromid, as appeared
from the (millions expressed by two oldie judges, whose
speeches he quoted, that no injury had been sustained,
as no proof had been given that toe jury had been tam-
pered with. Without meaning the sl.ghtest disrespect
to the learned judges who had expressed this opinion,
he must be permitted to differ from their reasoning, as he
could conceive the possibility, and even the probability,
of the party's having actually sustained injury without
the capantlity of event knowing the tact, and still leas of
being able to give it in proof. An Mill% idual might
tamper with a jury 111.11: t%ItiIOUL tne fact oeing 'shown
to ally one but themselves; and as such tampering was
in law a misdemeanour, both in the juryman and the
person tampering with hini, they would 110 doubt, as
was their interest, take every precaution that the fact
should not be disclosed. TUC dpieitnin of had been
avoided altogether in Me decision of the court against
granting a new trial. To obtain the decision of the
court upon this point recourse had Breit had to the writ
of error cornea n4is, but ore jmlges had in that ease de-
livered their jo.l.nnott bitentio ; their lordships %sere
therefore kit witninit any opinion v.iliatever of the
judges 1.11/011 the law of the que:,11011. In the present case,
thretrii the a ioption of this practice, their lordships
were called iipiur 1:,)t t i reverse or confirm a judgment
in I,oc delivered in the courts below, for no opinion on
the bite had been given by the judges, but to decide the
quests nr or law theiliSeirc,,. Ti:is lie considered was nut
witinii the proviuce of that hoase, as the high court of
appeal, and would amount to the making of a law ui on
toe subject, which, in that house, as one branch only
of the legislature, would be an assumption of unconsti-
tutional authority. He felt it therefore of the greatest
importance, and absolutely necessary, before their lord-
ships could decide this question, that the judges should
be called upon to give their opinions whether or no it was
legal to permit a jury, sworn to try a cause, to separate
before verdict given ; and he wished it to be understood,
that in every case of appeal before that house, where
the judges had omitted giving their opinions upon
the law of the question below, he should shove that they
be called upon to deliver them in that house. His lord-
ship concluded by moving, that the 12 judges be directed
to attend that house on Friday next, at le o'clock, which
was ordered accordingly.