The Sun.
London, England, 1801-01-28 00:00:00

As to the Word " unlawfully-," his Lmcfsniv
thought it wts'proved, supposing it to he neo
cessary in this Case. His Lordship concluda
with giving his most decided 'disapprobation •.t*
these pra&ices, as most mischievous, and 113" such
ought?' to be suppressed by the Law, but not
by Lawless violence.

• Mr. jligtiC.o Ghost; said 'that the motion for
a new TriaU in ibis Case was grounded on the
Allegation that .thelndiament was nor proved.
That there Was'no evidence to prove the word
unlawfully," and that whatever evidence There
• was against the Defendant, yet:. such was. the
evidence :fbr him, that :it preponderated' in his
favour ;: upon which grounds the • Court would.
look with eagle's eyes, for it diete was such a
preponderance 'he ought to have the effat of it,
and God forbid that he should be punished at
• As to the first objettion upon the word "
hlWittll).;fl.' thelearned judge said he remembered,
the Case of the King v. Iforne,.• where a part of.
the .Record had been rejeeted. as surplusage, but
he thought with-my Lord Chief Justice, that the
Cad was proved here, if that was necessary, or
that at least there was.evidence of it suilicient.,
to go to the Jury:: for :taking, the whole together,
how did it stand ?---why that this man went to
the market intending to do that, .whidt was Lin_
lawful, and afterwards did that 'which,was On.
lawful; and the illegality of the tqnfa4ion, pee.
vaded the whole of it, for if he intodea• to buy
and sell any_ thing on the same day 'at a, profit.;
he intended to make an: ;illegal, —why.

•
then tt came
.to tll4, whether he was ab.44tely
guilty, or perfectly innocent upon the, wholi.:
transadionl,--or rather whether he was provml
to be guilty ; for, in the language t.)I a Court of
justice, a man must be proved .to.be
;flre the Law will allow. him to be so called.--
:limy stood the evidence than saw.Ausby
dealing for the Corn in sample,- at the 114111.1;:t,
on the day in question, and alzerwards saw, tio,,e
very. satriplcs on the .stand of Rushy in a few
minutes.---What.was. the conclusion ?—why the
conclusion was, that he bought them, sccinn
them placed upon the Defendant's stand.; the
next conclusion was, .that they were. there
posed for sale, for if they were not therefor.
that purinose, the probability was that they
would have.been sent away.—Well then, having

remained on the stand of the Defendant for five
minutes the same sampleswere found upon the
~iand of Nattrass:—Who was Mr. Nattrass ?
A Corn Factor, who, after a great deal of diffir
culty produced his hook, 'in which the original
entry was in 'the name of Smith, Rusby, and
Company, 'and it was afterwards altered to the
name of Smith only.; from all this, the conclusion
was irresistible.---h was impossible fora man
who had a .giain-of intellett to doubt upon -the
matter.4—What was the conclusion ?,-----why that
they were sold -by Rusby's order:—Then came
the evidence on the part of the Defendant; and
if that evidence was fair, God forbid-the Defend-
ant should be convkhd ; but when an alteration
was found in the book, he should like to ask,
Whether that did not throw a great deal of doubt
en the wholeof the trans'aelion, on behalfof- the
Defendant? Arid wag it not to he expefted
that rho jury would decide upon it according
to the principles of plain sense Were they
notqualifred to say they .did not bdlleve the De..
lendant's Witnesses ?" said the Learned Judge;
they did say so, for they did not believe them.
I myself hooka teat have believed the story they
told under all its circumstances ; 1 cannot there.
tore find fault with the Jury for not believing
them, nor
~with the Verditt they have given.
i say this, totally avoiding the other point, with
which I do-pot chose to meddle at present : I
mean the question, Whether. the. aft :of.Sn,ith
would have been the aft of Rusby for crihiinai
purposes; because I am clearly cif opinion
Jury were right in saying that Rubby was the
man who 'lid it.

Mr. Justice LE .131:.".NC said that this appiica.
tion was made for a, new Trial. upon two ground:.i:
First, that the IndiEtinen.t contained a material
'Allegation
which was not proved, namely,,.that
:the Defendant, Rushy, ' unlawfully Might the
Corn in question';" that W'as the first 'Akelion,
The second objeaion was, that the:Verdi& was:
contrary to evidence, or against the weight of
evidence, so that the COurt ought 'to send the,
Case to another Jury.
On. the first objeetion he agreed With the.rest
of the Court, that the word " unlawfully," coo.
sideret with reference to the part of the charge
to lAA it referred, was tq be rejeeted sue.
plusage.---7-Snpposing it not to- be so, whether
the evidence would support the word, " unlaw-
fully," as applied to the,bnying; supposing that
to be ithportant was '-`another question, bat
thinking it gurplusage, there 'was no nce:::ssity to
meet that point, nor did,he know that the Coitrt
would grant a new Trial 'on that account if it
Were otherwise. Certainly 'it was not material,_
that every Allegation and word in an Indietment
should be proved, unless pertinent to the 'Charge.
The charge against the Defendant Was, that he
had bought• these samples anti sold theni•agains in,
the same market ; he 'could not think .the word
" unlaWfully" pertinent to the substance:of the
Indidnient, it'nught theretbre be,rejetitidoat'sor:,
plusage4 and, tthis was not new Aotitioe)!: there:
were many, many institutes in Which, words had:.,
been, in a variety of cases,lent6idered mineces.
sary to bc provedin the'Jndktrnxt t:
Dere the Learriedljudge cited eisesintanprort
61 this 11a:trine, the of,tlie King-and '
and one in: which Ritherr,. Lord lienlyvvrasrrnii_
named: for -Sir Robert
therefore brought him to !,the 4icebotPconsictera4
tion, "'Whethm.the Court, sawftionl thesißeport
that the evidence was lithe r 4ntitaltittpetreprel.,
ponderatcd: lir favour of the Defendant, sr ttat.
liters Ought to;b6'a,neW Trial ?"::: ::NotviLtvlien
the jury, haa drawn their conclusion), amt.,: Ow
Judge before whom the Cause was tried, woLnot
of opinion, that that, conclusion -w45 wroag, -tte
Court who had not:lila' an opportunity of. 4ceir4
the demeanour of the Wirnesse§, on Which