The Sun.
London, England, 1822-11-14 00:00:00

THURSDAY, _NOVEMBER 14, 1822.

- .
at law.- In .the present case, immediate relief was not prayed,
but only that the deed might be ordered to be delivered up.—
Before the decision of Lord Hardwicke could be made appli-
cable here, it must be shewn that the deed in question was void
at law. It was to be regretted that such a suit had ever been
brought before the Court.
Mr: LoVITT said, that this client was disposed to act
with fairness; he had 'offered to take the children and maintain
them:
The VicE--CHaarettr.oa observed,. that •he had no doubt
the defendant acted according to his consience ; but he thought
few persons would choose to have their consciences measured by
his. The principle upon which Lord Hatdwicke's judgment
proceeded was, that the Court would not encourage immorality;
but the Court never hesitated to carry into execution a deed by
which a single man made provision for a woman whom he had
formerly cohabited with. ' It was singular that the Court would
encourage those transactions with respect to a single man which
they reprobated with respect to a man who was married. There
certainly was a shade of difference in the morality of the two
cases ; but they were both immoral, and he apprehended the
Court did not sit there to define shades of immorality. His
Honour then directed the case to stand over, on the understand-
ing that the general demurrer would be overrulled with liberty
to demur on parole, in order that thc.question might be fully
argued.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Nov. 13.
LIBEL.—.POLITICAL DICTIONARY.
THE KING V. DOLBY.
Mr. Eva/is moved for a rule to shew cause why the verdict
of guilty in this case should not be set aside, and a new t ial
granted. The ground of objection at this trial was, that the
Tales Jury had been returned by the Coroner, who had taken
time to choose and deliberate before he returned the Jurors,
who were his own choice and nomination, instead of being
called in instanter de circumstantibus. His motion was founded
on the statute 42d Edward 111. which prescribei the' mode in
which Jurors should be chosen.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE asked if the defendant was in
Court, but no answer was returned.
Mr. EVANS proceeded. Under this statute, chap. IL in 2d
Hawkins, p. 77, sect. 21, it was held this statute as well ap-
plied to writs of Nisi Pnus as criminal cases—that no list of
Jurymen could be returned unless reviewed by the defendant.
According to this statute, it was clear the return of the Coroner
was wrong.
Mr. Justice BAILEY—You say he had no right to have per-
sons in attendance, but should have chosen them from persons
in Court de cireurnstantibus.
Mr. Evales--Certainly. The distinction was in cases of fe-
lony—the Jurors might be peremptorily challenged. He con-
tended the law gave no power to summon.
111 r. Justice BAY LEY—He must return persons qualified to
be in attendance. Suppose a Special Jury returned by the
Sheriff, he must -return a panel.
' Mr. Evasts—ln the 7th and Bth William 111. cap. 32, and
by the statute 42d Edward 111. intended to guard against par-
tiality, the Sheriff.= Coroner selecting aJury de circuntstuntibus,
• by that means would not know who were to be upon the Jury,
and in that case the defendant had a fair chance. The express
object of those statutes was to guard against partiality and in-
justice. This was a question of importance to the country, and
their Lordships, in the decision of this day, would preserve the
purity of trial by Jury as it ought to be handed down to pos-
terity. He contended if the Sheriff had the power of return-
ing such Jury as he chose, this might be fraught with great
injustice. -
Mr. Justice BA.YLEY—Is not the Cormier sworn to discharge
his duty with- impartiality ? There is, therefore, something
very harsh in charging that officer with injustice.
Mr. Justice BEST—He is besides chosen by the Freemen of
ghe County ; to charge him with partiality, therefore would be
reat injustice.
Mr. Evasfs—lt is no injustice, my Lords, in charging him
with partiality, the charge is applicable to human nature. If
Judges may be partial, why not a Sheriff or Coroner ? It is
not that these are partial, but the object of the law is to guard
against the frailty of human nature.—(Laughter.)—After Ju-
rors returned by the Sheriff; or Master of the Crown Office, and
rejected upon the defendant's challenge, the same Jurors might
be again returned by the,,Coroner, and set upon the trial.
The LORD CniEr JUSTICE—It appears the Special Jury
was in the first instance objected to, as returned by the Sheriff;
on account of the Sheriff being alleged not indifferent. and in
consequence a Jury was directed to be returned by the Coroner,
upon application of Dolby, the defendant.
Air. EVANS denied that the defendant objected to the Spe.;
dal Jury, only to the tales. In the King and Edmunds (4th
Barnewall and Alderson), it was objected by the Court, that
defendant could not challenge the arraignment of a Special
Jury.
Mr. Justice BAYLEY.—What you contend upon the last
trial is, that the Special Jury ought to be returned by the
Sheriff, but the tales by the Coroner. -
Mr. Evasrs proceeded.—Without the challenge of the de-
fendant, the return of the Coroner plight be the same as had
been returned by the Sheriff, and rejected. He trusted the'
Court would give the defendant the benefit of hiS objection,'
without putting him to the necessity of bringing a Writ of
Error.
Mr. Justice HOLROYD thought it was sufficient if the re.
tnrn was directed to be made by an indifferent officer.
Mr. EVANS proceeded.—ln 4th Barnewall .and Alderson,
171, the objection was decisive. The Sherifn Gairatt and Ve-
nables were subscribers to the Constitutional Association, and
therefore could not impartially return a Jury, they being pro-
seetitors.
Mr. Justice BAYI.EY observed, that the King v. Edmunds
did not decide that the Sheriff might not ream Jurors quali-
fied to serve, only that he could not return the array.
Mr. EVANS contended the array might be challenged if re-
turned by an unindifferent officer. The party was entitled to
be tried by the country as distinct from persons ' chosen, who
might be tainted with feelings of political party ; and unless
the Jurors appointed to try were p ersons free from all suspi-
cion of being tainted with bias of pOlitical party, it was im-
possible to say a defendant had animpartial, disinterested, or
a fair trial, especially upon questions of a political nature as
this was, prosecuted by a violent political party.
The Loan CHIEF JUSTICE observed, he thought still, as
he did at the time of the trial, that there was no weight in the
defendant's objections now brought before the Court; but feel-
ing, with the rest of the Court, that every thing which related' to
trial by Jury was of the greatest importance, and as 'every ob-
jection taken to the pure administration of this important
branch of criminal justice, and as to the requisite pUrity and'
impartiality of jurors, required the fullest considetation,
The Court, therefore, granted a rule to show cause.

BREACH OP PROMISE OF MARRIAGE.
SEYMOUR v. GARTSIDE.
Mr. WIT.I.I.A3tS moved in this case, which was tried at the
SoMerset Assizes, for a rule to chew cause why the verdict of
40s. daMageS in this case should not be set aside, and -a non-
suit entered, upon the ground that it was not proved, as set
forth in the declaration, that he had either refused to marry
her, or to Contract marriage with any other ;: and the defendant
pleaded, that he denied haying broken'the promise, and that
he was still ready and willing to marry her; when called upon
so" to do.—(Laughter.)
• Lord CHIEF J us:rim—lt is not the business of the woman
to call upon him to marry her. It is his business to perform
his promise, by asking her to be married; and then thin action,
which is for non-performance of contract, - will be abated upon
'the marriage taking place.
The Court rejected the application.

BOWLEY v. BROUGIL
This was an action to recover daMages'for an assault. The
defendant pleaded in justification, that the plaintiff was rioibus
and disorderly in his house, and theicfpre he 'turned him out.
The plaintiff is the
.sOn a an auctioneer, in Catherine-street,
Strand ; and, ,tl4 'defendant keeps the Swan, Burystrecti St.
Jarnees. early part of this year',' the plaintiff and a
friend, on their return to town from Chelsea, called at the de-
fendant's house, and having" made free by stirring the fire, the
landlord complained of their behaviour, refused` to draw beer
!for them, and after some dispute turned the plaintiffout 'of the
house. The 'Jury found.a verdict for the defendant. •
Mr. CHITTY this day moved to set aside the'verdict, on the
ground that the'defendant had not proved his justification. it-
wasthe first time he 'Wad beard that Stirring the tire in a public
house was justification of an assault committed by the landlord.
. Mr. SCARLI;TT said he had.sonie ieeollectlon that 'the Lord
Chief Justice, who tried the cause, intimated to the 31:ay that
the jurisdiction was not prOved.
The CluEr Jugrack had.no recollecticin that he charged the
Jury,in theway the Learned Counsel had stltted.' On- the con.
, .•