The Sun.
London, England, 1840-01-27 00:00:00

a different interpretation—namely, the same interval of time.—
The Act of Parliament he referred to left the service of the list
of witnesses exactly as it was under the statute of Anne. That
Act directed, that in trials in the Court of Queen's Bench
' a copy of the indictment should be delivered within the time and
in the manner aforesaid. ' What was the meaning of that word
aforesaid? It could not mean simultaneously, because the list
of the Jury is not to be served on the party till after he is arraigned.
The list of the Jury eould not be service at the same time with
a copy of the indictment—they might possibly serve a list of wit-
nesses but they could not serve a copy of the indictment—they
could not serve all three together. The service of the list of
witnesses is left as under the statute of Anne. Sir P. Peel's Act
made a distinction between the arraignment and the trial.

Baron ALDERSON said, that the Act went on the supposition
that the arraignment and the trial were the same thing.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that arraignment made a plea—
the party is called on to say whether he is guilty or not guilty, and
that was an arraignment. He should say, that if the statute of Anne
contained any thing against his position, it was by the statute of Sir
R. Peel repealed ; and he should say, that they had literally com-
plied with the law as it now stands. Frost was served with a copy of
the indictment ten days belore trial. They had complied with Sir
Robert Peel's Act, even supposing it to be capable of the con-
struction put on it, by serving the defendant at the same time with
a copy of the indictment and a list of the Jury; and they had
complied with the statute of Anne, by serving the party with a list
of the witnesses by the time required.
Baron ALDERSON would take a case in the Queen's Bench, in
which the arraignment and trial were two different things. He
thought it would be necessary there to allow more than ten days
for serving the list of witnesses.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—Most undoubtedly. His second
position was, that at all events the objection came too
late. It was extremely material that they should bear in mind
what the objection was. It was that no list of witnesses had been
served, but that was directly contrary to the fact, as one had been
served on the 17th Dec. strictly and bona fide in pursuance of the
Statute. It was alleged that it was not served at the same time with
the list of the jurors, and the copy of the indictment. That could
not be considered, at the utmost more than an irregularity—it could
not be considered a nullity.

Lord ABINGER—You mean that it works no prejudice to the
party.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL replied in the affirmative. He con-
tended, however, that such an objection could never be brought
forward as a substantive defence. Acording to all the rules of law,
such an objection could not be taken at such a time. If Mr.
Frost did not take the objection at a proper time—when he
was called upon to plead—it might then be urged as a ground of de.
fence. The objection might have been urged when Mr. Frost was ar.
raigned ; then it could be entertained by the Court, and the arraign-
ment postponed. Again, when he (the Attorney-General) moved that
Mr. Frost do take his trial, he had ample opportunity of showing
cause, inasmuch as the motion was made in his presence and that of
his Counsel. In the case of Zephaniah Williams—

Sir F. Pou.oca had nothing to do with that case, and he trusted
the Attorney-General would not provoke any allusicn to it.
Chief Justice TINDAL—It is better not. You can put a hypo-
thetical case.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—Again when the prisoners were
asked whether they would join issue in their challenges,
the objection might have been properly taken. All these
opportunities had been permitted to pass by, and the objec-
tion was taken at a time when it was urged not as a ground
of postponement, but as a ground of acquittal. If no objec.
jection was made when it ought to have been taken,
he (the Attorney-Geller il) contended that that amounted
to a waiver of the objection. He apprehended that it
was a rule in civil and criminal cases that any objection
•n the ground of irregularity should be taken at the earliest possi-
ble period.
Mr. Baron ALDERSON—If there are certain things to be done
before arraignment, and that the objection was not then taken,
could the party after trial make the objection when he could have
prevented it in the first instance ?

The ArroaNEv-GENEttaL apprehended not. It was a principle
in the whole range of civil and criminal law, that if a party did
not make the objection when it arose, he was afterwards barred from
taking any advantage of it. The Learned Counsel cited several
cases to show that such a rule had always prevailed in Courts of Law.
Crisp's case was cited at the trial, but in that case the objection was
taken at the earliest opportunity that offered. He contended that
the objection ought to have been taken on the arraignment—if it
was held as a valid objection then it might have been taken after the
tenth witness—nay, even after the case for the Crown had closed—
nay, it might be made the matter of a substantive defence. He
would then try to answer what had fallen from his Learned Friend,
respecting the state of the law of treason in Scotland.

The Judges consulted for a few minutes, and the Lord Chief Jus-
tice said it was their opinion that, on that part of the case the
Learned Attorney-General might be very brief—they were of
opinion that it had little to do with the case before the Court.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL would be very brief in his remarks,
and would confine them to those cases only which had been brought
forward by his Learned Friend. Not one of them was at all parallel
to the one in question, for in those cases where the public prosecutor
had deserted the diet, the lists were altogether nullified—but here
there was not only the service of a proper list, but it was served more
than ten days before the trial. He (the Attorney-General) said
that by the plea and the permitting the trial to commence without
any objection, was a conclusive admission that the list had
been served.

Mr. Baron PARKE—And the Crown must, when an objection is
taken, identify the list as the list served.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—Certainly. And in conclusion I beg
to state that if such an objection as that might be made at so late a
period of the proceedings, when, for all useful purposes, it might
have been brought forward at an earlier period, he feared that the
worst apprehensions of Mr. Justice Foster would be realised, and
that that which was intended for the protection of the innocent might
be turned into an instrument for screening the guilty. His Learned
Friend had said that no list of the witnesses was served, but that
was not the fact. The list of witnesses was Lena fide served in
pursuance of the statute. If it had not been strictly served
simultaneously with the other two lists, it would have been but
irregular.

Sir FREDERICK here adverted to the Attorney-GenetaPs conduct
in the trial of Zephaniah Williams, and thanked God that he
(Sir Frederick Pollock) had nothing to do with that case.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL appealed to their Lordships to know
whether his conduct had not been, in that case, most straightfor.
ward and proper.
The JUDGES affirmed that it was.
Sir F. PoLtocx was happy to find that he was mistaken ; he
was sure that the Attorney-General would be satisfied with his ex.
pressing his regret.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL was only anxious, that before that
august tribunal his character should be justified.

Sir F. POLLOCK proceeded to say, that if there had been any op
portunity of objecting to the proceedings, it should have been
taken by the Crown. He would say that the Act of Parliament was
in his favour. The question was, whether the objection made was
a good one or not—if it were a valid objection, the question of its
being more or less so could not lead to much. The prisoner should have
had the benefit of a simultaneous delivery; he would have derived
three advantages from that, as he had already shown. Sir
Frederick Pollock proceeded to explain his own views on
the subject. The practice was, that the prisoner be asked whether
he had a copy of the indictment and a list of the witnesses, and their
Lordships could not waive the objection if this form had been omitted.
He had only one more remark to make, which was, that it was
not for him to quote authority where these was none, because the
statute had been regularly observed in every case. It was not for
him to say the point was clear beyond all doubt, but for their
Lordships to say whether or not it was so far a doubt; whether tho
statute in question was not in this matter so far dark, so uncertain,
so without authority, that their Lordships might not, for aught he
knew, come to an unanimous decision one way or the other, or en.
tertain different opinions on one or both of the poit.ts involved.

Tho LORD CHIEF JUSTICE ustice then said that the Court
would now adjourn, and would sit again on Monday morning (this
day) at ten o'clock.
The Court adjourned at six o'clock.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, JAN. 25.
On Saturday, William Thomas Bray, late of Totten-
ham-court• road, was opposed on the part of Mr. John
Hill, a goldsmith in Clerkenwell, to whom he was in-
debted 1371. while the whole of his debts only amounted
to 2711. There had been a fire on the insolvent's premises
in September, and two witnesses from the Fire-office in
which he was insured were examined, and gave a detailed
account of property on the premises, consisting of watches,
chains, and other articles of jewellery. The insolvent's
Counsel here stated that the property was ready to be
given up ; and, at the same moment, to the surprise of
every one, a box was brought into Court, which the insol-
vent said had been kept in his house, but had been inserted
in his schedule ; such, however, was not the fact, as he
had stated in his estate paper that he had no property. It
was proposed that the box and its contents should be placed
in the hands of Mr. Cafe, auctioneer of the Court, and that
a list should be made of the articles, so that it might be
ascertained what was missing. Persons who had left
watches to be repaired were inserted in the schedule as
" creditors for their watches," and it was stated that they
must attend on the adjournment day and claim them, The
case was adjourned till Friday, and the insolvent was given
into custody, as the Court refused to enlarge the bail.
Goodman Levy, who had been twice before the Court,
came up for judgment. He had kept the oyster and wine
rooms at the corner of Bow-street, Covent-garden, and been
fined for allowing gambling in the house, whichhe declared to
have been a false charge, and took upon himself to say he
was the " honestest insolvent as ever appeared." He
stated his house bad been frequented by sporting characters
and distinguished persons—that his son was Goody Levy,
who kept the Saloon in Piccadilly—that he had no interest
in any gambling establishment—and had sold same wine
warrants he had from Mr. Franks, a few days after he had
got them, because the wine was " bad." It was alleged
he had committed a kind of robbery on that creditor, and
the Learned Commissioner told him his condnct had not
been that of a very " honest" man. He was remanded, at
the suit of Mr. Franks, for five months from the date of the
vesting order.

MIDDLESEX COURT OF
REQUESTS.

" I never gives no notice to quit."
Custom no less than a sense of justice had established,
we fondly thought, in every class of society an understand-
ing that " both master and man," and " mistress and maid,"
were bound to give each other a certain "good and suffi-
cient notice to quit." Even the " Yes can do" Indian,
who in Calcutta or Madras beats the sailors' linen clean
between two pebbles, (how primitive I) would think him-
self hardly treated if "poor Jack" who employed him on
the first voyage should turn him and his pebbles out of his
service on his second one without notice. Not so Mrs.
Wilson, the washerwoman :—" She never gived no notice,
and never didn't want none."

•
This lady was summoned by a cleanly industrious look_
ing lad named John Davis for IL 12s. He had engaged to
drive Mrs. Wilson's cart and deliver the linen at 18s. per
week. Unfortunately he fell off the cart and broke his
arm, and before he was able to resume his work, Mrs.
Wilson had kindly filled up his berth. She then employed
him to turn the mangle. Jones said that he agreed to per_
form the latter agreeable labour at the same wages that he
had for driving the cart, while Mrs. Jones declared he was
to have but 15s. Jones asked for a week's notice to quit,
and Mrs. Wilson " couldn't think of such a thing."
The COMMISSIONER asked Mrs. Wilson what answer she
had to make to the claim ?

" Oh, a very good answer," said the "good woman,"
who appeared to be as well entitled to the term as the head-
less lady who adorns the portal of the Italian oil and
pickle warehouses.

" State to the Jury your objection to the claim," said
the COMMISSIONER.

" In the first place," said the good woman,' " I took
this young feller out of the streets ; he was a keeping of a
hoyster-stall agin the Green Man, where he didn't git a
sixpence a day."

. ..
" That is no answer to his claim, Mrs. Wilson,"
said the
COMMISSIONER.

" I know that," replied she, impertinently, " but for all
that I've got a very good answer. I only mentioned this
just to show you what a hungrateful sort of young feller he
is. In the second place, I never gives the mangler not so
much by 3s. as I does the driver."
The COMMISSIONER—Is that because the one works like
a horse, and the other has a horse to do the work ?