The Sun.
London, England, 1840-01-08 00:00:00

this.

• a P tfs'ee tit., that.the qieStiOri—Which ryas de=
SliCa a; be put should be submined to the Court.
The Solicitor-General thou said the question which I
wish to ask is this, " Were you -'at the-door of the West-
gate Inn? Did you ask any of the insurganta what they
wanted. and did any one answer that question?
Sir F. Pollock objected to the question -being put. It
was not because the.witnesses for the-prisoner gave a dif-
ferent. account of that transaction, the, whole of which
the Crown might have proved; it wasnsot because that
a man who as a witness gave the name of another
witness that the Crown had a right to recal that wit-
ness so named, for the purpose of contradicting the
statement made by the witness for the defence.
He would put this case. Supposing in the course of a
conversation certain matters are supposed to pass, and the
persons who were present are called, three or four indivia
duals,- to prove what was the conversation upon the one
-side, and others are called to give a statement upon the
other. If, on the other side the men. called gave; a -dif-
fer( nt complexion to the conversation, and if in the
course of it he mentions a statement made by John Oakes,
a 'person who might have been called as s witness, but who
was not examined as to any part of the conversation, and
the witness being-asked as to the conversation, says yes,-
I do recollect it, and John Oakes made remarks, John
Oakes, he apprehended, could nut be recalled so as to say
lie had not made those remarks, and still more, he could ,
not be recalled to disprove something which he had the
opportunity of disproving in the first -instance. The
Counsel for the Crown could in their original case have
given any explanation of the transaction which they might
have thought necessary. They had that man (Hopkins)
in the box for that purpose, and they did not examine him.
An account had been given ()acne side, and then ugon the
other. •The Crown, therefore, could niot call a witness to.
disprove a part of the case of the- defence which they
might have pulled out. If the One'slide proved one new
fact, and the other proved some other new/act, he appre-
hended that gave the first no right tocall back.a witness
todii.preme the new fact stated in the second instance.
Mr. Kelly considered that the evidence of Hopkins was
inadmissible on the very clearest grounds. In this case
wows-were things. This was tire very essential part of the
case upon which the life or death of the prisoner depended.
The question was, what was' the intention of the multitude
in attacking the Wesegrite ? This could be only collected
from what was Saidat the time, thus making every word
that was-uttered upon tiro one.side and the other an essen-
tial and -important point of the transaction. In cases of
high treason they were bound to•produce all the witnesses
hi their power that were cognizant of the transaction.
Here the, witness had been examined before as to all that
he had learned of that. transaction. Here he might have
been called upon, in the first instance, as to what he-had
known about the matter. He appt ehended that anything
said was not merely a specific -declaration, but it was a
fact in the case, and constituting a part of the transaction.
[dc subinitted that whatever was said on one-side or the •
other should be proved •in the first instance. If this wit-
ness was permitted to oonte and say he did -nrst ask such or
such a question, they, for the prisoner, might call another
witnass toot and. prove that- he did ask seclequastienS;
nrathus they might- go on calling half dc.zeps of wittieSses
on es ch side for the rnere'object of contra dictiver eaelnother.
The Attorney-General said be should confine- himself to
this point—whether or nottbisawidence in reply was that
or Was not which they-had a right •to produce. lie sub-
mitted that it was strictly evidence in reply.- The first
question they proposed to put to.the.witness was; whether
be iisked the • insurgents what they wanted? Now, he
wanted -to know could not that question be put to Edward
Hoeking? •
Judge- Parke—That is not exactly the case.
ther you.cart get the answer to it.
Thie Attorney •General—That is the first question.
ChicfJustice Tindal—That is the.only.question you want.
The Attorney-GeneralViTe should contented by
as'-ire that.
The Chief Justice said that he considered that the ques-
tion should be put. In criminal as well as in civil cases,
Where a matter arose cx improvise, and that no man could
have foreseen, it was but right that the Crown as well as
the plaintiffshculd have an opportunity of explaining that
matter, thoiieli bound to make-out their cose in the first
instance. • Even if the .Crown had examined Hopkins all
through the transaction, they never could have foreseen
that a witness for ttie prisoner would have referred to Hop-
kins as making a particular declaration, 'and therefore it
never could have occurred to theta to put this question.
Judge Parke stated that if it could have been foreseen
Harkins could • not he recalled. But here a new fact was
stated by the witness for the prisoner.
Judge Williams said that the CrOwn must be confined to
that question only,

It is whe.

Solicitor-General (to witness)—Did you ask any
of the mob on the 4th of November what they wanted ?
Witness—l did not.
Sir F. Pollock then (addressing the Jury) said--_.I bare
but one word to say to you, Gentlemen, with respect to
the evidence which has been called in reply. My Learned
Friend Mr. Kellywill, lam 'tare, do justice all the
topics which may arise on that part of the cage 113 well ;,.9
the rest of it. I should be sorry to abuse that indulgence
which I have already•received from you and my I,:rds, in
the long, very long -address which I made to you ycg,!er-
day, if I now occupied your time more. My address to
you now arose simply !.eom an anxiety that, no put of the
deface of the prisoner should be prevented by anything 1.
tb-;t has occurrcd,this day. I &a:di make bat tth
renvirk, that Hopkins and a number of other witnesses that

been calicd.were not called. T Icsv were, with
Mr. Williams, in the list of Witnesses for the t:,own. Mr.
Wiiiiams was not examined, and you mny 111,1ge of the

t.)