The Sun.
London, England, 1824-01-07 00:00:00

that question.'

Mr. Justice am clearly of opinion,
that although this case has been urged by the
Learned Counsel with all due zeal and effect for
his argument, yet that., nothing has been sub-•
milted to the Court this day to furnish ground
for a postponement of the trial, at least no argu-
ment has been used which has application to me.
IL may be a proper ground of application to the
Crown for the Royal mercy and favour, in a fu-
-11 re stage of the proceeding ; but I repeat, it is
no ground for me to act upon. As to putting off
the trial, that has been already dons for one ca-
lendar month, and I have not heard that during
that interval any application has been made to the
Crown in behalf of the prisoner Hunt, upon the
reasons now adduced. With respect to Mrs.
Radd's case, there is very great doubt in the
fDinds of the learned persons, whether or no the
application should have been made before or
;-f-ter the impleading. A word or two upon the
discretion of the Magistrates. I have no earthly
doubt but tfiat these particular Magistrates acted
from the purest and best motives, according to
the rights which they had. I find no fault what-
ever with them. I won't even say that they
acted incautiously in this matter ; but I do say
that these Magistrates, acting for the county, in
their official capacity, have no right to grant this
power of exemption from penalty. The Learned
Gentleman says he sees no instance to the con-
trary. Yes, there were instances, when at every
assizesapplications were made to the Judges for the ,
admission of particular persons to be witnesses for
the Crown, and to go before the Juries. In this
case, I observe that the depositions of Hunt were
not made upon oath, and in that respect the Ma-
gistrates appear to have acted prudently and
cautiously. But it has been said, that I should
have refused the permission granted to Probert,
on the faith of the previous pledge said to have
been given to a man named Hunt. As far as
newspaper information Conveys any statement
upon the matter, or any public opinion upon it,
I know nothing ; all I know of this case is from
the depositions before me. Judges are in the habit
of listening to applications for the admission of
accomplices in trials of this kind ; for all but one
of the parties are capable in such cases of being
rendered witnesses for the Crown. But after
all these discussions, and all that I can see on
the record, there is no proof of the pledge having
been given. Here is a person of the name of
Noel swears that he made tliis pledge to Hunt;
but the Magistrates positively deny that they
authorized any promise of exemption, in the
manner stated, for the prisoner. I am therefore
of opinion, that all the circumstances stated in
support of this application, way be; for any thing
know, available elsewhere, but cannot he made
applicable on the present occasion. Let the
trial then proceed.
The prisoner Thurtell.—My Lord, I wish my
solicitors to sit near my counsel.
The COURT.—Certainly, I have ordered it so
long ago.
Mr. Fenton was then, with some difficulty,
enabled to approach his counsel. Mr. Jay stood
in front of the dock.
Mr. Wilson • (the Governor of the gaol.)—ls
Probert to be kept in the dock, my Lord
Mr. GuatNEY.—Yes, lie is, for the present.
The prisoners were then put to the bar, and
Mr. Knapp, the clerk of arraigns, apprised them
in the usual form of their power of challenge,
and that the time of exercising it was when each
juror was called in his place, and before he was
sworn. .

✓
The proclamation of silence being made, the
list of the Crown Jury was called for; but owing
to the pressure of the crowd in every avenue to
the Court, some delay arose in the assembling of
the jurors in the box. The prisoners did not se-
parate their challenges, and 24 were made. The
following names ultimately composed the jury :

Thomas Brown, foreman ; Thomas Buck, Reginald, Jen-
aings, Richard Prior, George Starkie, Charles For, John Rus-
sel, Thomas Clialkley, NVni. Foldby, John Ilopewell, Samuel
Pritchett, and Kimpton. .

The indictment was then read over. It charged
John with the wilful murder of William
Weare, on the night of the 24th of October
The first count charged him with perpe-,
tracing the murder, by shooting at and drivin4 a
pistol into the head of the deceased. In the
second count he was charged with cutting the
throat of Nlrtn. Weare with penknife. In both
counts Joseph Hunt was ch'i.,.rged with inducing
and assisting the said John Thurtell to commit
the offence, before the commission thereof.
John Thurteli was also similarly charged on
the Coroner's InqUisition, and Proliert and Hunt
as being accessories before the fact.
The prisoners had on the former day severally
pleaded " not guilty" to the indictment.