The Sun.
London, England, 1823-06-14 00:00:00

SPOIITINGINTEIEIGENCE.

ASCOT HEATH RACES.
Fitinax.—(lJAAT DAY.)
In the absence of Royalty, the Duke of Yonx excepted,
the course Was but thinly attended. It is a day when the vo-
taries of pleasure feel that company, or to lice and be seen in
the gaiety of fashionable attire, no longer exists. There were
two stakes only to be run for, one of which is the moat sporting
one of the weA, viz.:—
The Wokin'gbatrt Stakes for three yrs old and upwards, three
quarters of a mile.—llandicap.
Mr: Northey's Sprite, 4 yrs, 7st. 101 b.
Lord Dunwich's Langtonian, 6 yes, Ost. 101 b. -
Two only were placed.
Three and a half to one agat Sir Ilultlibrand, 4 to 1 ags
Angelica, 6 to 1 agt.tt brother to Antonio, 8 to I apt Langton,
inn, 6 to 1 ag►st Spine, 8 to 1 apt Black and all Black, 10 to
agst Magnus Troil.—The race won easy.
A Plate of 501. for all ages.
Mr. Arnold's Bacchanal, 6 yrs, 9st. 31b. - 1 2
Mr. Curteitt's b. f. Menu', 3 yrs. old, 7st. lib - 2 1
Four to 1 on Becchanal.—Bacchanal was bought of Lord
Cavendish during the week for IUO sovereigns, and sold for
170. Even betting after the second heat. The horse won the
third heat by several lengths.

- 2

FASHIONABLE ARRIVALS.
The Earl of Ormond, at the St. James's Hotel, Jerinyn..
street, from Paris; George Caswall, Esq., and Mrs. Caswall,
and G. Heron, Esq., and family, at Ncrot'a Hotel, from
Cheshire; and Master and Miss Harvey; Aston Leigh, Esq.
at ditto, from Lime • J. Dashwood, Esq. and family, at ditto;
Sir Pyers Mostyn, Ilan. at ditto, from Richmond.
BATH AnuivaLs.—ni# highness the Duke of Saxe Wei-
mar, and Suite, Marq Guis and Marchioness of Bate, Lord
Blaney, Countess tie Puisey, Sir Ralph and Lady . Moore,
Sir 11. and Lady Carew, Lady Palmer, Sir Leonard Holmes—
Captain and Mrs. Page, Captain Byers, Captain Child,
Capt. Gillam, Capt. Stevenson, Capt. Turberville, Lieut. and
Mrs. Gawen, Lieut. Taggart—Rev. Archdeacon Sandiford,
Rev. Dr. Carden Mackinnon,
Rev. Mr. and Mrs. Isaacson,
Rev. Mr. Biedennann, Rev. Mr.llarbin, Rev. Mr. Raymond,
Rev. Mr. Wightwick.

TILE MAJLSTY did not attend
Ascot Races yesterday ; but we are happy to
say that his absence did not arise from indispo-
sition. Ills MAJESTY was in good spirits through-
out the day, and had a select party to dinner.
Yesterday afternoon, at five o'clock, the'
Duchess of CLARENCE and the Duchess of SAXE
WEIMAR came to town from Bushey, and after-
wards dined with the Duke and Duchess of
GLOUCESTER.
The Frau Metta, NORBYE, from Copenhagen
to Hatnburgh, was attacked at sea by four
Swedish fishermen, who murdered the Captain'
and crew, and threw the bodies overboard ; they
then broke open the lockers and began to plun-
der ; but, being disturbed, run the ship aground
near Gottenburgh, where they were secured by
the Custom-house officers.
THE HAYMARKET THEATRE IS likely to open
under more promising auspices than since the
memorable days of the famous SAM. FOOTE, if
the following, which is given as a list of their
Dramatis Person' for the ensuing season, he
correct :--LISTON, HARLEY, COOPER, TERRY,
POPE, WILLIAMS,JOHNSON,VINING (from Bath),
Miss CHESTER, Mrs. jormsort (from Norwich),
Miss JoitssoN (from Hull), Mrs. CHATTCILLY
and Miss PA.TON. Mr. CONWAY still modestly acts
as Prompter, and Mr. T. DIUDIN brings all his
long theatrical experience to the office of Stage
Manager. The new importations of the season
are, We find, recommended .by high provincial
celebrity

LAW INTELLIGENCE•

PROCEEDINGS IN-THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH,
JUni 9, 1M•.3.

THE XING V.JOLLIFFE.
Lerd Chief Justice Mancyrr—We will take the Mug v.

Joliffe,
Mr. Justice BEST—It will he unnecessary to state the plead-
ings. The first question was, whether it was the custom for
the Bailiff to summon the Jury, and then whether thitt practice,
supposing it to exist, was consistent with the law ? I believe
those were the two questions.
Lord Chief Justice ABBOTT—The last will be upon the
Record.
Mr. GASELEE—It is moved to enter the judgment for the
Crown, notwithstanding the verdict, or to have a special ver-
dict upon that point.
Mr. Justice BEST—The Learned Judge gave you leave to
move to enter a verdict for the defendant.
Mr. SCAULETT— The rule is, first, whether there should
be a new trial; and, secondly, whether the judgment should
be entered for the Crown., notwithstanding the verdict.
( Mr. Justice BEST
.read the Report of the Trial.)
Mr. Seen LETT—lregret very much-that no gentleman who
was present at the trial is in Court.
Lord Chief Justice ABBOTT—The evidence to sustain the
prescription is all one way, and not answered.
Mr. S'ealti.F.TT—Veseentirely.--When I heard this motion
made, Mr. Merewether and Mr. Adam, who were in the
cause with me, suggested that all the evidence was on one side,
and that it was a little understated by the learned Serjeant ;
he stated twenty years, and one man speaks of forty-five years
practice.
Mr. Justice lixsT—Yes.
Mr. SCARLETT—The practice was notorious in the place,
and as the place is well known now by the parties that have
been formed there, there were abundant opportunities for the
Crown to call witnesses to disprove the practice.
Lord Chief Justice ABBOTT—It is a practice uniformly
existing for twenty years, of which the commencement is not
shewn, and that is a matter on which a Jury may conclude
the thing has always existed—that is the general rule.
Mr. Se:JAW:TT—There can be no doubt of that ; and I
apprehend, upon reading the Report, your Lordships have ab-
solved me from all trouble as toehe finding of the Jury.
Lord Chief Justice Annoe'r —We think so.
Mr. ScARLETT—The evidence is all one way ; find if any
could have been adduced the other way, it might have been
called. I shall apply myself very shortly to the other part of
the case, and it has appeared to me that that is eqnally clear.
The objection made is, that the Steward ought not to select a
Jury. The custom is that the Steward specifies the names of
the persons to he selected as .Jurymen—that custom is said to
be bad. Now let us sec how it can be Raid to be bad. When
you look at the constitution of the Court—this is a Court Leet;
a Court lest is carved out of the Sheriff's Torn—the Sheriff's
Torn is the King's view of frankpledge for all his legal men—
that is men who can give pledges in the hundred as held by
the Sheriff, and of common right every individual resident
in the Torn is bound to attend. What is the duty of
the Sheriff when they attend? the Sheriff is the judge of that
Court, and when they do attend the Sheriff names the Jury,
There is no law for the Sheriff's Torn that requires any Jury
to be summoned ; for this plain reason, that all are bound to
attend, if the Lord demands it. But then in the areument
you will see the consequence of that—the Sheriff at his Torn
when all the residents in the Torn attended—out of those chose
,the Jury—and swore the Jury, and they being in the nature of
a Grand Jury made such a presentment as they thought fit, as
to the view of frankpledge.
On what principle is it that the presentment of the inquest
of the Torn is not traversable, except immediately that it is
found; but because the law supposes every person to be present
whose duty it was to be present. Therefore he could not come
at a subsequent Court and traverse. That the Leet is carved out
of:the Torn is evident, for one of the franchises gianted by the
King in ancient time was to exempt the inhabitants of a cer-
tain place from attending the Sheriff's Torn, on condition of
attending the Steward at the Leet to have view of frankpledge.
It is an emanation of the Sheriff's Court.' The Steward stands
in the place of the Sheriff, and all the residents in the beet are of
common right bound to do suit and serviceat that Court,otherwise
they cannot exempt themselves from being in the Sheriff's Torn.
Are they to be summoned ? Certainly, not. They are bound to
attend and do their ditty at the beet without summons. Of
whom is the Jury formed ? When they attend; the Sheriff is to
swear the Jury. Nei the law or custom prescribe any pre,
Timis selection of the Jury P I apprehend , certainly not. 'rhe
Sheriff before wham the matter is to be heard, when the suitors
are all assembled, is to swear the Grand Inquest which is the
Jury of the Leet. •
Mr. Justice BEST—Here it appears all the inhabitants were
warned to attend.
Mr. SCARLETT—Ves, my Lord. I am now saying by the
common law no warning whatsoever was necessary. No book
states it. Undoubtedly the books that give an account of the
proceedings of the Sheriff's Torn are somewhat obscure from
their long disuse of the Court ; but every one I have looked
into is silent upon the subject ofethe warning. The Sheriff's
Torn is a Coen of the greateet antiquity, and traceable to the
time of King. Alfred, when every one was obliged to give
pledges—to give security. The whole kingdom was divided
into districts of ten hottselialtiers each, and time were pledges
for each other ; and therefore the Torn, which probably had its
origin in that, has since come into disuse=-but the Court Leet
being a local privilege, and generally connected with the rights,
of the Manor, there has been some local interest to sustain it,
and therefore it still exists—hut there is no book that mentions
the Sheriff's Torn, and states that the King'e subjects were en-
titled to summons. They were bound to attend, and if so, who
were to choose the Jury ? Why
certainly the, Sheriffs;
if the Sheriff, hi order to make sure of the Jury attending,
and
ding,
chose to send his Bailiff to summon the Jury it was just as
much his nomination as if the Sheriff 'dime!f lied done it. If
we go by analogy from the Sheriff's Torn to the beet, and sub-
stitute the Steward for the Sheriff—as every man is bound to
attend the beet, unless he can spew that his attendance at the
Torn has exempted hint, that chews lie was bound to attend
the beet without summons. If he attended without summons,
who kto choose the Jur" ? rehend the Steward.
I a
Mr. Justice Beerr---' here is pp a case hi Cornyn entitled Court
le'et ; it is said in Comyn the Steward may compel a stranger
passing in view of the Torn to be sworn.
Mr. SeeneETT—l was coining to that to shew the practice.
Having disposed of the analogy; let us look at the practice of
the Leet, that is better. undeistood, because It is more modern,
but every body must know' the object of getting all the suitors
to• attend it, may be a matter of very
trilling importance—the
only object frequently is to keep alive a right. ,The Lord, if
he wants to prove the existence of his franchise over a particu-
lar tenement, is in the habit of sending a summons to that par-
ticular individual to amerce him for not attending. That is in
a-case where the I,ord may think it important for the limits of
the manor or a market, but that is not important,. The Leet it
proclaimed as the Torn is proclaimed ; but that is not a autn..
mons. The law does right to amerce every man who does not
attend, and that is generally a penny—generally not levied. It
is a mere matter of form, unless the lewd has notice that they
intend to dispute his right. Then why summon the jurors?
For this reason—as the interest for attending the leet has ceased
in most parts of England, the Steward, to make sure of the Jury,
thinks right to give notice to particular persons ; hut suppose,
that instead of doing that he was to make a general proclama-
tion, or summon every individual to do suit and service at the
beet, without desiring the Bailiff to summon any particular
individual—when they all attend who is to choose the Jury ? is
the Bailiff? it ;teems to me to be an absurdity to suppose that ;
and all the analogy and rearm go to shew the Steward, as the
Sheriff of the Torn. was the person to select the Jury, but in
/his case it is a par icular absurdity to make the Bailiff" choose
the Jury, because they choose the Bailiff; and choose all . the
officers connected with the Leet. The officer called the Mayor,
now, is nothing more than what was called the Bomughrceve—
the head of the Borough from whence he comes to be the re-
turning officer, but in most places where the Leet exists in its
pristine form, the Constable, the Ileadborough, which is an-
great strictness,
an-
othcr name for the constable, as in the Township of MAN-
chosen by the Reeve is now
elhAoseteni is kept
etatiri
by the L yet Jury, and
thetehi el 1; T Op'Euni tt
g; 1 twer ehoene;seet a the
ee
formerly
cluisen by the Jury. In Petersfield he is called the Mayor,
and lie is
of very little use, except as the returning officer.—
The Jury choose also the inferior officers—they choose the Bai.
liff, and would it not be a very extraordinary thing that
it should be left to the bailiff to select them--the thing appears
,much more absurd than to leave it to the steward to select the
is the impropriety of it, if the Sheriff chooses
jury.
writ of inquiry Where the Sheriff acts as judge P
rheß
juotrwyhieoreo
He chooses the Jury, that Is an instance given in many of the
books. My Lord, there may, be a particular custom in a par.
ticular place, as to particular individuals, ited as to the Steward
choosing the Jury ; but that is governed by general principles,
Why should the Bailiff select the Jury es vi tern-414)1 He is
but I can see
one of the officers whom the Jury nominate. I cannot conceive
that it is below the dignity of Judge to exeente a ministerial
office, Generally speaking, all ministerial offices are consi-
dered to be kept separate, because, in case of any„ thing
*tat jury should
be left rather to the ministerial,officee than to the judge.
nworanrea.gsobneiinngtldiecmiLtrltdh°wtdtgliee issetAle)cBteittinist rolgfin
Mr. Justice would be imposeible for the Judge to
summon the jury ; he can know nothing of them.
Mr. SCA ntETT—StippOSC the Sheriff was to take thel'ury
de eireurnstautihus ;—that the whole count was to attend the
Judge at the Assizes, there would be no objection, having the
names returned to him, and saying return such and such per-

sons, all the names being presentei ; at least it would be less
objectionable than selection by a more obscure person, and of
less responsibility, who might have motives in summing a par-
cicalal. jury which a Judge cannot. have. It is in general a
mutter of responsibility, and the higher the person the greater'
the security. In the Jury Court in Scotland, the Judge does
summon the jury—a number is returned by the Sheriff; Ido
not mean to say any thing for or against the practice, but there
is nothing in the principle of the common law against it;
by the statute the Judge is directed to form the panel.—
Mr. Justice Ilot.nosir—To correct the panel.
Mr. SCAIMETT—There are cases, where if both the Sheriff
and Coroner be inadequate„ the Judge appoints elisors. I ap-
prehend it is quite clear in all cases where the Sheriff is to act
as judge, he also is a ministerial officer, and his bailiff ap-
pointed by him is no more than himself. The law takes no
notice of the Sheriff's Bailiff Every act done by him is
the act of the Sheriff ; and that • the way . that all
Courts of Justice treat them ; and if, a Sheriff chose
to say, I will have no under Sheriff or Bailiff, but
choose to do the duty myself, he would 'summon them and
swear the Jury in. Therefore, wherever the Sheriff acts as
Judge, and the jury come before him, it is in effect exactly
the same thing as if' lie had summoned them. There is no
doubt he does summon the jury. lam sorry my Learned
Friend, Mr. Merewether, is not here-Ate had a case which he
furnished me with, and 1 returned it to him. There is a case
in Croke Charles, in which the objection was made, the Mayor
and bailiff of a corporation having a court. It appeared the
jury were summoned by, the bailiff'; an objection was taken
and overruled several reasons were given—one was, that the
Mayor was a judge, and therefore that the Judge should not
summon the jury • but another argument was, that if you did
not allow the bailiff to summon the jury, you destroyed the
constitution of many courts where there were no other officers.
Since this case has been agitated, a Gentleman at the bar, I
believe, has published a book of reports upon this subject,—
the book has evidently been written, a part of it at least, with a
view to this case: he has bestowed some labour in finding out

some objection to this proceeding; and 'r has endeavoured, by
a hard-strained inference, to prove,. Jett- the proceeding is
illegal ; but there is no one case, as to the Sheriff's Torn, that
the Gentleman has adduced in support of it ;—I submit there
is no colour for saying that this verdict ought to be entered for
the Crown, the custom being found, according to the Issue, for
the defendant ; and it appearing to be the uniform custom, it is
too, much fury our Lordships to say that the decision is so
contrary to law that you would order the verdict to be entered
for the Crown in opposition to the verdict found by the Jury.
Mr. GASELEE—I am quite taken by surprise: certainly I
did not catch the report as the .Judge read it; but it was under-
stood at the trial, that there was to be a special verdict, and my
Learned Friend, Mr. Serjeant Pell, so stated in his opening.
Lord Chief Justice Anuovr—You desire to have a special
verdict ; I do not see how that can help you, it will find the
issues.
Mr. GASELEE—Yes, but we might state any thing that ap-
peared in the mode of election on the Judge's notes. I should
ray
p
Lord Chief Justice A unoTT—I do not see what a special
verdict would do as to the prescription that the jury must find.
If
,you stated the evidence, your special verdict would be bad.
Mr. SCABLETT—It is exactly the same.
. Lord Chief Justice ABBOTT—If you state your evidence
one way or another, your special verdict will be good for
nothing; you must state facts. This objection upon the record
is open to writ of error.
Mr. GasEt.im —There are some facts respecting another
issue, that the jury were not properly summoned.
Lord Chief Justice AnnoTT—l can find nothing of that in
the report.
Mr. GaszLEE—The facts might lie stated under which the
jury were summoned and returned.
Lord Chief-Justice ABBOTT-4 can see no evidence that can
properly be made the foundation of a special verdict; I cannot
find it.
Mr. Justice BEST—The Learned Judge says, if the Court
think fit you are to have a special verdict ; but he says, I can-
not discover there was any ground upon which the Iterator could
have a verdict.
Lord Chief Justice ABBOTT--I can discover none.
Mr. OASELEE—It occurred to us thst it would be more so-

lernnly argued. •
Lord Chief Justice A nnovr—T cannot frame a special ver.
dict, or see in what manner it is to be done ; it must be found
by the jury.
.You must state facts, you must not state the
evidence:
• Mr. Amst—l propose to trouble your Lordships very shortly
upon this case. The fact having been found of the custom, I
apprehend the only question is, whether that custom is in itself
so unreasonable as to be held illegal i There were two ways
in which this case was to be presented. The one upon general
principles, and the other upon the particular circumstances as
applicable to those general principles.
My Lord, with respect to the general principle, it is con-
tended it was impossible, in point of law, that the person to
preside in the Court should do the ministerial office of sum.

tnoning the jury; first, upon the ground that the judge was
not the person ; he having to decide upon points of law, and the
jury to decide upon points of fact. That was the ground upon
which it was thrown nut, that there might be some question as
to the legality of it; but wneu your Lordships advert to that
superior jurisdiction, out of which, 1 apprehend, it Must be ad-
mitted that the Court Leet had been framed—when your Lord-
ships see, according to the argument and analogy which Mr.
Scarlett has stated to your Lordships, that the Judgei in the
Sherifrs"rorn, out of which this has been carved, did from its
very outset what it is contended on the other side, the Judge of
the Court Leet cannot pertbrin, we have gone the whole way of
satisfying your Lordships, that the law is as we contend. I will
not occupy more of your Lordships time upon this point, I
cannot make it plainer. 1 mid lit render it more obscure.
My Lords, as to the facts of the ease, the argument inclined
to our side ; because the consequence must be, If the Steward
is not entitled to summon the Jury, it must be done by the
Bailiff'. Either it must be done by the Steward or the Bailiff.;
and the Steward appears to me to be much more independent,
both as to the Jury and with respect to that person, whose in-
terests it was argued at the trial, and here, upon moving for this
Rule, are to be benefited by the Jury, being selected by the
Steward. Here the Bailiff is chosen by the Jury; the 'UMW is
a man going.out of office every year, and is elected by that very
body whom he is to be chosen to select. If your Lordship is to
look to the chance of improper conduct, it is much more reason-
able to expect it from the man, whose existence in e.n office of
profit is to depend upon a
.particular set of men—the Steward
not having any interest in it. lie is appointed by the Lord of
the Leet, and in every respect Independent of the Jury.
My. Lords, with respect to the other branch of the case,
how far the interests of the Lord of the Leet are to
be affected, I would submit is not a ground upon which
your Lordship could exercise jurisdiction as to these points
—certainly not as to the Courts Leet in general, nor as it
seems to me as to this Court. The_ Steward is not neces.

eerily to be inferred to be a person likely to assist the views
of the Lord of the Leet, whatever those views may be ; nor
can your Lordships come to a different decision in this case
than you would in any other, where the function was to be per-
formed by another person. My Lords, it is said in this case
that the Bailiff was in all respects to be considered as inde-
pendent of the Lord of the Lect ; but your Lordships will see
tf the Bailiff, being from his situation in life a person much
inferior to that class out of which the Steward is chosen, he
would be much more liable to objection ; but at all events you
cannot decide this case upon points such as these, whether one
individual was more likely to be affected by interest than ano-
ther. \'our Lordships cannot attend to that, but these are the
grounds upon which this case was put at the trial and now.
My Lords, I propose to call your Lordships' attention to
the points of mentioned in the early part of this discussion,
as shewing your Lordships that the Steward could not be per.
milted to summon the Jury to the Court Leet. One word will
put an end' to that. The first Statute is the Ilth of Henry IV.,
the Statute first relied upon, and which is to this effect. Also
because, that now of late inquests were taken at Westminster
by persons named to the Justices, without due return of the
Sheriff, of which persons, some were outlawed before the said
Justices of Record, and some fled to sanctuary fur treason, and
some for felony, there to have refuge, by whom, as well many
offenders, were indicted as other lawful liege people of our Lord
the King, not guilty by conspiracy, abetment, and false hint.
' gination of other persons for their special advantage and sin-
gular Lucre against the course of the common law used and
accustomed before this time. Our said Lord the King, for the
greater ease and quietness of his people, willeth anti granteth
that the said indictment so made, with all the dependencies
thereof, be revoked, annulled, void, and holden for none for
ever ; and that from henceforth no indictment be made by any
such persons, but by inquests of the King's lawful liege people
in manner as was used In the tune of his noble progenitors;
duly returned by the Sheriffs or Bailiffs of Franchises, with.
out any manner of nomination to the said Sheriffit or
Bailiffs of Franchises first made by any person of the
names, which by him should be impanelled, except it be
by the Officers of the said Sheriffs, or Bailiffs of franchisee,
sworn and appointed so to do, and other officers to whom it
pertaineth to do the same." I submit, on the very statement of
this Act, it is quite clear it applies to the case of ordinary Courts,
because the wards of the Statute are that they are to be returned
by the Bailiffs of franchises, they being those persons who have
the process within a particular limited franchise, into which the
Sheriff by virtue of his office has no right to intrude—it had no
relation to the Sheriff's Torn, but it went on to say that the
Sheriff in his county, and the Bailiff in his limited franthises,
and in which the Sheriff had no right to enter, should have
the liberty of pointing out those names, but that left the Sheriirs
authority where it was. My Lords, trim is another Statute to
which I shall have occasion to call your attention, it is the first

cf Rizhard 111., chapter 4. ti ere the recital " that great in •
conveniences and perjuries do daily happen by untrue verdicts
given in inquisitions and inquiries before Sheriffs in the Tains,
by persons elm substance nor reputation, and it enacts," That
no Bailiff, nor other officer, from henceforth return or impanel
any such person in any shire in England, to be taken or pet in;
or upon any such inquiry in any of the said Turns." That
Statute undoubtedly refers to Courts Leet.
Lord Chief .Justice • A nnovr— What Statute is that?
31r. ADAM—The! first of Richard 111. chapter 4. The title -
is, " Of what credit and estate those Jurors must be which shall
be empannelled in the Sheriff's Torn," and after reciting the
inconveniences and perjuries that daily happen by untrue vet_
diets, it is enacted, " That ntt Bailiff or other officer froriehenCe-
forth return or empannel any such person in any shire of F.ng-
land, to be taken or put in or upon any such inquiry in any of.
the said Turns, but such as be of good name and fame, and
having lands and tenements of freehold within the same shires
to the yearly value of twenty shillings at the least." But the
object of this was not to regulate the persons to be returned on
the Juries, but the amount of the property which the Jury
should have to prevent the trials 'being. carried on by person* •
incompetent to perfortu the duty, and the same Act fur.
titer says, that the Bailiff shall summon the persons ; but
is it to be construed that nobody hut the Bailiff shall sum—
mon the Jury at all ? • I submit this has no reference to the _-
subject matter, it was passed alio intatitx, it was by no
means the intention of the Legislature to point out who,
was to summon the Jury, it may be, that it lacing the burrness of the Bailiff usually to make this return, the Legis'a.
ture may have taken the description of persons usually .en.-
ployed, because it may be said that the Bailiff usually does
make the returns,—it was only saying that that officer, whose
duty it is usually to return the' Juries, shall return them after
a particular mode; that cannot apply, I • apprehend,,in either
point of view, either to chew that the Legislature meant to say
who was the officer—

Lord Chief Justice AntlOTT—The words arc. "--nO Bailiff
or other officer from henceforth return or impanel."
Mr. ADAM—Yes, my Lord, " that no Bailiff or otherofficer
shall return or impanel any such person in any shire of 'Eng-
land." Now the argument there would be, that inasmuch as
the bailiff is the person first mentioned in the Statute,. your
Lordships must consider him as the person autlibrized, but I
apprehend that is not applicable here. Then I was going to
conclude by referring to the return of a Jury of another descrip'.
tion, and not a Jury sumttioned in this way, to make present.
meats in a Court beet. Your Lordships know, however, it
might have been long ago when there were both a grand Jury
and a petty Jury sworn to perform the duties of the Court Leet.
At present, at least, the jury of the Court beet only perform the
functions of a grand jury—they merely present. Your Lord.
ships will see that these juries are not to be impanelled, and
therefore that is an expression which, .1 submit, sheers it is re-
ferahle to another description of jury and not this leet jury—
This applies to the Sheriff's Torn, not to the Court beet, but
that from which the beet was drawn. I therefore consider this
Act of Parliament is wholly inapplicable. I only trouble your
Lordships with these observations, because the Acti have
been used before, and will be used again. I now beg to
draw your Lordships' attention to the lit of Elizabeth,
chapter ifi, which seems to me to be more decisive, and
to shew that the Steward is the proper summoning officer
of the Jury in a Court beet. It is a Statute that your Lord-
ships will hardly think applicable to this matter; it is an Act
for the preservation of the spawn of fish, and which is referred
to in the book mentioned by Mr. Scarlett : it gives the Courts
beet power to inquire into the guilt of those persons'who may
have destroyed the spawn of fish, and there it this clause ;
That if the first Jury shall be found to have concealed, or made
default in presentment, or that they do hot present the offence
and °Moder", that then it shall be lawful to the Steward or
Bailiff of the Leet to summon another, so that if the Acts

hear upon the point at all, this one I have now cited dots.
Lord Chief Justice A BDOTT—W hat Section is it
Mr. ADAlf—.lt is either Section 8,9, or 10, 1 think it is
the 10th ;—" And if any Jury sworn in any Leet, and being
charged to inquire of the offences committed within the pie.
cinct of that Leet, do wilfully and willingly conceal, and make
default in presentment, or do not present the °Knee and of.
fenders, that then it shall be lawful to the Steward or Bailiff of
this Leet, or his or their deputy for the time being, to impenel
one other Jury within the saki Leet, and to inquire of such
concealment and default for non-presentment ;"—So that htre,
your Lordships see, it was considered that the Steward was the
proper Officer to summon the Jury in the Court Leet ; that
was indeed a Jury which was to determine, in consequence of
the misconduct of the former Jury. It does not give any par.
ticular power to the Steward, but it recognises him as an of.•
' ficer who should have the power to return the Jury, as well as
the Bailiff. Without saying anymore upon tins part of the
case, which has been better handled by my Learned Friend,
Mr. Scarlett, than by any thing 1 can say, I would merely
add, that there is nothing to chew there is any thing illegal in
the Steward nominating the Jury. As to the practice, it is nit
new, we know the Jury were not summoned originally at i 11;
the precepts in the old books are to warn the inhabttants at
large. It is only of late years that there has been any thing
in the precept to call upon the Sheriff to return the Jury at all;
but when the resiants were returned into the Court, the Sheriff
teketed all the Jurors just as he would now; in the rase of a
default of Jurors ; he chose them "de eireamstaatitou," or
sent into the highways, and detained any person who was ri-
ding through the place, and made him serve ; and, therefore, as
it appears, .the Steward has the power ; and as the dare-ter of
Bailiff is of modern origin comparatively, I apprehend therns
nothing inconsistent in a Judge being the nominator of the
Jury, where he knows who they are.
' Mr. C. F. Wix.i.rasta—My Lords, lam on the tame side
with my Learned Friends Mr. Scarlett and Mr. Adam; Mr.
Scarlett has discussed the only general principle that arises in
the case so fully, and Mr. Adam has called your Lordshirrs' at.
tendon to the three Statutes that bear upon the ease, that
think I shall best discharge my duty in not trespassing further
upon your Lordships' time.
Lard Chief Justice A namerT7rNow, Mr. Gaselee. _ _

Mr. Gasur.tv—My Lords, I am very sorry that Mr. Sera
jeant Pell, who made this motion, and whom 1 expect here every
moment, has not ytt arrived. My herds, 1 would wish to set
Mr. Scarlet right as to the evidence of Shoell, who spoke to the
practice of the Court Leet for forty-five years. Ido not think
that the evidence wholly warrants that deduction from it, that
the Jury were chosen in the same way.
Lord Chief Justice Annor•r—lt is certainly questionable
whether he meant to say that things were done in the same
manner forty-five years ago, but I do not rely upon that; here
are twenty years of continued practice proceeding in one and
the same form, and nothing to the contrary.
OASMEE—There were two prominent complaints made
upon this occasion, the one for returning the Jury in the way
in which it has been done, and the other for the bteward retire
ing with the Jury ; therefore all that Shoell could speak to was
that the Steward did retire with them as far back as 20 years,
and that that is evidence to be left to the Jury, is it point 1 can-
not, by any means, feel myselfentitled to dispute; but the way
in which we state this is, that it was not merely left to the Jury
as evidence of the fact, but as evidence upon which they ought
to find a verdict for the defendant. _

Mr. Justice BEST—Thlit is not the way in which it was left,
as appears by the Report ; the Learned Judge only told them
it was very cogent evidence.
Lord Chief Justice ABBOTT—And if he did tell them that,
he did right.
Mr. elAetexe.--if it had been a private right, I should agree
with that ; hut the Court Leet being an immemorial Court, it
might have been carried further back, when the Steward was in
Court, and when the Steward had with hint other prosentrnente.
Ilir. Ari s ar—That was nos so.'
Mr. Gael: i•FIE--The Steward was not culled to state w hetiutr
there were others, hut attire were a greet number of documents
in (_'uttrt ; and the best evidence was not called that might have
been called ; and therefore it was not left to the jury to infer
whether he the absence of all that evidence that might naturally
be
Aeixri.iejtetlesdti—ce B E 6
T.....1i
ad
yon an order to insptct the Rolls?
Mr. 0-asEt.EE—No, my Lord.
Mr. Wit.t.tests—The ',earned Judge told 'the Jury thiY
might call that evidence if they had it.
Lord Chief Justice ArinoTT—lf the verdict- had been the
other way ; if the Jury had negatived the custom, and there had
been an application to set aside the verdict, the ground of the
will dispose of this point, as
h
application would have been, that the verdict was contrary to
all the evidence.
Mt. 6 ASELgE—Your Lordship . .
of all the °there, in finch way as you s all see tit. after Lhasa
made the few observations have to make, and I ehall -not
quarrel with it.--I was merely going to say, that this is not
like a-private right where you could not expect more than a c..r-
tdin degree of evidence. Your Lordships know that the dot:-
trine of presumption has been very much narrowed of late years.
I need not call 3/our Lordechips' attention to the ease .1 Pe! -
wick v. Reid, where a stop has been put to that.; I do not
think now it would be add that a Jury might. presume Alt
Act of Parliament:--it is ttpon these grounds we luau-
bly submit to your Lordships, that as there wail probably
older evidence whether it should not have been left to the JAW
' to say if there tens not, an innovation. Mr. wati,voto sap.,
the Judge told 113 we might have called the Steward; 1 au
not aware whether be did so Or not, but the Judge wks ,I 1 at
dist we hail .'/,',1-
aware of this fact, which tit)* Learned Friend rind myself were
aware 0 f tot tits time. The Learned-dui:4w. was Huta:Taro of 41,,
plained against the P- ,n ~. T., 1 d Judge diet d.
%emir of the Steward humor. e 4terne
know there was an application t epetiduili in this Court, u.
Lave to ilic a Criniiiiia inforination against hem upon this wee-
situatieu its which that Si teoweatrnellatattrit,
aTiltee-hiracter
ana
beoa.
lion ; and is it to be thrown en our teeth, that having the ritew-
, med in meet a site:aim-4 we did nut think tit to cull tarn, wreev

r

.;

• tend.* we had before arraigned. These are the observatiens
which it occurs to me to make upon this part' of the case : in a
case of this description, where there was no evidence, and
where the natural inference is, Abet there were much earlier
Records than those produced, when there was no question
asked; and no witnesses called to say if there were older docu-
ments- °mot—whether the Jury ought not to have been told
to take that into their consideration, whether there were not
older documents, and that they should not have been told they
must find a verdict for the defendant. Having made—
Lord Chief Justice ABBOTT—The Learned Judge does not
reportgo us that he told the Jury so, but that the evidence
stood unanswered.
Mr. ScARLETT—I have the short-hand writer's Report—
Lord Chief Justice. ABBOTT—We have the Judge's lie-
port, and it is much better to rely upon that.
tlerjeant FELL---I will not go beyond stating any
thing that is not in the Report, but when I submitted this
case to:your Lordships for a Rule to shew cause why there
should not be a new trial, I did it in consequence of the very
strong and pointed manner in which the Learned Judge stated
his opinion to the Jury.
Lord Chief Justice A unoT T—l think it could not haie been
done too pointedly and too strongly.
Mr. Serjeant PELL—If that is your Lordships opinion—
Lord ChierJustice ABBOTT—Yes, I think so, the evidence
was unanswered.
Mr. (lASELEE—My Learned Friend has taken it for grant-
ed aim) the Sheriff 'a Torn, that it was the business of the Sheriff
to select the Jury; we have only my Learned Friend's asser-
tion for that; I do not find it in any authority Lean discover—
and timbinit upon the Statutes that have been read, the Sheriff
was not the person so to act. It is said, why Should not the
Steward do it, as the Sheriff has done it ? There is a very mate-
rial distinction between the persons—the Torn was the general '
Court of the County; the Sheriff was the officer of the Crown;
the Sheriff had only a public duty to perform ; he was a public
officer ;ippoiated by the public functionaries of the Kingdom ;
hut when 1 look through the_ different proceedings in the Courts
in this, Kingdom, I find they.are judicial officers ; I will not
speak of what my. Learned Fi•tend alluded to of a neighbouring
Country, where the Judge names the .Jury for criminal offences.
I shall not state any thing to your Lordship upon that ; I cannot
state any thing that Is strictly applicable to it, but your Lordship
knewa.what complaints have been made upon that subject, and
we are not here to be governed by what is the rule in any
other Country, but whether what has been done in the present
case is consistent with the laws of this country. Now it ap-
pears, I think, from the authorities, that the Sheriff in his Torn
did not summon the Jury, but that they were summoned by
the Bailiff. If your Lordships will point nie out any situation in
which the Judge of a Court fines himself, then 1 will agree
that the Sheriff is similar to the Bailiff. I will shew your
Lordships, that the Steward has authority to fine the Bailiff;
whatever customs belonged to the Court and are now gone,
that still remains, that the Steward at the Leet, at this day, is
entitled to tine the Bailiff if he does not impanel the Jury,
and that shows he is not the person to summon the Jury. I
find, that in Baron's Abridgement, in the third volume, title
"Sheriff," letter, " L," " the Sheriff may in his Torn impose a
fine on all such as shall be guilty of a contempt in the face of
the Court, anti,' on a suitor refusing to be sworn, and on a
Build ff' refusing to make a panel:" That shows that it was
his business to summon the Jury. If the Bailiff's duty only
was to summon the Jury which had been named by the Sheriff;
the Sheriff would have made the panel.
Lord Chief Justice A nuoT—T do not know that.
Air. GASELEE—Because making the panel is nothing more
than soliciting the names, and therefore the Sheriff is entitled
to fine the Bailiff for not making the panel. With respect
also to' that Statute, by way of showing that Mr. Scarlett is
mistaken in saying that the Sheriff and Steward are but one
person in law, I will call your Lordships' attention to another
clause of that statute, which Mr. Adam has referred to, chap.
4. of the Ist of Richard 111.

Lord Chief Justice ABM/TT—lt is chapter 4. that has been
all titled to.

Mr.AsELEE—Yes, my Lord. First, I submit, that the
clause which Mr. Adam has read shews, that the Bailiff
was • a different .person from the Sheriff—that he was the
person to. summon the Jury ; and it expressly shews that
the Jury in the Torn were to be summoned by the Bailiff*.
—The title of the Statute is "Of what credit and.
estate those Jurors must be which shall be impanelled
in, the Sheriff's Torn." This Statute, after noticing
" that great inconveniences and perjuries frequently happen
from improper 'termini being returned to the Sheriff's Torn,"
enacts, tt That no Bailiff' or other officer from henceforth re-
turn or impanel any such person in any Shire of England, to
be taken or put in or upon any such inquiry In any of the said
Timis, but. such as be of pod mime and fame, and having
lands and tenements of freehold within the said Shires; to the
yearly value of Vs. at the least." That is the first clause. A
penalty in the second clause is imposed upon the party who so.
does. 1. do not think I have the precise words.
Lord Chief justice .Ausurr—l will read the words to you
".If any Bailiff or other officer within the said counties, here-
after return or iinpanel any person contrary hereunto, he is to
lose for every person that he so impanelleth and returneth, not
being of the muffickney as is aforesaid, as often us he so of-
endeth, 104" I think it is.
assELEE-.—No, it is 40s.
Lord Chief justice itunoTT—Yes it is, I sec now—but it
is no matter the amount. . •
Mr. GASELEE—And that shews the Sheriffand the Steward
itto not the same persons.
Lord (Thief Justice AnnoTt,---They may be different' in

different places.
Mr, ASELEE —That shews it is the duty of the Bailiff to
return the Jury, if he had nothing to do but to summon, he
bad nothing. 'to 'do but to obey the direction of the Sheriff;
attd ;if he obeyed that direction of the Sheriff he would
Kay " I have summoned them ;" but here it is said that he
WWI not " return or impanel." That shews he has some dis-
ention to exercise. You would never fine a Bailiff for doing
what he had no discretion in doing ; therefore I apprehend, if
the:Bailiff shall return or impanel the Jury contrary to these
provisions he shall be fined ; and the Sheriff' is also liable to
penalty if he suffers those men to act. The Bailiff is to forfeit
tOrty shillings; and the Sheriff is to forfeit forty shillings ;. and
Ovary such indictment shall be void ; and why is he to be fined?
ifecsuse the Sheriff, who ought to know his county, suffered
improper men to find an indictment. It is not merely upon
the Bailiff returning the men,that the Indictment shall be void,
Yut the Shea' -must have adopted the act of the Bailiff,' and
Nuffered the indictment to be found by that improper Jury.
The Sheriff is to be fined forty shillings for having adopted the
en ro.tirned, and suffering the, indictment to be found by
WWI. therefore I submit to your Lordships, that this statute
*hews most distinctly that the Bailiff was the person to return
she Jury. My tag& it is very true that this particular Act of
:the nth of Henry TY, in Its terms does not apply to the
Sheriff's Court or Court Feet; but I cited it for the prin.
4.11p1e.. The principle is this that whosoever business it is
to summon the Jury, shell summon the Jury without any
donomination to the Sheriffs or Bailiffs of franchises.—
Now the Sberiffor his Bailiff is the offieer who is to return the
'Jury to the Justices at Westminster, the Sheriff* being thirper.
yrtlp is: to make that return, without having any body nomi.
:slated to " Because that, now of late, inquests were
jAken 4t.Westminster of persons named to the Justices, with-.
!VlO,duqrtotirn of the Sheriff; of which persons some were out-.
jaWed before the said Justices. of record, and some fled to.
u!..itticittrary for treason, and some for felony, there to have re...
"fuge--Tby whom as well many offenders, were indicted, as other
)awful liege people of our Lord the ',Zing, not guilty aeon-
loiracy,ribettmentiand false imagination of other persons, for
'ffieir special advantage and singular lucre, against the course of
the common law used and accustomed before this time ;—our
`,A141,,,nril the Hing, for the greater ease and quietness of his
people, willeth andgrameth that the same indictment:so made,
'.,sri'th a l theJletamdenee thorcof, be-revoked, annulled, made
void ana holden for hone for ever."
Justice 1-101.noYD—There Is sonic authority I know
throvay in which that Statute is to be interpreted.
tiff.; gasELEE—That Statute commands—

MY JUstiee itar<strrrf,-Notwithstanding that Statute, the
onutruction put upon it does not extend to any direction by
the Court ;, it only directs that the Jury shall not be nominated
by strangers, but that it must be by the Sheriff Or his sworn
officer, without.any denomination to them as to who the Jurors

014 be

•Afr:GASELEE—In the Bil Institutes there is:a judgment of
Lord Coke upon that Statute, and I do not.fitnl any thing in
opposition. to what he there lays down. He says, " This is a
general law,: and extendetlt to all indictments for any crime,
'default, or-o%nce whatsoever; for the words he, if any in-
...slictnitnt• generally, without naming of any court, or before
whom. If the indictment be found by any Persons that are
' 'outlawed, or not the King's lawful liege people, or 'not
awfully returned or denominated , by any, namely, by all
or' any 'of these, that then the indictment is void ; for
thf!, words be, If any indictitient be made . hereafter
.ant point. to the contrary, Ste." ' .And then' he
:dies •the, case of Robert- Scarlet, who had endeavoured to
get himself put on the Jttry by it fraud. " Upon this Statute,.
In the case of Robert Scarlet, before the Justices of Assize,
.--:;sttllttry,-Irt the County of Suffolk, n suinnier vacation, 10 Jp.
114tinew..pointo;Nilefe resolve() and, adjudged ;' first, where at'
they Sesaions of the Peace, holden at Woodbridge in the Said
• "- County of. Suffolk, Robert Scarlet, by confederacy between,
`'.thint.inelrthe Clerk that was to read the panel of the Grand
' ,Jsrry. returned by the Sheriff, (whereof he was 110fiN albeit he
laboured the Sheriff to have returned him) that the Clerk should
real him as one of the panel, which was done accordingly, and
he sworn, it was resolved and adjudged that this case was
witaln this Statute, for that he was not returned by the Sheriff:"
Maw, I,williay, this is an illegal nomination, because the par.

ties are not' returned by the Bailiff: Therefote 'the use I make
of that Statute is to shew, that upon every occasion where it is
the duty of an officer to nominataa Jury, he is to elect without
being interfered with by any other person. Though the Leet
is certainly said to be derived from the Torn, it is not exactly
the same thing as the Torn. , The Torn was a Court for the
County, and the Court of the King, and of the Public,—the
Sheriff, the King's public officer, kept it. But the Leet, though
it gives a certain power to the rd of the Manor, yet it is given
to him as an individual, and as an individual he is to have the
profit of it; therefore it is a very different thing from a Court
winch is to be open for the public benefit, which is not only to
amerce, but to do a variety of acts which work in a variety of
ways for the benefit of all. Therefore he does not stand in the
same independent situation as the Sheriff at the Torn,—they are
in this respect different. In some cases I submit it is the law of
the land that a Bailiff is the person who is to make the selec-
tion of the Jurors.; and that appears from a case which was be-
fore your Lordship's predecessor, the case of the King v. Bing-
ham. I cite it from a manuscript note. There was a quo
warrant° information moved for against the defendant Bing-
ham, who was a Bailiff of a liberty of the Bishop of Winchester
in the Manor of A lverstoke. There was a quo warranto information
against him to shew cause by what authority he beld that office,—it
being contended by the late Lord Chief Justice Gibbs, and by
Mr. Justice Burrough, that Bingham was only a private officer
of the Bishop, to collect his rents ; but it was held that he was
"the person who was to impanel the Jury, and it was on that
the Court refused to grant the information.
It is said that the Sheriff was the person who named the Jury
before the Torn. I hie not been able to find it, though I have
looked with some industry through the books. So far from
that being the case, I submit, for the reasons I have stated, the
contrary must have been the fact. My Lord, I will not trouble
the Court more at length upon this subject, because I know that
my Learned Friends will go into it with more ability than I
could hope to bring to the.question. There was, however, an
observation which fell from Mr. Adam, which I feel myself
called upon to advert to. My Learned Friend said, that in the
early history of the Court Leet, the panel was general ; I have
net been able to find that, but on the contrary, in the books I
have looked into, I find, as your Lordships will find, they were
to summon, upon some occasions, 24, and in other cases a less
number-12—to serve upon the Jury. I take it, that it was as
Mr. Scarlett says, that, without any particular notice, all per-
sons were bound to attend the Leet, and to do suit and service,
and to be amerced if they did not. But I challenge my Learned
Friend to.sliew any instance of amercement where the party
has not been duly warned.
Lord Chief Justice ABBOTT-L-That would still leave the
question open, what is a due warning ? Whether proclamation
that a Court would be held at such a time and place is not
due warning ?
Mr. GassELE—l apprehend the form might be, although
notice was given in such or in such a particular way, they need
not allege individual notice.
Lord Chief Justice AnitoTT—Upon a general notice would
not persons be excused for non.atteudance.
Mr. GASELEE—If the amercement proceeded upon that
ground, it would be enough to allege that due notice was p;iven
that a Court would beheld atsuch a time and place ; it would not
be necessary toallege that due notice was given to such an indivi-
dual. In Shepherd's Court Keeper, which was published in 1656,
there is a des en ption of the proceedings of the Court Leet, " having
the names in writing of 24, if so many be to be had," &c. &c.—
Then my Lord Chief Justice Scroggs says, " it will be notice
enough to Make proclamation that there will be a Leet at ten
o'clock in the forenoon at the usual place, that is warning to all
tenants resident to attend to do suit and service." And like-
wise, " there is to be summoned 24 good, honest, and lawful
men of the said manor to be and appear personally at the place
aforesaid to inquire"—
Lord Chief Justice ABBOTT—That is in Kitchin, is it ?"
Mr. EASE LEE—No, my Lord, it is in SeraggA.
Lord Chief Justice ABBOTT—What part of Scroggs?
Mr. GASELEE--The practice of Courts Leet and Courts
Torn. The title is, " A full and exact direction for holding
Courts." It is published from a manuscript of Lord Chief
Justice Scroggs.
Mr. Justice BEST—I thought it was in Shepherd.
Mr. GASELEE—It is in Scroggs, page 13, my Lord. So
also the same is laid down in Jacob's Court Keeper.
Lord Chief Justice ABBOTT—Your whole argument, Mr.
Gaselee, proceeds upon this, that because the matter may be
done in one way; it must not be done in any other ;—that is the
whole of the argument.

Mr. GASELEV.—I submit that all the authorities arc with
me, and that, by analogy with the practice of the Courts of
common law, the persons who are to try the cause, and those
who summon the Jury, arc in all respects different. With re-
gaol to the observation that the Steward may compel, if there
are not persons enough present who have been summoned—that
, he may compel other persons who arc in Court to make up the
Jury, or may send out into the highways to bring in strangers.
I submit that is what doers not affect my argument at all ; that
is done in obedience to the authority of the Court, and is no
selection, but is a matter of chance. It is pretty much in con-
fortnity with the practice of the Courts of common law, where,
if there is not a sufficient Jury assembled, the Court does not
direct who are to be summoned, but it directs the Sheriff to
supply the tales; if it is in a Special Jury, they are to elect a
.Jury de circumstantibus. Though in some cases the Court does
not select strangers, but directs the Coroner to summon a Jury,
I submit that the office of the Steward being a judicial office—
that he being to preside as Judge, that it is contra!), to reason,
to authority, and to justice, that he who is to exercise a judicial
office, can in the same proceedings be the person who is to sum-
-111011 the Jury.
Mr. COLTMAN—My Lord, I am on the same side with Mr.
Oaselee, and as I was not at the trial, I shall not trouble your
Lordships with any observations upon it, and' more tape-
chilly as your Lordships have expressed a decided opinion upon
that point.
Lord Chief Justice A MIOT T—Yes, that is too plain.
Mr. Col.l4l4tri—l shall therefore proceed to suggest
some considerations to your Lordships which appear to
me to establish, not that the Bailiff may return the pro-
cess, but that he is the only person who can by law return
the process, and that it would be a great anomaly, and
not only an anomaly, but that it would in point of law he'
an absurdity, if the Steward could make'the return. I am aware,
my Lord, that I Must go that length in order to Maintain the
proposition I set out with. My Lord, it is material to consider,'
as introductory to what I have to say, what the state of the Court
Lea is • for we ought to recollect that the Sheriff's Torn or
Court fieet, was the court where persons might be indicted--
that it was the.great court in which all manner of offences in
this country not, only, minor, but capital olllnces also came
within the jurisdiction of the Leet. The Leet had cognizance
of thefts, for which Judgment of death was given as in other
Courts. The:Courts of the Sheriff's Torn had a jurisdiction in
all capital offences, except only in the case of the,death of a
man. The intfoiry, if he had met with a violent death, was
properly an inquiry before the Coroner, where the body was
found ; and.where it was not found, before a higher jurisdiction.
They had the power of judgins, as they had in every other
matter;, this was in fact the ef actual court which discharged
the crirnival justice of the country. That was altered by
Magna Charm at a very early period, and by one chapter of
Magna Charta the power of the Leet—(it is chapter the first}.._.
the power of the ,Lect to hear and determine capital offences is
taken away, and ceased. By the 2d chap. of the Illth Statute of
Westminstee; and by the Ist of. Edw. IV. chap. 2, their power
was further reduced, so.th at all power of imprisonment was taken
away from the Lea and all power so possessed at all was taken
away by Statute. Where any offences should be committed
for which eapias should issue, the determination of them was
taken away from the Court Leet, and they were directed by
the Statute of West Minster to return them to the Justices who
at Sessions were to proceed to the trial of the indictment then
found. But to this day indictments to any extent might be
found, and from the Court Leet, though not from the Sheriff's
Torn, process might be issued upon any Indictment there
found. So that though the power is not much &itemised, it is
still possessed by the Court beet, end it is a Court of very great
power and jurisdiction, Now, r.:notion this as materiel ; be-
cause we are to observe, if this is a custom, which it is said it is,
as a matter of prescription it must have existed before the time
of memory.-. Therefore, if at this time the custom be good, it
must have.existed when the Torn anti Leet had the utmost ex.;
tent of jurisdiction, and When they were, canable of passing
sentence
of death. Now, I submit that it appears a very start-
ling Pr°P96ition to say that a Jude of a Criminal Court of such
hign jurisdiction as that,. might first indict and then nominate
the Jury who were to demi* and that too 'where the party
cured could not challenge.
Lord (Ala ju 'Wee A nu o TT—There the Jury who were suM-
InOnaNiqtl of the nature of a Grand Jury, and not lie jury
,who wero to try.

• Mr. COLT MAN—it ioiiet strictly applicable to this Jury ;
but I 'should think your Lordships would hardly sanction such
an anomaly, as that a Judge is to return one Jury ,who are to
inquire, and another. officer, who is to returo,the ;other .44.11.
If this was the ease of a Petty Jury, ILACCIII3 tit me, I confess,
that this argument of, itself, ~would be quite cenclusive. For
thO effect of this rule with regard toFetty Jury would be, that
the-pOwer of challenging the array would be.teken.away ; for
one ground for challenging the army., is.partiality,'or sonle de-
fect- in the returning officer himself';.thereforec,jf the Sheriff
or Steward could return. the .Petty Jury, .4 would be idle
to talk of challenging the.array . before . bin • who would be
the person to sit in judgment in.his. own crow, Ti )ere is Flo
authority in Lord ,Commentary, in ft note of 11Ir.:gifz.,
herbert's Nature Brevium, with respect to the writ of
seisin, which is the only case where the Judge is the officer who
returns the Jury. It appears from the note in that case, that
in the re-disseban there can be. no challenge to the array, and

the reason is, " the Shotiff being the persoti who summons the
array ;" it being his own act.
Mr. Justice BEst —ln what part of the Natura Brevium is
that ? _ .

Mr. COLTMAN—It is in Fitzherbert, 188, Letter C. and
note C.; on the paragraph C. it is said, " The Sheriff is Judge
here, threfore it seems the array is not challenged."
dr. Justice HOLIWYD—Any objection that went to the
array
on account of the Steward's being an improper summon-
ing officer, would go to his being an improper Judge to try.
If an objection was made to him as not being indifferent, you
see for the purpose of the trial: he must determine for himself in
the first instance, and act at his peril.
Mr. Co LT SIA N—There might be somethingin the particular
case which affected the returning officer,—not a general case.
' Now, my Lord, that the Bailiff is the person who at Common
Law ought to return this process, appears clear from what is
laid down in various books upon the subject. There is a case
in the year books, the 7th of Henry the VI., which is recog-
' nized and acted on by all the authorities. It is cited by Roll,
by Bacon, and by. Hawkins, it is generally known by the name
of Griesly's case. In the case of Montague, " the defend-
ant was the Bailiff at such Leet, and the Steward commanded
him to make a panel to inquire," &c. &c.
Mr. Justice BEST—That is quoted in a passage of Bacon's
AbridgMent.
Mr. COLTMAN—And it has been cited as a leading autho-
rity. It is not as 1 think, that he by custom is bound to do
this, but that there is a Common Law liability for him to do
it; therefore, it appears tome, this is a direct authority to shew
that the obligation to do the thing is in the Bailiff. Now, my
Lord, I believe there is no case which can be found in the
books, or in any part of the books, which chews that the power
is given to a Judge to summon a Jury, or to nominate a Jury,
or any thing approaching tolt, with the exception of the power
of reforming the panel in the Statute, which has been alluded
to of the 3d. of Henry VIII. Chap 12. in which the Justices of
GaOl Delivery are empowered, if any improper panel is return-
ed to them, to reform it in open Court. There is the Act also
which has been alluded to of the Ist of Elizabeth, Chap. 1, In
which the Sheriff, or the Steward of the Leet is authorized, if the
first Jury is guilty of any concealment, to summon a second
Jury, who are to proceed instanter. I believe that is the only
Case. 'Then as to the case which hail been relied on, of Crane
v. Holland, there the Bailiff' was also the Mayor of Northamp-
ton ; he as Bailiff returned the panel ; there was found an
error ; it was held that the Bailiff was not the Judge, but the
Mayor and Bailiff, and therefore the objection failed.
Mr. Justice BEST read the note.-.;--" The Judges are not
the Bailiff's only, but the Mayor and Bailiffs.
Mr. Justice Hor.ttoYD—lt puts the case of re-disseisin
where the Sheriff sustains both characters; and with regard to
Sheriff,' the Statute of Henry VIII. shows that the Legisla-
ture did not think the two offices incompatible.
Mr. COLT MAN empowers. the Court, when the panel
has been improperly returned to reform it.
Lord Chief Justice ABBOTT—I take it he is to put in the
names of other persons...4.lot to quash the whole return—it does
not go to that. The recital says, that the Sheriffs had returned
improper persons, " and also' w inquire for the King ;" it must,
therefore mean that the Grand Jury should be reformed by
putting in or taking out the names of the persons in the panel
which had been so returned to the Justice of Gaol Delivery.
Mr. Co LT MAN—I would submit, my' Lord, that at comnum
law there is no instance where the person who summons the
Jury presides as Jude; a case has, I know, been mentioned
with regard to the writ of re.disseisin, hut I find that the She-
riff is,not alone the Judge in that case—he is to try it before
the same Jury ; therefore if the argument founded upon that
does not fail altogether, it goes a very little way in establishing
any such right. There are certainly inquests of office, in which
the Sheriff returns the Jury ; but then I apprehend this is no
inquest of office. Where there is a writ for the admeasure-
ment of pasture-.-where there is a second admeasurement, the
Sheriff is to go to the place and make inquiry; and so also in
the case of' waste., Both of these are cases of inquests of office :
therefore I apprehend I am borne out in the proposition that
such a custom cannot be maintained ; that there is no instance
of it at common law ; anti my friends have not produced any,
in which an officer holding a judicial situation is the person to
make such a return. It seems an extraordinary circumstance
that lie should have such a power, and not carry along with-it
the power of returning the 'Traverse Jury.
g
Lord Chief Justice AnnoTT—We have nothin to do with
will find fife view wis all that is be ore ushincohw i
thati%ria.t resenttiAiiTE R;
jod
!ant:rives:
take of this case, and the remarks I shall make will relate to
the Grand Inquest only; and I would call your Lordships'
attention to the circumstance that the Lord of this Court beet
is the person who is to have the profits ; he is to have the be.
petit of all the amercements which are made In that Court;
and it has been decided, that a custom which goes the length
of giving an amerceinent at the Court Leet to the Lord for a
private injury to him is illegal; and that will be found in the
case of NVood v. Lovatt, 6th Term Reports, 511. The Court
there decided that such a custom could not be a good cus-
tom. In behalf of that principle I find it stated, that there
shall not be amercement in the Leet for trespass, because
the Lord cannot be judge in his own cause. In this case
the Steward' being the representative of the Lord in this
Court, he is the person who is possessed of the Lord's
place and to whom the profits ultimately are to come. If you
allow the Steward to choose the Grand Jury, who are the per-
sons to make the presentments ?—lf the Steward is the person
who is allowed to nominate the Jury, who are to make the pre-
sentments, and to impose the amereements ? He is in fact in
this invidious situation, that he finds these classes of persons
who will present, and he himself is the person who makes the
ainercement. The Sheriff cannot interfere in his own Court,
that is to say, with the amount of damage which may be found,
he is in misericordia, there the Jury are to fix the amount. I
shall only call your Lordships' attention to the peculiar charac-
ter in which the Steward, who is the Representative of the Lord,
stands—for the Lord is to have, the money—the profit, pr bene.
fit of the amercement, is for him.
this is inconsistent with the' Your .Lordslup will see that
Principle of law, that lie should
be allowed to interfere with the Jury, who thus would in effect
be nominated by himself ; whereas, the law
provides that in-
different persons shall be summoned, and is in every respect
cautious that no undue influence shall be allowed to operate on
them.

Lord Chief Justice AunoTT—l am of opinion that this rule
ought to be discharged. We have already expressed our judg-
ment as to that part of it which applied for a new trial : we have
said, that we think there is no ground for that tied of the rule,
because, upon the evidence given, uucontradicted and unex-
plained, we are of opinion the Judge did right in telling the
Jury that the evidence given was cogent evidence, and that
they ought to find for the issue in the affirmative. if his ex-
pression went even beyond that--if he had even recommended
them to do so, I should think such a recommendation was fit
and proper. A clear usage for 20 years, unexplained and un-
contradicted, is that by which the rights of many private indl-
viduals, as well as many public rights, are held—there being
nothing to contravene the public policy. Taking, therefore,
that Issue to be properly found, we are now to assume that, by
the immemorial custom of this Court Leet, the Steward of the
Court has been in the habit of pointing out to the Bailiff the
names of persons who are to be summoned as the Jury of the
Court,—that this must now be taken to be an immemorial
usage. It is true, if a usage be contrary to the general prin_
ciples and rules of law, however long. It may have prevailed,
yet when it is presented to the attention of a Court of law, it
would be held invalid. We are to see whether there in in this
usage that which is contrary to any known rule or principle
of law. I a‘lopt very much what was addressed to us by Mr.
Scarlett—that, by the ancient practice in the Sheriff's Porn,
and in Court Leas, there were persons attending (all persona
were in duty bound to attend), a great many did attend, and
when they came there, and not till tbeycame there, the Steward
in the one case, and the Sheriff in the other case, named to his
officer certain persons whom he was directed to impannel to
form the grand influent, and the Jury here was only the grand in-
quest. Then, if that was the ancient usage and practice, there is
no doubt that the Sheriff, in the one instance, and the Steward of
the beet in the other, without having any persons particularly
warned, might select the Jury from the persona who were in
attendanCe ; and I can see no objection, they being obliged to.
take 'care to have fit and properly qualified persons in Court.
But some Acts of Parliament have been referred to, as show-
ere in of naming to the Judges the
ing something inconsistent with this. The first is the statute
of the 11th of Henry the 4th. Now, by, that statute, it ap
pears that a practice had pt .
persons to serve 'on Grand Juries, by other persons than the
Sheriff—by putting on the Sheriff's panel the names of persons
to serve on the Grand Jury: this was found to be very,mis--
chievous, and it was prevented by that statute, which enacted,
that none but the Sheriff should return the panel, and that no
person should make any nomination to him of the names to be
returned. The next statute is the Ist of Richard the 3d,, by
which it is said, " That no bailiff or other officer, from
henceforth, return or impannel any other person in any shire
of England, to be taken or put in, 'or upon any such inquiry,
in any of the said
Toms, but such as shall be of good name
and fame, and having lands and tenements of freehold within
the same shire, to the yearly value of 20s. at the least, or
leasehold lands and tenements, to the yearly value of 265. Bd.
over all charges at the least i" and then it enacts,---`And if
any bailiff or 'other officer,, within the said counties hereafter,
shall hnpannel any person contrary hereunto,. he into lose for
every pereon that he so impanneleth and returneth, not being
of sufficiency as aforesaid, as often as he so offendeth, 405."
Novf put this case, that the-Bailiff returns to the Sheriff per-
tains not duly qualified, according to this 'statute, what is the
Sheriff'to do ? la he to take them, and thereby subject him-
Kell to the penalty of forty shillings for every one ? or is he to
leave the business of the Torn undone ? or in order that the
business of the Torn may be done, may be not substitute

other persons in the room of those who are not duly qualified ?
I have no doubt that the proper course for the Sheriff would be
to reject the names of the persons not qualified, returned by the
Bailiff; and to insert others who are duly qualified. The 3d
of Henry the Bth has also been cited, and the mischief there
recited is, " That great extortions and oppressions be and have
been within the more party of all the counties and shires within
this realm of England by the subtility and undue demeanour
of Sheriffs and their Ministers, committed and done unto many
persons in great number of the King's subjects, by mean
and making and returning at every sessions—in taking and
putting in and returning of names of such persons as
for the singular advantage benefit and gain of the said She-
riffs and their Ministers, will be wilfully forsworn and perjured
by the sinister labour of the said Sheriffs and their Ministers,
I by reason whereof, many and divers substantial persons (the
King's true subjects), contrary to good equity, have divers
times and many wrongfully been indicted of divers murders,
felonies," &c. &c. This was in respect of the persons who were
' to serve upon the Grand Inquest. To remedy this mischief, it
was enacted, " That all panels to be returned which is not at
the suit of any party, that shall be made and put in by every
Sheriff and their Ministers, before any Justice of gaol-delivery
or Justice of the Peace, in their open sessions to inquire for the
King, shall be reformed by. putting to or taking out the names
of the persons which so be unpanelled by every Sheriff and their
Ministers, by discretion of the same Justice before whom such
panels shall be returned." There is an authority given by the
Legislature to the Justices of Gaol-delivery and Justices of the
Peace to do that which, by a late Statute, the Sheriff at his
Torn might do, to avoid that mischief either to himself or the
Public, which Ihave already pointed at. A case has also been
alluded to quoted from Cro. Charles, the case of Crane v. Hol-
land, where there was an error of judgment in Northampton ;
because, in Northampton, the Court being held before the
Mayor and two Bailiff's, the venire facies upon the issue was
awarded to the two Bailiffs to return a Jury before the Mayor
and Bailiffs, secunduin Convict udinctn, which being returned
and judgment given, the error assigned was, because the Bailiffs,
being Judges of the Court, could not also be officers to whom
process should be directed, there being no custom that can
maintain any to be both officer and Judge." But all the Court
conceived it might be good by custom • and that it was not any
error, for the Judges are not the Bailiffs only, but the Mayor
and Bailiffs ; and it is a common course in many of the ancient
I Corporations, where the Bailiffs are Judges, or the Mayor,
arid they are Judges, yet, in respect of executing process, they
are the officers also; anti one may be Judge and officer diversts
respectibu:, as in re-disseisin the Sheriff is Judge and officer.
I There they overruled the objection, and held for the judgment.
1 There has been also a passage cited from Mr. Sajeant Hawkins,
where it is said, that ' a Judge of the Court of Record may im-
pose a fine upon all such who shall be guilty of contempt in the
face of the Court." Also, there seems to be no doubt but that he
may impose " what reasonable fine he shall think fitting upon a
suitor refusing to be sworn, or upon a Bailiff refusing to make a
panel," &c. From thence it is inferred that the duty of the
Bailiff was not merely to make out a panel, but to summon
and return the persons who were to serve. It is said that ac-
cording to the expressions here used by Serjeant Hawkins, if
the Bailiff is to make the panel it would be absurd to fine the
Sheriff for every person whom he might direct the return of.
But it seems• to me that no such inference can be properly
drawn ; for if the Sheriff direct the Bailiff; who is to make the
return—if the Sheriff, at a Court, (which I conceive is the most
ancient practice) when the persons are present not summoned,
selecting certain names, might lawfully direct the Bailiff to
write out the names and put them on the panel ; this would be
giving the full effect to this expression. But there is another
way of putting it, namely, that it all may apply to the traverse
Jury—nat to the Grand Jury. But let us look at what is the
practice in another case. Let us take a writ of inquiry. There
the Sheriff is the Jude. There no issue is to be tried, the
Sheriff names the Jury in all these cases—he is both Judge and
officer; that is, he directs the summoning of the Jury, to come
before himself to assess the damages. In the case of re-disseisin
the same thing takes place. Looking at the whole of these
cases, can we say that this custom is contrary to any known
rule or principle of law ? It may all be very true that the
more common practice is the other way. But is it, (for the ar-
gument resolves itself into this,) that because a matter may be
done in one form, that therefore it cannot be done lawfully in
any other form. That seems to be the whole of the argument.
Now this is not conformable to good logic or to good law. The
instancessamet
opmg
eeosgnene
mtnaatftritnotchn
:cm:awe
tnncehaayyri
wstoci
ikhbwiedaneenitpo:ptetwohirhtlkisheelyoreas riscusi
tassl(
ec;e:topybtrohrprinciple
accomplished
pcnifloon:
nuu tpeonnhlfttoei
slfooat
I.twfuiwrnwi
a:ottwo:
Imwt
different
f rer
fiepir waysewnichtntherefore
d.
various
wi
fts
arhrya thanlt
th think
.eivijru.t that upon
suttoipcootnhietih:i;stilattertyoJury;
y In
___)tiha :Ent
kotift
itnlheke
evidence
whi
this
caseful
lmusty t
hg
e rvee
warranted j: isd in;4 -)
f
the observations he made towards their finding the verdict
which has been found; and therefore the rule must fail as far
ass depends on that ground. Then the next qUestion is, whe-
ther the custom which has been pleaded of the Steward to no-
minate the Jury, is in law a void custom ? The common
course is, for the Bailiff' to summon the Jury ; and that inde-
pendent of any special custom has been held part of his duty ;
but, except whore a special custom has been found—and we
are now on the second point taking it to be properly found,
that this custom has existed, in point of fact, . that the
usage has been immemorial, not for the Bailiff; but for the
Steward, to nominate the Jury—that has been insisted to be a
bad custom in point of law, that it is incompetent for him, the
Steward being in the situation' of a Judge of the Court. 1 think
the authorities which have been cited, together with the usage
which has constantly prevailed with regard to Inquests before
the Sheriff, where the iiheriffsits as Judge on Writs of Inquiry,
and where he nominates the Jury it appears to chew that the
custom is not inconsistent with, the principles of law. The
Statute of Henry VIII. for reforming of a Jury, giving the
Judge the power to do it where the summoning
,officer has not
properly executed his tipty, shews that the Legislature did not
consider it inconsistent with any principles of law ; that lie
being in the situation of a Judge, if the officer had not dune
his duty, might take on himself the same office by reforming
the panel. That I say shews that it is not against the prin-
ciples of common law,.. and we find it also from the ttsage
which has prevailed of Sheriffs sitting on Writs of Inquiry.—
And unless there be some Statute which operates on it or repels
and affects that which would be a good custom, which it appears
is founded on a principle of law in the instance I have stated—
unless there be some Act of Parliament or statute to deprive a
person acting as Judge from nominating the Jury, we cannot
consider it as a void custom in point of law. The only statute
which seems to bear at all on the point is the statute of the II th
of Henry 4th; but that I think does not apply to the present
case. The statute of the 1 1 th of Henry 4th was passed to
correct an abuse which
i existed, with regard to naming per.
sons on the panel done by mproper persons, and not
by the sworn officer of the King, previous to the pa:
nel coming before the Judge. It was only meant to
affectpersons who had no authority to do that, and it does not
extend to cases, it was not meant to extend to persons, whose
duty it was, by virtue of their office, to take any part in nam-
ing the persons in the panel. For the latter part of It says,
" And that from henceforth no indictment be made by any such
persons, but by inquests of the King's lawful liege people, in
the manner as was used in the times of his noble progenitors,
returned by the Sheriffs or . Bailiffs of franchises, without any
denomination to the Sheriffs or Bailiffs of franchises before
made by any person of the names which by them should beim-
panelled, except it be by the officer of the said Sheriffii or Bei.
lifts of franchises, sworn or known to make the swine, and other
officers to whom it pertaineth to make the same according to
the law of England." Therefore, it pertaineth to the Steward
by the law of England, I mean by the special custom of his
office, it leaves it exactly as it was, it did not at all mean to af-
fect those pawns. Then in the case of Crane v. Holland, that
case goes decisively on the principle which has prevailed in the
case of Sheriffs who as Judges, and nominate the Jury who
are to try the case. There the. Court said, that the Bailiff was
not the sole Judge, for the Mayor acted with the Bailiff, and
presided overhim, yet he the Bailiff, was to be taken in point
of fact as a Judge, but the note only states that the Bailiffs
were not the sole Judges ; but, The Court go on to decide the
case upon the principle which applies, in my opinion, to the
present case. And 'all the Court said it might be good by
custom, and that it was not any error, for the Judges are not
the Bailiffs only, but the Mayor and Bailiff's, and t is a corn.
mon course in many of the ancient Corporations where the
Bailiffs are Judges." It applies to cases where the Bailiffs
only are Judges, and also where the Mayor and the Bailiffs are
Judges. " Yet, hi respect of executing process, they are the
officers also, and one may be judge and officer diver:is respeeti.
bus, as in redisseisin, the Sheriff' is judge and officer, on which
the. judgment was affirmed." Upon these grounds I think the
rule must be discharged.
Mr. Justice BErr.—We are not called on to decide what
the general rule of law is on this sabject, but whether the custom
is good for the Sheriff to return the Jury, or the Steward ? That
question has been submitted toe Jury whether from time imme-
morial the Steward has usually nominated ? The Jury have
found that from time immemorial helms nominated, and the
question we are to decide, is whether such a custom is good? Now,
if such a custom can be good, it must have existed from time im-
memorial, and no authority is here cited to chew that this Is
not a good custom, The only one which looks like an au-
thority, is that which Is cited from Chief Justice Scroggs, where
the form of a precept is set out, and in which the bailiff is tli-
rected generally to summon, But that will not be found to
bear on the present question, for the utmost that it will prove is,
that generally speaking the Bailiffsummons, but that does not
prove that there may not be such a custom as is contended for
here in this particular ease, where the steward is the person who

summons. If it is necessary to prove that there can be no such
custom, no authority has yet been cited for that, unless there is
a distinction between this case and the case which was stated to
us in the argument by Mr. Carter, in the case from Croke's
Charles, in which it was determined that the Bailiff and Mayor
might act in the double capacity of Judge and Officer. If that
is so to be taken as a general principle in Corporations and other
places, the Sheriff and Steward of a Court Leet might act in
the double character of a judge and officer. But Mr. Carter
attempted to distinguish that case from this, and he says in the
present case the Lord of the Manor is interested in the Manor
in which the Juries may be returned, that the Steward being ap-
pointed by the L'ord of the Blanor,;he is therefore an improper
person to nominate the Jurors, inasmuch as he may nominate
a Jury who may impose fines which are to find their way into
the pocket of the Lord of the Manor. But I don't think that
can be considered in law as a sufficient interest ; for we might
as well go the length of saying that a Sheriff cannot be a proper
officer to summon aJury, for a Sheriffis appointed by the Crown,
and the Crown receives the fine, and the Crown appoints the Judge,
who till the late reign was only appointed during the pleasure of
the Crown. I think it is irapossible that that can be a sound
principle ; for the doctrine of interest can be carried farther than
the case which Mr. Carter has cited, namely, that the Lord
cannot interfere where he is to have the benefit of the amerce-
merits himself. It cannot be carried to that extent. We know
that in many Corporations--(as in the case cited from Cro.
Charles), the same person is both Judge and Officer. Certainly
in the greater part of them we know that the fines imposed be-
long to the Corporation, yet there the officer, according to the
other part of this case, acts in the double capacity of officer and
Judge ; in the character of officer he summons the Jury for
the Court Leet, and in his character of Judge he imposes a fine
which is to find its way into the pocket of the Lord, Now a
great number of Statutes have been brought forward to prove
that this custom is not good ; but it appears to me that none of
them can be considered as authorities, as direct authorities upon
the question. The 11th of Henry the 4th has no reference'to it,
—it directs who the persons are who ought to return the Jury ;
but so far front being an authority against the custom, I think
it is an authority in favour of it. All that the Legislature had
in view in passing that Statute was,—not -to prevent the Judges
from interfering, but to prevent those from interfering who were
not Judges. The Statute of the Ist of Richard the 3d, chap. 4,
was passed to prevent persons, who were not of responsibility,
from discharging the office of Jurors, and the Legislature hav-
ing this in view, directs who the persons were that should re-
turn the Jury ; the names of the persons who are mentioned,
are only those who are most usually employed in summoning
Jurors. We all know that Bailiff's are the persons who most
usually arc employed to summon the Jury, therefore the Statute
uses the words Bailiff or other Officer, who shall summon
any person who has not lands and tenements freehold of the yearly
value of 20 shillings, shall he fined 40 shillings for elm such per.,
son." The next statute which has been mentioned is, I think, a
pretty strong authority in answer to the application. It is the Ist
of Elizabeth, chap. 1, which, as Mr. Adam says, has a title that
would not lead one to expect to receive much information upon
this subject. " And if any Jury sworn in any Leet, and being
charged to inquire of the offences committed within the pre-
einct of that Leet, do wilfully and willingly conceal and make
default in presentment, or do not present the offence and of-
fenders, that then it shall be lawful to the Steward or Bailiff
of the Leet, or his or their deputy for the time being, to em.
panel one other Jury within the said Leet, and to inquire of
the said concealment, default, or non-presentment. and upon
such concealment, default, or non-presentment, found and pre-
sented, every of the said jurors which so did conceal,:make de-
fault, or non-present, shall lose and forfeit for every such of-
fence twenty shillings to the Lord of the said Leet.' So that
the Legislature felt no difficulty in saying that the Steward
would be a proper person to summon the second Jury ; they
did not foresee that there could be any such objection in his in-
terference with the second Jury, although the fine to be im-
posed upon the persons who had misconducted themselves upon
the former Jury was to go to the Lord. The only other thing
which I think it necessary to advert to is the passage from
Vizier's Abridgment., which every body knows is the case out
of the year Book which Mr. Coltman has mentioned, where a.
Bailiff was fined for refusing to make a panel ; but it is a very
different thing refusing to make a panel, and varying a panel
when made. It does not appear to me that there is the slightest
touch of authority, to say that the Steward is an improper per-
son to summon the Jury; but we are not now called upon to
decide upon the general rule of law. But, as my Lord Chief
Justice has said, there are cases which may be considered as
analogous to this t there is the case of the Sheriff who sum-
mons the Jury, and who presides at the inquiry ; and 1 may
add, that there is the case of the Coroner who summons
the Jury, and though it is the Jury who are to find
the verdict, yet his is a judicial office, and his duty
is to preside in the Court. We are not to decide on the general
law, but merely whether the custom set out upon this record
can be considered a void custom, and I have heard nothing
which satisfies me that this custom in point of law can he said
not to be good. The Jury who heard the evidence in the case
found it was a good custom; 1 therefore think there is no
ground fora new trial.—Rule discharged.

SINGULAR MISTAKE.—At an early hour yes-
e a man W/18 observed walking,
along
Piccadilly, carrying something on his,
shoulder, having the appearance of a dead body',
wrapped
upr morning a
insheet, and the circumstance
t rrdiao
attracted the curiosity of several individuals, who.
were led to suspect he was a resurrection man,,
and they followed him a considerable distance,
until at length their suspicions were strengthened,
by something in the shape of a human arm pro-
truding itself through the sheet. A great crowd.
soon assembled, and being convinced that soma
neighbouring church-yard had been plundered,
they commenced a volley of invectives against the
supposed body-snatcher, who seemed to endure
it with the greatest patience, lie was given in
custody to the watchman, who conveyed him and.
his subject to S t. James's watch-house, where an ex.
position of an extraordinary description took place;
for on opening the sheet, it was found to contain a
cork form, representing that of a human being dress-
ed in female attire. The worthy constable of the
night and the confounded Charleys all gazed at
each other with astonishment, not knowing what
to make of their prisoner. They detained the
man until he brought forward somebody to prove
how he came by it, and yesterday morning he
was brought before Mr. CONANT, the Magistrate,
when a Gentleman, an artist, residing in Spring
Gardens attended, and stated to the Magistrate
that the cork lady was used to make lace dresses
upon ; and having explained to the satisfaction
of the Magistrate that the prisoner was employed
to carry her Ladyship to a person from whom she
was borrowed—he was disc4arged.

• COURSE OF EXCII4NGF, June 13.
Atustetdam
Ditto, at Sight
Rotterdam lt HO
Antwerp lt 9
Hansburgli . 88 oti Us.
Allow' ..
Paris,3 Day's sight 24 85:. 0 Vs.,
Ditto
llourdeaux, ditto
Frank (Orton the Main
Madrid
Cadiz
BI1I)oa 36 Ettectik
Barcelona
Seville
Gibraltar , . '304
Leghorn
Get 3.46 .•.• . .. ... 43 —.—Venice, Ital. Liv 4B 10.
Malta 45 -----Naples 2O
.
Palermo ' 115.13 per Os.
.
Lisbou
Oporto
RioJatieiro .. ' 47
Diiblin .... 91 Cork 91 pet Cent.