The Sun.
London, England, 1846-04-20 00:00:00

now asked to amend these proceedings by making a new
challenge—for this was the real nature of his application—
this was the real secret—but he (Sir T. Wilde) held that it
ould not be granted. He, therefore, submitted to his
Lordship that this was not a case in which any amend-
ment should be allowed, as it was mere dilatory
proceeding, because it was perfectly of that the officer
by whom the jury was summoned could have no interest
whatever in the matter. Besides the jury which had been
empanneled was as impartial as any jury, empanneled by
any other officer, could be. Therefjre, the objection was
purely a technical one, and was made without any just rea-
son. What was there in it to induce his Lordship
to allow the amendment? Most respectfully, therefore, he
submitted that it did not fall within the ordinary principle of
amendments; that it could not be properly made, because in
law they could not ground a second challenge on another.
How, for instance, was it to be introduced en the record?
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said there was no record until it
was finally made up.
Sir T. WILDE held that the record had been virtually
made up.
Some discussion then ensued with respect to the way in
which returns were made of the persons qualified to serve on
the grand and petty juries.
The RECORDER said the returns made by the different
wardmotes carne to the Court of Aldermen, from whom they
passed to the Town Clerk.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said the Sergeant-at-Mace then
obtained all or some of the returns, he then summoned

the pry, who were accordingly brought here. The objection
was, that these officers (for if there had been a sheriff there
would have been no difficulty in the matter), that was, the
aldermen and ward officers—

The RECORDER—They are not officers.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said these persons and the al-
dermen with whom they acted, first return a list of persons
qualified to serve as jurors, and then " somebody," out of all

these returns, who is a freeman of the City of-London, se-
lects the juries.. Whether this was directly a fixed rule or
by rotation, he did not know.

The RECORDER.—Nobody selects. Suppose it was done
by as act of Common Council?
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said it would no doubt be a
valid act.

The RECORDEIL—That is cenceding the whole question.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL.—It might be an act of Com-
mon Council that the persons should be taken by rotation.
I have the Act in my bands, but I can find nothing about
rotation or anything else.—(Laughter.)
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said, the Act showed him that the
jury were to be chosen out of the ward of Cripplegate. - This
would enable him to shape his challenge, which would be to
the effect, that the aldermen and inquest were citizens,
and interested in the question at issue. After
wishing that the jury had heard the
able arguments of his Learned Friend before the House of
Lords, in the case of the ‘. Queen against O'Connell," he
proceeded to say that his Learned Friend had insinuated to
the jury who were to try the case that he (the Solicitor-
General) charged them with partiality—a line of conduct
which he considered unworthy of the hi.h stand-
ing of his Learned Friend. He repudiated the
charge that he attributed the slightest shadow of
partiality to the gentlemen constituting the jury.
This was a great constitutional question, which, if not settled
in that Court, would have to be decided by the House of
Lords. He thought no more of attributing partiality to the
jury or the officers by whom they were summoned,
than he did of making such a charge againsst
his Lordship. After some further remarks, he
read the challenge to the array, which set forth
that the persons elected at wardmotes held before-Alderman
Challis, on the 21st and 22d of December, and the two fol-
lowing days at the boys' school, Redcross-street, to serve as
jurors, were elected by aldermen, and that the divers persons
forming the inquest, and each of them, were freemen of the
city of London, and interested in the issue of the case, and
would participate in the penalties sought to be recovered by
this action, and that the defendant Henry Sturt prayed that
the panel might be quashed.
Sir T. WILDE said, that was a new challenge from be-
ginning to end.
The Sotamon-GENERAL—WeII, my Learned Friend, may
plead a demurrer.
The RECORDER—Then you mean to impeach the unindif-
ferency of those gentlemen, the jury, who were elected and
sent here.
Th: SOLICITOR GENERAL intimated that that was the
object of the challenge, and applied to have it introduced in
the former challenge to the array.
Sir THOMAS WILDE said at first he understood that the
application of his Learned Friend was to amend the record,
but it was in substance and in form an application to with-
draw the old challenge and to substitute a new one.
The RECORDER—He wishes to incorporate the two.
Sir T. WILDE said, nevertheless, it was an application to
withdraw the former challenge, and to make a new one.
The RECORDER—It is in substance that.

Sir T. WILDE submitted that it could not be done, because
there was no jurisdiction. He knew of no instance, and yet his
attention had been peculiarly given to the subject of challenges.
It may be proper to counterplead assuming the amendment
made. There were three things to be considered, first, the
freedom from the jurisdiction of any challenge ; secondly,
the objection ; and thirdly, the right to sustain that ob-
jection in this Court. His Lordship was aware that the
panel was first sent to the inquest, and it was for them to
make the array. The Solicitor-General had raised
the ground that this was a great constitutional
question, and had asserted that the body who made
that array was too indefinite in law. He (Mr. T. Wilde)
referred to the case of Mr. O'Connell, and stated that he had
challenged the array, because there was fraud in the case.
That, it was true, was a great question, but, like all such
questions, there might be great abuse, and this, he conceived,
was an instance. The question was really as to whether
there was any jurisdiction, for if there were not, there was
plainly no discretion to be exercised, but all precedent
had shown that there was jurisdiction. Yet, nevertheless, as
this was a matter of great importance, he would pray for time
to consider the validity of the amendment.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL would not include any of the
popular matter which his Learned Friend had introduced
into his address, but he must say that this was a question
the importance of which it was impossible to exaggerate.
If his Learned Friend would allow, instead of arguing
merely for the amendment, that if the time were given
the position of a new challenge should be permitted, he was
quite ready to submit to the delay. That would certainly,
be the more convenient course, for if not raised here the ques-
tion would certainly be raised elsewhere, and would save the
inconvenience of carrying two cases to the House of Lords
instead of one.
The REconnEx, suggested that there were more cases than
one.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL thought that made no difference,
for if there were nineteen cases, he conceived that no diffi-
culty would arise in amalgamating all the other cases after
the first.

After some conversation, in which the SOLICITGR-GiuNERAL
stated, that he did not conceive that a jury could be et pan-
nelled through any other agency than the inquest, but if the
challenge was now refused to him he should make it in a
Court of Error,

The RECORDER said, that a point had been put to him,
and that was, that if this delay were to be allowed, there
would be a different jury at the next hearing from that
which was now challenged, so that the challenge, as well as
the jury. would have gone off.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL conceived that the dely would
only be in the nature of an adjournment, so that no incon-
venience would arise on that account. 1
Sir THOMAS WILDE objected to an alteration of the mode of
challenge.
The RECORDER conceived that he should not be disposed
to entertain any different mode of challenge than that which
had already been made. He thought that the cause
ought not to be decided by persons who were strangers to the
customs and privileges of the City, and he would rather that
the course should be by consent than an appeal to his
jurisdiction. He should wish very much that there should
be such a challenge made as would obligee return to be made
of how really the jury was returned. This would occasion no
difficulty, as the real feet of right of trial would then
be developed, and the right itself might be tested
by writ of error, and he did wish that some agree-
ment should be come to, to save confusion on the record.
The Soucrrost-GENEnat. thought, that of course the ad-
journment would be by consent.
Sir THOMAS WILDE thought that his Learned Friend
ought not to be permitted to go otherwise than on his first
challenge.
The RECORDER decided that he would not allow the
defendant to substitute in the challenge, and the adjourn-
ment ought either to be by consent, or that the parties
should join issue.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL then would join issue.
At this point the jury were allowed to retire for a few
minutes.
On the return of the jury the Solicitor-General opened the
proceedings by calling
Mr. Sewell, the Sergeant-at-Mace, who stated that he was
aware that the return of parties fit to serve on juries was made
ato s
wards,tAhree Gobweurnte
,Cwhl rshk' s
dtehpo
effiu
tgcyee,ubey
radoesl the
business
ts eu
for
ovi
ure
erhas
isl
hn,
eq
tuhe
hadsetrse
nobfoettilihneigodgni different,
es rf
eedneost,
Gore was ashethaenetecdalleodu, abnedhaslftateodf ttohethseei
Sergeant
-tat:
Solicitor-
General 1 Or
Mace, and that he obtained the lists from the Town-
Clerk's office for summoning the juries. That he received
the list only of such wards as were required for
meaocuhthm.onTthh,oasendlistthaatv,artihedereifloiren,uhmeb
era receivedg o i
ug a
frloi smt
2e v4eur).l3-
li
to 150. When the list contained as ma'ny as 60, he sum-
moned them all ; but when there was more than
seventy, but in consequence of removals or allowances in
Court he found his numbers reduced, he was obliged to
summon all remaining on the panel. When he had more on
the panel than he required, he consulted the lists of last year,
and omitted those who had served twelve months before, in
order to save them trouble. When this rule could not be
y
observed, he took the names as they came, always securing
e
.21 To,„_
_
48. In the present case, he went to 1,1
Clerk's office a few days before the comdmentchee-
ment of April, at which time he received
the
took p returns in Court, of which heh
cooirthceot4hBe,rehawvienrge
corrected copy he produced. In that copy
48 names. He had not summoned thew
ivent out to summon the
omitted four, because he could not find
a rough copy of the 48 beforieande
the parties. He made
persons, 44 of whom he 1
t
to the other four, be went
he therefore left no summons,
in-
formed that they had left, and summoned.
buNAt' iht he
wasrespec
to their residences,
*th respect to a person of
lgeoanrieci,e
dthough inth
eoyn eh
aodr
two cases he
not having learned
h a 4Thiui
sciwuwhi
reeesrde
htaheuedy casehw aewdr
left the ward.
the name of Smith.
llow the parties summoned eyo
riDErt—The witness statedbthautdhtehewboausundao-t
he stated, that with regard
To the SOLICITOR-GENERAL
raiteTslioboeftrhttheyeßtiacOford.
gone to Goswell-road, to Lea, another of the
bfeoyuurn,
dhethheadbobueuedan toofldthtahcati.tl.lye, had
t
respect to the list he kept it himself
the Deputy
Registrar.
to Pugh, he had m.adeh.noselpfaratmiledulamraidneqauirrye:
mi n e de,Pauntyd
Rtuergniaotfratrl.ie parties summoned to thase
notfiexcte ofexa
phaeperre.ceived
thatllra ntdhoenre, deputyo-registrar, ibsteryoarn,
wcoarridtaminostethine
fsrtoaAitlidt.he summoning officer. He ndwes,t-heratsaw-whitchhe
names o
Cross-feaxlal
question. m
thoseine d persons' FheP al
iPaebrlse bteofore serveth ei
in th Courte
rt o of his allegation, and he
thought that it clearly
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL stated that that was the evidence
support which he had to submit in
Sir T. WILDE said that the es
o such thing.
supported
laeluleeegadtiidoi ni.
Charles Sewell, who was a freeman,e had never seen. '1 he ' was charged with ,
having made a panel, which panel he
panel was made out by another person, wdhowaacstediumstrinuies;eed-
rially. He received the panel. an
to summon all that he might find liable to
serve, and he returned a list of those that
jury
were liable to serve, and be summoned.
world had that to do with the panel ? Tl.e p
contained the names of the whole forty-eight jurors who had
been summoned. The evidence adduced did not in the least
aWnelhaotf t
the
support the challenge against the array.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL being about to reply to Si
Thomas Wilde's objections, was interrupted by that Learned
Gentleman, woo contended that lie had no right whatever
to reply, after haying sat down, bystating that "that was his
ease."