The Sun.
London, England, 1848-03-30 00:00:00

THURSDAY EVENING,

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

JUDGES' CHAMBERS, Sergeant's Inn, March 29.
(Before Mr. Baron PARKE )
GOUGE( V. ROSS.

In this case Mr. Baron PARKE gave judgment on a
matter of some importance, respecting the discharge of
a prisoner. The defendant, who is connected with the
Heir-at-Law Society, was heard in the Insolvent
Debtors' Court on Wednesday last, and his petition was
dismissed. He had applied under the Protection Act,
and when outside the court was arrested at the suit of
the plaintiff, one of the opposing creditors. An applies-
tion was made for his discharge to the Chief Commis-
sioner, ;but be declined to interfere, and hence the
application to a Judge at Chambers. The point was
argued on Saturday. It was submitted that the appli-
cant was; entitled to return home after attending court
on his hearing, and, in reply it was urged that inas-
much as the application was a voluntary one, the case
did not come within the general principle, besides which
his protection ceased on the dismissal of his petition.
The question was considered by his Lordship an im-
portant one, and he reserved his opinion to the present
occasion.

Mr. Baron PARKE now decided that the defendant
must be discharged. Ile was entitled to protection on
his return after attending the Commissioner.
An application was made for costs, and for the plain-
tiff protection was asked against an action.
His LORDSHIP gave costs on the consent of the plain-
tiff, binding the defendant not to bring any action.
The defendant was ordered to be discharged from
Whitecross-street prison.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.
HOME ClRCUlT.—Kingston, Marsh 28.
Th• commission for the county of Surrey was opened
on Monday. There are 70 causes entered for trial, 12 of
which are special jury cases; and on the Crown side
there are 32 prisoners, but all the cases are of the ordi-
nary description, with one or two exceptions.
Mr. Justice COLERIDGE, on charging the grand jury
in the Crown Court, expressed his great satisfaction at
the numerous attendance of magistrates, and the anxiety
they had evinced to perform the duties of grand jurors,
and he said he hoped that country gentlemen would
always continue to feel the importance of the duty
they were now called upon to perform. In some places,
and particularly in the metropolis and its neighbour.
hood, a feeling appeared to exist that grand juries were
not useful, but were, on the contrary, detrimental
to the interests of justice; but he must say the argu-
ments which had been adduced in support of such an
opinion had failed to induce him to entertain a similar
view regarding the institution of a grand jury, and ha
must say that he looked upon them as part of that
great scheme which had placed the country gentlemen of
England in a very different position to those of any
other country. He did not merely look at the service
which was performed of ignoring or returning bills
against the parties accused, but he considered it of equal
importance that country gentlemen should be called to-
gether at certain periods, in order that they might
obtain that information with regard to the law and to
criminal jurisprudence which it was so necessary for
gentleman in their situation to be acquainted with.
Perhaps in London, where there were so many facilities
to tamper with the witnesses in support of a charge, and
where also the cases underwent very strict investigatio❑
by the magistrates, some inconvenience might
occasionally arise, but he could not help thinking that
it was very muck exaggerated ; even admitting there
was occasionally some inconvenience, be thought tho
advantages that were derived from grand juries more
than equalled any of the disadvantages which had been
suggested as arising from them. The Learned Judge
then said it appeared to him that there were only two
cases in the calendar which required any observa-
tions from him. The first was a charge against two
prisoners for cutting and wounding the game-
keeper who attempted to apprehend them. I❑ this
case, he said, there might be a doubt whether, under
the particular circumstances, the keepers were legally
justified in endeavouring to take the prisoners into cus-
tody, but it was his duty to tell them that the mere
fact of a keeper laying his hand upon a person in the
situation of the prisoners was no justification for their
resorting to the use of such deadly weapons as they
appeared to have made use of. Even if a blow was
given by one person to another, it would not justify
that other in resorting to any act of deadly violence. A
person was bound to retreat from his assailant as far as
he possibly could, and it was only when he had done so,
and his own life was actually threatened, that he would
be justified in killing his assailant. In this case,
therefore, he should recommend them to find the bills
in the form in which they would be presented to them.
The other case was a charge against the persons
having the care of a goods train upon the railway
of having caused the death of the engineer of
another train, which had been stopped in consequence
of some defect or accident to the engine, by the
negligent manner in which they conducted their own
train. The law required that every person who under-
took to perform a particular duty should exercise the
proper care and caution which that duty required, and
in proportion as it was onerous or dangerous, so in pro-
portion was that care and caution expected to be exer-
cised; and the only question, therefore, which the jury
would have to decide was, whether the accused parties
had exercised that caution which would be required
of them under the circumstances in which they were
placed. His Lordship then proceeded to express his
regret at observing, that out of 32 prisoners whose
names appeared in the calendar only one was able to read
and write well, the whole of the remainder being utterly
unable to do either, or only possessing an imperfect
knowledge of those rudiments of education ; and he
concluded by impressing upon them the importance of
extending education among the lower orders of the
community as the most effectual means of preventing
crime.

John Hordy, 42, labourer, was indicted for a misde-
meanour, in being unlawfully in company with two other
persons, and armed with a gun, upon certain land in
pursuit of game.
➢ir. Clarkson prosecuted, and Mr. Charnock appeared
for the defendant. _

From tie evidence it appeared that on the night of
the 7th of January two keepers, named Mansell and
Fitchell, who had the care of some land called the
Witley-park Estate, hearing the sound of fire-arms,
proceeded in the direction whence it proceeded, and
they found the defendant and two other men in the
wood. One of the keepers came up with the defendant,
who pointed a gun at him, and told him to stand back,
but did not proceed to any act of violence ; and when
the keeper went towards him he ran off', and was not
taken till some time afterwards.

Mr. CIIARNOCIL, in addressing the jury, said that this
prosecution arose out of those game laws which had
been the source of so much crime, and which, he believed.
it was the general wish of the community to see abolished.
The defendant, he said, although only charged with a
misdemeanour, would, if convicted, be liable to a sentence'
of transportation for fourteen years, and although it was
not likely that such a sentence would be passed upon
him by the learned and humane Judge who was now
presiding, yet ho felt it his duty to make the jury ac-
quainted with what might be the possible result of a
conviction .

Mr. Justice COLERIDGE, in summing up, told the jury
that they had no right to consider the policy or impo-
hey of any particular law, and so long as the Legisla-
ture thought fit to continue any law, it was their duty,
and it was his also, to see that it was carried out. He
then adverted to the facts of the case, and said the only
question the jury had to consider was, whether the evi-
dence made out the charge against the accused.
The jury, after a short deliberation, returned a ver-
dict of Not Guilty.
March 29.
CROWN SlDE.—(Before Mr. Justice COLERIDGE.)
William Jones, 28, and Lewis Fleming, 22, the former
an engine-driver, and Ike latter a stoker, in the service
of the South-Westera Railway Company, were indicted
for the manslaughter 0 'David Markland.
Mr. Sergeant Gsaaelee and Mr. Helps conducted the
prosecution. Mr. Ballantine was for the defence.
It appeared from the testimony of the witnesses for
the prosecution, which it will be unnecessary to give in
detail, as the whole of the facts were given very fully
upon the different proceedings that were held by ad-
journment before the coroner, that on the 14th January,
the deceased, who was an engine-driver, in the service
of the same company as the prisioners, started with a
train from Southampton at six o'clock in the evening,
and when he arrived within a couple of miles of the
Woking station, in consequence of something going
wrong with the engine, it was found necessary to bring
the train to a stand still, and the deceased, who, it ap-
peared, was a clever ingenious fellow, set about perform-
ing the necessary repairs which the engine required,
and it seemed that to enable him to effect this object
he was obliged to get underneath the engine.
While in this position it appeared that a luggage
train, composed of 31 carriages and an engine and ten-
der, upon which were the two defendants, came up,
and ran into the passenger train, crushing the car.
riages together, and driving the engine ever the unfor-
tunate deceased, who received such injury as to cause
immediate death. In order to establish that the de-
fendants had sited with negligence, it was shown that
the stationary train had three red lamps at the rear,
which would be visible at a very considerable distance,
and it appeared that the front lamp of the luggage train
was seen by the passengers of the other train for a con-
siderable time before the collision took place, and a man
naasmseednger Brownsmith, who acted as under guard to the
p
train, was sent down the lino to signal the ap-
proaching train to stop; but, according to his evidence,
he could not nee either the engineer or fireman
belonging to the luggage train in his proper position,
and his signal was altogether disregarded, and
thus the collision and its fatal result was alleged
to have been occasioned by the negligence of
the defendants, in' not keeping a proper look-out.
The witnesses were subjected to a searching cross-
examination by Mr. Ballantine, and there appeared a
good deal of discrepancy in their testimony with regard
to the state of the atmosphere at the time the accident
happened, some of the witnesses stating that it was
clear night, and others that it was foggy, and in the
result it appeared that the ground in the neighbourhood
of the line being marshy, it was possible that there were
patches of fog in different places, which might have
prevented the lights of the passenger train being seen,
and the witness Brownsrnith, who was sent to stop the
defendant's train, admitted that he had been charged
with neglecting his duty, because he did not place deto-
nating balls upon the rails, the explosion of which
would have been an effectual signal of danger to the
approaching train, and would, in all probability, have
prevented the accident from taking place. It was ad-
mitted that the defendants were men of excellent cha-
racter, and it appeared that they had been in the
service of the company for several years, and that they
had never before been charged with any act of mis-
conduct.

Mr. BALLANTINE made an energetic appeal to the
jury on behalf of the defendants, and in the course of