The Sun.
London, England, 1851-09-27 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
JUDGES' CHAMBERS, Sept. 26.
THE ALLEGED FRAUD AND CONSPIRACF AT BRIGH-
TON.—THE QUEEN V. BROOME AND OTHERS,
In this case an application was made on the part of
the defendant James, who was the only person re-
maining in custody. to be admitted to bail until the
assizes at Lewes in March next.
Mr. Metcalfe, the barrister, attended in support of
the application, and Mr. Sill appeared to conduct the
proceedings on the part of the prosecution.
Mr. AIETCALrE said as the case had already been
before his Lordship, who had given a decision in
favour of the application, he should not do more than
ask his Lordship that bail be taken for the present
defendant in similar amounts to those which had been
accepted in the case of the other defendants.
Mr. SILL said that since the case was before his
Lordship o❑ Saturday last he had carefully gone
ihrough the text books, and also the decisions that
bore on the subject of bail in criminal matters, and he
now felt it his duty to ask his Lordship to review
the opinion which he had expressed the other day
when the application of the defendant Staden was
under consideration. He had made inquiry at the
chief police-office at Bow-street as to what was the
practice prevailing there in respect to taking bail,
and he had been informed that it was the practice to
inquire, not merely into the pecuniary ability of the
persons tendered as bail, but also into their moral
character.
Mr. Baron MARTIN—WeII, if you can show me
any authority for that course I will give it my best
consideration.
Mr. SILL would refer his Lordship to the case of
" Rex o. Edwards" (4th Term Reports).
Mr. Baron MARTIN—In that case the person ten-
dered as bail had been guilty of perjury; the judge,
therefore, would not believe him on his oath as to the
amount of his property.
Mr. SILL said that even in that point of view the
case showed that it was considered material to extend
the inquiry beyond the mere pecuniary question, and
to ascertain what degree of credit was to be given to
the party ; and that at once opened his moral
character to investigation.
Mr. Baron Aleetem—Suppose a man worth 10,0001.
a year was prcposed to be bail in the sum of 100/.,
was the judge to ask that person whether he was
living in a state of adultery, for instance ?
Mr. SILL submitted that whatever affected the
moral character of the person offered as bail was
material to be inquired into.
Mr. Meneere said that in the case of " The Queen
v. Badger and others" (4 Adolphus and Ellis), Lord
Denman and the whole Court held that it was not
competent for the judge to inquire into the character
or opinions of the parties.
Mr. Baron lamer's said he would hear what Mr.
Sill had to say upon the subject without any further
interruption.
Mr. SILL begged to offer as an apology for tres-
passing upon his ,Lordship's time the fact that the
magistrates of Brighton, who had refused to receive
bail in the present case for the grounds alleged by
them, had felt very severely the censure which his
Lordship had been reputed to have passed upon them
for the course they had pursued.
Mr. Baron MARTIN was not aware that he had
expressed himself in terms of censure. He certainly
considered the practice of the magistrates to be
wrong in law, and he had said as much.
Mr. SILL then proceeded to argue the question,
observing that the object of holding a person to bail
was to secure his forthcoming to take his trial. The
judge, therefore, at the time of taking bail ought to
he assured that it was the full intention of such bail
that the person bailed should be forthcoming to an-
swer the charge against him. Now, if it should be
manifest at the moment of tendering bail that the
parties so tendered felt no assurance that the prisoner
would be forthcoming at the time required, but, on
the contrary, that they knew it was very probable the
prisoner would not appear, then he submitted that
that was not the sort of security which the law re-
quired to be taken—the fact in the present case. He
believed it would not be denied that a promissory
note for the amount of the recognizance had already
been given, or would be given, to the two persons
who attended to bail the present defendant.
Mr. Baron MARTIN had always understood that
every bail was indemnified by the law giving him a
right of action against the person bailed for any money
he might be called upon to pay by reason of that person
so bailed not appearing according to the condition of
his recognizance. If the law itself created this spe-
cies of contract between the parties, where was the
difference whether the bail obtained an indemnity by
means of-an action, or whether the person against
whom that action lay sit once said—"l will do now
what the law would otherwise compel me to do, and
will give you my promissory note at once" ?
Mr. SILL said, there was this difference, that the
right of action would not vest in the bail till the party
bailed had omitted to obey his recognizance, but in
this case the right of action was anticipated ; and the
question was whether such a transaction might not
reasonably raise a doubt in the mind of the magistrate
as to whether it was really intended at the time that
the appearance of the prisoner should be bon4 fide se-
cured for the purposes of the law.
Mr. Baron MARTIN—You contend, then, that the
fact of the bail requiring the promissory note from
the prisoner ought to induce the magistrate to believe
that it was the expectation of the bail that the party
would not be forthcoming at the proper time ?
Mr. SlLL—That was the view which the magis-
trates at Brighton took as to the nature of their duty.
Two of those magistrates were gentlemen of the bar,
and he had seen them since the last hearing before
his Lordship, and they had stated that that was the
only way in which they could put the case.
Mr. Baron MARTIN could perfectly understand
how the magistrates might have been induced to ar-
rive at that conclusion ; but he (Mr. Baron Martin),
after considering the question, had arrived at a con-
trary conclusion.

Mr. SILL said the only other case with which he
would trouble his Lordship was that of the " Queen
v. Badger and others," already referred to.
Mr. Baron MARTIN asked to have the ease handed
to him, and having read it, said that the judgment of
Lord Daman entirely confirmed his own opinion on
the subject. Lord Denman said that all the magis-
trates had to do was to be satisfied that the parties
proposed to be bail were possessed
.of sufficient pro-
perty to meet the recogniaances made, should there
be default in the person bailed appearing at the
proper time
; and that the magistrates had no power
to inquire into the private interests or character of the
persons so offered as bail.
Mr. SILL said the construction which Mr. Carter,
one of the makcistrates, had put upon those cases was
that no objection could be made against the political
charade/ 9; opinions of the bail.