The Sun.
London, England, 1834-09-03 00:00:00

LONDON ADJOURNED SESSIONS, SEPT. 2.

These Sessions were held to-day pursuant to adjournment,
before the RECORDER and Aldermen ANSLEY, KELLY, and Sir
CHAPMAN MARSHALL. The Court met for the purpose of dis-
posing of several appeal cases, which were adjourned in July last.
The RECORDER gave judgment in the appeal of Wm. Little,
a ticket porter plying for hire in the neighbourhood of Doc-
tors' Commons, against a convict;on for a public nuisance in
obstructing the free passage of the streets. To persons draw-
ing convictions, and to the public in general, the decision is
rather an important one, the question being whether,
under the Act of Parliament, it was necessary to state
in precise terms, in the conviction, the manner in
which the nuisance was committed, or whether it was suf-
ficient to allege generally the offence. The Recorder
in giving judgment observed that the case had been discussed
at considerable length previous to the adjournment in July
last, and the observations which the Court had to make in
giving judgment, would be confined to the form of the con-
viction. Upon looking into the cases the Court was of opi-
nion that the form of the conviction was insufficient. In order
to see better the form in which convictions of this description
were couched, the Court had procured a copy of a former con-
viction of an individual of the same name, for the same offence,
and between that conviction and the present there was consi-
derable distinction. The former conviction alleged the examina-
tion of witnesses upon oath, but it did more, for after describing
the offence in thelanguage of the Act of Parliament,it specified the
means and manner of committing the offence. The present
conviction was different from that in that essential particular,
and although it was true that in cases where the Act of Par-
liament was specific it was quite sufficient to pursue the lan-
guage of the Act in convictions, yet, if the words of the Act
comprehended a class of offences, it then became necessary to
enter so far upon particulars, as to state upon the conviction
the specific offence charged against the individual. At the
time the case was argued the impression of the Court was, that
the conviction was defective, and that impression had been
confirmed by looking into the authorities. The Court had
directed its attention to Paley's work upon convictions,
in which there were two instances in which convictions had
been decided to be insufficient which applied precisely to the
present case. The one was a conviction for profane cursing
and swearing, and the Act of Parliament having described the
offence in general terms, and the conviction having followed
the Act of Parliament, and stated that the defendant had
made use of profane oaths and curses, the Court thought that
was not sufficient, but that the words ought to have been spe-
cified that were made use of. The other case was for robbing
an orchard, and the Court thought the conviction bad, inas_
mach as it did not state the robbing was of the nature contem-
plated by the Act of Parliament. Another authority was
Mr. Justice Buller, who said it was not true, in framing con-
victions, that it was sufficient to follow the words of
the statute in all cases ; in some it might be, as where the
statute gave a description of the offence, but it was otherwise
where a particular offence was included under general terms.
Where the Legislature spoke in general terms, the conviction
must set out the particular act of the party offending, in order
to meet the charge. Upon the whole, looking at the Act of
Parliament, and the authorities that had been adverted to, the
Court was of opinion that the conviction was too loose and
vague, in consequence of its not specifying, in particular
terms, the manner of committing the offence. The appeal,
therefore, must be allowed, and the conviction quashed.
There were similar appeals on the part of persons named
Gardner, Philpot, and Shultz, in which the convictions were
open to the same objections, and, of course, shared the same
fate.

The Court then proceeded with an appeal from an order of
affiliation made by Sir Peter Laurie and Mr. Alderman Ye-
nables, which appeared likely to occupy the Court several hours.

RAILROADS IN FRANCE.—(From the Journal
du Commerce.)--Fifth line from Paris to Orleans, Tours, and
Bordeaux, with a branch road to Louviers and Rouen, by way
of Chartres and Nantes. Our neighbours the French are
rivalling us in this means of communication, as the extent of
the above line shows, The report says—" The survey is
already almost finished between Paris and Orleans ; between
Orleans and Tours some slight views have been taken, but
beyond Tours little of importance has yet been done." The
account goes on to detail the intended route, and the particu-
lars of the declivities, and distances.