The Sun.
London, England, 1860-10-25 00:00:00

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COUB7.—Oct. 24.

OLD COURT.
THE QUEEN V. WILLIAM DAVIDSON.
In this case, it will be remembered the defen-
dant, who was charged with an indecent assault,
had put upon the record a special plea that he had
been put upon his trial for the same offence at the
Middlesex Sessions, and that the jury were un-
able to come to a decision, and they were im-
properly discharged by Mr. Payne, the presiding
judge, without sufficient grounds, under the circum-
stances, for his taking that course.
To this plea there was a replication that there
was no likelihood of the jury agreeing upon their
verdict, that they had been kept locked up for
several hours, and that the judge felt it necessary,
in his discretion, to order them to be discharged.
Mr. Sleigh now proceeded at considerable length
to argue before the Court (Mr. Baron Martin hav-
ing come upon the bench to assist his learned col-
leagues) that the plea was a good plea, and that,
as the defendant had already been put in jeopardy
for the same offence, the discharge of the jury,
without his consent and without sufficient grounds,
were tantamount to an acquittal, and that he ought
not to be put upon his trial a second time. The
learned counsel cited several cases in support of his
argument, and he said he admitted that discretion
to a considerable extent as to the period, and under
what circumstances, a. judge would be justified in
discharging a jury was allowed by the law, still he
contended at the same time that it was always con-

templated that there should be a necessity of a high
and imminent degree to justify a judge in discharg-
ing a jury, and that if he did so from mere caprice
or any slight motive, a prisoner ought not to run
the risk of a second trial. _

The learned judgeS having consulted together for
a short period,
The Lord Chief Baron said the Court was of
opinion that it was not necessary to hear Mr. Lewis,
who appeared for the prosecution, and in support
of the replication, as he believed they were all
agreed that the plea was a bad plea and could not be
maintained. It was his opinion that with regard to
discharging a jury a discretion was entirely invested
in the judge, and that there was no appeal from the
decision he pronounced. In all the cases that had
been cited by the learned counsel it was admitted
that this discretion was given to the judge, and in
no case whatever had it beeen laid down that even
supposing a jury had been improperly discharged,
it was equivalent to an acquittal of the party ac-
cused. For his own part he had no doubt that the
law gave to a judge the entire discretion to say
when a jury should be discharged, and although if
he exercised that discretion improperly, or cor-
ruptly, he might be liable to impeachment, this act
could not be made the foundation of a writ of error,
and certainly would not protect a prisoner from
being tried a second time for the offence he was
alleged to have committed.
The other learned judges concurred in the opi

mon expressed by the learned Chief Baron, and at
the same time said that while they admitted the
power of discharging a jury, it ought not to be
exercised except upon some overwhelming neces-
sity, and especially where such a course was ob-
jected to, still they were of opinion that when the
judge had decided upon taking such a step, upon
grounds which he considered sufficient, there was
no power to review that decision in a Court of
Error.
The. defendant, William Davidson, was then put
upon his trial before Mr. Baron Martin. The
offence alleged against him was that of having in-
decently assaulted a little girl, ten years of age,
named Annie Dickenson.
Mr. F. H. Lewis appeared for the prosecution ;
Mr. Sleigh and Mr. Best were counsel for the de-
fendant.
The case, from its nature, is one which, of course,
will not admit of the evidence being given in detail.
It appeared that on the 25th of August, the com-
plainant, a pretty, intelligent little girl, ten years
old, was in Victoria-park, and saw the prisoner
there lying upon the grass, and he spoke to her and
took her upon his lap, and while she was in that posi-
tion, it was alleged that the defendant had committed
the offence with which he was charged. The evidence
of the complainant was confirmed to a considerable
extent by that of two of the park-keepers, who re-
presented they saw what she stated took place.
The little girl admitted, however, in answer to
questions put by Mr. Sleigh, that . she had told
several stories in reference to her conduct on the
day the occurrence took place, and that she had
also been punished by her mother for telling false-
hoods. She also stated that on the day in question
she saw her governess going across the park, and
that she asked the defendant to let her hide behind
him in order that her governess might not see her.
A highly respectable witness named Mason, who
was called as a witness for the prosecution, admitted
that he had watched the defendant and the little
girl for some time, and that he saw nothing impro-
per take place between them, but it appeared that
when the prisoner was taken into custody by one
Of the park-keepers he offered him his watch, and
said that his father would give him 100 guineas the
next day, if he would let him go.
Mr. Sleigh made a powerful appeal to the jury on
behalf of the prisoner, commenting upon the unsa-
tisfactory nature of the evidence to support the
charge, and he called a number of highly respect-
able witnesses, both male and female, who gave the
prisoner a most excellent character for morality
and general good conduct.
Mr. Baron Martin having summed up,
The jury, after a short dliberation, expressed a
wish to retire. They left the court •at a quarter to
5 o'clock, and having been absent about a quarter
of an hour, came back and returned a verdict of not
guilty.