The Sun.
London, England, 1866-05-07 00:00:00

EXCHEQUER CHAMBERS.

(Sittings in Error, before Lord Chief Justice Erle, the
Lord Chief Baron, Barons Bramwell, Martin, and Pigott,
and Justices Byles and Sbaith.)
THE QUEEN T. CHARLOTTE WINSOR.

It being understood that their lordships would deliver
judgment in tho case of the prisoner this morning, the
court was crowded immediately it was opened for tho ad-
mission of the public.

The prisoner, who was brought up in custody of the
gaoler of Newgate, accompanied by ono of the female
warders, was underneath the registrar's desk facing the bar
and kept her head down during the delivery of the judg-
ment, which occupied only a short time.
Lord Chief Justice Erie said that in this case it was
pleaded;that there was an error in the record, as the prisoner
had been tried by a second jury on the same indictment,
but the court were clearly of opinion that there was no
such error apparent. They had come to that conclusion,
notwithstanding the arguments of the learned counsel on
behalf of the prisoner and the authorities which he had
cited, because they found that the judge bad authority
to dismiss the jury before giving their verdict.
They considered that all the authorities, with the excep-
tion of the Queen v. Conway and Lynch, clearly pointed
to the conclusion at which they had arrived. He did
not think it necessary to go through all the cases that had
been cited, and the court were of opinion that the pro-
ceedings in this case in the Court of Queen's
Bench, and in this court, originated in a statement
made by Sir Edward Coke upon which some misap-
prehension prevailed. If the view taken of that statement
was correct then a power would be given to the judge in
event of the jury not coming to a verdict, to lock them up
till death. They held that the judge had the fullest dis-
cretion the matter of discharging the jury, because he
was the person to decide on its necessity ; and even if he
had, according to their opinion, not acted with discretion,
still there was no law court which had authority to dispute
his action.

The learned judge then adverted to some of the argu-
ments relied on by the counsel for the prisoner, in order to
show they were not in conformity with the great leading
authorities. He referred next to the argument founded on
the alleged inadmissibility of Mary Harris as a witness.
That had not been pleaded on the present record ; but
even if it had been the Court were of opinion that the
evidence was quite admissible.
His Lordship then directed that the prisoner, who had
been confined in Newgate since the 24th ult., should be
delivered by the governor of that jaol to the sheriff for
the county of Devon, and be lodged in the county prison
to await her Majesty"s pleasure.
The prisoner was then removed through the back en-
trance of the court.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
(Sittings in Banco, before Justices',Blackburn, Mellor,
and Lush.)
MARSH V. HUGHES AND WRIGHT -ALLEGED LIBEL.

This was an application for a rule by the plaintiff, the
Rev. William Marsh, to file a criminal information for a
libel against the defendants, the first of whom is a farmer,
and the latter a printer at Halstead, in Essex, and also the
editor of a paper called the Halstead Times. The plaintiff was
appointed to the vicarage of Wickensfield, Essex, in 1858,
and had resided in that neighbourhood ever since. There
was a strong feeling on the part of the Dissenters against
paying church-rates, but a rate was made, a majority of 30
of the ratepayers being in its favour. A great deal of
angry feeling pervaded the neighbourhood, and the de-
fendant Hughes, who had been a candidate for the
office of churchwarden, and who was a Dissenter, wrote a
letter reflecting on the conduct of the plaintiff, the writing
and publication of which constituted the libel alleged.
The Court considered that the plaintiff had not proven
his case.—Rule refused accordingly.