The Sun.
London, England, 1857-12-24 00:00:00

T ll E ,fry
t, IN Lo IN •rt
k-)

from the jury, stating, that if they were confined
till Doomsday they would not agree.
After a pause, his lordship asked if both sides
agreed that the jury should be discharged?
Mr. James (who appeared for the defence) was
quite content to leave the matter to his lordship.
Mr. Hawkins (in the absence of Mr. Sergeant
Byles, who led the case for the prosecv,tion), said
he was not authorised to consent.

The jury were then sent for by the direction of
Lord Campbell, and came into court at 6 o'clock.
His Lordship explained to them that he had
framed the six questions in order to avoid puzzling
them with technicalities. If they agreed in finding
them all in the negative that would be a verdict of
not guilty ; but if they agreed in finding them all
the affirmative, that would be a verdict of guilty,
because it would clearly show that the assignment
of perjury was formed. if they found some of them
in the affirmative and others in the negative, they
would tell him so.

The Foreman—We have considered these mat-
ters over, my lord, and we cannot agree.
Second Juror—We cannot agree upon any one cf
the questions in the affirmative, but we have found
two of them in the negative.
Lord Campbell—Until you are all agreed upon
the different questions I must send you back.
Another Juror wished to be furnished with the
indictment.
Lord Campbell—You may have it, but I think it
will rather embarrass than assist you. I should
have thought 12 intelligent gentlemen would have
had no difficulty i❑ coming to a decision on the six
plain questions of fact which I have submitted to
you. His lordship having re-read the questions,
said they must agree whether the defendant was
guilty of having sworn falsely in regard to any or
all of these matters.

A Juror—lf five agree, my lord, to any one of
these propositions, what will be the effect?
Lord Campbell—lf you agree to any one of them,
then that would be a materialassignment of perjury.
The jury again withdrew, taking with, them the
depositions as to the conversation at the club. After
they had been absent an hour,
Lord Campbell came again upon the bench, and
stated that ho had received a communication from
the jury to this effect : " My Lord,—We cannot
agree in the affirmative on any one of the six ques-
tions submitted to us. On the general question,
whether the verdict shall be for the crown or the
defendant, we are about equally divided, and there
is little or no probability of our agreeing." Unciar
these circumstances (continued his lordship) I of
my own authority, discharge the jury.
Demonstrations of applause followed this an-
nouncement.

Lord Campbell observed that the case would be
tried by another jury, who, he hoped, would be
unanimous one way or the other.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT.
(Before Vice Chancellor Sir W. P. Wood.)

BROWNE V. THE LONDON NECROPOLIS AND NATIONAL
3IA.USOLEITM COMPANY.

The Vice-Chancellor gave judgment in this case,
which has recently been argued at great length,
and fully reported in The. Sun of December 18 and

19, and said that the difficulties presented by the
defendants in answer to the bill were twofold-
-Ist, as to the form ; and, 2d, as to the substance
of the suit. As to the form, he had thought that
there was considerable difficulty in saying that the
bill could under any circumstances be sustained.
The bill was in effect for specific performance of an