The Sun.
London, England, 1826-08-11 00:00:00

a hole in the wall, like a Swine, &c. were not proved at al ;
and that the libel was of the most injurious tendency. It was
particularly so, when published, as the last libel was, with a
knowledge that some of - these circumstances were to he made. ,
the subject of legal. in vo!s.tjgation. In the pleas put in by
the defendants, he observed 'one in which it was stated, that
• the defendantS had only copied the paragraph from another
newspaper ; whatever answer that might he in a criminal
prosecution by indictment for publishing it libel, he wished it tobe
underatoed it could be none at all, tvhere there Was an actien for
damages. There was another most abominable plea put in—the
last, that the *bike blabber stated is true; this was moat abomi-
nable, because it should be known it was the duty of the defendant,
' when pleading his justification, to plead severally to each and
every article, specifying distinctly in what particular instance the
facts are true. He did not think, from the evidence, there was
tht slightest foundation to charges, the fact of the, thigh being
broken, as happening after the lunatic came into the care of
the plaintiff. There was no Contradiction of a material nature to
any of the evidence brought forward to prove the uniform treat-
ment which the lunatic received after the death of his father.
—They all stated that be was,treated as one of the family, and he
believed it. The question then was one of damages; for, as the
defendant had not proved the whole of the libel, as he was bound to
do, there must he a verdict against him. Damages were certainly
more due when the libellous publications were such as to poison
the public mind. They would exercise their judgment coolly and
dispassionately, and if they thought the several matters not justified,
they should give so fair a remuneration to the plaintiff as should
be a compensation to his injured character ; and in doing this he
recommended them to act with moderation.
The Jury consulted some time, when the Foreman addreased his
Lordship, and said, they were agreed on the pleas, but not on the
damages.
Mr. Justice BURRMOH—You had better retire, Gentlemen,
and consider your verdict.
A bailiff was sworn to attend them to their room, where they
remained about half an hour, and then brought in their verdict
for the plaintiff—Damages 4001., costs 40s.
There is a similar action commenced against the proprietor'of
the Salopiart Journul, in whose paper the libel was first insert•
eel, and which is expected to bat at least for two days longer.—
Some overtures, we understood, were made to have it decided by
the result of this, but they were rejected by the defendants.
' There is also a prosecution by indictinent at the suit of the ma-
gistrates of the county of Stafford, against the plaintiffs, for alleged
• cruelty to the lunatic. Both those cases mutt protract the busi-
ness of the tuoizes to the next week.

Air. Phillips is retained for the defendants.
At the conclusion of the trial, a gentleman said to his Unli-
t:hip, my Lord, the foreman of the last jury wishes to address
you on the subject of an attack wade upon him by one of the de-
fendants.

Mr. Justice Burrough—Who is he?
The Foreman (Mr. Bayer), came forward and stated lie loot
been grossly insulted on account of the verdict he had given.
Mr. Justice BURROUGH—By whom 7—Mr. Bird.
Air. Justice Buttaouou directed Mr. Bayer to be sworn.,
The witness then said :—After the verdict was given, I was
walking in the passages of the Gaurt, where the defendant's attor-
ney met me, he said, "I am much obliged to you for your ver-
dict." I walked on, and met him in the street, where he again
said, " I hope yonr verdict was a conscientious one, that I might
expect George Smith (the lunatic) to visit mfpillow that night."
He then left me, and went on a few yards. He came back, and
said, "I wish to ask you a question : did you not walk into
Court with Mrs, Flint, the wife' of the attorney for the plaintiff,
this morning." He repeated, over and over again, that I might
expect George Smith on my pillow. I replied I should not, un •
less he brought him there. He then said, when he next came to
Gloucester, he hoped he would meet au honest Jury.
Mr. Justice BusiaouGis asked Was the attorney in Court?
Mr. Bird presented himself, and said he hoped to be heard in
his own defence. AU he had said to Mr. Royer wm, " let me
advise you, the next time you go into a jury-box, not to play the
part of an advocate;" and this without any threat, or the inten-
tion of it. .
Mr. Justice •BuRROUGH.-..-Then, Sir, you have behaved ex-
tremely indecent.
Mr. Bird—l shOuld be sorry:asset indecently; but in my own
defence I must say, that being both attorney and defendant in this
cause, in the warmth of the moment having suet the foreman, I
said what I did ; and I must say, I never met, in a practice of 21s
years, a Jury who put so many and-such qmmtions to the witnesses.
Mr. Justice Buitrionon.— Sir, you ate aggravating the
offence; my judgment is that you be committed, Mt. Reyes may,
if his please., accept a proper apuletty from you.
Mr. Itird.-1 ant ready to toulumt to any thing your Lordship
pleiisea,.aml was proceeding to state further, when he was inter-
rupted by-
Mr. Justice BuirsouGii.—No words, sir, you may apolopite

or not. . • .• • .
Mr. Bird—,Then, under, rut. Lordship's. directions, 1 am sorry
for what I have said ; and I beg to say; that I said it with, respect
'to Mrs. Flint under an impression that the Foreman did walk into
Court with Mrs. Flint..
Mr. Justice Buttaollow—Alr. Flay*,
:you,:have acted quite
tight, to bring this matter before thecourci.aMl you,
,Sir, also
tight, to make an apology. „

MAMSTONE, AuatlST 9.

CROWN SIGI-TIIE KING V. STRINGER. AND ANOTHER.

This was an indictment for an assault and false imprisonment.
The cue, in itself, was net of general importance, but it gave rise
to a disenssion upon Mr. Peel's late Act for facilitating proceedings
in criminal cases ('7 Geo. IV. c. 64, s. 20), deserving of some
public notice. That Act passed on the 26th of May last, and by
the 20th section, after reciting that justice had been often defeated
in criminal eases by formal objections appearing on the record,
it enacted in substance, that no judgment should he stayed or
arrested, by reason of any defect apparent on the face of the re-
cord, after verdict, or outlawry, or after judgment by conks+
.ion; and that the want of the words " with force and arms,"
" against the statute," " against the peace," &c., in any in-
tlicttnent, should. not he a ground for staying or arresting the
judgment. The indictment in question was tbund at the last As-
sizes, before the passing' of the Act, and was traversed till
the present Assizes. It charged the defendants, Thomas and
Albert Stringer, with assaulting and falsely imprisoning
Thomas Humphreys, at Cudhana, on the 17th of February, in the
seventh year of the reign of George 111., and concluded in the
usual form, " against the said King's peace, his crown and dig-
nity." It was an old printed form, of the time of George 111.,
and had been filled up to suit the present.occasion, but omitted to
alter the reign in which the offence was supposed to have been
committed. In answer to the first qiiektion put to the prosecu-
tor, it appeared that the transaction in question took place on the
17th February list, and not on the 17th February, in the 7th year
of the reign of George 111. A question thereupon arose, whether the
defendants could he tried on such an indictment, the offence being
'alleged to have taken place at a time when none of the parties
were in existence. , •
Mr. Law, for the defendants, contended, that this was an ob-
jection available before verdict, as matter of variance between the
record and the evidence, anti that Mr. Peel's Acf was inapplicable
to the came. On these grounds, he submitted that the defendants
were entitled to an acquittal.
Mr. Astoaxwo/ contra, submitted, first, that as the 'Set was
expressed in: general terms, without any limitation of tune to
the vommeneement of its operation, it must, by consequence,
he construed to embrace the present case.
See ontily, the object
of the statute was to prevent a failure of justice, by allowing of
objections, in point of fortn, wholly besides the merits of thl, ease
and to dispense with the prolif Of immaterial avernients. The
present objection was of this nature, for it Merely went to the
time when the offence was alleged to have been Committed, which
was wholly immaterial, and might, he rejected as surpluage.--:
Proof, that an assault had been committed in the comity of 'Kent
was quite snfficient to give the Court jurisdiction, without going
on to show that it was committed at the precise time alleged.
. Mr. Justice Hominy') said, in substance,--It appears to toe
that the 20th section of the Act of Parliament does nut in terms
extend to this particular use. Whether it does consequenti
is another question, upon which I have at present formed no opi-
nion. At first I was clearly of opinion, that as the indictment
was found by the Grand Jury at the last Assize', and as the, eta-
tute did not pans until afterwards, it could not by possibility be
brought within its operation ; but I.do not find, any thing in the
clause to restrain to indiCtments " to be preferred,7 which words
are generally found in statueintended to have a prosective
ope-
ration ; and therefore it seems to toe, that there is nothing repug-
nant in giving it a retrospective construction, so as to'enihracc,eisae
case actually brought to trial after the passing of the Act, though the
indietmeolt was found previoully. The Tiestien then whether
- the. Act to have a. retrosPeOwe 6P"'ltion) this
comes within it by consegnene4 tholigh it,,does ni)t iii teriui..;--
UndoOteclh' tlii, is is an Act of Parliaincitt which ought to be
'construed. strictly, and I ~.„certain *nine doubt upon its con-
struction, , I shall. save the point. it is. Stated amongst' the mu-
ine.rated ohjecti,
winch til.n,ll nut he avai/able, that if, after vet..
diet, it spposrs that the faa i. 5 averred to have:taken place on, an
impossible iLlyi it shall be, no ot,jection iu *eat of judgrnent.----
The question. thclii May (4-
, whether it is not an immaterial afiet
;Wien, that the assault' took place in the'reign of George the
Third, and whether it may not be altogether rejected as surplu-