The Sun.
London, England, 1826-08-16 00:00:00

~:,,~ _~

commitment for the felnity.—[The learned Counsel here read the
words of the commitment, which appeared in our paper of the
other day]. rfreinust admit that the committal was framed so 111
to biiwg it within,the words of the statute, and the word feloni-
ously had bsen;introduced. That constituted the only difference,
for the form (Cone and the other was precisely the same. Whe-
ther this charge on the commitment did not, in fact, give hint
notice of the offence, Which he would be called on to answer, was
a question for hie Lordahip to determine. It certainly appeared
to him (Mr. I. W.), that when, the substance was the same, the
introduction of the word felony did not create such a difference as
to entitle the defendant to this indulgence,

BRou4ItA3l; on ties same de, observed that the prosecutor
could have no wish but that his Lordship should be satisfied—
that he should receive all the advantages he was entitled to. The
greater part of the arguments for the defendants. might he laid
aside, since be-did not mean to deny that, at Outman Law, the
defendant: O. 'Wakefield, might have traversed.
Mr. Juttiee Paax said, the constant use had been, that where a
man was indicted 'for a misdemeanour, he was arraigned and
Fielded, and then asked whether he would try.
Mr. Baotiottast 'observed, that that reduced to the question,
whether the defendant should plead, now or afterwards, it being
quite clear that they could not call on the trial at present, so that
the only question was,' whether the delay should be before or after
pleading. It was inconvenient that the bill being found, the de
fendant should now go free, and delay saying whether he was
guilty' or not. The question might turn entirely on the words of
the statute " for such offence," and whether they be applied to a
portion only of the section, or overrode the whole.
Mr. Justice Pautt.—.The object of the statute, as you must
well know, was to prevent libels, which then inundated the coun-
try, from being circulated. The defendants in such cases had
frequently made the most inconvenient delays, and the object
of
this statute was to prevent the recurrence of such delays in future,
It was, therefore, clear that the statute was, intended to ripply only
to misdemeanours -,, and the meaning of the words, "for such
offence," proved that it was not meant to apply to felonies, or the
word felony would have been specially introduced.
Mr. Cotaltalg said, that all the,observetions which they had
before made with regard to E. G. Wakefield's traversing, would
apply to the postponement of W. Wakefield's trial. He was
bound over to appear at the Assizes, to answer such matters
as were preferred against him, when he entered into his recog-

nizancete.
Mr. Justice Petite, said, that the recognizance* was to answei
not such matters merely, but all such matters.
Mr. COLTMAN would defer ever to the inclination of his Lord-
ship's opinion. If, upon looking to the statute, he was of opinion
that the defendant ought to plead to the particular offence for
which he was indicted at the time, he would do so. The statute
required a party to plead to the offence for which he was com-
mitted to custody ; which meant the offence specifically charged
against him, and not all offences of which he might afterwards be
accused.
Mr. Justice PARK asked what was the good of all these objec-
tions?
Mr. CpLTMAN.answered, that there might he extremely good
reasons far iiishirigio postpone the trial.
Mr. Justice Perm said, that no doubt all prisoner.) wished to
delay their trial as long as possible.
Mr. TINDAL, observed, they-would not keep up the argument
against his Lordship's inclination, if they were once .convinced
that they had made themselves clearly understood by hie Lordship.
William Wakefwld had entered inte recognizances to appear and
answer. By the Common Law he was not bound to try, but as
the Statute had altered the course of, the Common Law in some
respects, the question Walk whether it had done so in all? He soh-
witted, that as offence* of various kinds were comprehended under
the word misdemeanour, if his Lordship should hold here that a
man indicted for one misdemeanour nuist immediately take his
trial for another, he would in fact be declaring that a defendant so
situated must forego all the advantages which the Common Law
had given him, !,,
Mr. Pangs said, 'that the case was similar to a surety given to
keep the peace, and in default of doing so, to appear in Court and
answer to the matters against him. If a person was bound under
such a recognizance, surely his Lordship could not hold that when
he did appear be was bound at once to plead to any other charge
-*het might be broughtapinat him.
Mr. Justice PARR—This case presents itself to nie in two or
three rtifferent points for consideration. The first is whether Ed-
ward
ee, Wakefield shill'-be- permitted or not to traverse to the
next assizes; ant} the distinctions taken hetWeen his being hound
to plead, and . the liberty of traversing, or only patina
off di, tad 1.1.0 1t
ir this b.ext assizes. I ens of opinion, 'that it, the in-
diatnient heel:been fbuad before the statute 16' Geo. M., that he
would have a eight to say he would not try now. eveuldturve
a right to sayabis after he hid-been taken' into custody on a Bench
warrant. It,is a different question whether, being in custody, he
can say he will not. lam of opinion- that he eannot refuse to
plead, but that the Act enables hint to putoff the trial. The Act
WAS passed with a view to regulate- -easee of misdemeanour
Awl not of felony, and its object was to' prevent delay in.pleading
to eases of misdemeanour. That• Act took away the power of tre•
versinL from persons who had been committed to.anewer for such
easneetefer 20 days befbre the mine ; and I am of opinion, that
with regard to IL G. Wakefield, the statute does not relate back
to the time of his commitment for felony, as it would have done
hid he been', committed for misdemeanour. Ile might, there-',
fore, say that he would not consent now to the trial proceeding.
Whether' Or not 'he may be compelled to plead now, is, as I said
before, h very different question. What Mr. Tindal has said upon
this subject presses very much on' my mind, for he may require
time to commie with his Counsel as to whether lie shall demur, or
plead to part or lo the whole of the indictment. At present the
inclination of my opinion is that he is bound to plead, but I will
not determine it at once., but will take time to consider the tines-
time. It seems to me that some fallacy has arisen in the argument
from' not properly' considering' this nature of My commission. I
am here to deliver the gaol of the county. lam therefore bound
to know the reason why any and every person is kept in custody;
and when I find a charge of so serious and alarming a description
, (foe undottleedly it is a charge of a most heinous crime),
aol I must
do iriy fiest'to determine that charge, and to deliver the gof
the person. I will therefore commit my brether • Hullock as
to the course which I ought to pursue, and from his knowledge
I shall gain. much aseistanee, as be has had the experience of the
sessions, which never had the opportunity of obtaining. As to
W. Wakefield; I' em clearly of opinion that he is bound to
appeci, 'S as
'plead; and try. There lute been. some inaccuracy
to hie recognizance. Here ' the recognizance is special. I
will nOt ,tenter into a disquisition whether the words " such
offence" teen the ' special offence with which he was originally
. charged. I ant inclined to think not; but why, if he objected
to the recognize/ices, did he not object at the time he entered into
them? They are printed recognizanees, but the special part is ilia
traduced and is written; and the recognizance% are adapted to
those terms which the, Court deemed necessary to require. The
Court thought proper to impose certain condition*, and into thoet
conditions the defendant has voluntarily entered. Thera is no
doubt that be was then attended by some, if not all, the Learned
Gentlemen who are now advising him, and yet he entered into a
condition to appear here, and answer all such matters and things as
sluauld, in his Majesty'S behalf, be objected against him. With
this condition he ishotind to comply. I now go to the other part
of the argument. It is said that there is a difference between
the charge to Which the defendants are now called on to an
-
ewer, end that formerly preferred against them. It seems to
me filet both state a siege case of abduction, and the calling
On these► to answer now is not like the case which has been sup-
posed of voquiringdefendante to answer to a charge different from
that which they expected to meet. It would be a rare ease, if he
were brought here for abduction, and being here, should be re-
quired to plead to an indictment for perjury,- or' any other misde-
meanour, which might in the mean' time have been preferred
Against him. lint when the two charges are virtually the same,
that hardship comsat he sent to exist. Ido not agree with Mr.
Williams, that on the face of the indictment the conimitraent is
the lames or the word* in the one we taken from the statute Of
Philip and bury, whilst in the other that statute is not referred to ;
and in the first, Turner is described air the heir apparent to
her father, whilst its the other no allele description is given of her.
My opiniart is,, that r.dwatd Gibbon Wokefteld has a right to era.
vale the trial of this indictment. I ill not say now wheth r
e he
t plead instqnter or not (by instw
anter I mean, of course,
rrtY
etw morning); but as to the other defendant, I em dearly of
marl, ,
re„n *oat he is bound to plead instanter.
Win. atxordheely pleaded " Not Guilty."
Justice PA gge•--Let him be committed.
.H. „70tinsel objected to his co_ Pe en. itment, ebserTfi anat. he Was
the whole tune of the
is . to appear tinning
con-
under reck.;',''n'za-ne .
tintiatice of t. `re "ilze9.
Ills jenensnri, conseitte.il
letl to letlli him g
he o at large ou his former
io ato more strict in his ate
recognizance ; but te.''"u)ln
tendance on the Court.
. 4ed "Not Guilty" to the indictment
Wakefield also plea, eain objeete of the argument had
foss the misdeineannio, as the
been m iectire lii ,the right of travee
E. G. Waltefild and his brother %Igen.
"Not Guilty„ to the indictment for the comP".; , of issuing a
Mr. Justice P.eux then intimated his intention

then severally pleaded
-sey.