The Sun.
London, England, 1844-07-06 00:00:00

t ("Itgir'l4l-ition

THE FUNDS--(CLOSINO JRICES.)

BRITISH
Bank Stock 9
3 per Cent. Red ' • 99%

FUNDS.
Indian Stock .SI
Ditto Bonds — pm,

3 per Cent. Cons.
3% per Cent. Rctel ... 102% Ditto New Annuities ...
New 3% per Cent lOl% Ex. Bills, 1,0004 llid 73 pm.
New 5 per Cent. — Ditto 5001
Long Annuities to expire Ditto Small .........
Jan Irtin 12% Bank Stock for Acct..,. 101)
Oct: 185'.1 Consols for Opg. tB%
Jan. 1860 — India Stock for Acct....
FOREIGN FUNDS.
Austrian, 5 per Cent ........ iPortuguese,s per Cent —
Belgian, 5 per Cent, — Ditto, New Ditto —
Brazilian Fonds
Buenos Ayres, 6 per Cei.t... Russian, 5 per Cent —
Chllian, 6 per Cent — Ditto, Metallic ...... ...........
Colombian, 6 per Cent
Ditto, 18,24 — Ditto, 3 per Cent 3 %
Cuba Bonds, 6 per Cent Ditto, Deferred —
Danish, 3 per Cent
Greek, 18.5, 5 per Cent — Exchange
—f. —c.
Mexican, 5 per Cent • 564j French, 3 per Cent. —f —tw.
Ditto, 6 per Cent., 1837. — Dutch, 2% per Cent 6l
Peruvian, 1825, 6 per Cent... 26% Ditto, 5 per Cent lOO%
SHARES.
Birmingham and Gloucester (100 paid) 76
Ditto, New Shares, 17% paid 24
Bristol and Exeter (70 paid) 57%
Chester and Holyhead ( 5 paid)
Chichester and Brighton, 5 paid
Edinburgh and Glasgos,r, 50 paid
Great North of England, 100 paid
Great Western (75 paid)
Ditto Half Shares, 50 paid 791,4
Ditto Fifths, :2 paid
London and Birmingham (Stock)
Ditto, New Thirds, 2 paid
Ihtto New Quarters (s paid)
Lon ion and Brighton (50 paid)
Imndcsi and South Western (414 6s. 10d. paid) B3
Ditto Eighths (Iss. paid)
London and Croydon (Trunk) 171,E
Blanchester and Birmingham
North Midland (100 paid)
Ditto Half Shares, 40 paid - 47
Norwich and Brandon, 2 paid 74
South Eastern and Dover (33 2s 4d paid) ...
Ditto New Shares ( 4 paid)
._ ..

Trutt Valley, 2 paid . ~ II
York and North Midland (50 paid) i lO6
Ditto Half Shares (25 paid)
York and Scarborough Branch (2} paid) „,~,
Paris and Orleans (20 paid) • :,9tA

THE STATE TRIALS.

(THIRD DAY.)

WRIT OF ERROR.

HOUSE OF LORDS.-(THIS DAY.)

THE QUEEN AGAINST O'CONNELL4AND OTHERS.

Mr. KELLY (in continuation from our After-
noon Edition) said Still he would ask, would
this constitute one agreement or three? Supposing that
upon the same sheet of paper eight persons agree to
rob a garden, three of the eight agree to
murder the inhabitants of a house, and seven of the
eight agreed to rob another person on the highway,
would it make any difference that these three agree-
ments were on the same sheet of paper, or entered into
at the same time? Would it be one or three agreements?
It was perfectly clear they were three agreements, for
three different purposes. To carry this a little further,
ho would suppose that three persons were indicted fur a
conspiracy to compass the Queen's death, and that five
persons were indicted for a conspiracy to overawe the
Legislature, and that the three were found guilty
of high treason, and were pardoned 'by the Queen.
If it were one conspiracy the party could not be in-
dicted over again if he had been acquitted of the charge
of high treason or had received the Queen's
pardon. In that case the party could not be in-
dicted again for the conspiracy to commit trea-
son. Suppose three of the parties had agreed
together to compass the, Queen's death, and four other
parties in the same room, not knowing of this pre.
vious agreement between the three, agreed with
them to do certain acts for the purpose of over-
awing • the Legislature, could it be contended
in such a case where three parties had. agreed to do one
thing, and those same three, with five others, had agreed
to do a different thing, that it ails one and the same
conspiracy? lle would bring
eit to another test.
Suppose the Sovereign had given the three a
freo pardon for the treason, would that free
pardon also be a free pardon for the conspiracy with
the fine to overawe the Legislature? Here were eight
persons charged with attempting to create disaffection
in the army. Five were found not guilty. If it were
one conspiracy they were improperly found not guilty,
because three •had been 'found guilty. Now, the same
couldperson
sane conspiracy. That led . him to the charge which
had
been made,
o b
the guilty 'and not guilty of one and the
he jury. If this were one conspiracy,
as soon as evidence had been given against all the de-
fendants, every act done by one was evidence against
not
the' whole. He would" ask, would evidence against
one of these parsons who were proved to
have been guilty of conspiring to spread
disaffection in the army be admissible against the five,
when there was no evidence to convict them with being
parties to that conspiracy ? Suppose eight agreed to do
/cos. 1 and 2, seven to do Nos. 3 and 4, and three to do
No. s—suppose evidence offered against the three on that
charge, could that be admitted as evidence against the
remaining five, on a charge of spreading dnkaffection
against the Queen ? Would not the judge he
bound to tell the jury that the acts done
by, the three,in furtherance of one conspiracy,
were not admissable in evidence against the other five,
who were charged with a different conspiracy ?
The LORD CitaateEn.on—All this was practicable,
but difficult.
Mr. KELLY—It was so. Learned and able judges had,
in similar cases, separated the evidence which applied
to one defendant from that which applied to another,
but he used this argument to show that this difficulty
would not result if one conspiracy only were charged.
It was because three different conspiracies were
charged that it became necessary to discrimi-
nate the evidence. To try that question, let
them suppose an indictment framed so as to comprise
the charges on the findings. By tht4 indictment, eight
persons would be charged with conspiring te- do Nos. 1
and 2 ; seven, Nos. 3 and 4 ; and three to do No. 5. If
evidence were offered affecting one of the parties to the
last conspiracy, the Judge would have to discriminate
between that evidence and evidence affecting the whole
of the parties to . the other conspiracy. But if
they were charged with one eonspi:
racy, al act done
by one could be evidence against all. But in the
case in question, the indictment charged only one
conspiracy, and the finding was, for three conspiracies,
He would suppoie that any of the eight persons whose
names appeared in this indictment were to be indicted
over again for the matter contained in the first count,
those who had been found guilty of it would be found
guilty of but one conspiracy, and it would then be
autrefois conviction. If it was but one offence
there was upon the same record • conviction
and acquittal ; so that if the party was indicted for that
one offence, if he be indicted over again on that offence,
what was he to do ? Was he to plead autrefois convict,
or autrefois acquit ? That was the only way the matter
could be met ; it would be a conviction of part of one
offence, and an acquittal of another. He hdped
if that was so, it would be defined, for he could not
see what part of a conspiracy was. It was either one
offence, .or.none at all : it could' not be split into parts.
A conspiracy to rob a garden and burn a house must
be two offences, if lie was found guilty of the one and
acquitted of the other. Upon evidence being given of
conspiracy,
'
It must be with respect
to one of several
unlawful acts ; -the party charged with the several might
be convicted, but if that was so, ho must be convicted,
not of part, but of the whole crime, because the conspir;
Rey was the crime, but it must be well described.
They could not split an offence 4ito.parts ; and where a party
was convicted of two offences, the indictment was wrong.
They might. *subdivide a charge of this hind into a
great many part.i and convict on one or more' of any one
of those parts ; but directly they had convicted two or
more of any one charge, the count was quite suffi-
cient. They could only convict persons of one offence
under one charge. Upon an indictment for burglary, a man
might be found guilty of burglary or larceny, but only for
one offence. Ten men might be indicted for stealing ten
horses, and a great Variety of evidence affecting various per
sons might be tendered—the whole ten might be convicted of
, stealing the ten horses. There were a hundred different con-
ceivable convictions under that one count, but still there
could be but one conviction. The conviction must be for one
offence.
The LORD CnaNcmort—Take the case of two parties, A
and B, indicted for stealing two horses, A for stealing-one,
and B for stealing another.