The Sun.
London, England, 1844-07-09 00:00:00

-P-Bw-SEnismiaiTs4T-LAw.—The following Learned
Gentlemen have been appointed to the dignity of the
coif, viz., Edward Bellasis, Esq.," of the Chancery Bar,
John Alexander Kinglake, Esq., and Charles Chadwick
Jones, Esq., of the Common-law Bar.—Evening Paper.
NEWSPAPER FRAUDS.—A man of very shabby ex-
terior, who said his name was Osborne, was brought before
the Brighton bench of magistrates on Thursday, charged by
Mr. Bacon, the proprietor of the Sussex Advertiser, with ob-

-7 •
The LORD CallecELLoit—lt does not matter, because
if the-point-is-good 'for one, it is good for all. I only
wished to inquire who you represented.
Mr. KELLY then proceeded with his argument, and
contended that if the provisions of the Act had been
intended to apply to the Court of Queen's Bench
that court would have been expressly named, and quoted
the case of the " King v. Richards," 6th Barnewall and
Cresswell, p. 420, in support of this branch of his argu-
ment. Now, what were the words of the Act, "That, in
all cases of indictment the clerk of the Crown at the as-
sizes, and the clerk of the peace at the quarter sessions,
shall endorse on the back of the indictment the names of
the witnesses, and send them to the grand jury." To
what grand jury ? Why, of course to the grand jury at
the assizes, or to the grand jury at the sessions ; and the
foreman or other member of the grand jury so empanelled
shall swear such witnesses. Now it was contended that
the words " grand jury so empanelled " meant any grand
jury in Ireland. How could that be so ? What grand
jury could be meant but the grand jury at sessions or
assizes ? It was true there were general words in the
introductory portion, but those words were limited by
the words of the 56th section, in which there was no
mention made of the Court of Queen's Bench. There
was a proviso that no foreman of any grand jury should
examine a witness whose name was not indorsed on the
back of the indictment by the clerk of the Crown, or the
clerk of the peace, respectively. And, however general
the words might be in the introductory portion of the Act,
here was a new and entire provision, pointing out the mode
and the object to be attained bait clean and specific manner.
He would advert to an answer which had been given by
the court below. In order to extend the provisions of
the words " clerk of the 'Crown at the assizes," and
" clerk of the peace at the quarter sessions," to all
officers of that character, it seemed to have been thought
by, Some Of the judges that because such a construction
was giVen.to ancient statutes, such a construction should
also be given to, modern statutes, and they referred to,the
statute. circumspicite agatis, 'but that statute was set
aside in the case of Wilson v. Nadley, 7th East, p. 127.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said be did not think, the
judges below had relied on the ancient meaning the
statutes. Mr. Justice Perrin distinctly, and in words,
threw such a doctrine overboard.
Mr. KELLY said he was glad to be relieved from ar-
guing that, but it was in his recollection that Chief
Justice Pennefather referred to it. If it were the in-
tention of the Legislature that in all cases of indictment
throughout Ireland the grand jury should administer the
oathinstead of the. Court of Queen's Bench, it
would have been, very *easy for the Act of Parlia-
ment to say so. Upon these grounds he submitted
that this statute did not apply_to the Court of Queen's
Bench, in Dublin, at all ; but he ,submitted, at all events,
with confidence, that it was of the very essence of those
criminal proceedings under, and according to this..new
Act Of Parliament, that whether the witnesses were sworn
in by the grand jury or in open court, it should be
certified that they were sworn, and it should appear
on the back of the bill that the Act of Parliament was
complied with in this respect. It was necessary that
the Act of Parliament should be strictly complied with.
It was not complied with in this respect, and on this
ground also he submitted that the judgment should be
reversed. With regard to the remaining points in this
case, which had been so fully gone through. by his
Learned Friend, Mr. Peacock, and first, with regard to
the point of repugnance in the finding of the jury,
it would appear from ,this finding that eight persons,
leaving out the deceased, were indicted for a conspiracy
with each other to do certain unlawful acts ; seven per-
sons were found guilty of that conspiracy, and of the
whole of that conspiracy, in the largest and most em-
phatic language which could be used in finding persons
guilty of the entire offences charged against them ; seven
were found guilty of conspiring with each other and the
eighth : then came the finding that the eighth person
was not guilty of the whole premises ;• that was, not
guilty of conspiring with them ; so that upon the
record there was this repugnance, that seven persons
were found guilty of conspiring with each other and with
the eighth, and the eighth was not found guilty of con-
spiring with the others. (The Learned Gentleman then
went on to argue the point respecting the continuances,
but their Lordships seemed to take a different view,frora
him upon the point.) He would next contend, that
the Court below should have pronounced judg-
ment on the points upon which the defendants
were found not guilty. This was necessary in order to
secure the .defendents from another indictment. There
could be no doubt that this was not a complete and per-
fect jadgment, and he contended that their Lordships
could not amend it. Then, with regard to the reeogni-
sauces, which were fully entered into by his Learned
Friend, Mr. Peacock, he would contend that the
judgment was bad, because the time at which the
recognisancos were to be entered was uncertain. It was
uncertain whether they were to be entered into at the
beginning or the termination of the sentence. He sub-
mitted that, on this ground likewise, the judgment was
bad. There was but one more point which he would
advert to, and, having already occupied so much of their
Lordships' time, he should not feel justified in doing
so, did he not feel a confident opinion that the
point was of the • highest importance to all the
defendants. He meant the objection with regard
to the challenge of the array. It was required by Act
of Parliament that the juries in Ireland should be selected
in the particular form prescribed by Act_ of Parliament,
and it was of the highest importance that juries should
be fairly and impartially selected, in order to give
security to the subject.- But their Lordships were
aware, and from the facts brought fOward,
it was perfectly manifest, that the Act of Parliament
had not been complied with here, and that those parties
had been tried by a jury.in whom there could be no
manner of confidence, they not being chosen or selected as
the law required. It was evident that a jury-list
from which the special jury and the jury panels were
made out had been fabricated by some persons unknown
for an' unlawful and injurious purpose, and that
from this list so fabricated the jury had, been
chosen which tried the defendants. It might- be that
any stranger who was badly disposed towards the
defendants had forged and fabricated the list from
beginning to end, and it was complained that this
was to the injury and damage at least of ,one of
the defendants. Their Lordships would not permit the
provisions of an important Act of Parliament under
which the jurors were chosen, who were to try a
man, it might be for his life, to be violated, but
they would require it to be strictly complied with.
He submitted to their Lordships upon this ground, as
upon all the other grounds mentioned in the course of
the argument, that the defendants not having had that
to which every British subject was entitled, in every
trial civil or criminal—that is, mit having had a fair trial
by law—were entitled to claim the benefit of the error
upon the record, and to submit to their Lordships that
this judgment ought to be reversed. Those were the
grounds upon which they submitted, that this judgment
was erroneous, and they submitted with all confidence to
their Lordships, that upon all, or some of them, the
judgment must be reversed.—(The Learned Counsel
concluded his address at four o'clock, and this clOsed the
case for the traversers.)
The LORD CHANCELLOR inquired whether Counsel
for the Crown were ready to proceed.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (for Ireland) said,that the
Attorney-General for England had left the House, but
he would be ready to proceed, if necessary, in a few •
minutes.
After a short consultation between their Lordships,
hey adjourned until six o'clock.

At a quarter-past six o'clock, the LORD CHANCELLOR
(addressing the Attorney-General) said—That they
were ready to hear the arguments on behalf of the

Crown.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, on behalf. of the
Crown, it would not be necessary either for himself or
his Learned Friend, the Attorney-General for Ireland,
to occupy any great portion of the time of their Lord-
ships, because, although the arguments for the plaintiffs
in error had lasted four days, yet the attention which he
had thought it his duty to pay to the arguments of his
Learned Friends would enable him to present the case
before their Lordships in a much narrower compass,
both as to the arguments that had been used,
and the answers to them. He would not occupy their
Lordships' time by any preliminary observations, but
would at once consider the objections that had been
raised on the other side in the present case. He would
begin with that one which, though not of material con-
sequence in the present case, yet was of material im-
portance to the administration of criminal justice. He
alluded to the entering up of the judgment, and of the re-
cord. It was quite impossible in his view of the
case, that his Learned Friends could succeed in their
arguments without calling upon the House to overturn
the established law of this country as far back as there
were any traces of it. He would appeal to any, of their
Lordships whether, until this question was mooted at
the bar, any lawyer in England had ever heard, or
would venture to say, that he knew of any case
whatever in which a judgment had been set up in
the mode in which it was sought to be set up in
the present case. If their Lordships were to alter the
law as it now stood, hundreds, nay thousands, would have
been suffering punishment improperly. There ,could be
no doubt that the course which had been pursued in the
present case in Ireland, was the recognised principle and
practice of the courts. There was not a single instance of
judgment being entered up in the manner in which they
sought that it should be. They asserted that the law
was that on a motion for arrest of judgment, if one count
wa's bad the whole were bad, and that on a writ of
error'the judgment must be reversed. That being their
doctrine it became important to consider what were the
arguments, and what were the authorities upon which it
was put forward. They stated that by anolbgy with
civil cases if there was a general verdict and one count
was bad the judgment was arrested, and then ,a writ of
venire de novo issues, but if there is error the judgment
is reversed. That was one ground on which the counsel
for the plaintiffs in error had proceeded. Another was
this, that a party found guilty of only one offence
charged in the indictment could not be punished for all—
such a thing would be a hardship on the parties. That
he believed was the substance of the argument on the
other side.. He would net attempt to enter at all into
the principle upon which the law decided. MS Learned
Friends had not stated a single authority to call in
question the law of the country, but they rested them-
selves on civil cases, and the hardships to the
defendants. That being the ground put forward on the
other side, be would state what he considerted to be the
principle of the law. He believed it was this, that the
iddgment should be warranted by the record and the
, verdict of the jury, and then it was not an erroneous
judgment. In civil cases the. judgment was, that the
plaintiff had recovered against the defendant the damages
awarded by the jury, and therefore in these eases, to say
whether the judgment was right, they must look to the
record and the verdict ; and if they did not warrant it, it
was wrong. He would take a single civil case of two
' counts—one a special agreement, and the other money
had and received. The jury fOund damages 500/. Sup-
pose it should turn out that the special count was defec-
tive, the jury would not assess the damages at 5001., be-