The Sun.
London, England, 1844-09-04 00:00:00

THE STATE TRIALS,

WRIT OF ERROR.

HOUSE OF LORDS.-THIS DAI
JUDGMENT IN TIIE CASE OF O'CONNO

AND OTHER 3.
.4 01
The approaches to the House of Peers v 4.-.„
crowded this morning as they were on
.Mondayl;
within five minutes after the doors were opened
galleries and the space below the bar were filt,
every part. The counsel occupied the same P
that they did on Monday. The attendance of ico
was large. Among those present we observed the
Marquis of Winchester, the Earl of Verulamw
Earl of Stradbroke, the Earl of Shaftesbury, theth,
of Hardwicke, Viscount Strangford, Lord Itedes;
Lord Beaumont, Lord Brougham, Lord Deny
Lord Cottenham, and Lord Campbell.
,41
The Bishop of LICHFIELD and Covzicrla

prayers.
The LOAD CHANCELLOR laid on the table the,
plementary report of the Commissioners of B:Ye4
His Lordship then took his seat upon the Wools'
a quarter after ten.
GRAY e. THE QUEEN (IN Erato.)
This case was the first called on for judgment'
The LORD CHANCELLOR said, that in this essed
could not find anything to add to the argutneflelia
the majority of the judges, that he was satisfied
11bt
the conclusion to which they had come, 13,,d0S
therefore moved that the judgment of the court "-to
should be reversed, and that a venire de novo shod
if necessary, be granted.
Lord BROUGHAM agreed entirely in the soluef°
nion, and in fact never entertained a doubt 111)°n
subject. dr
Lord CAMPBELL was also of opinion that the it
ment ought to be reversed, and with all resPeca 01
the opinion of the majority of the Irish judges
the Learned Barons who agreed with theiru'os
thought they were confounding the reason anuted
rule. The reason for granting the pereolP
challenge might be in favorem vitro , but the ruk,ea,
to grant the peremptory challenge in all cases of il'ors
and so the rule must remain until the Legi°
should think proper to alter it.
The motion for reversing the sentence 11115(10
agreed to, and it was ordered that the court below,,,
issue a venire de novo.
O'CONNELL AND OTHERS v. THE q-,
(IN ERROR)—JUDGMENT. e itS
The Lonn CHANCELLOR moved that in this
judgment of the court below be affirmed. Wheplifsil
case and the record of the proceedings in it were
presented at their Lordships' bar, it had cue 01
to him, as he believed it had occurred to etboi
other Noble Lord who had attended to 1,011
proceedings, that it would be proper!, 401
with reference to the questions to be r 01r
and to the nature and character of the ote_:ies to
cumstances connected with the case, and insr
avoid all possible suspicion of political- t n ,„o,'
the part of their Lordships' House, °will
the assistance of the judges. That Owls
had been requested, and those learned persons(' 0'
assembled in their Lordships' House, and hale
tended with their accustomed patience to the ebed
'rate arguments which with great legal ability
been urged at their Lordships bar. As soon—a pet'
consistent with their other duties, those learn` tbs
sons had assembled together, had :consulted °olo'
subject, and after giving it most mature and }std'
tive consideration, had attended before their Its $
ships' and hid communicated to them the resumiste
their consideration. With respect to all the ri-noos
except one question, their judgment was Oen f
With respect to that other question, seven -roar;
learned judges, with the Chief Justice of the vie esti
of Common Pleas at their head, had expressed ~11000
distinct, and decided opinion against the 051.etwel'
which had been urged. Two others of the .It, Pro'
3
for whom he had the greatest possible .resPeF;
flounced an adverse opinion ; but in his °Pit Oft
he might be permitted to say, that he was sn'sli 4';
Lordships' concurred with him, at least 5 it)!
them as were present on the occasion, t see
opinion was accompanied with much doubt en oje.o
tation. He thought, under these circumstance'', astf
their Lordships were thoroughly and entireli 411
fled, that the opinion of the great Pleb!:
of the judges was founded on a 1-7,00
error, that they would feel themselves. 04",
by their decision to adhere to and support ther4oo
ment, and to act in conformity with it. Beaneill
shortly state the nature of the question; snose!
the full discussion it had already undergone, be, tow
only briefly suggest such arguments as occurreo,oetl.
mind in support of the opinion which he enterb",,sto
The indictment in this case consisted of several eept
—they were elm en in number. A general jtiabee/
had been pronounced by the court. Some-Of obe
counts were stated, by the unanimous opinion
°ne
judges, to be defective in point of law—to chsr:-thl
indictable offence. Others of those counts,,,sler re'
opinion of the judges, were defective in ao°4'ooootois
spect—not that there was any defect in the •
themselves, but in the findings, and the enterin!jer
the findings of the jury on those counts. The ;de
tion was, under such circumstances, whether 0,10,e1l
fective count in an indictment, and other coo: enter
were defective in respect to the findings 5u ar
ings of the findings upon them, a genellierali
merit could be sustained ? Their ilbei
would observe that this was a mere ret,
question a question, he admitted, t, soreei
importance, which was never presented to ritroio
below, not arising from their judgment, bilb erode
out of the manner in which the Judgment P,
up by those who were to discharge that cluelfoi sot;
could only' repeat such of the arguments 511'1004 t
dressed to their Lordships, but he must be a'aissec '
say that he always considered it as a clear' oilati
and undoubted principle of the criminal lavi_ ease t
land, that a general verdict was sufficient iv 000
this nature. Lord Mansfield laid it down in betivees,
distinct and full terms; he drew a distinctionhe
civil and criminal cases. In civil cases essteoFer
where there was a general verdict and generasisting.
_et
given by the jury upon a declaration c°u(iefeetiv;a
several counts, and one of those counts we' s sets.`s
the judgment might be arrested, or, if it o'll'bus clef
up, it might be set aside on a writ of error ;
effector
regard to the same point—namely, as to there,' Pi se
one defective count where there was a gene s,
ment, he said that was good in criminal erTst `
stated it was good in criminal cases, 50701. 11°
same time, he regretted that the Itibe
ever been differently laid down in civil 015°,10114
said there was an exception to this rule, totitia
would presently allude. Lord Mansfield,.'sesive9p
the rule in terms, broad, general, comprel!`stssas
bft
without any exception whatever. But that As tbi
the opinion of that Learned Judge aleoessepsh bb's
time he was supported and assisted on the Zreeil
some of the most able judges that ever ea; of ied
tribunals of the country, and that opini° and
Mansfield was expressed in their presebe% not 0,
course had their concurrence. That it 11,14 sirruoe
opinion hastily formed was obvious from his the
stance, that on a subsequent occasion, in nn udonel
reported in " Cooper's Reports," he 151"esnie cliff.same doctrine in the same terms, in the nue
prehensive manner, without any exceptionZtit el;
cation whatever. He took it, therefore, Inu, sbat he
the general rule, and from the first momeenty tha
ever
entered the profession down to the 1;110,m_r he 'led
heard it agitated at their Lordships 'u
heard it called in question. It was unu ffe se
upon without doubt and hesitation•o,oolrsheld
it in all the treatises and , tee x he, dist
the subject. For the first TL.llltba ens'
it stated at their. Lordships' of jd°6l,„a
rule only applied to motions in arrest inn before' it/
He had never heard of such a dou'',r sancti°lltotefl
he was quite sure there was no case L°.., so be 540
no decision to warrant it—no authority n (pa
Base _ .
in support of it. T:he Learned said nog eri
who was in a minority OL, this occasio (the Prite,
surprised to find it called in question.. 11
that sill on
Chancellor) confessed that .he shared 1 410
and he was quite satisfied, after all be, n-doubon,
the subject, that there -was no groun.d w2ixisistelsr,
ground for the exception which bad be e 1
ot the„ia
Observe what was the constant practice‘.,_st on for
because from that practice they would copse ees
find what the law was. In civil cases the
c°llis f'4
the plaintiff deliberately examined the eyed or;0;
on what count the verdict was to be en.enter t'
the purpose of avertisig the consequences "
°e in
it upon a bad count. Thal never took Pito less
ii;),
minal case; and this could not arise beLc:nose &tile
tention was given to criminal cases, or beta as
sel were less astute. Now what was If Could bee
ground for exception ? It was, said, h°,„"sci not I_:,es
know that a part of the punishment .3
awarded on a defective count ?J figgreeof
damages were awarded by the jurjr intuant rtientint•
sum, and the court could not tell. sc,l
defective c°breg;
them were awarded in respect of thethe &intent
They had no means of apportioning' the judg,i be
and therefore it was necessary that
it shoullosl
should be arrested, or if entered up, that, ell:001d
reversed. But no such rule prevailVinen rn t
cases—it wes not necessary that pun's% sack csao
be awarded on any particular count. 1,4
mild °erect
tion could be sustained. No person
.e "0 re re,
was not in the confidence of the jue_'sles
b 9 e
of what judgment had been awarded,wars as ec_'-vea
ference to the record itself. If there sP.
the lesareo,l
count, did it by any means follow thatroPrillteie tb°
judge in awarding punishment had
.011313...especs
part or assigned any part of it. APP=
u the two so
count? There was no similarity sssra sine
They could not from reason argue no