The Sun.
London, England, 1821-05-15 00:00:00

LORD BRUDEIk.TELL V. WEBSTER.

This was an action the warranty of a horse. At the last
Assizes for the County of Leicester, before-Air. Justice Rich-
'ardson, the plaintiff had a verdict.
Mr. CLARKE now moved for a rule to shew cause why the
verdict should not be set aside. Several witnesses were exam-
ined on both sides as to the question of unsoundness, and there
was the usual contradictou evidence in such cases. One of the
witnesses examined for the plaintiff was described to be a res-
pectable farmer, whose testimony was unimpeachably as con-
trasted with that of horse jobbers and dealers' and it was be-
lieved that the Jury were influenced by his evidence in the ver-
dict they gave; It since turned out that the respectable farmer
was a groom in the service of the agent of Lord Cardigan, the
father of the plaintiff. On this ground it was sought to set
aside the verdict, and—The Court granted a rule nisi.

THE KING V. HUNT, ESQ..
This was an indictment against the defendant as printer and
proprietor of TnE EXAMIN En Sunday newspaper, for pub-
lishing an alleged libel on the House of Commons. At the
trial before the Lord Chief Justice at the last sittings in West-
minster the defendant was found guilty. The defendant being
how personally present in Court,
Mr. DEN MAN moved for a rule to shew cause why the verdict
should not be set aside on the ground of a mistrial. The Jury
who tried Mr. Hunt were composed of ten Special Jurymen
and two talesmen. Of the 24 Special Jurymen struck by the
Master of the Crown Office, it appeared that only 22 had been
summoned by the Sheriff. This fact was not discovered until
after the trial, and therefore it could not be a ground for a
venire de novo, but only of a new, trial.. It was sworn to by the
defendant and his Solicitor, and also by the Gentlemen who_
had not been summoned. The objection was the same inprin-
ciple as that in 31ajor Cartwright:s case, in which the Court
had granted a rule Nisi for a new trial, though in this there was
no suggestion of misconduct on the part of the Sheriff. The
difficulty arose upon the words of the 3d Geo. 11. c. 25, which
regulates the striking and summoning of Special furies, and
which contained these words—" Which said Jury so struck
as aforesaid shall be the Jury to try the cause." Now,_
though the Jury to the number of twenty-four were struck
by -the .Master, yet there were only twenty-two summoned,
and therefore he confidently submitted that there was not a
competent Jury to try the case. • Questions concerning the
Trial by Jury were of vital importance, and it was essen-
tial that the utmost regularity should be observed in the
mode of summoning Juries. Lord Coke and other eminent
lawyers had always considered it to be essential to observe
the usual and accustomed mode of impannelling Juries, with
a view to the pure administration of justice, and had ob-
served that the Courts were always jealous of any itregu:.
larity in this part of their
.proceedings. The Learned Coun-
sel put several instances, in which negligence on the part
of the Sheriff might be attended with the most dangerous con-
sequences. If this objection were not allowed, it might always
be in the power of a Sheriff to summon only one out of 24 jury-
men whom he was directed to summon, or any number he
might think'proper short of the legal number; It might be
said, to be sure, that the Sheriff was liable to punishment for
any abuse of his office, but how difficult would it be to bring
misconduct -home to the offender, and of what avail would the
punishment of the Sheriff be to a person who was improperly
convicted? In support
.of his argument he cited, among other
eases, Norman v. Bowman, \Villas, 484 ; Hills v. Yeates, 12
East, R. 229 ; and 2 Marshall, 154.
The JUDGES delivered their opinions, seriatim, at consider-
able length, and, said:there was clearly nothing in the objec-
tion. The Act of Parliament was directory on the Sheriff as
to the mode of summoning Common Jurymen, and though it
was a part'of his duty to summon all the persons named on
the special jury panel, still, any neglect of duty, on his part,
would not be a ground for vacating a verdict. It might, in-
deed, be a ground for an application to the discretion of the
Court for a new trial, if any thing like injustice could be sug-
gested ; but there was nothing of that kind surmised in this
case. The defendant did not pretend to say that the Jury had
found an improper verdict. This, however, was not an ap-
plication to the discretion of the Court ; it was urged as a
matter Of indisputable right. No such right could be sup-
ported.. If the Sheriff's negligence proluced any flagrant and
palpable injustice to the defendant, the Court would, in its dis-
cretion, order a new trial, if the verdict was unsatisfactory ;
but there was nothing before the Court to induce it to believe
that if all the Jury had been summoned a different result would
have attended the trial. Without some such ground as that,:
satisfactorily made out, the Court would be abusing the dis-
cretion vested in them, if they were to disturb the verdict.—
None of the Cases cited at the bar in argument had the slightest
analogy-to the present case, and those which 'were pat hs tests of
the question were extreme cases, which the Court would, of
course,-deal with as they ought to be dealt with when brought
under their consideration. If the Sheriff had been guilty of any
improper practices he was liable to punishment, but none had
been alleged, and the Court would not prestime negligence of
duty in the absence of proof; but the negligence or improper
conduct of the Sheriff was no ground for a new trial. If the ob-
jection urged were to prevail, it would be attended with the
most dangerous consequences, for it would always be a ground
for setting aside verdicts of acquittal as well as guilty, and the
Crown, as well as a defendant, might resort to it as an argit-,
meat for a new trial, whichever way the verdict 'happened to
be founded. In civil cases, also, it might be urged with -the
same, if not greater force. The objection was, indeed, most
absurd, and though the question was said to be of great impor-
tance to the Trial by Jury, it 'was perfectly free from difficulty,
and no lawyer could hesitate for a moment about the answer it
ought to receive.—Rule refused.
Thu CLIME JUSTICE—If the Learned Counsel is instructed
to make an' application against the Sheriff the Court will enter-
tain it, if properly. supported.
Mr. GURNEY, in the absence of the Attorney-General, then
prayed that the defendant might be brought up for judgment on
Thursday the 24th inst., and it was ordered accordingly.

MERINO SOCIETY'S Snow OF SHEEPRz CLOTHS.
—On Friday the show-yard at Mr. ALDRIDGE'S
was rather thinly. attended ; we noticed among
the, company many diStinguished breeders of the
Southdown sheep, and we understand that they
freely admitted, from this exhibition, that the
Merino sheep begin to exhibit carcasses fitted for
any table, without in any degree degeneratinglbe
quality of their valuable fleeces. One of Mr.WEs-
TERN'S wether sheep was slaughtered,and the car-
cass exhibited,which weighed 20,4. 11b., the loose
fat 141b5., and' the fleece gibs.; the Carcase, in all
its points, seemed to meet 'the approbation of all
the company present. In 'addition to Thursday's
exhibition, MIL WESTERN shewed two fine stal-
lions ; and Mr. STEAD, of Kirkstal, Leeds,
exhibited some pieces of flannel, made from the
inferior parts of Mr. Towna's Merino wool. The
Judges, we noticed, were busily engaged all the
morning in deciding on, their adjudication. At
about four o'clock the Members assembled at the
Freemasons' Tayern, and held a Meeting, and
after five they sat down to dinner—C. C. WES-
TERN, Esq. M. P. in the Chair, which was after-
wards taken by C. 'l'. TOWERS, ESCI. The awards
of the Judges were announced, appropriate toasts
were given, and the company continued together
until a late hour, discussing on the merits of this
breed of sheep and other analogous topics. -