The Sun.
London, England, 1817-11-28 00:00:00

, . .
, . .
anittl. That 'lie had great didlculty fixing upon proper
"MeSi but as he .east his eye over ere4y page, he indis-
erinnuatelyfixtd. upon such persoas as were Ite§crilwil to be
merchants; and deponent positively .swore, that ill natant;;
the 'forty-tight persons which 'were accordingly named in.
this Jammer, be waa actuated- by no private views of his
own, but fixed upon then without facuur, partiality' or affec-
tion, and that he nominated, all such persons as ansavert d
the ilestiriptioa of periams anglified to serve 6u Special Juries,
just as his pest, happened. ta light' upon. them; and until the ,
number of Italy-eight was completed. That it seas now
nearly five mouths since the 'lamination of the Jury in this
cast had taken place, and depeaent . did not recollect the faxa',
of first ntimiliatiiig a Mr. li.ichard rag-merchant,
and Afterwards .substil uting in his stead the name of manlier
person described as a wine-Inch:ham; but deponent shotild
rather think, that if he had rejected a person of that name it
was because the aersun so designated dal not fall within the
clit:S 'of persons from arnoingst whom Special ittries were
usually selected ; that deponent had not attended (tor was it
ever his tlaYlit. so to 110).to any statement Halide by either party
relatiug to the repce.tahility.of any individual who did tattle
within the class of persons usually naminat ed. upon
:Special
JurieS ; and that depOnent did not know any thing of the
private character, respectability, or- !titbits of thinking of
any to the persons !laminated by him, still. less dia lie know'
any thing of the respectability, character, or l;abiti of think-
ing- of the said Mr. Toplin; and that hi netcr;alirectly or ia-
ltreetly, received any coMmunication from the defendant's
attorney which cottld-italuce,him to pass over the-name of the-
said M. Richard Toafin, and, to name any other person in
his stead. That it certainly did appear' that 'the name of a
Mr. John Meares, described as a wine,merchaut; tug's amongst
the 45 porsons named, but that such. name was fiaed• upon
according to the best of 'deponent's judgment as one tit to
be returned oil the said pannel. the person being described
as a wine-merchant; but deponent positively swore that
he knew nothing of the said J. Meares, either relating to
his private Chlaracter or his political principles, farther than.
.as he was described as a merchant in the said fiats; and.
thatlte had ,aerely fixed :upon his name, as he had upon all
the others, because his.pen had lighted upon that name with
the d'Oeription of veciviiant attached to it. That deptinent
did notrecallect rejecting the name of a MtaCiilMaii, nor
did he know any thiug of the privaa donnexians or princ?Ples
of that,individual, arid if be had rejected him-, his only ma-
tire could have been because the said Mr. Gila-mu:was de,.
signatedln the list as a.6trither, and consequently not coming
within the description of a person quititfiin'to'serve au' Spe-
cial Juries as a merchant. Deponent further posdirely
stated, that he knew (lathing,. directly: or indirretJv,. of a
Fellowes,who was stated in the affidavits of the defendant
to be the person who was substituted for the said Mr: Gil-a
man; that 'his only motive for uommating the said'Mr.
lowes was, because he answered the description of dnerchn,nt
fbe said bits, .and that he was utter ly ignorant of the private,
connexion; or principlevot tile said Mr. Fellowes..- That to
the best of deponent's kuowledge and belief he did not kiww
any one of the individuals 'named on he pitonil, nor (14.
he receive ens communication, directly or indirectly, from
any. person, relating to, or of and concerning any of the per
sqtis therein mentioned.; and' deponent saith, that
bad nominated all the said' persons natiiferently and impara
"tially, having fixed upon them 'because he firmly beiieved
tent to be the class of persons from whom Special Juries are
usually chosen. , . .

Next 'fullowel the affidavits of Mr. Henry Charles. Litch...
field, one of the joint Solicitors of the Treastniri; of ii,ury
Daaltry, Esq. Clerk of -the Rules on the Crow, s ..e of the
Court; of Saninel.Collinride, Esq, Secondary of the Sheriffs
of the City of London • of Henry liarlowe, Esq. Sec,:adary city
the Crown Offiee ; acid of Thottnas Le E 4 Master of
the Pleas side pf.the Court ;. all Aending.to confirm state-
ments in the Coroner's affidavit, relating to the:legit iniaCv.of
his'proccedings—the practice which had- olitaiurd in his
flee as to the mode of striking Special .Itiries., and as to the
impartiality of his conduct on the present occasion.

The ATTORNE:I7-66N-ERAL •then addressed the'
Court, couteodiug..that- alter the affida-vit's which
.they hat) heard.read,it.was impossible to doubt,that
the three-fold imputatioomtimproptioty, y,
and partiality, alleged against the,hlaster or the
Crown °glee,- was completely answered, and con-
sequently the rule must be discharged, As a pre-
,litninary position, he insisted, that whatever the'
conduct of the 111 aster 'nigh, have been, it Was-
quite distinct and Separate.from the qiiestton as to
the legality of the mode* rectirubig listsl)C of
persons qualified to serve as Special J tam
were submitted him by_the Suet svho alo—x
:must he accountable.for any stpposed -irregularity
in that which exclusively belongeid io b.i,depart-
ment. Inasturich as the-Master 'could only malze
his selections Irony the returns made to litai
,by
'the Sheriff, he co,Sd not be a,.couritable for the
legality or illegality of the conduct of the latter,-
and therefore if any thing could he objected to
thai,officer, the motion of the defendant ought to.
have- been framed,_ eu as 'to bring.' his conduct
tinder the reeiew or the Court. Tbeconrr there-
fore hatt.only to consider whether the,:iThMer 4
.his. peculiar province had acted improperly,
anOartially. For the purpose of *hewing
that the Master hail acta_ legally on the Present
occasion, he.referred to the 15th and 17th Sec-,
tions of the.3d George 11. c. 25, which was pass
ed for.the purpose of placitl.g the system of Site-
eial Juries two!) the.same footing; as it had thereto-
fore been with respect to trials at bar and diet),
for the purpose of sheeing that it wa-3,the pecu-
liar province of the Master to nominate the Ju-
ries, he referred to 2,1 Lilly's Practical Registry,
.155, folio , edition, title "
_Jury, :and Jurors,"
where it was laid down ,as a rule of this Court of
Trinity Tenn; 23 Charles 11. upon a Motion. be 7
ing made for a Special Jury to try a case at, bar,
" that the Secondary shall name forty-eight free-
holders,
,and ,that each party shall strike out
twelve," &e. This appeared also to be the-recog-
nized practice in Tfinity Tertn, 8'
when it' was laid down as a general rule, that the
Secondary, is to
,natne the Jurors from the lists
submitted to hiin by the Sheriffs.. On the autho-
rity of these precedents, therefore, he insisted
that the Coroner's duty was to nominate the Ju-
rors fit to appear npon.the panne!, aud that no
other person bad a right to.intertere with, him in
the discharge of his,dtity. „
Lord ELLENBOROUGH.L--The rule which is to,
govern. his conduct is express. It is " that he
shall nominate the Jurors." ,

•
The 6TTOANEY-GENERAL.—I submit also, that
it is not only the langtiagr.of the rule, but it has
been tlte, invariable practice in the Crown Office
from the earliest times.

Lord Et.r..lloltpt/GH.—ftlie rule says7--he shall
nominage 48 free and lawful men, and that the
Sheriff shall attend hint for that purpose.. But the
officer is not answerable for the rule. 'faie rule
is improperly drawn up, it .is an imputation upon
the Court,, and not upon. thp•oflicer.,
The, ATTORNEY-GENERAL conceiving that it
would,, be a waste of iime.totrunlile their Lord-
ships any further upon this, point, proceeded to
the-other, parts of the case, and contended that
the. allidavits adduced on the part of
,the prosecn.
tion completely negatived the imputations of im-
propriety and partiality in the cOnduct of Ake
officer, .filially• insisting, that this rule must be
tlischipgvd.
11.1ri. TOPPING said a few, words on the same
side.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH.--• WhO SUppOl'iS this
title
\VOOLER then .r9se And atlllrosecLthe
coiqt. He said lie did not
.appear in supppit .of
this Rule with any intention of casting persono
reflections upon the character of the Officer of the