The Sun.
London, England, 1844-07-05 00:00:00

`..11

jic; , • :lid i:nd:L the Queen ; (• • • '' • •-•
:-""4:"ittruourt -lid Creourdi, cot;ll)z.ioce, t;) aekoowl, lige. I 1.)) 1111 and two sulli-
u ihn (YC.ll,;ed, Th nia,s Steele, Tn ,mas Mathew Ray, eient sureties to our said Lady the Queen, himself the
Gray' e- (;$, an i;o1Y-c, the Rev. Thom‘i Tierney, JAn said Daniel O'Connell in the sum of five thousand
"raY, and The .arii git ..e ai,pe;): ,he :he poiinds, and each surt4v in the stun o' two Conisand
e't" h' - ti ' t afore:mid tr)... .nel!e,l dio k e!, the ;,,e
r. "ti foret, a ,•! ; i• ‘4,l' •• ,

%ad.

l•..

47.,,u1.ii ~bet:p.ou eouttee •:t toi--- a eertain- time, elle .- •: ; s e, eit -a• '' • li, • kaea -e'a'l,en7 •-•-'—')'•
necessare het tie put p. ..e dig's, ei,f, ..tue eis ~-eleeeet tine, toe said shefiti do deliver the -.e.,,
Otifi
att,,i,bs
~
teo' .;f.ay,
unt:; and upon Mendae, the tv:-el,th th.). I),lntel (rComull, John O'Connell, John Gray, Richard
bund,...duary, set the yesr of our Lord of theusend e'ght Barrett, Thomas Steele, Thomas Mathew Ray, and
to
ma, awl forty-four. Anti new et this dey, tied is Charles Ga., an Duff), into the custody of the keeper of
, • Ott Nlikiidele the said twelfth day et" Felt uary, the prison called the Richinend Gen:•rel Peeitentiary, a,
,tr'e;
i.yid,
.jurors, se; et. and ,were as ~•,. (•,111 7,e 'e eve-elly kept in safe cuee.iiy ie •he said pits: .n in exe-
' I said isseees. upoit tie-ir oetli se v tee, cis ti, the etea it et .he :ail in,...t, an'. ,cite :hey •h :ft have vole
premises in the said first and se.;ond c',7;et.e.:e.i t-I‘e said th.,r silt flu .r. -peeeivele, ail, ,i.tve severalty (-rite. d
italiettee
1)
,„ iI respectively cie.reed as atoresat,i, the said ieei -one,. r •ce.ece.baces eel a it's sech airet.es as afor -
1,1 lin j 0 Connell, -1
eeen e eceeneil. Thitniss aee"le, teeid it.' te- p te• , pee,e ill's tee be of geed e: haviour ii,
1,111,111.5,,
.1:1,1ii),,,.. Hy, Clee-tes Gavan Duffer. the R, ‘. reetine. en,' f .a.,. a fors set,l, and for :he tern, efo,esaid."
and ieich iri? hai-rett, ere lle eeleei WM. C ,11S1:er if there was oee awl count in :,he
and i.e:i ii: r", . ; ' o:en Grey,
them f
or ''
tieen 7s sous of so Itmel, thereof as charge. indictment, ited the jury found the party guilty upon the
tie.,l that tlie unfaefuly, rnaletiousl), and s,di- whole, and jedment was given on the whole, how far
ereeteY ,ciontriving, intendieg, and devising to raise and that jaelgruent would stand if one count was bad. He
jenv, iii,s 'entent awl diatetrecatei amonest the liege suit- . submitted that it would not. There was a distinction
i.
_:(:_•tir said Lady the Qiieen, end to excite the said taken in tee text book between criminal and civil cases.
.`__",
_ubijects to haired and contempt of the Gov, rnment The question was to what extent that distinction applied
e'ttutui t.; , istitutien of this realm as by law established, whether it was applicable only in cases of arrest of
„nee to excite hatted, jeeleusi- s, and ill-will judgment, or whether it was applicable after judgment
did "eg',t different classes of the said subjects. had been given, and the case came befere the court
cont,"Piawfuily. malicieusly, and seditiously combine, of error. There' was nothing in the judgment
withile_, confederate, and agree with each other, and of Lord Mansfield in the case of " the King and Ben-
e,,hZvers other persons, whose Dames are to the jurors ' field," 2 Burrows, 981, to show that, in a case in which
&eye wn, to raise and create discontent and disaffection one count was good, and another was had, a court of
tnr_igst the liege subjects of our said Lady the queen, error would not reverse that judgment, fa- if the court
th`e%Le_e excite such subjects to hatred and contempt of of error saw that the court below had given judgment
h4srernment and Constitution of this realm as by on hoth counts, they Must aastnne that that judgment
tattlie ehlishal, and to pelawed end seeneeLe oppositiee had. heel; given in respect of emelt count, and had not
_ said Goverement and Cee-tittitien, and Also to been leesetied ou account of the deficiency in eine ef the
classes jealousies, hatred, and ill-will between different counts. (The Learned Gentleman then qu aed the case
mot of her Majesty's subjects, and especially to pro- of " the King and Fuller," which had been alluded to
ntivitiei amongst her Majesty's subjecte in Ireland f_ elings yesterelae by .air T. Wilde, in support of his argument.)
free''
-ill and hostility towards and against tier Ma- ; The Learned Counsel then referred to a dictum of Lord
n•jeets in the other parts of Great Britain and Mansfield, ir. Cie per's Reports, and also to a dictum in
teee and especially in that part of the said United ' Douglas's Reports. Noe he would ask his Learned
a"-eiugdona called England, in the staid first and -second Friend the Attern.y-General, upon ghat principle he
,ournsts of the said iltdietnietit respectively cliereed a; would contend if there were two bad counts in the in-
Ah...!,esid, in *tanner and form as therein is so above dictm; nt, and it appeared ',from the record sent to a
'"rgt das aforesaid ; and as to the residue of the said court. ot err,,r that the judges-had given judgment on those ?reit--
I lbeS in the said first and second counts; of the said counts, that thecivileourtshadniejurisd:ction? Wash to be
I_lldiciraeua respeirely. charged as aforesaid, the said that the judgment was warranted by law, and. there-
!iie
rnd jurors, upon their oath aforesaid, say that I fore, that a court. of error could not take it into considera-0i said TheaS Tierney is not guilty thereof." tion ? Was it to b. said, if there was a single good
n the 15th day of APilt "meth the Attorney-General ; count in an indictment, that that was sufficient, and that
it parties into Court. Now, that was the piece where , the
petty was bound to submit, to the judgment re was the discontinuance—that, from the tinee Of preneunced against him, as there was no appeal ?
thee It would take away the power of appeal in every case.
parties being found gui.ty, there was no mention of '
whn ,
. tne parties were to be brought up to receive ' Seppo,-c a jury were to find a party guilty, in a case of
JudlOnent. felony, of the murder of A and the murder of B, the
The Lome CHANCELLOR—This trial was out of term, court could not pass sentence of death on both those
under the authority of the Act; it was continued during counts, because that would not be a judgment warranted
e‘evacation under the authority of the Act. by law. Directly a man -had sentence of death passed
Ale PEecocit admitted that the trial took place out upon him he was attainted, and the court could never af-
tfee
wean, but he. subMitted that the order was not suffi- terwards pass sentence upon him for another offence,
-lent to meet what was required by the Act If the court did so, it would be a ground for reversing
if the Ist and 2d William IV., c. 31, sec. 3, the judgment. If two sentences were passed it would
ender which the days for holding terms were altered. be a good ground of reversal. . A man could not be tried
.111 e day originally fixed for the trial was the 15th of for one murder whilst he was under attainderfor another
I,4fluare', and the trial took place during the term. On murder. The plea of " stutrelois atteinte" would be an
. e 13th of January art order was made, not that a cer- effectual plea, according to Hawkins' Pleas of the
teas number of days should be- fixed for the trial, but an Crown. It was imposSible in the ease of felony that
ajte.reative, or rather a conditional, order, that in case sentence could be passed. for two distinct offences. If
deitiotnriaaildeaeyosuld not he
completed by a Certain day, ad- a man were sentenced to transportation for life twice,
• ther that was
prepareleiament_'.hould be added. The question was, whe- and then pardoned for one of the offences, what would
be done with the remaining sentence? He contended
'an order within the meaning of the Act of
whether the Court ought net, in the first that it would be void for ambiguity. It was a general
foal'a tt°- have an : e
eePoetteo a certain number of days for the rule „of law that a party could not be tried
tearnedbar, making those days a part of the term. The twice Air the same offtrice ; and if a party
The Counsel then read extracts from the record. received sentence on a bad count, it would
order for the trial at bar was made in Michaeltries be a sufficient reason for setting aside a good
tern]. The preceding part of the proceedings showed one. In the case of appeals in 4th Cook's Reports, it
that in Michaelmas term the Court gave judgment was laid down by Lord de Grey that the reason why
against the traversere upon the plea of abatement. Their autrel'ois acquit was a maxim of English law, was that
Lordships
15th , would observe, that befoie the order of the the life of a man should not ;twice be put in jeopardy
tee" el 'January there was an order made in Michaelmas for one and the same offence. Suppose Mr. O'Connell d
The
: that the trial should take • place at bar, should he charged to-morrow with the same offences,
en order for the trial at bar • having been made, the and fete counts should be better drawn, would he be able
J.l,lu_re' Were summoned for that day, and before that day to plead his former conviction, even though he was suf-
Of'.`trnhe,lY, on the 13th January, two days before the return fering imprisonment on the judgment ? He contended
e t.d venire, an order was made that in case the trial, that the only conclusion to which their Lordships could
for the tste January, should not have terminated come wab, to reverse the judgment.
on
144
day
of'
Their Lordships then retired for refreshment, and
Hilary term, then Thursday, the Ist ef
A_
,i,ary next,--and every succeeding day till the sth of the proceedings were suspended. On the return of their
Pri sliced
days ,h 0 ,A dbe appointed for its continuation, and such Lordships,
tion „en t'''' ite taken to he part of the term. The ques- Mr. PEACOCK resumed. lie would cite the case of
tilt the 8 whether, if the Court originally made an order the Icing v. Holland, sth Term Reports, page 607, where
thee trial at bar to take place on the 15th of January; an information was filed by the Attorney-General
at
„r Gould, -n the 13th of January. made an order in the against the defendant, for malversation in an office.
byt ia
Ceartit'aeinthCiatYi, thnceanse the trial should not be concluded He submitted that the dicta to be found in the text
that and certain suttee-ding days books, amounted merely to this, that where there were
h hould be added. The words of the Act of Parliament several counts, and the jury found entire damages, and the
Were, " provided that any trial et bar shall be directed court were not able to- distinguish 'how the jury
by any of the said Courti it shall be competent to the assessed the dareage s, they must recite it in the -judge
Judges of the Court to appoint such day or days for the ment, but in a criminal case, where there was no embara
trial as they should think fit." Now, unless the order rassment about the finding of the jury, for the Court
were an order within the meaning of the Act of farliai• themselves assessed the =taunt of, punishment, and
went the trial at bar was clearly in error. where judgment was given against the defendants upon
The LORD CHANCELLOR—The Act is to be considered an indictment of which some of the counts were-good,
as a remedial Act. ; and others bad, how could this House, upon • the case
_,...1.1r. PEACOCK—The question was whether an order being removed by writ of' error, distinguish between
"1 the count, under that A, t, was in ceinpliances with that portion of the judgment which was given upon the
that Act. He contended that the court should have good count, and that portion which was given on the
n'ade a positive order that these further days should bes bad counts ? When the court passed sentence where
e4.ed for the trial at bar. In this case it was; mereli some counts were good and some_ bad, and
a certain d
'red that in case tree trial should not be eompleted 14 the judgment was discretionary, . the judgment
ay then a•ditiotial days should be fixed. I should be reversed altogether. He believed his
tvjhe Loan CHANCELLOR—WouId it not be sufficient Learned Friends could produce no case where this point
"at the da% were fixed fir the centinuarce of the tr'e ? was distinctly decided, and he trusted their Lordships
Air, „_,t ,
this
was that Would maturely weigh it. The next point was with re •
ow i el. eoeK-1, es, but
gard to the ituggestion as to whether that Hotise could
, aays shouid be hereby fixed for the continuation,
out that in ease the trial should Hot be completed; then amend the judgment of the court below, as he contended
eertai . the judgment .of the Quart below was defective, as
4 devsshould be appointed.
for tee
Lo'Rei CHANCELLOR—And that the days so fixed judgment was not given upon those points where the
defendants were acquitted, and be apprehended their
e cumin -ttun shall, accordingly, for the purpose
of mich • uue I Lordships could not amend that judgment. The care of
m trial, be take; for part of the term.
it qir* 114A-corx said the 1.. point. That was
ourt would not say that incas4 the King v. Nalcot, in, 4th volume Modern Reports,
- (Mid he ev l d • should be tip
pointed. , necessary, then ceYta n ate p, 395, was a strong authority on that
and tit The trial took place on the 12th of February:, a writ of error to reverse one attainder for treason
def'end'sry having given their verdict on that day, the committed by the father of the defendant. Certain
low.had no notice to appear in Court on the foil formal words were left out of the judgment of the Courtouid
Jana term, therefore, whether the days from the Ist 14' beloW, and -the queetiefi was whether those words c
aa„,a,arY to the 12th of February, were days of term, be added to the jUdgMent Of. the Court below.
wil-1-o.nsls material. lie referred to " doke upon Littleton,'! That case showed that the omission of words woe the
oth Having spoken ofdiscontinuance, says, " there is anl, ground of the reversal of the attainder, and that
as
wi: error' ._
40us- proceedi that consisteth in misdoing; the Court could not amend the record, and add
day aee-11 "e process is awarded instead of another, or a those words. In the case of' " Showers," the
tin glued, that was not a legal day. This :is a misconl words " and be burned before him," were omitted,
to iCee, and if the defendant does not choose to-appeal' and the House of Lords reversed the attainder
not aitisan e; a error ; but, if he did appear, then it wet; on that account. That was a proof that the House could
eoetins'acontinuance." In the present case there is no not amend the record by the insertion of words. The
It inierne_ae at all, and, therefore, it is a discontinuance, judgment of' every court of error must be either an
le was •• be said that this was a technical objection, but affirmation or a reversal of the judgment of the court
Iv het . not there to say what the law ought to be, but below. If it were a reversal, some questions might
it was , arise as to what that judgment ought to be, In
The Lo • Bacon's abridgement to the Error Letter, it, was
it is RDCRANCELLOR—The question is not whether
a technical objection, but whether it is a valid one. I said that " Judgment is all entire thing, and
lAr p , cannot, regularly be reversed part, and affirmed
ainze; -„!*cocx cited the case of Bradle v. Banks, in
Jeette,--1; '23. which was an appeal against,, part. If judgMent were passed' upon ' various
parties, and it was
which an ob
that thras taken. It was moved for the defendant, erroneous against one, it was
reversed against all, In the ' Rase of the King
writ of 8 appeal had been discontinued, because the
slid K-enworthy, 7 Barnewall and Cresswell, page 707,
and the appeal was returnable on the 16th of October,
a party had been tried and convicted at Chester,
day, whereas;es ought to have been awarded on the same
for en' and It entered on the record that he had
ea„,_ , the
capias was dated on the gad, seven been -rctryt
J 3 tieingtod for -In that
o erea to be trans seven years.
rnlthifest thas omitted. It was argued that it was
case iti wits held that the entry was merely wrong, arid a
1,40 , discontinuance, and the court so resolved. I 4
in the the case of the Queen v. Hutehing, proceueutio was ordered. to issue to the Court below, order-
in
pr. proceed tojudgment, and Lord Chief Justice
The ' 2d of Lord Ramond's Reports, p.
tottt, Hew Modern Rep 1,061.
• Learned Gentleman also uoted the King v. Wali• A bot, in giving jeclgteene, said, "It appeared from.
se:
RAk ins'the record that an order had been mado, but not fol-
p It
39.5, and several casee lowed up by judgment." In the case of "The King v.
Pleas. orof theagCrown, book 2, page 270
Ellis," 5 Barnewall and CreSswellt 395, in which the
Lentz
,The nex; point to which he would call theie
cause of Kenworth was quOted, judgment had been
had .hls attention was that no udgment of acquittal'given in the court below, the court reversed the judg-
geit,---'n given in was
case upon the finding of " not
me.nt, and held, that they could not send ittothe.couerrt
tegi-0.- " of the jury, either as re added Mr. Daniel O'Cone
beiow, in consequence
.of that reversal. The pr.ison
teen— -'wly of the other parties. The Learned Gentle•
had been sentenced to fourteen years' transportation for
LI
support
Viners' Abridgment, and Rolls' Abridgment,
tzi
wilPoichrt
heof hie view upon this poin.t. The next petty larceny, an offence punishable hy law with only
seven years' transportation. The distinction between these
woz;lii cell the attention of their Lpooridnst
two cases was material.
. In the first no judgment
batdP,B •wa4 that the eerdiet and the judgment were
had been passed ; in the second the one which had been
into rleetee'utech as it ordered the parties to enter:
assed was erroneous, and the prisoner was dischargeJ.
good is-eminsances to keep the peaee. and to be of
n the cases of the King against Board and others, 7
ihe ael7""iour for the space of seven years next ensuingt
. nowl„,, Adolphus and Ellis, page 58, prisoners had been sen-
that) d„--,egment thereof. The question was, whether
fenced to transportation for an offence, the le-
as: 4- „U c,''tent was good. It was doubted. At one time,
which ' death, ln that
enter v,art; of its judgment, the Court orderedsarties to
case Loyd' ovd of'punishment-Penman, giving wlluadgment, said that,
tps..
considered
reeOgnizanCes to keep the peace. That case
asa an erroneous •judevent had been passed by the
Ur 7.. sidered before this House, in the case of Hart v.
~ mak it, ,
epoie.,b, the 30th vol. of the State Trials, and the part inferior court, that court'c &qua in error had neither
,rh 4le to the case would be found in page 1334 the power to h Pa a the 'proper sentence nor to
to ihe court below, The
had questi°' was, whether the Court of Queen's Bench send ba,ak t a ease
th_!_po, pewee to send the defendant to any prison beyond jdgment, therefore must .be reversed, and the
prisoners discharged, Their Lordships had no
'lx' nen jurisdiction, and whether sureties for a rea•
ennable time for good behaviour could be required. The l-1-"er' except to reverse or affirm the judgment, because
judr laid. the if they were to amend it there would be two judgments
aut
__,. ey had no doubt whatever as to their
n the record—an original judgment of the Court of
tv.hiwe_yitutiteirlehtrfGert:etie:tanidiyhim to any prison in England t and
on
Bench of conviction, and an original judgment of
of oinion that the court assessors
Boilable t legally top require such surety for a rea- 0 Court of Error of acquittal; .
re co Hue. •
aegniaane Ile question was, whether this (The Learned Gentleman was proceeding when our
..
reasonable e was
one requiring surety for a report WO _____
not
nee time. He submitted- that it was
the time of time fixed
areendogthn was seven years from I
the acknowledgment of the recognizance '
e 6
apnacrety
hvvas ordered to be imprisoned until the
valid, and if -fti- ould be given. Now if that sentence were
nligit!.:. be i person were unable to find sureties, he
imprisonedt for the whole term of his life. He
aubmitteel that
_o make it a reasonable time, the time
'l.3_ag,het to be. eL ed ; for instance, if he had been sentenced
10.sahneeimprisoned for one, and then to enter into reeog'
4_l. 2 Sto keep the peace for seven years from the time
itla
ifimprisonment,ed that sentence would be valid, be-
causenot find the sureties, he would be im-
prisonede socoul long, and at the expiration of that time
, would be discharged, because
'a fact fulfilled his he would have
Peace
for recognisanees he would have kept the
strains seven years, he would have been under re- .
he during that time. But under the present sentence '
neverf would get released at all, if he could not
procurelooted the
(The Learned Gentleman then
e
‘.‘, ot the State Trials, page 1321.) In that case the judg '
went was a legal
.one, for the parties were sentenced to
' 1
from •into recognisances to keep the peace for five years
tlhreatea
if
fhe expiration of the term of imprisonment, So ,
they were unable to find recognisances, they '
w.,.iteld be discharged at the end of the five years ; but in
el case it might be imprisonment for life. The sen-
tence upon Daniel O'Connell was in the following
.
Words •--" Whereupon all and singular the premises
being seen and fully underetood by the Court of our said
vs,hity the Queen now here, it is coneidered and adjudged
,',),_- he said Court here that the said Daniel Co'centiell
ivr hie offuacci iwtbremid 49 Pay 4 flio oil
P .

_
THE BEDFORD .13AN, ItolitAftY.—lt will be re-
membered by, some of our readers' that in the month of Sep-
tember lest, the Bedford coach was robbed on its way to
London, of a parcel containing 1,1001. in bank-notes and
bills of exchange, which had been forwarded from Mr. Bar-
nard's bank; for Sir Charles price and Co., the London
agents. For a long time the affair retrained undetected ,•
but about *lx weeks back a man was found uttering MO of
the lost notes in punetabie. He was apprehended and con-
veyed to Bedford gaol, and nn Wednesday he was placed at
Oa bar in the Sessions Court, to take his trig!. After a long
inquiry, the jury delivered a verdict of guilty, and the pn-
soner was genteege4 f. 4 be transported for seven years.
STEAM-ROME** EXPItQSIfMI 11.! BOLTON.—BOLTON,
THURSDAY MORNING.—Yesti4Ay, at two (Alm*, an in-
quest was held at the Court-house, vie* Or the
bodies of the three unfortunate individuals
in this town,uaile who
bloesft ot the their
lives by the recant boiler
Borough Coroner andands respectable jury. After a long in-
quiry, the inquest was adjourned. The Coroner directed that
W. Fairburn, Esq., of Manchester, be sent for and requested
to examine the boiler, to enable him to give an (Tinton upon
the cause of the explosion when the jury met again,
An apt of incendiarisni -WaS committed -at Wroz.
ball, Warwickshira, An the afternoon of Sunday week. It
turns out to have been commtitect by Peter Woolley, a tramp,
who did it in revenge of a refusal trte ilart of the wife of
the owner tp give him relief. He has contesl4 444 now
In Warwick gaol.
So severely is the acatcity of water felt in the
suburbs of Bristol, that it is an abject of successful specula-
tion to fetch it from a distance and sell it at 3s. cask of
70 gallons; and in smaller quantities at a penny and two-
PGeol7eiesrupP:otrrcohirjafetsliloo,mtiethr "NelitovheAnilli°
rat6f4licancaotatiaes,ndllejfirne fromreivtleide
I riktqciv at the cc4004:404.