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

meat to to say so. rpon these grow-els-shp suLbmltO
that this statute did not apply to the`CAtirt of Queen's
Bench, in Dublin, at all ; but he SaMitted.,' at all events/
with confidence, that it was of the, very essence, of those
criminal proceedings under„andliccording to this new
Act of Parliament; that whether thelVitnesses were sworn
in by the grand jury or. in 'Open' conk; it' slidufd be
_certified that they were sworn, and it should Wear
on the back of the bill that the Act of -Parliament-was
complied with in this respect. ".;It - necessary, that
the Act of Parliament should be-strictlY complied
It was not complied with in this respect, and onAn"
ground also he submitted that the judgment should Is
reversed. With regard to the remaining 'points lON°
case, which had been so fully gone through by DJ'
to
Learned Friend, Mr. Peacock, and first, with regard
the point of repugnance in the finding of the WY,
it would appear from this finding that eight persOnst
leaving out the deceased, were indicted for a conspired
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 ern'
phatic language which could be used in finding .persons
guilty of the entire offences charged agaihst'them ;' see°
were found guilty of conspiring with each other and the
eighth : then came the finding That the eighth .pers°!
was not guilty of the whole premises ; that was, °""
guilty of conspiring with them ; so that upon the
record there was this repugnance, that seven pers°,,g,
were found guilty of conspiring with each other and wit'
the eighth, and the eighth was not found guilty of 'con',
,
spiring with the others. (The Learned Gentleman tne'
went on to argue the paint respecting the continuances'
but their Lordships seemed to take a different view frota,
him upon the point.) He would next contend .I°'
the Court below should have pronounced in
meat on the points upon which the defenclalw
were found not guilty. This was necessary in order t°
secure the'defendents from another indictment. 'Mire
could be no doubt that this was not a complete and per
feet judgment, and he contended that their Lordships
could not amend it. Then, with regard to the recognva
sauces, which were fully entered into by his Learn
Friend, Mr. Peacock, he would contend that the
judgment was bad, because the time at which the
recognisances were to be entered was uncertain. It
uncertain whether they were to be entered into at t,
beginning or the termination of the sentence. He stilt
milted that, on this ground likewise, the judgment Irla
bad. There was but one more point which he wo','
advert to, and, having already occupied so much of tk„
,";
Lordships' time, he should not feel justified in doh
so, did he not feel a confident opinion that
",fie
point was of the highest importance to all
defendants. He meant the objection with regn.
to the challenge of the array. It was required by in
of Parliament that the juries in Ireland should be selen;
in the particular form prescribed by Act of Parliatela
and it was of the highest importance that juries shoals
be fairly and impartially selected, in order to 81,
security to the subject. But their Lordships
aware, and from the facts brought forr4s,
it was perfectly manifest, that the Act of Parlient,
had not been complied with here, and that those poi:,
had been tried by a jury in whom there could - ne,o
manner of confidence, they not being chosen or select 10
the law required. It was evident that a jar,' to
from which the special jury and the jury panels Wo
made out had been fabricated by some persons unkti,°,,,t
for an unlawful and injurious purpose, and ~.,wro
from this list so fabricated the jury had. 1: it
chosen which tried the defendants. It might be '`tbe
any stranger who was badly disposed, towards
defendants had forged and fabricated the list: 1,0
beginning to end, and it was complained that *",,f
was to the injury and damage at least of tette
the defendants. Their Lordships would not peraw.itet
provisions of an important Act of Parliament 11° •
which the jurors were chosen, who were to:tribot.
man, it might be for his life, to be vielaticri..o,
they would require, it to be strictly complied p
He submitted to their Lordships upon this groan: of
upon all the other grounds mentioned in the collo
the argument, that the defendants not having. b°",401
to which every British subject was entitled, 0f,..%01,1
trial civil or criminal—that is, not having had a faint
by law—were entitled to claim the benefit of the. ,rtiot
'upon the record, and to submit to their Lordshir
this judgment ought to be reversed. Those weirtiopt
grounds upon which they submitted, that thisju note
was erroneous, and they submitted with all confiden :;be
their Lordships, that upon all, or some of thent,oel
judgment must be reversed.—(The Learned Cie
concluded his address at four o'clock, and this dos'? ,
case for the traversers.) ,
The LORD CHANCELLOR inquired whether
for the Crown were ready' to proceed. -, ib°
The ATTORNEY...GENERAL (for Ireland) saia.i,
.e bat
Attorney-General for England had left the ll9f ;00
he would be ready to proceed, if necessary, -
minutes. rdebie
After a short consultation between their
.they adjourned until six o'clock.

c 0011
At a quarter-past six o'clock, the LORD Ceat Ike/.
addressing the Attorney-General) said--171 of
were ready to hear the arguments on WO •
Crown. -f the
0
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, on hew.-
Crown, it would not be necessary either•for luTrehoicl,
his Learned Friend, the Attorney-General fi.),reit, Le ,1
to occupy any great portion of the time. of t
ships, because, although the arguments for the 1),.0b y
in error had lasted four days, yet the attention wut
had thought it his duty to pay to the Arguments of_d
Learned Friends would enable him to present thens,
before their Lordships in a much narrower cool?,
both as to the arguments that had been t Fait
and the answers to them. He would not occupYl,ol
Lordships' time by any preliminary observationers
would at once consider • the objections that had'
,ro
raised on the other side in the present case. ne
begin with that one which, though not of pastel-100d
sequence in the present case, yet was of metal.
lfe
portance to the administration of criminal justietere
alluded to the entering up of the judgment, and of
cord. It was quite impossible in his view
ll' the°
case, that his Learned Friends could Succeed i 001
arguments without calling upon the House to evethel,,
the established law of this country as far back asf the°,
Lowerrdsip
were any traces
whether,traceofitu.ntiy
this e
question
would appealw
ton
gen mooy' 0..104
of
the bar, any lawyer in England had ever her,,,
would venture to say, that he knew of all/ '"
whatever in which a judgment had been se,'' 02,
the mode in which it was sought to be set
terthe present case. If their Lordships were W 1,14101,01'
law as it now stood, hundreds, nay thousands,We 00.,w„
been suffering punishment improperly. There./ len
no doubt that the course which had been pure e-A le ref
present case in Ireland, was the recognised prieutoef 4
practice of the courts. There was not a single ft'? b 00;
judgment being entered up in the manner in whietbs 0;
sought that it should be. They asserted that, 0 coed
was that on a motion for arrest of judgment, if °oil if
was bad the whole were bad, and that on e OIL
error the judgment must be reversed. That beige
doctrine it became important to consider whet w 0400.1)
arguments, and what were the authorities up?
dv, #lOl
was put forward. They stated that by anmet; Ole(
civil cases if there was a general verdict and 00 firitepi
Was bad the judgment was arrested, and thes.do
venire de novo issues, but if there is error the oot0)0
is reversed. That was one ground on which thole 10
for the plaintiffs in error had proceeded. All%
this, that a party. found guilty of only ell fer,o
charged in the indictment could not be punishe.e_.. 4tvijo
such a thing would be a hardship on the
he believed was the substance of the argument 011 ei
other side. He would net attempt to enter s 140
the principle upon which the law decided.• Ingo 01010?
Friends .had not ,stated a single authoriti,ed tliety
question the law of the country, but they ree; to to
selves on civil cases, and • the hardship ra oe eye
defendants. That, being the ground put forint to 10, eye
other side, he would state what he considered diet rye
principle of the law. He believed it was tin 00.`ece,
judgment should be warranted by the recorerroe eye
verdict of the jury, and then it was not 1111 thatte,
judgment. In civil cases the judgment tote 01
plaintiff had recovered against the defendant t" es, to t,lO,
awarded by the jury, and therefore in these IA Wity
partie:,
00,010
whether the judgment was right, they inus'.„.rsei ;I,°
record and the. verdict ; and if they did not rit's'ie-o
00ef
was wrong. He would take a single civil calor o.sll'
counts—one a special agreement, and the °f. deft,
had,and received. The jury found daniago.3,,oir„'' be
. pose it should turn out that the special c0un%,50/0.4;
tive, the jury would not assess the deniers e°
hot.. a
ty
cause they had given their verdict upon__ 000 v,
What, then, became of the case ? Sulixt of 0 0°
jury had- given. -that verdict, and the wr,l,, polly
was brought, it would award a venire er'",,,..t0..na
that the case would be sent back to the 4114,,t ene
the daes on the ount that was goo fd.' be
sell,
• course ing civil cases. But what did his riendso be
criminal cases? Why, that the record silo 05,1,f.5t".:
back to Ireland. The analogy would be.he frj,
court of error to send the record back W_...„'"t tlOl/1
low to pronounce judgment upon the eurtheir,•,olll3
good. But his Learned Friends did not ass' pee 00'
the ,J
shipsto do that; they asked them to reverse fie
altogether, and to set the parties free. 000031, 9 ..0
now state the reason why, in hie.a esset_i,
principle which was admitted iiielv fooilg",,,sey
not apply in criminal cases. The jurY.l, dt:6l
verdict, guilty or, not guilty ; they assee're chsTesl?tiji,
they awarded no punishment.- if he `7l„oont gest,)
an indictment with two offences, if one -na b;:a,
the jury who had found him guilty had f0i1... doe
.;
upon each count.- So, if one count 41eTtlP,i
would support the verdict and the reeer_`,7 then, l)g,
followed the record ; the record followe'',.oo,o:7.,eit
and if the record and the verdict. were 7., to ;,1 eel
could the judgment be erroneous ?ca That Ze won;
ciple in-civil as well as ineriminal see;.:;-'osie4 111.Poci
call their .Lordships' attention to a. 7..ted tiEN
books in which this point had been adv,%nd ito:A e
his Learned Friend said that they one of Air
case in point, his answer was, thst,,te"ie was fee rips
thought of raising the question. l'_`ot- iffif Ete,cl
assizes—not an Old Bailey sessions:--n .00,0
sions, in which cases did not occur inwanulio, e
error, and it was impossible that 11W
have been left so long withouti_q.', d
f 6,- • po,
arose. There would have been anin_ucitionobei,,,ohbd
under the notice of the courts, totv
tl
place in which the point did not..e,eeLrd boo gee,
not been -clear. Ve
advert to the principal cases wiuen "e'llie or „boi lid
the other side. The fikst was the. _0040,4)
No sittings
As land, -Learned Friend „e • aut. "al
cou.e.. orptioto
rerer4ee to a writ of error, althougn_evu.„lo.r.rjo
made an extra-judicial observation ' or: tu__AtV era
it so-happened that the case was on _ 0
was a writ of error to the King's Benchal;io7.
to pe,
the King's Bench in Ireland, in ,aountt gl .0!
copyhold tithes. There were seVer_u
which was .defective, and Lord...l47regefrief!je
jument, said, that he ,exceelf tgdilt
soil-founded a 'rule BS' thii; t,FT
140
counts one was-htlt the' judgmenSes