The Sun.
London, England, 1829-04-24 00:00:00

A JURY LOCKED C P ALL NIGHT.

Nary Sullivan was indicted for stealing from the
person of James Munrc, a watch, three gold seals,
ring, and key.
The prosecutor stated that he was an optician,
and resided in Lambeth. Oa the night of the 10th
of April he was out with some friends, and got so
much intoxicated, that he scarcely recollected any
thing that happened to him. He only remembered
going into a public-house in the morning (he did
not know where), and afterwards missing his watch
and appendages.
The Jury began to consider of their verdict about
twelve o'clock at noon : shortly after which they
begged leave to retire to a private room. In the
course of the afternoon they came into Court, and
desired to know if the prosecutor could swear that
he had the watch in his pocket when he went into
the public-house : the prosecutor answered in the
affirmative, and the Jury again retired. At half-past
six o'clock they came in again, and one of them
stated that it was not likely they would be able to
agree, and hoped that he at least might be allowed
to go home, as his child was dying. The Recorder
said he was sorry for it, but his duty would not
a?iow him to accede to that request. The Jury were
accordingly again sent back, and the Recorder waited
unti,nearly eleven o'clock at night, when, under-
standing that they were not likely to agree, he ad-
journed the Court until nine o'clock this morning.
At that Tim?! the Recorder came into Court, during
all which tune the Jury had been kept wit oat food
or firing. The Recorder then seeing no probability
of their coming to any decision, discharged diem
without giving a verdict, and the prisoner was or-
dered to remain in custody until the next sessions,
unless she could procure bail.
The question which arises is, whether the prisoner
can be tried by-another jury, about which there is a
great difference of opinion amougst lawyers, some of
whom contend, that the Jury being discharged
amounts to a virtual acquittal. This question has
never yet been decided, although some short time
ago a similar case (inured at the Old Bailey, where
the jury were discharged by the Common Sergeant
from giving a verdict, and the prisoner was not
tried by another jury. The question, however, was
not then mooted.
ST. ()LAVE'S PARISII V. WILLIAM BEVAN..

Mr. BARRY appeared on behalf of the parish. It
was an appeal against an order of affiliation, made
upon the defendant, which the Court affirmed. In
the course of the proceedings Mr. Payne, who was
counsel for the defendant, continued to prove some
facts which he had detailed in his opening speech,
and begged permission to call a witness back for that
purpose.
The RECORDER said that he would not permit the
witness to be recalled. _

Mr. PAYNE—It is a practice used every day by
the Judges of the land; and I hope your Lordship,
as a personal favour, will allow me to put -the
question.
RECORDER—You shall not, Sir; learn a little
decency.
Mr. PAYNE—If your Lordship refuses me that
X4l/8

~~~

favour, it is visiting the sins or inadvertencies of the
counsel on the unfortunate client. _

RECORDER—I must say, Mr. Payne, that your
conduct is extremely irregular, and I desire that you
will henceforth keep yourself within bounds.
Mr. PAYNE—There is a public opinion respect-
ing my conduct, which is quite at variance with the
private opinion of your Lordship.
RECORDER—I don't know what you mean, Sir :
at all events, I will not have the witness called back.
Mr. PAYNE—Then, my Lord, at the risk of my
professional reputation, I can only say that I forgot
to put the questions before.—Here the subject
dropped.