The Sun.
London, England, 1811-11-13 00:00:00

;1
frii„
:!.ti:Jr'

~~~e

~.
iii;:...•

•

- ft
T

Mr
Liao.;ll, was Intned ouf ()Nee or Ate Meng
t o , ,
his c , he 'eauesoon„
Cetee }ou have any
,complaint
to mike on teat account, go to where it is cog-
zable. . • ,
Mr M‘Neeeer—The 1.16.1 e was mentioned in 11-
lustration—it mieht be lodecorous-but: -the Court
wtil 'tense an error in- a cause where the warm of.
fedions of the advocate's heart heart are united
• with whetever,share of.understanding he possesses.,
revert to the may he quesnon whe-
• ther titer are eligible to sit as Grand • Jurotee-- The '
Ad of Paeliarrieut which constittves. the itiatitution,
in one of s Cleilees, makes an imperatiVe rule upon
,theseemenicipal officers. 7 hry are always to be in
-readiness tb attend from ten in the, morning .until
eight at night, I see eleven of these-Police Magis.
Oates in the Jury box ; first, Mr: Alderman Hot;e,
and last, though net least in love, toy friend Major
Sirr.—Are these persons eligible „,Whe.are titus
An protect the citizens resident within the disteiet of
the metropoli4, when these .Gentlemen ale..shot up
in .a Grand Jury room-eaed out of their office,
which the statute imperatively Obliges them to at-
tend.? Clearly the intent of the Legislature Alas,
that these metropolitan Magistrates should not in-
terfere #t any situation but that presented by the Sta-
. tute. The Barristers appointed cannot plead—can-
not even give an opinion under a penalty of live bun-
. dyed prelude.
Bet,. confirmed Mr. M‘Nally, whatever neat be
the opinion of the Court upon the challenge to the
jeior, there can be no doubt of this, that the de-
.
fetidate may, if the challetige be,overerulede plead
en abatement to the indielment, • the incompetency
Qt.' OtlY Grand Juror.
The Jud4eiebeieg divided in opinion, they deli-,
eered their. Judgments Seriatim;
7blr. JOAO& 06110/01 stated, as-there wes.e, differ. .
.cute of opinioh existing, in. tee Court, they shoulif
deliver their judgment separately t—for.,his part -lie
should not take moth of the tirue of; the Courteop,"
butbut.in loOking throitigh the books .be could.ifind uo
instauce ict which it. is inentionetiAliatain Grand
Juror coidd.be challenged, and 41)0, in Wei opinion,
lio o:et-Illicit) lay to` a Grand •juror
or before, the bill of indidnient,wes foundieett would
be payingliitle resped lee the common pradice in
criminal law, if a novel fortn never before instanced,e
was anwed to sepersede the universal practice;--
at the same. time it must be understoodathat he
would consider it .a tut nstrorts evil was there no
(erne for the subjed'e complaining of a Good Juror.
'There was the same disqualification ineboth Grand.
Jortira .and Petit Jurors, but theeforteeewizre not
the seine ; the right, hipottingin a *4,01014re-
iThttit when. the bill of indiebitene, wattefound,
answered all the ends of challerneing
T:,O right by challenge, in the caste' of,ePeety :.furors
is because. the: ;Untie wouldlapaee-the 'pritoncr is
, • present, and he is called on by the terms and
pudica! of the lae to challenge, which if ,Itie doeti
not then, he teionot do: afterwards. lii
teases
of Graud Jurors, the prisoner is • notliettie;fitee
nor is he called upon by any form to'uhatleOge ;ler '
the means of tedreSs; in case of diSquelification in a
Grand Juror, hi the pradice of ties Court, is by plea.
lulls Lordship said, he thought that Hawkins was
hineself try doubt 'tor din he think the passage that
was 001 td was ail opmiori, but rather a eebjea
throwil o,lt n;r (qicuision.
Attie Jedee Osborne.' had given, his judgment,
Mr, fted,y lose and said, my Lords, Mae I be perL
muted to read once short authority 2.
(...tiottee•---No, no now.
Mr. Ft L Y —May I then Send the book -up Co t.
ten' Loolships ? ' •
(fate juseice—You are tco tale, Sir.
Mr. Finlay--The authority is but a line 'and
tale
Cuter JUSTICIt,-,,Wc.11„ read ire-
', r. Fielay—Mr. Jettice oshordelaidethet Mete
is lii Law Book in which' it its that a
Gi and Juroteconle be challenged.' On the'dootrery,
l'hielde a bon% in. my'hand, iniiAilebitia, 4m:rit ion-
ed, that Grend Jeror may be 'eh:lll*kt The
. bete: Woud's Inset mese and unefi;T the title,
G, and Juror, I nod the following unequivocal sett-
. rence t A Grand -Juror may be challenged for
. cause, be indietment Couto!.
CHILD. Jusetce—Why, that is the siogle.case in
• Bacon's Abridgment, taken front elawkienee,pleree
taf dill CkWrni, and whiclehas been so often clewed;
Ntr. NLA Y —My ford, it is not a ilinglo caw;
there are thin cases,
Judges DA and '4, Doe fig•-•"WiIY7 those; three.
vises, are but the one. They .areteetil
they rest on the case ofWhetipoteleteretesseoannot
hear them e have 'heard them alreatlyeee
Mr. Finlay r:at. down.
Mr. Justice DALY stated, that the challenge was
for persons holding places at will under the Croivne,
' tie leoked iteon it to b no snore than founded
'upon Serjeant npinion, in which the au-
thooties referred to in the margin do not bear him
out ; 'he case 'relied upon is that of Sir William
Whitiipoo!, which ia'srpunded upon the statute of
Henry ;,,bat he. t hoeght. that if a challenge lay,
it evoole have been Mentioned, and that it -would
mot [ewe betel by' plea', and the indielment declared
herdahip /incited a eeattite of Henry
winch said the remedy heretofore wee not
suffiCient ; yet it givea no remedy by challenge.—
All- the objeetiolie ‘l, ere certainly. equelly the, same
04 to the *Gland or Pctit Jeror, but the form is liti;•-
fert,:tt ; tri tiro t Petit Jury it is by challenge; it) Ulu
Gelid Jitry it is by flea of Abatement.
Judge. :13' laine'nted he must differ from,
Court ~ having heard nothing to Aeke-the uniturin
opinion he hed eeterteined ever sinee'lle had diret
opened: ► hiw hook„ that it was' eio los.: competent
for the 'atibjeet to challenge a Grand 'Juror than a
Pi'trit Juror. If he was in error, he had the -Cora-
fellation to err in good company ; in cc mpanv with
naeleirei, Bacon, Wood, and with the e!,ligi,teeee
and distiuguished Judge, I ,or carkton, w
pot in the liobit ,of con imittieg himself elably, or
upon ill-considered grounds. **W.' Witittipuel'o
case in Cro. Car, warrnted, its his opiniene the.
Position leid down by that ,cluster of authuritieB.-,..,
'There, tt gre,it try of the twelve .Judges, held,
that the 11 If. 4, e. 9, extended ere pereone Al(lt
Li\v'ed tti per,-,nal actions ; ter, (e#o tlie b9ok
they ;Ire n 01. et I egaes to he y,vgym an iii
envie, and may ee iediel'iged tor Opt „tiinjo,.!6..g. The
3erete, sworn before the Corouer, aTe „pan t'`d
Jorors, and the verdia pronounced try tiiern is in the
e'attee of on (ipOti Which the pOrty 'rney
and lewd by a, _Ve..tit Jury; thee:4:U the

;

Gtatut betoa, a Coron'i\r
be chillenged, why nay not thOse impannelled b!.-
fort Justices of Oyer- and Terninter ? It-is admit.
,•• •
ted .that ohjettiors lay 'to Liralig Jurors, at common
lain; as want of frethold,'outhxwry, &e. Then;
how was the subjeet •to 'avail l'aMself of theseA.
je6tions before the statute of Henry 4, which gives
the plea in abatement, unless by challenge ? And
if the -subjett bad that privilegt at commbn
what has happened to dprive hitn of it Not the
stat. Henry 4 ; for that is a rernedial.stattite; not
substituting the plea in' abatement; after ifdlh-
tntut, for challenge, before indicitnent,:but:auxiii-
ary defeaive common law- privilege of chal-
lenge.—lt was egregiously defective in this, that 'the
person charged was either in prison, or not amena-
ble, :or • ignorant of 'any information preferred
against bitn ; •anil thus, not being present; or.en had
not the opportunity- of challenging—any of 'the
Grand Jury.--The statute; therefore, recitibg„ that
monk we .e thus indilied. against the course of the'
conunnn law, that is, by persons agaibsi: who:n le-
: gal'objeaions lay, gave the plea in abatement,
ter' indiameitt.' It is true, HaWkins doubts Whe-
titer the plea in abatement was not corniSetenf.at
,cOmtnon. law, as it t t Henry 4.; was hut deektra-
tory. But Lord Coke ex!sreNsly denies that doe-
Jtine, and affirms • that 'the plea was given by the
statute. •

It -is objected; that, the inconvenience of such
prtvilt..o woull greitly c-robLirrals ttia admiiii3ita-
lion of justice; but great constitutiottal..privileges
are not to be put down by arguments .ob inconvi.
,Wu MUM not argue from the abuse of the
thing to the WC id it. TI at argument would ship
the subjedt
,of some of his roost legitimate and ile.-
knowicdged privileges—becauie eery Judgektiows.
how often they are abused, to the great, antioyaace
of the Court, and the waste of much priteious
time. lf, -becauke the right of thallenge 111# be
ahueed,,,it .15.014 that, therefore; it does..noi
the same argument would take away the rft:.tutablt,
plea itz ;tb:.ttement, wind-s• alight be exercised
vexatiously. • '

iihother objeaion., is, that the is no instance to.
be found in the books, 01 a challenge to a Grand
Jurur. But that is easily. answered. SltiLe- the bta-
ture giving the plea, the privilege of challenge need
not beresorted to. The party's absence leaves him
seldom the opportunity of chalknging ; and though
he were present, the plea is abatement would be
t tie more 'eligible remedy. But a privilege bediiiies
itot obsolete or lost by desuetude.

Upon the whole; ilveretere, he was of opinion,
that that proud .bulwark of civil liberty, the'Grand
Jury,. would be de(e6tive without the right, of elthl-
lone ; • ;old that tho option of challenge before, ot a
plea atto.•itidictinent, War open to the subject.
But,
,upon the s,,,cond ground, relied upon bythe
Solicitor-General, that. it lay not with the subject to
r.hailenge >a Aaratid juror, for fayotir to the Crown,
Judge bay was clearly- of opinion with him; 11
Lord Holt denied 'the right . of. challenging for
f;wour ira< the CaSC of a Petit Jury, who try the pri•
sorer for h:s life, (1 firrtiori„ it would follow, that
nu such conic of , cloilenge existed in the case of the
Grand inry, who only accuse, the priwner, and send
him to utal, What: could be more revolting or rucl-
notOnalili, tll3ll to. where the Crown was nut
persirgly, but merely in its llotitical character-,.cort.
eerticd ton it (71,6'd lin interest in theltecusa.
tion of au inuocottrittbiect ?
Upon .the whole,, while be admitted the gcneral
poAer of the wbject challenge.a Grand Juror, he
concurred witla the Court upon the latter grotto,' .0
reJectiog the challenge now uttered.

. The Clizr hiSTICR delivered liis opinion w thn
following ffect

application is a novelty of great public ono..
sequence. It is the first time that we have heat of
a Juror being challenged, antecedent to, the ,finding
of a bill of indictment. In all cases, certainly, the
subject to challenge either a Grand or a
Petit Jury ; the only question is the Mode of dOing
it. If the person accused has a valid objection to 'a
Grand Juror, undoubtedly he ought to take th 6 ' cry
first opportunity to make it and yet, -look into
every Isook that relates.to the law, and ybu. win
find a single instance of a challenge
Gratt.d,loty was sworn. I have examined: the State
Trials, where it would.be supposed to be . found,
. which might have been expected twfurnish abun-
dant instances of challenges, and yet I cannot find a
single: case similar to the practice. Universal 'pm-
, tee therefore, a powerful argument., to' spew
that challenges made in this manner will not A
challenge, will not lie where no undue favohr can he
. shewn; and With good reason—for otherWite every.
. person who might or might not be indicted, might
come in and object to a Jury: there are a n umbel' of
cases where Jurymen are objectcd'to by and
1101.10 where. they are challenged ; this practice thews
what the rule is. It would be monstrous if .ICartb-
jeet could not chew -that- a Grand Jury kid no I:'g it
right to accuse him, and it he had it not by plea, he
should have it bychallenge.
If the subject, therefore, has a sound ohjetstinti
to a JUryinan, he does not lose this benefit t:l it
when he conies to plead, he may object to-the in.
dictritent. The universal' praetice i t against
lenges, and in liti.ottr of a plea. The Chief Jtisuc:e
then .;adverted to the quot.ition Which had been
made from Hawkins, -which, 'he .was of opinion.,w,t3
by' no intNins clear or decisive—in fict„ liawktui
had railed a question tweet the point, and had lett
ii undecided. Plea, and not challenge, is the Mode
the party ft is, and we would encontber the adnai-
in%tr,ition of justice with difficulties, if we allowed
atly.ot tier. It is safest and best to proceed by that
mode which had been establi:thed for btisiness, anti
wt,i,,h it had bei'n now aitentpted fnt'ibe first titne
_ to.cl.t tit film). Tbe opinion of .1 he Court That
the litv lit of Challenge should be disallowed."

titst lc aid riot ask t it!) as a ',nil
Out as au indulgence.
Mr. O'Cotnat.i, suggNed to the Uourt; how
the Officer be authoilsed to give copies, if -fie
was not 01447'41 to give thrill ?
Judge I)4mrreptied, t-Itat-he titight be- authoristal
by the order of the Court, yet the Court not be coin-
yelled to grant the copies.
• The CHIRP JUsrica said, that this statute does
not infer compulsion I nor does it in any of its Erten
eltdoge the law.. The Court interfere. with
the Coutisel Tor the Crciwn.

Mr. BVRNit rote en ,the part of the Delegates,
and argued very ingeniously on their right to the
cOpies, disclaiming it as afailoui... at: considered
the right as atre4ing • both the plea and -the • 4e-
fence of the` accused ;—there were some
which could not be toide bout having tho.c:(44*
of :the intormatinns—,as 'the plea of ,4uferNs
acgi/it. For this he must ascertain; the prosectitor
and the charge;--oor gOierally, as, set forth, in ..the
.as in tl,e informal..
tions.,—S'oppose two transatlions in. the fame
.day, 'how- could then accused know for al bleb: le.w.as
inditled ? In making bis defence,' he.4oull
those. copies, that he may 6bserVeatw,verinace be
ts.yeetv'the,proseeutor's written exarninatibm, nrtd
'oral testialpoy; and.,for this IVIr.-13urne instanced
Lord &afford's case, in the State 'Fri
JudeDALY.—ln thdt case ibey were given on
,'the trial, it >t
Mr. IlultNE.--•-flicre is intich difference in a rapi
'f'd/ ca o," as at law the plisoaer has no
other Counsel th in the Judge; whe.has seen the in!.
formation, . .

Judge DAY.—He is so in all casts.
All. Be tiNE..4-,-But Coupsel is allowed in rnisde-
ine.moursotny, to points'of law aptl in those cases
he shourd have the same opportunity of seeing the
informations as ;lie Judge has. How, otherwise, is
the Couti.el to a4ceruiin any coniradittion between
the infotmations and the evscience ?

The CHIEF' -JusTICE.—It is not, necessary, be,.
c:pyse all' Catk:S the Judge Is the Counsel tor Abe„
accused.
•
Judge DAY.,---Many caws of misdearneanoorsAcr
cur in which the prisoner has no Counsel, ,And
throws himself wholly on the *lodge.
Mr. BORNE recapitulated liht-arguments, and con,.
tended, that, without copies of the informations, the
accused could not be 'sufficiently prepared either ler
his plea or .his defence.
The .CHIE JUSTICE (the other, three Judges
concurring), in delivering the Opinion of ihe, Courts
observed, that the present application was entlrely.
novel, It presuines a right in an accused persen.;9
search into the evidence which was intended.,
31Ycin on the part of the Crown. No prosecutor
can be compelled to diselose his evidence. His
Lordship noticed the English
,statute of
the Third, which allows copies of the indinments
in cases of High Treason; but expressly forbids the
witnesses' names being indorsed thereon—and it
gives no copies, of information4.-I'be Irish statute
4 G. 111. c. 21, gives copies of the ilidielmentain
High Treason, hut not of the' in(ormations,, The ob-
Joel here is,. to procure the names of the witres- ses,
which is an. unreasonable application : it is suffi-
cient for the accused to know the faicl with which be
is charged ; but be..is not to..be armed with a know-
ledge of the prosecutor's proofs, The motion can-.
not be granted. . ' . •
The motion was accordingly Termed.

MAI I.S.
A lilt v ID—.lGtiernuty, i ti4galando Dublin.
Due—t Cadiz, t Uutunccy, 2 fersey, 3 iituteritittt.

PRICIE OF S.-COCKS •
•• Tilts 'DAY A r TwitLvfl•co'cr.ottc. •
-64 i I Red, Ann. -

TII E S N. , •

soLlnt Quls atetkt rit.t.Sum 1ti.71,1t AT ?