Star.
London, England, 1820-11-24 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, NOVEMBER 23.
THZ LING V. LORD OROSVSNOR.
This was an indictment against Lord Grosvenor
and another, for erecting .a wharf at Millbank, West-
minster, by Which the navigation of the River Thames
was impeded. A verdict was found for the Crown.
Mr. GUMMY pressed for judgment; the CHIEF Jus-
TICE had not the affidavits in Court, and the case
was put off till a future day. •
THE RIND V. EDMONDS, CARTWRIGHT, WOOLEE,
LEWIS, AND MADDOX.
Mr. DENMAN moved for a new trial in this case.
It was, he stated, an indictment against the defend-
ants, filed by his Majesty's Attorney-General, for a
conspiracy, and unlawfully electing Sir C. Wolseley
as Representative for the town of Birmingham. The
Learned Counsel said, his grounds for anew trial
did not arise from what. took place on the trial of
the indictment. The indictment was triedly a Spe-
cial Jury, at the last Warwick Assizes, which was
struck in January last. When the Jury was nomi-
nated, or selected, by the Master of the• Crown Of
fice, an objection was taken to the Jury struck, and
afterwards when the patties went down for trial at
Warwick, they challenged the array. In support of
his motion he should have to call their Lordships
attention to the case of the King v. Wooler, in which
the defendant moved for a new trial, and supported
the motion in person. •His (Mr. Denman's) first
ground for a new trial sias-that of the Jury being im-
properly struck and impannelred.
•
Class JUSTICE.—YOU do this on affidavit.
Mr. DENAIAN.—He had the affidavits of C. Pear-
son, Gentleman, an attorney in the cause, and J.
Cartwright, Esq. one of the defendants, who stated
that, on attendance at the Crown Office, to strike the
Jury to try this cause, the Master produced a book
containing between two and 3,000 names of persons
competent to sit on Juries. The Master informed
the deponents that he formerly took the book and
opened it at random, and took the first 48 names ;
but now he selected the names from what part of
the book he thought proper. The Master produced
also a book containing the names of 66 persons whom
be said were Esquires, and from them he seNted 43
persons to try the present cause.
Air. DENMAN contended, that it was not necessary
that a Special Jury should be persons having the
title of Esquire; there were hundreds of other per-
sons, opulent men in the County, who were fit and
proper persons to sit on Special Juries. If the Crown
OQicer had the right, in the first instance, to select,
66 persons to form the list of Jurors, to try special
causes in the County, and from that list again se-
lected 48 persons, the same Jury would be struck in
every case, nod it would operate to the disadvantage
of the defendants ; because, as in the present case, a
great number (11) of the Special Jury struck were
persons who were on the Grand Jury who found the
Bill against the defendants.
Cater Jusnce.—Was any one of the Gentlemen
who were on the Grand Jury on the Jury who ttied

this case?
Mr. DENNIAw,No, my Lords ; ouly four Special
Jurors appeared on the trial. The affida‘vit of Mr.
Pearlson and his Clerk stated, that when the Jury
was struck, the Officer who struck the Jury was told
that 1+ of them so struck were persons who sat on
the Grand Jury, and he said there was no legal ob-
jeclion to their being on the Jury to try the cause.
The deponents protested against the .J:rry so struck,
and against the improper selection, which they con-
tended was not fairly done, but partially and illegally.
CHIEV Jusme.—Why was not as application
made to the Court to set aside the Jury so struck, be-
fore the trial came on?
Mr. DENMAN.—There was not time.
CntEl2 JUSTICE.—Yes, Mr. Denman.
Mr. DENMAN.—There was not time between the
striking of the Jury and the time that notice was
served for trial.
Cater Jusrice.--You are right; but you remem-
ber that the trial did. not come on, but went off till
the next Assizes, and at Trinity Term an application
might have been made.
Mr. DENMAN admitted it might, but it was not
necessary they should do so. Mr.
_Wool-er, on the
swearing the Jury, challenged the array, and be bad
a right so to do; and now they came properly before
die Court to move for a new trial on account of ir-
regularity and partiality of the striking of the Jury.
He (Mr. Denman) complained that the Judge re-
fused to receive a Bill of Exceptions when tendered.
Mr. Justice BEST.—In a civil case a Bill of Ex-
ceptions could properly be tendered, but in a crimi-
nal case, it would form a subject of a motion for a
new trial.
Another ground for his motion for anew trial was,
that one of the Jurors struck at the Crown Office, to
try this case, was not summoned to attend the As-
sizes. This Juror was Mr. S. Peache,•of Idlicot,
who was summoned on two other Juries. The Com-
mission for the Assize was dated the 29th of July,
and Mr. Peach. was not summoned till August 3.
Crites, Judaea.-What day did the trial take place?
Mr. DENMAN—On the Sd of August, on the morn-'
ing the trial took place, and he lived twelve or four-
teen miles distant from Warwick, and had taken phy-
sic on the over night, and could not attend without
great danger to his health. This he (Mr. Denman)
contended, was a just and legal ground for chal-
lenging the array, and to support his motion for a
new trial.
The CHIEFIUSTICE then asked of Mr. HILL, the
Counsel for Major Cartwright, if he had any other
ground to urge: --Mr. HILL replied he had not.
On Mr. Wooler being asked the same question, he
replied he had; that was, the name of Mr. Peache
had stood twelfth on the .pannel, and they had thereby
been deprived of his services. If their Lordships
pleased, be would illustrate the points they had urged.
The COURT said, it would not be necessary if a
sew trial was granted.
The Judges, after a few minutes' consultation,
said, they had some doubt as to the right of chal-
lenging a Special Jury, and would therefore grant a
rule to spew cause.
THE ICING V. LEWIS.
William Greathead Lewis, the defendant in this
otos; whit had been convicted of selling seditious
publication: at Birmingham, was again brought up
far jape t to-day. He obtained leave from the
Court, to put offtheludginent to Monday next.

•
The SouctToa-G SNXRAL. on thepart of the Crosrn,
threw no obstacles in the way of this indulgence to
the defendant.
THE KING V. PERROTT AND OTHERS.
The defendants in this case, to the number of nine-I
teen-altogether, mere brought up to receive the sen•
tence of the Court. They were all 'respectable-look-
ingformers, from the neighbourhood of Bridgewater,
who had been convicted at the Somerset Assizes be-
fore Mr. Justice Burrough, •of a gross attack upon
the person and house of a tax-gatherer in these parts,
of he name of Howard, It was shewn in evidence,
at the trial, that they hung up this person's effigy for
• two successive days ; that they gathered the neigh-
bouring Parishes to make merry at the execution of
“ Tom Paine," as they called him, and that they
afterwards made an attack upon his person and
house. Two of the defendants were Churchwardens
of the Parish, another was the Constable of the Hun-
dred. It was proved that the Churchwardens set
the bells ringing, and they were seen giving cyder to
some of the rioters even at the Church door. The
origin of their dislike against the unfortunate tax-
man, was some dispute about taxing milk-carts, and
they charged him with giving information -against
them to the Surveyor of the District. There were
two indictments, on both of which most of the de-
' fendants were found guilty. .
Several affidavits were put in, by which the de-
fendants declared that this was the first time any
irregularity of conduct was imputed to them.
Messrs. BROUGHAM, A. Moons, and Annals, also
addressed the Court, in mitigation of punishment.
Mr. SOLICITOR-GENERAL and Mr. GASELEE were
heard in aggravation.
The COURT then deliberated, and having informed
itself of the condition of life of each of the defend-
ants, sentenced them as follows:
Thomas Middleton' the elder, a Churchwarden, for
the first offence, a fine -of £lOO, two months' im-
prisonment in Coldbath-fields House of Correction,
and- then to find bail. For the second, a month's c.v.-
finement in the same place, to be computed from
the termination of the former imprisonment.
Gcorge Middleton and James Middleton, sons of the
former, £5 each for each offence, and to find sureties.
Charles Perrott,'E2o on the first, and £lO on the
second conviction.
Thomas Perrott, £lO on the first, and £lO on the
second. John Andrews, £lO on the first, and £lO
un the second.
John O. Baker, a fine of £lO on each conviction.
John Baker, a fine of £lO on each conviction.
Edward Baker, £5 on each conviction.
William Ash, a fine of £lO on each conviction.
John Wikor, £5 on each conviction.
Thomas Permit, the elder (ilie other Churchwar-
den), a fine' of £lOO, and two months' confinement
in Coldbath-fielis Prison. This person was convicted
only on one indictment.
Samuel Lovell, on the first indictment, fined £lO.
II Wliam Andrews (the Constable of the Hundred),
a fine of £lOO, and two months in Coldhath-fields.
And Philip Need, fined £5. The whole to find se-
curities to keep the peace for three years towards all
and several the King's subjects, themselves in L:4O,
and two sureties in k;2O each, and to be further im-
prisoned until these sureties were perfected.