Star.
London, England, 1817-03-18 00:00:00

TO THE MEMORY OF MR. HORNER.

History will WO bet brightest, clearest torch,
That future times may wan thi. chlrgetul aite ;
And few there e wi:o•e f.tut i: will not a.:urcla,
In lending lig:a to rea..: L.:: awful paged
Freedom will mat k, with sadly aiiiious !Jolt,
The crowds W.:, to nothing silently;
Fur ftw are there tal whom her rye can brook
To bend its beam of love and m jest) !
On thy fair fame that torch will print no streak,
No dark blot, blaektiing 'mid the deptiss et time;
BO Freedom's thoughts of love and grief shall seek
The memory of thy day's tiro nick decline!

LAW INTALLIGENCE.

Si • U.

HIGH COURT OF ills I ICIARY, EDINBURGH.

Monday, the 10th instant, came on the trial of
trillions Clark. paper.mrker at Blackburn, county of
Linlithgow, and John Clark, his soil, accused of ut-
tering, vending; and selling quantities of packing
paper, having upon the covers or wrapners thereof
forged and counterfeited stamps, resembling those ap-
Potwed by the Contmitlioners of Exci,e to he used
by their officers for (I:noting the Fa; meat of the du-
ties on paper. John Clark tailed to appear, and seu-
tenw of outlawry was pronounced against him.
Mr Hoek:, as Council for the prisoner, stated an
object.on in bar of trill. The prisoner had, conforms-
bly to the Act of 17u1, against wrongous imprison-
ment, upon the 21st of October last, taken out letters
of intimation against the Lord Advocate, and had
charged his Lordship to bring him to trial. Upon
the 23d of December, an indictment was served upon
him, but which was afterwards deputed from. Be-
fore the expiry of the sixty days, new criminal letters
were executed againselitm, citing him to stand trial
on the 24th of February. Some errors having been
discovered in these letters, new ones were raised, and
upon the 22d of February the prisoner was cited to
stand trial this day. The Learned Counsel con-
tended that this was illegal, as the Act of Parliament
txpressfy laid down, that alter the lapse of the sixty
days, if the public prosecutor raised new criminal let-
ters, he behoved to follow out Mesons:, and bring the
trial to a conclusion within forty days. Now here
there were two sets of criminal letters during the
forty days, wh eh was contrary to the statute. The
first criminal letters were those the prisoner ought to
have been tried upon, and not the present; and far-
ther, Ike perjoi of one hundred days allowed to the
public prosecutor were expired. He then read seve-
ral cases from Hume, in sty fort of his argument,
and concluded with moving the Court to dismiss his
client from the bar, in terms of the statute.
The Souciron-Giaarttar. and Mr. Mstoonocult
argued against the objection at s .me length.
Mr. Monaav rose to reply for the prisoner, but
be was told by the Lord Justice Clerk, that it was
unnecessary.
Alter delivering their opinions, their Lordships
dismissed the prisoner amp/kite, from the bar, and
found that lie never could again be brought to trial
for the crimes traced in the indictment.

Wednesday, March 12.—This day the Court pro-
ceeded to the trial of Peter Urquhart and Julia Baxter'
residing in Dundee, indicted and accused of mobbing
and riotously and tumultuously assembling and con-
vocating a snob in the burgh of Dundee, in the month
of December, 1816. To this indictment the priso-
ners pleaded Not Guilty.
Mr. [voice, as Counsel for the prisoners, stated in
objection to the relevancy of the indictment, that the
major proposition was too vague and indefinite,
lumping together too many crimes, first, mobbing;'
second, assembling and cnnvncating a mob; third,
assisting and abetting ; and fourth, ex-iring, insti-
gating, and encouraging such mob. The charges
were so numerous and vague, that the prisoners were
not put upon their guard which of them would be at-,
tempted to be made out against them; nor was it
libelled that the difirrent acts charged bad been com-
mitted wickedly and lelnniously.
Mr. Mwconoclue, Counsel fur the Crown, con-
tended that the word mobbing is the generic term
which makes out all the other crimes.

The LOUD Juirrics CLtRK called the attention of
the Learned Counsel to the objection, that the dil-
'retest charges did not state that the acts were com-
mitted in the technical terms of “ aided!, and fr.
kaiessly."
Mr. Maconocate submitted, that. in the major
proposition. the prisoners were charged •ith actuality
assisting and abetting said mob, iu their riotous, tar
multuous. and Mistiest: conduct.
Mr. Dominion's, oa the same side, supported the
argument of Mr. Maconochie.
Mr. DICKSON, for the prisoners, replied. and sub-
mitted, that nothing had been stated by the Counsel
far tit Crown which in the smallest degree could
shake the objection. In the whole charges in thii in-
dictment there is nothing stated to make out the
crime of mobbing—there is a charge of injuring the
property of individuals, but no convocation for the
purpose of wickedly and feloniously disturbing the
public peace, which alone constitutes the crime of
mobbing.
Lord Gnus: delivered his opinion at length. He
conceived that none of the objections were worthy of
attention, except the one which had been adverted to
by the Lord Justice Clerk. The indictment was cer-
tainly so far de6eient, as it did not state in the dif-
ferent charges that the attacks made upon the dif-
ferent shops were done wickedly and feloniously, and
he would rather have wished that these words had I
been there; yet the defect was supplied by the major
proposition, which stated that the mob assembled in
a riotous and tumultuous manner;" and in the
conclusion of the indictment, where it is stated that
the prisoners did “ assist and abet, or were active in
the riotous, tuiisultuoui, Sad felonious proceedings
committed by them."

Lords PITMILLY and RIISTON were of same
opinion.
The LORD Justice Ctaaa concurred with the other
Judges, and took occasiob to reprehend severely the
steparture Irons ancient totals and language, and the
introduction of a Modern style in the drawing up of
indictments, which had bean recently observed in this
Court. The form and stile . prwriouslyin use had
been approved of by their predecessors, and was still
preferred by their Lordships.—lt was the departure
bow this ancient practice that had occasioned the de-
le t ist the present case. which bad been noticed by

all the Judges; and if any similar innovation should
in future bb made, the Court would tenably reject
the indictment, not so much on the ground of irrele-
•ancy, as because it was done in too slovenly a man-
ner to yo before a Jury.
The indictment was then found relevant., and the
trial fixed to proceed on Wednesday, the 19th inst.