Star.
London, England, 1821-05-15 00:00:00

THE KING V. lIUNT.

Mr. DENMAN moved for a new trial in this case.
It was an information filed against the Editor of the
Examiner, by his Majesty's Attorney. General, for a
libel on the purity of the House of Commons. 'The
trial took place heft); c a Special Jury. Ten of the
twelve Jurymen attended, and were sworn, and two
were Talesmen. , The defendant was found Guilt 7.
Mr. Denman said, he had to move upon ground
something similar to that upon which he applied to
the Coat in the case of the King v. Major Cart-
wright and others. He should bring before the Court
A subject of high importance in the administration of
justice. lie had the affidavits of two persons of the
twenty-four Special Jurors struck for the trial of the
defendant, in which they swore, that they were net
summoned by the Sheriff to sit on the Jury. Ile had
also the affidavit of Mr. Hunt, who deposed, that he
knew nothing of the omission till after the trial. He
had therefore to submit to the Court, there was no
competent Jury to try his cause; and, consequently,
that there ought to be a new trial. The objections
he made to the proceedings arose out of the provi-
sions of the 3d of George 11. called the Special Jury
Act, which regulated the striking of Juriq by the
Officer of the Court, and summoning the same by
the Sheriff or his Officers. This Act had been vio-
' fated, and the defendant had been compelled to take
two Talesmen, instead of Special Jurors. If this
omission on the part of the Sheriff was to escape the
eye of the law, he would always have the power of
defeating Special Juries, by refusing to summon
Jurors selected by the Master. In such a case, the
deficiency might be supplied by Talesmen who were
enemies of the party to be tried.
Mr. Justice BAYLEY said, the Sheriff, in a case of,
partiality, would be liable to punishment, and the
party entitled to a new trial.
Mr. PENMAN then contended, that the defendant,
having been deprived of a fair trial by the Sheriff or
his Officer, ought to appear again before a Jury re-
gularly summoned. The Learned Counsel cited the
opinion of Lord Chief Justice Wills, in the case of
Norman v. Beaumont ; also that of Chief Justice
Gibbs, in Hill and Yates, as dicta in support of his
'application.
The LARD CHIEF JUSTICE was of opinion that not
one of the cases cited offered airy ground for a deci-
sion in favour of the motion. It was not suggested
that any fraud was committed by the Officer; and
unless some ground of suspicion was stated, the
Court could not say the absence of the two indivi-
duals was the consequence of collusion. If the mere
absence of two, ut of twenty-four persons which the
Sheriff was ordered to summon was to furnish ground
I for a new trial; the whole administration of justice

would be tlirown into confusion. No verdict could
stand where there had been an omission to summon
all the Jurors. The effect would also fall peculiarly
upon acquittals, as the Crown, in such cases, would
have the same right to say, a man who had been pro--
nounced Not Guilty, should be tried de novo.
Judges BAILRY, HOLROYD, and BEST, concurred
in the opinion of his Lordship, and a new trial was
refused..

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE then observed, that the
Learned Counsel was ar liberty, if he received in-
structions, to make any motion against the Sheriff or
summoning Officer that the case might justify.
Mr. GURNEY observed, that if it would suit the
convenience of the Court, judgment against the de-
fendant would be moved on Thursday sennight.
The CHIEF Jusrtcz observed, that the Court had
then no objection to the day proposed; and it was
fixed for that day.