Star.
London, England, 1820-02-23 00:00:00

the first indictment there was an error, and also thl
Le (the prosecutOr) had been iii Scotland.
Mr. ALLEY, for the defence, made a very able
speech, of considerable length.
The COMMON SARJEANT summed up the evidence,
with great perspicuity ; and the Jiiry, after retiring
for an hour, pronounced both the prisonert—Net
Guilty.—One of the Jurymen, however, observod that
the Jury thought the conduct of the two prisoners
highly culpable.
The C 036101•1 SERJEANT,, in reply, cndered.that
the Aldermen of the Ward in which:the prisoner
Want lived, and also the Common Council, to be in-
formed of-the circumstance. It was nearly 12 o'clock
.when the Court adjourned.

HIGH COURT OF JUSTICIARY, EDINBURGH.
Friday, at one o'clock, the Court met to deliver
their opinions on the objection's taken on Monday by
the Counsel for Gilbert 11PLeod.--[See STAR of
Monday.j—The prisoner being brought to the Bar,
The LORD JUSTICE CLERK asked •if his Coqesel
had anything particular to- state .before the Court
proceeded to the business for which it bad met?
Mr. J. P. GRANT Said,. there had been two objec-
dons taken, namely, to the instance, and to the execu-
tion ; and went into an argument of some length to
prove that they were valid objections. He allowed
that it was a principle in the law of this country that
the King never dies ; but contended that every man-
date of a deceased Monarch, like the mandate of any
other individual, perishes with his.. death. The
Learned Counsel dwelt strongly upon the principle
of the law of England, in support of his argument,
and contended that the common law of Scotland was
the same as that of England.
The LORD ADVOCATE said, the Counsel for the
prosecution were ready, if the Court thought it ne-
cessary, -to rebut all the arguments of the Counsel
for the prisoner; but the Can't declined troubling
his Lordship.
Lord HERIIAND said, the Counsel for the prisoner
•
had contended, that the common law of Scotland
must be the same with the common law of England
—Gun forbid !—The Scotch lived very happily un-
der their old law, and he would resist all innovations
upon it. He did not know the common law of Eng-
land, but he knew that that of Scotland was founded
on reason and common sense—which never die ! His
Lordship was of opinion- that the objections were
groundless The objections to the execution rested
upon a presumption But if it was presumed on the
one side that the execution was not served in the
reign of his preent Majesty, it might on the other
be presumed, that. it was done in that of his prede-
cessor, since the last day of one King's -reign must
necessarily beheld as the first day of the reign of his
successor. The, demise took place at a late hour in
the evening of the 29th of January, the date of the
execution of the Indictment ; and the presumption
fairly was, that the execution took place before that
hour. This fact, therefore, would come to be proved
before the law could be applied; but his. Lordship
was clearly of opii•ion, that the law in this case, as
laid down by the Learned Counsel for the prisoner,
was erroneous ; and quoted from Blackstone and
other authorities in support of the principle that the.
King never dies ; and that a prosecution commenced
in the reign of one King may be lawfully carried on
in that of his successor.

Lords GILLIES, PITMILLY, and SUCCOTH entirely
concurred in opinion with Lord HERMAND.
Lord MEADowsmix had always conceived that
there was not a shadow of doubt regarding the lee-
lity of•the service of the indictment. The execution
would have been legal had it been done at any time
previous to the Proclamation of his present Majesty.
There was no legal evidence or the demise of the
King except the Proclamation of his successor ; and
therefore every act was legal which was done in
name of the deceased King until this legal Procla-
mation was made of the accession of his heir. How
could the lavy contended for by the prisoner's Counsel,
be applied in the numerous distant portions of this
empire ? If it were held that prosecutions in name
of the King were null and void the moment of his
death, there would then, on every such occasion, be
a blank in the administration of justice. In Edin-
burgh there would be a blank of three days—in
Orkney of ten days—and in the East Indies of three
mouths. It was impossible to entertain so prepos-
terous a doctrine. •

The LORD JUSTICE CLERK said, he was satisfied
that the Court had done right in Liking time to con-
sider this question; And their opinions must appear
to the country to have more weight in being formed
after deliberation. He perfectly agreed with the
opinions given by their Lordships. The Court would
not do their duty to the country, if in this case they
did not repel the objections. An interlocutor repelling
the objections was therefore recorded.
The LORD JUSTICE CLERK then asked Gilbert
M•Leod to plead to the indictment, Guilty or Not
Guilty. M,Leod pleaded Not Guilty, and the trial was
appointed to take place on Monday next, at 10 o'clock.