The Statesman.
London, England, 1810-03-09 00:00:00

To the EDITOR of the 5.T.11

tS3L4N.

r~
~.

"~

[WON of room has prereole4 so earlier insertion of the
following excellent Letter.)

Sia—ln your Paper Freed some time past the
report of certain proceedings in Wettininster.
hall, in the case of Mr. HUNT, against whom it
appears an action was brought in the Court of
King's Bench for a trespass ou the Plaintiff's
lands in pursuit of game. Judgment went by de-
fault, and a Writ of Inquiry was executed to as.
sess the damages. On this occasion, it seems, the
Plaintiff's own witnesses proved there was no da-
mage done, not even to the hundredth part of a
farthing, and the Jury being sworn to give a ver-
dict conformable to the evidence, returned reci DA-
MAGE. It was, it seems, required of them that
they should returns shilling damages, on the prin.
ciple of its.heing a rule and practip of the Court
au to do : but the Jury knew that a shilling da-
mages was a nominal thing, a mere form, by
which a certain coin of that denoininatiun was
not understood, but costs which followed in
consequence, and which might, perhaps, amount
to a hundred pounds or more; and they, there.
fore, probably did not regard the shilling itself,
but, the consequences resultiug from it, esteem-
ing them, perhaps, too heavy a chastisement
fur an offence by which no real damage what.
ever had been sustained-by the Plaintiff. It is net
unlikely that they had else in contemplation the
probability, that it was in order to trounce the
Defendant by heavy costs, that the Plaintiff had
brought his action for this trilling matter in the
Court of King's patch, Instead of the County
Coukwhich was eAtially open to him. Application
was then made, we are told, for a second writ of
enquiry, which was granted by the Court, and
executed, but with no better success, the Jury
conceiving they were bound by their oath to find
according to the evidence, and there being no
evidence of even a farthing injury to the Plaintiff.
The Court was then moved for a third writ of
enquiry, on which it was asked, how the Sheriff
came to record the second verdict ? This gees-
don, I confess, Mr. Editor, has not a little sur.
prized me; as it appears to me, from the autho-
rity of Lord COKE, and from the trial of PEN
and MEAD, fur a riot in Graccchurch-street, that
a verdict cannot be rejected. I have ever con.
ceived the law of the laud to be, that a verdict
. on which the Jury are determined, mast be re.
corded—at !visit so it is laid down in that famous
ease ; and so it seems absolutely requisite it should
be, for the security of the subject; but I how to
the authority of Lord ELLENBORWOM on this
point, in case he has said so, though I confess that
is a matter I question extremely, conceiving there
must be some mistake in your Reporter respect-
ing those words, said to have been spoken by his'
Lordship. As to writs of inquiry, they are ex-
tremely ancient indeed ; there is one given by Sir
WILLIAM .DUGDALE, from the Records in the
Exchequer, so old as in the reign of WILLIAM 1.
it '
.t 0 WILLIAM DE CAM ANNIE, to enquire
whether the tenants of certain lona in Northamps
tonshire had paid their rent to the Monks of
Ramsey, or not. The object of these writs arc
the enquiry of a matter of fact, the ascertainment
of which is the issue of the suit. Thus, in the
present case, the object and the issue of the suit
was, ascertaining whether any damage had been
done by Mr. HUNT. This is said to have been de.
termined' by two successive verdicts, and those
verdicts appear to have been agreeable to evidence.
A verdict that is contrary to evidence may be set
aside, not by the authority of the Judge, for no
civil Magistrate, not even the King himself, has
power to controul or annul the verdict of a Jury,
but by the Judge allowing the party, stating him-
self to be aggrieved by a verdict, the means of
proving such verdict to be contrary to evidence.
Herein the Judge must of course exercise his
discretion in granting that fresh inquiry, which is,
to ascertain the falsity of the former verdict; for
seredictuns means a true saying or sentence, and
the object of justice is to ascertain that truth ; the
Judge, therefore, in granting a new trial, must
have reason shaven to him sufficient to induce a
belief that the truth hath not yet been ascertained.
This is the ground of new trials, fur which mess
of damage may be alleged, as well as coutradietion
of fact; for suppose only 1001. damage should be
proved, and the Jury should give 10001., that ver-
dict would be as contrary to evidence as if it gave
damage where there really was none at all. The an.
cientMode was by falsification of a verdict, and
that sometimes was a eery serious thing ; for, if a
man could show by a Jury of twenty-four men that
the first Jury of twelve men had given a verdict
contrary to truth, that is, to the evidence on which
they were sworn to decide, those twelve men
constituting the first Jury, were all hanged.—
This institution answered one great purpose, it
made men careful of their oaths, when they saw
that to decide against evidence not only exposed
them to punishment in another world for the
beluous crime of perjury, but also to an igun.l
minious one in this. Thus it was that the great
Alfred acquired that reputation for justice, which
• has, as a poet terms it, embalmed his name so as
to preserve it for ages, foe he hanged not only
judges, but juries also, when they•rendered false
or untrue verdicts.
The. case of Mr. lltrnv I apprehend has not
been properly represented in the newspapers ; the
Judges of the Court of King's Befall are men of
too much honour and integrity to weaken in any
shape this great bulwark of security to our lives
and properties...this sacra anchorts
the, independence of a juryl.--It cannot possibly
be supposed that they wotild. wish a jury to de.
elate the breadth of a siagle hair from the evi-
dence that is to direct their verdict ; for this dic-
tation, if once admitted, valid not stop till it
subverted altogether the trial by juay, which is
the franchise of the land ; this would be high tree.
.on itself, the very crime. for which Lord Coax
tells us Eimer; and DUDLEY were beheaded,
adding an admonition to all Judges in future, to
beware how they infringe upon this sacred insti-
tution, which, as he says, is not to be shaken.
No, Mr. Editor, it ought not to be sup-
posed for one moment that the Judges of,West.

I