The Statesman.
London, England, 1820-05-08 00:00:00

COUR T uF K!x(;s tirscH.—( Tars Dar.)

THE KING e. UCHT AND OTHFRS.
19 soon as the Judges had taken their seats, Mr
holier Austere proceeded to deliver the opinion of the
Cart. Ile obte-rvil, that this case had already occu-
pied mush time, awl that it did not appear to him that
ere grounds for doubt had been advanced. Several
oblectirns had been urged against the verdict delivered
e.tli.• trial, and hat \rtattld now give his opinion upon
0.3 e 'I be first objection was. that evidence ought tal
woe been received respecting the conduct of the
eivalry and Yeomanry, and be certeink, did consider
objection as irrelevant to the matter in inane. The
natter to be cteilidered was the intentions and con-
duct of the assembly, and not the conduct of the mili-
tate ; anal therefore this objection was irrelevant, as it
had DO bear;rg upon the question which the Jury
had to girl itie. The second objertion was. that the
reeolution read at Smithfield oueltt not to have been
ebnitted rviden e, as in the first place no notice
was Oen to I reduce the ori eine!: and in the second,
that such elitleire was improper. Upon this point,
tee Learned Alder observed, that the pal.er produced
at the trial had been given by one of the defendants at
ti.e tittle and place where the resolution had been read,
anal it was therefore to be.presumed that it was a faith-
ful copy. ibis evident e, therefore, was as good, if
nAt breer, than any other that could be produced, and
DO doubt could exist that it was competent to show the
intentions cf the meeting. Thet was for the considera-
tion of the Jery, and had lwrn very properly left to
them. '1 he oleection to the evidence of the training anal
defiling psrt:es was next bronght forward. The ease
before them presented two general questions: Ist, the
emend c:taracter Of the meeting : and :bully, the p irti-
ruler ease of each individual, as it was connected by
evialene • with the general character of the whole.
.aew, it had been shown that the persons composing
the meet:eg bad marched in regular bodies, and had
preserved a dee ree of order and precision never wit-
nessed. creel tin military movements. The probable
effect of all this, it was for the Jury to determine ;
and if it was proper to leave this point for their
consideretion, it must, at the snare time, be proper
t„ aow that nuetings fur the purpose of train-
ing and drilling had previously taken place. In
his opinion, therefore, this was competent evidence.
The last objection which had been made related
to the parole evidence of the inscriptions upon the
tins an I banners, which It was contended ought not
to have bees received, but that the flags theisiselvee
should have been brought into Ci.urt. The Learned
Jedge:cmerked typal' this head, that he did not think
it neerseey to produce, or give notice to produce, the
Ow. lit many cases the testimony of an eye-witness
was held to be as competent as the actual production
...Oat have been, amid this rule hail never, to his
knowledge, been disputed, except in the present case.
Having sail this upon the general merits of
the lee-, he wield briefly tedire what had heels
said respecting the alleged misdirection of the
Judyr. it did appear to him. that no observatiost
Lad Levis wale by the Judee, exc pt such as the case
+radiated. Iffir fteldewee *ad Alen pv epeetrielb 4
time Jury, and they were required to presume nothing
aerinst the prisoners, except when the presumptive
arose Lon) indisputable facts.
Mr. Justice Beater observed, that the few obserra-
tions which he intended to offer, he would reserve
until he had heard the opinion of his Learned Brothers.
Mr. Justice Heimann agreed in what had bees
said by the Lord Chief Jostice, and expressed bis row
liction, that no grounds had been brought forward for
a new ilia,.
Mr. Justice MIT concurred in the opinion at bb
learned Brothers.
Mr. Justice thereat. observed, that after giving tie
most attentive consideration to what had fallen from
the defendant, there dial not appear to him any ground
hir the application. Ile would not p into a general
review of the rase, heenuee he entirely concurred lel
what bad fallen from the Lord Chief Justice, bat'
there were one or two points to which he would het*
revert. He thought that if he bad admitted the evt-1
&nee respecting the conduct of the cavalry, that he
should have failed in the duty which he owed to his
cowry, anal for this short reason. that be was then try-
ing the demeatio ur of tbe assent bly and not the demeanour
of the soldiers. It the military had misbehaved them-
selves, they might afterwards !ot brought to trial, and it
would hare been unfair to have prejudged their case,
in souther and separate trial. The defendant had
said, that guilt shuuld nut be presumed against hint.
He agreed in this; but if the defendant meant to say,
that th y ehoul.l not draw from evidence the presump-
tion fairly arising from evidence, be (the Learned
Judge) mutt differ from that opinion. If, fur in-
stance, a man steals goods, which twenty-four hours
afterwards are found in his possession, would it be
contended, because no one saw him steel the goods,
that the possession of them (unless satisfactorily ex-
plained) is not solidest to warrant a presumption
that he was the thief? If, therefore, the resolutions
intruded to be propounded did differ from the Smith-
field resolutions. it was easy for the defendants to
abow• that circumstance. The resolutions had
been delivered by one of the defendants to a per-
son who compared them with the Smithfield reso-
lutions, and foetid them to be the same, and it was
therefore, fur the defendants to prove that they intend-
ed to vrepose different resolutions, The Crown could
not do this, but it was in the power of the defendants.
After some further remarks upon the evidence of train-
ing and drilling, and the wish of Mr. Hunt to pro-
duce the actual banners, the Learned Judge concluded
bytobserving, that the laws of evidence were founded
on reason anal wisdom. and it would be a violation of
both, if evidence of this description had been received.
He certainly saw no ground for the application.
The Arrottext-Oessest. then said, dm* as much'
time hadakeady been consumed by this ceseibitSbenthi.
unless the defendants had something foram I* Ilk,
press the judgment of the Court.
Mr. HUNT informed their Lordships, that some of
the defendants wished to procure affidavits from Man-
theme., and begged that judgment might be deferred
until this could be dons. In reply to a peraiest from
the Lead Vbief Justice, Mr. Rent said that it would
probably traptire.six days—two to go, two to remain
there, aid two to return.