The Massachusetts spy. [volume] (Boston [Mass.]) 1770-1772, 1772-01-16
THURS D A Y, January 16, 1772.

che King. Judgment could not be given,
new trial Illegal, and no way.was poi
iibIe to get extricated out of this diem ma,
bu, the above This was grounded on an
opinion, think, of an Englifh Judge, but
on no eitablifhed deciiion. Whether the
King, in the capacity the Law has lodged
in him, can pardon previous to Judgment
being given, is point that NAV admit OF
difpute, but fhall at preient be psiEed over.
| now relums the argument in my iecond
number, and Unfit upon it, that a court
have no power to con;roul verdict of a
jury for meddling with law, and that to
this they have an unalicnabie right.
Ii is laid down as Law, if matter of faG7
and matter of r(eord are 70 intermixed
that they cannot be divided, the SVbeis fhall
be tried by the country. Trials per Pals.
vol. Up. 81. Surely this mutt be abfurd,
and the law wrong, if court can refnl to
receive verdict, becaufc the jury exercifed
this right. 1t would be leaf ng the jury in
to path that would PROF. prejudicial to
the fubjea, as we'll as dangerous to them
felves. The law is clear, and fmilsr to
LiItlston's opinion, quoted formerly, that
the jury may deternine both lazy and -fa2..
Agreeable hereto, is Siderhn, p. sy4sDebt
on Bond. The plaintiff dcmurrsd, Sc per
Curtain. 81 MATER de faA ct mafSSIdf. re-
cord, )onf i1frf MKT qE' ne poet fife afssss
tsHt ls,ra Try per pals Sid. 40. Read VS..
Dawfou, In information de tsyjEry fait frSUs
PR t Roy ct ore IN mSUs Jur feveral aft :
o1vits p lUs, ssVsi trial ct flits dsE6fs par
h court que comment e0nf 6ppisrt al nx
pay grant noOei trial, e lis ont psrdy Pr,
Geo fair fans k esnjSnt Gd Cornell Le Roy.
Here the court were of opinion that . new
trial cannot be granted without content of
the council of the King But this 4cems
10 be given up that the wretch fhall not
have new trial. The difficulty is the vi
tiating the verda on accoun, of the jury's
meddIing with law. Trials per Pals vi
ago. though it be true that jury lhall
not be charged or NEEDLE with matter of
law, yet daily experience (as we'll as Lit
Teton. feet. 368) tells us that they may
fokt upon them the kn0wlFdsr Of The lar0, and
give a general verdict, though to find
the fpecial matter is the (afsR way. becaufe
if they miftake the law, they raS in danger
of atfain." An authority thus wordcd ap-
pears 70 me to cut the matter fhort; either
this book can be no authority, which will
not be pretended, and with it Littleton
bimfelf, or the doctrine contefed with me
mutt be erroneous. Can words be more
express in this point The known maxim
ad qugJgisnsn jnvis non rslpOHdfant jar0forss
is admitted, and yet does NOT initiate with
the truth am advancing, for the authority
expressly declares, though that maxim be
true, yet the jury may take on them the
knowledge of the law as well as fact, and
which by the way they are equally fworn
to, and if they run counter to the eftab-
liihed maxim, the conlcquence is, not a
vitiation of the verdict, but an attaint.
The authority diRingu lhes extremely well
in this matter, points out the danger and
the confsquence of the juries determining
law, viz. an attaint, and not ietring a
iide verdias to the infinite detriment of To-
cisty.
There is cafe in point, Manly and
Scott, Trim. I3. Cor. a. B R. the diff
Guilty aledged was that the jury had mifta-
ken the law. IL was an action of the cafe
brought againt the hufband for wares Ia
ken up by the wife. The jury found the
wares were neceHarieS, and according 70
her degree, it was objected they ought to