The Massachusetts spy. [volume] (Boston [Mass.]) 1770-1772, 1772-05-14


that if tky this did their Vsdi7 y60aM b.
v0id, it goes on to relate the e0njeqHsnoft Of
the jury's thus doing. No: that their Vydiei
jBaA be VOid, but that they run in danger o.
an 0ffaint. If then thefe words were evident
ly iet down in this authority amy to fhow how
the Law anciently food, and borO dametri-
ealy appetite the common Law, aud the opn-
ion OF its mott venerable expoundeTs now
was, mankind mutt judge how materially they
made againR me. Had thoie words been
Inherited, it might have fwelled my number
little more, and might have Gmalea my
readers, if any of them had curioiity to
know how the Law f0rmsrI was. But my
purpoie was brevity and clearneis, and TO
lhow Ony what the authority quoted affirm
ed TO be Law, in contradiiin6tion to Obj0lst1
maxims, and whether that Law made for OF
againf me.
The above may be an anfwer, alto, to a.
Mother queition you put, viz. "an exPoiitl-
on of the words now in dfpute." Although
think the proofs above are efficient to fhow,
that they did not relate at all to the lpirit Of
the authority, and that they were only men
toned to thew how stpgfts they were to what
the Law is no1V, yet had | little more lei
lure, | would admit the words TO be L01O in
their fnAf extent, and fee how they made
againf me for recourfe would then be had
to my main objcaion to lheie proceedings.
viz. if their Verdia Is void, and judgment
ought to be auefed, let them have recourle
to the kgai method. And unlefs it is proved
to me with the pen Of fun beam, | never
can think that is Law, that court, can e.
~Hly, and by their 0aOn authority, jarrett judg-
men,, and that on realm which they pub
HekB di(avow. This s0M ever be a donbf in
my mind although, for fake of argument,
fully admit, that if a jury meddte with anc
mJqake the Law, their Vfrdi7 mall be Void
Next comes the cafe of Manly and Scott
which CauGdicus ieems to be 70 merry with.
RijRm ffne0fi5 0miei ?" CauGdicus and
his friends may fnile if they pleafe fhal
never take that for an 0nja0er. In arguing
from an authority always endeavour, to
ule your own words, to coniider the paint.
determined in the cafe. Now | do not care
whether the perjSn concerned was b0r6e,
or an attorney. General. was attempting
to prove the Judge had no right to e0Hfyon
the verdict of the jury, merely becaufe they
mtddls4 with Law. The paints iettIed here
are ftrong in my favour. Il is declared tha
in matters Of LGSU, the Judge only izfoym
the Jury, who are to weigh thar information
and 70 they declare it belongs not 10 tn,
court.
My next authority from Leonard is to III,
fame purpole but you leem to be pretty
well contented with this. ! will therefore
only leave one more authority under you
confederation. Jones Reports, p. ~. eth,
jury are peJured if the verdict be sgainf
fbeir own judqmeztJ, though by diyet7iea o.
the court, for their oath obliges them to thell
0sVn Judgment.
We proceed to Trials p. Pals. " A jury
fhall enquire of the intent of a man." Here
you blame me again with not quoting a,
large, and for leaving out the words " of the
knowledge" The word INTENT Geems
to me to be entirely Ultima from the reft OF
the authority. And with refpea of the ma :
teriaity of the word knowledge" might
as well have transcribed the mof diflant pal-
fage in the book. | would obfe1ve, that in
the original the word "intent" is the only
word italicized, and in the margin which de-
levers the (l1qOncf ofthe authority, you find
"Of the intent of man." Ii appears to me
that the.word " intent" being thus italicized
and from the references in ths margin, that
that wa: the idea meant. to be conveyed, aud