New-York daily tribune., 1863-12-26


and:on American principles, too. We call II ma
recreation tor an able writer and dexterous lav.
yer (on this score We acquit VIM. Beach Law.
renee of having penned the article) to do whss
be can to aid the foreign as well as the do.
mestic foes Of his country with weapons selected
from her own armories. Fortunately, this lseI
reersan. is nearly as ignorant as tho editor a
Lanrenee's Wheaton. himself, of the true bea,.
ing Of those American authorities on the Alex.
andra question, and has not yet learned that hk
protege, the Chief Baron, got 80 much Of then
at the late law discussion that he had 10 ory. n
completcte discontinue, "Hold! Enoughi I
will no more"
We shall not be so presumptuous as to a.
nounce beforehand what law the Exchequa
Court will grind out Of the Alexandra grist; bu,
we venture to say that If there "is disagree.
ment among the Judges" about principles.
there can be none about the propriety Of grsnt
ing q new trial. Even Chief Baron PoIloct
himself, We almost fancy, will not have tho hw,
dihood to deny that deceacy requires that Z
new trial should be granted to the Crown "a.
thorites if they desire it. English administra.
ton Of justice will become byword. il such
case as the Alexandra's is called fair speci.
men. We think the granting Of the rule to show
cause, after three days wrangle between tho
Chief Baron and the Attorney General, affordl
some indication Of this. Then we put the SAND
construction upon Baron POllock's persistent,
and We think, most unhandSome, attempt II
fasten Oh ex.Attorney-General Atherton As
blame of the miscarriage Of the jury trial. Ac.
cording to Tho Daily Ne~s and The Morning
Star OF Nov. %, the following is one Of thost
episodes Of tho law.hearing in which the Pre-
siding Judge sought to thrust upon Sir williau
Atherton, behind his back and when he bad n(
chance to defend himself, the responsibility n
his own shortcomings:
Lord Chief Borom--" This H. doubt. painful me-
ter 10 refer to- whether Sir William had been psrtot
lar enough In asking for the rulings npon tho isNjl
"but when tie ruling Of the Judge Il bomed IL should
be remeu,bs rcd that though he repeatedly asked ID
some distinct aud definite Interpretation OF the stats
--any ything fol hidden 10 be done-fe asked In vaAs
Here law hich bad never been put In fore b:
fore and the Attorney General should have e1pin61
It and ed how facts applied but he did nothing
Of IA. kind. got 10 assistance but, on NJ
contrary. there was a steady refusal to answer a.
question give any information but this: th1 ~
Grown was entitled to verdict"
Two or three times after this the Lord Chia
Baron REQUIRED to this charge against Sir vii.
liam in the same strain, till finally the QueenS
Advocate, Sir Robert Phllimore, (author d
"Tho International Law had to say 10 A(
Chief Baron: That question has been ~
hat I 10Th IN N -
but Al bound to sag our [the Crown law.
yer',l opinion - that the late Attorney-Geu'
eral conducted the case rita great ability and pw'
svi.u.tg." Not content with thus aSsailing tha
e1.A'torey General about matters in Court
the Chief Baron undertook TO drag into tha
quarrel something which had occurred out d
Court, ard insisted upon the array OF lawyen
there resent listening to the bill of exceptions
which S.r william lad handed TO him, and which
he ,the Chief Baron) refused to sign. WhN
would be thought in an American Court Of
Judge quarreling with lawyer about bill ID
exceptions, and then submitting TO the bar,
when the lawyer wes not present, whether the
Law yers proposed exceptions were no, trumpsd
I upi We wonder that the English Lawyers, ID
-eli-deiense, should submit 10 such treatment.
Certainly the American bar have no such article
in .heiy code of professional etiquette as to tol.
crate such demeanor in Judge. But tho emord
which We deduce from all this contention and
arrogance of the Lord Chief Baron ia. thai
somebody had blundered, and blunderel
shamefully a, the jury trial about the law.
But let our readers listen again to the Chia
Baron, when lie feels himself cornered by hsv'
ine the shorthand reporters notes OF his charge
to the Jury quoted against him. Our readen
may remember that We haze previously (poc. "
quoted bis own words as 70 tfreSe notes, thAt
every word which passed had been taken down.
There can be no doubt as to every syllsbh
which has been uttered in Court:
Lo,d CsiJ Bsrol 60 n. Solicitor Geserel Sho sss l<S
efi,,.,ia- ne Baic,-"I VII ak You whether. since
YOU have bsen member ot tho profession yoa ewes
hear he sho., -haad notes OF Jadse. summing "
criticized ~ these have nceu during hye day = 49,,
Il afg4,N Bar37--"A \ ktnl of ph'togtapL. IN VIM
cyery little scratch ot our lace Is seen"
Iorg Ctigf BdroH-" And even the nnshsfen cofnc
ofyuur chin - Daily Nsrs and Mcrriss scr Nov u
50 tie Chief Baron winces under the Discus
sion oi some Of his "syllables." Probably q
that lime he had begun to think that 'qn'Y'
furnish II cut. or arn," did no, all mean pro-
ci-ey the same thng;" and that WeOsters
pocket dictionary vas not a very good aalhori'
" to present To the Jury Oh great intern"
,ional las question, even If the Attorney -''en'
'ere had no definitions OF his own TO offer.
AZ, T., -. h.ar what the SOlicitor-Goncr@
bad 20 reply 70 the correfirg objection ot tn'
CHEF Baron:
.,r.t,r Glrerc,. ST. r p Couicr-"The AtvorneN