King's Bench Chamber, Sat...
The Times, 1824-02-10T00:00:00

( Bjetore all the Jwdges. I 'T'he detendant in this case was tried in the month of August last at the Chester assizes, upon an indictment charging him and two other men with the wilful murder of WVilliarn W'ood, of which offence he was found guilty, but objections being taken to certain al- leged informalities in the wording of the indictRent, the points were reserved by the Judges of Chester for the consideration of the twelve .Judges here, who accordingly met at one o'clock to-day for that purpose. Mr. Jo-Es appeared on behalf of the prisoner to support the objections. Thev might,perhaps,erem, upon the first view of them, strained and hypercritical, but whes their Lordships recollected the great nicety that had always been reqttired in crimninal proceedings, they wonld no longer be considered so. In proceedings of this na- ture, there was this particular circumstance to be observed-that there was no correlativeness existing between the necessity of proof, and the necessity of allegation. You vwere bound to al.e'ge, for in- stance, the particular wound, and the particular instrumnent with Nwhich that wountl had been inflicted; but you were not bound to prozee them so particularly; it was enough if you proved theni of the same genieral nature. So if you alleged the instrument to have been held in the prisoner's right hand, and proved it to have been held in his left, tIht was suflicient, and vice versa ; or if you alleged that he held it in his right or left hand, and did not prove that he leld it in either. Therefore, there might be necessity of aUegation, where there was no necessity of proof; and the reason was, that this particularity of allegation the better enablcd the prisoner to know exactly what he ha(d to meet, the Judge what he had to try, and the Jnry w,hat they had to decide. rWithout further generr observa- tions, he woulti now proceed to the points reserved for the consider- atiots of tlleir Lordships. The first point was this-the instru- nients of death wvere charged to be stones, and no certain number of stones was alleed wvhich was nbjected to-1st, because all the precedents stated the number, 2dIv, there was a reason for it, namely, because they were liable to be forfeited as deoditnds to the Crown; and 3dly, because it was necessary, in order that it imight appear certain on the face of the intlictment, whether or not the in- strumnents were capable of inflicting the wound described; and 4thly, because the law required that the offence shoultI be strictly defined, in order that it mnight be identified hereafter, in case thle prisoner pleacetl a previous acqtuittal to a future accusation. The next point was, that it was alleged in the indictm-ent that several personrs, ' with certain stones, &c., then anti there inflictesi a wound," &c.; from which it would seem that several persons witli several stones inflicted the one wot,nd, and were guilty of the one striking, wvhiclh was impossible. The jutdges had always required the greatest nicety and exactness to be observed in the framing of in- ctuetlents; so much so.that it wvas laid down by Lnrd Chief Justice ale, that an indictmnent, in wvhich1 it was alleged that the prisoner strucks thedeceased "cum quedodm gdsdio queer in dextra .mze tenlaiL" &e,ws had. because it did not say, '-" cn dextra sua msann." if ere, althoug h the invorti ,.rtr was better latin,perhaps,than dex- fcc 7-,nu, vet so specific did the Court require the indictmient to be. titat they would nor supply the word mannu. In the present case the acts of several nmen with different ittstruments could not produce the one wound. Lord Chief Justice ABBOTT.-Ml'hv not ? ?: r. JosEs.-They certainly could'not be alleged to be the otne striking. Air. Baron GRAtHAM.-SUppOSe the case of a quantity of shot firCe, fro"I; a gun. Mr. JON-Es.-There, I apprehend, the gun is the instrument. Mlr. Baron GIt1AHAN.Nf-XO, ttc shlot is thie ittstrumnent, wehich rce ceives an inmpetus from the gun, just as a stone receives an impetus trorn the hanl titat throws it. lMr.JoNEssaid he would tlen proceed to the next pointt the in- ditmetnnt ran thus-." And the said .Joseph Dale, &c. -with certain stones of no value held in titeir right hands, did, then antl there, at the said William Wood cast and throw." Here the word "- with" rendered tlte charge utterly unintelligible. lls friend kr. kVil- liams had furrished hint with a note of a caRe which was tried be- fore ,Mr. Justice Chambre, at Yttrk. in the spring of 180I 8 theword " with" was accidentally ornitted bv the clerk in drawing the in. dictment, in consequence of wldich it ran thus: " and the said (deceased), he the said (prisoner) did then and there as. sault, and a certain poker then and thier beat," &e. An objec- tion was taken to the indictment on behalf of the prisoner, and allowed by the learned ji dge, because, accordirg to the wsrdinr:of it, tle prisoner was charged witht beating, not the man, butt the poker. Here the prisoner was Lharged not with * throwing certain stores," but, throwing tee certain stones," which was unintelligiMe. Mr. Justice Hornoyn observed, that-Dr. Johnson had described the verb " to throw" to ole neuter as well as active- for instance, when at person was playing at backgamnnon it was correct to talk of iis " ltrowing with dice;" woulhi it not also be correct to say a per- son was" e hrowtng with Stanes?", MiIr. JOSF.s said that was certainly a new view ofitv which had not been taken in the court below; he apprehended tltat by thus chang. ing the transitive sense of the word " throw," the meaning was rendered not so lear and unequivocal as the nlcety which had aLt een observed in these proceedinvs required. The learned gentleman, after sonte further argulthent concluded by recapitulating he leading grounds of tis objection to the indictment. Lord Chief Justice Apnott _Mreshall report our decisiott to his Majesty.-The Cbltamber was then cleared. KING'S BENCH CHAMBER, SATURDAY, FEB. 7. Ir"r; V-1VA v nsT-