Henry Fauntleroy.
The Times, 1824-11-24T00:00:00

Iday ___od_ve`- - uar InleJutigeswoud hear this essargsd t ayveryfullattendance of the bar in the Cou-rt of KIs, -Bete`,, an t trang-er inthe avenupo. Nlearly halfaibu ~r ~the Gand4 Jy WlOM was opened aum oredpc al sitig of Darristers, hiled thle passage to deoo.A Lengtb thejidtng baving taken their seats, the doorasoee,ndtepceehd the'table aen -cepied chieleybygel~ fb a.Te4o gel fo rthe prosecitinadorheiserwesatdtth posite the,Jud e. As soon as the.cnui adzbie The LordfUhief Justice AiUsBOT~cle nM. rdik b was appotnted to argue for the pnnr.. M1r. BnoDrincx said he bad the oorope~r hI Lordshipsou bebulofthepr aoerH enh""r t hP brmhadeew csnvict4edonlanii&rneanthciws u~yto contsaf ficie-ntin point of'law. Tat indictinnt aene eleen couass, th nin frsofwhthwerefoundeaon 2Geo.1l .r2&,aandthe twolst on., SO 1. a.- 22. The fir-st comnt charged the pris6ner wiEh d4ee ecited a power of titomev to transfer atock in the aIi laid on Intention to delfraudd tfhat Compn.Tescn t5gda him wifth utts-ing a deed of similar natue, and with alrnflat minen-. tion; and the third with putting awa1y andi passing sulch de cert that theY laid the intent to defraud Frances Young ; and the. three ;iext were to stame effect, only laying the intentgto dtfratl William FElower. The two last count were!gg~ ~mrg i torlney, and were -frarned under 3 Gao.LI e. b ut of thsue and of all the coutnts cha aga actual forger,teproe and he was convictedi onlyon these nd,tifh,nd ctghth,whI4ch;;; him wthutteding aforge- deed,Ilnowingjeto befere.Teieso than, wou,ldbe, whether the instrument et ouxtIn-terecoriiand de.. scribed as z deed, was within the language, intent, and serri o Gaoe~ 11 c. 25, which makes the teing of a deed ko"d f2 forge, felony, without berefit of clerg.Beoeheetre ntha. gumeat of this question, he must advert to crculmstan~cstonnectd with it, which he felt to be deserving of most grave ana ismrins con.. sideratiDn, anti the efrect of' whichhems,afr Pob1 o. vista. It would be reletedby their Loideqhip,tbtin the begin- nine of last year, a persont ramed Johna Wait was con-victed an &t ticimilar charjc, and suffered the penalty of the law. The case of that. individual was argued beibre the Judges by a rmeet leaned, zealous,.. and able advocate (Mfr. Campbell), and by Mr. Sergeant Bescnquet. for the Crown. On that occasion the -ireaent objecticm was not- raised, but itwas conteridedjthat the co-4austee-of the prisoper,whote name had been forgedl, was not competertoigivaevjiden, beceit~-, was interestedtoprevetrheinstruxment aforge~ry. Itthebecamethgc object of Mdr. Camnpbell to thowr that the Instrmment was a deed5 which cotld be releasedor destroyed onlyby deed, andathat cause. queatly it rematined uinrevored by a me?dcve b?l disclaimer, sad was,. if genuine, in force till thevwitesas should formally revoke t. But the learned sergeant, who was now to argue for the ijeowen success..- fully oppo-ed this reasoning, by shiowing that the power wrs ravoca.. ble by matter in pair, by the snere aceting of the principal, and * doing, proved that dhe instruraent was not a deed. Thm a Zso. a case of"1 The Kin v. Lyall," eprted in Rucsael on Csiice at!d Mi.iemanors,P.12,he, upan an inidictment for forging a letter'of attorne to obtain a seamnan'e prize..maney,a, latrge mjrt of the Judges thouglit the warrant wasa a deed. mjrc Air. JuStice BAY LEY.-ElCVea were of' that opinion :one learn. ed, rdg dRoubted conti2tued.-.He was far from meaning to treat that case lightly;- he felt its weighs; he fclt alwo the icaprfisiore. which must be mnade bY the fact, thait repeated executions had tak-ea place on similar convictons. But he felt assured that if, on ful.r consideration, their lordships should now hold the objection vralid however much the might regret that it was not taken and preBsse at an earlier perid, they wou d be lnfuiuncsd by other and higher feelings.-by at regard to law andijustice-and would not support thw consistency of their proceedings at the cost of' human life. He well knew their humanity and love of justice woruld lead! them to~ grant his prayr-that they would look at the argament a as though rthe ease were of thle first impression, and wo uld allow to him, in a case of no ordinary anxiety, that indulget attentiox which was never ask-ed in vain. In arguing that the corvietioss could not be supported in law, he should first conitend, that a power of attorney, though signed, sEaled, and delivered, teas not, in striqt legal acceptance, a deed : if he succeeded in this attempt, the conviction would be clearly invnlid; but if he rmerely cast a doubt. on the question-if hea showed that there was a dearly recognized distinction from the earliest periods between such inatrunsents and perfect deeds--he thould lay a solid foundation foarthe seconl part of hie argument-that, even supposing the instrumernt to be Within the letter of the statute, it was riot withinl its object aud meaning and,. coiiseqtaentl~, not affected by its terms. First, then he should co. Ride whe erthis instrument was, in strict lcegl acceptation, is dcccl. it was tree, that it was executed with the formalities GE' deeds; truec, that it contained exnressions which might, at firstaight, aperto be the words of covenant ; but still it wanted that esetal part, recognized in all the old definitions of a deed, that it shouldi contain or be founded upon a contract. In Comyn's Diget, it.Fel (A, adee wa ddnedto be "a writing co,rtain- in~a cirtoct an sinedseaed,anddelivered to the party," andi thi wa supored y te lnguge f LrdCoke, Co. Lit. 315 (b) and171(1,; b bplms a Aosary Coef's Law Dictionary, and Woods Istittes Al thee einet text-writers agreed that a deed must contain a contract, or at least inatter of.grent -. but in a warrant of attomney tnere was no contract, it passed no interest, it released ano interest, and, above all, it was revocable b tnatter -.-, pairi. One of tlhemost essential qualities of deed war, atitcDculd be revoked only by deed, according to the mzxim so often arepeated by Lordi Coke-"~1 Nihil2 trm ecoaeemicis est naturedi acifaitlu aom unninquod ue co disscoid ligareine quo Ige eat. But Mr. Sergent Bsanqet, I "th sin v. ait, reportedl in I Biugam,121 conlusrel proed hata warrant of attarnay, thoghtsiged,seaed,anddelverd, igt be revoked by parole ; cipl as eeed sflilet rvoatin;and in this reepec the custm o th Ban sice ts etabishent had never varied. It followred, therefore, from the learned Sergeant's own reasoning... which the decision sanctioned, and -which he himself could Rot asow imnpugn-that a warrant of attorrey was not a deed, lint mnertly atL authority or power. The distlacuon between writings uwider sea containinig contracts, and those whic'h were mere powers., was recog-. nized in the earliest periodsi of' the law, the first being ealled;facta, or c/artm; the latter, litermx All the powers collectedl in Mazddox's For. rnularia Aug11 corum,i of whiclh there were numerous examrites, wer described as litera. Fiett (B. 1, c. 22, p. 32), alluding directly to the case of forgery, distinguished between choa-tte andi iiterae.be.. twee.ndeedsanadmere writingsunuder sea. Lettersof attoine 'Ware not th-eonlyvwritings under seal which were not deedsi;wills, or ex- amnple, were of the same dezcription ; and award& had baem holden not to bedeeds, though sealed. Mir. Justice BAYLEY.-Awarda are not neceasarily deeds, though under seal ; baLt I think you will fi3nd thaevwill become so if executed with all the formarities, attendant on d5ds. Lord Chief Justice BEST.-Thgrrc is a case of "Brown vVe'uzer," 4 Eastt, 884, to that effect. Mr. BRtODaICa said his oiily immrediate abject was to show that there- was a class of seaW writnag~which from the earliest timest were distinguished fr-om deelds. In the very first statute relating to forgery,lIfHenry V. c. 3. which gave a remtedy by action to, the party grieved, the documents which might he fewijed wets discriminated as "1charita, zive ,mumimenta." This distiotnon wras also suppoi ted by a case in the Yeay-Book, 35 Henry V(., pl. 37, where the writ had spoken of lfccLsafacfa et mvnincenta," and the count set forth mdlv one deed, and aL writing or munirmant a'hich didl nor ppea to e h~deed; andit waaob jecttd that tliiswas avarianer, as te parallcc.o ws nt supored.The Chief justice vass Of op'la nian,thatif ti snuimentercadeed, it ought to have beenple e a-s such. ls judgment,teoe did itot decide -whether such mts- nunlaut was or was not ade;bt at least the czse proved that the lawyers of the time dd not feel safe in so describing it in pleading. In this case, it was true that there were certain wordls which night ~eem like the language of a covenant-those words wherebythe party giving theprowercnvecriared and agreed with the Bank- thattateiresecu- tars shiould ratifysny actsoftheirattorney doneafterthedeathbtbitthese wordsdid not reAllyaenlarge the power previously deputed, ecraltierthe effectof the instrument whlichs clearly. wvithauttbem, wonldbeu br to anyac,ion bythecxectstorsagainstthe)Bank, foractingontbedir.sctons of rhattorney. In uiiany instances, words of covenant dia not con- stitute a deed; as it had been liolden that where A covenants not to sue B, this will operate not as a covenant, but stsa releas-e2anl Inay, a, once be pleaded as an answer to an action brought in violation of itstarus.If,thsn,iwasasetia rodeed tbait tshouldcontaiu a conrac, ad aleterof ttoneyconaied none-if there nas acacar lega ditincionto b trced romremte periods- between two classes of intrumets, ech uner sel-wold thie C-ourt, sttlay con-. afringa mat ena sttut, i a aseoflife and deathi, hold thattigi instumet cme itbn te manigofthe term ? But nowr be would enter on) the second brnhe the argument-that part on ahich he feclt the strengest reineadcontendi, that even if awarreat shOuld he consideredimnstricLlegaL cmanring-as- -deed, still At aZidl-ant' cormp within the import, and cenotquetly was no't wdithin the pe- naly, f te satue. f h cold howtihat it was not intended bsv the egilatre hathelersof ttoneyand deeds were alwZys Coni- ing uchan uthrit wold ot e a ofenc Baunderd teAld,5tgug is mgenie ithi issanguge. this adotrie,dthatrid spplirit rahrihn t her cuttr of tinge aBuenshou perevatil,i as % dlyreog nised ouno Coicmin's igesit,enderdimato be 10er1e);Pea wden 'a 10ecote'strepdtbuorts,8 epu andin w,nthtu~htbes ;whticth eas itd and idote bis thet Lor-ad ChsiabefJsiei pm ther casrewefizeD and athe ods o f t m oere Caok e,vio recent lyw anch opt e ano appl ted sutin teCut] of a Kvingl'sv afectnchlf, w here statutes had litew r4 been construed with thze greatestricet1. and enforced wlth the most anxious caution ? Was,. then, the instrument in quiestiOn within the mischief or-tlie mneaning of fhp 1. eomrge IL, a. 25, ~ on vwhich the prigoner was convicted ? Already it had been sbown that, at least our forefathers edistinguished w~ritingaof this kind, aLnd tbose whlich contained contracts, by diffierent terms; already it had beet shown, thazt in the first statutes of forgery, the twodlasrEf were con- tenliplated; andit,would now appear that the Eame line of distinc- tinhdbeen rfgarded in modern tinea, and that the aistinct classes of instruotents hadlbeen regded asdistinct objectsof pnans *Iagslation. Previous to tlte 2 Gao. IL, -the. 8 (leo. Ln212, was passed, which was-unquestionably atpplicable to. these instrunients, and orc which the two last counts vf the inldictment were 1ouaded, wshich had been negatived by the jury. . Thtact, reiting that great frauds and abuses had beencemirsrtted by eorging theaands ofiproprrc. toroftshestareeofthecapitalstocb sandfundsof'badiepol,itebrcorpo,f rate, established by act of Parliauient, er of pera6 -ntitW-to tle dividendg, and by deceitfuUy personatig ihe relproprieteti of Wsucl shares, enucted,4that if any one-should forge uy-v &H-Perif.dtiorety, or other instrument to-transfer such %hares, te iccelre divilendl, or frautdulently dcnu .and Au ideiveur to have sny uch seharetrans- feired to him, dr to aciye dividendsliyvirtue of stuh forged lnrtiu- ment, or falsely pcksor.ate any .trueproperietors of. sh lasames to -ob. rain the transrr oerreceive the mzoney,. he sho-altlbe guilty of felony without benefit of .clergy. Now it ivas quite cler that every case of guilt really was provided for by this statute, and that a& to letteis of attorney no othe-r was needed. True, the inere uttering was- nat. mentioned, but the demanding to act, the false personation, the at- temnpt to obtin oney,. 'ered every case capable of proof, amd- 4i4- sU thasuld be required a-th e Surtberance oF pu)cjustioe. -Then, g ufter tte forgery off letts of at6riiey was thus. made-ft sub.. stantive fcl6ny, camne the 2 Sleo. lcup. 25,oen whicb tbe verdit', wasR founlded. and the prxambFe- -of wtch wcas uosst iStmportant.' aIB &ariinDgithtoQite objEea.L -Thtt shtatte iwas preaced, by a se that,t ;Wh he wlcked,- eroiclous5 andabominale icrbneif t'37g1p51juy, ana udQtnaaion oaf perjury, liave or i ate timie breen go ecapatised, and that it lid nek sary~frtemr f~t.a pen~fiish enormus offeces,fto ct it more exeMplary ginithsntent On sach offandera than by the lwaw of the realm can no~w c oe"and thea went on to mnake tbe forgingitr u"ttering sany deed, wfll, bond, &,-, punishable with death;. Now wa-s it mrmi- *fest tha-t this acd 'was mot intenaed td apply to'thoge ihatttittnents,. the fbrgery of which was already visited with the hlghest'pcnalty of the law, but to those which miighit till'then be fabricated nt the risk only, of mninor inflijtions ? Was it not clear that the statute Ipplied odny to cases whic'h before'vwere not subj'eeted to capital punishmnent by Its very scope and aids.-? But this conclusion, whc * wa co fairly, leducible from tbe pteamble of thae act" was abs9. lutely dermonstrated by, the 31 Geo. IL., c. 22. Ift mnight sonie- umes be saidl that the Legilature had not always in their' recollectiou all that they had previously done. but here, in this statute, they re-enacted the two separnte acts of 8 Gow. I. and 2 Geo. Il., In consecutive aections, the 77ti and 78th 'without aMY aP- vlareat conaciousniess thtat the one was ausatZy Included fit the other. Tht LORD) OuzE' JUSTICE observed, that if the 78th sectiOn was read critically, it would be found not to include Government stock; h ut this silp would make no difference In the general argui- ment, as it wras rectified in the suibse9uient statute of 4 0w. Iii. Alr. BnoURsuCE contfinued.-.Thiat circumstance di'd not certainlY afFect his reasoning. He had now traced two distinct linies of cases feosit remole time h e baa shown them separately. provided f5r bk modern statutes, and o-ne class protected by capital punishmrent long before the other ; and now, to cormplete iis parallel, he traceed themn in the very same statute, kept as distinct as they hadl ever been in thne -eye of the law. The subsequent acts.-the 87th George I111., c. 122, which made It an oilence punishable with transportation" to forge the namnes of attesting witnesses to a genuine letter of attor- wr. ofm a itARgMtorneyyws a deeplendta suc h nlddi the 2s GOf attorney as were not de-eds P~ ?Mr. ,ustice BAYLEY.-Ite is not contendled that all warrants of attornj are necessarily deeds,bet that warrants of attorney executed like th s are deeds. Is there any ac directing the manner Of exe- cuat,n twrofaoney to transfer stock at the Bank ? Mr.oerean BSA5XQUET said there wa-s no s;uch aet; hut he beleve te pactceof the Bank had been always uniformi. .lhI. BoDsxCEsaid, he trusted that he had not.endeavoured to drawany traied r violent infILrences from the premliLes afibrded to him by succesion o statuts. He wellikuewg his learned friend who-as o agueforthe Crown Was too just, and too humane, to asktheJudes o spport the consistency of decision by any forced contrutio ofa lw s bihlypenl.And whens he hiad shown that the Case WUs real rvddfrb previous statute, and that it 'was clearlyntWhnte miclfwhch the2d Gem Ir. waspased to remnedy; and whein he had cited the opinion of Lord Coke, con- g~:.lby the present Lord Chief Justice in case of mnere civil im-. port-, he did humbly, but confidently trast that here, where the life of a roan was at a take, that mot ju'st and humane position would have full force, and that their Lordhips. would feel that the prose. cators had mistaken their course, and that the conviction was unsuP- ported bylaw. Liord Chief Justice- AI32OTT, at the conclusion,of this argu- men;, intimnated strong approbation of the manner in which it had beese onuducted. Mfr. Sergeant BOSA2?vUTuy then rose on the part of the Crown. It was true that he would not ask their Lordships to put any strain- ed construction on the statute of 2 Gee. II. for the sake of preserving consistency, if they were convinced in their owvn minds, that the doc- trine long received and acted oii wvas erroneous. But lie miight ask them iii this; as in all othercase, to consider what had been done before by themrselvesi and their predecessiors, and to decide in con- -formity with p-revious authorities unless satisfied that all had hithberto steen wrong. It weas not till a late hour yesterday that he Irec&ivedI intimation of his leamned friend's design to argase that a power of attorrifev, scaled and delivered as a deed, was not a deed in accPta- tion of lw That intention certainly excited much surprise in hia m-ind ; and he did not thinlc he should find it very diffilcult to as siwer the argtsments by which the posgition was supiported. 31r. Bro. drick seemed to contend, on the authority of certain definitions by Lord Coke and others, that, no instrulmenet could be a deed unless st contafned a contract; bat those authorities onlY Proved lhow danager-- ous a thing a definition was even in such hands as Lord Coke's. All that could be intended by these writers was, that where a deedl was founded on contract, the contract wras one of its integral portions ; for Lord Coke himuself, in numnerous passages~, spoke of instrumnentsi as deeds which lhad no relation whaiteVer to contracts. Thus he laid down, that a letter of attorney to deliver or receive seitin, a letter of attorney ta take selsin,and all powers delegatedI by corporationsnmustbe bydeed. Thusarelease, whichsvnight orintightstotarisc eutof contract, andA which very often had no connexion witli contract, must be by deed. So there were confirieations by deed ; disclaimers by deed ; and deeds to declare the uses otfLines, for which there was no consi- deration, but whi ch wvere the mere voluntary acts of the pasty. The sophism consisted in taking oqe class of deeds, founded On contract, and~ then, because that contract was enumerated as one of their essen- tial poTtions among othcrs, inferring that it was necessary in every case to conistitute a deed. That the inference was untrue, must be seen after a moment's consideration ; fOr a ILater of attorney to cxc- cete a deed, must be by deed; and so must every instrument con. yatgmatter bein in g7rant. Lord Coke himnself, when discrimi- natying between vlthereen and the charLx (Co. Lit. 62, a.), de. srbied both as deeds. In Goddard's Case, 2 Roll. Abr. 21, er deed was defined to he a writing signed, sealed. and deli- vexed ; and the case cited fromn the Year-)3ooks' was really In favour of the same supposition, for after the, Chief Justice baat givesn an opinion that the muniment was improperly plead. ed, and being set forth as a decd, the counsel beggtd' leave to amend, which cnuld not be done with, effect if the instrument ed no award could be a deed; thouigh in the case of' "1Brom v. Vauser" Mr. Justice Lawrence distinctly intimated that if it were so delivered.it mnst be stamped as a deed. So, because some war- rants of attomey 'weve net by deed, it was concluded that no warrant of attorney ever coull be a deed. Ina this case, too, there were admitted to be words resembling, at least, wordsi of covenant ; but it was contended that they were merely nu- gatory, and gave no addititonal effect to the instrument. The covetiant was not necessary to the argument ; but it was right to say that it was introduced on grave deliberation, and by the advice of ean excellen-t lawyer, who considered it essential to the pro. tection of the Bankl. That judgm7ent appeared to be right ; for a mere power was revolted by death; and no man could, however he'might deire it, appoint an attorsney to his executor, much less to lils ad. minisjtrator ; so that these words were requisite as a covenant to secure the Bank against loss by the acts of an unauthorized person, which the personal representatives of the deceased miglht not choose to sanc- tion. It had been said that in " the King v. Wait" he (Mir. Ser- geant Bosan quet) had argued that a power to tranefer stock was revocbble by matter in pals, and therecfore hiot a deced ; he had contended tha-t it was so revocable, but he hadl not added the inferencee; on the contrary, he had urged that t'he authority being disLtirlt fromn the ,leed, might be defeated by- tv.arole, as nan estate created with similar solemnities. Here lie might leave the first p4rt of the argument, and conic to the second- that supposing the power to be a deedi, it see no, ssuch a deed as the purview of 2 George II. wotilti fairly include. H-ow was this posi- tion supported ? The. instrfument was dcearly within the letter of the act; upon that act every~ subsequent prosecution had been founded; and it lay on thte other sidte to maike out a case of exception and re- stricted meaning. It was said that the 8.h Gro. I. already embraced this species of instrume-nt; and that in subsequent actsi it had been distinctly provided for, and thereforeitEcould stot'be brojught within the meaninigof 2 eo. II., thoughliclearly with~in its language. But it -was a rule of law theeat dirmstive words in one statute should not affect merely alllrmasive words in another statute, so as to deptrie them of their force; and if the subsequent acts were examined,they would be foundI directedl to remnedy someparticular mischief, and not t0 contemplate aniy such line of tliscriminntion as had beeni supposed en thxe other side. The 18 Geo. 1. did not particularly apply, ilf it applied at all, to the Bank ; the 2 Geo. 11. was an ace generally at1ectinitconimercial instruments, also 'without any particular re- ferenice ; and the 31 eow. IL, c. 22, sec 77, on whicih so nmuch re- liance seas plated, Was expressly passedl to meet doubts entiertained whether the 8 Gmo. ., c. 22. extended to stock created isince it was enacted; and the 78h section to dlispel similar doutbts as to the extension of 2 Geo. I11. to forgeries comimitted with inten- tion to defiraud any corporate body. 'Each of these sections there- fore, re-.enacud the provfsion to whichi it referred, witht aucdi addi. tiens as wvere necessary to secure thiis object:r and was it because the Lvgislature, having tills specific end in vicw, re-enacted distiiuctly a provision a to-letters of attorney, aind then a provision including ded,that they ucust be intendd to hold out that by a deed they did not ever intend any warrant of attorney? The Bank Acts did not requtire lettera ofaEttorney to be delivered as deeds. If, thereforte, thepy were not so, they required the protection of the'&th Geo. II. ; but if they were, mnust they be excluded from that of 2 Gk-o. It., when plauinly withini its letter? Hecre be (thie learned rergeant) felt it his duty to state, that for as long series of yea,s, parties had been ;alwavs indicted for thiis offence uipon this general, statute; and thoiigh they hail often been defend. ed by moat learned a dvocates and though their catses had), on t hey grounds, been brought tiner (lie solemn consideration at the udgets, no doubt hiad ever beon cast on the legalitY Of Procceedingr in E hs form. Accoriling to the argument for the priSOner, the u ttering a forged power of atusiney was no ckpital felony.-it was a cavres tor,issus in the alate; and yet there had been repeated convictions and texcativY'o for that offence. At hiis request, the Attorniey-General had a,o:~o the Old Bailey to request the emciwr to at tend wit4 the recor~t,' s convictions; with which lie was now ready, if their I,orX~_~B thougthetirOpe to inspect themi. In l7296, Henry Vees taln was indiptect for forgin ed teing a deed, and forg- iogis letter of attorney, and ovce u this case was less Important to the nrgument tnohe,bcase there Was, un- fieubtejly, evidence of actual frgery. I 1802,, a iperson, named Co',wasit ndicted for uttering a forged deed, purporting to be a Power of attorney. He was defended by, Sir Vic,ary G4ibbs. Thecre Vas no evidence of forgery, but he was convicted of utterinig, and bufr'ered thie punishment of'thie lavw. In 1804, Ann lturle was tried, eni an eladictmient containing four counts, for uttering deeds, which were powvers of attorney ; and thoughi this was before the introduction1 Of the woros ot covenanit, she was found guilty atnd executed. In lid6, Joseph Boyle was convicted, but in his ctae tbere was evidence eforgery. In 1817, Mary Anne Jones was tried- on-an indictment, huich coptained pp popnt for torging a letter of attorney, but simply #eKcribed the instrunment as a deed ; yet she was convicted of utter- 3!g only, a0d hanged. After these, pcame the case qf Wait, in the intletnicat aainst whom- no cutits obr" 'foTgery were Ittrodttccd,.because tihe forgery was conrmitjted at BristoL ' On his behalt;- a most leamncd antd ingetious'argumentwas submisitted, by Vll advocate who exerted himtelf to the utiost-to pave his eilent;'bt%t in vain. It was true, tiat in that case, the present point was not izil3d, nor could it well be raised witbout weakeuing the effect of lt. Campbell's reasoning'; btt it could Pot fsill 10 Present itself to 'be inind 6f tbeir Lordships, esitcialfy isl'er the recehti discussion of Th'e King v. I,yal," in w*hich a similarquestion had been raised cil the statnie respecting seamen's prige.*ioney,ntd fecided by agreat ILJus vec 'AILSY-4 believe my brother Grahamn and I are t;he Cnly two Judges remaining on the bench who were, present at h2 discuission. ''he Srst qitestion put to'us was, whetber theinstrn- Yiust asadeetl psevioaistothe268co.III.,-.o2, and,weall thoughtit . except y lrotherraham, who doubted. The 2d queseton was, 1 aberit ceased to belo byoperation of that -statute. Ten of the athought - it-did nor; twodiffered; and those two are Inv Gte rahami and my,self. - '5 ' 31r. Sargeant BOESArQUr thianleed the leafiedu Jjdge foe his e0inicatios, The case on the first point -was directy in support e4 argument ;~ but Le chiefly relied upon it as necessarily bring. iion before te minds of the Jtidgea In " the King v w he,ough it was not relied onby counsel, they woald undoubtedly havegiven the benefit of it to the prisoner, had they. 'thought it capable of decidion in his t'amour. Illr. Justice PAf lead hi's notes of the case of Sopha Pringle, tried before Mr. Baron Thoripson; and two other Judges, for utter. ing a deed purporling to bo a power of attorney,.when they held the indictment good, and she suffered for the offience. Ir. Sergeant BO5AN4UCiT raid, the record of thgt indictment was in Cout. ile had now gone through thb argumetas which pre. sented themselves to hrs mind In support of the conviction; and without asking a strained conatruction of any statute, oe desiring to givf more than dueweight to long p.-actice and previous decislon, he Ieft the case in their Lordships' hands. Mlr. BnI'ODRYCK rose to reply. He laboured under a disadvan. tage; for his learned friend, it appe-aed, had feceived the benefit'of previously knowing the argumients ie was to answer, whereas he was called on to makesuch remarks as were suggested at the moment. The CIoRD CnIrIF JUSTICE here consulted with some of his learned brothers, and thent addressed the learned coutnscl-.You have co:nplained that Mt)r. Sergeant Bosanquet had the opportunity of knowing your line of argument-how he obtained it I cannot tell- and that you are caled on'to replv at once. Would you wish time to consider aefore you address usa Ill r. BRODRnICx.-Afy Lord, I- merely Intended to apologize for mytelf * I am surc what I omit will be supplied in the con5idera- tion of yourileitJrdships. t.S r Eergeant QSA u -I be o say for myelf that a copy of the petition wa's sent to me yesterday afternoon, to which I af- ludee;, and whichl I believe Is usual. M51r. Justice PARK.-Certainly: it is alwavs done. The LORD CHIEF JUSTIlCE.'-If, Mr. Brodrick, you wish for yourself, or rather for your client, to take time befnre you reply, we w7ill adiourn to an early hourto-motrow-it must be early. 1'lr. BitoDniucx.....hen, my Lord, I think, on behalf of- my client,.I am bound to accept the ndulgeace of your Lordships. The LOItD CHI{EF JtT IcE.-Thefl we svill meet here to.mor. row at ten o'clock. The argument, which lasted nearlv three hours and a half, was listened to with great interest by the iu,ience. ENi PAUNTLEROy. ]t.-iE THN kEFDp El THE G~Aj -~~ T. TWEl,VE JUDOI,,O IiV- TI,_ '2llPXj tnn ;AA UN -L: M O10 .