Old Bailey New Court, Fri...
The Times, 1824-06-05T00:00:00

In tnecourse ot yesterday,MrJbAW addresset the Court respecting the case of Johnt Roberts, who was tried the day before, and convict- ed and with regard to whoim some conversation took place, of some interest to the profession and to thepublic. He held in his hand a newfspaper (wre observed it was Tfe ti'mes) of yesterday, in which It w3s reported that Ir. Adolphus had, been retained by the prisoner, who on that account requested that the case might be postponed. It was further stated, that he (Mr. Law) had been retainea on ac- -onnt of the unavoidable absence of Ar. Adolphus; and that dur- ing the trial no one appeared to conduct the prisoner's defence. So far the report was correct; but the statement that he (lr. Law) was engaged in the other court was incorrect. The fact was this :_-fe was not aware that the case was set down in the list of those whose cases were appointed for trial at the new Court, and was sitting completely dengaed in the old Court, atthe time, and quite ready to attend thetrial, had any cerk informed him of the necessity of his presence. The mistake arose from the circumstance of the prisoner's having mentioned the name of M1r. Adolphus. " Had he," said Mr. Law, " mentioned my name, he should undoubtedly have had my best assistance." The report of this matter was, Mr. Law observed, followed by some grievous misstatement, which represented counsel as being in the habit of receiving money from poor people, and then abandoning them. Those asertionswerewhollyunfounded. Indeed, if it were not for the allusion made to himself, he would not (we understood the learned gentleman to ssy6have said one word about them. The RECORDER sid le nod known the leamed counsel since he had been called to the bar, and had not seen anyone more attentive or more anxious in the discharge of his duties; and he was sure tl* no neglect whatever could be justly imputed to him. ,iderman Sir C. S. HsenTER, who was on the bench, said he was convinced the newspapers meant well, in the occasional cen sures which they pxassed upon professional men; but they certainlg were indiscreet. They should have inquired before they mentioned the fnet We take this opportunity to mention,that when our reporter went into the old court, which he did in ten minutes after Roberts's case was disposed of, he saw Mr. Iaw examining a vitness. He might tiot'have been engaged during the trial. All the other facts are per- fectly correct. That which was stated as a grievance-the fact of prisoners being often left without defence, notwithstanding their having paid lbeavily for defence-is, we repeat, as notorious as it is flagrant,'and has becn long complained of. It is equally true that itis thepractice never to retum the fees which are taken from the poorpeopleon such occasions, lVe eutertain no doubt that this )ractice 'vifl be departed from in the case of the unfortunate unde. fended Roberts. CONTENTION ABOUT ACCOMMtODATION INW THE NEW COURT. When the Grand Jury came into the Court, they addressed the Recorder, and stated that they understood it had alwvays been a pri- vilege of Grand Juries to have a box appropriated to their use in Court. They requested that they might be provided with that sort of accommodation in this Court, according to prescription. The'RECORDE FL said the arrangements of the Court had not yet been quite srttled; but lie was sure the Sheriff would order that every accommodation should be given to them during the performance of their duties. The Foreman of the Grand Jary said he understood they were en. titled to a box to the end of ttne sessions. Sir PETER LAUniE said that the Lord Mayor and Aldermen would hold aacpnsultatlo, on the subject on Saturday. In the mean time,hepledged himself toprovideaccommodationfor theGrandJury. Avery strong dispute has arisen as to the right of appropriat ing the seats of the Court. The Sheriffs and 'Aldermen unani. mously, weunderstand, dispute the right of the Common Coun- cil to exercise any such control over the Court as that body contend they have a right to use, and have resolved to resist what they consider to be an unwarrantable encroachment, although the Common Council have paid for the erection of the building. The Aldermen contend, that the Court is entirely under the control of the Commission, which consists of the Sheriff, the 26 Aldermei,and theJudges, and that those individuals alone have the pwer of arranging thbeCourt in the-manner most conducive to the despatch of business and the accommodation of the public; that the space left unoccupied in the body of the Court is so simall as not to be worth conside:ation ; and that by the practice of giving tickets, the Court may be rendered a close Court, and the public excluded. In addition to these positions, it is rtated, that more than two-thirds of the cases tried in this Court are Aliddlesex cases, and that it is inconsistent in the Common Council,' as citizens of London, to in- sist on any control over the Court which should be frce to the inha- bitantb of Middesex. It wa3 under an impression of this Idna that Sir Peter Laurie went on Thursday night as a private person to the doors of the gallery, and insisted oin admission without a tickret. He reitoved a bar which had been placed to prevent the entrance of the public and took azseat. lie afterwards,flenied the authoritv of any one except his own ofieer, or that-any one6xpeithjiXrelrmthe,exe~- cutive oficer of the Commission, had control overiihA Court. We understand tlhat some decisite steps ate in coitempladion amongst -he magistracv composingthe Commmssion, to render iluIl and void the resolutiorns of the Common Council. OLD BAILEBY NEW COfTRT. FRIDAY. JITNE 4. NON.ATTENDANCE: OF COU2TSEL.