Bristol Assizes.
The Times, 1824-04-28T00:00:00

Iwo bliIs of indictment were sent up to the grand jurv against the defendants. The grand jury, however, ignored both bills. When the grand jury returned the bill into Court against David Llewellin, and whilst the clerk of the arraigns waS looking into the indictument for the name of the defendant, the foreman saif, " it is against Alark Howell." The clerk of the arraigns answered, "' David Llewellin, gentle- men." A Grand Juror.-The bill is against them jointly. Mr. BTURGES then appealed to Mr. Walker, the prosecutor's so- licitor, to know against whom the indictment in reality was ? Mfr. Walker.-It appears that the grand jury do not understand the indictnent-it is against David Lawellin alone. His Lordship called for the indictment; and, after ascertaining against whom it had been preferred, said, " Gentlemen, this indict- ment is against David Llewellin singly. WVould you wish to revise your decision ?" The Jurv declined the proposed revisioni, and the indictment wa, received as ignored. After this, Mr. STOCXING, as counsel for the prosecution, stated to the Recorder that he bad a motion to make of rather aa extraordinary nature. In making it he felt that much difficultv arose out of its novelty;, he felt also considerable pain in subiuniting it to his Lord- ship, because the motion might appear to be grounded on aniasump- tion that the grand jurv had not dtscharged their duty. Lord GirF.onn.-Mr. Stocking, I cannot sit here to try thegrand jury. IVhat is the nature of your motion? Mr. STOCXINDG.-31y Lord I wldl state to your Lordship the substance of the affidavit on which my motion is grounded. The affidavit sets forth that the indictmenta'gainst 11owefl was sent to the grand jury with the names of 12 witnesses on the back of it that the grand jury have ignored the bill, leaying six of those witnesses une_amined, which witnesses are swom to be material ones; my motion, therefore, is, that your Lordship will send the bill for recon- siteration to the grand jury. Lord GIFFoRin.-Mr. Stocking, did you ever hear of such a u.o- tion as this? Have you any precedent? Mr. STOCXINtG.-ly Lord, I never heard of an occasion requir- ing such a motion. Lord GIFFORD.-I asn clearly of opinion that I cannot grant your motion. I cannot sit here to try whether the grand jurv have donc their duty or not. I put it to your own good sense whether I can entertain such a motion as this ? Mr. STOCKTWG.-IVIv Lord, when my client first consulted me on the subject of this motion, I certainly was embarrassed by its no- veltv. I bad mueb doubt what was the proper course of aroceeding; but after the best consideration that I can give thc subject, I feel fortified in the conviction that I am not taking an improper c.urse. 1 will not, my Lord, impute to the grand jurv corrupt motives; for I am loth to cast on a body of respectable individuals an impu- t.tion wlhich would accuse them not only of a breach of dutv, but of a violation of their oaths. But I submit to your Lordship, that through accident or mistake the grand jury may have omitted to examine those six witnesses who have remained without examina. tion, and that, on this ground, your Lordship may request them to reeonsider theirbill. Lord GIFFoRD.-I am clearlr of opinion that I can do no such thing. * Mr. STocr;NG.-T:len, my Lord, my client is left without a remed,v. Lordl GIFFoRD.-Nn, not without a remedy: you miiay prefer your bill at the next sessions. Mr. STOCKIr.G.-Of such a remedy, my lIord, I may say,as was once said on another occasion-that it is worse than the disease. Sup- pose it uossible that from prejudice, arising from local circumstances or othewise, grand juries may be unwiUing to dischirge their duties, it would be only for grdnd juries to doas lhad been done this dav, and .le riay prefer bills of indictmeut for ever. ' he present grand jury havc omitted to exaniine six witnesses, who my dient swears are ma- tirial witnesses;the grand jury at the sessions may do the same thing; so that we may be handed over from sessions to sessions, ad iqfinitmrrn. Lord GrFroRn.-I am quite clear that I am bound to refuse your motion. As I have said before I cannot sit here to try the grand jury. You can show no precedent; and you are not without remedy fortlee injury you may lhave sustained. If you choose, you may prefer vour bill again. |Mr. SToCKeN G.-Then, myLord, I wiU advise my client to take a second bil before the grand jury. Lord GiFFonD.-I shall not keep the grand jury waiting for your client's bill. His Lordship then, after a pause, thanked the grand jury for their valuable services, and discharced them. BRISTOL ASSIZES. THE KiNG, ON THE PROSECUTIOX OF JOHN WALDRON, V. NIARK IHOW'ELL AND DAVID LLEWELLIN. FOR PERJURY.