The Sun. — 1856-12-30 (London, England)

MAC.SELL.  It seems that the execution of this prisoner, who was convicted at the last assizes at Maidstone of the murder of a corporal of the 49th Regiment, in wlycli he was a private, by deliberately shooting him with a rifle, has been respited from the let Jan. to the sth Feb., the AttorneyGeneral having granted his consent that a writ of error shall issue upon the ground that the jury who tried the prisoner wa; not legally empanelled, and that his con viction was therefore not legal. This is a proceeding that has very rersey taken place in the case of a capital conviction, and as the points that are relied upon to support the writ of error are of a novel character, it may be as well to state the circumstances under which it is sought to set the conviction aside. It will be remembered that the prisoner and the deceased had served with the regiment airitig the campaign in the Crimea, and it appeared that when the regimental baggage was shipped to England there was a dispute between them relative to a pair of boots, and the prisoner Mansell, under the impression that the deceased was desirous to get him into trouble, deliberately resolved to destroy hire, and he shot him dead at the camp at Shorecllffe. He had no counsel to defend him, but upon his expressing a desire that he should have the assistance of counsel, Mr. Baron Bramwell, who presided, requested Mr. Russell to watch the case for him, and be consented to do so. The facts being conclusive, the counsel for the prisoner resolved, as the most likely course to save the life of his client, to challenge every one of the jurors who had been summoned to serve, with the exception of those belonging to Maidstone, as it was known that a very strong feeling against capital punishments prevails in that town, and ace rrdingly the fall right of challenge was exercised by the prisoner's counsel. Fifty-nine jurymen only had been summoned, and as Mr. -Russell had challenged twenty, and it happened that one jury were absent considering their verdict, none but Maidstone jurymen remained to be called, and Mr. Ribtou, the counsel for the crown, exercised his right of directing that all these jurymen should stand by, and three more jurors were wanting to complete the panel. It therefore became necessary to go through the list of jurors again, commencing with those who had not been challenged by the prisoner's counsel, and Mr. Ribton then proposed to choose from among them those he considered to be the least objectionable. It was then contended on behalf of the prisoner that this course ought not to be taken, but that as the list of jurors had been gone through, the crown had nc,ri,ght to object to anymore, and that then thoseea of the jurors should be called in their order, and that who answered should go into the box, and it was argued that if the crown were permitted to take the course suggested by Mr. Ribton, it would have effectthe enabling it to obtain a jury that might be hk.eyrttyoooafictthineaccordance with its wishes, and that the lib subject would be materially endangered by such a course expressed his of proceeding. Mr. Baron Bramwell opinion to be that the counsel for the wprhouseectuhteiodnishnanslstinhne right he, claimed to exerc se, and was proceeding the jury that were absent came into court, and three jurors were taken from among them to complete the jury that was to try Mansell, Mr. Russell, the counsel for the prisoner, protesting against such a course being taken. The prisoner, in the result, was found guilty, but at the conclusion of the trial Mr. Russell applied to the learned judge for his sanction to the necessary steps being taken to test the legality of the jury. His lordship, however, said he should not interfere, as he was of opinion the course that had been taken was legal, and in accordance wieh precedent, but if the learned counsel thought there was anything in the point, he must take the u•tial steps to obtain a writ of error. The usual course in such cases is to lay the matter before the Attorney-genera!, and if he thinks there is any ground for it, he gives his consent to the writ being issued, and this having been done, the execution of the sentence is respited until the point shall have been argued. It the court should then be of opinion that the jury was not legally empanelled, the whole proceedings of the trial will be annulled, and the prisoner will altogether escape punishment.