The Sun. — 1844-07-11 (London, England)

CAMPBELL—In strictness, where there is only' one c.junt, and that alleges several offences, some of which are not true, the defendant has a right to insist • upon a verdict being entered for him on those parts are not true. • r:1 tj.l lidik'--3-411es, My Lord. -Iscd7;C,A7r7Mo'.l.—l doubt if the Jaw recognises the < Onrts. It is one presentment by the Aran) ,fury, hut 'Vass presentment is se'verable, and the. jury way acquit oria part. . .  (r-,\''  Mr. KELLY said there could be no doubt of it ; for instance, a man might be indicted on one count for murder, and on another for manslaughter ; he might be acquitted of the murder and found guilty of the manslaughter. He might be indicted for burglary and larceny, and acquitted of the burglary and found guilty of the larceny. In cases of libel, a man might be found guilty of composing and publishing, but not of printing. In all these cases it was perfectly clear that no judgment could be given except upon the verdict returned. He would call their Lordships' attention to the case of "Fox v. Austin," to be found in Lawes's Reports, 'p. 59. It was an information against Austin and others for engrossing a thousand quarters of corn. The plea was not guilty. The jury found on: of the defendants guilty for seven hundred quarters, and not guilty for the residue, and found the others not guilty for all. Now here was a case of engrossing, it might be of stealing, in which the jury returned a verdict of guilty as to seven hundred, but not guilty as to the residue. In most cases it was not necessary that there should be any such verdict, because the punishment would bo the same for stealing corn, whether seven hundred, two hundred, or a thousand quarters. But it might be important to the prisoner to have the verdict so entered, because he might be suspected of having stolen another 1,000 quarters of corn, and therefore he had a right to insist upon having the verdict and the judgment entered up precisely according to the fact. It was there important to the prosecution, because under the old law he was entitled to his writ of restitution. Either party had a right to have the precise matter found entered upon the record, and to require that judgmeeit should be prove for that and that only of which he had. L'leen found guilty, and that that, and that only for which _he was suffering punishment,.should appear upon the reco.^d. His Learned Friend the Attorney-General had assere'ed, with that confidence with which he always made such assertions when he had no authorities to produce, that it appeared that the practice was universal of entering up judgment upon all such counts. He (Mr. Kelly) said ,that there was no such practice. There was no authority produced for it, and wherever such practice did exist it was against the law, against the rights of the Crown, against the rights of the prisoner, and, he said it with a'.ll submisSion, against the duty of the court. The judgme.it ought to be entered up on that count which was good; and on that count only, and on the other counts he was entitled to have entered up either a verdict of acquittal o' eat sine die. The only case in which there was an opponent were cases in which, in fact, the record was not made up, such as cases in arrest of judgment, and one ocher case. Lord