The Sun. — 1857-05-02 (London, England)

THE CONVICT MANSELL V. THE QUEEN IN  ERROR.  It being known that this case would come o❑ for ar• gurnent this morning, the court Wai dense ly crowded. It will be recollected that the prisoner, Thomas Mansell, Wag tried before Mr. Baron Bramwell, at Maidstone, in December lest, for the murder of a man named Burney, a lance corporal of the 49th Regiment, and was found guilty and sentenced to death. Certain objections were raised at the trial by the prisoner's counsel, as to the mariner in which some of the jury had been challenged on the part of the Crown. In order that these points might be argued, the Secretary of State for the Home Department had respited the execution of the prisoner until the s;h of May. At.lo o'clock the prisoner was brought into court in custody of Mr. Wer.therhead, the G•rvr rnor of Newgate, and was placed in the seat of the Coiornon Sergeant. He is a man of short stature, and rather slight built. He wore a large beard of dark brown hair, and during the proceedings he evinced but little interest. The counsel present on behalf of the prisoner was Mr. F. Russell and Mr. G. Denman ; Mr. Weleby and Mr. Ribton appeared on the part of the Crown. Mr. F. Russell, in opening the case, said the application he had to make to the court was to•reverse the sen• tence of death which had been passed upon Thomas Mansell, now a prisoner at their lordships' bar. The learned counsel then read at length an abstract of the record, and at its conclusion said • the principal point hi had to submit to their lordships was that a certain number of persons who had been cal el to serve on the jury on the part of the prisoner had been improperly put aside. The learnel gentleman then detailed the proceedings that had take❑ place at the trial at Maidstone, the• effect of which was, that instead of the number of persons who ought to have been o a the jury to try the prisoner, there were only nine out of the twelve properly sworn. At the trial several jurors were ordered by the counsel on b,half of the Crown to stand by, in consequence of their having conscientious scruples with respect to the punishment of death. This proceeding, Mr. Russell contended, was illegal, as the Crown bad not the power :to order persons to stand by for such reason—it not being a right to challenge. In support of the view of the case a number of authorities were cited, and in conclusion the learned ceun-el observed, that instead of the right of challenge under the circumstances he had stated being a prerogative of the Crown, it was an abuse of it, and he trusted their lordships would agree with him in opinion, that the panel had been gone through before the jury who tried the prisoner was constituted, that the jury by which the prisoner had been convicted was illegally constructed— and that therefore under such circumstances the conviction must be set aside.  Mr. G. Denman followed on the same side.  Mr. Welsby, on the part of the Crown, con tended that the panel had not been gono through, that the steps taken by the counsel for the prosecution were in accordance with the law, that the jury by which the prisoner had been tried and convicted was -legally constituted, and that therefore the prisoner, Thomas Mansell, had been properly convicted.  The case was proceeding when we went to press.