The Statesman. — 1824-01-06 (London, England)

THE • STATESMAN.  • meats. The Magistrates, he admitted, were entitled to use , their discretion ; but when the pledge was given to the approver, he was entitled to the benefit of it. They were bound to receive the statement, and bad an undoubted right to give their pledge npm their and if they incau• tiously made a selection of an individual for an approver, they most certainly acre to blame ; , but their neglect or incaution, could .not be con, tended, affect the approver. in this „ilk's they may, he did not dispute, have acted prematurely and improperly, bat their baring acted as they did, had tirade the cue out, sod bad got possession of 'the grand and Imßortent fact through the evidence of Hunt upon the fwith of their promise, which important, and absoluteljnecessari declaration had, he knew, caused the assemblage of his Lordship, the country, and the commission in the Court that day upon an occasion, as appalling as it was awful, and as it had its melarchisly precedents. His Lordship knew, that all the offenders of the constituted -laws of this country bad said, that no charge:of murder could stand, tinkle the murdered person was sikund, and, although a rs peon may be char with murder, yet that charge must fall if tire body be not found; that impnrtant proof in this case had been adduced on the evidence of Hunt. as he on the faith, as he before observed of.the magistrate's pledge, as the body was pointed out through his instrumentality:in the pond. On the first apprehension of the accused persons, there was only a confused idea of a murder; it was reported somebody bad been murdered, but nobody knew who, and although every search had been made', • nobody" found, until the magistrates offer to -Hunt, and be pointed out tke body of a murdered man. The Magistrates did not attempt to contradict this in their affidavits. - They knew not - whets the body was, and were able to proceed upon the evidence of Hunt—with• out which they never could have made the case oat.— it had been said his client had not made full disclosures ; but how, in the name of Heaven, could a man, situated as he was, have done more?—His client admits in the evidence which he has given already, that be did nut communicate all the facts he was 'in possession of, and this may be easily accounted for: the greet agitation, he laboured under at the time; but he did it afterward", through Mr. Noel, kis Solicitor : it is true he might have used some expressions out-of bravado, as is represented, not consistent with his confession ; but this was not sufficient to exclude him from the benefit of the promise held out to him. The Learned Counsel thee went on to show that the opinion of the public was in favour of his client; and that be was, on all the grounds of justice, entitled to speedo's.  Mr. Justice PARK said that he should not be guided by the opinion of the public on oue side or the other. lie sat there to administer justice, and strict juetice should undoubtedly be done, no matter who the party were—he should on his part do Ws duty.  Mr. Tttuutea■ contended and argued that Magistrates should exercise their own discretion, and not be fettered. It was on the faith of their proinose his client made the confessloe be did, and surely they were bound to its performance.— After a few other remarks, the learned Counsel concluded a long and ingeolous appeat on behalf of the prisoner Hunt, to establish his title to the promise held out by the Magistrates. He hoped before he sat down that itwould be considered he had done his duty as far as was in his power, and apologised if, in the course of Me arganieuts. he had been too warm. (