Current:

Northern Star (1837-1852), 7th September 1844, Edition 1 of 1, Page unpag, Untitled Article

Page unpag
Page 1
1 of 8

On this page

  • Departments (1)
    • Ci^ 3Eri]S^ ^Bofcrmnrt,
  • Text (8)
  • Transcript

    • Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.

      Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.

      Untitled Article

      HOUSE OF LORDS—WEDNESDAY . JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF O'CONNELL AND OTHERS . The approaches to the House of Peers were as crowded this morning as they were on Monday , and within fire minutes after the doore were opened the galleries and the space below the bar were filled in every part . The connsel occupied the same places that they did on Monday . The attendance of Peers was lar ^ e . The Bishop of Lichfield and Cote _ stbt read prayers . The Lord Chascelloh laid on the table the supplementary report of the Commssi oners of Bye-laws . Hid Lordship thsn took his seat upon the woolsack at a quarter after ten .

      GRAY v . THE QUEEN JN ERROR ) . This cA 3 « was the first called on for judgment . The Lord Chancellor said , that in this case he could not find anything to add to the arguments of the majority of the judges , that he was satisfied with the conclusion to which they had come , and he therefore moved that the judgment of thecourt below should be reversed , and thai a venire denovo should , if necessary , be granted . Thb motion for reversing the sentence was then agreed to , aDd it was ordered that the court below do issue a venire de noto . O'COSNILL A ^ TD OT HERS , - ? . THE Q UEE ^ ill *

      ERROR—JUDGMENT . The Lord Chancellor moved that in this case the judgment of the court below be affirmed . When this case and the record of the proceedings in it were first presenved at ibeir Lordships' bar , it had occurred to him , as he believed it had occurred to every other Noble Lord who had attended ; o those proceedings , that it would be proper , both with reference to the questions to be decided , and to the nature and character of the other circumstances connected with the case , and in order to avoid all possible suspicion of political bias on the part of their Lordships' House , to have the assistance of the jtid ' ges . That assistance has been requested , and tho ? e learned persons had assembled in their

      Lordships' Honse , and had attended with their ac" ustomed patience to the eloborate argumeuts wiiich with great legal ability had been ur ^ ed at tneir Lordships' bar . As s * . « n as was consistent with their other duties , those learned persons "had assembled together , had consulted on the subjec :, and after giving it most mature and attentive consideration , had attended be / ore their Lordships , and had communicated to them the results of their consideration . "With respect to all the points , * xcept one question , tbeir judgment was unanimous . Wuii respect to that othtr question , sev . n of the learned judges , with the Chief Justice of the Court of Common Pleas at their head , had expressed a

      clear , oistmct , and decided opinion against the objections which had been urged . Two others of the judges , for whom be had the greatest possible respecr , pronounced an adverse opinion ; but in hia opinion , and he might be permitted to say , that he was > ure their Lordships concurred with him , at least such of th-m as were present on the occasion , that tfcai opinion wa 3 accompanied with much duubi ai ; d hesitation . He thought , under these circumstances , uniesg aheir Lordships were thoroughly and entirely satisfied , that the opinion of the great majority of the judges wa 3 founded on a palpable error , that they would feel themselves bound by iheir decision to adhtre loand support their judgment , and to act in conformity with it .

      f 11 : 3 Lordship then went over the several points thai had been rais-. d during the discussion on the Wril of Error , giving his reasons for coming to the coEclusion he dsd , tbat the judgment ou ^ bi to be maintained . He concluded by saying : ] He humbly submitted these reasons why they ought fo concur with the learned judges in the opinion which they bad formed with respect to the great buik of the questions which had been submitted to them , and why ne thought they ought to concur in the op . nion of the great majority of those judges , pronounced distinctly , firmly , and wiibout hesitation , in = pj » t >? ition to the doubt and hesitating opinion sngjjt-bted by the two learned judges to whom he had Tcierred , but with re ^ -prct to wn om , however , he br-ggeo leave to express the deep sense he entertained of their attainments and profound learning . He submitted that on all these grounds , and under all tbe ^ e circumstances , the judgment ought to be afarmed .

      Lord Brouuhaji expressed the satisfaction he felt at taring reeeived in tbe consideration of this ca ~ e lilt ibis assistance which had been given by the learned judges in their answers to the questions wuich had been proposed to them . It was a fit and proper course to call for that assistance in disposing of this case . But they had adopted it without any regard to the supposed difficulty of the questions which were likely to be raised before them . They had called in the learned judges because the case was one of great public importance—it was a

      Government prosecution . It regarded an extensive conspiracy , and , above all , it was a political question—one of exceedingly great temporary interest among tue parties which divided the country , and which aLo divided the two branches of the Legislature . Nothing , therefore , could be more desirable than that they should , as far as possible , and col-SiStently with their duty , call ia the aid of the learned judges , to a ^ k them how the points of the law which might arise in this case would be regarded , and would be dealt with by them sitting in thflr own courts—those courts Irom which all cause

      of party feeling , whether of one class or of tne other , was excluded— wnew alj b . 'as , whether from popular influence or the authority of the Executive power , was barred—tho ? e judges , who were placed by their exalted po .-ition and their unsullied character ab&Te any such Talgar control , who kept themselves unmoved on tbeir elevated heights—* ' De ? picere unde queaB alios faseri per viam erantes . " They had had the benefit of that help , valuable in all cases . He agreed , however , that they were not bound up by the opinion which those learned persons had given . The question had not bi , en referred to tbesT decision , they had only been asked what their opinion upon the points submitted was . Tne Court of Error v » -. is to be guided , not by particular pr «

      cecj « .-i » i , bui by the general course of precedent , and by every usage . That such had been the opinion of tne profes .-ion and of the jadges there c < jnld be no doubt . The most important points which were now before their Lordships were those raised in tLe 7 th , 3 rd , and 11 th qutsuons , which had been submiued to the learned judges . In the opinion which had been txprraM-d by the majority of them he fully concurred . The Lord Chief Justice of the Commun Pleas had been h " : teen years on the bench , while another of those learned judges had been constantly engaged ior forty years in the courts of criminal jurisdiction , while a third had been more than half a century engaged in the same course , and all thsee bad decided in favour of affirming the judgment

      which had been pronounced by tfce court below , and they had decided that there could be no difference between a case in which puni .-hment was fixed- by law ai . d one in winch tho punishment was left to ibe discretion of the judge . The other judges all concurred in tbe opinion that such was the practice . They all concurred in opinion that a sentcne passed in this manner could not be taken to be a sentence passed upon the aggregate of the counts , but must be cuc =-. dersd as oi . e sentence . Even Mr . Baron Parke himself did not dispute that poiiii ; he in express terms admitted it . The Learned Biron did not doubi a = to the existence of the rule , but be doubled whether it had not been carried too far—whether conclusions had not been drawn irom the dicta of various learned judges which went much further than could be supported by thote dicta . But all the judges , with two exceptions , held

      that the rule declared the law correctly . Mr . Baron Parke was the only one who at any length entered into the objections . But the Learned Baron stated thai he hau lounded his opinion with much hesitation , and exprerSed great doubts rather than any decided opinion . 2 So less than eight t : me = had that Learned Baron expressed his doubts . Those doubts , however , were cot expressed by any oi tbe other learned judges in t-iving their opii-i-jL-s , ai : d that iaet ' cenainiy entitled those opinions to greaui wtrig&i , while the great doubt espre ^ tM Ly the Learned Baron tended to dinnni .-b . the svtight to be attached to his auihomy . He now came to the important question in winch he to matcriany differed riith his JSoble and Learned Fnciid , ihe LuTd Chief Justice oi the Court oi Uaeeii ' s Beach—he meant the challeuge of the array . L ' uon thi ? question the learaed judges wore unanimous . He felt strongly tbe importance » i tiu = sub-

      Untitled Article

      ject , because it went to the jurisdiction of thecourt oa the matter . The court was constituted of the judge and twelve men ; those twelve men had jurisdiction by being selected m a particular manner . Well , then , the question was , whether they had been selected in a lawful manner . For tbe purpose of deciding this he must consider how they had been selected . The challenge to the array was always , it had been argued , understood to be on account of the indifference of the sheriff or the returning officer . Now there had been no authority cited to Bhow that there could bo any ground for the challenge to the array . If such a course was to be adopted , a year might go by without

      their having either a special or petty jury , and his opinion therefore was that * upon this point decidedly there ought to be do venire de novo . He would say little or nothing on the point that had been raised as to the hardship on the traversera in suffering imprisonment pending the writ of error ; the fact was , that the law was so , but whether it was to continue so was another question . He had now performed his duty to the best of his abilities in this important case , and he had , therefore , only further to state , that feeling himself bound to look to the authorities of the judges , upon those authorities he must give hi 3 judgment a& to the plaintiffs in error .

      Lord Dxnhan then proceeded to deliver his opinion . He would first advert to the judgment given in the court below allowing the demurrer to the challenge of the array . If such practices as had taken place in the present instance in Ireland should continue , the trial by jury would become a mockery , a delusion , and a snare . To the traverses' challenge of the array , on account of sixty jurors being omitted , the Attornoy-General for Ireland had demurred , and by so doing had admitted that such a fact had taken place . Une of the learned judges was of opinion that the challenge should have been allowed , and with that opinion he entirely concurred . He felt hound to disagree , therefore , with the opinion given by the Learned Chief Justice of the Common Pleas . He thought the principles he had

      laid down in hia judgment were erroneous . The question was had the party had a lawful jury to try him , and on that point he regretted , but at the same time he felt bound to differ from his learned brethren . He would briefly state what opinion appeared to prevail in the court below on this subject . There was originally , perhaps , some notion that the challenge to tbe array was taken away altogether ; but that was clearly not the case , because there was a particular provision which preserved the right . It was also questioned whether a challenge laid to the array where a special jury had been Btrurk out . That difficulty having been got over in the Queen's Bench in England , he did not think that there could be any d . ffleuhy in settling it in the same manner . The substantial duties oi the sheriff in former times were to collect the names of those who were fit to bo

      on the jury , and enter them in a panel , and these duties belonged to the bheriff alone ; bm , by the late Act of Parliament , those duties were divided between the tax collectors in the first place , the Recorder of Dublin in the second place , and the sheriff in the third place . The tax collectors performed a duty merely ministerial ; the Recorder , in the first instance , performed a duty which was judicialdecided upon claims and objections . It was then his duty to sign and settle tho list which was to be the jury list for the year . The complaint in this case was , that after the Recorder had exercised his functions ; after he had determined what thould be the list for the ensuing year , somebody else said "It shall not be the list . " The handing over of a perfect list

      to the recorder by the sheriffwas a ministerial act , and that act had been incorrectly performed . The challengers said , " the judicial act has been improperly performed , but you have deprived your own judicial act of the weight and authority to which he is entitled . " He could not help believing that , if that view of the case , which his brother Coleridge had stated much more clearly than he had done , had been presented to the learned judges at their consukaiion , they would have thought it worthy at least of consideration . His Noble and Learned Fnend had truly stuted that that objection was to the conduct of the returning officer , Who was the returning officer ! Why the Recorder was the returning officer for the purpose of this trial , and in

      his opinion the Recorder—though without the slightest imputation on his motives , which waa disclaimed by all—had been tuilty of a default , when he banded over to tbe sheriff , as a list of the jurors , that book which was not the list which the law required , and which the Recorder himself had declared should not be tha list . He had written a great deal more than he was desirous of troubling their Lordships by reading . JSot oiily did he differ from his Learned Brother the Chief Justice of the Common Pleas , as to the principle on which the challenge to the array was to be allowed , but also to the consequences which were likely to ensue . The Lord Chief Justice said no objector advantage could here be gained if the challenge had been

      allowed , for if tbe ciialiengo had been allowed the jury process would have been directed to some other officer . Now , there , he ventured to think , there was a mistake . Tne default was not that ot tho shenff , ; but of the Recorder , or ck-rk of the peace , who made" out an incorrect list . The Act © f Parliament expressly piovided for the want of the jurors ' book being returned . His noble and Learned Friend ? aid " Here is a book returned . " But what book I The Act required that that book should be returned which was correctly made up from iho list ; but this book was incorrectly made up . It was asked whether a single defect would vitiate the whole list . The Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas said that , according to the argument used , if

      the cess collectors omitted a single name , the list would be altogether vitiated . He begged to differ on that poiut from tho learned judge . All that had been done previous to the decision of the Lourt of Sessions would not bo affected . This redvelio ad u ( j > nrdam was met as the bar by an opposite case of much greater extent . It was asked wi . at would be the effect of omitting 60 or 600 names ? Ho thought the inconvenience would be very great if the party were not tried out of the book ; but it should be remembr-red , that tho decision in the case of the " Queen v . O'Connell" was not i a dt-cision in any other case . The Lord Chief . Justice said there must be some mode of relief from the inconvenience occasioned by such an omission . ;

      So said all the learned judges—so said his Learned Friend on the Woolsack , and also his learned friend who had just addressed their Lordships . His Noble and Learned Friend on the Woolsack had raised his expectation indeed in one part of his argument . His Noble and Learned Friend said , -k is the party without remedy 1 No , he is not . " He ( Lord Deiiman ) had waited to" hear what that remedy was . Wnere was that redress ? What was there to prevent any one of the Queen ' s subjects accused , Irom being tried by * -uch a jury as the law n « ver approved of ? " Oh , " faid hi ^ Noble and Learned Friend , " excuse me ; I will tell you what the remedy is on a future occasion . " Now , if the Learned Lord Chief Justice of England and the

      judges of Ireland could not point- out any remedy , what security was there to the Qiuen ' 3 Subjects I He would go a step further , and ho would say that he would never believe that there was no remedy , until the well-known constitutional principle of challenging the array—unless that ancieut practice were repealed by a direct act of Parliament , he would not believe that there did not still exist a remedy in such cases as these . The objection having betn well taken , it ought to have been allowed ; and not beihg so , the trial had erroneously proceeded . He ( Lord Denm&n ) could not leave this Eubject without adverting again to the want of remedy . It had been thrown out by some learned persons that application to the court should have been made .

      Were the Queen ' s subjects to apply to the discretion of ihe court in order to have a lawful jury to try them for their lives , for their liberties , or for their most important interests ? Was it a thing for a motion , on affidavits and written depositions , when tbe parly accused was always tho party swearing lait , and after all the matter was referred to the dircretion of the court ? But on this case such a motion was made and was refused , but on what ground it was refused he did not know . Ho knew nothing further of the proceedings than what he had seen in the papers . He understood that the whole jury list of Dublin consisted of 717 names . Now , tbe special jury list of course would be a very inconsiderable portion of this number . Sixty names out of this proportion was enough to sffect of course the psntl . It was not improbable that if tbose

      sixty names had been on the panel , that the jury misht have been drawn from that number . He would now proceed to the other points of the case . He did not entirely agree with the learned judges in thinking that there were only two objectionable counts . He was by no means clear that there was anything illegal involved in the expression of Gpmiou against courts of law for the purpose of having other counts submitted that would be more .-ausiactory ; but , however , it was quite enough for his Jaigumem , especially as all tho learned judges had giv ^ n au unanimous opinion that they were bad counts—that two counts in the indictment were Dad . The question was , whether the judgment that had been pronounced , and the sentence which had . ' been passed , could be good under the circui >> ta . uaesl > The question waa , A and B are goodlco- aatLc wa& 1

      Untitled Article

      a bid count , and the court pronounced sentence upon the defendants in respect to A , B , and C . Here were three counts , on all of wbreh evidence had been i ^ ken , and a verdict was taken upon each of these ttaje counts . A conviotion waa obtained , and the court proceeded to pass sentence , and the punishment was awarded according to the diecretion ut the jod ^ . Wow , it was possible that the court had take * into account the bad counts as well as the good ones . They had been told that tbeymast assume thai judgment had been pronounced on the good count * only . Now , in the first place , ho had a serious objection to that . The presumption was in direct contradiction to a notorious fact . If they were to assume this , future students at law is

      Dublin would ,, on a reference to the reports © f the Queen ' s Bunch in Ireland , find that the fact was contrary to that which their Lordshipa had assumed . The law judges had stated that two of the counts were bad , while the Court of Queen ' s Bench had declared that they were perfectly good and unexceptionable . This put the question entirely out of court . He had felt , with his learned brethren , great surprise when he heard the ingenious argument which had been addressed to the court on this subject , and he confessed that he never felt any doubt on the subject until that argument was submitted to his mind . Now , the question was , whether in point of fajj £ * tt ^ ere was legal ground for doubt to be entertained . It waa not the first time that a

      court of justice had taken that view . He remembered at the time that his Noble and Learned Friend , now on the Woolsack , presided over the Court of Exchequer , a case was brought before that court , in which it was proposed to overrule not the mere dicta of judges—not merely an opinion which had been received with favour in Westminster Hall , but a series of decided cases running through a period of fifty years . His Noble and Learned Friend , now o , n the Woolsack , had examined those cases ; and in giving judgment had stated that inasmuch as the decisions in those cases wero clearly founded in error , they were not binding . There was a great deal which was taken for granted as law which when examined tuvfttd out to ba no

      Jaw at ail , being founded on no reason , and resting on no decision—and such , ho thought ^ was the case in the present instance . Ho thought that hia learned brethren , on Monday , must have forgotten certain facts connected with the administration of the criminal law . They had stated that in an indictment for felony , consisting of several counts * , it was usual to take a general verdict , and if there was one good couut that was safficient . Ho denied that that was the universal practice . Whenever he tried criminal cases in which there were several counts , he always put it to the jury in this manner— " Do you think there is anything on such a point ? if not , you will acquit him on that point . " For instance , in case of an indictment for attempt to murder , " If

      you consider he . did not intend to murder , you will strike that out at once . It is clear that he never intended to disable , therefore you will acquit him on that point . There is no evidence to support the intention to maim ; and with regard to the count alleging some grievous bodily harm , you will consider it . " Now , in that case a jury would moBt probably bring in a verdict of not guilty on tho three first counts , and convict on the last alane . That was the proper course for a judge to pursue , and one which would remove all difficulty . It was said that the adoption of such a course would give rise to tho inconvenience of the judges being called on to form an opinion upon thegooduess of the counts beforo the delivery of a verdict . No inconvenience could arise ;

      on the contrary . he thought groat good would be produced from their adoption of the practice . In his opinion there could not be a greater grievance and oppression , than these endless , unintelligible , unweildly , voluminous indictments . An indictment extending over fifty-seven pages was itself a grievance ; many prisoners could not afford to pay the clerk of the peace for a copy , and , when tht y got it , the most learned persons could not find out with what the prisoners wero charged Tho words were so ambiguous , ' . that it might be that the pleader who drew H up might mean ono thing , the jury another , tho judge a third , and the court of error a fourth , if they did not overthrow the whole judgment . There was also a mistake as to the

      practice of the Court of Qaecn a Bench in this country . It was said that wbeu an arreyt of judgment wa . i moved on one count , the court was in the habit of refusing if there was another count which would support the verdict . Had that been so in the case of Feargus 0 ' * dnnor \ Ho had been convicted on two counts . The court had heard tho argument on ono ctunt in arrest of judgment , and had granted it , and then had proceeded to hear arguments ou another count , which was bo full of verbosity and ambiguous expressions , that tho Attorney-General discovering the great doubt which the court entertained , had never pressed for judgment . No inconvenience could arise from adopting tho correct practice . Such was the practice of the Court of Q leeu's

      Bench , and the proper modo , as it seemed to him , of proceeding . He thought when they tot rid of the suppoted authorities , the dictates founded on a mistaken and unfortunate observation of Lord Alansfield , that the principle would appear alto ^ etht -r un-Fatbfactory , and he thought whou they looked at the record itself , without at all adverting to the other circumstances of the case , it , would be found that judgment was pronounced on counts btatiig no offence , as well as on counts stating that there had been offences upon which there were erroneous findings entered up , aud that therefore the judgment of the court oelow had been incorrectly passed . He stated again that this poiut overpowered him not only with its novelty , but with the clear and demonstrated force upon which , when he oame to the examination of the arguments , it rested , and he

      took up , therefore , the principle on which ho thought they could only set aside the judgrnunt of the court below , namely , that what had been done by the court below was not properly done . He regarded the Court of Qieen ' s Bench in DuMin with the greatest possible respect , add he had the highest opinion of the talents and endowments of the learned judges of that court . He had still a greater veneration for the opinions of his learned brethren here , with whom he acted , and for whom lie entertained the greatest possible respect . He acted there , however , as a judge for himself , and he felt bound in duty to exercise his judgnunt on the reasona before him . He thought that the reasoning in support of the judgment was not good in point of law , and it was his duty to vote against the motion of his noble and learned friend .

      Lord Cottenium then proceeded to deliver his judgment . He agreed with his noble and learned friend who preceded him , as to the difficulty in which any Member of the House w&a placed who felt himself" called on to come to a conclusion adverse to the great majority of the judges , and the effect of an opinion expressed by a U ' tat , majority of the judges ought , ot course , to make any one extremely cautious of coming to a conclusion contrary to what was expressed by their opiuio / i , and it ought to make one watch every step one took , and to weigh every conclusion which the mind was supposed to come to , in order that if a person came to an opinion adverse to that of the majority ; and ho should oxsrei . ^ e all the powers with which he was invested if

      he was to come to a different conclusion , lie adopted that course , he carefully attended to all that had been urged by the Lord Chief Justice in delivering the opinions of ths judges . He hesitated at every seep of the reasoning , as be Jollowod him , and he still came to the conclusion that tho opinion ex- pressed by the majority was wrong , and tho opinion i expressed by the minority was right . The rule contended for by the defendants was founded on prin- ' ciple , and necessary for the purposes of justice ; and ; it was in perfect analogy with the decisions in civil j and criminal cases . The opinion which he had then ' expressed he formed early in the argument He had i carefully attended to all that had been urged at the ! bar by the majority of the iudges against it , and he

      had not found any reason lor altering his view . Lord Campbell then proceeded to read his judg-. ment . He said it , was now his duty to state to their Lordships the opinion which , after great considera- ] lion , he had formed upon the questions of law raised | by this record , and to these , of course , he should ( strictly confine himself . In the first place , he had no doubt that there were various good counts in the . indictment . A conspiracy to effect an unlawful , purpose , or to effect a lawful purpose by unlawful means , was , by the common law of England , an indictable offence ; and if several persons deliberately , plotted mischief to an individual or to the State , ! they were liable to punishment , although they might have done no act m execution of their purpose .

      Whero they had actually done what they intended to do , it might be more proper to prosecute them for illegal acts ; ibut in ^ oint ot law , they remained liable for the offence of entering into a conspiracy . The first five counts in thi & indictment clearly charged the defendants with h dving conspired together to * ff , ct unlawful pui-potr . s . The fifth count was strongly objected to . He conv . dered that any person who deliberately attempted ; o promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different classes of her Majesty ' s tubjects , to make the English hated by the Irish , or ihe l firh by the English , wag guilty of a most culpat > ' , proceeding , and that , if several combined to do so vbey committed a misdemeanour , for which thty * . light be indicted aiid punished . He was likewise clearly , of opinion that the plea in . abate&ea ^ w % g

      Untitled Article

      bad in form , if not in substance , for not averring that there were not other witnesses duly sworn on whose evidence the indictmerit might hzve been sapported , and not for showing ! that the witnesses who were examined could not , on account of their religious profession have been lawfully examined without being swsrn in . He thought the Court o * Q ^ eea's Bench was fully authorised to continue the trial in the vacation , aud that the order tor that purpose , though conditional , was quite sufficieot . In hh opinion , the rule of the common law requiring the continuance of the order did not app ) j . He Teas at first much struck with I the objection to ihe validity of the judgment by ( reason of tie form of the recognizance into which ihe defendant was

      raquired to enter , and he was by no means free frora doubt upon it then , although ; he was not prepared to say that it would be a sufficient ground for reversal . It mu 3 t be taken to be part of the sentence pronounced upon tho defendant for the offences of which he had been found guilty , and it could aot be separated from the finding . The recognizincca imposed in this case might lead to perpetual imprisonment . Magna Charta provided that no fine should be imposed upon any party j which it waa out of his power to pay . The t ffect jof the sentence , in tJsis case would be , that if the required recognizances weie not found , the party would remain iu prison for the rest of his life . He felt still more difficulty when ha came to the next part of the case—probably the most

      important part of it , as it wasjnot merely a technical question , but one which affected the administration of justice—he meant the constitution of the jury by whom the defendants were tried . The only question here was , whether the challenge to the array was a remedy which the law allowed . ( The noble and learned lord here read that portion of the plea , of the defendants which applied to this part of their case ) . Now , he was clearly of opinion that the defendants oughc not to have been tried by a jury constituted in the manner described in the ckse of the plaintiffs in error . It was then described not merely as a casual omission of names , but the averment was that the names had been fraudulently omitted . He conceived that under such circumstances the panel ought to have been quashed . No other remedy was suggested . His noble aud learned friend on the Woolsack had

      miggestoJ no remedy . If the jury list was found to be defective , the jury list of the former year ought to have been brought into operation as though " : io list had been formed for the current year . He confessed that he should not have been inclined to advise their lordships to reverse the judgmsnt merely upcu this ground upon hia own sole opinion , but 6 inco writing his judgment he hadi listened to the argum .-nts of his noble and learutd ; fricnd the Chief Justice of the ( iieen ' s Bench , and also those of Mr . Justice Coltman . He would remind their lordships that they were not bouud by the opinion of the majority of the judges . Tho appeal was not from the Irish to the English judges , but to that Chamber in the exercise of one of its most important functions , which he hoped thuir lordships would Jong continue to exercise for the benefit of the country aud the protection of its liberties .

      The Lord Chancellor theniput the question thus —Is it your Lordships' pleasure that the judgment be reversed I Lords Denman , Cottenham ; and Campbell said "Content . " } Lprd Brougham and two or three Tory Peers ( lay Lords ) said " Not Content . " : The Loud Chancellor was about to put the question again , 111 the usual form t previous to taking the number or dividing , when— j Lord Wiurmcliffe rose , but on the suggestion of the Lord Chancellor , he sat down , put on his bat , and addressed the Hou ^ e from his soat . He said that he did not think it desirable that their

      Lordships bhould divide , as there was a majority of the law lords in the House \ n favour of the appeal . He humbly recommended those of their Lordships who were not law lords—and who , not , having heard the whole case , were not so well qualified to judge of the question—to abstain from voting . It was far better that tho character of the House , us a court of appeal , should bo maintained , and thatithcir decision should be against tho opinion of the majority of the judges —eveu though in this case it should produce great incouveniouoe—than that those ! Lords who had not heard the ca » e should , by their ; interference , reverse the judgment of those members to whom the decision oi such ca » es was usually committed by the practico ot the House .

      LoM BitoL'GiMM entirely concurred in the opinion of the majority of ihe judges in Ireland and England . But ho ai <> o agreed with the Noble Lord who had just spoken , that it was more advisible that tbose of their Lordships who had not heard the case , should not vote . Ho deeply lamented the division to which the House would come ; but ho would now only say , that , tvheri he differed from the majority of thv judges onjthe question of Presbyterian Marriages in Ireland , he did so upon the authority of Lord iSiowull aud other eminent persons . ; Lord Camtukll had voted with hia Noble Friend 011 the question of Presbyterian Marriages , and for the same reason . He would now only say that the distinction between lay Lords land law Lords was not known to the Constitution , but that it fvvas the rule of all courts of law that no | judgo biiouiu decide a case which he had not heard .

      Tho Duke of Cleveland was understood to say that he had paid great attention to the easy , and that ho thought he had a n ^ lu jto vote upon it . The Marquis of ClamuCarde said that if any other lay Peer voted , ho would ivote also , although he thought it would bo calamitous for the character of thu House , as a Judicial Body , if the established rule in such cases were departed from . After a few words from Lord <\' krclam , the whole of the lay Peers withdrew . Tne question was again put , and Lords Cottenham , Don man , and Campbell ! having voted for the reversal of the judgment , and Lord Brougham against it , Tho Loud Chancellor said- —My Lord ? . THE JUDGMENT IS RLVcRSED .

      Untitled Article

      REPEAL ASSOCIATION—Monday , Sept . 2 . The usual weekly meeting of the Association took place this day , in the Conciliation Hall . Ou the motion of Hubert Dillon Browne , M . P ., the chair was taken by Mr . U Hea , barrister . The Chairman thanked the ! meeting at some length for the honour which Ka . d been conferred upon him , and observed that intelligence had reahed Dublin that a very great difference existed among the Judges on the question of ; the writ of error . The Learned Gentleman then proceeded to point out that the question of a fair trial or not was not the subject ot debate , but whether the objections taken to the record were taken properly or otherwise . Ho congratulated the Association on tho bright

      prospecia which the present state of political affairs opened to all who desiied the welfare of Ireland—( cheers ) . War was impending , aud , indeed , seemed unavoidable—( cheers ) . In such Ian event occurring , Sn R . Peel said he relied upon ; the Joyaity of Uw Irish people—( . ironical cheers and laughter ) . Ha was ritrht , however . Ho might reJy t ' lat the Irish would be found like a wall of tiro around their sovereign— tremendous cheering);—but was it reasonable to expect that they would bear the brunt of the battle and ) reap no aavanta ^ e from the victory?—( . cheers- ) . The Tangier pepper would very likely season some agreeable condiment , of which the Irish would be called upon to partake

      —( cheers and laughter);—but then was their time to make tbeir own terms . It was scarcely wise to press and strain too much upon the well-known loyalty of the Irish people—( cheers)—in every season of diffi- ( culty , more especially as it had evtr been in time of war and danger that their rights had been partly conceded to them—( cheers ) . . Everything which , passed along the political horizon was calculated to inspire the association with confidence and hope , and he nrmly believed that the day was not far remote ' when the shadow of a mighty event to come would bo lost in the bright reality of an Irish Parliament —( loud cheering ) . i Several sums of money were then handed in .

      Mr . DtLLotf Brow ^ k , M . P » read a letter from Mr . S . O'Brien , in which the writer strongly impressed upon the Association She inecossity of attending to the electoriai registration . ! ' Mr . Browne said it was a melancholy fact thai the political aphorism that " England ' s weakness was Ireland ' s opportunity "—( loud cheering )—was only too true—( cheeis ) . Wish one exception Ireland had never gained a concession except by the arms of Franee—( great cheering )—by the arms of America—( tremendous appiausfj)—or by 6 ome intestinal tumult— ( cheers ) . The present time was the hour of England ' s weakness— ( " Bravo ! " cheers , and cries of " more power ") . The Hon . Gentleman then

      proceeded at large to consider the ipresent state ot the Medi : erraneau , wb . ch he considered moat perilous to English intere ? . cs . He dealt in abundant » nd highly coloured eulogy of the Trince de JoinviUe aud ihe Frenca navy . I f England ' s forces were engaged in the Oregou or Cabul what was to prevent tho Prince de Joinville , who hud already seized upon one of the pillars of Horcnl ^ si irom arcertaiun ; : Whether Calpe ' s boasted rook | was indeed macces-! sible- ( applause )? Whom would England have to S support her in such a contest ? -lcheers ) . Would Russia support her I or Mehemet Ah ? or the Pope kchoring ) . The English had applied the t « rja _ oi i ^ sM

      Untitled Article

      " cowards" to the gallant navy of France , The nobte spirit of Coude leaped into life at the word in the youthful presence of the Prince de Joinville , who had answered it with tho thunder of his cannon against Tangier ( great cheering for some moments ) . The conduct of England bad been marked by weakness and indecision , and reminded him of a story which be bad heard of a man who said to an assailant

      of his— " You hare called me a rascal and a liar ; you have kicked me , too ; but beware , if you insult me again , you'll rouse the British lion within me "—( great cheering and laughter ) . With respect to the Q leen ' s visit , he could Dot help considering it a 3 an ill-timed visit —( hear , he » r ) . Even were O'Connelf liberated it would not be less so , for such an act would not be taken as a boon —( cheers ) . Injustice had been done to the Irish people , and they would not come crauching before any Sovereign or Minister on earth —( great applause ) . Should her MajiSty come , therefore , be , for one , would not shout in her train—( renewed applause ) .

      Mr . D . O'Connell , jun ., read a communication from London , dated Saturday evening , conveying the otelligence that there bad been several meetings of thej . adges in London , that grave difference ? of opinion existed between , them , and concluding with the straDgeadvice , " that no one was to attend to any rumopr on the subject , as everything was eonduoted with so much secrecy that nothing could be known oa the subject . " Mr . D . Browne retired from his contest . with the Nation in consequence of an explanation with Jhe editor , and General Cloonet , and some others , having addressed the meeting , Mr . D . O'Cosnell , Jan ., brought forward the usual report from the Penitentiary , which presented no p oint of particular importance .

      Mr . Goxdvn , a gentleman who has bean the originator of ^ several fracas at previous meetings of the association , rose to read the following notice of motion ;;—In event of a war with France ( cheers ) ,- — "To resolve that an extraordinary general meeting of this Association be called , exclusively for the purpose of taking , into consideration the propriety of reviving the volunteer erganizition of 1779 and 1782 , by meaas of which the people of Ireland protected their country from the foreign foe , in circumstances similar to those which now threaten the tecurity of the three nations , ^ well as the ge neral peace of the world , and under which they also wrung from the oppressive and anti-Irish ministerial factions of those periods , freedom of trade and legislative independence . " He was about addressing the chair , when

      Mr . D . Browne , indignantly addressing the chairman , said—I call upon you , Sir , not to receive that proposition—( loud cries of ** order , " and confusion ) . 'Tis not safe to receive it —( great cheering ) ., Such a doeument would be illegal ; and Mr . O'Connell has etuted . that any such attempt would expose tho Association to danger—( renewed cheers ) . The Chairman said he had no intention of receiv » ing such a notice of motion , as he was aware of its illegal character . Mr . Gordon , amid great confasion , endeavoured to make himself heard , but was obliged to give way to popular indignation , and the stentorian voice of Town-councillor Riellt , who had some money to hand in .

      Mr . Gordon again attempted to vindicate hi 3 motion , but was overpowered by the Chairman , Mr . Rielly , and Mr . D . Browne , all of whom spoke at once amid loud eries of order , chair , sit down , &o , and after a protest from Mr . Bkowne , who declared that if such vague , undigested motions , were entertained in that me -ting , he would take his hat and leave the place , and afcer a little unsuccessful skirmishing on Mr . Gordon ' s part , the matter dropped . Some routine business having been disposed of , the association adjourned to next week . The rent for the week was announced to be £ 735 . ¦

      Untitled Article

      TO THE EDITOR OK THE NORTHERN STAR . Sia—A letter appeared in tbe Leeds Mercury three Weeks ago , purporting to be an answer to a letter of mine which appeared in the Leeds Intelligencer of July tbe 27 th , and the Northern Stur of August the 3 rd , Leaded " Tbe Anti-Corn Law League and Low Wages , " in which I endeavoured to prove that these Anti-Corn Law b iwlers out for Free Trade and cheap bread , me the greatest grinders of the poor workmen , in the matter of reducing wages , of all the factions put together This I think I did with regard to a society which hrs been formed _ in Bradford atnongat the ¦ working men which society has betn in existence twelve months , and has expended £ 20 C 0 in endeavouring to protect their own industry , onrt the whole of thia sum has had to 13 expended " over thia very sarae liberal Free Trade Corn Law Renealtrs

      The person who pretends to answer my letter sig ^ s himself Justit'a ; and like all their dark deeds , skulks behind the hedge instead of meeting me fairly ; but the faction above alluded to are so guilty of fictitious names , writing pamphlets , professing to be dialogues botirccn farmers and gentlemen , which ne \ er had any existenc 3 in reality , that it is no wonder that thia man follows tbeir very laudable example . I replied to his letter a fortnight ag $ in the Mercury , and there challenged him to meet me face to face , and we would see by the evidence we could each produce which weie true . anri which false : and thia I thought would be a fair test . "But in another letter of his , which appears in the Mercuiy of Saturday last , he aaya nothing about meeting me in that straightforward manner

      I proposed . He still date not tell his name , although . I darod him to do it . Let the public now judge whether this anonymous scribbler or myself has put forth statements to the public which are the truth . As the Editors of the Mercury either dare not , or will not , allow me to reply to him in their paper this week ; and , ps your paper is r « ad by so many of the working classis , if you can find room , you would oblige me by inserting thia letter , bo as to let the public know , and the working classes particularly , what a base , lying , hypocritical faction they have to contend against , and to beware lest they ba deceived by them . Why , Sir , the redjeing of their wort people ' s wages I verily believe is most of their study . A turn out took place in Bradford last Saturday morning , in consequence of the

      trte Trading , Corn Law Repealing , Lioeral tnasfsrs , being determined to pull down timr wages . At a place not ten miles from Wakefield , another firm has endeavoured to do tbe same ; a firm , where one strike has already taken place , and the men were supported by the Woolcomber ' s Society at Bradford . By that meava they beat the masters out ; so they were compelU . 4 to give them their wages . But this time they threatened the men if they told tha Woolcombers' Society at Bradford , they ( the manufacturers ) would reduce tbem more than they had inteaded ; and this , tc j , from men who are such particular friends of the poor , that they would give them cheap bread in abundance , bat it appears by their actions they would give them very low wages to pay for it Witt . Numbers , of- similar instances might be multiplied ; but it is not worth while , for it appears ttwy have a peculiar gift , or perhaps a bump of wage

      reducing , as the phrenologists would call it , about their head 3 that they have no desire to get rid of . Ifc appears they conspire not only to reduce wages , but also to gag the poor working men from even attempting to get a fair remuneration for their labour . O bow liberal , ye hypocrites—ye wolves in sheep ' s clornirr . fiat I must not trespass on your columns too much , Mr . Editor ; bus in conclusion will request you to insert the following resolution , which was unanimously passed at a meeting of delegates of the Woolcombeifc * Society of this town , held here on . Monday evening last , and forwarded to me by a deputation of that body , which I think wiil at once show yoar readers thai what appeared in your piper with regard to the statements , is strictly true , in opposition to the lying sta ' . nients put forth by thb man wuo dare not tell h 9 name , which have appeared in the Leeds Mercury . Yours respectfully , fcWUIBB A . UTT .

      R-aolred— " That tha statements put forth , in the Leeds Mt'cury , signed " Justitia , " reflecting on the conduct of the Committee of the Woolcombers' Protective Society , and in contradiction to a letter written by Mr . fcjq'iire Auty , of Bradford , are false and unfounded ; and we , the delegates elected by the Woolco-. nbers' Protective Sjciety , in Qaarterly Meeting assembled , hereby certify © ur cordial approval of Mr . Auty ' s conduct , and return him onr unanimous thanks for his uniform support of the rights of labour . " Henr * Townend , Chairman .

      Ci^ 3eri]S^ ^Bofcrmnrt,

      Ci ^ 3 Eri ] S ^ ^ Bofcrmnrt ,

      Untitled Article

      THE WHIT OF ERROR . r j JUDGMENT OF THE JUDGES , j EO tSE OF L 0 HD 3 , XOSDAT , SZPIEMSEB 2 , Ioi 4 . } The Honse of Lords met to-day for the purpose-j pf recemng the opinions of Her . Majesty ' s Judges j on ihe writ of error in the case oi ** iht Q leen r . ; O'Connell and others . " j la the first place , however , the Learned Judges j delivered thtir opinion in the case of " Gray v . the j Qiees / ' which . w& 3 a qjestion whether a prisoner iid a right of peremptory challenge on trial In Ireland for shooting with intent to -murder , a newlv-created felony tinder a recent statnte . '

      yir . Justice Wightman , ilr . Justice ColtmajL , Mr . \ Jn-rice Wiiihraia , Mr . Baron Gurnej , Mr . Justice Ysnezon , Lord Chief Baron Foilocl £ 3 and Lord Chief Justice Tmdal were of opinion tfa&i the challenge eaght : o bare been allowed in the Court below ;' > lr . Baron Parke was of a different opinion , consi- ? flering that , rn the present state of the law t > f . fdoJj , the right claimed by the plaintiff in error ' did not exist in such a case , or in non-capital felonies . . ... I The further consideration ot this c&se ha"ring been ; adjourned till Wednesday , ; Lord Chief Jusiice Tindal proceeded to state his ] opinion in the case of " O'Connell t . the " Qoeen . " \ The first question was , whether any of the counts i

      in the indictment were bad m law . To constitute ihe crime of conspiracy two or more persons musi j agree to do a thing unlawful in itself , and the gis ; j of the iS-inceis tbat the parties should agree tojjeiher 10 do a thing forbidden by tbe law . The £ r 5 X coast objected to was the 6 th . The previons counts were not and could not be objected 10 . They contained a definite charge against the defendants £ 0 do aa illegal act . With respect to ib . B 6-h and 7 : h cesuus , the Judges all agreed that they did uol gtare the iHe ^ sl purpose for which , the defendants conspired with stsScient certainty to lead to the , coodaaon that the defendants intended to do an j illegal acj ; for tie words " intimkistion ' and ? M physical force" were Dot SLfficiently defined . Tne : siated in the h

      obiee ^ s 8 lh , y ., and lOih counts w « re illegal sets , ea . cn and every offence being a violation of the law . 60 that ss to the first question they : vixxt of opinion , that the 61 b and 7 th counts were 1 bad in law and if they had stood alone ihe jn 6 : cimini could not be supported . On the ' second branch , as to ihe fiading of ihe jury , oa ibe 1 st , 2 nd , 3 rd , and 4 th counts , ihe Judges concurred in opinion , that the finding of the j-rv , and ihe entry of the finding , on these counts , Vere not supportable m law . With respect to tbe 3 rd question , whether there was any sufficient ground for reversing the judgment by reason of any flefecis in t > . e indictment , er of the finding of the Tarv . or the entry of tlie finding , ilicare existed a

      diffeiince of opinion amongsi the Juris ** , and he therefore siattd only Ms own individual opinion Epoa this question . The Learned Chief Justice then eniered very minutely into tbe legal grounds of his eonclurion , that the judgment was irreversible on the ground of the four cefeclive conuis < the 1 st , 2 J , 3 rd , and 4 ih ) . The judgment proceeded on the good counts enly , and if so , the whole difficulty was at an end . With regard to the second branch of the tpssiioB , he was of the same opinion , and generally be was of opinion tha ; there was no sufficient ground for reversing the judgment by reason of any defects fi the indictment , or in the finding , or the entry of the finding , of the jury . Tee Judges . all concurred in opinion that there was no sufficient

      ground lor reversing the judgment on the matter of the plea in abatem-. nl . Uu tLc 5 ; h question , as to the continuation of the : rial , TTiich it had been objected was condiiional , tbe Judges "were of opinion that the order was perfectly le ^ al , 2 nd that the trial was property couiiuucd , aad that this question should be answered in ihe negative . " rYiih . respect to the sixth question , -whether there was any sufieieat ground for reversing the judgment because of me Court ' s overruling or ci < adowmg the ciallesEe of array , they were of opinion that the Sheriff had not acted improperly , or illegally , and no object could have been obtained if the challenge had been allowed , for the Jury mnsi have been chosen from the same book , and the Jury might have been

      Bgaia objec . ed to , and so on lolia quoita , and there would thus i > e eo trial at all . The JudgLS , therefore , answered this question in iLe negative . Tbe ntxi question was , did any ground exist for reverri ^ g the judgment by reason of ai ^ y deicc : of entering the ccsiinEance from the day of trial to the loin of April I The Judges upon this point Wtre unanilsoas ^ v of opinion that there was no ground under the statute , aad that it was in tffcci a Parliamentary C 3 siinc 5-Ece of the cause , and tba : no ihscoutinuaiict : did in fac : take place . Oa the eighth question , the Jad ^ es were < J opinion that there was no gronnd for Te-rr-r-i-z or Tsryipg the judgment on account of the SgntBDCas pJoncuncfciJ , m-. h xe ^ axd to tbe recog-Bizmees and terms of imprisonment . Tne only of

      duieulxv was in the form of its ord ^ r enlry of ihe rtct' ^ zzz 2 iicss 3 JiA of * ke I ' -rms of iaprisonui- nc On tfce 3-t qu ^ stHm , whether there was any ground ; o reverse ihe jsdgKeEi on account of the judgments oa lie zssi . snmenls of error eoram nolL , rue judges thought tLai , under the statnte , lie decision o ; ihe Court ra licland mighl be supported , ibvu ^ h , if the Ear . er were re * iTtlecrra , -a queition mi ^ b :, ptjhaps , be raised ; bat upon a reasonable construction of : he saitr . e , and ihe practice of ihe Court , tb- y tbou ^ bi the otieeiioa had been answered , and thai lfcere ttes ao ground for reversiL-g the judjoneni on ibis pomi . The 10 ; h qne ? iion w 3 s , whether the judgment should be reversed by reason of its no : contonrEganv entry as to the verdicts ofacqauial , and

      the judges wt-re ail of opinion that it sLouIdbe aarsrered id ihe negative . "With respre : 10 the llih asd 3 a =: q ^ esiion , he ( the Learned Oncf Jasuce ) gv ? e oejJ Ms own opinion . Tne q-ievtion wa ^ , Rieiier , ihe en : ry on ihe record beinx that the CtreacaiiL ? should ks fined and imprlsD-ed ** for ibe e&ncii aforesaid , " thax of itself vra- a £ iound ioi xertrsiij ^ the judgment . Hf took tire words , * ' the J £ a « aiwoaid , " in iLeir ord- 'iury ~ en ? e , meaning the cfi-icea laid in the 5 _ h , 8 ih , and suhseqnent Cfiuni £ , and c- ^ nraiDE-d in the good fiudi . ' igs , and he fris ofr-piuioa that this quesiion shcu . u be answered £ .: o £ r : brr 12 the negative .

      Mi . Justice Pattesqs then delivered his opinion Caisr ' izL aad 11 th ques ; ions , to the effect that the lai : % == o ; xhe finding on some of the counts did not zSti tie T ^ rdici and judgment upon the whole of the : EG : c : miat . There was a case in wh ' . ch a finding cpoL a ria ^ ie count , when ail tbe rc ^ t wtre bad , was Supported npoa a writ of error , " Re ^ . v . Owen , " - Barn , and - -ild ., 7 . 3 . -burning that tee judgment "K&iLJj LaTc been bad upon some counts , stili the " ^ ulejassmcnt would be good . Mr . Jafiiee 3 liULE follo-. ved . concurring with the Chief Jusuceasd . Mr . Justice ' Pjiieson .

      5 > lr . Ju-cic * CoLiMAJf ihen delivered his opinion , to £ 0 the tf-cn tha ; , wiib respect to the 3 rd question tcere was suSeieEt ground for reversing the judgla-S !; and oa tLe ll : h q-jesla&n he considered tns : in a- ; indictment of three coonls , A , B , ard C , a A aud B were good , and C bad , a judgment ajjahii : a defendant , tnough eouh"u-d to counts A ad £ , mixiit to be rdtrsed on error . If ihe deleLCint w-. re to be tried stain ior the offence laid 12 conn : C , how could the Court know the fact of cn : rcj ( jt ~ acquit so as to prevent the pany being tr ied Siiin ior use same offence ! Aeearcing to his p * j -2 i&a , if ore conn ; in ibe indictment was b ^ d , the 3- ^ gnieni Ki = tm > neous , because it c : d wi siate on flxai cc ^ at < the = emence was pa .- > ea .

      Mr . Ju-iiee Williams said , tn-j d ^ ff-rence ol opinion iuo-iantlauy arose on the 11 in question , ¦ litre Wis iio c : Her « iiCe on the mrriis , aud ahere ** = to coub : ihat ihere were goua ct-uuts in the J £ c : cin ; fii : _ , which wunld sustain an uxceptionable J 22 eid-. ci . The objecnors in tht wril wtre pureiy w a itc-bisics ] naiur-e , and mu-: be tecbiiica . lj peiKd . Ihe CsifeTtiiC : } uj > t > n tbe i 1 ' . h queMioji had P-

      f ^ *> j j ^ t- JurUee ColtmaB , a ^> whcHicr , where , & itite . tc- ' jiu 211 an inriic : ment , two were bad , a SK-tr&i Tcrtbc : and Keuerau jacs ; meTil could or Cuuid lot r > e -a = ! aired . Ine Leornto Jucge cited var ; un > < 2-ts , 2 nd ur ^ ea reaaons ; or &a oppo-iie conclusion lornat of £ 3 = ieirne-l brother , and ior 8 ° retiu ^ with -S ^ - ^ ^ - "ce ihst ihere were counts wh . ch * & 3 -d c n ; tain ihe judgment pronounced " for the 5 ~ rBC £ s aforesaid , " waich were not ihe tfeuces con-« -Etd ; a tij e counts bad m law , or in the deiective £ aan > e =,. fcalOB those good in iaw .

      j _ . - Baron C-Vi ^ concurred ^ ita the Chief ^ -itite aad the oiher Judges who took ths same tkw trfiht : 3 rd and 11 th questions . Mr . Baron Al&ehsos felt t-tv sirons ' iy that as c ? . t"ja : e dteision oi iheir Lordships to tiiat of the Ki ^ i t eloB would be productive oi mucn niL-ebief ; iT he rtj-jiced , ihtrefore , that , in rhis technical S ^ suon , lie agreed wiik so large a majority of his fartea brethren , lr was the uiiiTcr ^ a . 1 btiief and ^ prfciion t > f ibe prafe-sioa iha » . a judgment upvn ^ iaoicliBeni with bad and gos > d counts was not f - * as : bie ; such a judgment was fciv ^ n upon thai J * ^! of the eifence which was intliciable . It was the of

      ^ j r-y estrcise a poetical imagination l 0 5 * 2 tsl ps « sibie incoaveuieLcct ; the law , however , £ -2 1 . 0 : pxoits = 10 be a perfect zj ~ itm , bu : prscu to tvil Tcsnlicd from ihe course in question , 1 r £ ith , ibt > ugh it mi ^ hl be unreaionibie in civil cases , * is re ^ ona . hie JiirQ just in enmiaai cases . Tne ^ rt always gifes judgment on tbe geod coun-s , a ^ -Hiitiiia ii bad is ^ acl because it charges no offence , *^ tiie Court below in this case pronounced judgfc p it oa the ** offences aforesaid' '—ikal is , the tfciCcs tot tailed in ibe good conn' 5 al-jue . t - > lr . Ban , a Pauke said , he rei . rt .-ued that , after ^ best co ^ ctraiiOn , lie could i-vi brinx himself ta

      *¦ = * wiia ice majority cf iis It -irneu i > remren , on J j& * third and eieveinh qcestioi ^ . Y \ i , ere an iu-^ -fficiii ruii ^ itd of several ccusis bad and £ Ood , ^ t - LEjjh : u > Lave be ^ n brought 10 a decision and ^ -O c ^ pteed 01 u . ^ on the rvccro . Tucre rs-as a PttsiIiE {» ^ jiiiricg thai one gooz cvua : ia : m indicl-* t ~ : -BW . Q rtij ,. p \ . ri a jiit [ jgu . tni , bui it appeared to £ & to have trown tip withoui , a . ucQuate juoands ¦ " * ttfencaiiia ought , therefore , in h-s opinion , on

      Untitled Article

      the face of tbe record , to be put in the same situation as if each count had been a distinct indictment . Mr . Justice Coiehjdgs was prevented by illness from being present , but Lord Chief Justice 1 ' i . ndal stated that that learned Judge had sent his written opinion , in which he expressed hi 3 concurrence with the majority of his learned brethren . The majority of the opinions of the Judges ( nine in number ) were thus against the writ of error . The House waa then adjourned until Wednesday , on which day their Lordships will pronounce judgment .

      Untitled Article

      Seizure-op Tobacco 3 * the Excise . —On Saturday , a moat important seizure was made by the Excise on the premises of Mr . F . Ryder , tobacco manufacturer , of ChUweil-strest , Finsbary-square . From information received , Messrs . Adolpbus Mark and John Wdde , two ' indefatigable officers of Excise , proceeded to the above , premises , and requested to examine tba stock of tobacco , wbtch waa reiuiily acceded to , and ths result -was that they discovered a large quantity of manufactured tobacca , which appeared to them to be adulterated with an article resembling peat . They accordingly seized tbe whole , and pursuing tbeir search , found a large pan containing 8 solution of honey , or some other saccharine matte ? . They then proceeded to an adjoining room , -which they minutely examined . It contained a cupboard , which they found to be locked , and on rtques ; iug the key of it , tbey were told that the

      ; key bad been loai for a considerable time , consequently ' < they were unable to produce it . The cupboard was forced open , and within it was found about 79 lb of pest , ot a similar article to that believed to be mixed with the tobacco . Upon the officers inquiring its use , they were informed that it had been there for some years , when the law allowed tobacco-manufactuters to have such articles in their possession . In the ceurie of their search , they also found a vessel containing Venetian rad and a mixture of other ingredients , but d ' urirg the time the officers wera engaged in the inner apartment , the pan of saccharine master had entirely-dissppeared , and was nowhere to ba found . BEt ) fe " & 8 tSstance of Messrs . Spurger and Cowie the ^ gnole JBtocfc waa deposited in u . van , and conveyed toitw Exciza office , to be adjudicated upon by her Majejfi ? p ^ oromi 8-sioners . A se zure was made on tbe . WKl ^ P ** " ** j about three months since . ^ p— -

      Untitled Article

      1 ' j TL T ! 0 . TIL jSTO . 356 . SATURDAY , SEPTEMBER 7 1844 phicb fourpekce ! haifS ^ s— _ . J ) - « -v ^ -aj -3 J # Five Shillings per QnatteT .

      Untitled Article

      | AND LEEDS GENERAL ADVERTISER .

  • Citation
    • Northern Star (1837-1852), Sept. 7, 1844, page unpag, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse-os.kdl.kcl.ac.uk/periodicals/ns/issues/vm2-ncseproduct1279/page/1/