Foreman of the Jury: We are. Dealtry: Do you find the defendant Charles Pinney guilty or not guilty of the misdemeanours imputed to his charge? Foreman of the Jury: We unanimously find Charles Pinney, late Mayor of Bristol, not guilty of the misdemeanours imputed to his charge. We are unanimously of opinion, circumstanced as he was, menaced and opposed by an infuriated and reckless mob, unsupported by any sufficient force, civil or military, deserted in those quarters where he might reasonably have expected assistance, that the late Mayor of Bristol acted, according to the best of his judgment, with zeal and personal courage. Scarlett: My Lord, I am desirous, before the jury withdraw, and in their presence, to assure your Lordships that in the conduct of this cause, as far as I have been concerned, I have neither introduced, nor have I intended to introduce, any one topic that did not grow out of the evidence, and was not strictly connected with the cause. However, as his Majesty's Attorney General did think fit yesterday

PARKE, J. It is quite unnecessary to make any observation of that kind. It is unfortunate that any remarks should be made upon persons not before the Court, or of a personal nature on one side or the

other.

Scarlett: Whoever gave my learned friend information that I had personal motives, or informed him of the facts he insinuated, has given him false and malicious information; and, whenever he makes a charge against me that I can reply to, I hope to be able to prove my own innocence as well as I have proved that of Mr. Pinney.

The Attorney General: I hope I shall be

allowed

PARKE, J.: It ought not to be permitted.

The Attorney General: Having heard one side, I hope you will hear the other. I was not in the least degree prepared for this most extraordinary statement of my learned friend. I beg to say, in the face of your Lordships, and of the jury, and the country, upon my honour, as a gentleman, that I have introduced no topic that I did not think essential for the right

(a) Master of the Crown Office.

with it in the manner I have dealt with it. As to what has been said of information conveyed to me, no such information has been conveyed. I have merely stated what I thought right, to remove a prejudice that I did not introduce. I appeal to the jury whether any personal topic was introduced by me, in bringing the case before them.

PARKE, J.: I must say that I think this had better have been omitted on both sides.

The Attorney General: I did not introduce it.

PARKE, J.: I do not know whether you mean to proceed with the other cases. (a)

The Attorney General (b): I have no intention to announce it now; but those gentlemen of the jury attending in the other cases need not remain.

MATERIALS MADE USE OF.-The report of Tindal, C.J.'s charge is from a report of it published in Bristol in 1831 at the request of the grand jury. A part of it is reprinted in 5 C. & original, Easter Term, 2 Will. 4. (Out Counties), P. 254. The information is copied from the No. 19. The above report of the trial of Pinney is from Gurney's report. Aid has been derived the briefs of counsel, the proceedings before the from the papers of the Solicitor of the Treasury, committee of inquiry and the courts-martial on Colonel Brereton and Captain Warrington, and the reports of Pinney's case in 5 C. & P. 254 and 3 B. & Ad. 947.

(a) "The foreman of the special jury (Captain Gardiner) asked the Court to order that the expenses of the jury might be paid, as they had all come from Berkshire, and had been in athaving conferred with Mr. Justice J. Parke and tendance eight days. (Mr. Justice Littledale, Mr. Justice Taunton)--The Court have no power

to make such an order.

The Solicitor to the Treasury paid each of the special jurors one guinea. There were other similar informations against other magistrates of Bristol which were not tried. The special jurors, who had been summoned to try informations which stood next in order, applied for their expenses, stating that they had been in attendance during the whole of the trial of Mr. Pinney, expecting to be called. They, however, were not paid anything." 5 C. & P., p. 981.

which Denman appeared as counsel. On Nov. 6, (b) This was the last case of importance in

1832, he became Lord Chief Justice of the Court of Queen's Bench.

The third count charged that the prisoner did stab and wound John Brooke, he, the said John Brooke, being a constable duly appointed and sworn to act as a constable, under and by virtue of an Act of Parliament, passed in 10 Geo. 4. c. 44 (The Metropolitan Police Act), with intent to resist and prevent the lawful apprehension and detainer of him, the said George Fursey, for an offence for which he was liable to be apprehended and detained; that is to say, for that he, together with divers other persons, to wit, five hundred other persons, to the jurors unknown, were tumultuously assembled, making a great tumult, riot, and affray, in view of the said John Brooke.

The fourth count was similar to the third, except that it omitted to state that John Brooke was a constable, and that the riot, &c. was committed in his view.

The fifth count was the same as the fourth, except that it did not state the nature of the offence for which the prisoner was liable to be apprehended and detained.

CASE FOR THE PROSECUTION.

The Solicitor General: May it please your Lordships, gentlemen of the jury: I have the honour to attend you as counsel for the prosecution, and in that capacity, as the law now stands, I have a right to address you and to detail to you all the circumstances of the case as I propose and as I am instructed to give them in evidence. That privilege I waive. I will neither make statements

nor comment.

The

prisoner's counsel has no right to address you, and in my judgment it is not equitable that there should be a power to address the jury on the part of the prosecution, and not on the part of the prisoner; and I will therefore content myself with only respectfully, but most earnestly imploring you to dismiss from your recollection all that you may have read or heard respecting this case, that the prisoner may have a fair and impartial trial; and whatever your verdict may be, I am convince it will satisfy justice, and that it will be satisfactory to your country.

John Brooke.-Examined by the Solicitor

General.

I was on the 13th of May a constable belonging to the C Division of the Metropolitan Police. On that day I proceeded to the Riding School in Gray's Inn Lane. We marched down Gray's Inn Lane, and then into Calthorpe Street. There were several hundred persons in the street. One brought a banner folded up in his left hand. The prisoner is the man who had the flag. I am certain of him. When he came opposite to where I was in the centre of the street, he 61636.

raised his right hand and struck me on the sixth rib on the left side. I had been doing nothing before he struck me, only commanding the sub-division. I neither raised my staff nor touched any individual since I came into the street, nor saw anybody else attempt to do so. The blow was with the right hand. It was with an instrument something like a dagger, seven or eight inches long. The hilt of the dagger was brass. After I received the blow I retired back two or three paces, and after I had retired I looked particu larly at the prisoner, and saw an instrument like a dagger in his right hand.(a)

Cross-examined by Phillips.

[My rib was not broken.]

You had the use of your sight ?—Yes, till I was wounded, and then it was taken away.

wounded you looked particularly at the I thought you said after you were prisoner. How could that be if it was taken away? If what you have sworn be quite true, that after you were wounded your sight was taken away, how could you look particularly at the prisoner P-It was momentarily afterwards, but I had some distance to go before I got out of

the street.

I thought you told me, or rather my learned friend, you turned round, and saw the prisoner with another policeman? I did.

Your sight was not gone then ?-I was not killed dead. If I had been killed——

Nobody is asking you about being killed dead, or you would not be here. Was your sight gone P-My sight was not gone, or I should not have seen the prisoner.

As you had the use of your sight, how many policemen did you see upon the ground?—I do not know. I saw my own division.

That will not do. How many did you see besides your Division ?-I cannot say.

You can give some vague notion ?—If I was to say there were three or four hundred I could not be certain.

Will you say there were not five ?—I cannot say.

Will you swear there was not twelve hundred ?-I cannot say. I did not see

them.

About how many persons might have been about the man you call the prisoner at the time this took place?-There were several policemen and several other inhabitants.

About how many persons do you suppose were about the prisoner ?-I do not know. It is impossible to say.

Some hundreds? Some hundreds might have been coming into the street.

Were there not some hundreds about the person you call the prisoner?-Yes, there were some hundreds, because they were coming into the street and going out. Attend to the form in which I put the question. Were not the persons-the inhabitants as you call them, I mean to distinguish them from the police-were they not doing all they could to get out of the way of the police ?-They were returning from the fields down the street.

Give me an answer. You would save us a great deal of time if you would answer the question ?-I do answer it as far as I can. No, you do not. The question I put to you is this, were they not apparently doing all they could to escape from the violence of the police? Yes or no?-I did not see any of the police driving the people.

Did not the people appear to you to be doing all they could to get out of the way of the police?-I did not see it.

Had you not a considerable view of the ground from the place where you were ? No,

To what extent P-I could see to the end of the street. It was the centre of the street, and we could see no further than the end of the street.

In that very street, Calthorpe Street, were there not numbers trying to get out of the way ?-I did not see it.

Do you mean to state that it might have taken place, and you not see it? I could not see what the people were doing. They were coming down upon the Division when we were marching into the street.

When was that?-About three o'clock. What do you mean by coming down upon the Division ?--I should suppose to drive them out of the street.

[I saw no one committing any act of violence until I was stabbed. There was no fighting until then.]

My

Who is prosecuting this case? learned friend said he was counsel for the prosecutor P-I do not know.

You are not the prosecutor ?-I am one of the witnesses.

Do you incur any expense in the prosecution?-Not to my knowledge.

You would know if you had given instructions to any solicitor, for instance, the Solicitor for the Treasury? Have you given any instructions to him to prepare briefs for counsel ?--Not to my knowledge.

You cannot forget it ?GASELEE, J.: You cannot doubt it is conducted by the Government.

Solicitor General: I appear for the Public Prosecutor.

:

Phillips Here is a case conducted by my learned friend with all the array of Government against us.

Solicitor General: I hope that this will be conducted with every impartiality. It is conducted by the Public Prosecutor, and I appear here on the part of His Majesty, who represents the public. This prosecution is conducted by me, representing the Attorney General.

Phillips I do not understand this. In every case of a criminal trial there is a Public Prosecutor, who is the King nominally. But my learned friend knows as well as I do, or much better, that the Solicitor General does not come in on behalf of the public in this case, but that he comes here specially to-day on behalf of the Government with the Solicitor of the Treasury. I say this on account of the phrase of my learned friend that he appears for the Public Prosecutor, and as we have had so slight an opening in this

case

GASELEE, J.: Nobody can entertain a moment's doubt about it.

Solicitor General: I am surprised that any interlocutory discussion of this kind should arise, and that my learned friend should complain of my slight opening. Can it be doubted that I appear here in my official capacity as His Majesty's Solicitor General? Is it to be supposed that I intend to disguise that fact?

GASELEE, J. : There cannot be the slightest doubt of it. It is clearly a Government prosecution.

Solicitor General: Yes, my Lord, avowedly.

GASELEE, J. Nobody ever had the slightest doubt upon it. An application was made to the judges stating there was a public prosecution, and requesting them to take it at a particular time(a); and nothing the Solicitor General has said could leave anybody to suppose that it was not. But I am quite sure that, so far from any com

(a) May 18, 1833.-On arraignment at the bar of the Old Bailey the prisoner pleaded not guilty, and applied to be allowed to traverse to the next sessions, on his own affidavit that he had not had time to prepare his defence, and that the public excitement was such as would imperil him on his trial unless he was not

hurried in his defence and was legally defended. Adolphus, for the prosecution, opposed the application, citing Bellingham's case.- -(Shorthand Report by Fraser, Lond. 1812). The Court (Littledale, J., and Bolland, B.) granted the application.-The Times, 21st May, 1833.

plaint being made of the slight opening, the prisoner cannot complain of it. I never heard a more fair statement in the world than this-alluding to a Bill in Parliament, (a) as to which the Solicitor General, the organ of the Government, has taken a particular part as to a prisoner having counsel-" although, as the law now stands, I am entitled to make that statement, I will not do it," which, of course, has given the prisoner the benefit of the proposal, either that the prosecutor's counsel shall not open, or that the prisoner's counsel shall address the jury. Solicitor General: Then I am reproached for my slight opening!

Phillips I think my learned friend's not opening, getting up ostentatiously and saying he would not do so, has done the prisoner harm, and I repudiate the clemency. This is the first time I have ever stood in this Court when the public officer did not manfully get up and avow it was a Government prosecution.

Solicitor General: I protest, with the utmost sincerity, and upon my honour as a gentleman, I did not know that it could be doubted for a moment by any individual in the Court that this was a Government prosecution, and that I appeared in my official capacity.

Phillips Then it is not a public prose

cution.

Solicitor General: Yes, it is. By a Juryman: I wish to know how long it was after you received the wound before you lost your sight ?-It was a minute or two afterwards, not more; but directly I received the wound I lost-

How long did this obscuration of vision last ?-After I had been wounded I went home, and went to the doctor's in the street to get my wound dressed. I was some considerable time in the shop, and after that I went to the stable yard, and sat myself down. I was upwards of two hours in the yard before I was put into a

coach to be taken home.

GASELFE, J.: That is not an answer to the question. The question the jury ask you is this: you lost your sight almost immediately ?--Yes.

It was two hours before you got to the stable ?-Yes.

How soon did you recover your sight? -Some considerable time after.

How long before you got to the stable ? -I sat down in the shop, and they gave me something to drink.

How soon did you recover your sight? -An hour perhaps.

(a) The Prisoner's Counsel Bill, see Hansard, Parl. Deb. 3rd series, 16, 1199, and 18, 607,

and 6 & 7 Will. 4. c. 114.

Had you recovered your sight before you got to the stable yard ?-I had.

A Juryman: How long was it from the time of his being struck till he got to the surgeon's ?-It might have been a quarter of an hour after getting through the crowd.

Had your sight left you the whole of the time?-I was with a sergeant the whole of the time conducting me; I was not able to go by myself.

GASELEE, J.: How near was Redwood to you when you were struck ?-He was just on my left hand, about a pace or two.

[He had said or done nothing, to my knowledge before I was struck. The instrument was in the prisoner's right hand. He was carrying it down by his side, hanging his arm down with it in his hand. I did not observe anything in his hand till he raised his arm against me. I did not observe anybody trying to take the flag before I was struck. I did not try myself, nor demand it.

Henry Chance Redwood.-Examined by Wightman.

I am a police constable belonging to the C Division, and on the 13th of May I was at the Riding School in Gray's Inn Lane with Brooke. When I got to Calthorpe Street I saw a mob of people coming from the fields.

The prisoner had the flag. He held the staff in his left hand. His right hand was down in this manner in the first instance when I went up to him (holding his arm down by his side). He came out into the middle of the street. I left my rank, and went out towards the prisoner to get the colour from him, and in so doing heard Sergeant Brooke say "Oh!" That was before I got up to the prisoner. Brooke was in front of me then. The prisoner had just passed him at the time. I saw them close together. He had passed him at the time Brooke said "Oh!" He had passed him. The prisoner was close by the side of him. I advanced up to the prisoner, and demanded the colour of him. refused to give up the colour. I told him I should take it from him. I then seized the flag with both hands. The moment I seized the flag I saw him raise his right hand with a blade in it, terminating with a sharp point, about six or eight inches in length. I then struck him with my staff for safety. He raised his hand from his side, and I raised my truncheon and struck him. In defending the blow I put my arm out. He lifted up his arm in this manner. I put up my left hand to defend myself, and he struck me through my left arm. That was before I struck him with the

He