Imatges de pàgina
PDF
EPUB

guilty for nothing more is to be found by the

In the case of the King and Williams, the jury found the defendant guilty of printing and publishing the North Briton, No. 45; the clerk entered it up guilty, and no objection was ever made. Where there are more charges than one, guilty of some only is an acquittal as to the rest. But in this information there is no charge except for printing and publishing. Clearly there can be no judgment of acquittal; because the fact found by the jury is the very crime they were to try.(i) The only question is, Whether, by any possibility, the word 'only' can have a meaning which would affect or contradict the verdict.

the printing and publishing. (d) That no proof
of express malice ever was required, and is injury (h)
most cases impossible to be given. That the
verdict finds only what the law infers from the
fact: (e) therefore, after conviction, a defend-
ant may, by affidavit, lessen the degree of his
guilt. That where an act in itself indifferent,
if done with a particular intent, becomes cri-
minal, there the intent must be proved and
found: but where the act is in itself unlawful,
(f) as in this case, the proof of justification, or
excuse, lies on the defendant; and, in failure
thereof, the law implies a criminal intent.(g)
The jury stayed out a great while, many
hours; at last they came to my house; (the
objection of its being out of the county being
cured by consent.) In answer to the usual
question put by the officer, the foreman gave
their verdict in these words: "Guilty of the
printing and publishing only." Nothing more
passed.

The officer has entered up the verdict literally, without so much as adding the usual words of reference to connect the verdict with the matter to which it related.

Upon this, the two rules I have stated were moved for.

Upon that obtained by the Attorney-General, the affidavit of a juror was offered by the coun sel for the defendant. But we are all of opinion that it cannot be received. Where there is a doubt upon the judges' report, as to what passed at the time of bringing in the verdict, there the affidavits of jurors, or by-standers, may be received upon a motion for a new trial, or to rectify a mistake in the minutes. But an affidavit of a juror never can be read as to what be then thought or intended.

This motion consists of two parts; first, to fill up the formal words of reference; the second, to omit the word only.' We are all of opinion, that the first is a technical omission of the clerk, and ought to be set right. As to the second, that the word 'only' must stand in the verdict.

That the law, as to the subject matter of the verdict, is as I have stated, has been so often unanimously agreed by the whole Court, upon every report I have made of a trial for a libeł, that it would be improper to make it a question now in this place. Among those that concurred, the bar will recollect the dead, and the living not now here. And we all again declare our opinion, that the direction is right, and according to law. This direction, though often given (with an express request from me, that if there was the least doubt, they would move the Court) has never been complained of in court; and yet, if it had been wrong, a new trial would be of course. It is not now complained of. Taking then the law to be according to this direction, the question is, whether any meaning can be put upon the word only,' as it stands upon the record, which will affect the verdict. If they meant to say they did not find it a libel, or did not find the epithets, or did not find any express malicious intent, it would not affect the verdict; (k) because none of these things were to be proved or found either way. If, by

[ocr errors]

only,' they meant to say that they did not find the meaning put upon the paper by the information, they should have acquitted him. If they had expressed this to be their meaning, There is no ground (from any thing which the verdict would have been inconsistent and passed) to explain the sense of the jury, so as repugnant; for they ought not to find the dethat the officer might have entered a general fendant guilty, unless they find the meaning verdict. No argument can be urged for omit- put upon the paper by the information ;(7) and ting the word only,' which does not prove judgment of acquittal ought to have been enthat it can have no effect, though inserted; tered up. If they had expressed their meanand therefore it is a question of law upon the ing in any of the other ways, the verdict would face of the verdict. The defendant's motion not have been affected, and judgment ought to must be considered upon the ground of the be entered upon it. It is impossible to say with word only' standing; was it omitted, there certainty what the jury really did mean; procould be no doubt. Guilty of printing and pub-bably they had different meanings. If they ishing, where there is no other charge, is could possibly mean that which is expressed would acquit the defendant, he ought not to be

[ocr errors]

(d) Qu. Are they not rather inferences of reason which the jury have a right to make?

(e) This appears to be somewhat obscure. (f) Qu. if any act, even the voluntarily putting another man to death, be in itself unlawful?

(g) Qu. if this implication lie not within the province of the jury?

[blocks in formation]

living judges, then absent, did declare their opinions in open court, and whether the noble lord has any note of such opinions?

concluded by this verdict. It is possible some of them might mean, not to find the whole sense and explanation put upon the paper by the innuendoes in the information. If a doubt arises from an ambiguous and unusual word in the verdict, the Court ought to lean in favour of a Venire de Novo.

We are under the less difficulty, because, in favour of a defendant, though the verdict be full, the Court may grant a new trial. And we are all of opinion, upon the whole of the case, that there should be a Venire de Novo.

This Judgment lord Mansfield, on the 10th of December, having previously desired that the Lords might be summoned for that day, read to the House of Lords ;* and informed their lordships that he had left a copy of it with the clerk, and that their lordships might read it and take copies of it if they pleased, but he did not move that it should be entered on the Journal, nor did he make any other motion respecting it. This conduct seems to have excited some surprise in the House, and occasioned severe animadversions in the political writings of the time. On the next day lord Camden proposed the following Questions to lord Mansfield, and desired to have his lordship's Answers to them, having, as I understand Mr. Holliday (Life of lord Mansfield, p. 317,) left them in writing with the clerk.†

1. "Does the opinion mean to declare, that upon the general issue of Not Guilty, in the case of a seditious libel, the jury have no right by law to examine the innocence or criminality of the paper, if they think fit, and to form their verdict upon such examination?

2. "Does the opinion mean to declare, that in the case above mentioned, where the jury have delivered in their verdict Guilty, that this verdict has found the fact only, and not the law?

3. "Is it to be understood by this opinion, that if the jury come to the bar, and say that they find the printing and publishing, but that the paper is no libel, in that case the jury have found the defendant Guilty generally, and the verdict must be so entered up?

4. Whether the opinion means to say, that if the judge, after giving his opinion of the innocence or criminality of the paper, should leave the consideration of that matter, together with the printing and publishing, to the jury, such a direction would be contrary to law?

5. "I beg leave to ask, whether dead or

*The phraseology of Burrow's Report of the Judgment differs from that in the Parl. Hist. †The Parliamentary History mentions not this leaving with the clerk,

6." Whether they declared such opinions, after solemn arguments, or upon any point judicially before them ?"

Lord Mansfield replied, that this method of proposing questions to him, was taking him by surprise; that it was unfair; and that he would not answer interrogatories. See 16 New Parl. Hist., pp. 1312, et seq. 1321, also p. 1304, Junius's Preface, published in Mr. Woodfall's late edition of the Letters, Junius's Letter signed Phalaris (letter 82) in the Miscellaneous Letters of Junius, Woodfall's edition, vol. 3, p. 295, and the letter of Nerva in a note to the same page.

The preceding Cases gave rise to numerous publications. Of those which impugned the doctrines laid down in the Cases of Almon and Woodfall, some of the most considerable are,

A Letter from Candour to the Public Advertiser.

Warrants, the Seizure of Papers, and Sureties A Letter to Mr. Almon concerning Libels, for the Breach of Behaviour, &c. By the Father of Candour.

Another Letter to Mr. Almon in matter of Libel.

A second Postscript to a Letter to Mr. Almon in matter of Libel.

A Summary of the Law of Libel, in four Letters, signed Phileleutherus Anglicanus.

A Letter to the Jurors of Great Britain occaBench read by Lord Chief Justice Mansfield, sioned by an Opinion of the Court of King's in the Case of the King and Woodfall, &c. by George Rous, esq.

See also An Inquiry into the Extent of the Power of Juries on Trials of Indictments or Informations for publishing Seditious or other Criminal Writings, &c. extracted from the second volume of Mr. Baron Maseres's Additional Papers concerning the Province of Quebeck, in which is a very copious, exact, and satisfactory investigation of the nature of the questions of intention and tendency in charges of libel. And An Enquiry into the question, Whether Juries are or are not judges of law as wel as of fact, with a particular reference to the Case of Libels. (By Joseph Towers, L. L. D. a dissenting minister.)

Observations on the Rights and Duty of Juries in Trials for Libels, &c. by Joseph Towers, L. L. D.

Other prosecutions were had for the publication of Junius's Letter to the King, but I have not seen a report which is worth publication of either of them.

556. The Trial of Maha Rajah NUNDOCOMAR,* Bahader, for Forgery. At Calcutta, in the Province of Bengal: 15 GEORGE III. A. D. 1775. [Published by Authority of the Supreme Court of Judicature in Bengal. London: Printed for T. Cadell in the Strand, 1776.]

June 8, 1775.

The Court desired Dr. Anderson and Dr. Williams to examine the prisoner, which they At a Court of Oyer and Terminer, and Gaol Delivery, holden in and for the Town of did, and reported that he complained of having Calcutta, and Factory of Fort William, in been indisposed in the night, but that he had Bengal, and the Limits thereof, and the Factories subordinate thereunto, on the 3d day of June, 1775.-Before the hon. Sir ELIJAH IMPEY, knt. Chief Justice, Ro

BERT CHAMPERS, STEPHEN CESAR LEMAISTRE, and JOHN HYDE, esqrs. Justices. The KING . Maha Rajah NUNDOCOMAR. THE Prisoner being called to the bar, and arraigued, and the indictment read, his counsel tendered a plea to the jurisdiction of the Court; but the Chief Justice pointing out an objection thereto, which went both to the matter of fact and the law contained therein, and desiring the counsel to consider if he could amend it, and take time for so doing, he, after having considered the objection, thought proper to withdraw the plea; whereupon the prisoner pleaded, Not Guilty: and being asked by whom he would be tried? he answered, By God and his peers. The Court desired to know whether he had any particular reason for using the word peers? His counsel answered, that the prisoner being a man of the first dignity in this kingdom, thought he should be tried by people of equal rank with himself, agreeably to the law of England, which permits every man to be tried by his peers. The Court asked, who the Maha Rajah considered as his peers? His counsel answered, he must leave that to the Court.

Chief Justice. The trial can only be by such persons as are by the charter required to form the jury. A peer of Ireland tried in England would be tried by a common jury. The charter directs, that in all criminal prosecutions, the prisoner should be tried by the inhabitants of the town of Calcutta, being British subjects.

It being late, the Court adjourned till the next morning at seven o'clock.

June 9, 1775.

The counsel for the prisoner informed the Court, that the Maha Rajah had been ill in the night, and had now a flux and fever, which rendered him incapable of taking his trial.

These proceedings are amply discussed in the Cases of governor Hastings and of Sir Elijah Impey, and in the Parliamentary Debates respecting those Cases.

neither flux nor fever, and was very capable of taking his trial; whereupon he was called to

the bar.

The Prisoner being informed of his right to challenge when the Jury came to be sworn, challenged the following gentlemen, from a paper held in his hand: John Lewis, William Atkinson, John Williams, William Dickson, Richard Johnson, Joshua Nixon, Robert Donald, James Miller, Tilly Kettle, Ramsay Hannay, Thomas Adams, Bernard Messinck, Wm. Hamilton Bird, Charles Moore, Alexander Macneil, James Lally, William Briggs, Philip Coales."

The Counsel for the Crown challenged Samuel Stalham.

Edward Scott,
Robert Macfarlin,
Thomas Smith,
Edward Ellerington,
Joseph Bernard Smith, Edward Satterthwaite,

The following Jury was sworn:
John Ferguson,
Arthur Adie,

Jolin Robinson,

John Collis,
Samuel Touchet,

Charles Weston.

The Jury elected Mr. John Robinson their foreman.

Mr. William Chambers, the principal interpreter, not being yet come from Madras, and the two assistant interpreters, on account of their imperfect knowledge of English, being deemed insufficient for a trial so long as this was expected to be, Mr. Alexander Kyn. Elliot, superintendant of the Khalsa Records, a gentleman eminently skilled in the Persian and Hindostan languages, and Mr. William Jackson, lately admitted an attorney of the court, who speaks the Hindostan tongue fluently, were requested by the Court to interpret.

The Counsel for the Prisoner desired that the evidence might be interpreted to him in the Hindostan language, as it was most generally understood by the audience, and requested that the interpreter of the Court might be employed for that purpose, and objected to the interpretation of Mr. Elliot, as being connected with persons whom the prisoner considered as his enemies.

Chief Justice. The principal interpreter of the court is absent; the gentlemen of the jury have heard the interpretation of the assistant interpreters on other occasions. Do you, gentlemen, think we shall be able to go through this cause, with the assistance of those interpreters only?

Jury. We are sure we shall not be able. Chief Justice. It is a cruel insinuation against the character of Mr. Elliot. His youth, just rising into life, his family, his known abilities and honour, should have protected him from it.

the Persian language, purporting to have been sealed by the said Bollakey Doss, with the seal or chop of him the said Bollakey Doss, feloniously did utter and publish as a true bond; which said bond is in the words, characters, and figures following, [Persian bond again re

[Mr. Elliot desired he might decline inter-cited], with an intent to defraud the said Bolpreting.]

Chief Justice. We must insist upon it, that you interpret: you should be above giving way to the imputation: your skill in the languages, and your candour, will show how little ground there is for it.

Mr. Farrer. I hope Mr. Elliot does not think the objection came from me; it was suggested to me.

Chief Justice Who suggested it?

Mr. Farrer. I am not authorised to name the person.

Chief Justice. It was improper to be made, especially as the person who suggested, does not authorise you to avow it.

Jury. We all desire that Mr. Elliot, whose character and abilities we all know, would be so kind as to interpret.

Mr. Farrer. I desire on the part of the prisoner, that Mr. Elliot would interpret. Mr. Elliot and Mr. Jackson sworn to interpret.

The jury being impannelled, were charged with the prisoner, and the clerk of the crown read the Indictment as follows:

"Town of Cal- I. To wit. The jurors cutta, and Fac- (for our lord the king, upon their oath present, That

lakey Doss of the said sum of 48,021 sicca rupees principal, and of four annas on each rupee of the said principal sum, as premium or profit on the said principal sum; the said Maha Rajah Nundocomar, Bahader, at the time of publishing of the said false, forged, and counterfeited bond by him as aforesaid, then and there, well knowing the said bond to have been false, forged, and counterfeited, against the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace of our said lord the king, his crown and dignity.

"And the jurors for our lord the king, upon their oath do further present, that Maba Rajah Nundocomar, Bahader, late inhabitant in the town of Calcutta, and a person subject to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Judicature, at Fort William in Bengal, on the 15th day of January, in the year last abovesaid, with force and arms, at the town of Calcutta aforesaid, feloniously did falsely make, forge, and counterfeit, and did cause to be falsely made, forged, the Persian language, and purporting to be and counterfeited, a certain bond, written in sealed by one Bollakey Doss (then deceased) in bis life time, with the seal or chop of him the said Bollakey Doss; the tenor of which is as follows [Persian bond again recited] with an intent to defraud Gungabissen and Pudmo

tory of Fort Wil Maha Rajah Nundocomar, hun Doss, executors of the last will and testa

liam, in Bengal, Bahader, late inhabitant of the town of Calcutta, and a person subject to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Judicature at Fort William, in Bengal, after the 29th day of June, in the year of our Lord 1729, to wit, on the 15th day of January, 1770, in the 10th year of the reign of our sovereign lord George the 3rd, king of Great Britain, at the town of Calcutta aforesaid, with force and arms, felouiously did falsely make, forge, and counterfeit, and did cause and procure to be falsely made, forged, and counterfeited, a certain bond in the Persian language, purporting to be sealed by one Bollakey Doss with the seal or chop of him the said Bollakey Doss, the tenor of which bond is as follows [here the bond is written in Persian] with an intent to defraud the said Bollakey Doss of the sum of 48,021 sicca rupees principal, and of four annas on each rupee of the said principal sum, as premium or profit on the said principal sum, against the form of the statute in that case made and provided, and against the peace of our said lord the king, his crown and dignity.

"And the jurors aforesaid, upon their oath aforesaid, do further present, that the aforesaid Maha Rajah Nundocomar, Babader, afterwards, to wit, on the 15th day of January, in the year last abovesaid, at Calcutta aforesaid, a certain false, forged, and counterfeited bond in

ment of the said Bollakey Doss, of the sum of 48,021, sicca rupees as principal, and of four annas on each rupee, as a profit or premium on the said principal sum, against the form of the statute in that case made and provided, and against the peace of our sovereign lord the king, his crown and dignity.

"And the jurors aforesaid, upon their oath aforesaid, do further present, that the aforesaid Maha Rajah Nundocomar, Bahader, afterwards, to wit, on the said 15th day of January, in the year last abovesaid, at Calcutta aforesaid, a certain false, forged, and counterfeited bond, purporting to be sealed by the said Bollakey Doss (then deceased) in his life time, with the seal or chop of him the said Bollakey Doss, feloniously did utter and publish as a true bond; which said bond is in the words, characters, and figures following, to wit, [Persian bond again recited] with an intent to defraud the said Gungabissen and Pudmohun Doss of the said sum of 48,021 sicca rupees of principal, and of four annas on each rupee of profit or premium on the said principal sum ; the said Maha Rajah Nundocomar, Bahader, at the time of publishing the said false, forged, and counterfeited bond, by him as aforesaid, then and there, well knowing the said bond to have been false, forged, and counterfeited, against the form of the statute in such case

made and provided, and against the peace of our said lord the king, his crown and dignity. "And the jurors for our lord the king, upon their oath aforesaid, do further present, that on the 15th day of January, in the year last abovesaid, Maha Rajah Nundocomar, Bahader, late inhabitant of the town of Calcutta, and a person subject to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Judicature, at Fort William in Bengal, with force and arms, at the town of Calcutta aforesaid, feloniously did falsely make, forge, and counterfeit, and did cause and procure to be falsely made, forged, and counterfeited, a certain writing obligatory in the Persian language, purporting to be sealed by the said Bollakey Doss, with the seal or chop of him the said Bollakey Doss, the tenor of which writing obligatory is as follows [Persian bond again recited] with an intent to defraud the said Bollakey Doss of the sum of 48,021 sicca rupees of principal, and of four annas on each rupee of profit or premium on the said principal sum, against the form of the statute in that case made and provided, and against the peace of our said lord the king, his crown and dignity.

"And the jurors aforesaid, upon their oath aforesaid, de further present, that the said Maha Rajah Nundocomar, Bahader, afterwards, to wit, on the said 15th day of January, in the year last abovesaid, at Calcutta aforesaid, a certain false, forged, and counterfeited writing obligatory, in the Persian language, purporting to have been sealed by the said BolJakey Doss, with the seal or chop of him the said Bollakey Doss, feloniously did utter and publish as a true writing obligatory; which said writing obligatory is in the words, characters, and figures following, [Persian bond again recited] with an intent to defraud the said Bollakey Doss of the said sum of 48,021 sicca rupees of principal, and of four aunas on each rupee of profit or premium on the said principal sum; the said Maha Rajah Nundocomar, Bahader, at the time of publishing the said false, forged, and counterfeited writing obligatory, by him as aforesaid, then and there, well knowing the said writing obligatory to have been false, forged, and counterfeited, against the form of the statute in that case made and provided, and against the peace of our said lord the king, his crown and dignity.

"And the jurors for our lord the king, upon the oath aforesaid, do further present, that on the 15th day of January, in the year last abovesaid, Maha Rajah Nundocomar, Bahader, late inhabitant of the town of Calcutta, and a person subject to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Judicature at Fort William in Bengal, with force and arms, at the town of Calcutta aforesaid, feloniously did falsely make, forge, and counterfeit, and did cause and procure to be falsely made, forged, and counterfeited, a certain writing obligatory in the Persian language, purporting to have been sealed by the said Bollakey Doss (then deceased) in his life time, with the seal or chop of him the said Bol

lakey Doss; the tenor of which writing obligatory is as follows [Persian bond again recited] with an intent to defraud Gungabissen. and Pudmohun Doss, the executors of the said Bollakey Doss, of the sum of 48,021 sicca rupees of principal sum, against the form of the statute in that case made and provided, and against the peace of our said lord the king, his crown and dignity.

"And the jurors aforesaid, upon their oath aforesaid do further present, that the said Maha Rajah Nundocomar, Babader, afterwards, to wit, on the 15th day of January, in the year last abovesaid, at Calcutta aforesaid, a certain false, forged, and counterfeited writing obligatory, in the Persian language, purporting to have been sealed by the said Bollakey Doss (then deceased) in his life time, with the seal or chop of him the said Bollakey Doss, feloniously did utter and publish as a true writing obligatory; which said writing obligatory is in the words, characters, and figures following, [Persian bond again recited] with an intent to defraud the said Gungabissen and Pudmohun Doss, the executors of the said Bollakey Doss, of the said sum of 48,021 sicca rupees of principal, and of four annas on each rupee of profit or premium on the said principal sum; the said Maha Rajah Nundocomar, Bahader, at the time of publishing the said false, forged, and counterfeited writing obligatory, by hitn aforesaid, then and there, well knowing the said writing obligatory to have been false, forged, and counterfeited, against the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace of our said lord the king, his crown and dignity.

"And the jurors for our lord the king, upon their oath aforesaid, do further present, that on the 15th day of January, in the year last abovesaid, Maha Rajah Nundocomar, Babader, late inhabitant of the town of Calcutta, and a person subject to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Judicature, at Fort William, in Bengal, with force and arms, at the town of Calcutta aforesaid, feloniously did falsely make, forge, and counterfeit, and did cause and procure to be falsely made, forged, and counterfeited, a promissory note for payment of money, in the Persian language, purporting to be sealed by the said Bollakey Doss, with the seal or chop of him the said Bollakey Doss; the tenor of which promissory note is as follows, [Persian bond again recited] with an intent to defraud the said Bollakey Doss of the sum of 48,021 sicca rupees of principal, and of four annas on each rupee of profit or premium on the said principal sum, against the form of the statute in that case made and provided, and against the peace of our said lord the king, his crown and dignity.

"And the jurors aforesaid, upon their oath aforesaid, do further present, that the said Maha Rajah Nundocomar, Bahader, afterwards, to wit, on the 15th day of January, in the year last abovesaid, at Calcutta aforesaid, a certain false, forged, and counterfeited promis

t

« AnteriorContinua »