« הקודםהמשך »
tleman need have been ashamed was a proof of conscious innos of his acquaintance. But could cence. 'If he knew that there the jury infer Mr. O'Bryen's was any thing objectionable in guilt from this circumstance? his conduct of which they had a How had the evidence connected knowledge, was it to be believed, Mr. O'Bryen with the atrocious that he would have discharged conduct of Franklin ? What them at a time when he must had he done? Had be been have known that their testimony seen giving any of those bills to against him would be sought for any of the printers ? Had he with avidity? As to his little been heard saying any one word knowledge of the circumstances which could in any manner prove of Fletcher's conduct, it was a knowledge on his part, of what proved that he was ignorant of Franklin had been doing? The them, for the servant girl swore only thing on which the supposed that they waited dinner for two guilty connexion of Mr. O'Bryen hours on the Sunday he had rested, was that which he did not been taken into custody. The for a moment deny-that he had circumstance of the burning of been on terms of close intimacy the papers was too trivial to be with, and had given him shelter dwelt upon for a moment, and in his house, and received him in the servant herself never made his family. But as to the any inquiry about it. The hackney-coach in which Mr. change of name, of which Mr. O'Bryen was said to have gone O'Bryen had a knowledge, was, with Fletcher, he (Mr. Scarlett) he contended, still less to be had received instructions most relied upon as any proof of guilt positively to deny that he had on his part. But it was said, done so. He never was in a that Mr. O'Bryen had denied hackney-coach with him ; he had knowing such a known him under circumstances Franklin. What could be more of better fortune ; he knew that natural ? He had seen a policehe had been in embarrassed cir. officer inquiring for a person who eumstances, and he gave him was charged with such a serious that shelter in his house, which offence, and it was very natural did credit to his feelings as a for him to say that he knew no man. Mr. Scarlett then pro- such person that was, that he ceeded into a minute examination had no acquaintance with any of the evidence, and commented man capable of such conduct. with much force on what he It was, however, charged that contended were strong contra- one of those seditious placards dictions in the evidence of Seale was found in Mr. O'Bryen's room. and Hockley-and particularly What proof was that? or if it in Hockley's account of the hour was to be considered one, was it at which he arrived at Mr. of such a nature as would be O'Bryen's house, when he fol. sufficient to convict the most relowed the hackney-coach in July, spectable and innocent indiviHe also contended, that the cir- duals? He had no doubt that cumstance of Mr. O'Bryen's his learned friend, who addressed having discharged both his ser- the jury, had some of those plavants on the 2nd of January last, cards in his possession ; but
nobody would, for a moment, my first acquaintance with Mr. suppose that that was evidence O'Bryen was in the year 1784. of any participation in them. "I What is your grace's belief of had some of them in my room him with respect to the libels (continued Mr. Scarlett), and, which you have heard read ?-I God knows, I had no hand in, or should imagine that Mr. O'Bryen knowledge of, their composition.” was not capable of publishing The whole of the case sought such papers, from my recollecto be established against Mr. tion of those he was connected O’Bryen was circumstantial, and with, and from what I heard of of course he would admit that him formerly. such evidence would be sufficient, Examined by Mr. Pearson. if it were connected. But it was Will your grace allow me to ask absolutely necessary, that that whether your acquaintance with connexion should be full and un- Mr. O'Bryen has continued up to broken. Was it the case here? the present time ?-It has not. Were not the circumstances Up to what period did your alleged in contradiction to each intimacy with him continue ?-I other ? But there was one cir- have had very little acquaintance cumstance, which it was almost with Mr. O'Bryen since the year impossible to believe. One of 1806. the placards produced, contained Will your grace allow me to a gross attack on the character ask, whether any thing has oc. of that great statesman, the late curred since that time calcuMr. Fox. Now, the jury would lated to lessen your good opinion have it in evidence, that Mr. of Mr. O'Bryen? O'Bryen had, for a long time, Mr. Scarlett objected to this been intimately connected with question-not that he had any Mr. Fox, and honoured with his fear, that the answer could be friendship. He had been, and such as would affect his client, still was, on terms of intimate but he thought it a bad preceacquaintance with many eminent dent, and he thought it was men, friends of that great man. almost new to cross-examine any Was it then to be supposed that witness, who came to speak to he would have written or sanc- character only. tioned an attack on his memory? Mr. Pearson said, he would He would
call several wave the question; but he first honourable and noble persons, begged to remind his learned who would give Mr. O'Bryen a friend, thatit was quite competent character. From them the jury to him to cross-examine any witwould hear, whether they consi- ness on the subject of character. dered Mr. O'Bryen capable of The Lord Chief Justice conwriting such libels as had been curred in this. Counsel had given in evidence. He then certainly a right to put the called
question. His grace the duke of Bedford, Mr. Pearson resumed the exwho was examined by Mr. Bol- amination.-Am I to understand, land.—How long has your grace that up to the year 1806 your known Mr. O'Bryen ?--I think grace knew Mr. "O'Bryen as be
longing to that political party of what the parties termed a legis which I may look upon your latorial attorney: the jury found grace as the head, or as a private the defendants guilty. friend ?-I had no knowledge of Early in Michaelmas term, a Mr. O'Bryen, except as a mem- rule Nisi for a new trial was obber of the Whig party,
tained by Mr. Denman. The case Lord Holland, lord Erskine, was argued at very considerable and sir James Macintosh were length in Hilary term following, afterwards examined as to their by the attorney-general, and Mr. belief whether Mr. O'Bryen was Denman. capable of writing a libel on Mr. The grounds, upon which a new Fox. Lord Holland said, he trial was demanded, were three in should consider Mr. O'Bryen, as number: First, that the defenthe last man who would write a dants had been refused permislibel on Mr. Fox. He had seen sion at the trial to challenge the very little of him since Mr. Fox's array ; secondly, that they had not death. Lord Erskine said, he been permitted to make their thought Mr. O'Bryen incapable challenges to the poll: thirdly, of endeavouring to produce a re- that one of the special jurors, a volution in this country. He gentleman of the pame of Peache, had once some difference with had not been duly summoned by him, and on that occasion, Mr. the sheriff. The cause set up by O'Bryen conducted himself as a the defendants for seeking to man of honour and a gentleman. challenge the array was alleged He had seen very little of him of unindifferency in the master of late years. Sir James Macin. the Crown office; and, to show tosh had seen little of Mr. that unindifferency, four circum. O'Bryen since 1804. From what stances were urged, -1st, that the he knew of him, he thought him master had selected the special incapable of attacking Mr. Fox. jurors by name, instead of striking
The case being now closed, them by chance; 2od, that he
The Lord Chief Justice summed had selected such persons only up the evidence, which occupied as were designated as esquires; an hour.
3rd, that some of the jurors seThe Jury turned round in the lected were persons in the combox, and, after consulting toge- mission of the peace; and 4th, ther for a few moments, returned that individuals had been put a verdict of-Not Guilty.
upon the special jury panel, who The trial lasted nearly nine had previously served on the hours.
grand jury by which the bill against the defendants had been
found. The King v. Edmonds, Wooler, lenge to the poll was,
The ground of chal
that Cartwright, and others.
opinions hostile to the cause of This was the case of unlawful the defendants were supposed to assembly tried before the lord- be entertained by a portion of the chief baron, at the last summer jury. The question as to Peache assizes for Warwick. The ob- rested upon affidavits ; from which ject of the meeting was, to elect it appeared, on the one hand,
that Mr. Peache did not receive Mr. Peache, even if his summons the summons to attend the de- had been delivered in time, would fendants' jury in sufficient time; have pleaded his ill health, and and, on the other hand, that from avoided serving upon the jury. his ill state of health he was in The last ground of objection was, the habit of neglecting similar the point which went to the chalcalls, and had actually neglected lenge of the poll. Now, there to attend
was no proof offered at the trial the same assizes, to which second of any expressions hostile to the jury he had been duly summoned. defendants having been used by The lord-chief-justice disposed the jury; but it was proposed, of the various points in the fol- without any proof, to put queslowing manner :- First, as to the tions to them as to their opinions. unindifferency of the master of Such a course could not be taken: the Crown-office, the custom was, in refusing to permit such chalto select the special jurors by lenge to the special jurymen, the name; and as each party had the lord-chief-baron had done right; right of striking off twelve, the and, in permitting it even to the panel was likely to be as favour- talesmen, that learned judge had able to himself as though it had done wrong. It stood upon the been chosen by the chance of the most indisputable authorities, that die: the nomination of esquires opinions expressed by a juryman only was also a proceeding ac- arising from his knowledge or becording to custom, the object lief, as to the facts of a cause, being, to put upon special juries formed no sufficient ground for persons of a higher rank than, challenge; the only tenable ground under ordinary circumstances, of such challeuge was a declarawould try the cause; there was tion of favour or preference beno reason to suppose, that per- tween the parties.- -Rule dissons in the commission of the charged. peace would act under any undue influence, nor was it fair or reasonable that such persons
MAY 1.-In Banco. should be excluded from special
Brunton and others v. Hawkes. juries; and the selection of gen- This was an action upon the tlemen who had served upon The plaintiffs are patenthe grand jury-though made, no tees of certain improvements, doubt, by the master, under a alleged to be of their invention, in conscientious conviction that he the construction of ships' anchors, was acting legally-had after windlasses, and cables, and they wards been set aside, and could charged the defendant with invanot therefore, in any way, have sion of their right. The action prejudiced the defendants. With was tried, in the sittings after respect to the second ground of Trinity term last, before the lord complaint, the non-summoning of chief-justice, at Westminster, Mr. Peache, it did not appear when the matter as to the windthat the neglect of summons had lasses was put aside by consent, proceeded from partiality on the and a verdict, establishing their part of the sheriff: on the con- rights as to the anchor and cable, trary, it seemed probable, that was taken for the plaintiffs.
In Michaelmas term last, a rule cable was, at least, a new combiNisi for a new trial was obtained nation; that the adze and mushupon the following grounds :- room anchors, set up by the other First, with respect to the chain side, were mere mooring posts, cable, it was denied that in the totally distinct, in use and conform of link used by the plaintiffs struction, from the ship's anchor; (an elliptical link, the sides pre- for improvement upon which the vented from collapsing by a broad- plaintiffs' claimed, and that failure ended stay placed crosswise), of one branch of the patent would there was any novelty: upon the not void the other branch, any cable, therefore, no patent could more than a grant of three estates be maintained : 2dly, as to the would be made wholly inoperaanchor, the difference between tive by a defect as regarded any the plaintiffs' improvement and one of those estates in the title of the old machine was stated to be the granter. this : in the old anchor, the Aukes The Court this morning deliwere made in distinct pieces, and vered its opinion. united, by welding, to the shank; The Lord Chief Justice rewhereas the plaintiffs' formed the gretted, extremely, that the author Aukes in one piece, and united of a highly beneficial invention them to the shank by passing the should from any cause be deprived conical end of the shank through of his personal advantage in it. a corresponding aperture in the That the plaintiffs' chain cable centre of the flukes. Now, in this involved novelty of combination, arrangement it was contended no he had no doubt; and he thought novelty appeared; the principle, that, upon that part, taken disas regarded the construction of tinctly, of the improvements in the Aukes, having been applied question, a patent might have in the mushroom anchor, and in been sustained. In the constructhe adze anchor, and being, as to tion of the plaintiffs' anchor, howthe union of the Aukes with the ever, there was, according to his shank, used in the mushroom an- lordship's view, no originality; chor and in the kedge anchor, and he thought it evident, both and being also of daily occur- upon the principles of patents, and rence in the pick-axe, and in the upon the decided case of “ Hill common hammer. The third vi Thomson,” which had gone point maintained in argument for through very elaborate discussion the new trial was, that failure in the court of Common-pleas, upon either branch of the patent, that the failure of any part of a the anchor or the cable, vitiated patent, of necessity, rendered and made void the patent alto- void the whole. gether.
Mr. Justice Bayley concurred Cause was shown upon dif- in opinion with the lord-chiefferent days, and at considerable justice, and felt the less regret at length, by Mr. Scarlett, Mr. Mar- being compelled to do so, as the ryat, and Mr. Chitty.
plaintiffs, if they went to a new The points chiefly'insisted upon trial, might take, by means of a were three :--that the employ- special verdict, the opinion of a ment of the elliptical link with court of error. The learned judge the broad-ended stay in the chain had no doubt that a patent, bad as