No. 306, NEW SERIES.-Vol. VI. No. 1245, OLD SERIES.-Vol. XXIV. LA NOVEMBER 17, 1860. AW.-A Gentleman desires a PARTNERSHIP, or a Clerkship with a view to a Partnership. Town or country. Address X. M. A., Mr. Kerr's, 81, Chancery-lane. PRICE 18. Just published, in 2 vols. royal 8vo., price 37. 38. cloth, CASES in Second Edition. A Selection of Leading Cases in Equity, with Notes. In Two Volumes. Vol. 1.-By F. T. WHITE WHITE & TUDOR'S LEADING TO O THE PROFESSION.-Although the price of and 0. D. TUDOR, Esqrs., Barristers at Law. Vol. 2.-By OWEN NO INCREASE in the PRICE of THE LAW TIMES REPORTS, now published in Svo., and comprising all the Courts. Vol. 2 of the New Series just completed. The speediest and most extensive series published in England.-Office, 10, Wellington-street, Strand, W. C. DAVIES TUDOR, Esq., Barrister at Law. W. Maxwell, 32, Bell-yard, Lincoln's-inn. In 1 vol. 12mo., price 15s. cloth, CHRISTIE'S Con Concise Precedents, with an Intro CONCISE PRECEDENTS of TO SOLICITORS.-A Professional Firm (not So- ductory Essay on the Law of Wills; adapted as a Manual for the ready licitors) in London is desirous of entering into ARRANGEMENTS with Town and Country Solicitors for the MUTUAL INTRODUCTION of BUSINESS. Replies will be held in strict confidence. Address, Auditor, care of Messrs. Hammond & Nephew, 27, Lombardstreet, E. C. This day is published, 258. cloth, use of Solicitors. By JAMES TRAILL CHRISTIE, Esq., of the Middle Temple, Barrister at Law. W. Maxwell, 32, Bell-yard, Lincoln's-inn. SMITH'S (JOHN WM.) LAW of LANDLORD and TENANT. TENANT: In Svo., price 14s. cloth, HE LAW of LANDLORD and THE LIAM SMITH, Esq., Author of "A Selection of Leading Cases," &c. MARSHALL on the LAW of MARINE IN FOR UNIVERSITY SCHOOL AND THE OXFORD AND CAM SURANCE, BOTTOMRY, and RESPONDENTIA. Fourth Edition. By WILLIAM SHEE, Serjeant at Law, Q. C. London: Shaw & Sons, Fetter-lane. MACLACHLAN'S LAW OF MERCHANT SHIPPING. Just published, in 1 vol. royal 8vo., price 17. 12s. cloth, The BRIDGE MIDDLE CLASS EXAMINATIONS, AND PROFESSIONAL AND POPULAR USE. BLACKSTONE'S COMMENTARIES, systemati cally Abridged, and adapted to existing Law, with many New Chapters, containing great and important Additions on the subject of Constitutional Law, Rights of Persons and of Property, and Criminal Law. A TREATISE on the LAW of MERCHANT Second Edition, By SAMUEL WARREN, Esq., M. P., D. C. L., one SHIPPING. By DAVID MACLACHLAN, M. A., of the Middle Temple, Barrister at Law. W. Maxwell, 32, Bell-yard, Lincoln's-inn. LINDLEY'S LAW OF PARTNERSHIP. A TREATISE on the LAW of PARTNERSHIP, of her Majesty's Counsel. In 1 thick vol. post 8vo., price 18s. cloth. This work now forms a permanent text-book in the new legal curriculum at the University of Cambridge. W. Maxwell, 32, Bell-yard, Lincoln's-inn, and to be had of all Book. sellers. DAVIDSON'S PRECEDENTS IN CONVEYANCING. SECOND EDITION, Vols. 1 and 2, price 31. 17s. PANIES. By NATHANIEL LINDLEY, Esq., of the Middle Temple, including its Application to JOINT-STOCK and other COM, PRECEDENTS AND FORMS IN CONVEY By an Introduction and Practical Notes. CHARLES DAVIDSON, THOMAS COOKE WRIGHT, and JACOB WALEY, Esqrs., Barristers at Law. W. Maxwell, 32, Bell-yard, Lincoln's-inn. CONCISE PRECEDENTS in CONVEYANCING, adapted to the Act to Amend the Law of Real Property, (8 & 9 Vict. c. 106), with practical Notes and Observations on the Act, and on the Act for the Cesser of Attendant Terms. By CHARLES DAVIDSON, Esq., of Lincoln's-inn, Barrister at Law, and late Fellow of Christ's College, Cambridge. W. Maxwell, 32, Bell-yard, Lincoln's-inn. GAZETTES.-Friday, Nov. 9. -Pet. f. Nov. 8. BANKRUPTS. WILLIAM REED, Salisbury-place, Lock's-fields, Walworth, ELISHA ARNOLD, Flamstead, Hertfordshire, straw-plait JOHN BAKER, Heathfield, Sussex, tanner, Nov. 21 at 2, Nov. 8. WILLIAM CLAYARDS, Conway-mews, Hampstead-street, GEORGE CROWTHER RYLAND, Birmingham, coal mer- RICHARD STARKEY, Stroud, Gloucestershire, draper, Nov. 7. MEETINGS. 17 William M. Townson, Liverpool, victualler, Nov. 23 at 11, Liverpool, aud. ac.; Nov. 30 at 11, div.—Frederick August Gross, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, furniture dealer, Nov. 20 at half-past 12, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, aud. ac.—Solomon Clegg turers, Nov. 22 at 12, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, aud. ac.—John and James Fox, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, woollen manufac Wesley Swann, Manchester, India-rubber manufacturer, Nov. 21 at 12, Manchester, aud. ac.-John Whitaker, Bridge End, near Newchurch, Rossendale, Lancashire, cotton manufacturer, Nov. 21 at 12, Manchester, aud. ac.- Wm. Parrott, Lisle-street, Leicester-square, Middlesex, boot maker, Dec. 1 at 12, London, div.-Thomas Porter, Beauvoir-place, Kingsland, Middlesex, chair maker, Dec. 4 at 12, London, div.James Berry Blackburn, Norwich, currier, Dec. 1 at 12, London, div.-David Simpson, Hatton-garden, Middlesex, goldsmith, Dec. 1 at 1, London, div.-Thomas Harrison, don, div.-John M'Alpine the younger, Newington-road, Henley-upon-Thames, Oxfordshire, tailor, Dec. 1 at 12, LonBall's-pond, Middlesex, bleacher, Nov. 30 at 12, London, div. John Overbury, Frederick's-place, Old Jewry, City, woolReeves the younger, Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, liverylen warehouseman, Nov. 30 at 1, London, fin. div.-George stable keeper, Dec. 6 at 11, Bristol, div.-Charles Roach, Devizes, Wiltshire, hosier, Dec. 13 at 11, Bristol, div.Dec. 13 at 11, Bristol, div. John M'Alpine, Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, ironmonger, CERTIFICATES. To be allowed, unless Cause be shewn to the contrary on or before the Day of Meeting. Charles Dawson, Wisbeach St. Peter, Cambridgeshire, dealer in china, Nov. 30 at 1, London. Edgar Robert Ramage, Bond-court, Walbrook, and Upper Thames-street, City, and Gloucester-cottage, Peckham, Surrey, wine cooper, Nov. 30 at half-past 12, London.-Joseph Hardwick, Strand, Middlesex, tailor, Nov. 30 at 12, London. -Joseph John Richard Eyke, George-yard, Milton-street, Cripplegate, City, carman, Nov. 30 at 2, London.-Henry Horton, Fenchurch-street, City, merchant, Nov. 30 at 1, London.George Erlam, Upper-street, Islington, Middlesex, woollendraper, Nov. 30 at half-past 12, London.-David Smith, Markyate-street, Hertfordshire, straw-plait manufacturer, Nov. 30 at 12, London.-Benjamin Kurz, Rathbone-place, Oxford-street, Middlesex, manufacturing jeweller, Dec. 3 at 12, London.-Joseph Witherspoon, Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, draper, Dec. 4 at 11, Bristol.-William Foxcroft and George Wellock the younger, Heckmondwike, Yorkshire, cotton spinners, Nov. 30 at 11, Leeds.-Wm. Wilson, Thirsk and Northallerton, Yorkshire, currier, Nov. 30 at 11, Leeds. -Wm. Hargreaves and Wm. Slater, Bradford, Yorkshire, whitesmiths, Nov. 30 at 11, Leeds.-Samuel Robson, York, hotel-keeper, Nov. 30 at 11, Leeds.-John Nicholson, Liverpool, currier, Dec. 3 at 11, Liverpool.-John H. Barber and William H. Ellis, Liverpool, iron merchants, Nov. 30 at 11, Liverpool. To be granted, unless an Appeal be duly entered. Alexander D. Bell and Emil Brassert, Goldsmith-street, ROBERT MILLER BOUCH, Liverpool, general ware-reich, and Israel Cohnreich, Nassau-place, Commercial-road City, silk fringe manufacturers.-E. Cohnreich, A. Cohnhouseman, (carrying on business under the style or firm of John Bouch & Son), Nov. 22 and Dec. 13 at 11, Liver-East, Middlesex, boot manufacturers.- Wm. Cook, Kingpool: Off. Ass. Bird;" Sol. Frodsham, Liverpool.-Pet. f. Farningham, near Dartford, Kent, grocer.-Thomas Lamstreet, Regent-street, Middlesex, coachbuilder.-S. Hook, bert the younger, Stowupland, Stowmarket, Suffolk, steam thrasher.-Charles Allen, Risca, Monmouthshire, grocer.— George Reeves the younger, Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, riding master. - Edward Jones, Marlborough, Wiltshire, horse dealer. Joseph Edmund Davies, Newport, Monmouthshire, innkeeper.-Charles Cross, Gutter-lane, City, silk warehouseman.-J. R. Roberts, Crispin-street, Spitalfields, Middlesex, potato salesman.-Arthur Wentworth and Thomas Wentworth, Bermondsey, Surrey, hide salesmen.-F. Holloway, Paul-street, Finsbury, Middlesex, engineer.-H. Beeson, Bushey Heath, Hertfordshire, builder.-Isaac John Barrett, Liverpool, hotel-keeper.-Wm. Herring, Liver pool, confectioner.-Robert Carruthers and George Carru thers, Liverpool, drapers.-John R. Teale, Leeds, Yorkshire, cabinet maker. Frederick Appleyard, Bradford, Yorkshire, tanner. — William Kaye, Clayton West, High Hoyland, Yorkshire, grocer. Charles Botten, Crawford-passage, Clerkenwell, Middlesex, brass founder, Nov. 20 at 2, London, last ex.-' -William Dickens, Daventry, Northamptonshire, shoe manufacturer, Nov. 21 at half-past 12, London, last ex.; Nov. 20 at half-past 11, aud. ac.-John Wilson, Sunderland, Durham, shoemaker, Nov. 22 at 11, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, last ex.— -Henry Cropley Haylock, Linton, Cambridgeshire, apothecary, Nov. 20 at 12, London, aud. ac.—John Hughes, Basinghall-street, City, and Gresham-terrace, Queen's-road, Dalston, Middlesex, woollen warehouseman, Nov. 20 at 11, London, aud. ac.Charles Cross, Gutter-lane, City, silk warehouseman, Nov. 21 at half-past 11, London, aud. ac.; Nov. 30 at half-past 11, div. -Robert Dawson Clegg and Frederick Angerstein, Fridaystreet, Cheapside, and Fleet-street, City, dealers in atmospheric clocks, Nov. 20 at half-past 12, London, aud. ac.; Nov. 30 at 11, div.-John Nicholson, Liverpool, currier, Nov. 23 at 11, Liverpool, aud. ac.; Dec. 3 at 11, div. [For continuation of Gazette, see p. 418.] 17 THE JURIST. LONDON, NOVEMBER 17, 1860. THE case of Reg. v. Davidson, decided at the Central Criminal Court during the October Session, merits attention. The defendant, who was indicted for an indecent assault, pleaded that he had formerly, before another tribunal, been put on his trial for the same offence, on which occasion the jury were improperly, and without sufficient grounds under the circumstances for that course, discharged by the presiding judge from giving a verdict. To this plea there was a replication, that on that occasion there was no likelihood of the jury agreeing upon a verdict; that they had been locked up for several hours; and that the judge felt it necessary in his discretion to discharge them. To this replication the defendant demurred; and his counsel contended that the plea was good, as the defendant had once been in jeopardy for the offence with which he was charged; that the discharge of the jury, without the consent of the accused, and without sufficient grounds to warrant such a course, was tantamount to an acquittal. The Court, however; consisting of Pollock, C. B., Martin, B., and Hill, J.; held the plea bad; that the propriety of discharging a jury from giving a verdict was entirely a question for the discretion of the presiding judge; and although possibly an indiscreet exercise of it might form ground for an impeachment, it was none for a writ of error, nor for a plea of autrefois acquit to a future indictment for the same offence. Martin, B., and Hill, J., however, intimated that the power of the judge at a trial to discharge a jury ought not to be exercised except upon some overwhelming necessity, especially when objected to. The defendant was tried accordingly. CROWN CASEs Reserved. By G. FRANCIS, Barrister at Law. Reg. v. Bradford.—(Railway-Causing obstruction -Endangering safety of passengers-3 & 4 Vict. c. 97, s. 13). 1102 In the actual state of the law and practice, this case is worthy of notice, not as introducing any new principle, but as illustrating the existing practice, and pointing attention to a growing evil in it. Whether the law is right in exacting unanimity in the verdicts of juries has been much mooted of late years, and in the session of Parliament of 1849 a bill for its partial abolition was brought into the House of Lords by Lord Campbell, which was rejected by a large majority-most rightly, as we believe. It is not our intention to discuss the general question on the present occasion, and merely desire to advert to one of the arguments commonly used against the existing state of things. It is said that the rule requiring unanimity has given birth to the practice of locking up juries, and withholding from them refreshment and fire during their deliberations—a practice which has frequently been denounced as absurd and barbarous, and made the subject of much ridicule and satire. To this it is replied, that whatever might have been urged against it as worked in former times, its evils have been removed in modern ones, for it is now settled law that the presiding judge may discharge a jury where there is no likelihood of their agreeing to a verdict. (See Arch. Crim. Prac. 148, 149, 12th ed.) The decision in Reg. v. Davidson confirms this, and is one in the correctness of which, we apprehend, every lawyer will agree. But this is a power which ought to be exercised with the greatest possible discretion; and in that case Martin, B., and Hill, J., intimate as much. We wish we could say that this principle has always been adhered to; on the contrary, a practice has grown up of discharging juries after a comparatively short deliberation, on little or no inquiry, and sometimes on their mere statement that they are not likely to agree-a practice which defeats one of the first objects of the law in requiring an unanimous verdict― namely, the securing the fullest discussion by the jurors of the questions submitted to their consideration. Our readers are aware that in these days the trial by jury in criminal cases has been introduced into the laws of many countries on the continent of Europe. In all of them, however, with we believe only one exception, the verdict is given by majority. That exception is to be found in the German State of Brunswick, in which the verdict must be unanimous, as among us; but it is provided that the jury are to be discharged if they cannot agree on a verdict after twenty-four hours' deliberation-a period which we presume to have been adopted as being the length of one natural day; and, according to the authority of Professor Mittremaier, the system has been found to work well. (See a paper presented by him to the French Academy in 1854, intitled "Memoire sur les Progrès de la Législation Allemande en Matiere de Procédure Criminelle, et sur les Expériences faites dans les Années 1848-1853"). The Common-law Commissioners of 1853 also recommend, that if at the end of twelve hours' deliberation the jury do not agree, they should be discharged, unless they unanimously desire further time. (See their Second Report, p. 8). But there is this objection to defining any time by law-that a corrupt or obstinate juryman could always defeat justice by carrying on a factious and harassing disputation with his fellows until the allotted time had expired. Our system, we make no doubt, is the true one, but it requires to be worked judiciously in the spirit of the law-the judge should keep the jury in deliberation for a very long time, he should use all legitimate means to secure an unanimous verdict, and should never discharge a jury from giving one until it is obvious to all common understanding that the doing so is matter of necessity, and that any further attempt to obtain it would be alike useless, unjust, and dangerous, Before dismissing the subject we must advert to an improvement which has taken place in modern times. The rule of law is imperative, that, except in case of illness, the jury are to have neither food nor fire during their deliberation. The policy of the latter part of this rule seems questionable; but the former appears to have been established by our ancestors, with the double object of impressing on the jury that they are met for business of the most important kind, which should be dispatched with energy and single-mindedness, and that the jury-box is not the place for the display of supersubtlety, captiousness, or overbearing conduct; and also to prevent intemperance in eating or drinking-the sure forerunner of erroneous and scandalous decision. Still there can be little doubt that in ancient times, and occasionally in modern too, the practice was driven to extremity; so much so, that the Common-law Commissioners of 1853 (Second Report, ubi sup.) recommended its abolition. This proposition was not adopted by the Legislature; but in several recent cases the jury have been allowed to take refreshment when the trial is drawing to a close, during the trial-a judicious practice, which, if more frequently resorted to, would probably secure all the advantages contemplated by our ancestors when they established the rule prohibiting refreshment to the jury during deliberation, without the corresponding inconveniences which have occasionally led to absurdity, and exposed the system to obloquy and ridicule. REGULA GENERALIS. ORDER OF COURT.-August 23, 1860. THE Right Hon. JOHN Lord CAMPBELL, Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain, by and with the advice and assistance of the Right Hon. Sir JOHN ROMILLY, Master of the Rolls, the Right Hon. the Lord Justice Sir JAMES LEWIS KNIGHT BRUCE, the Right Hon. the Lord Justice Sir GEORGE JAMES TURNER, the Hon. the Vice-Chancellor Sir RICHARD TORIN KINDERSLEY, the Hon. the Vice-Chancellor Sir JOHN STUART, and the Hon. the Vice-Chancellor Sir WILLIAM PAGE WOOD, doth hereby, in pursuance of an act passed in the 15 & 16 Vict., intituled "An Act to abolish the Office of Master in Ordinary of the High Court of Chancery, and to make Provision for the more speedy and efficient Despatch of Business in the said Court," and in pursuance and execution of all powers enabling him in that behalf, order and direct as follows: 1. Richard Richards, Esq., William Henry Tinney, Esq., and Joseph Humphry, Esq., the three remaining Masters in Ordinary of the said court, shall be, and they are hereby, released from their duties as such Masters as aforesaid, as from the 23rd August instant. 2. The matters of the suitors of the High Court of stand referred to any of the Masters in Ordinary of the Chancery, and all causes, matters, and things which said court, under any order made by the Lord Chancellor or the Lords Justices of Appeal for the time being, shall be referred to the Master of the Rolls, and shall be proceeded with and prosecuted before him. 3. All other causes, matters, and things now de pending before the said Masters shall be proceeded with and prosecuted before the respective judges of the said court by whom, or by whose predecessors respectively, the orders referring such causes, matters, and things to the said Masters were respectively made. CAMPBELL, C. MICHAELMAS TERM, 1860. Ar a public examination of the students of the Inns of Court, held at Lincoln's Inn Hall, on the 30th and 31st October, and 1st November, 1860, the Council of Legal Education awarded to William Willis, Esq., student of the Inner Temple, a studentship of fifty guineas per annum, to continue for a period of three years. Robert Daniel, Esq., student of the Middle Temple, a certificate of honour of the first class. Andrew Thomson, Esq., student of the Inner Temple; Thomas Maguire, Esq., student of Lincoln's Inn; Joseph Burgin, Esq., student of Gray's Inn; Thomas Child Hayllar, Esq., student of the Inner Temple; Inn; Harry Tichbourne Davenport, Esq., student of Henry Colvile Marindin, Esq., student of Lincoln's the Inner Temple; Alfred Henry Say Stonhouse Vigor, Esq., student of Lincoln's Inn; Paul Panton, Esq., student of Lincoln's Inn; Walter Yeldham, Esq., stu- Essex (Signed) RICHARD BETHELL, Chairman. Council Chamber, Lincoln's Inn, COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH. Sir William B. Smijth, Bart., Hill Hall, Epping. Gloucestershire-John Waddingham, Esq., Guiting Grange, Sir G. S. Jenkinson, Bart., Eastwood, near Berkeley. Herefordshire-Robert Henry Lee Warner, Esq., Tiberton. Hertfordshire-William Jones Loyd, Esq., Abbotts Langley. NEW TRIALS MOVED IN MICHAELMAS TERM. Kent-Alexander Randall, Esq., Foley House, Maidstone. - Midd.-Saward v. Walkden Mackley v. Pattenden Lond.-Lane & ors. v. Tindal Paterson v. Harris land Railway Glo'ster-Bennett v. White Same v. Inhabitants of Same v. Bradley Same v. Boyes Laverack v. Johnson Hants Wilts-Scammell v. Glass "Devon-Snow v. Bristol and James Beaumont Winstanley, Esq., Braunstone. Lincolnshire-Weston Cracroft Amcotts, Esq., Kettlethorpe. Monmouthshire-James Proctor Carruthers, Esq., The Gron- James J. Cordes, Esq., Bryn Glas, near Newport. Henry James Lee Warner, Esq., Little Walsingham. Exeter Railway Co. | Nottinghamshire-John H. Manners Sutton, Esq., Kelham. LIST OF SHERIFFS, NOMINATED BY THE Bedfordshire-Joseph Tucker, Esq., Pavenham. William Lynne Smart, Esq., Eversholt. Berkshire-H. L. Hunter, Esq., Beech Hill, near Reading. Frederick W. Allfrey, Esq., Hill House, Shenfield. William Pennington, Esq., Fernacres. Thomas Tristram Spry Carlyon, Esq., Tregrehan. W. N. Hodgson, Esq., Newby Grange, Carlisle. Sir G. S. Stucley, Bart., Hartland Abbey, Hartland. Durham-Richard Lawrence Pemberton, Esq., Barnes. Henry Savile, Esq., Rufford Abbey. Thomas B. T. Hildyard, Esq., Flintham House. Oxfordshire-Henry Birch Reynardson, Esq., Adwell. The Hon. William Charles Evans Freke, Bisbrooke. Sir Vincent Rowland Corbett, Bart., Acton Reynold. Southampton-William George Craven, Esq., Brambridge John Deverell, Esq., Purbrook Park, near Cosham. E. R. Starke Bence, Esq., Kentwell Hall, Melford. Sir John A. Cathcart, Bart., Cooper's Hill, Egham. Joseph Godman, Esq., Park Hatch, Godalming. Sussex-Geo. Gatty, Esq., Felbridge Park, East Grinstead. The Hon. John Jervis Carnegie, Fair Oak, Rogate. Herbert Mascall Curteis, Esq., Windmill Hill, Rye. Warwickshire-Richard Greaves, Esq., The Cliff, Warwick. The Hon. Charles Lennox Butler. Allesley Boughton Leigh, Esq., Brownsom Hall. Wiltshire-C. Penruddocke, Esq., Compton Chamberlaine. J. E. Mervyn Prower, Esq., Purton House, Swindon. |