Hicky's Bengal gazette, or The original Calcutta general advertiser (24.1781)

I C K Tf s

BENGAL GAZETTE;

OR 1 H E ORIGINAL

Calcutta General Advertifer.

A Weekly Political uni Cimmercitl Paper, Open it all Parties, but influenced by None,

76 From Saturday June the 30th to Saturday July 7th 1781. [No. ^XiV]

Serjeant Glynn and Dunnings Arguments in

tton made by his own counfcl Mr. Aim on ap-
peared in the C, of K. B. VVeftminfter, be-
fore Jord C {. AI •'. a field, and after maiiy learn-
ed BT^trhriteirtflj and the producing of feveral

good, true, and fufficient finding; a general that by the words guilty of printing and publi/Iiing

verdift on grounds which properly warranted only, the jury meant to fay he did publiih

the Caufi of t.be King again/} Windfall an accquitfal, anW he fubmitted it,to the court a lettter, figned 'Junius, in a paper entitled tli«j

<j I |/ I whether it either ought or could be taken in the puelic advertiser; but they did hot mean

w 1* * -»c ttt- i- < . any other fenfe : he enlarged much upon the to infer that he was guilty of pubhfhina:, with

*••<? *•£ HE proceed in o-s upon the late , , ,-• f u • r r v.- ■ » > 1 re >• ,

. ! ^ t . r . rpitnet? byway of inueniio, m the infermatl- a feditious intention the paper let f.uth m the

94 if< vcrv important trials tor the ' ■ , , .• - ■ L- ■ > ■ «v , , . , , ■ ,

J) w« ■' • i ir r cn» Wltn repeated energy enforcing, it was ne- information. Lord Mansfield ton! him that

g T F printing ana pum.catron or c^ary thatfome criminal intention fhould have was inipoffibie; for in the direction to the jury,

*f; f* , fi Junius in been oved ,h crimina]ity is the eflence of they were told that they ware to find the de-

k"t the Public Advertifer in Ue- • , , c ■ u r 1 r ': u -i c < l

* V-^-.--^ v , , n - ... j crime, and therefore it was-the.iole axiom on teticant guilty or notguilty otthe-charge-made

«-55"5 ccmber la.r, are 10 ■mterelting. whicb . • • (Jlou]d found thcir verdia ; that in the information; and therefore could not

* ey?j;'K™r ,}Ll itZti t0 r ft "I '°" »« »M» were judges of law as well find him guilty of publilhing the paper read in
1 '" '."*' P'^.s'. a ', S. ^ 6 CSI 10 I as of fact that this was a ripnt of theirs, when- the evidence, but muft mean the letter in the

pouunuy or fayingthem before yourtreader$. cyer lh * ^ loexs:,c\U n ; that they then information. Mr. Lee replied, « So far from

^ our s did it at their peril, and at tlic peril of their this aflertion being impoflible, it is an abfolute

AMOR rATRlA. I conferences j and that it lay foely in their fact; and 1 hai e, as a pi oof of it, an affidavit
On Saturday the 31th of June, on a mo-j breads, as the only conflitutioi.al judges, to in my pocket, made by one of the jury, aflert

weigh the motives of the publifher which ing tins very circumftancej which, if the
ought to have an eft'ecl ; and that by their ver- Court will permit, [ will ihftantly read." Lord
ilicl in the prefeiit cafe, it appeared they con- Mansfield told him, h? might ffate it to thtj
fulrred the defendant as tlie publi/her of a paper Court. Mr. Lee then read the purport of ir,
affidavits in his f.iV'ou-, Lo-d M. recommend- j called JUNIUS, but not as the criminal d^pofing that William Sibley (one of the jury)
C i to ferpitit Giynh to amend the affidavits, j publiihci of a libel; he next vvtnt upon the thereby made oath, that, A'hen he went up to
and bringtSe defendant up again, unlefs they ! rule of the cpunfel for the crown, defiririg the give the vcrdidt, he meant that the"defendant
dr'fired iaftatit Judgment, the confeiju.encs of 1 court to alter the verdicV by int-ndment," pro- did prjji't a letter figned junius, but he did not
vnxh ttiey all knew, as he mnft inflautly vinglhati't wa>> not in their power to alter any find him guilty of the criminal conflru,'ion%
commit him. | vcrdi<ftof ajury, and to convince them that put upon it in the information ; judge A (Ion

His Lordfhip a(ked the ibticitpr general,. if I he did not (peak without proper authority, obferved, the words criminal ionftruStwn in
Milcrhii any profecu tions ajainft him, and quoted the cafe .of Withaw and lord Derby; the affidavit, were very ambiguous anddefired
Being anlwertd intac affirmative, declared he at the fame time referring them t-» lord Vaughan Mr. Lee would tell him what tipy-msatftj a?,
V.'On lcred at bringing Almoii up for judgment who, by a cafe in point, fuificiently fhew;, if thev alluded to the mere filling up the blanks
b'i'.ir;; the other informations wcretned, and that a court cannot alter or amend the vcrdi£t they were one thing, but if they meant the iiV-
advifed it to be pollooned, pending the iffuje L ofajury. Having fuppofed, that the argu- troduc'tory inuendos and genera] tenor of the
' f the intended profecutions, *s no man flipuid j ments of the gentlemen on the other fide might information, it was a cafe extremely different
be punifhed farther than hi.; peenfrar.degree of ] h»vef»niucb weight with the Bench as to in- Mr. ]a-c informed hislordfbip, that he had no
guilt and fome one might he found more im- | duce them to be of opinion that the verdict gi- hand in drawing up the affidavit, and therefore
mediately criminal than Almon ; that if the ven by t)*-: ju.y did not impl v an acquittal, he he could not polfibly put a meaning of his own
Counfcl lor Almon chofe ir, the court j a darted, that at any rate it did not imply a on the'deponent's wo.rdsj he went on very ju-
would not confider him. as being brought fnr convich.cn; that if their lordfhips opinion diciouflv, and read two or three cafes from the
judgment that day, but would give judgment. 1 fitot/id chance to turn againft the defendant, the books, proving that the court had no fort of
any future time that the counfcl on either fide j only thing leftwo.ild be to proceed on a vanirt right to alter, by intendment, the verdict of a
fl: mid mutually appoint. | facias de nsvo: but this, he (aid, he only men- jury; that jt was widely different in a criminal

lioned by way of argument ; for he ftill fup- ana a civil caufe ; that the prefent was in his
ported his fiVff. opinion : but to touch on the opinion, fufficient to acquit his.client, and he"
grounds on which, he imagined the counfel hsped 1 r.ut their lordfhips would be of tiic
for the crown might proceed, lie had treated it fame opinion.

in this way. However, lis fubmitted the Mi. Solicitor General, as leading counfel
whole cf his propofitions to the court; and he for-the crown, Opened next ; he attempted t<»
hopetl they would not confent to have the -ver- prove, that the counfel for the defendant, by
diet altered, as that would be a precedent of a defiringthat their rule might be made abf dute
moft mifchievous nature, and totally unfup- and the verdict be entered on the record in the
ported by any cafe in the books ; and that the words of the jury, were contending for an ab-
fupremc couit of judicature might perhaps ftirdity, as the words guilty of publijbing and
think with him ; and when the matter came printing only, wanted fome fubjedt to follov/
to be argued before the,Houlc of Lords, he them, to make them either grammar or fenfe,
doubted not they would think it extremely and that it was his opinion they muft have ad-
wrong to alter a verdict of a jury; and if it ded to them the charge in the information; which

On the 4th pf July came on to he argued
hi the.court of Kng's-Bencli, 'Welt mm tier
Had, before lord chief fufticc Mansfield,
Judge Alton, Juftice Willies, and Jpfticc
Aihurft, the tw>31 ules in the catife of the king

and ■ Wood l.II----The one obtained by the

counfel for the crown, to {hew caufc why the
the verdict given by the jury on the ifliic of the
trial at Guiidnall (fee p. ^j^jtliould be fet
tiglft, and propeily entered on the record;
th r other obtained by the counfel for the de-
fendant, to fiiew caufc why it fllould not be
altered, but ill >uld he entered in the words gt-
ven by the jury. Mr. ferjeant G lynn prcfum-
ed he migat open though ih;dr rule wis pre

vi .us to his. Lord Mansfield faisl he certainly 1 was not altered, his client cert/inly and indif- was fufficient and full conviction of the de-

might, and advifsd his confidcring the two [ putably ftood acquitted. fendant'"he aflerted that it was common for the

together. The ferjeant then went upon the Serjeant Glynn having concluded his firft courts to alter verdicts, and mentioned the ne-

Words of the verdict, proving, in a very able ,| fpcech, which Sailed near three-quarters', of an .ceffity of it, when the cicik of the court

and forcible fpeech, that the pojlea of the yer- j hour, Mr. Lee, as the otlvr counfel for the makes a miftake in entering them : he faid that

di.<3, or the.wer'd.s " Printing and publifhing ' defendant, began wi'h enforceing the argu- the word guilty muft imply fomething, that it

0nji" fufficieiulv proved that the jury meant to ments that the learned ferjeant had ufed ; in- was as full therefore as ufual, and the court

acquit the defendant; that nothing could be fifting upon it that the jury", in confcqucnce of would do right to make the propofed addition;

more ftryng, or carry a more conclufive the direction g;ven them, had brought in their it was common, he faid, for a jury, to fay

evidence of fuch intention, than the new and j Verdict; that they had confidered the defendant guilty.ornttgiiilty> *nd it was as common.fei^t-h*

additional word only ; for akhought if the j guilty as to the facl of publication, the firft dei k to add to it when entered, " of the charge

verdict had been limply guilty if printing a::d j point laid down by the learned judge who tried laid in the indictment :" he read many cafes

Puinijhi ig. he fliould have thought it e j the caufe; but tlwy totally acquitted him of to prove precedents for amending the verdict ;

fufficient acquittal, the jury were c.ireful of I the ether, viz. the general criminal conftruc- that it was full as n- ceflary now, as there were

being properly undeiftood, and had added I tion put upon the paper in the information, two v.-tb* w thou an lecuiaiL , and therefo.e

the word only as.an infallible direction of their Lord Mansfield intefupted Mr. Lee, defiring i;, of itftlf demanded the ufual addition,

meaning and defignj that therefore it was ajhe. would explain himfelf. He then repeated, whir-h y.euld rcndci it complete, and fufficient