The King against Hunt
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 12 May 1821 |
| Date | 12 May 1821 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 106 E.R. 994
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
430] the king against hunt. Saturday, May 12th, 1821. Upon the trial of an information for a libel only ten special jurymen appeared, and two talesmen were sworn on the jury. It is no ground for a new trial that two of the non-attending special jurymen named in the pannel had not been summoned, though it appeared that this fact was unknown to the defendant until after the trial. This was an information by the Attorney-General against the defendant, for a libel. At the trial, at the last sittings at Westminster, before Abbott C.J., when the case was called on, only ten of the special jury attended. Two talesmen were accordingly sworn, and the defendant was convicted. And now Denman moved for a new trial, upon the affidavits of two of the special jurymen, who had not attended, stating, that they had not been summoned, and also on the affidavits of the defendant and his attorney, that they were wholly ignorant of that fact till after the trial was over; and he contended, that it was absolutely necessary that all should be summoned ; for if two may be omitted, so may any other number; and so a selection may be made of particular persons to try the cause. It may be said, that for this the sheriff is punishable, but that is no advantage to a defendant who suffers by his improper conduct. But the Act of Parliament is imperative, for it requires all to be summoned. The trial is altogether wrong in consequence of this omission, and the defendant is entitled to a new trial. He referred to Hill v. Yates (12 East, 229), ParJcer v. Thoroton (Str. 640. 2 Ld. Eaym. 1410), and Dovey v. Hobson (2 Marsh. 154), .4B.&ALD.431. DOE V. DEAKIN 995 Abbott C.J. No case has been cited which is a direct authority on this question, so as to form a ground [431] for our decision ; we must, therefore, look to the principle on which this application is founded. There has, in this ease, been an omission to summon two of the special jurymen. The Court is not without proof to suspect any fraud on the part of its officers. It is not suggested, in this case, that the omission has been in consequence of collusion with any other person. If, then, on these affidavits, we were to grant a rule, we should intimate it to be our opinion, that in every case which mayi be tried, whether civil or criminal, if the party against whom the verdict passes chuses to apply, he will be entitled, as of right, to a new...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v Wolseley and Harrison (A)
...imposition of a fine, when be found that remonstrance had not that effect." The King v. Hunt. 1821. Feb. 21. This ease is reported in 4 B. & Ald. 430, on a motion before Abbott, C.J., Bayley, Holroyd, and Best, J.J., for a new trial. The head note in that report is as follows : " Upon the t......
-
Brown v Esmonde and Others
...274. Rex v. HughesENR 1 C. & K. 235. Goldicut v. BeaginUNK 11 Jur. 544. Mulcahy v. The QueenELR L. R. 3 H. L. 306. The King v. HuntENR 4 B. & Ald. 430. Challenge — Special ury struck under Old System. 630 THE IRISH REPORTS. BROWN v. ESMONDE AND OTHERS. Challenge-Special Jury struck under ......
-
THE QUEEN, at the prosecution of JOHN LITTLE, Mayor of Belfast, v JOHN REA
...v. The Queen 10 Ir. Law Rep. 53. Edwards v. Harding 1 Ver. & Scri. 100. O'Connell v. The QueenENR 11 Cl. & Fin. 155. The King v. HuntENR 4 B. & Ald. 430. 428 COMMON LAW REPORTS. H. T. 1864. Queen's Bench THE QUEEN, At the prosecution of JOHN LITTLE, Mayor of Belfast, v. JOHN REA. Jan. 14, 1......