Court Of King's Bench, We...
t Ins was an indictment fbr keeping a common gaming-house. 'l'he delendant pleaded autrcfuie ocqizit, lo which there was a demurrer on the part of the Crowvi. The dlemurrer was argued at the sittings in tbe (}rand Jury Roam before the Judges,who wvere of opinion that the plea was bad in point of law. The Quttsion then arose, whether the iudgment to be given against the deuieadailt should be qvdld res. pon(7eal outster, or whether it should be final as on a plea of guilty. On a former slay, the Court offered to allow the defendant to plead * not guilty,` on hiis paying the prosecutor's costs; but this offer. after time for deliberationt, was now deelined, and the point cateje on for argnmeut ont strict legal groun.ls. M11r. CSrtTTY. for the prosecution, contended, that the defendant lhaving pliaded a plea which proved to be a nullity,was concluded by Ihejudgment, and must be considered as admitting his guilt. It was true that in cases of felony the judgment, after an insufficient plea of previous acouittal. was that the defendant should answer ; but in civil ce.ses,after demurrer to a plea,the judyment was final; andindictmeenus for misedenienours had always been iegarded as mere analogous to civil proceedings titan to prosecutions f6r felony. The dictitn of Lord Holt in " The Queen v. Goddard," 2 Lord Raymond, 922, wvaS. expressly in point, as to pleas of autrcfois convict, and, indeed, extended to pleas in bar to every charge of nmisdeineanor. To al- low a defendant in the King's Benclh, where pleas of this descrip- tion were not determined till after a contsiderable interval, to obt_in time by pleading a bad or false plea, and then to put in anotber pica perhaps equally bad, would greatly tend to frustrate the purposes of justice. Air. BRoDRIcx, for the lefcndant, reminded the Court that a plea of " not guilty" had actually been put On the record of wilich it now was parcel, and therefbre the qaestlon was, whether ther would interfere to take it off, wvhen the prosecutor himself had only prayed that the defendant should answer over to the malter of the charge. The COURT, however, said that as tke plea had been improperly introduced betore they gavc judgment, they must consider it as a mere nullity ; and that, notwithstaniding theprayer of theparty, they Must give that judgmcint according te law. iMr. BRODRICI; then applied his argutnent to the main qucs- tion; as to the- judgnienit wlhich it. poiint -o' law, the Court were bolund to give. This question was of real importance, because there were ninny = isdemeanors now punishable withi as great seterity as often followed coinvictions for felony; and it would be hard indeed if an innocent man should be subjected to these penalties for a nere blinder of his legal advisers over whom he had, no control. It was monstrous to consider a plea of previous acquittal a confes- :3ion of guilt, when it raised in itself a presumption of innocenee, and when, by the very demurrer of the prosecutor, it was atlnsittet to be true in point of fiact, thouglh-impugned as bad in poiutof form. Cases ot' mnisdeueaulor were more analogous to cases of feloDy than to mere civil actions; and it' not, it would be nhard on the miere technical argument to asnsimlate them to the former, when sueh important practical consequetnces would follow. The dictunt cited bv Mlr. Chitty was extremel ' loose; it Thever had been acted on; and in a /ork -of Sgreat Iuarning aud hiBh charuGter, by a learned gentleman in Coutrt, was cited with the adlition' " Scdqnzerc." [ This allusion to-Mr. Chitty's Crimitnl Late, as opposing lila present reasoning, exciteif mauchl] atigheer in Court l iA1r. -Cssrit,Y replied. The CouRT teok ti me to consider of theirjudgment. THE-X:NA V. THtE SlAYOit OF COLCHETEStR. - ir. JEssop moved for azuozdavzus, commanding the MlaYor of Colche6ter to swear in Mr. Uoratio Perkins as r. free burgess of that corporation. Mlr. Prkir. was vXpressly named in the recentchftrter as I a- coosmon-coutieilman, and upona motion for a qu/o w,arrantO agains -birn fornaetifig as a free burgess, the Court were of opinion that hie had a- ,iglt Ao to act., The layOr, however, refused to ad- - rhinister tels oath -to hirn as- a burgess, wbich he claimed in order to enable hiim'to vote f'orcotporate officets; ''The GI. n',howdVe* refused to grant the writ. It wa"snan cam- o.oni.s tliate'. ered s acquaired v atever rjghts hC'.bos- sasaed1 .itieiws only to tatke th)e comnlmon.eoundi[mrn's oathl-i le cQuld'nut, thiefoxe claini tO hbesvworn-ata burgess.-- *t -At1P S{;Y LORtD t sewi Jt& rreltl's e the court te attend the p'rivy Counnil, snd'Ir. Ju6tice LITTrLEDALE retired- eo- ei alt M Njsi Pnrinaoi toanXwheze nothing occurred of public.iA tereit. - d- *; - - -I COURT OF KING'S BENCH, WESTMINVSTER, Nov. 20. TFIE }rNG V. JOSIAS TAYLOR.