Court Of King's Bench, We...
-1-tS was a qiao warraltw,camlinig on tHncoe cn(ialUto 8niow Dy wiiaL au:hority hic cxercised thie functions of a burgess of the borough of Monniouth. Yifty-nine other infor aLions were granted nt the same time, at the inartanceof the frienids of the Duke of Beaufort, againstother individuals who, like the defendant, were of the oppo- site party. A consolidation rule was obtained, whereby all the in. forma-ions were directed to abide the fate of one; and the case of yestes was selected for trial. The cause was thied at Glocenter be- fore Ar. Justice Park, when that learmed Jiudge held that tfie issue was on tie defenidanit, and that his counsel was to begint. Mr. Demnian, wlho came special, accordingly, open. ed the case, and adduced evidenice to two points arising on the pleadings: first, that the mnode of election purtued was acearding to tba charter and the custon ; secolnd, that the particular election of the defendant was regular nt7d formal. The quettion on the first was, whether the burgesses ought to be nominated by the Comimnon (,olmnci before they were voted for by the body at large; and thic questi or on the second was, whether due notice was given of .the io. tcndcd eleetion. In reference to thi6 last point, it was proved that no fixed *lay was appointed tor the purpose, that noi individual no- tice was given ; but that a bell v,gs rung as usual, anid the initended election v7as talked of in tire town ; antd that the election was at- tended by apentlemflan, an agent tor the Beatfort interest, who protested agninst the lega.llity of the nirocecdings, but dlid not object to she suliielency of the notice. It appeared that the limits of the borough extendedl two milest beyond thc sown_oone side bcy9nd the 6,>-oijo, whicb i5 a very higt bill, ssuriounted. b7 a tCliplo.in horaour of naval vietories, and tbatit was hardly possible for soTne of the brg-sses to heartbe bell. The jury found a general verdict for.the Crown, without stating whether theyfbound on both Issues, or oia which of the issues, and the learned Judge did not put the question to them. A rule was afterwards obtained to show cause why there should not be a new trial, which now came on for argumsnt. Mr. CAaXPBELL,fer the defendant,now pro osed,that as thegreat question of right hadnotbeen distinctlydecidej the caschould stand over till anothercase, notincumberetvwitl the same dificulties, should be decided. There were six burgeVses elected on the sanme day with the defendant, and liable to the same objections; but there were more than 50 others to whom these objections did not apply. Mr. TAUNTow declined the proposal, butofFered,if tEe six would disclaim, to let the other cases await a second trial. This being re- fused, the learned counsel proceeded to show cause, and contended oD both grqunds that the verdict was right. Alr. Cnoss shoTtly followed on the same side. MUr. CA55PsELL, in reply, urged that the finding really determin- ed nothing; that the question of right was really with the defendant; and that the question of form was never fairly left to thejury. The CouLT regrettedl that the learned judge had not presented the questions ditindtly to the consideration of the jurg; as, by such a course, much anxiety and expense would have been saved. It was impossible, however, to doubt that the evidence applicable to the partJcalnr election abundantly proved thewTant of nottee and thatany other verdict would have been entirelv unsupported by the weight of proof. On that ground, thetefore, the verdict must stand against this individual; but the Court would not conclude a great question ofright by tbe late trial. Judgment, therefore, shoul lbe entered for the Crown on the issue respecting the particular electioa, and the jury discharged from giving any verdict on the other issues. It was afterwards agreed, that the six buriesses elected with the defendant should disclaim,and one of the other cases be tried to raise Chflnsersdn.wlsnn _ - COURT OF JNG'S BENCH, WsixSixsIEwR, Nov. 3. , THE KING V. YEATES.