living judges, then absent, did declare their opinions in open court, and whether the noble lord has any note of such opinions? concluded by this verdict. It is possible some of them might mean, not to find the whole sense and explanation put upon the paper by the innuendoes in the information. If a doubt arises from an ambiguous and unusual word in the verdict, the Court ought to lean in favour of a Venire de Novo. We are under the less difficulty, because, in favour of a defendant, though the verdict be full, the Court may grant a new trial. And we are all of opinion, upon the whole of the case, that there should be a Venire de Novo. This Judgment lord Mansfield, on the 10th of December, having previously desired that the Lords might be summoned for that day, read to the House of Lords; and informed their lordships that he had left a copy of it with the clerk, and that their lordships might read it and take copies of it if they pleased, but he did not move that it should be entered on the Journal, nor did he make any other motion respecting it. This conduct seems to have excited some surprise in the House, and occasioned severe animadversions in the political writings of the time. On the next day lord Camden proposed the following Questions to lord Mansfield, and desired to have his lordship's Answers to them, having, as I understand Mr. Holliday (Life of lord Mansfield, p. 317,) left them in writing with the clerk.† 1. "Does the opinion mean to declare, that upon the general issue of Not Guilty, in the case of a seditious libel, the jury have no right by law to examine the innocence or criminality of the paper, if they think fit, and to form their verdict upon such examination? 2. "Does the opinion mean to declare, that in the case above mentioned, where the jury have delivered in their verdict Guilty, that this verdict has found the fact only, and not the law? 3. "Is it to be understood by this opinion, that if the jury come to the bar, and say that they find the printing and publishing, but that the paper is no libel, in that case the jury have found the defendant Guilty generally, and the verdict must be so entered up? 4. "Whether the opinion means to say, that if the judge, after giving his opinion of the innocence or criminality of the paper, should leave the consideration of that matter, together with the printing and publishing, to the jury, such a direction would be contrary to law? 5. "I beg leave to ask, whether dead or * The phraseology of Burrow's Report of the Judgment differs from that in the Parl. Hist. †The Parliamentary History mentions not this leaving with the clerk. 6." Whether they declared such opinions, after solemn arguments, or upon any point judicially before them ?" Lord Mansfield replied, that this method of proposing questions to him, was taking him by surprise; that it was unfair; and that he would not answer interrogatories. See 16 New Parl. Hist., pp. 1312, et seq. 1321, also p. 1304, Junius's Preface, published in Mr. Woodfall's late edition of the Letters, Junius's Letter signed Phalaris (letter 82) in the Miscellaneous Letters of Junius, Woodfall's edition, vol. 3, p. 295, and the letter of Nerva in a note to the same page. The preceding Cases gave rise to numerous publications. Of those which impugned the doctrines laid down in the Cases of Almon and Woodfall, some of the most considerable are, A Letter from Candour to the Public Advertiser. A Letter to Mr. Almon concerning Libels, Warrants, the Seizure of Papers, and Sureties for the Breach of Behaviour, &c. By the Father of Candour. Another Letter to Mr. Almon in matter of Libel. A second Postscript to a Letter to Mr. Almon in matter of Libel. A Summary of the Law of Libel, in four Letters, signed Phileleutherus Anglicanus. A Letter to the Jurors of Great Britain occasioned by an Opinion of the Court of King's Bench read by Lord Chief Justice Mansfield, in the Case of the King and Woodfall, &c. by George Rous, esq. See also An Inquiry into the Extent of the Power of Juries on Trials of Indictments or Informations for publishing Seditious or other Criminal Writings, &c. extracted from the second volume of Mr. Baron Maseres's Additional Papers concerning the Province of Quebeck, in which is a very copious, exact, and satisfactory investigation of the nature of the questions of intention and tendency in charges of libel. And An Enquiry into the question, Whether Juries are or are not judges of law as wel as of fact, with a particular reference to the Case of Libels. (By Joseph Towers, L. L. D. a dissenting minister.) Observations on the Rights and Duty of Juries in Trials for Libels, &c. by Joseph Towers, L. L. D. Other prosecutions were had for the publication of Junius's Letter to the King, but I have not seen a report which is worth publication of either of them. * 556. The Trial of Maha Rajah NUNDOCOMAR, Bahader, for Forgery. At Calcutta, in the Province of Bengal: 15 GEORGE III. A. D. 1775. [Published by Authority of the Supreme Court of Judicature in Bengal. London: Printed for T. Cadell in the Strand, 1776.J June 8, 1775. At a Court of Oyer and Terminer, and Gaol Delivery, holden in and for the Town of Calcutta, and Factory of Fort William, in Benga!, and the Limits thereof, and the Factories subordinate thereunto, on the 3d day of June, 1775.-Before the hon. Sir ELIJAH IMPEY, knt. Chief Justice, RoBERT CHAMBERS, STEPHEN CESAR LEMAISTRE, and JOHN HYDE, esqrs. Justices. The KING v. Maha Rajah NUNDoCoMar. THE Prisoner being called to the bar, and arraigned, and the indictment read, his counsel tendered a plea to the jurisdiction of the Court; but the Chief Justice pointing out an objection thereto, which went both to the matter of fact and the law contained therein, and desiring the counsel to consider if he could amend it, and take time for so doing, he, after having considered the objection, thought proper to withdraw the plea; whereupon the prisoner pleaded, Not Guilty: and being asked by whom he would be tried? he answered, By God and his peers. The Court desired to know whether he had any particular reason for using the word peers? His counsel answered, that the prisoner being a man of the first digaity in this kingdom, thought he should be tried by people of equal rank with himself, agreeably to the law of England, which permits every man to be tried by his peers. The Court asked, who the Maha Rajah considered as his peers? His counsel answered, he must leave that to the Court. Chief Justice. The trial can only be by such persons as are by the charter required to form the jury. A peer of Ireland tried in England would be tried by a common jury. The charter directs, that in all criminal prosecutions, the prisoner should be tried by the inhabitants of the town of Calcutta, being British subjects. It being late, the Court adjourned till the next morning at seven o'clock. June 9, 1775. The counsel for the prisoner informed the Court, that the Maha Rajah had been ill in the night, and had now a flux and fever, which rendered him incapable of taking his trial. These proceedings are amply discussed in the Cases of governor Hastings and of Sir Elijah Impey, and in the Parliamentary Debates respecting those Cases, The Court desired Dr. Anderson and Dr.. Williams to examine the prisoner, which they did, and reported that he complained of having been indisposed in the night, but that he had neither flux nor fever, and was very capable of taking his trial; whereupon he was called to the bar. The Prisoner being informed of his right to challenge when the Jury came to be sworn, challenged the following gentlemen, from a paper held in his hand: John Lewis, William Atkinson, John Williams, William Dickson, Richard Johnson, Joshua Nixon, Robert Donald, James Miller, Tilly Kettle, Ramsay Hannay, Thomas Adams, Bernard Messinck, Wm. Hamilton Bird, Charles Moore, Alexander Macueil, James Lally, William Briggs, Philip Coales. The Counsel for the Crown challenged Samuel Stalham. Edward Scott, The following Jury was sworn: John Collis, Samuel Touchet, Joseph Bernard Smith, Edward Satterthwaite, John Robinson, Charles Weston. The Jury elected Mr. John Robinson their foreman. Mr. William Chambers, the principal interpreter, not being yet come from Madras, and the two assistant interpreters, on account of their imperfect knowledge of English, being deemed insufficient for a trial so long as this was expected to be, Mr. Alexander Kyn. Elliot, superintendant of the Khalsa Records, a gentleman eminently skilled in the Persian and Hindostan languages, and Mr. William Jackson, lately admitted an attorney of the court, who speaks the Hindostan tongue fluently, were requested by the Court to interpret. The Counsel for the Prisoner desired that the evidence might be interpreted to him in the Hindostan language, as it was most generally understood by the audience, and requested that the interpreter of the Court might be employed for that purpose, and objected to the interpretation of Mr. Elliot, as being connected with persons whom the prisoner considered as his enemies. Chief Justice. The principal interpreter of the court is absent; the gentlemen of the jury have heard the interpretation of the assistant interpreters on other occasions. Do you, gentlemen, think we shall be able to go through this cause, with the assistance of those interpreters only? Jury. We are sure we shall not be able. Chief Justice. It is a cruel insinuation against the character of Mr. Elliot. His youth, just rising into life, his family, his known abilities and honour, should have protected him from it. [Mr. Elliot desired he might decline interpreting.] Chief Justice. We must insist upon it, that you interpret: you should be above giving way to the imputation: your skill in the languages, and your candour, will show how little ground there is for it. Mr. Farrer. I hope Mr. Elliot does not think the objection came from me; it was suggested to me. Chief Justice. Who suggested it ? Mr. Farrer. I am not authorised to name the person. Chief Justice. It was improper to be made, especially as the person who suggested, does not authorise you to avow it. Jury. We all desire that Mr. Elliot, whose character and abilities we all know, would be so kind as to interpret. Mr. Farrer. I desire on the part of the prisoner, that Mr. Elliot would interpret. Mr. Elliot and Mr. Jackson sworn to inter pret. The jury being impannelled, were charged with the prisoner, and the clerk of the crown read the Indictment as follows: "Town of Cal- I. To wit. The jurors cutta, and Fac- (for our lord the king, upon tory of Fort Wil-their oath present, That liam, in Bengal, Maha Rajali Nundocomar, Bahader, late inhabitant of the town of Calcutta, and a person subject to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Judicature at Fort William, in Bengal, after the 29th day of June, in the year of our Lord 1729, to wit, on the 15th day of January, 1770, in the 10th year of the reign of our sovereign lord George the 3rd, king of Great Britain, at the town of Calcutta aforesaid, with force and arms, feloniously did falsely make, forge, and counterfeit, and did cause and procure to be falsely made, forged, and counterfeited, a certain bond in the Persian language, purporting to be sealed by one Bollakey Doss with the seal or chop of him the said Bollakey Doss, the tenor of which bond is as follows [here the bond is written in Persian] with an intent to defraud the said Bollakey Doss of the sum of 48,021 sicca rupees principal, and of four annas on each rupee of the said principal sum, as premium or profit on the said principal sum, against the form of the statute in that case made and provided, and against the peace of our said lord the king, his crown and dignity. "And the jurors aforesaid, upon their oath aforesaid, do further present, that the aforesaid Maha Rajah Nundocomar, Babader, afterwards, to wit, on the 15th day of January, in the year last abovesaid, at Calcutta aforesaid, a certain false, forged, and counterfeited bond in the Persian language, purporting to have been sealed by the said Bollakey Doss, with the seal or chop of him the said Bollakey Doss, feloniously did utter and publish as a true bond; which said bond is in the words, characters, and figures following, [Persian bond again recited], with an intent to defraud the said Bollakey Doss of the said sum of 48,021 sicca rupees principal, and of four annas on each rupee of the said principal sum, as premium or profit on the said principal sum; the said Maha Rajah Nundocomar, Babader, at the time of publishing of the said false, forged, and counterfeited bond by him as aforesaid, then and there, well knowing the said bond to have been false, forged, and counterfeited, against the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace of our said lord the king, his crown and dignity. "And the jurors for our lord the king, upon their oath do further present, that Maha Rajah Nundocomar, Bahader, late inhabitant in the town of Calcutta, and a person subject to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Judicature, at Fort William in Bengal, on the 15th day of January, in the year last abovesaid, with force and arms, at the town of Calcutta aforesaid, feloniously did falsely make, forge, and counterfeit, and did cause to be falsely made, forged, the Persian language, and purporting to be and counterfeited, a certain bond, written in sealed by one Bollakey Doss (then deceased) in his life time, with the seal or chop of him the said Bollakey Doss; the tenor of which is as follows [Persian bond again recited] with an intent to defraud Gungabissen and Pudmohun Doss, executors of the last will and testament of the said Bollakey Doss, of the sum of 48,021 sicca rupees as principal, and of four annas on each rupee, as a profit or premium on the said principal sum, against the form of the statute in that case made and provided, and against the peace of our sovereign lord the king, his crown and dignity. And the jurors aforesaid, upon their oath aforesaid, do further present, that the aforesaid Maha Rajab Nundocomar, Bahader, afterwards, to wit, on the said 15th day of January, in the year last abovesaid, at Calcutta aforesaid, a certain false, forged, and counterfeited bond, purporting to be sealed by the said Bollakey Doss (then deceased) in his life time, with the seal or chop of him the said Bollakey Doss, feloniously did utter and publish as a true bond; which said bond is in the words, characters, and figures following, to wit, [Persian bond again recited] with an intent to defraud the said Gungabissen and Pudmohun Doss of the said sun of 48,021 sicca rupees of principal, and of four annas on each rupee of profit or premium on the said principal sum; the said Maha Rajah Nundocoinar, Bahader, at the time of publishing the said false, forged, and counterfeited bond, by him as aforesaid, then and there, well knowing the said bond to have been false, forged, and counterfeited, against the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace of our said lord the king, his crown and dignity. “And the jurors for our lord the king, upon their oath aforesaid, do further present, that on the 15th day of January, in the year last abovesaid, Maba Rajah Nundocomar, Babader, late inhabitant of the town of Calcutta, and a person subject to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Judicature, at Fort William in Bengal, with force and arms, at the town of Calcutta aforesaid, feloniously did falsely make, forge, and counterfeit, and did cause and procare to be falsely made, forged, and counterfeited, a certain writing obligatory in the Persian language, purporting to be sealed by the said Bollakey Doss, with the seal or chop of him the said Bollakey Doss, the tenor of which writing obligatory is as follows [Persian bond again recited] with an intent to defraud the said Bollakey Doss of the sum of 48,021 sicca rupees of principal, and of four annas on each rupee of profit or premium on the said principal sum, against the form of the statute in that case made and provided, and against the peace of our said lord the king, his crown and dignity. "And the jurors aforesaid, upon their oath aforesaid, do further present, that the said Maha Rajah Nundocomar, Bahader, afterwards, to wit, on the said 15th day of January, in the year last abovesaid, at Calcutta aforesaid, a certain false, forged, and counterfeited writing obligatory, in the Persian language, purporting to have been sealed by the said Bollakey Doss, with the seal or chop of him the said Bollakey Doss, feloniously did utter and publish as a true writing obligatory; which said writing obligatory is in the words, characters, and figures following, [Persian bond again recited] with an intent to defraud the said Bollakey Doss of the said sum of 48,021 sicca rupees of principal, and of four annas on each rupee of profit or premium on the said principal sum; the said Maha Rajah Nundocomar, Bahader, at the time of publishing the said false, forged, and counterfeited writing obligatory, by him as aforesaid, then and there, well knowing the said writing obligatory to have been false, forged, and counterfeited, against the form of the statute in that case made and provided, and against the peace of our said lord the king, his crown and dignity. "And the jurors for our lord the king, upon the oath aforesaid, do further present, that on the 15th day of January, in the year last abovesaid, Maha Rajah Nundocomar, Bahader, late inhabitant of the town of Calcutta, and a person subject to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Judicature at Fort William in Bengal, with force and arms, at the town of Calcutta aforesaid, feloniously did falsely make, forge, and counterfeit, and did cause and procure to be falsely made, forged, and counterfeited, a certain writing obligatory in the Persian language, purporting to have been sealed by the said Bollakey Doss (then deceased) in his life time, with the seal or chop of him the said Bol lakey Doss; the tenor of which writing obligatory is as follows [Persian bond again recited] with an intent to defraud Gungabissen and Pudmobun Doss, the executors of the said Bollakey Doss, of the sum of 48,021 sicca rupees of principal sum, against the form of the statute in that case made and provided, and against the peace of our said lord the king, his crown and dignity. "And the jurors aforesaid, upon their oath aforesaid do further present, that the said Maha Rajah Nundocomar, Bahader, afterwards, to wit, on the 15th day of January, in the year last abovesaid, at Calcutta aforesaid, a certain false, forged, and counterfeited writing obligatory, in the Persian language, purporting to have been sealed by the said Bollakey Doss (then deceased) in his life time, with the seal or chop of him the said Bollakey Doss, feloniously did utter and publish as a true writing obligatory; which said writing obligatory is in the words, characters, and figures following, [Persian bond again recited] with an intent to defraud the said Gungabissen and Pudmobun Doss, the executors of the said Bollakey Doss, of the said sum of 48,021 sicca rupees of principal, and of four annas on each rupee of profit or premium on the said principal sum; the said Maha Rajah Nundocomar, Bahader, at the time of publishing the said false, forged, and counterfeited writing obligatory, by him aforesaid, then and there, well knowing the said writing obligatory to have been false, forged, and counterfeited, against the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace of our said lord the king, his crown and dignity. "And the jurors for our lord the king, upon their oath aforesaid, do further present, that on the 15th day of January, in the year last abovesaid, Maha Rajah Nundocomar, Bahader, late inhabitant of the town of Calcutta, and a person subject to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Judicature, at Fort William, in Bengal, with force and arms, at the town of Calcutta aforesaid, feloniously did falsely make, forge, and counterfeit, and did cause and procure to be falsely made, forged, and counterfeited, a promissory note for payment of money, in the Persian language, purporting to be sealed by the said Bollakey Doss, with the seal or chop of him the said Bollakey Doss; the tenor of which promissory note is as follows, [Persian bond again recited] with an intent to defraud the said Bollakey Doss of the sum of 48,021 sicca rupees of principal, and of four annas on each rupee of profit or premium on the said principal sum, against the form of the statute in that case made and provided, and against the peace of our said lord the king, his crown and dignity. "And the jurors aforesaid, upon their oath aforesaid, do further present, that the said Maha Rajah Nundocomar, Bahader, afterwards, to wit, on the 15th day of January, in the year last abovesaid, at Calcutta aforesaid, a certain false, forged, and counterfeited promis sory note, for the payment of money, in the Persian language, purporting to have been sealed by the said Bollakey Doss, with the seal or chop of him the said Bollakey Doss, feloniously did utter and publish as a true promissory note; which promissory note is in the words, characters, and figures following, [Persian bond again recited] with an intent to defraud the said Boilakey Doss of the said sum of 48,021 sicca rupees of principal, and of four annas on each rupee of profit or premium on the said principal sum; the said Maha Rajah Nundocomar, Bahader, at the time of publishing the said false, forged, and counterfeited promissory note, by bim as aforesaid, then and there, well knowing the said promissory note to have been false, forged, and counterfeited, against the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace of our said lord the king, his crown and dignity. ing the said false, forged, and counterfeited "And the jurors for our lord the king, upon their oath aforesaid, do further present, that on the 15th day of January, in the year last abovesaid, Maha Rajah Nundocomar, Bahader, late inhabitant of the town of Calcutta, and a person subject to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Judicature at Fort William in Bengal, with force and arms, at the town of Calcutta aforesaid, feloniously did falsely make, forge, And the jurors for our lord the king, upon and counterfeit, and did cause and procure to their oath aforesaid, do further present, that be falsely made, forged, and counterfeited, a the said Maha Rajah Nundocomar, Bahader, promissory note for payment of money, in the afterwards, to wit, on the said 15th day of Persian language, purporting to be sealed by January, and year last abovesaid, at Calcutta the said Bollakey Doss, (then deceased) in his aforesaid, a certain false, forged, and counterlife time, with the seal or chop of him the said feited writing obligatory, in the Persian lanBollakey Doss; the tenor of which promissory guage, feloniously did utter and publish as a note is as follows, [Persian bond again recited] true writing obligatory; which said writing with an intent to defraud Gungabissen and Pud- obligatory is in the words, characters, and fimobun Doss, the executors of the said Bolla-gures following, [Persian bond again recited] key Doss, of the sum of 48,021 sicca rupees of principal, and of four annas on each rupee of profit or premium on the said principal sum, against the form of the statute in that case made and provided, and against the peace of our said lord the king, his crown and dignity. "And the jurors aforesaid, upon their oath aforesaid, do further present, that the said Maha Rajah Nundocomar, Bahader, afterwards, to wit, on the 15th day of January, in the year last abovesaid, at Calcutta aforesaid, a certain false, forged, and counterfeited promissory note for payment of money, in the Persian language, purporting to have been sealed by the said Bollakey Doss (then deceased) in his life time, with the seal or chop of him the said Bollakey Doss, feloniously did utter and publish as a true promissory note; which promissory note is in the words, characters, and figures following, [Persian bond recited] with an intent to defraud the said Gungabissen and Pudmobun Doss, the executors of the said Bollakey Doss, of the said sum of 48,021 sicca rupees of principal, and of four annas on each rupee of profit or premium on the said principal sum; the said Maha Rajah Nundocomar, Bahader, at the time of publish VOL. XX. with an intent to defraud the said Bollakey Doss of the said sum of 48,021 sicca rupees of principal, and of four annas on each rupee as profit or premium on the said principal sum ; the said Maha Rajah Nundocomar, Bahader, at the time of publishing the said false, forged, and counterfeited writing obligatory, by him as aforesaid, then and there, well knowing the said writing obligatory to have been false, forged, and counterfeited, against the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace of our said lord the king, his crown and dignity. "And the jurors for our lord the king, upon their oath aforesaid, do further present, that on the 15th day of January, in the year last abovesaid, Maha Rajah Nundocomar, Babader, late inhabitant of the town of Calcutta, and a person subject to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Judicature at Fort William in Bengal, with force and arms, at the town of Calcutta aforesaid, did falsely make, forge, and counterfeit, and did cause and procure to be falsely made, forged, and counterfeited, a certain writing obligatory in the Persian language; the tenor of which writing obligatory is as follows, [Persian bond again recited] with an in30 |