Page images

Motion for Rule contrary to the evidence, or as not being warranted by the for New Trial. evidence, being contrary to the weight of it, and on the ground

of misdirection on the part of myself at the trial, or on the ground that though there might be no positive misdirection, there might be such a want of information furnished to the jury as not to enable them fairly to discharge their duty,-if you are contented to take a rule upon those two grounds, dividing the second into either positive misdirection or imperfect direction, you may take a rule to show cause at once.

Mr. Attorney General.-1 thank your Lordship; that is what I have been asking your Lordships for, and of course, being told that I


have it, I have no more to say.
Lord Chief Baron.— Very well, take a rule to show cause.

Mr. Attorney General.My Lords, my learned friends remind me that it will be necessary in drawing up the rule to state the grounds of the rule.

Lord Chief Baron.— I hope that I am not wrong in this. I believe that you may take the rule precisely in the terms which I have now announced. If you like to put it more shortly as misdirection or imperfect direction, you can do it.

Mr. Attorney General.That is very satisfactory to me, my Lord.

Mr. Baron Channell.We understand that that will include the incomplete information.

Lord Chief Baron.Perhaps you had better take it in the language in which I pronounced it when I addressed you just


Mr. Baron Pigott-Misdirection enables the Court to mould the meaning of ihat word by-and-by; misdirection is understood, but non-direction is not recognized as a ground for a rule.

Mr. Attorney General.-- If that is so technically, of course we are quite satisfied to abide

by the proper form. Mr. Baron Bramwell.— There can be no doubt that it must be stated wherein the misdirection consists, but surely there wi be no difficulty about it, Mr. Jones will attend 10 that.

Mr. Jones.It is only with reference to the terms of the rule of Court upon the subject. If we go into the Court of Error they will say, “ You ought to have specified it."

Mr. Baron Bramwell. If there should be any difficully, I daresay that myself, or one of my learned brothers, will settle it.

Lord Chief Baron.— I may state to you, Mr. Attorney General, that I imagined that I had taken pains, and I hoped that I had laid down the law as I understood it to be laid down by the highest possible authority, at least now, in what is called “another place :" some people call it “another place.”

Mr. Attorney General.-Your Lordship may be aware that any authority to which your Lordship may be referring, is incapable of delending himself bere as to what he has said in another place, or vindicating that from misinterpretation.

Lord Chief Baron.-I thought that I was remarkably safe in taking that course. After all I may have been wrong.

Mr. Attorney General.-If I can divine the sentiments of any Motion for Rule person to whom your Lordship may be alluding, I may take the for New Trial. liberty of saying, that I understand that person to have vindicated the conduct of his own Government in that other place; and at the same time to have said, that in his judgment, although it may not be infallible, the “ Alabama” had offended against the law of the land.

After a short interval. Mr. Attorney General.— My Lords, I have received from the officer of the Court an intimation which I am afraid makes it necessary for me to refer again to a subject which I thought had been disposed of. I am informed that the grounds of misdirection must be stated on the brief.

Mr. Baron Bramwell.-- Yes.

Mr. Attorney General.-I am quite content to state those which we conceive to be the grounds of misdirection, if that is meant.

Mr. Baron Channell.The technical mode of drawing up the rule would be, that there was misdirection in this, then mentioning what you suppose to have been the misdirection; and if the Court has granted you the rule on the ground of incomplete or imperfect direction, then to state the grounds of that incomplete and imperfect direction.

Mr. Attorney General.- We shall be at liberty to state that in our own way?

Mr. Baron Channell.-Yes.

Lord Chief Baron.— Mr. Attorney General, the terms of the rule of course should be submitted to the Court before the rule is granted. There will be no difficulty about that. I bare no doubt that Mr. Jones will so frame it that either the Court will assent to it, or he will assent to what the Court suggests as the mode.

Mr. Baron Bramwell.Of course, Mr. Attorney General, as I understand, we cannot possibly allow a rule to be drawn up saying that the Chief Baron misdirected in this, when he says that he gave no such a direction; of course we cannot do that.

Mr. Solicitor General.There is the difficulty.

Mr. Attorney General.—What I had proposed was to have extracted verbatim from the short-hand writer's notes certain passages to which we should object, which probably would not be excepted to. I have made a division into six heads of the language as it stands on the short-hand writer's notes; and I should have been disposed to have placed every one of them upon the rule

Lord Chief Baron.—1 will see Mr. Jones upon the subject if necessary.

Mr. Baron Channell.— There will be no difficulty about it.

Mr. Solicitor General.I rather understood from your Lordships, if I may be allowed to say so, that in this particular case you

[ocr errors]

Motion for Rule would allow the rule of practice to be somewhat modified by a for New Trial. more general statement than usual.

Lord Chief Baron. We will see whether that can be done.

Mr. Solicitor General.Very well, my Lord; we will try what we can do.

Lord Chief Baron.— It should be observed, and it may be quite right that I should state it in public, that when the Attorney General presented to me the paper I made the instant objection to it which I have made all along.

Mr. Attorney General.— Yes, my Lord, we are quite aware of that.

Lord Chief Baron.-I said “I certainly did not mean this, and “ I do not believe that I have done it," and if the objection had been taken, as I must say I think it ought to have been, a Jittle earlier, and if an intimation had been given to me I should have corrected it at once, and have said “ Gentlemen of the “ jury, it is supposed that I have said so and so, I mean nothing “ of the kind. On my own behalf I must say that the learned “ Attorney General now remembers that the moment the paper “ was put into my hands I said, “Mr. Attorney General that is 6 not mine.'” At present we need only say this—I repeat that if Mr. Jones will communicate with me upon the subject I have no doubt that we shall be able to put upon the rule everything which you wish put upon it.

Mr. Attorney General.-I should think so; I should wish to do
it, with your Lordship’s permission, by taking the very terms of
the short-hand writer's notes, including the final passage to which
your Lordship has referred, and then it would open to us the
alternative view which your Lordship has mentioned, namely,
that even if the direction properly interpreted should be considered
to be right, still it might possibly have the effect of misleading the
The Court then made the following rule.

Thursday, the 5th day of November 1863.
Between Her Majesty's Attorney General, Informant, and Her-

mann James Sillem and others, claiming the “ Alexandra,"

By Information of Seizure. Upon the motion of Sir Roundell Palmer, Knt., Her Majesty's Attorney General, it is ordered by the Court that the said defendants do within a week after service of this Rule, or a copy thereof, show cause to this Court why the verdict found for the defendants upon the trial of this cause before the Right Honourable the Lord Chief Baron of this Court, at the sittings in Middlesex after Trinity term last, should not be set aside, and a new trial of this cause had on the ground—1st, that the verdict was against the evidence ; 2nd, that the verdict was against the Motion for Rule weight of evidence; 3rd, that the learned Lord Chief Baron did for New Trial, not sufficiently explain to the jury the construction and effect of the Foreign Enlistment Act; 4th, that the learned Lord Chief Baron did not leave to the jury the question whether the ship “ Alexandra” was or was not intended to be employed in the service of the Confederate States to cruize or commit hostilities against the United States; 5th, that the learned Lord Chief Baron did not leave to the jury the question whether there was any attempt or endeavour to equip, &c.; 6th, that the learned Lord Chief Baron did not leave to the jury the question whether there was knowingly any aiding, assisting, and being concerned in the equipping, &c.; and 7th, that the learned Lord Chief Baron misdirected the jury as to the construction and effect of the seventh section of the Foreign Enlistment Act.


Tuesday, 10th November 1863.


Application APPLICATION TO THE Court To Fix A DAY TO MOVE TO MAKE to fix a Day for


Mr. Solicitor General. — Would your Lordships allow me to ask you if it would be convenient that the case of the “ Alexandra" should be taken upon this day week, that is to say next Tuesday. I have been requinsted by the Attorney General to put that question to the Court.

Lord Chief Baron.—Of course the rule has been served.
Mr. Solicitor General.Yes, my Lord.

Lord Chief Baron.—My impression is that the earliest possible day is that which the Court would make convenient for the purpose of hearing that argument. I need not remind you, Mr. Solicitor General, that although we are happy on any occasion to receive the courtesy of the Law Officers of the Crown in enquiring whether a day will be convenient 10 the Court or not, still we are in some measure bound to take the day which is mentioned by the Law Officers.

Mr. Solicitor General.Yes, my Lord; at the same time I was requested to put it to your Lordships whether next Tuesday would be a suitable day.

Lord Chief Baron.-- This day week?
Mr. Solicitor General.—This day week.
Lord Chief Baron.—Certainly.

Mr. Baron Bramwell.Had we not better consider this, that Wednesday is a special paper day, but I should think that when the argument was once begun we had better go on with it, had we not?

Mr. Solicitor General.— I should think so, my Lord.
Lord Chief Baron.-From day to day ?

Mr. Solicitor General.- From day to day. I should think that that would be the better course.

Mr. Baron Bramwell.— I think that it had better be understood by the Bar, and be known that we shall not takс the special paper on the Wednesday.

Mr. Solicitor General.-It will be understood that the “ Alexandra " case goes on from day to day?

Mr. Baron Bramwell.— Yes; if it lasts over a day.

Lord Chief Baron.—May 1 ask, Mr. Solicitor General, as you have mentioned the matter, whether there was a short-hand writer at the trial, both for the Crown and for the defendants ?

Mr. Solicitor General.-I believe there was, my Lord. I was not then in the case.

Lord Chief Baron.I am aware of that.
Mr. Solicitor General.-I think so.


« EelmineJätka »