FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   133   134   135   136   137   138   139   140   141   142   143   144   145   146   147   148   149   150   151   152   153   154   155   156   157  
158   159   160   161   162   163   164   165   166   167   168   169   170   171   172   173   174   175   176   177   178   179   180   181   182   >>   >|  
nly them_." Chief Justice Lee summed up the evidence "and delivered it as his opinion, that the _Jury ought to find the defendant guilty;_ for he thought the _fact of publication was fully proved; and if so they could not avoid bringing in the defendant guilty_." The jury returned, "Not guilty;" but Ryder, the Attorney-General, put this question, Do you think the evidence is not sufficient to convince you that _Owen did sell the book_? The foreman stuck to his general verdict, "Not guilty," "Not guilty;" and several of the jurymen said, "that is our verdict, my lord, and we abide by it." "Upon which the court broke up, and there was a prodigious shout in the hall." Then "the Jury judged as to facts, law, and justice of the whole, and therefore did not answer the leading question which was so artfully put to them."[127] Of course the insolent Attorney-General was soon made "Lord Chief Justice," and _rode_ the bench after the antiquated routine. [Footnote 127: 18 St. Tr. 1203; 14 Parl. Hist. 888, 1063; 3 Hallam, 200; 2 Campbell, Justices, 198.] This was the third great case in which the Jury had vindicated the right of speech. 6. Here is another case very famous in its day, and of great value as helping to establish the rights of juries, and so to protect the natural right of the citizens--the Trial of John Miller for reprinting Junius's Letter to the King, in 1770. Here are the facts. Mr. Miller was the publisher of a newspaper called the _London Evening Post_, and therein, on December 19, 1769, he reprinted Junius's celebrated Letter to the King. For this act, an information _ex officio_ was laid against him, wherein he was charged with publishing a false, wicked, seditious, and malicious libel. A suit had already been brought against Woodfall, the publisher of the _Public Advertiser_, in which the letter originally appeared, but the prosecution had not turned out to the satisfaction of the government, nor had the great question been definitely settled. So this action was brought against Mr. Miller, who reprinted the original letter the day of its first appearance.[128] [Footnote 128: 20 St. Tr. 803, 895, 869; Woodfall's Junius (Bohn, 1850), Preface, p. 94, Appendix, p. 471; 2 Campbell, Justices, 363; 5 Mahon.] Solicitor-General Thurlow,--whom you have met before, Gentlemen,--opened the case for the Crown, and said:-- "I have not of myself been able to imagine ... that there is a serious ma
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   133   134   135   136   137   138   139   140   141   142   143   144   145   146   147   148   149   150   151   152   153   154   155   156   157  
158   159   160   161   162   163   164   165   166   167   168   169   170   171   172   173   174   175   176   177   178   179   180   181   182   >>   >|  



Top keywords:
guilty
 

Miller

 

Junius

 

question

 

General

 
verdict
 
Footnote
 

publisher

 
reprinted
 

brought


Letter

 

letter

 
Woodfall
 

Campbell

 
Justices
 

Attorney

 
evidence
 
Justice
 

defendant

 

seditious


malicious

 

wicked

 

charged

 

publishing

 

originally

 

appeared

 

prosecution

 

Advertiser

 

Public

 

foreman


summed

 
December
 

Evening

 

newspaper

 

called

 
London
 

delivered

 
officio
 

information

 
celebrated

turned
 

Solicitor

 
Thurlow
 
Appendix
 

imagine

 

Gentlemen

 
opened
 

convince

 
action
 

original