CARLILE.—The case of the King versus Carlile. was -heard - -in
the King's Bench on Wednesday, on the exceptions tendered against the in-
dictment. The exceptions were-1st, that the words charged as libellms were not indictable ; 2nd, that the charge was general, not special; 3rd, that the Words in the second and 'third count did not warrant the con- struction, put on them ; 4th, that time mode of publication was,not speci-
fied in the Indictment; 5th, that time defendant was net sufficiently d •scribed; Gth, that the conduct of the -judge was improper,---abitt this
not being on the record, could not be gone into. • The 7th exception was more important than any of the rest; of which Lord Tenterden disposed in his usual summary way ; it was—" that there were two, points of.
error,in fact. In the first place, the verdict was given .coram non judice, for at the time there was only one CommisSinner present ; and by the express terms of the conntriision; was necessary that there should be two ConiMissioners present. In the second place, the verdict was not judicially entered at the time When sentence was pronouneed."
Lord Tenterden—" Were these errors assigned ?"
Mr. Carlile—" They were. Time commission expressly provided A at the proceedings should be conducted before two or more of the Commis-
sioners, and here only one was present when the verdict was given ; so that the verdict was not oire on which sentence could be pronounced." As to the secOnd.Point of error in fact, Mr. Carlile contended that it was manifest error, that the sentence had been pronounced before the verdict was entered of record.
Lord Tenterden—" That is not the assignment. The assignment is,' that the verdict was not entered at the time it was given. It could. not be entered till after it was given."
Mr. Carlile said, the fact was as he had stated it, although it ap- peared that there was a mistake in time assignment. He must, then, rest his case on the ground that the legal number of Commissioners was not present when the verdict was given.
Mr. NVeightman, for the Crown, contended that in civil cases, and cases of misdemeanour, the verdict might be given in to anyone judge in his chambers even.
Mr. Justice Pattiion—" Except in criminal cases, extending to life or limb."
Mr. Weightman also contended, that if this were an error, it could not be assigned consistently with the record. Carlile observed, that the reception of the verdict was a most im- portant act of the-Court ; and, as to life and limb, there had been cases of libel where the punishment extended to limb at least. Hands had been cut off for it ; and it was a well-known matter of history, that ears had been cut off forit, as a celebrated lawyer (Mr.,Prynne) had felt to his cost. If this doctrine were to prevail, there could be no security against false verdicts. The Court are to deliier their opinions on the point to-day. To us, who are no lawyers by profession, the most wonderful part of the whole affair is, to find so ordinary a case of every-day practice still a matter of discussion.