IMAGE EVALUATION 
 TEST TARGET (MT-3) 
 
 // 
 
 {./ 
 
 ^ 
 
 % 
 
 
 mJ. 
 
 
 4^ 
 
 (/. 
 
 
 1.0 
 
 I.I 
 
 ■-IM 
 "^ Its. 
 
 Hi 
 
 IL25 i 1.4 
 
 2.5 
 2.2 
 
 2.0 
 
 lU 
 
 1.6 
 
 
 c/^ 
 
 Fiiol ^ 
 
 Scisices 
 Corporation 
 
 ^ 
 
 iV 
 
 9> 
 
 « 
 
 
 o 
 
 w^ 
 
 
 o^ 
 
 23 WEST MAIN STREET 
 
 WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580 
 
 (716) 872-4503 
 
 ^9>'- 
 
fJx 
 
 CIHM 
 Microfiche 
 Series 
 (Monographs) 
 
 ICIVIH 
 
 Collection de 
 microfiches 
 (monographies) 
 
 Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques 
 
Technical and Bibliographic Notes / Notes techniques et bibliographiques 
 
 The Institute has attempted to obtain the best original 
 copy available for filming. Features of this copy which 
 may be bibliographically unique, which may alter any 
 of the images in the reproduction, or which may 
 significantly change the usual method of filming, are 
 checked below. 
 
 n 
 
 Coloured covers/ 
 Couverture de couleur 
 
 L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire qu'il 
 lui a et6 possible de se procurer. Les details de cet 
 exemplaire qui sont peut-£tre uniques du point de vue 
 bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier une image 
 reproduite. cu qui peuvent exiger une modification 
 dans la methode normale de f ilmage sont indiques 
 ci-dessous. 
 
 □ Coloured pages/ 
 Pages de couleur 
 
 I I Covers damaged/ 
 
 D 
 
 Couverture endommagee 
 
 Covers restored and/or laminated/ 
 Couverture restauree et/ou pelliculee 
 
 ] I Cover title missing/ 
 
 D 
 
 Le titre de couverture manque 
 
 Coloured maps/ 
 
 Caites g^ographiques en couleur 
 
 □ Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ 
 Encre de couleur (i.e. 
 
 
 D 
 
 n 
 
 autre que bleue ou noire) 
 
 Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ 
 Planches et/ou illustrations en couleu. 
 
 Bound with other material/ 
 Relie avec d'autres documents 
 
 Tight binding rriy cause shadows or distortion 
 along interior margin/ 
 
 La reliure serree peut causer de I'ombre ou de la 
 distorsion le long de la marge interieure 
 
 Blank leaves added during restoration may appear 
 within the text. Whenever possible, these have 
 been omitted from filming/ 
 II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajouties 
 lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, 
 mais, lorsque cela etait possible, ces pages n'ont 
 pas ete filmees. 
 
 Additional comments:/ 
 Commentaires supplementaires: 
 
 □ Pages d&maged/ 
 Pages endommagees 
 
 □ Pages restored and/or laminated/ 
 Pages restaurees et/ou pellicultes 
 
 I A Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ 
 1 I Pages decolorees, tachetees ou piquees 
 
 □ Pages detached/ 
 Pages detachees 
 
 0Showthrough/ 
 Transparence 
 
 □ Quality of print varies/ 
 Qualite inegale de I'imp 
 
 impression 
 
 □ Continuous pagination/ 
 Pagination continue 
 
 □ Includes index(es)/ 
 Comprend un (des) index 
 
 Title on header taken from:/ 
 Le titre de I'entite provient: 
 
 □ Title page of issue/ 
 Page de titre de la livraison 
 
 □ Caption of issue/ 
 Titre de depart de la 
 
 vraison 
 
 □ Masth 
 Gener 
 
 Masthead/ 
 
 ique (periodiques) de la livraison 
 
 This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ 
 
 Ce document est f ilme au taux de reduction ind-que ci-dessous. 
 
 10^ 14X lax 
 
 ■nx 
 
 1\ 
 
 26 X 
 
 X!X 
 
 12X 
 
 16X 
 
 20X 
 
 24 X 
 
 28X 
 
 32 X 
 
The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks 
 to the generosity of: 
 
 Nova Scotia Public Archives 
 
 L'exemplaire film6 fut reproduit grlire d la 
 g6n6rosit6 de: 
 
 IMova Scotia Public Archives 
 
 The images appearing here are the best quality 
 possible considering the condition and legibility 
 of the original copy and in keeping with the 
 filming contract specifications. 
 
 Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed 
 beginning with the front cover and ending on 
 the last page with a printed or illustrated impres- 
 sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All 
 other original copies are filmed beginning on the 
 first page with a printed or illustrated impres- 
 sion, and ending on the last page with a printed 
 or illustrated impression. 
 
 The last recorded frame on each microfiche 
 shall contain the symbol — »- (meaning "CON- 
 TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"), 
 whichever applies. 
 
 Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at 
 different reduction ratios. Those too large to be 
 entirely included in one exposure are filmed 
 beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to 
 right and top to bottom, as many frames as 
 required. The following diagrams illustrate the 
 method: 
 
 Les images suivantes ont 6t6 reproduites avec le 
 plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et 
 de la nettet6 de l'exemplaire film6, et en 
 conformit6 avec les conditions du contrat de 
 filmage. 
 
 Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en 
 papier est imprim6e sont film6s en commengant 
 par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la 
 Jdrni6re page qui comporte une empreinte 
 d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second 
 plat, selon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires 
 origiriaux sont film6s en commencant par la 
 premiere page qui comporte une empreinte 
 d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par 
 la dernidre page qui comporte une telle 
 empreinte. 
 
 Un des symboles suivants apparaitra sur la 
 dernidre image de chaque microfiche, selon le 
 cas: le symbole — »► signifie "A SUIVRE", le 
 symbole V signifie "FIN". 
 
 Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent etre 
 film6s i des taux de r6duction diff6rents. 
 Lorsque le document est trop grand pour etre 
 reproduit en un seul clich6, il est film6 d partir 
 de I'angle sup6rieur gauche, de gauche d droite, 
 et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre 
 d'images n6cessaire. Les diagrammes suivants 
 illustrent la m6thode. 
 
 32 X 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 5 
 
 6 
 
REVIEW 
 
 ( ^J 
 
 OF THE 
 
 JTJIDGhn^BIIiTTS 
 
 OF THE 
 
 SUPREME COURT 
 
 IN 
 
 ^"'^^^^ 
 
 THE QUEEN 
 
 "^ 
 
 \ 
 
 
 VS' 
 
 7 -0^^ 
 
 JOSEPH CHASSON. 
 
 -«oi»io» • 
 
 BIT ID^VIX) S. ICES-ia, B-A.iaiaiSTEia, Q,. c. 
 
 SAINT JOHN, N. B. : 
 
 PHIHTBD AT THl " DAILY SEWS " BTSAM JOB PHINTU!6 5STABLI8HH1KT-. C4ST8RB17BY ST. 
 
 1876. 
 
 
 Public (Vrchi 
 
 ,.s ot Nova Scotia 
 
\, "' 
 
 ', 
 
 ' • * ^ ■ -^ '^\ >^. 
 
 
 
 ' ' _ 
 
 . ;v ■ 
 
 
 
 
 ■ t 
 ■ J 
 
 1 ' 
 
 
 * 
 
 1 
 
 T 
 
 ad 
 
 •■:■ k 
 
 .T- r 'T < 
 
•^>x >^ 
 
 
 •'^ 
 
 ^v- 
 
 f. 
 
 <^C 
 
 The Queen vs. Joseph Chasson. 
 
 This case was tried at Bathurst, before the Chief Justice, at the 
 adjourned Gloucester Circuit, for 1875, beginning in October and 
 lasting upwards of forty days, upon an indictment against the 
 prisoner Chasson and eight others, as principals in the first degree 
 for the murder of one John Gifford, at Caraquet, on the 27th of 
 January, 1875, the trial being of Chasson alone. 
 
 Numerous objections, to the number of 48, were made and 
 reserved at the trial (two others being added at Term) by the 
 prisoner's counsel, the whole of which were decided by the Chief 
 Justice in favoi- o' the Crown. Various of the objections arose on 
 the impanneling of the jury, which occupied nearly seven days, in 
 challfnges to the jurors, demurrers to challenges, and to the triers 
 of the examination and cross-examination of jurors, as to opinions 
 which they had formed, etc., a course allowed by His Honor, but 
 strongly objected to, throughout by the Crown counsel, as con- 
 trary to the right, the dignity and utility of a juror, and finally 
 adjudged in favor of the jurors right, as maintained by the Crown 
 counsel, in the following judgments of the Supreme Couit. 
 Many of the objections, were to the reception and rejection of 
 evidence on the trial, upon several of which the majority of the 
 Court determined for quashing the conviction, Mr. Justice Wbldon 
 differing upon additional objections of quashing, all of which, 
 form the subject of this review. A verdict of guilty of murder, 
 was found by the jury, with a recommendation to mercy, and at 
 the termination of the case, it was consented that six of tbe other 
 prisoners might withdraw their pleas and plead guilty of man- 
 slaughter, subject to the above objections, the other two being 
 discharged by an .entry of nolle prosequi. 
 
 A lengthy special case, enumerating all the objections, was 
 submitted by the Chief Justice, to the Supterae Court, the matters 
 were fully argued in Enster Term last and the judgm/snt delivered 
 in Trinity Term last. The case and the objections so far as they are 
 
4 THE QUEEN vs. JOSEPH CHASSOJT. 
 
 material for the understanding of the subject sufficiently appear 
 m the receptive judgments of Mr. Justice Weldo^, and the' 
 majonty of the Court and by the review whUh ftlloW, wherein 
 many questions of great interest to the public and to the legal 
 profession are presented : 
 
 Judgment of Wbldox, J. Thi« case wa« tHod before the Chief Justice at 
 
 Jurv hTr ""■ " ^^°"''"**'^^ "* "'"^^ ^»- Grand Jury Ldlpfa 
 Jury had been summoned. At the Circuit iu September, a S of Mcl 
 men had been found against the prispner and tea other prisouer" fo^ 
 mt^dor, and the order to summon one hundred and fifty petit ^0^^^ 
 made in consequence. A nolle prosequi was entered on that ^OlTf 
 Indictmen , and another Bill of Indictment was submitted U he Grank 
 Jurj^ A rue biU was found, charging the defendant and eilt other 
 pei^ons wi^h the crime of murder. The defendant. Joseph C Wn one 
 
 behalf of the Crown, claimed the right to have the jurors obiected to 
 stand aside until the panel was gone through without a s S any 
 cause. By the 32 and 33 Vic, c. 29, sec. 38. it is enactedf-Tn 2^ 
 criminal trials whether for treason, felony or misdemeanour f ur h™ 
 maybe peremptorily challenged on the part of the-Crown; bit th s "ha 
 not be construed to affect the right of the Crown to cau e any jlr tl 
 
 (8 E. & B. 55}; 3 Jurist N. S. 564), and on appeal (4 Jurist 435rjnri 
 
 487), shews what the right is, which, practically speaking "the Crown 
 has an unhmited right of challenge till the panel is exhauld "L/r 
 was considered as disposed of at the hearin'g, it notte ^ at ar^t 
 question. ll,en as to the challenge of jurors, requiring it tott 
 wnfang, and to what it shall contain and the extent which a ZrmZ 
 be examined. As to the challenge being put in writing, aU the'u hori 
 les seem to agree that it should be made in such form'as to be puU^ 
 the record. Abbott, C. J., in Re:, y. Edmonds (4 B. & Aid 471 in 
 delivenng the judgment of the Court in that case says : " Every chaienge 
 either to the array or to the polls, ought to be propounded in'such a Vav 
 that it may be put at the time upon the Msi PnL record .Z ^ 
 
 ijcular were they in early times, Ihen chaUe Jrirm 1 l: Zl 
 It was made a question (in 27 Hen 8 13 B nl q<i^ wi. ^r, 7. 
 a f^4■„^ J * i. i . ' '' P^' ^°) whether it was not 
 
 a fatal defect to omit the conolndin" nf u ~|t, J. . . , ""'^ 
 
 ver^j^care. and it was because many precedents were shewn without 
 
 
T. 
 
 -^ 
 
 
 THE Q0EEN V8. JOSEPH CHASSON. 
 
 
 
 such a conclusion, and the justices did not chooso to depart from the 
 precedents, that it was held unnoceHnary. When a challenge is made, 
 the adverse party may either demur (which bring* into consideration the 
 legal validity of the matter of ehalleng«) or counterplead (by setting up 
 some new matter consistent with the matter of challenge to vacate and 
 annul it as a ground of challenge), or he may deny what is alleged for 
 matter of challenge, and it is then, and then only, that triers are to be 
 appointed." After quoting various insta.ices in which the objections had 
 been put on the records, his Lordship thus proceeds : " The challenges, 
 therefore, ought to be put upon the rucord, and the dependants are not in 
 a condition, in strictness, to ask of the Court an opinion upon their 
 sufficiency." This case ^hews very dearly that the Chief Justice was 
 right in requiring the challenges to be in writing. It may not be 
 necessary in all cases it should be in writing; it is in the discretion of 
 the Judge, when a challenge is made and decided at once, without 
 requiring evidence, to prove the charge of partiality, or that the juror 
 has a bias or prejudice which unfits him for being a juror, and disposed 
 of at once, it is unnecessarj- to put in writing; bu*, when questions may 
 arise upon the challenge in subsequent proceedings, it is for the benefit 
 and security of the party challenging to have it put in writing, so as 
 to have the benefit of it afterwards as forming part of the record. It is 
 laid down in Coke Littleton, 158 b. : " If the cause of challenge touch the 
 dishonor or credit of the juror, he shall not be examined upon his oath. 
 But in other cases he shall be examined upon his oath to inform the 
 triers. This is one instance of the examination called a voir dire ; for a 
 witness is, on a voir dire to try an objection to his competency, to give 
 evidence ; so a juror may be sworn in like manner to try the cause of 
 challenge to him. It is thought fit to take notice of this, because in some 
 of our books the voir dire is described as if confined to the challenge of a 
 witness, and only used to distinguish such a partial swearing of a witness 
 from swearing him in chief." From the mode of examinations on the 
 voir dire, which is so limited from an examination of a witness sworn in 
 chief, shows clearly, in my opinion, that a juror summoned to attend the 
 Court, which is not a voluntary attendance, he is supposed to come 
 indifferent between the litigants, and, therefore, it is not allowable that 
 he should be treated as a hostile party upon being challenged for cause ; 
 the cause being stated, he is sworn as to his being indifferent ; or if he 
 has any prejudice against the party, or hath declared his opinion before- 
 hand, the language of Mr. Sergeant Hawkins upon this subject (Leb. 2, 
 Ch. 43, sec. 28) is, that if a juryman "hath declared his opinion before- 
 hand, that, the party is guilty, or will be hanged, or the like, yet if it 
 shall appear that the juror hath made such declaration from his know- 
 
6 
 
 THE QUEKN v«. JOSEPH CHA880N. 
 
 a luryraan will „ot bo h good cau l of .,"' '^'' '^ '^' '^«'Ia™«on of 
 torm« or ""d- circu„.tanoo« j ,.:1: j'^'f;"'- '* bo ™ado i„ 
 chaUonging. Thin i« probably ca"r^ V "f ."^"" *°^"''« ^^o party 
 
 to constitute a good chaUenge tooTr I '" f ^^"* '^ "^°««"y 
 
 Prcjudico ag.i„Ht tho party on his trial it woul^r « ' ^'""'^ '''"« «' 
 h»H exprosM aa unfavorablo opinion oMK ^° ""«"«'>*. «' that he 
 good. cauHO; but if a juror has ne^ e;'.^:/"""'':'^ ''-' ^"^^ be 
 opimuns more or less who thiuk o^ hav H '" T'°''~^'' "^^ ^-^^^ 
 question to bo triod-it would no ^Z ""'*^"'^ '^^^'^""^ '° ^h« 
 
 c-hallongo. !» AVz, Chall 22 th! • ^ "P""""' ^" ^''^ g^und for 
 "If ho will pa«s fo ore if ' ^IZ^'Z "' ''^"""- " ^'"s given 
 Wablo; so. if he h./ a1\o Xl: T'*" '° *"° °^ '^^'^ ^« " 
 affection that he ha. to the pars onTnd not f .k"" '""'' '' '' »>« '^r 
 that he ha« knowledge of i't. h i: not fl m° *"*' °' *''*'"»«- 
 '«q«iro of that of what I hav aid " Th T ' ' ^''''''''' J'"" ^U 
 triers, as given in the FenrBooHr J^^'^^'^' "^ B^»^^otox to the 
 himself to tho triers, ho s ^ • "if Z^' 1 P" '''' - ^^us addressing 
 he will pass for the one or'the oiL^TtZt T" '" *"'' " ^'^'- 
 a man has said twenty ti.es that ';-lf;VX'r ^'^^'^^^ ^"* '^ 
 you will inquire on your oaths wb.fi, .? ^'' ""° "'' ^ho other, 
 
 that he has to the m^y ort TotjJ]'' T« -" ^e for affectio 
 
 otherwise not; and if he has more „ff V . ° ^^ '" favorable, but 
 
 the other, but if he has a Z Wl d" ^t ! ^'V" ■ *'^" ^^ ^^ *° 
 -worn he will speak the truth, notw^thstai T"' '" ''''''' '^ ^' be 
 the party, then he is not fav ral^' !? °f ^''^ '^'^'^^«°° be has for 
 J. : " Not sufficient freehold Tg old chflf" ^'% ^'' '' ' ^^ ^««-^-. 
 himself shall be sworn whether ho 1^?'' ""^ '^P'*" *^" *be partj^ 
 authorities. Abboxx. C. J in r/L ^v! 'f;""* °'' '"''•'' ^he ancient 
 AM. 492, says: ..Shew Z^^:;, t ^'f ^^ ^^^ (^ Barn. * 
 cause of challenge unless thev are to blTf 1 ^ ' J"'^"'"" '''^ °°t « 
 iUw-m towards the partv chTllen J„? f. '" '°™^*^^°^ "^ P^'-^onal 
 is not to be sworn when" the "r!; 2^ *'^* *bo juryman himself 
 andtobesure.itisverydishonrLlof^^^^^^^ *"'^ '"^ ''« ''^^^"^r ; 
 a person accused of crime in reg^'fto the nTn :?''"^ '"^""^ '^^-^'^ 
 challenges to the jurors were mol;!.. ^T' '" "^"^^«°-" ^he 
 having entertained opinions, orrpirdtinTo "^""^ "^ ^be jurors 
 unfavorable to the prisoner The rectirrri''^'''*' "^ *^°'' "''"'^^ 
 the said John Chalmers had hertoffr! Z . ''^ ^''^^"^"' ^«*- ^'^t 
 the prisoner without reasorable ^ '^ '" °P^"'°" '^'^^^^^Iv t„ 
 
 "" '^^' ^^"^^' '''^ ^^ "°^ prejudiced againstthe 
 
t ' 
 
 Yt it is no cause 
 ' declaration of 
 it bo made in 
 'ards the party 
 *t 18 necessary 
 strong bias or 
 nt, or that he 
 iHG, Would be 
 —for all have 
 •Jating to the 
 d ground for 
 
 thus given ; 
 'r false, ho is 
 
 if it bo for 
 f the matter 
 "ro you will 
 foTON to the 
 * addroHfling 
 ■"ue or false, 
 iWe; but if 
 ■ the other, 
 or affection 
 ' matter in 
 orable, but 
 
 be has to 
 0, if ho be 
 he has for 
 
 Fkowick, 
 the party 
 
 ancient 
 4 Barn. & 
 we not a 
 !■ personal 
 
 1 himself 
 lishonor ; 
 
 '■ towards 
 1." The 
 'e jurors 
 ir minds 
 St. That 
 irseiy to 
 inst the 
 
 THE QUEEN vs. JOSEPH CHASSON. 7 
 
 prisoner. The juror was sworu and examined. Other jurors in like 
 maaaer. There wa« no proof, nor any offer to prove, the jurors challenged 
 had made any expression of their opinions hostile to the prisoner by 
 extrinsic evidence, but the jurors were subjected to a cross-examination 
 by the prisoner's counsel. One of the jurors (Payne) stared he probably 
 had expressed an opinion about the case from what he had read in the 
 newspapers, but did not think he had expressed any opinion of the guilt 
 or innocence of the prisoner. The learned Chief .f ustice refused to allow 
 the juror to bo abked if he had formed an opinion as to the result whether 
 it would be justice or injustice. The learned Chief Justice refused to 
 allow such questions to be put, and I am of the opinion he was right in 
 this refusal. It certainly is not allowable from any decided cases that I 
 can discover, that a juror has to be subjected to a rigorous cross-exami- 
 nation as was attempted by the counsel for the prisoner. Several cases 
 were cited from the American Courts in favor of the course pursued by 
 the counsel for the prisoner, and however highly such authorities are 
 valued, I am of the opinion it would not be desirable to extend the right 
 of examining a juror chaUeuged further than is allowed in the English 
 Courts, and that the mode of examination is that hitherto allowed to a 
 witness on his voir dire. U challeuges to jurors were so confined, it 
 renders their being in writing unnecessary ; but if a number of witnesses 
 were to be examined, and a lengthy examination take plwe, then the 
 challenge ought to be in writing. This is for the Judge in his discretion to 
 direct it to be in writing, if any question is to arise in regard to it 
 afterwards. Improper reception of evidence and rejjctiou of evidence 
 was given to shew the prisoner had done acts of riot and robbery with 
 others on the 15th January^ which led to the issue of a warrant against 
 him that he was liable to be proceeded n -'st, and to shew a motive for 
 fearing the constables and James G. C. .a..Khall had been examined by 
 the Crown to shew this. The prisoner's counsel proposed to cross-exumlue 
 the witness to prove all that had taken place on the 14th Jauuarj', at a 
 school meeting ; that he come there with others ; that the proceedings 
 alleged to be acts of riot and robbery arose out of that meeting, and the 
 offence which the prisoner was charged with was not as the witness had 
 described. The objection to this is two-fold. First. Such evidence of 
 the prisoner having committed an offence, for which, upon information 
 or affidavit made, a warrant might issue, was inadmissible on two grounds, 
 1st. That it was not a similar offence to the one charged, and for which 
 he was on his trial. 2nd. If the alleged offence was one the prisoner 
 hod not been couvictcd upuQ, he had the right, by •?ro"s-cxamin!S-..'.nn nt 
 the Crown witness Blackball, then under examination, to shew all the 
 facts out of which what took place on the 15th January aro=^, to negative 
 
8 
 
 ™' "'"■''''' ••• ^-xmi c»,vs«oK. 
 
 «t-l."K oioth from a certain 1"- fi?;."" ^'''^" *^-' "^ «" in.li tmt„[f„r 
 
 ; Javc been stolen, evidea.-e w^' : r;':/''"''*^ ^"^^ "-^■- "^""^ "/i 
 
 "f th^vloth mentioned i„ the im /^"'' P''"^''"''"'' *" t>ie la Lnt 
 
 pos«e.«on of other cloth whi h h ^ h '"'"t" .""" P"^""- ^a,! ^ n^ 
 
 property of differ,,^ „,„„^ ^ f !>;-> «toIen from another mi] the 
 
 i^ourts the case against an uecu«,.r? n " ' "">"= "I" the Frnnr-h 
 
 t^T r"-^ --i"^uC;::ft'' ''°'""^^"™^ ^^-^- 
 
 JormB the subject of inquiry !,„. .u? °^ ^''^ «"™« «ort as that which 
 I" ^ases of uttering forged not " "^ '''" ^'^»«*'- "^ o«. W 1 
 
 -cemng stolen goods, knot to L Im"' "'^" *« ^" Gorged, nd of 
 to m^ evidence of utterings a /of o^' '* " "^^ """''*-* P'^cHce 
 
 Zl ttt th '"°' """• "'' 'ta Mr p"£ '^ J°? r'" ''°'«'"'* 
 ana tHat the persons who },„^ 7 f"'^*^' ^as shat by HemthJh^^ 
 
 gearing that they should be Ir^'^'^ f™--^^ *" s^^ g' 
 
 Parker, murdered Hemmings, 'rtlr^^^^^ hired him to shoS 
 
 tion of the prisoner, showing thaf \, v "^^^ 8^^«°- °^ «he declara. 
 and it was proposed to sTow that ff " -'"''^ 'W^"- agafnst Pa S 
 Parker had been murdered ifl^^vT "'^^ *^« P«^«on by S 
 
 "'/■).( 
 

 I 'im unnblt. to 
 ImisNiblo. Thi^ 
 Tt with Othf.!*,' 
 "^ on fh6 27f,h 
 th flomo othors, 
 "ifl uotico th6 
 ''/'('/ (20 L. J. 
 inJietiJiont for 
 ic, knowing |t 
 " t*io Jaroony 
 hu'l been irr 
 her nii]l, the 
 '''<•. finrl trhw 
 
 t'lo Pronch 
 
 ^y ovidcnra 
 I that which 
 'f ont law." 
 ged, and of 
 nt pfactico 
 
 1 view of 
 ;« (R. & R. 
 inflictmcrit 
 r^g Was yy 
 it another 
 
 >f iR!</. t. 
 
 3 piisoner 
 hat grout 
 onei^ had 
 ho' "W-onlti 
 ;nntiifig^; 
 PSiffrer, 
 to' sho6t 
 'ti found 
 dedara'- 
 Park^f, 
 
 ^^hoin 
 
 I 'to tie 
 
 yttDAtt 
 
 rttaebu- 
 inMags 
 
 -fi.»u' 
 vtitcrti 
 
 guiit. 
 
 THE QUEKN vn. J08KPH CIIA8H0N. 9 
 
 Now, to ancortaiii whether or not that was ho in point of ftict, it is 
 uoocHsary I should roceivo «vitlon<'i) rcHpi-citing the mnrdor of Mr. Purkor,"' 
 and hiH Lordship recoived the evidence. The t'licts ol' the case now under 
 conmderation is by no inoanH BiraiUir. It m evident that what took plaeo 
 on the I5th January ha<! its origin aiid commenced on th'.> 14th January 
 at a whool meeting. The ovidenci given by the (Vown, on the part of 
 *ho prosecution, that for some act done on the loth January a warrant 
 might or might not issue, and the prisoner had notice that the deceased, who 
 had only arrived on the nu)rning of the 5i7th Januarj' from Miramichi, 
 was aiding the constable to execute the warrant. 'Iho fact of an act 
 being alleged against him (the prisoner), wliieh his counsel UHsuraes ho 
 can prove was not a crime, is to be received as evidence against the 
 prisoner of his knowledge that the paily coming to Albert's house were 
 constables, and was for the purpose of arresting him, appears to be 
 unsupported by any case The off'ctico in not of the «ame sort or kind. 
 la The Queen V. CkMij. before referred to. Lord Cami-bbil says: "The 
 law of England does not allow one crime to be proved in order to raise a 
 probability that another crime has been committed by the perpetrator of 
 the first." la liexy. Ellis (G B. & Cra. 145), Baylet, J.: "Generally 
 speaking, it is not comijotent for a prosecutor to prove a man guilty of 
 one felony, by proving him guilty of auother unconvicted tclony." In 
 Rex v. Crocker (2 Leach ^87), a charge of forging one promissory note 
 was supported by evidence that another one was found in tin prisonor'b 
 pocket book that was forged. The evidence was admitted by the Judge 
 at tho Assizes. But the prisoner was afterwards released on a case 
 submitted to tho twelve Judge*, who thought the evidence inadmissible. 
 Tho evidence does uot show that the prisoner knew that a warrant was 
 out against him for the offence alleged to be committed on the 15th 
 January, and yet this evidence is offered, from which tho jury arc to 
 infer he had such knowledge and was prepared to resist, and was aftting 
 in consort with others to resist. Lord Campbbli, further says: "The 
 rule which has prevailed in tho cose of indictments for uttering forged 
 bank notes to different persons has gone to great length, and I should 
 not be willing to see that rule applied generally to the administration of 
 criminal law." Tho evidence was, in my opinion, wholly inadmissible, 
 and a conviction obtained by siieh ovidetice cannot, 'in inyopiiiidti, fatt 
 sustained. Not allowing the prisoner's counsel io cross-examine the 
 witness, as to what was the origin of the alleged offence, was equally 
 objectionable ; ho clearly had a right to do that. Tho calliiig a witness 
 on behalf of the nroscoutioti to orove one fact, does not. in mv oninion 
 prevent his being fully cross-examined as to everything liri m&y knoif 
 abdut the matter that led to the offence of which he alleges tlie priso^ier 
 2 
 
10 
 
 THE QUEEN vs. TOSEPH CHASSON. 
 
 was guilty of. If it was objected to also on the ground that evidence of 
 what took place was irrelevant and not applicable, and, therefore, ought 
 not to be allowed on crosB-examination. I think the learned Chief 
 Justice right in refusing further evidence on the subject. The Crown 
 having got improper evidence in, does not justify the introduction of 
 illegal evidence by the prisoner. The inconvenience of evidence of other 
 acts of the prisoner to shew he had been guilty of some illegal act prior 
 to that upon which h« is being tried, and to shew he is a bad character, 
 \t> not admissible under English law. First, it would be taking the 
 prisoner by surprise ; and secondly, of raising many different issues. Sec 
 The Queen v. Holmes (41 L. J. Rep., M. C. 12). Robert Young appears 
 to have been called, on the part of the prosecution, to describe shot marks 
 in the house where Gifford was shot, and the prisoner's counsel claim to 
 cross-examine him upon this and other subjects arising out of the arrest 
 of the prisoner; he having stated in the cross-examination that he was 
 President of the Executive Council, and his cross-examination by 
 prisoner's counsel disallowed on being objected to. Some of the ques- 
 tions were certainly not relevant, but others of them were, in my 
 opinion, admissible as evidence to shew the feeling and prejudices of the 
 witness, what part he had taken ; all this went to his «redit. What 
 the shot marks were in evidence for does not appear. Because the 
 witness was President of the Executive Council gave him no immunity 
 from being cross-examined in the same manner as any other witness. If 
 he had taken an active part in carrying on this prosecution, and the 
 question is put to him on cross-examination, he must answer the rama 
 as any other person who may be on the witness stand. It by no means 
 follows that having been placed in the witness box to prove one thing, 
 he is exempt from answering upon all other subjects in connection with 
 the offence upon which the prisoner is being tried. The answers which 
 the witness might have given to some of the questions would lead to 
 others which might benefit the prisoner. It appeared by the case that 
 one of the constables discharged his rifle through the trap door of the 
 entrance up stairs. There is a conflict of evidence whether there were 
 shots prior to any act being done by the prisoners, and that they had not 
 been ordered to surrender. The question to Sewell on cross-examination, 
 whether he had not boasted " that he had shot Mailloux," the Frenchman 
 killed in the loft. The question, if answered in the affirmative, would 
 not criminate the witness. It appeared, if said, to be only a silly boast, 
 but it would certainly go to his credit. He was called as a witness for 
 i-Vr. n-«™r„ 4-/> r^rrii an oonmitif. nf wbat. took place: he havina given part, 
 must give the whole if interrogated to do so. The examination of 
 Gammon having shewn there was difficulty in making arrests that 
 
THE aUEEN V8. JOSEPH CHASSOiV 
 
 morning, when the prisoner's counsel asked the witness what the trouble 
 Was. To my mind, this question should have been answered, as the 
 answer might shew there was cause for alarm which induced the people 
 who were at Albeit's house to hide themselves, and tliat they did not go 
 there with an intent to resist, or for any illegal purpose. It was not the 
 people of the County who were called out to aid or aosist the Sheriff in 
 the execution of his duty, but a number of strangers armed, from the 
 adjoining County, had arrived in the village ; all this might have pro- 
 duced alarm among the people. When Chasson (the prisoner) went to 
 Albert's house, it did not appear, up to that time, there was any common 
 intent shewn, or evidence to shew after all were assembled at Albert's, 
 the prisoners were there with a common object, but an innocent meeting, 
 was all-important ; and when they went into tho loft, the discharge of a 
 rifle from one of the constables would necessa excite alarm, I am of 
 opinion Fabien Dugas should have been allowed to state what the armed 
 men were going about Caraquet for, pud also to state what 
 the people at Albert's said they wore there for. It was a part of the whole 
 transaction for which the prisoners were assembled at Albert's house. 
 The prosecution contended it was for an unlawful purpose to resist the 
 constable, and any evidence to negative this, or shew what they were really 
 there for, what they said and did, is to shew the object in being there. 
 It is the only evidence which the nature of the case is capable of being 
 jiven to enable the jury to find upon. The questions very properly left 
 by the Chief Justice to the jury, viz.: 1. Whether the prisoners knew 
 that the English people, who came to Albert's house, were constables, 
 and the purpose for which they came there ? 2. Whether the prisoners 
 were assembled at Albert's house with the common purpose of resisting 
 the Sheriff or constables, etc. ? or 3. Whether they went there to hide 
 themselves, and through fear because they saw a body of armed men 
 coming to the house, and without any intention of resisting ? These 
 were the issues for the jury to find, ar*d any evidence bearing upon 
 these questions was relevant, and important to enable to arrive at a 
 proper conclusion. It must be borne in mind that the charge is, that the 
 prisoner and nine other persons, who are named in the indictment, but 
 who are not on their trial, were charged with constructive murdery and, 
 therefore, are witnesses as well on behalf of the Crown as the prisoner, 
 and are charged with having i.'onspired together with common intent to 
 resist the constables in executing their warrants, or persons acting ill aid 
 of the constables, and one is shot by some one of the prisoners or by 
 MaiUoux, who was with them. The evidence of the parties charged with 
 the prisoner in the indictment was tendered to shew the purpose for 
 which they met at Albert's house on the 27th January, and all that they 
 
12 
 
 THE QUEEN vs. JOSEPH CHASSON. 
 
 what waa their object in ^in^t^T T^^ '^''"' '" *'^^ ''''■ ^-^ 
 and they were alarmed andfo J t '* '^'*' ^"'' '^ ^'^^^^ P«T>08e, 
 
 of constructively brgguutSth''': •^'"«'' ^^^°«^ *^« ?"-- 
 in my opinion, clearly^ti^e fT"' ," ff ^ ^his evidence was. 
 
 to tell the jur^ to look at hZ ^^^ ^^'^' ^" '"^^ = " ^* ^"^^ ^e right 
 in account C she wa« 1 1 '^?.*'"'=^ ^'*^ ^^^^ caution, and to take 
 did carefully direct To T "'^T •^«' '^^ ^ ^o not doubt that the Judge 
 finuatory e^idtn 1 tT^ n," d tt H ' ^'^^ ''''' ^^ ^^^^ -- 
 accomplice is a witness tTefh- .• ! ' ^' "'"'^^ ^«**^' *^a* ^hen an 
 as posaible, andr W^ 'V^ ^ *V''* "^*"''^^ ^^"^-^ »>« - slight 
 .judicious, where th'T r^ ' *^"* '*^ ^''"^^' '^ ^ general rule be 
 
 of the iu'd^ttrnt b; a 2?:; r"^^^^t ^'*' *'^ ^^'-' *«^«p- 
 
 - called as a witnes' so tha 1 7"^ "' ''' ""^"^P^^^'^ ^<^f«- 'I'e 
 
 beasslightaspossibr b: h , 71 v°''"^^ ^'^ *^"*^ ^^'"^'i 
 of the witness, but itllv 1! II . '^ "^^''''"' *" ^'^^ adniissibility 
 given to her." 8^1^^' degree of credit which should be 
 
 eredittothestatel 3of theTther ' '^ '" *'^ ''"^^ *" ^^ ^^ 
 and to decide upon the ouesi "^^^^ P™oners named in tho indictment, 
 
 of all the witness! ^tor *° ^''^^ '"" *^^ *^««--y 
 
 AxnKKso^, B.. i„ Macklts en .rr"'" '^'^"^ ^*^ ^ ^"'^'"^'^ intent. 
 "Again, it is\\1^SXjTf,^T-: '''^' *'"^ ^^^« '^"-^ *^« law 
 pursuance of a commo^ntenT' "'"^ ^"""^ ^'^^ *°^«*^- i^ 
 
 intent by ea.h of Tern s in 'laTJ .'"" " '"^^"^^^'^''^ °^ -«h 
 pursuance of the comZn I ont ^tfif ' ' , ''^ "* "^'^^^ ^^ ^ 
 agree together t« frighten a conlbl ^^ ' """'" *^ ^'^^''''^ '^^'^ 
 
 the head, such an act wou^nff . .';: T ''''' '' '^''' ^^^ ^J^rough 
 done" (1 Bnssel i: Crim tt) ^^^-^ -^^ ^y whom it wL 
 have been allowed to ^Tl T'^ '"" ^^''''' '^'"^^ °«rtainly 
 
 --- ^n i« ass "tsss^s^'5SS=« 
 
THE QUEEN, vs. JOSEPH CHAS80N. 
 
 13 
 
 they (Jid not 
 iraid. Aud 
 i'ful purpose, 
 fcho prisoner 
 ndence was, 
 eived. The 
 n error (36 
 aid be right 
 ind to take 
 t the Judge 
 ample con- 
 ■t when an 
 )e as slight 
 al rule, be 
 
 to dispose 
 before she 
 ith should 
 missibility 
 should be 
 give such 
 idictment, 
 testimony 
 on intent, 
 
 the law : 
 gether in 
 ' of such 
 ist be in 
 tend a,nd 
 1 through 
 m it was 
 3ertainly 
 1 counsel 
 Jsist the 
 purpose, 
 to their 
 
 cted for 
 Thomas 
 nd they 
 naLle to 
 'harlot tc 
 e indict- 
 W'urded. 
 itted or 
 w'ituess. 
 
 knowledge of these being constables. The witnesses should have been 
 allowed to state their intontione when in the loft. This was evidence to 
 be submitted to the jury ; the credit due tq their statements was for the 
 jury ; and if there was no common intent, and the jury arrived at that 
 conclusion, the shooting of Gifford would only affect the individual who 
 fired the shot which caused his death. There was no evidence to shew 
 the prisoner, on his trial, had a gun or fired one, and it would only be 
 ■from them (the jury) fiuding affirmatively the questions of the Chief 
 Justice that the prisoner would be guiltv. 
 
 As to the 1st — I answer in the affirmative. - . , . 
 
 2. Challeugcs must bo in writing, if entered on the record, and not 
 disposed of at once. .^ 
 
 3. I answer in the afilirmative. ' 
 
 4. The questions were rightly disallowed. 
 
 5. The questions should have been rejectpd. j 
 
 6. The triers had no right to ask questions. , , •..,; V' 
 
 7. The Jury List should have been allowed, if it came. from the" 
 proper place of deposit as directed by the Act of Assembly, not otherwise. 
 
 8. What had the instructions of the Sheriff to the constable to do 
 with the case ? If the constables acted according to law, that was what 
 was required of them. Any instnictions which the Sherifl" gave would 
 not affect them if they acted otherwise. , 
 
 9. This is answered by the 8th. What had the reason given by the 
 Sheriff to do with the matter ? Did the constables improperly use their 
 arms, or properly use them ? The reasons given by the Sheriff coiild not' 
 affect their conduct. The constable's acts is the solo criterion for which 
 they are judged. 
 
 10. It is quite immaterial. 
 
 11. aud 12. These questions were not admissible unless the 13th was 
 allowed; the questions— answers to which might give a coloring unfavor- 
 able to the prisoner, unless explained by his answer to the 13th. 
 
 14. I am of opinion the sketch or plan of the house was not improperly 
 allowed, and the witness might look at it to explain. No question could 
 hcax on this. , • i 
 
 15. I am of opinion tho evidence of Blackball, pf what ^q^ place on 
 the 16th January, was not admissible. , , r* 
 
 16. Tho evidence was rightly receive^. ; oiHio 
 
 17 aud 18.: These ,que8ti,opft wppe proper ,^,|j)iBtify the . phpotiug of 
 Mailloux.. , . ,'•':,•, ..-uw,. ,,.,.,;■:. ,, , . ^, . . 
 
 19. Ta answered hv thf' 16th. 
 
 20. B#bprt, Young should have been cross-examined, ., Some of the 
 qtwetions ,wwe irrtilevant, but I am of opinion, that to prevenlj the crges- 
 
 
14 
 
 THE QUEEN vs. JOSEPH CHA8S0N. 
 
 mppoaed, will ,b„e hi, privileje '°''°"'' ""■• '* " »»' 
 
 21. The same as the last. 
 
 ^0. -Ifie Bhenff having riven his rflaqnn tU;. 
 proper; but I am of opLon he shoTd "V , T'""' *'''"' ^''"^'^ ''^ 
 whatinatnzctionshegrvetothecon^ta^^^^^ "' '"° ^°"^^ *^ «*^*" 
 
 ^7. The question wa* properly rejected. 
 
 Al«., f„, the ,«.„„. I Crilw ™°°'' "° ^'°' '' 
 
 would go .0 p„™ ac p,i...., „„ hi, trialtt n"; ,Xo7'ho":hr 
 
 41, «, 43 44. The e^denee wa, not «im»iblo. 
 
 45. Properly lejeeted. 
 
 46. Properly receired. 
 
 ■ ./'• '°°J'7'''"""'2Rm,ell896; En»eU4Eym C C H «S1 »i 
 the counsel for the Crown, by the direction of tl.,], '' "'"■ 
 
 OW the prieon.., .ether (her u JeCg ;' tt SVTh d^ 
 
 coroner to be L ,o^rp:^f;;So:rS™t'Lr 
 mony by .hewing it, yariance from the depoailhl 7/.. . ^' 
 
 Judge, Held, That it wa. competent for t^:^^";. dltd^"™ 
 had the Mine right. • i- J ■»■ thought the prosecutor alio 
 
 48. The direction of the learned Judge wa, coned An 
 eJ^ed in dd ef the Sheriff or c.n.t.bIo are proZT^' ^"^ 
 
 I am, therefore, of opinion no ludmneTif An«i,+ * i. • 
 
 Crr^ad'- L igS:r<^" rrcl^e^'t-t' l^-'""^" '-e 
 
 ' ■" i—"". it was cnore Laid bv thn r^nw- «* i? i. .r,, 
 
 that the Crown is entitled, as of riitht t„ ««/ 7 ''''^- ^^^• 
 
 "lea, as ot nght, to set wide any juror when caUed, 
 
1 
 
 mble leugrjh, tho 
 b1, who, it is Do|. 
 
 then, would be 
 ilowed to statu 
 
 t these parties 
 
 answers might 
 
 egree of credit 
 
 the parties at 
 
 of, they were 
 
 lilloux's shots, 
 such evidence 
 of the charge 
 
 li- 88), when 
 '» unwillingly 
 >f the indict- 
 dence was in 
 n before the 
 of her testi- 
 the twelve 
 10, and Lord 
 »secutor also 
 
 ^ persons 
 
 ^en on the 
 rrested. 
 >n, that the 
 ie, without 
 (8E. B. 
 tch. Cham, 
 hen called. 
 
 THE QUEEN vs. JOSEPH CHA8S0N. 
 
 
 ■^. 
 
 16 ^ 
 
 and is not bound t« (-hallenge the juror for cause until the whole panpl 
 is perused, and it is found that without him a complete jury cannot h« 
 obtained, see also, Reg. v. Omeh, (9 C. & P. 600.) The St«tut« of 
 Canada, 32 and 33, Vic. c. 29, sec. 38, 41, expressly recognizes this right 
 on the part of the Crown. Thus, sec. 38 declares that the Crown may 
 challenge four jurors peremptorily in all criminal trials, "but this shall 
 not be constnied to affect the right of the Crown to cause any juror to 
 stand aside until the panel has been gone through, or, to challo-ige any 
 number of jurors for c^use," and in sec. 41, which authorises the Court 
 to direct the summoning of such number of jurors as may be deemed 
 necessary in criminal cases, where the panel has been exhausted by 
 challenges, or, from any other cause a complete jury cannot bo had for 
 the trial of the case, and directs that the names of the persons so sum- 
 moned shall be added to the general panel of jurors; it expressly reserves 
 the right of the Crown and of the accused respectively, " as to challenge 
 or direction to stand aside." This enactment seems eflfectually to dispose 
 of the objection that this right of the C"own can only be exercised 
 where an ordinary panel of twenty-one jurors has been summoned under 
 the Jury Act, 18 Vic. c. 24. On the trial of Frost for treason in 1840, 
 the same objection was taken to the right of challenge by the Crown 
 as was taken by the prisoner's counsel in this case ; but the objection 
 was overruled. In that case, there wore 240 names on the panel. Seo 
 Gurney's report, pages 33 and 52. And in Watson's case (32 State 
 Trials 2) 300 jurors were summoned. The next general objection wao, 
 that the prisoner should not have been required to put his challenges in 
 writing. In 1 Chit. Crim. L. 646, it is said that a challenge to the array 
 must be in writing ; but where it is only to a single individual, the 
 words " I challenge, him," are sufficient on the part of the defendant. 
 This evidently refers'to a peremptory challenge, as appears by what is 
 stated In the next page. " When the challenge is peremptory, the 
 above words will suffice, but when it is necessary for a prisoner to assign 
 a ground for this challenge, the prisoner must imraediat^y shew the 
 cause upon which his objection is founded, which he does verbally, and 
 the matter is immediately argued and determined." In Joy on Chal- 
 lenges 186, it is said " a challenge to the array must bo in writing, but a 
 challenge to the polls is merely a verbal intimation of objection." For 
 which the author cites Triah per Puis, 172; but I find no such rule 
 stated there, nor can I see any rea«on for the distinction, if he is speak- 
 ing of challenges for cause. Eex v. Edmonds, (4 B. f!& Al. 474.) 
 
 i, V.I. a., a,ij» DVvij vttaiiciigc ciiucr Lo mc array or ro the polls 
 
 ought to be propounded in such a way, that it may be put at the time 
 upon the Nisi Prim record, and so particular were they in early times 
 
 
16 
 
 THE QUEEN vs. JOSEPH CHAS80N. 
 
 when chaUenges were more in use th^f ,> 
 
 8- 13 B., pi. 38, whether it IT; t ,7^.'*'"'^ 'J"^««'>'» ^« ^7 fl. 
 
 of it, with an .^< hoc paraJ^Tvlnn /" '""'' '''' ^•"»«^»'J>°» 
 
 Precedents were shewn CithoTt such l"^""', '"' '* ^'^«' b''«'^"- many 
 not choce to depart from the pr cedent Tr""' "'' *^« •^-"<'- ^id 
 This practice was referred to and r.' ]'"* '' ^"^ '"''^'^ "n necessary/' 
 y. Evens, (10 M. & T^ ) Jn ITo ^^'^ ^''^-''Z «'-^^^^^ 
 
 challenges to the polls are generanvmad!'h I' '"'' '* ^« ^'^''^ ^J^^* 
 
 if any question is raised upo th'vaH^^^^^^^^^^ ^ «*"^*"- 
 
 entered in due form on the record I ^ I -^ " "''""*''"^^' ^' °^"«t be 
 discretion of the presiding Judge" whlti t """f ^" ' '""**"'' '" *»^« 
 writing; and I can see no reHsoffor / '• ^^"^ challenge shall be in 
 to be in writing, which wil To apl wl^"' ?''^"'^"^<' *« *^« ''"^y 
 the polls. It is as necessarvthaS T T' /°"^ *° '""^^^^^^^ *» 
 fically and with certainty Tthe one c ' *' " v ''""'' ^'^ «*^*^'^ «?«"* 
 the a..e.e party may deU!';: , ^ Z ^.^ ''''''' '' '''''''^' 
 or demur to the challenge. No --ncnnl ^^^^'''^' counterplead, 
 
 the challenges to be puJ b ^ tiuT W """ "" "^"'* ^'""^ ^'^^'ring 
 and difficulty and cousta.tXut'es w'^S' "^"^ '"-"^--nce" dela^ 
 from the opposite course in the present c T'*'''^ have resulted 
 called was chaUenged for cause S Z T' "^T ""^^^ ^^'^'^ J"-^ 
 or the Clerk of the Court to ac as thl ^' " "°* ^'^^ '^"^^ °^ *»»« ^^^S^^ 
 write down from his dictl^ o IrtTi;; 1 f ^'^^""^^ ^^ 
 It 18 necessary for the attainment oTnl •. "'''"'"^'«- '^^'^^ if 
 challengeshonldbeinwritinrrhL.T r'*^' *^'* ^'^^ ^°»»ds of 
 ofthe prisoner or his attorney 72 t^^^ '' ^^.^ *'^-' ^«* ^^at 
 the prisoner was undefended «n.l '^ ™«''* ^^ cases where 
 
 should arise, it would be tut rjd""?^*^ *' ""*^' '^ -^^ "^ - 
 verbal challenge, and have th Z'^^^fTV' ''' '"'^^ *° ^^^ « 
 of the Court, if necessary, but nr^h r '" """^'^^^^ ^^^ ^^cer 
 % Broader W..^.haTgore"fXint°"r"''""^ '" *^^ «-«• 
 the various challenges to tte Lrox^ Lt T H ^l. ""'"' P""*^ ^"«^"^ - 
 consider these auestions at ario'at le 1 Vf '^^" '' "^^^^^ *<> 
 be found as to the extent to whSh t n^ f * '"""^ '^"*^°"*y i« *<> 
 lenges for unindifferency ; bltso f^r T^' '"*«^^ogated on chal. 
 generally opposed to the cLntent o. n^^^' '"*''' ^°' ^^^^ *'« 
 
 I^; ^juling case is i^^tSri ^^^^^^^^ 
 C. J., after referring to the anc,-«nf tu • ^ '^ ^^''''c ^^boit, 
 
 authorities show thftexpllioritT"^^^ "*^«- «--t 
 
 chaUenge unless they arTtTbe r Ce, j: ' •"^"*" "^'"^ ^^^ ^ cause of 
 towards the party challenl! ^^''^ *? ^.7^*^^"^ «^ Personal iUwiU 
 - be swo. When the caulelf :i^:Z^::rZZ:^ ^l^t 
 
stioQ in 27 fr. 
 the concluding 
 
 because many 
 le Justices did 
 unueceBsary." 
 ^f Oarmarthen 
 
 is said that 
 » in strictness 
 ?e, it must be 
 natter in the 
 
 shall bo in 
 to the array 
 JhalJenges to 
 stated speci- 
 1 order that 
 ounterplead, 
 tn requiring 
 ience, delay 
 ^ve resulted 
 'Very juror 
 ' the Judge, 
 'oner; and 
 . Then, if 
 grounds of 
 n, but that 
 ases where 
 ich a case 
 3 receive a 
 the officer 
 the case, 
 arising on 
 cessary to 
 >rity is to 
 
 on chal^ 
 they are 
 this caae. 
 
 Abboet, 
 
 ancient 
 cause of 
 alillxnll 
 'If is not 
 ; and to 
 
 k 
 
 o 
 
 v. 
 
 
 I'HE QUEEN Ts. JOSEPH CHASSON. 
 
 ^ 
 
 be sure, it u a rery dishonorable thing for a man to express illwiU to^^ks 
 a person accused of a crime in regard to the matter of his ac-x^usation. 
 And, accordingly we fi,.d it established in later times, namely, at the trial 
 of Peter Cook, in the 8th of King William the third, that such questions 
 are not to be put to the juror hitnself." The only other case which 1 
 We been able to find relating t.) this point is, Re^. v. Sle^vart, (1 Cox 
 174) where on an indictment for larceny the prisoner's counsel 
 asked the juror whether he was a member of a certain associ- 
 ation tor the prosecution of parties committing frauds on tradesmen • 
 and Alderbon, B., said, '• It is quite a new course to catechise 
 a jury in this way, I cannot allow you to cross-examine the iurv " In 
 Arch. Crim. Evid. 145, it is said that the juro'f objected to may be 
 examined on the voir dire as to his qualification, on the learning of his 
 attection; but he cannot bo interrogated as to matters which tend to his 
 own di8<Tedit, as, whether he has been convicted of felony, etc nor as it 
 seems whether he has expressed a hostile opinion as to the guilt of the 
 defendant. The most difficult questions in this case seem to me to be 
 those which relate to the admission and rejection of evidence. I shaU 
 only refer to a few of them, not considering it necessary to express any 
 opinion upon the others, the whole of which have been fully considered 
 by my brother Weldoi.. I do not wish however to be considered as 
 assenting to his opinions on aU the points. With some of them I agree 
 With others I do not. I think the question put to Sewell, whether he had 
 not boasted that he had shot Mailloux, was improperly rejected. The 
 prisoner's counsel had a right to ask the question, though the witness had 
 the nght to decline answering it if he pleased. I also think that some 
 of the questions put to Mr. Young, on the cross-examination were im- 
 properly rejected. I refer particuriarly to the seventh, eighth, tenth, 
 eleventh, twelfth, thirteenth and fourteenth questions stated in the case! 
 Questions relating to collateral facts maybe put to a witness for the 
 purpose of discrediting his testimony, and showing his interest, motives 
 and prejudices. 1 Stark, Ev. 201., Taylor on Evid. sec, 1066. In the 
 case of the Attorney General v. Hitchcock (1 Exch. 91.) PouocK C B 
 says «It IS ceri;ainly aUowable to ask a witness in what manner he'stands' 
 afi-ected towards the opposite pari;y to the cause, and whether he does 
 not stand in such a relation to that person as is likely to affect him, and 
 prevent him from having an unprejudiced state of mind, and whether ho 
 has not used expressions importing that he would be revenged on some 
 one, or, that he would give such evidence as would dispose of the cause 
 in one way or- the other,'' and ALUMnaof^, B., said " a witness may be 
 asked as to his state of equal mind, or impartiality between the two ' 
 contending parties, questions which would have a tendency to shew that 
 o 
 
 17 
 
 
18 
 
 THE QtJEEN V8. JOSEPH CHA8S0N. 
 
 ior the prisouer to shew th teCne^X//^.^^^ *° '° ^"'"P^^-* 
 was material to shew that the minTofth . '^ '^''"'' ^''"- ^* 
 of in^partialit, or e.u^ity towZ e il^ 
 case before my Urother Co.bridgb in ZZZT ^o, in the 
 
 a8 a witness for the plaintiff J ? T ' """""^ ^^° ^«« called 
 
 him as his mistress t ellcVfflh^'^''" ^'^ ""'' "°^ ^^^"^ -*»^ 
 «tood in that peculiar rclat on o ^^^ ' '^- ' """ *° '^'^ *^'^* ^''^ 
 know, in order that thTZul^;, tT.' "''''' *'^ J"^>' ^^^^ *» 
 the general character of herteatto ^^^* ^^*«"t they could rely on 
 the plaintiff and defendant mZZiTZlf'' ^^^"^^^ ^«*-- 
 status of the witness." Several of r„r. "°^ °" ^^'^ «''''''^ 
 
 if answered ia the afflrmatTve tvetiT/": '"'^ "*" ^°""^' -""J^- 
 by some motives or prejud e 'wWch " " tr^^^^ho was influenced 
 alityof histestimoV; tTtTe^^'j; ^dlt^^^^^^ 
 he had not declared th.t no Roman Cafhol.V T J '*'"'"' ^^'^^'' 
 Whether he had not been constant J ad tt t^^'^l Z''' ^^'y'' ^^ 
 as to which of the jurors should be orderedl l^' ^ '""'y ^'""'"^ 
 
 >t was not his desire as a membe of the G T^"' '""^ '^'^'^'^^^ 
 
 viction. As to the declaratronTof ff ^"^^^"^'^'"t *" Procure a con- 
 
 .theymetatAlbert'shot:r«;/2'^ 
 
 think the evidence was aimissibt n h V " '^' """""'• ^ '^^ «»* 
 It was not merely a declaration J '^' '" ^^'''^ ^* ^^« "^^^ed. 
 
 act of the prisoners and Xeby btoT"'"'' "' ^"^'^"'^^"^y «^ - 
 went beyond that. To admrsL^^^^ ' ^''' °^ '^^ ^^^ Oestc, but 
 
 make evidence for themse"! bT thirr tw"' Tf '^ ^^ ^"°^ ^^^ *° 
 the prisoners who were not on their Hal . '''^^^'^"-«- ^"^ I think 
 Hhould have been aUowed to state tT ''""^ '""^^''^ '^^^^ - witnesses 
 house in o.der to dis;;'v^trin te^":^^^^^^^ *^^^ ^^^ to the 
 unlawful purpose. Such evidence rests on a diff' 7"' *'''*^ '"' ^^ 
 admission of declarations I am l! r i '°* ^""'^P^^ ^""^ *he 
 have allowed the questln nut t P TTf '" *^'"^ that I should 
 «tairs. what did your\\Xral';;t^^^^^^^^^^ " ^ ''' ''' "^ 
 pnsoners said when they rushed nnJ ^^^'3"«^tion, what the 
 
 properly, as explanatory of Thei'tot' was allowed, and, I think, 
 part of the resLt<. and i tZul ^"""^ *° '^' ^°^* ^"^^ ^ being a 
 be admissible, Coiher ^ou d ^0!? "' ^'.'^^ '' '^"^ «*^*^'^-* --'d 
 
 the time of their !oL to 1 '^ -' '''' ^"'^'^ ''""^''"" '"°^ 
 firing began, onlv occupL*! ^^ ']: ^-^^^^^ ^"t up and the 
 
 -toholdthatwhattprison::^,--X:X:oZ 
 
ition, and that 
 ise for want of 
 3 bo competent 
 anst him. It 
 't iu a fit state 
 
 * So, in the 
 ho was called 
 ot living with 
 3hew that she 
 ury ought to 
 Jould rely on 
 less, between 
 1 the general 
 oung, would, 
 as influenced 
 the imparti- 
 W.C, whether 
 'ejury; and 
 ney General 
 »nd whether 
 wure a con- 
 le for which 
 '«• I do not 
 was offered, 
 tory of an 
 ^ffesta, but 
 w them to 
 'ut I think 
 
 witnesses 
 ent to the 
 re for an 
 3 from the 
 k I should 
 ou got up 
 what the 
 1, 1 think, 
 18 being a 
 int would 
 ;ion from 
 ) and the 
 w a line, 
 Qg to the 
 
 THE QUEEN vs. JO«>EPH CHASSON. 
 
 loft, would be evidence to explain and throw light upon their conduct, a« 
 being a part of the transaction, and to exclude what they said, immedi- 
 ately after they got there. Had ttny considerable time elapsed after their 
 getting to the loft and before making the statements, I am not prepared 
 to say that there declarations in that case would be admissible ; but, 
 under the circumstances, I think it was one continuous transaction. I 
 have not particularly considered the question as to the admissibility of 
 the act of riot by the prisoners on the 15th January, which were offered 
 for the purpose of shewing the knowledge that they were liable to be 
 arrested, and therefore had a motive to resist the officers. Evidence of 
 one crime may be given to shew a motive for committing another, as in 
 the case of Rex v. Clewes, (4 C. & P. 221) and whose several felonies are 
 all parts of the same transaction, evidence of all is admissible upon the 
 trial of an indictment for any of them. But the question here is whether 
 there is such a connection beiveen; the riotous acts of the prisoners and 
 others on the 15th January, and their conduct afterwards, when the 
 constables went to make the arrests, as to make their conduct on the 
 former day evidence in this case ? I incline to think there was no such 
 connection and that the evidence should not have been received, but I do 
 not wish to express any decided opinion upon this point as it is unneces- 
 sary for the decision of this case. I think the evidence given by Mr. 
 Blackball, of the statements made by Andrew Albert and Joseph Dugas, 
 on the inquest held before Blackball, was properly received. It is 
 immaterial whether the inquest was illegally taken or not. The only 
 purpose for which the evidence was offered was to discredit Albert and 
 Dugas, by shewing that they had made statements in giving evidence 
 before Blackball on the inquest, at variance with their evidence on the 
 present trial. The fact that the inquest, as such, was an illegal pro- 
 ceeding, cannot affect the admissibility of the evidence. The only point 
 is, did Albert and Dugas, on some previous occasion, give a different 
 account of the transaction from that which they gave on this trial ? It 
 matters not that the oath which was administered to them by Blackball 
 on that occasion was unauthorised, and that his proceedings were coram 
 non judice. The cases cited by Mr. Thomson on this point. Beg. v. 
 Garbet, (1 Deu, C. C. 236 ; 2 C. & K. 474.) The People v. Gilbons, (1 
 Green's C. C. 592) and the Territory of Montana v. McGlin, (Ibid. 705) 
 do not apply. The questions in those cases, were whether admissions 
 made by a party, under compulsion, could be used against him on his trial 
 on a criminal charge ; not whether they could be used to contradict him 
 as a witness, as in this case. The only other points which I shall think 
 it necessary to refer to, is the direction to the jury, that the persons who 
 came from the oounty of Northumberland and as \ the Sheriff in tho 
 
i 
 
 20 
 
 THE QUEE:. vs. JOSEPH 0HAS80N. 
 
 oxeoution of the wnn^niu 
 
 2 --d that the dir Jion on thil t:?'"' '^ "'" ""^^ ^°"^^« - 
 judgment of Mr. Justice D.,p. Mr Jul T "*^*' '''''' '" '^'- ^^e 
 on-r <^o points, which he will st„te " '^"''°'"' '''" «"""' ^""bts on 
 
 JJ« ^'^- 'udgn:!iri?tt^^^^ r^^« - *- points stated in 
 
 % got into the loft! he wati , f^ toT rJT "'• ^'^ ^^^^^ ^- 
 «^c uded. 2nd as to the admis! o„ If I ^ '!'" ''''^'"'' ^'^ Properly 
 o" the I5th January, he thorrhtfh / . '""^'"^^ °^ '^'^ acts of riot 
 ^•th these exceptions he enti ' ^" P'^P'^^^y ''d'^i^tr 
 
 Chief Justice. '^ ''"^'^^^^ -«'««! with the judgJent Tf the 
 
 REVIEW OF THE JUDGMENTS 
 
 y law but the life of the law i seK rtv^ ''' °' '^ "''" ^« -"^^ ^avou ad 
 
 ought to be „.ore favouredT^dth^e '?"'"'" i« Peaoo and safety) 
 
 ;^- and the offices of .:nZlllZ7: "' ''' ^'°"^«« "^ *^« 
 
 .aadhfaof.heIawandthemeansbywhth .^'''' " ^'^^ «°"^ «n<i 
 
 ; epe^eoftherealmtept.-CEtht^^^ 
 
 »>« 6. The maxim and sentiment above LLa ™^«y« case 9 Coke 
 our public system of justice, ospeciZZT '^''' "^'^^ «ver a part of 
 person charged with crime,lresSi^r^-^S^^^ *° ''• ^'"^«««»' ^^^Vvery 
 their arrest,-trial and pJnishm ^ t 1^0.;:' ^"" °*^^"' «*-' - ^ 
 '^aads,on, the one hand, that even adivf/^i^^^^ imperatively de- 
 — an impartial trial on tre7t f fhaf T'-"'*' ^ ''"--^°«i<i 
 !--'^-, should stand prefered and s^e ( f bl 1 ' " '^''''^^'-^^^ ^^Ohest 
 
 :^:^^.-.i.a.e,wantof c^r^fiAs;;:^!;:^ 
 
 ^f: Wr;, • i!^^^^^^^^ that His Honor Mr. 
 
 relinquishing his opinions at thf trid c„n ""' *^^ ^^'^^ -^"^^^e in 
 
 Honors composing the majorit^f "t CouT ^^^ '"''"^' "^"^^ *^- 
 expressed bave most unfortunlteWera^'t. '/^^""''^ ^^^^ ^^-« 
 harmed this Province, by freeinlchr . '' ^^'^''''' "^ost sa^Uy 
 punishment which th; law awarded to th " t"^ "^'"^'^' ^^^ t^' 
 subject of my review *° *^'°*- ^^« then should be the 
 
 In the courseof that forty davconfl,W..„..,.,^._ _ 
 e« and Objections occasioned ' bv the'nril '■'' ''^ ''^'*^'°8"«' demur- 
 
 by the pnsoner's counsel were fu^y argued 
 
X 
 
 Jction as the 
 "y doubtH in 
 • is also the 
 ne doubts on 
 
 its stated in 
 'soners after 
 fas properly 
 acts of riot 
 ^ admitted, 
 ent of tho 
 
 welfare — . 
 I favoured 
 Qd safety) 
 IS of the 
 soul and 
 ered and 
 s 9 Coke 
 apart of 
 ■nd every 
 tc., as to 
 Tdy de- 
 should 
 highest 
 tied by 
 >8e who 
 
 lor Mr. 
 
 stice in 
 d their 
 J' have 
 ; sadly 
 n the 
 )e the 
 
 Bmur- 
 rgued 
 
 
 % 
 
 •^1 
 
 ^ 
 
 THE QUEEN vs. JOSEPH CHA8H0N. 
 
 and determined in the Crown's favor.but in no instance did the Crown Counsel 
 press any evidence against His Honor's view, though moved by the over- 
 throw of tho jury-right to do so, but all this by the unanimous opinion of 
 the Supreme Court, and by the best exertions oftho Crown Counsel is now 
 pronounced wholly against law. Out of fifty objee.tions made by the 
 pnsoner'fl counsel, and aU ruled against him, all have been mistained by a 
 majority of the Supreme Court, so far as can be discovered, wilh the few 
 exceptions which I am about to review, and numerous questions of im- 
 mense importance to tho public, relating to the rights of jurors where life 
 and property are at stake, and for the first time determined favouribly to 
 public rights, are of ir.<»lculable value to the law abiding people of this 
 Country. 
 
 The questions ruled at the trial and guiding the Crown Counswl in their 
 course, but by the same judge reserved, relate entirely to tho subjects, 
 1st. of improper rejection of evidence in certain particulars which I 
 shall maintain to have been a lawful rejection of evidence. iJnd. Im- 
 proper reception of evidence in certain particulars, which I shall submit, 
 was in every way right. 
 
 In view of the above axiom of public rights, and to make intelligible 
 tho bearing of my remarks, I submit the foUowing principles with illus- 
 trations concerning evidence : 
 
 It wiU not be disputed, as clear law, by any lawyer of standing, that 
 wherever the reply to any question put is privileged from answerer 
 if answered, would be entirely irrelevant to the issue on trial, upon 
 objection to such a question, the Judge in his discretion may reject it, 
 see Speneel!/ v. Willott, (7 East 108.) Tcnnant v. Hamilton, (7 CI. & F. 
 122.) Attorney General v. B,-yant, (15 M. & W. 169) and cases there 
 cited. 
 
 The only issue to be tried here, being, did Joseph Chasson feloniously, 
 wilfully and of his malace aforethought, kill and murder John Gifford ? 
 
 It is a well established law, 'that the evidence given on a trial must be 
 material and confined to the issue to be tried. It is equaUy clear law, 
 that the substance of the issue must be proved. How proved ? By 
 evidence, not only ample in ^uintitif but sufficient in qtmlity ; for 
 instance, a witness might swear that he actually saw Joseph Chaason 
 kill and murder John GiflTord— ample in qvuintity; but on his cros*^ 
 examination, or by other evidence, it might appear that the witness was 
 80 woriJhless as not to be believed upon his oath— his evidence, then, 
 would be worthless in qmlky. Again, it might appear, upon crose- 
 cxammation or otherwise, that though the wituesa was not generally 
 worthless, he gave his evidence undo the influence of some improper 
 feeling or bias or corrupt motive in the parti^inlar ease, which might lead 
 
a^'KKN m. JOSEPH CfrAHSON. 
 
 -cribingand prinoipaJ witne.H to the I 1„ ' 7 '^' " *^'' ""'" 
 making of it, but being ,«kud unon 'r • """'''^ "^'^''^ *° *»»« 
 
 every night with hor mast ho'Ii STh"T'Tr" ''"'" '"" ""^ "^P 
 a.low.1 it to be proved that Im'^^^^ '^'^ 'rl '"^^" 
 to «hew. that UH the woman had yielded horjf to h r I' "^''"""'^ 
 •"fluonces, or aotc^ «, hi« wife nhe milhf i J . '"'•''*°" '""""Pt 
 
 iniiueneed by hi. to bo a ; ; t ZflZTZ''""" '"" '™^'"^'^''^ 
 ca«e 2 Camp. 038 «.. where'tho'princ ^ C^^ls W ^ " ''^'"^"»'" 
 he would be revenged upon the detV ,^1 Z J- ' """f '"' ^"'^ 
 Jail; 80 with the bribing and corn^p ^^^^^^^^^^^ "' '^I'^'"»«uth 
 
 (How. State. IVials, 14U0) In Tthl fTr '" "'^^ "'"^'^^'^'^ "-« 
 
 would be material a to th ^J^/f o^th ^ T"'" '"*""" ^'"^ ""'^''^ 
 on hi.cro..e,amin.ticn cJ:::::{^Z^-;':;^^ ' -''T 
 a particular way, would either go to oontridiot o ^.T z v '°'''""''^ '" 
 previous teetimoay, or mi^ht nrn. , , ' •^"•"'"'' P'''^ °*h« 
 
 given in evidence L partTtt So eTsTt ""n '"' "'^^'''^ ^°"'^' ^« 
 be material to the ile " ''''P"*""^"'^"^ "^o. all such evidence would 
 
 answered, Ut ll^^^ ZZs'^TZf'' ^ '''''"''^'' '^ 
 the foregoing ends. theV t:^ t t LX^.t. r -^^ ""^ '^^ 
 and mmaferiaZ to the issue, and should not k' *'^^"""' 
 case of the highest, anth^rit; ^"^^l:;^^^' ^ 
 (1 Exch. 90,) quoted for +>.„ • '""'"•'« v. Uuchcock, 
 
 judgment of tie ' Suptm" Cout as""? '^^ "^^"^ '° *»>« 
 
 cipal witness for the pro'e^Lrupliossllnar"^ ^'^ '""" 
 had ... said that the Crown ofBe Jhad 02001 ra"brib""V'f '^ 
 was not aUowed to contradict him, it being whoUv In . , ^^'^°"°' 
 and immaterial to the issue. The cCr'el'^t^^^^^ . 
 
 authorities, lay down specified rules in re^a- TTk . ^'''^''' 
 Por^ocK, C. B.. p. 100.7n which the oth:f ^dg^ gtedT tH-' '^'"" 
 ^osenting from " the vague and loose doctrine Chisl H v^"' '''''' 
 laid down by Mr. Starkie, "a» to any factTil!. , '^'^''^ ''""^ '*' 
 "the Bubisct of inquiry "savs . " '^"J, 7*^ '™°»«d,ately connected with 
 
 "matter L'^ oT^' 7LlZ^ "T'^ ^*' '""^ "-^- «« « 
 .«conn. ^.cd >1 Vrf, be If ^ ^'J "^^'""^^ '' '* °^"«* ^e so far 
 "way. wou'd . :L ;i^ ^T^:^' '' T^'^' - ^ P-«cular 
 "neither the .^e n • t^^ 4^, it ,' ^ ,w T ^''"""''y' ''"^ ^^ i* ". 
 "maybeco..^. ^ ^^Z'l^:^'^^'^--^--^^ 
 .'101. "There i. no ir- f^-^^ -v-_ ./ .^' '"''J^^* °^ '°q^"7. Again p. 
 
 matter that is ncitliZr^nLr "^^' "°*^^^''' *'^ ^*-« 
 
 directly : 
 
 before the Court." By the 
 
\ 
 
 ■i 
 
 in Tfiomaa r, 
 'ory notn, tho 
 f. HM the mib- 
 wore to the 
 fli'l not dlopp 
 arned Jndj^o 
 T, obpiouoly 
 iters corrupt 
 I improporly 
 in VowingV 
 Hff had said 
 
 Manmouth 
 tford's case 
 10 cyidonce 
 fa witness 
 nswered in 
 
 part of his 
 » could be 
 jnce would 
 
 should be 
 
 or ono of 
 
 irrelevant 
 as in a 
 Hitchcock, 
 in the 
 he prin- 
 3 that he 
 Evidence 
 irrevU>nt 
 
 prtv;\,UM 
 
 im, lillcr 
 calls it, 
 ted with 
 iue, as a 
 be 80 far 
 aticular 
 if it is, 
 sense it 
 Rain p. 
 witness 
 By the 
 
 THE QUEKN vs. JOHEl'U CHA8H0N. 
 
 m 
 
 fqrpRoiiig principles and authorities, [ will now pro<'( > <1 to review tho 
 judgHU'iits of tho (lourt in (luoshinff tho conviction. And first in order 
 tho juilKniunt of Mr. Justice Weldon. I may justly say it amazes me 
 there are itoroi' gcnerul features of it which I will remark upon in tho 
 outlet. 
 
 01 Ihe riithcr lengthy HrKnments of tho Crown Counsel, and their 
 ans^vi TR to the several objections, as well as the many authorities cited 
 by them, His Honor, with one single exception, appears to have taken 
 no more notice than if no counsel for the public had over bee n there, in 
 fact, the judgment itself, would better suit a production composed before 
 tho cauNo was heard. Another striking feature of the judgment, namely, 
 a running in opponition to almost everything which His Ifonor, the Chief 
 Justice, in his distrrctionary and higher capai-ity, derided at the trial, 
 running as it were, the Chief Magistrate of our Criminal^Law oft' the 
 track, and allowing to His Honor's judgment on tho trial, no judicial dis- 
 cretion whatever. Now from the settled state of our ancient Criminal 
 Law system, as I have long observed it, and from tho admitted attain- 
 ments of t.h Chief Justice of the country, before whom every point was 
 solemnly debated prior to judgment, it must seem unreasoniible to every- 
 body that his Honor could be so far astray in nearly all his judgments as 
 Judge Wrluon — (not at tho trial) has adjudgud. On tho contrary, from a 
 rather lengthy ex)>erieneo in tho law, my opinion (except about juries 
 and challenges, from a loose practice, lately crept in from the United 
 States, which misled his Honor) decidedly is in favor of the law as laid 
 down at the trial, and uft<T the best investigation and thought which I 
 can bestow, I discover no reason to doubt the correctness of the Cliief 
 Ju8tic<)'8 decisions as opposite to Judge Wkldon, excei)t as before men- 
 tioned. And it seems truly unfortunate, for public safety, that such con- 
 tradictions of decisions, aiul floods of uncertainty should be introduced 
 by the Tlonch or by any nn mber of it. There is yet another, and to my 
 mind a most remarkubU feature, which I obsen'o in His Honor's judg- 
 ment and I have looked at it with all the care and diligence which I can 
 bestow, and with a deference properly due to a Judge of tho Supreme 
 Court — that feature, in ray opinion, is that the judgment of Jlis Honor 
 upon the subject of improper admission and rejection of evidence, is 
 erroneous in fact and iu law, from beginning to end. I wish it to be 
 understood, that I do not venture to ascribe this to any lack of integrity 
 in the Judge, but T do ascribe it to something else, viz., to a want of 
 proper accuracy, in the statement of the facts which tho learned Judge 
 had before him and to the want of an accurate knowledge of the ' v, — 
 the subject which a Judge of the Suprennj Court, as a public mt 
 should possess, before he acts, and thereby avoid the injury of over- 
 
 .> 
 
24 
 
 ME WW ,, JOSEPH CHASSOK. 
 
 tiirowing public justice an,} nf • 
 
 W clearly being that a single Sal of ^ "•'!"' *° '^''^ «*' whereas the 
 produces as separate a charge Ja' """ J°'"t'y indicted with oTh. 
 
 ^ere named, and thoni t ''"' "^^^-^^^ him as if „. ^! ^'^'' 
 
 con^petent t^ b stor/t/t^^ """^ *^^ *^^ aame^lTj' ';^,^"- 
 See Kel Pe, , .«. ^^J^^^^e pr, i^dep^l^iJl - 
 
 n Ifir'^ ^"'^ *° *he prisoner the f„n .. ''' ^^^' ^^^^ *• 2 c 43 
 
 show J rha.. > , /^^i^nw- the constables ftr » at ^^' ^^ 
 
 " the Crown ' that f! *^' '"^'^°"°e thus," « The^'/ ^^^ "'"- 
 
 orm^kt noUsme" without noticing the f "''^ ^ ^^"'^"t ^i<}hi 
 
 forth Jani.3 Blackhali's name as Tt. °''^' ""'^ ^is Honor also nnt, 
 
 hall to 8ho^ ^r "^'^^ P^°P°«ed to "^m "'' ''^^'° 
 
 «r,H ,.° ^how" the proceedings of 'h. u \ «^°««-examine Black- 
 
,f 
 
 
 "ghest right; 
 
 stating facts. 
 
 *° riot and 
 there besides 
 and thereby 
 it) in favour 
 "'hereas the 
 "th others, 
 ther person 
 
 \ they are 
 ident cases. 
 
 h.2c. 43, 
 ' trial, and 
 'ges which 
 with him, 
 
 ays. " was 
 »o. but to 
 tie Chief 
 constables 
 "gh mis- 
 given by 
 nt might 
 "Jso puts 
 adduced, 
 Bing the 
 Jbery at 
 to nor 
 Jved by 
 It the 
 rs, and 
 rfrom 
 ithout 
 again 
 Black- 
 14th, 
 3 not 
 I the 
 ytho 
 aief 
 ition 
 
 \ 
 
 THB (iUEEN T8. JOSEPH CHAS80N. ^ 
 
 occuring on the loth, but rather to confess and avoid it, by showing that ' 
 the robberies, etc. Of the 15th arose out of proceedings of the school 
 meetiog on the 14th, a thing wholly opposite, in f«jt and in law effect, 
 to what the Judge has it, and entirely immaterial as evidence. How in 
 the face of sueh inaccuracies could the learned Judge have given other 
 than an erroneous judgment ? His Honor enters upon the subject with 
 the foregoing ertors, by consequence his lengthy citation of cases, as 
 unconnected as a dream, are whoUy inapplicable, aad the two grounds of 
 His Honor's objections based upon such a mistake of fao-ts are necessarily 
 erroneous. 
 
 As His Honor has adjudged that we should not have given evidence of 
 
 the felony, and to submit to the profession and to the public, the 
 
 Crown counsels view of this matter as all the Judges but Judge WotmoHii 
 
 (and for no reason ihat I can discern) seemed to take the opposite view 
 
 I offer the following:—" The notion, says Mr. Roscoe, that it is in itself 
 
 " an objection to th« admission of evidence that it discovers other 
 
 " offences, especiaUy where they are the subject of Indictment is now 
 
 » exploded." Roscoe's Crim. Ev. p. 90, (7th Amer. from the 8th London 
 
 Edition,) citing numerous late cases for the position there referred to. 
 
 " If the evidence is admiaaible on general gronnds it cannot be resisted 
 
 " on this ground." Ros. ib. and " of course, all evidence directly bearing 
 
 ' on any offence which can be and is under the Indictment, before the 
 
 " Jury made the subject of enquiry is admissible." Ros. Crim. Ev. ib. 
 
 " Evidence" says Mr. Roscoe ''is allowed to be given of the prisoner's 
 
 "conduct on other occasions where it has no other connexion with the 
 
 "charge under enquiry than it tends to throw light on what were his 
 
 " motives and intention in doing the act complained of" Ros. Orm. |!v. 
 
 92, the same in a full note 1 by the Amer. Editon. He says, " Where 
 
 "it is shown that a crime has been committed, and the circumstances 
 
 " point to the accused as the perpetrator, facts tending to show a motive 
 
 " although remohs, are admissible as evidence." Now as the kalUi^ by 
 
 Chasson is charged, which was through resistenco of tl 3 offlcens, would 
 
 not his consciousness of a felony lately committed by him, which he knew 
 
 he was liable to be arrested for, show a motive for hU resistance as 
 
 distinguished ft-om one entirely innocent, and would not such felony tend 
 
 to throw light on his motives for resistance ? So in the same note, " In 
 
 " cases where the aeUnter or the qua animo constitutes a necessary part of 
 
 "the crime charged, as in murder and the Uke, testimony of such acts oc 
 
 II declarations of the prisoner as tend to prove such fcnowledgrt,i : is 
 
 " ftaT?j;ss;b^e, notwithattvading thoy may oouatifcirte, in law a distinct 
 
 " crime," citing several American cases of high authority. "And wher^ 
 
 •'ever the inUntor guilty knowUclge of a party is material to the issue, of 
 
 
 
 
26 
 
 THE QUEEN Y8. JOSEPH CHASSON. 
 
 ye case, collateral f*cte tending to establish such intebt or knawU^I^ 
 "are proper eridence." Bottomly vb. United 8tate« IStorv larw^ 
 npt the intent and guilty knowledge of Chaa«on . t! r.^'h '« ^o Th^ 
 i-ue, and d.d not, the knowledge of Chasson within him etf t It h« W 
 c^m-tted a felony t.nd t6 e. hlish suoh necesaary X^" d ki:? 
 edge? Agaxn "on the trial of a criminal l>rosecu/on, where the f^I 
 andcr^u tance, offered in eridence amount to proo fo a crime o'ter 
 than that c^ax^ed. and there . gound- to believe that the crime cLa'ed 
 
 De admitted to show the qm ani,no of the accused •" « »}.»f 
 shows motive is admis8ible"-for which the FdLr . ' "" 
 eases nf fV,» k- i, i. ., J^ditor cites seven or eight 
 
 iT/ .^^ ''* ""^'^'^^y- ""'i ^J^^ '^^^ general doctrine I 
 
 laid^down ,n Archbold, Russell, Taylor and many other books Tth" 
 g^odlaw? Nobody can doubt it. Then does our'case ometith n T 
 The felony committed was not indeed the crime charged but ^IZ 1 
 cnme charged grow out of it? Did not the complbtte ^n^^ 
 the constables-^their resistance and the death, grow out of tlif?^ 
 committed 2 Was not the crime charged caused b^he flnj coml^^^^^^^ 
 
 and the death ? The fa<:t was undeniable, and it being contended bv the 
 pruoner-s counsel (as may be seen in the printed ca^^Mhat the ^UiL /f 
 Gifford was just^able. because the constables had not made known th' 
 purpose for wh.ch they came to Albert's house, and the prisonrrsTn rt 
 sisting only acted in self defence, and the learned Chief Justice puHtt 
 theju^y whether Chasso. knew the puipose for which theortle: 
 came^e showed in pursuance of the foregoing authorities tTatth^ 
 complamtand warrant put in eridence charged jLph cTlon t^h a 
 felony committed by him at Young's on the ISfch January C TnLt 
 
 tha^BlackhaH the constable! whe^ wtnT'^h iTh^orabrst 
 Albert's house, a.ked for J. Chasson,, and told Albert in the h aring f 
 
 a?reT;'cwf ™'^ Tr''''^' ^^^^ ^^d pape. andZTto 
 arrest J Chaeson-as argued, however, in Mackally's case that the person 
 should have knowledge or notice in some way, if he requir^ 70^^ 
 ca.se of arresting, (for the complaint and waLnt provedToli^ .a 
 
 ZnTo'thTi*''^* ?""° ^-i actually committed the Mo ;: 
 Young'^s on the 16th, as charged in the complaint and warrant and for 
 which he knew by law he was liable to be arrested, and thereby had 'Z 
 
 ao. -n gT3„.._^ ^„,,,^, .^jjQjQ niii.selJ,^oi resisting it, or the iurv 
 froM .ke „,d«.ce ^H „ infer it; .„d tie.ef.re .L ,;.i.l7S 
 
or kaawieige 
 y, 135. Was 
 
 here to tho 
 f that he had 
 b and know- 
 3re the facts 
 crime, other 
 rime charged 
 stances may 
 ' " whatever 
 vea Of eight 
 doctrine is 
 'ks. Is this 
 
 withia it ? 
 
 did not the 
 > warrant — 
 
 this felony 
 jommitfced ? 
 • resistance 
 ided by the 
 e Icilling of 
 known the 
 lers in re- 
 e put it to 
 constables 
 « that the 
 on with a 
 5. And it 
 wson that 
 ise proved 
 stables to 
 Clearing of 
 
 came to 
 he person 
 it, of the 
 ag) it was 
 felony at 
 t, and for 
 ' had the 
 ise of the 
 the jury 
 auce and 
 
 THE QUEEN vs. JOSEPH' CHASSON. 
 
 killing of Gifford were wilful and malicious. Can any lawyer of standing 
 in face of the defence urged, contend that such evidence was not 
 properly admissible ? It was not as His Honor Judge Wbldost assumes 
 to give evidence of tho riot and robbery in order to make out that the 
 prisoner had committed murder, as in Beff. v. Addy, which has no re- 
 semblance to this case, but the robbery shown to make out thereby, a 
 necessary link of title in the case on trial by evidence which tho prisoner 
 had within himself— to got before the jury a spemfic kind of knowledge 
 and motive which J. Chiisson had, and which nothing but showing the 
 felony could enahla us to (»ive. .Why did not the learned Judge refer to Rerf. 
 ^.Francis Law Rep. (2 Crown cases Kevised 128) again upon the argument 
 by the strongest of authorities from Lord Haib and other books, 1 Bile 
 485, 489, 587, 593 ; 2 Hale 72. 74, 76, 77 ; Foster 309, 321, that the 
 prisoner's counsel having urged that the constables, especially from the 
 County of Northumberlanij had no authority and no protection. (See 
 the Chief Justices report.) We contended that upon a feloni/ proved as 
 here, every private man, no matter from what County, has a good war- 
 rant in law to arrest the felon, and which warrant the arrester might 
 plead to an action for false imprisonment without the Sheriff's authority 
 or the written warrant, and, whether bidden or not, he might volunteer 
 to aid the officers in arresting, and if any one kill him in the course of 
 the duty it would be murder, and therefore we had a right to show the 
 felony committed in order to corroborate the authority of Giiford and the 
 other officers. All the foregoing were presented to Judge Weldow on 
 the argument, but His Honor adjudged against the public "without taking 
 the slightest notice in his judgment of them, and, as I think, not only 
 kas overruled the sober decisions of the Chief Justice on the trial, "but 
 also virtually overruled all the before moDtioned English and American 
 authorities, including the great authority of Lord Hai,e, and the rules of 
 evidence bearing upon the subject. His Honor says he --an find no case 
 like this bearing upon this subject. I think it a pity His Honor does not 
 look more toprinciplos and less to cases wh'.ch have no just application. 
 I conceive that His Honor got too far from the true course to find any 
 cases or authorities properly applicable to the subject. We cited to him 
 numerous American cases of high authority, above referred to, like the one 
 in question, but His Honor appeared to havb n3ver noticed them. I may 
 reply as Lord Cokb says, there is no one case like another in all particu- 
 lars, and as said by AsmnritSTJ J, in Pasley v. Freeman, (3 Term. Eep. 62,) a 
 case may be aew in its instance, but old in its prin6iple which is the real 
 
 tVlinO' for A p.nr'nvtk kln>1omfam)in» «* +V.n !».— TI — t^ 1'_l- 
 
 ,-. _ _j ... 1.,,,, itt^T. ilK; IlUUitriVUB XiUgilSa 
 
 and Amerfoan cases above referred to by writers of great authority fully 
 containing the principles of law on this subject, are all that we need, 
 
is 
 
 THE QVSm „. JOSEPH CBAmm. 
 
 The objections to the reiwfinn «^ ii. 
 Itichard Sewell. respec i ^1, j^^^^^^^^^^ 
 
 judgments of the Chief Just rand h •'''^ ^^ "^^ '° considering the 
 " -ehing in those objwt Does 17°"*^"^'" '""^' -""^ «'- 
 state it for Jaw, that the quest on n^t^^'T'"/''^*' ^^»«" »««° to 
 the affirmative would not be ot of 1 h^''*?' '^^*"' ^'^ ''^'^^''^ - 
 W- ? This, a. every lawyer W ^11,"^ °' '"'^""' *« -"-«'*« 
 i. the Wed Judges aufh r^, Tha^ T .^ '""^'"'^ *** ^^^- Where 
 the cross-e«.i„,Ln of Gammon aldTh r" "'*' ''"• ^^--' 
 received a« to what had hapraTat « ^^ '''*°'" '^'^"^'^ ^^^^ ^^ 
 pl- f^om the scene of th^^i an, tS wl "^ '^"'^ ''' ' '^^-»* 
 ^" h .discretion rej«.ted ? SI aZt ^ "'""' "^"'^^ •^»«««« 
 
 WouW damage him.-ifr«,eived"tworinerr^ Cha«on ? ft 
 
 Chaason, hearing that the constabir h!^ ff.^ ^ ^""^ ^^^^ '«•• 
 with h« friends determin^ T h- ^"^ ""'^^ ^adly in another ph«e. 
 delibara..ly iiU and ^l^^ '^ ^TJ" *''' '""^^■' ^'^ 
 to Albert's for him. thus shoW e, ^'^"^ '""^ ^^ 
 
 remark appU.s to the cros^^amtarnVS'C''"" "^^ «-« 
 have been frightened, etc.," says His ffl t . "'^"- "^^^ »i«ht 
 
 toinqnirie if Chasson wal f^ht^ed^r iJ"^' '!^"'^"- ''' "-*-- 
 when he heard the com,tablesTAJ IrtV t T^ ^""^* '^ <*« ««"««, 
 - held MackaUy-s case. comTfttt Ja^tllt' '^" • ""'^ '^^ '' -* 
 they wanted of him. instead of denvL rh. '^J^J^'f^^^^^ of them wh.* 
 ^at he was there-flyi«« from jXt^X"^^^^^^^^ ^ — ''y. 
 the officers before th<,y could ajpro^h ZT\T '"'''-^-'^^^B 
 Did Chasson owe no duty to the mfhlfn . *^ ''^ '° *^« wrong ? 
 - ^^^n 8 C. & P. 816./ I« t !S^;/rT' f ^t*^''^*^' (See 4 
 tj^e 0, ,^3 ,wu wrongL4;t:2 ^JlS^Ir^ ^^^ ^ -^^- 
 •^ables buainess. that he might commit Z^ '' 'T °^ *^« ''''' 
 from-resistingand shootiiig « the con^^r! f ^ '^ P""**** ^*>' ^Jing 
 and life of the W.-the^i L'^X'/^H ^^^^^^ 
 wholly Ignored the *uZ«,«oj„„i.-;g^^ vlu J, ^" ^^'^ ^«»™ed Judge 
 toHis Honor ovcr-tumii'^be ^i; ^^^^7 *« *h« -t^a,,.. Z 
 adjudging that Fab. Dougas should havih ^^^^•^'^'"o ^t the trial and 
 people at Libert's house s'aid thTwe^ 'th^et^^Jl^^*^ "-^^**^- 
 J^-^ S^Z-ediately previous pa::;^ ...jf^"! ^^^^^ '' = 
 
 "' ™ ^^^"'^^^^ --*«= ^^^ the c^wn-revi^:;: 
 
hy HiB Honor 
 ehoUy insppli- 
 ' or robbery of 
 bouse qnarrel, 
 
 bt. YouDg and 
 >D8ideriDg the 
 »rt, and there 
 LBOK mean to 
 ' answered in 
 
 to criminate 
 law. Where 
 'o8. Chasaon, 
 d have been 
 ►t a different! 
 'hief Justice 
 basBon ? It 
 ve that Jog. 
 other place, 
 i*. and to 
 •^fy earae 
 The same 
 rhey might 
 In anjiwer 
 the cause, 
 did he not 
 lihem whai 
 
 accessory, 
 "nurderinf 
 le wrong ? 
 
 te advaiu. 
 the con* 
 or dying' 
 "the soul 
 >d Judge 
 rarj-. An 
 trial and 
 lat those 
 nine it : 
 ■Uouor 
 ividenoe 
 
 
 
 ^:' 
 
 TBS QUEEN vs. JOSEPH CHA880N: 
 
 "a 
 
 that the people there assembled- at Albert's hou«o, hcfo,^ the consthbles 
 ca«6, had any common iute.t to do wrong, or were acting Unlawfully, 
 but, oppositely so, were lawfully there a*d c<m,equently no inference to 
 ae con rary could anse tiU the acting together by Chasson and others in 
 the loft-flying from and resisting the constables. If then prior fed 
 such resisting and^while F. Dongas was there, they were a^semwiT in the 
 
 of the Chief Jurtice, hold that it was material to shdW l,y F Dusas 
 what the people said they were there for. it being on all hands ad^ 
 muted that, at that time, they were there lawftiUy? No hw or 
 authority for this can be foundi •) '•, ',' i 
 
 2nd. Suppose that Joseph Cbasson cottld have been iictually made d 
 party, speaker to the conversation, how could the gossip of Joseph Chas- 
 son. m hiB own favw, not in the hearing of the constables, be made evi- 
 dence for liimself against the public right ? Lord Geo, Gordon, case 21 
 iiow. State Tnals, 536, and many othew are against a man's making evi- 
 dence m st»5h a way, as told by Fab. Dongas, this also is <^po8ed to all 
 rules of law and evidence as found in our book. 8i^. Also the m iittei^ 
 aUos aeta appUes, that what is wUd or done by strangers to the strit- 
 BhaU not in law, affect the suitors themselves, why should the gossin of 
 ^e people-strangers to this suit and who might have come, as Fab 
 Dou»« would sjy. to play cards-either benefit or irqure Joseph Chassott 
 or th« public between whom alone the issue wa« joined ? Tha people 
 who had committed no crime, might have been imiooewtly enottgh ther* 
 with no object to resist, and taken their determination on dght 6f the 
 constables to aid and abet Chasten in his resistance, btft Joseph Cha«6n 
 who had committed a fehiny, and' heard he was to bo aiteste* foi^ it 
 nughthavebeen therb for an opposite p.rpose. The third riftrty, case' 
 and Joseph OhassoH^not alike-birt quite opposite. XVhe^ then any 
 case or authority to support, the learned Judge in tfcis ViteW? His Ho^di-' 
 hasated none and I m»v.r a*ard rf any. Hero again His Httnor mfies 
 up the other persons indicted with Chasson, as if aU were on triil^miite' 
 a sufficient error in fact-to produce hi. erroneous judgment in laW; 
 but the di«erenc6of a singlr party on a single dharge aH (^libesed t6 all^ 
 -» undoUbtedlawas befbte citedv and leoding to a «v«tse cOnclusio*.. 
 Xhe aswmbhrig at Albert's house arid acting together with a common 
 purpose, a< put by the Chief Justioe to the Jury, dearly refers in the aext 
 9«estK)n to their assembling in the loft. There was no evidence by thte 
 Crown to Qjt theto in a common purpose tiU found m the loft ftotirig *o^e«h*^ 
 
 and resisting! the oonstablea. T*i ig a'"fc° «w.«i.:-ii— 4. c^u^. . . 
 
 lawfiil puifpose of many of them that they should hav^ changed mm 
 minds and committed murder, this is perpetually occurring. It is feitf 
 
 TO^ 
 
30 
 
 THE QUEEN v*. JOSEPH CHASSON. 
 
 down ia Rqe. Ev. 720 note (2) » w -^ 
 
 murder, though the intent be formed Jf *"*'"* '" ^" "' 
 "the blow," citing nine or ton a!! *" '"'tant, before striking 
 
 t^jChas^onWa^e^aloadrd ;?;rd:,;T, °« ""'°"''*"^ -^>^°X 
 
 '^'^^^;i:^!-'^^:^r. "- *^^ - - 
 
 e-deoce the 'ature 'of Z ct' ":"" ''J?^^ ^''^'>-' -- the only 
 shooting.Giffo^if the h otThaTeT- ? f > «-» ^'^--y -t of 
 •ay dear fellow," that would be fh/t .^°"* *"*^"'' *" ^^^ Toa 
 of. and 80 must be given. The an?J ""'^r''""^ '''' '^'' -«« -P^We 
 at all. See Be.. v.L^^„ J'^ "'T;; "' ^^at in law, it is not evidence 
 
 His Honor's view. In fa^t His Honor fnT T?- ''' *° ^^'^ «°''*^'''y <>( 
 reception and rejection of e^LtTa;! ^ J ''*''"^ °" *^ ™^^^^^ 
 Bight of the well established Z'Tevid^'^*" '^^^ «"*'-^' '-* 
 Court for 800 years, and more than tha" L'"' ''^^^ ^''^^-^ ^he 
 Pubhc welfare which by His Honor'! .f ' l*""'"^ ^''^ '^^-^ popuU, the 
 " a higher right thaa thaT^f iTor v t "''"'^ '^ '' ^"""-^ *« ^-^ J 
 ;^ --t .. be borne in mind tlrt h TharlTth f fn"' -^^^ ^^^ «--' 
 
 evidence in favor of JudgrWB.no^l '^? °' ^'^^ ^^^"^-^ --^ 
 
 means by which publi.just^ ^L"T /'T ^''''^ '°«'°^ «i»ht of,the 
 ovarthrows this imp Jrt';:^;^™; *hepubUcpe«.ekept J 
 
 degree as before, stated, but the Zl f T ''P"°«'P'^'« ^n the.>,< 
 cbargeagainst^JosephChassoVandatL, ''''*'"*^ '° 1^^, the .n^^ 
 -presented „od evidenced byThei^rwt T.T ^*' ''" ^^''"«' ^^ -- 
 Qhas«,n ,aUing. the ,«feher prisoners 7^8.^ *"'^^' " '^^° ^^-^^-Ph 
 every way treated ».8 strangers to thL^-.^ "'''"'' ^"'^ ^^^ ^e^o in 
 ti-a and. interna of strafger to thl -f \*'''"^ ^'^''^^'^ *he declara- 
 officers or constables of the "el t ^^ '^"' "'^" ""^^^^-^ *« the 
 >t« issue with Joseph ChatonTth^l't "" '^'"^ *'° ^* - 
 rule of law, is to be upheld? Why shonlH .. '•' "''''" '^^^^ «^'«' ^s a 
 -«.e ancient rules for the rSa^tT i^ ^ f "*^^ 
 trampled upon-or.eta«deandThop?bh;Llf*' of public trials be 
 ment, as I view it, in opposition to t ^u '^'"'^'''^^ by a judg- 
 public in the criminal kwfft Touly Th "'^''^'^ "«^*« ^^ * 'e 
 V. The Queen, cited by His Honor hi Z '"'' "^ ^*"^^'»' *« ''♦•'^'• 
 
 way in which His /onor would ap^ly^t^Zr °' '^'f "*^°''' '^ *^« 
 
 -■ - --..pi., i„dio«. .„, «.d Witt a^rioi'wSt; 
 
/' 
 
 ^'^l- 
 
 X 
 
 <i 
 
 ent to kill is 
 
 efore striking 
 
 t»d authority, 
 
 the face and 
 
 ^as the only 
 ^e very act of 
 to hurt you 
 5 was capable 
 not evidence 
 le contrary of 
 the improper 
 entirely lost 
 ?overned the 
 ^populi, the 
 id to look to 
 His Honor, 
 er and nine 
 »t to resist 
 
 'ch I com- 
 eading^ and 
 ght of ! the 
 ace kept — 
 the Judge 
 I the ^r»< 
 the single 
 5. It was 
 by Joseph 
 J were in 
 e declara- 
 ed to the 
 public in 
 «cte, as a 
 :en down 
 trials be 
 l^ajudg- 
 ts of the 
 ' in error 
 I in the 
 ry Ann 
 sor for 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 THE QUEEN vs. JOSEPH CHAKSONl \v 31 
 
 murder, but the Jur>- not agreeing and discharged, Harris turned oi^l^^}^ 
 
 evidence against Windsor, who was tried again and convicted upon the 
 
 evidence of Hums, and the great question there was whether Harris who 
 had never oeen convicted or acquitted oa the Indictment could be a 
 witness at aU for the Crown, this is like aU the learned Judge's citations 
 nothing to do with this quGstion, We produced no wch evidence nor 
 attempted to prove any thing by Joseph Chasson <,r his witnesses The 
 foregoing remarks and for the reasons there stated apply with equal 
 effect and more to the intents of Prudent Albert, and as to wav Joseph 
 Dougas and others went into the loft, and what they sdd when'they got 
 there, the question embracing all they had said from the time they went 
 into the loft till the surrender after the murder-being objectional as 
 'mbracmgtoo much and by persons not on trial-strangers to the suit and 
 as an attempt to manufacture evidence for Joseph Cha^soiv which Ch^sou 
 himself could not deUver on oath nor U cross-examined to and in every 
 way inadmissible by law and having: no other support than the views 
 of Judge WioLDON. For instance J oscph Chas.on who is ahne charged 
 on the trial, having committed felony-and informed, that the constables 
 were coming to arrest him, flies from them into Albert's loft— an offdnce 
 ot Itself at common law, punishable by indictment, and forfeiture of his 
 goods and chattels, then in the direct performance of au unlawful act 
 and othfcrs which foUowed per WEtaioN, J., "create evidence for yourself' 
 -I'll support you." Anything which third parties, strangers, etc said 
 flying to the loft or murdering after th<v got there ib utterly inadmis- 
 sible for Joseph Ghasson-s case, especi>Uly where such declarations and 
 intents were never notified, but whoUy unknown to the constables and all 
 those hearsays, and manufacture of the like sori^, were purely bad and 
 properly rejectable by the Chief Justice in the long established, and w^ll 
 settled powers of his Court, of jail deliVery-the opiniousof Weldon 
 J., and thfe absence of aU law and precedent to the .contrary notwith- 
 standing. 11. 
 
 The other pointb proposed to be decided but not argued by His Honor 
 and which I have attentively considered, are equally unreliable ground- 
 less and against law and the correct rulings of , the presiding Judge at 
 the trial. The only other remark that I.shaU make here ie, to respect- 
 fully call His Honor, Mr. Justice Weldon's attention to the authorities of 
 jurisdiction m my review, hereafter, cited by me ii w^ird tothis and the 
 authority of the Supreme Court to entertain the ,questio«is adjudged by 
 him at all-" some case upon thef subject," and whether ail that he. has 
 adjudged be not wholly coram nonjmlir,. and the qua.shlng. of the eoa-^ 
 viction wholly unauthorized dnd agiiust law? ; ,, , -. ,,., , 
 
 With reference to the judgment of His Honor the Chief Justice, con- 
 
 c ■ 
 
 ^ 
 
w 
 
 i' 
 
 THB QUEEN v.. JOSEPH CHA8S0N. 
 
 curred in by W.xho8« and J),;„ j r . ^ 
 It » ranch to bo rewettod ,n '^™''«*''^« thmgs m the outset. 
 
 ; the law it^oif. which pt^r,;i r: "'". """"*' ^ - *''° ^^^ of 
 
 the Chief Justice, after fuUhlnt.*" ", "f ^ '" *•>** «'" ^onor 
 meuta at Bathurst. should fee Wms^f T """^ ^'' ^''^•^«^''t« i^^g- 
 opiaion. and quash the coulfc- n*^ """^^'^^/'^ '° "« °^ - oPPo«it 
 " only refer to a few of thpr r '^:^'* "^^ °^ ^'^^ objections, » I «haU 
 "opinion upon tkZtt^T;^l''''''''r« '' --"y to e^pres/ " 
 tudo and bearing uponThJ f rZ^eTib" ^"^ "^^"^^ ™^"^- 
 a^judioations. without pointi,,,, \Zauf ." ^"'^' *"» '«^«"« ^a 
 changed his mind, nor " con ider^;' u" ''' oljsc,tu>naUe parts which 
 " upon them." How is anv onnf /^ """""^ '" ^^P^««« »"y opinion 
 5^^ Honor, ''have be n ;C^^^^^^^^ 
 "not wish, however to h« '°°'''f ^^^ hymy brother Wbidon. I do 
 
 "*h« points. Catme :;::ti " """^ *^ ^" °p-'- - ^ 
 
 'Grange! for it would ZT^^TT. \:'''"'^ '"^ »°*'" ™ore 
 -akingup the judgment whell\^r"\^""°" '"'^•"•' °^'«^ i» 
 purpose, and that the Chief TnT w "^ ^'^ incompetent for the 
 
 l^nowledge of the il^^tlTZ^'^t'^ T '" "°^^ ^^^ -«- 
 "•any subjects, and. if an^of th m mf 7^? ""^^ '° "'"^"'''^ *« *h« 
 c-ae amended according to'the Ac ie'w .k' '*''"'• *** ""^'^ ^«^ *ho 
 
 oi his ancient and powerful t^u";L2rw"*^ *'^ ^'""''"^ --- 
 f-m-to have magnified his Lt et anf mad T^ "' '""^^^-^"^ 
 'ng his decisions (if rightful) CT t '* ^''""'^^^« ^'T "^aintain- 
 
 received his aje ca.' dS ^'e^ and'^tteTr"' "''^^ ^''^^'^ h-' 
 Privatesuits. Butthecont'^ilnlt^H!" *^^ -«^-- of ^ 
 examined that part of His KolTurr . ' """^^ °°' ^*^« 
 
 which relates to the admissif; and rettiorr ^"""' ^■'^'^^-*' 
 he would have seen the many inaceur Jl iTtb .T """ '^*^ ^*'«' °' 
 I have referred to in my reWew oTth^ ^ ''*''°'"* °^ ^'^°*» ^hich 
 
 led U. erroneous concJons Tn law and' ??*' '"' -hich neccessarily 
 the judgment of the Chief Itile' as Z """' ''^^ ^^ «-°» ' *»>»* 
 opinions of Wbxkobb and Lp^J J W '^''''"^•^' ^™»'^'«'«« the 
 
 ticulars. What can be more felrful tii iTfT' '' ''"^'""^ '"^ *- P- 
 Court, of which Hi» Honor is 1 "I' P'""*'"^ °^ ^'^^ P'«afc 
 
 opinions. BO expressed by the Jud.os ,„"'""'. ^"'' *'*" *^-« ^'-i-^ed 
 portantquestioL.tod,'tirg;is;te!r"' ^''-''^Vin most im, 
 minority, or to know whTchTiuow f °" °' *'^ "^J°"*^ ^^ *h« 
 
 thel^:.r:! ;;!r.^"^ «*^" ' «^ ^^^ t-l, whether the C..^ .„, .,, 
 ' — - — - give evidence of the felony as praaent^- ■, i^y' 
 
'ring in tw» 
 
 outset. 
 
 * tho life of 
 
 Hig Honor 
 terato judg- 
 an opposite 
 18, " I shall 
 3xpre8» aojr 
 uch magni- 
 feyerse bis 
 irts which 
 iy opinion 
 tich," says 
 WW. I do 
 ion in all 
 ofc»" more 
 » chief in 
 fc /or the 
 
 intimate 
 56 to the 
 a had the 
 td of the 
 I exercise 
 
 laintain- 
 nld have' 
 n of all 
 tipt have 
 dgment, 
 care, or 
 » which 
 essarily 
 n ! that 
 sea the 
 ro par- 
 ' preat 
 livided 
 ist im- 
 )m the 
 
 5r the 
 in toy 
 
 review of Mr. Justice Wbi.i,on's decision, was a question by the approval 
 of both Bides, very fully discussed before Sis ^onor at Bathurst The 
 Tr??';iH*°i°*Jrfft«'r«. affording Aia^onor a nigit ti con- 
 «der and en^ediniile former ^art of tlie^fo^^^^ close of 
 
 jW^i^T^r ^Tf «r} «lecid?d ji.iUWt ^6r tie admission 6f 
 t '?fe "^ "'"°°' i'""^' ]!'"^^' ani Wirig he had no .ioubt 
 ?,l ^ Th^; .If^rdeace fey tfie Crown counsel i^ aocordfngly given. 
 
 mc 
 
 1-.'.. ,.- . . 
 *' question, 
 
 "?"?■ -r^T ^,^.fe4 oj^inion upon tK'e point,* 
 V ;^fj!/,;i^§fadf^^'f°^upon Wia^^ iUnV the judg- 
 
 W .^ell' presents excde<iih| cause ^ the dnL 
 
 ^^?^:^^^-f^ 1 have att^ntiye^exiinfndS ti»af)pign.ent. 
 "^"^^i^Z rj?^ .'^J :^ m^^:U^e been "^ffii^rly 
 
 judgmeh't 
 consider- 
 
 "cobsider 
 at tte'tri' 
 
 Lii ' J'*, ,• ,■; • — "i'r"""» •« uitvo oeen " parti 
 I nor any ms^n f^ Wsin^^^ist^^ 
 
 and overturning iU convictionl" tea mpre^' Wiit ' co 
 ence lu reading inHmnanL Ari i.^U.„_i .jii ■ t- , , 
 
 ■J, .; ./; ;i 17 y. L --■;;.'">'"• , ^o* more, wi^n consider- 
 
 able experience in rea^ing^ju^pentsonimWant' subjecHand^th 
 7^/°^?'°.«7^«f? ^if jr,?*»°° '^.jeport^^^^ Cpiirt,duriiigthe times 
 
 "t^- ^t-^'^^ tVs ;Courj;"liia d^e o&br'^Wrient £k 
 
 qpt, possess 
 
 r Now, 11 
 
 iVow, in parfacula 
 
 ^^ra*;»&% ^#ffl^;«r^'ap#i,i:ab 
 
84 
 
 'TEE QtJEEJT V8. JOSEPH CHA880N. 
 
 Honor «aya in the judgment "I thinlr th i- "J^'W* ». His 
 
 "ifiof*,! fi. "«"»eni, itnink the question waa improperly re- 
 
 Bearing in Wnd the' only issue- ' K^^^^^n.''''''^ Z^?'^ '"l-'^' 
 kill and murder John Sord"" k ^'"P^. :^"'"'° feloniously, etc. 
 
 sides, that GiJtasSb;:::'^^^^^ 
 
 a minute or more before MJuo«Va^^l\\rT? ^^^^ ^°'*' 
 
 up tl^ere, as sheriff's officer, his lirbeCi;t: ,. "'^^ ^7'^' ^" 
 
 Ch.«.„, „., would the afflmau™ We »„l^„w LVl^"? 7° t' 
 
 might tend to show some bad feeUuK TLS ^^^ J ''®™**'^^ 
 whUeuothing ,as so offered-S^It^^^^^ -^r^' ,^"* 
 
 (.cto, aZferi „oc.r«'«o» cfe6.<, which mearS J^*''^.'^^*'"' ? ^ »»'<»• a^^o* 
 Crown witness towards a tL^d partrrn ut ^^^^^^^^ * 
 
 or public in it, issue with Joseph ciasson T^!^ *^' T"" ?*"^'« 
 of proof that Seweli h»A »n. t-^, ? ;. '® '^'^ °°* "* semWance 
 
 w« knoy,, a»d duty tape„«,elj ,.,^ri ^^^ ..™T .rr? 
 
pointed out, 
 
 t«l Mk him 
 >e had shot 
 «ted it," ITiB 
 injn:op«r)y re- 
 in though the 
 I respect- 
 aeons : — Ist, 
 >niou«ly, etc. 
 ienceof both 
 in the loft, 
 Sewell wag 
 
 • issue being 
 putting the 
 Id be giren 
 h Cbaason ? 
 et \ ,;ontr*- 
 videnco ibr 
 of Seweil's 
 iiehcock, the 
 irrelevant, 
 affirmatiTe 
 > cited, but 
 I inter alias 
 Bling, by a 
 :n witness 
 semblance 
 on nor the 
 the officer, 
 nt as ever 
 3 own life 
 it him of 
 ' his duty 
 aurder of 
 )n's case ? 
 proposi- 
 I circum- 
 f so the 
 
 m rtf fljQ 
 
 «ace, the 
 
 THB QUEEN va, JOSEPH CHASSON. 
 
 " soul and life of the law." were more favored than Joseph Cha*,on and 
 required to be protected. The books po fuU of law and statui^ for the 
 
 fawU L"ld ri". *'' T""°" "' '^'" ''"^y- ihe policy of th. 
 nL\ t; ^^"' " '^' raorxthpi^ of the law, when ho see, 
 
 need, from the cu^mastancos presented before him may and Ought to 
 interpose as be d.d to protect an officer in his privilege against expoTpre of 
 persecution especially, when His Honor saw the evident drift of the 
 question In view of the circumstances attending the arrenf the Judw 
 had ample anthonty and precedent to reject the question See R. v 
 
 a\ S- ' t ^^ ^"*"''*^ * ^'■■^'''"' (IS ^ * M. 159, which are 
 opposed tp His HonorV proposition above stated. 3rd. The inly reason 
 o^r given in the books for th, right of asking questions sobi^ t 
 pnvil^e «, that upon such question being, put the witness may waive 
 hu privilege and give a Party the benefit ot his exposure if he pleases 
 thl re^f'T ^^ r P''-' Ju'tices language that he so means, bu 
 
 SewellT r^' ^^ ', 'i *" ''"'• ^°' J'" thpcross-examinatiin of 
 Sewell the, learned Chief Jfustice inteqiose^, a. it was his right to do 
 (see ife««,.', C..^. 153,) an^ explained, ;to the witnes."tha his* 
 privUoge waa and nfo^med hin, th.t. on:;su<,h a subject, he w" n^ 
 
 purbv^?"^' ' '^ "" "^^T^' ^^^,^ one or'moW question, 
 put bythepnsoner> counsel, touching SeWellV shooting Mailloux tlie 
 witness daimed the privilege and dlsHncUy refused to answer Z\Tl 
 tion. ou that subject, and the Chief JuBticVsupported him in it. IZZ 
 
 LTn^^ 1 1'"""'^"*'" '''^'*^"" in tW Words now sta^ u 
 leading to the ^same end as the previous questions wherein he had 
 daii^ his pnvHe^ andthereupo^ the W^^ Chief JusticT ^^ 
 the, question. It may be aald thkt aU ttis does not appear by hS 
 17 T^'i*"* whose fault is that? If Sis W ha[ 
 se n b;;\-^. """*' "^° *^^ facta himself, he would have' 
 xL^tW "^ '''J^^^^< and he had power by the act t. 
 correct the case accorOingly. Bo this ground for the majority of 
 
 lot ''%- .'°^ ^" JI-°'^''^»cretion,ry power respecting it. ia 
 whoUy worthU in every shape, and no ground fo, His JffoWa chaii 
 xng his op^^nion ifter leading ihe Grown counsel to act uponT ^ 
 
 YotL , \"f fr« ri'r^' °° ^^^ cross-examinatdon of the Hon. R. 
 Young, rejected byjhe tihief Xustlce, but .^envards r«;.r«^„.^'his 
 opinion wWeby defeat of tW <,aaes follow! it mav h« k^u.!" V-I 
 t^the learn.^^hi.f j„««ee saw and heard eve^y'ihirigpa;;;!;^^ 
 ^^'^/i^^??^.^'?! *-«««"« a sound di«>retion r^erior t<;^ir <Jh« 
 
^' 
 
 THfe QtjfeEjr tr,. i68EPH ^tA^ot' 
 
 Judge 9ot in Court, that he ira,conacJou. of U own .Ut *^ A . 
 
 W. (n« roHection i„,.,a«, upon ,k/™,„tl ,or „,f^ ,^'°"' "" 
 
 judgment „„ „™«j, „ I ni.i „^„ „, P q«e.fc,tut M M r • 
 on hi. crM.^«mi„rtio„ wor, improporlv XZl 1 v!l ^ ""* 
 
 r:rit:s,'tL:^t:';rnZr;r>„r '^^^^^^ 
 
 lit' ""''n"" "i""^ '»"'"'*' «" "-»'«l' ""^W'L 1''^^ 
 «h« Atloraey Oenoral or Mr. retr etc ? 7 m Tii j /'^ ^ . 
 
 ...E.n,p Ctholio .h,„,d b. ZZL'lt . lift wl""*' ""? 
 
 denc..ofMr.T,W J^ ^..rZit.^ w^ "rillltt?'"; 
 given tether in puBDMoe of H, »„„„>. ^'^ 9"'" ""uufteijitf and 
 
 d^^ing as ju,Scia5rsucrt£ ''^ *^^ ^«9«.«-« Coancil, /th^by 
 ^ -^'"9 *« J"a«5iai4y puch the connectjon in which he utorvl f« *i, 
 
 -Uetjudgu-ent ceneiderS" H^ tL^X^^lS^^ff-;,^ • 
 
-<• 
 
 '-i. 
 
 I irom day to 
 B daj-H after 
 n the ques-< 
 ) more to do- 
 ttice on the 
 '■t tho quos- 
 beforo the 
 them), and 
 jectod them 
 I of i»tor«}8t 
 Sis Honor** 
 Mr. Tounff 
 . Huve you 
 etc.? 8th. 
 Bathunt 
 u not very 
 with tlie 
 desire as •', 
 12th. Did 
 y list with 
 statQ tliat 
 re you not 
 ind asid^^ 
 respectfbl.' 
 rection by 
 t the avi- 
 «r^)^ and 
 u] other-, 
 a'to^'kr. 
 », and of 
 , thereby 
 i to the 
 lie Local 
 re of all 
 as much 
 , he was 
 Pt ,A.ad 
 circnm-i 
 [ aUow- 
 lired in 
 inor by 
 asuring 
 
 
 by th«, rule, in Attorney Otim^tr, HiUihcocic. Would the' aboTe quo*-" 
 tions or any of them if an.yire'rod ij. tho affln»Ativo, hare ^ther contS 
 ducted or (JualiM anything that Mr. Young had sftid ?n hfti previouk 
 examination? tt is dear, thoy wou;d npt. Again if tho ijboYe question, 
 or any of them had boon ap.wered in ,iiif a^Brmativd, could Joseph 
 Chasson upon the issue joined between tho Crown and him hiwf 
 given the answers in eridonce as part of his defence or as negativing tho 
 the issue so joined t It is most obvious he could not. Thc^ having 
 already had Mr. Young's evidence qui^Hfled or re^luced bf ililt' MiS- 
 would the questions, if answered, reduce it any more ot alter tJii' 
 character of it ? No such thing was over ktaown in the law of cvr^ett'ce 
 nor heard of in the books. ^ Again what were the particular iots sugg«.i(jd 
 by the questions, which if answered in the affirmative wouid Up Incon- 
 sistent with his duty ? Keeping in view that thp law considb^' oVenr 
 officer acting lawfully in his.duiy until tlie contrary be shown, and thit ' 
 It was not needful for Mr. Young to have ejplai^ why he di^ a lawf^ 
 act, observe ^he answers he might have trut^ully given after' 
 the abortive trials and failure of Justice then lately o^curripg through" 
 Junes before the Chief Justice in that county. Might not l^i^. Toiing iu 
 his judiciary capacity yory ppperly have suggested to the Atforne^' 
 Geqeral-a stranger— any matters concerning Turiei, anc^ not sutfer iS" 
 the criminal business of the country to be oyerijhrow^ ? Should' it'n^'' 
 be the d^lra of Jtr. Young ip his gpveinmenfai ckpaijity'To h^^e ' 
 Chasson cojivipted, Jf by the evidenc^ ho were gui'fty ? Ani'sep'ng tkl 'ij^' 
 waB extensively published, and flqt denied, that' th^' Roman CalhoL'^P^** ' 
 all b^ei^ caUed upon in their re«pective Churches to subsfHlJe 'for, payinii 
 the, prisoners counsel, plight not Mr.' Youqg 'in his ' G|)^fernhipil5 
 
 capacity, verjrj^operljr think that a Jton^^n '6^thollc'>^ho had suh^^^ 
 to pay. for the defence ^fraB not an' ipipartial juror ? ' ' ' ' 
 
 1rtien.j.ik'^t;att»^nti^'toW 
 
 Young ^08 actuated towards Josepjh Chanson by' any 'imprdper f^^felg 
 
 m« ,-n<T.V„i^ .,,;ch a.^thjn'gj^but ;p majoriW; 
 
 V. Hitchcock, the very case which yre reiv on, am -jiidte' 'from 'the 
 reap^tive jud^ents of PoLLoc^ C. B.. a^d AiipEpsox, F.;,wh',cli a^e' 
 whoU^^misappKed or by the Couri; mi8under,,tood. t^esegr^at'ji'di'ek in 
 those respective passages, ^8p4cifli5aUy'bnfliie"tk que8il<ihs'''td shVwli^.'' 
 ^«Za<jon of the wjtne,s to o^;^^or the :c^sB'\^^f%^J} 
 
 actuated towards the defendknt.W Wgfiil'W s'toifei^^'A^'^Ji'' 
 EwirCa ease.'S (Jamp; 638, where'tfce Witfcs s^id h'/wouid''W*«ge^''' 
 
 ■^ 
 
 TO 
 
 />^. 
 
«?.-, THE QUEEN „. jqSEPH^(;!^AsSOir. 
 
 rnort dear law and kv Ikil i T^' ^- ""' "^ «" "»a ii, 
 
 what ha. rr.'.^rtt.'s'w.'^" """^ *••■ "'•*°"»- 
 
 indict, „, ,„„i „,t^„ ™ "LirV "" ''"""°°' "»'■ ""«"' 
 be inferred that, in nroiv^rlr ^,a«j, • T'^tness for him, it must 
 
 •» *K 9rti.U».»„„ e7t,tr^ V :\it°Sf^^'iT' " - 
 
 connael, to divnltfe ftnvtI.ir.o.»v u V^r ™* ^*° ^i*^® Grown 
 
 settled than ah^ost anrotL tt '^^^^^^^^ known to ibe law.better 
 
 that «ich matter^^Sl M^V ""^^ '^ ^'^^' P^^^^ ^^^ J^^^^e 
 The books are Zl of tWeSt ' ^^ ^'^Privileged from answer. 
 
 cit^ t^ie Aumerous aiithori«»« t •!, ■ ^°'"? °« » ^^te of time to 
 
 4tl »*W xL , ' )^- 1^9 aiMi Zawiton t. Chance 4 Allfln P 
 
 411, Where tl,e late Chief Justice Ritciiie b«M fiT 7 .' • ^ 
 
ipt motive — 
 ive evidence 
 e all thjs is 
 is meaning, 
 p^t, which 
 it a witness, 
 tged in the 
 spite or an 
 ufcies? Or 
 cUent, and 
 iva, it mnst 
 icting with 
 lide? ' ' 
 y it to be 
 ice or com- 
 Taylor on 
 generality 
 ai^thoritjr, 
 lemned by 
 md Taylor. 
 f, tnp case 
 snt of the 
 3 privilege , 
 
 he Crowa 
 jounsel as''^ 
 aw better 
 ad justice^ 
 > answer, 
 ifossionftl 
 i tiine ta . 
 Attorney 
 Allen E. 
 ) to the 
 proposi- 
 we) does 
 B. This 
 Bcitable. 
 roved— 
 camina- 
 ■tjug in 
 against 
 
 ^ 'i\M^ vs. JostePri bHASsbifr. 
 
 d9 ^ 
 
 3by the questions were wholly coilatei^al and ir^elevaili tO'-'- 
 i^. Young , as an officer of the Government acting m'& •*" 
 
 Chasson, wherebj 
 
 the issue and 
 
 ^ , p^i -^- y. vuo uruverament actini 
 
 the Crown coupselpnnleged from answering such questions'.' The 
 judgment at t^e trial rejecting such questions' was 'a^ordingiy riihl 
 and. the judgment of reversal Is wrong ' '-''^•''■-' "" hi ^fi/t'n 
 .Passing o^everal grpdndk Which frfe^^fea' ii His'^oadr 3^dge 
 ^.tniK'A jud^ent. and finding that the majority of the Court .u^ 
 
 this judgment. ^'I think (says His Honor the Chief Justice) the prisdneft 
 • - J^,^7^"j<=°"*''^i'^frf^»^werecallod as ^Wtn^sses.ihotdd hk^e 
 been aUowed to state the purpbses for- which they'Veiirto Albert's 
 house, (why?) in order to disprove the inference tKat they W re 
 there for an unlawM purpose." I most expUcitly deny thW any 
 inference of that kind did or coUd arise against them at that time. C 
 were at Alberts house, some his own family, otheh, his relatioiis--all by 
 his licence and consent, doing nounlawM act, as ' rights thete as I In 
 my house, as truly remarked by Mr. Justifce WiijH),. The Crown tave 
 no evidence that these persons, at that time, T^ere unla^fuUy thfe^e, 
 afterward their hiding and resisting in the loft Wak a misdemeaibr and 
 raised such an inference ; but before that, being there lawfully, what 
 inference was there to disprove f i^on^, evfen if this matter had been 
 ;f°"TvrK n" ^"°"' «W "tSe pi^siners." Nubef6us werS Hixe 
 times that the Crown counsel caUed fiis Honor's attention to the single 
 ,h8ue of Chasson standing alone, and thdr objections were all ma^e as 
 "V^TT^^^" maxim. Jfe. »•„<«. ali„acta, mHn6cerehondebH, 
 as thatChafeon could not thus create evidence f6t hinisfelf. ^y should 
 sjrange™ purposes affect this suit? They, as I have' befofb stilfed, 
 charg^ with no cnifae, expecting n<i arrest, may hive come ttt Albe^t^s 
 housefor a very innocent purpose; on thfe cbiitrAry, Cha,isbn. <ai,irged 
 with f^ony and informed tkat the iotistables were ^6.nkng to arrest Sin 
 iD^yhatrebeenthe^fortheyetybt^^^^^ 
 
 the o4er ? nfe; ttiief Justice at the trial&ni^ Vuled tMs q^esKo^ 
 .»?««, was right; the hew judgment overturning it. in law ik ^ng, 
 f I am incUned to think." (says His Honor) that I should h«v6 allow^ 
 the^questaon put to Prudent Albert. Hz.: "Aftet you got up stairs 
 what did you pebple say amobg you." In ahswW, I tespedtMiy tut 
 sorrowfiilly feel (if His Honor think so,) that the long established rules 
 
 of evidence are becoming fearfully discarded, and that a different book 
 in tLepiiqfession upon evidence Willi »w»n«l«iiA^ „. ..a.uu..ji i,- ..,_-, L 
 
 , ,;; - ^ ^ ,, } "■' '»itttj?fCTl VJ laV over- 
 
 thrown jurisdiction of the Cotirt of Assizes, the best matihej of tooduc 
 mg long and ruinous trials, the mo«t approved modes of quashing Veidicst 
 
« .-..^.. 
 
 40 
 
 TJJ 
 
 *i*^' , ,:' , . ?P„WFW^ 7»- JOSEp;^ .CflAspp^. 
 
 ■'■" I •,""' , "*" ^"(^uoH BUBO, autaoncy or pr: 
 fte subject in ibat e«ellent book i' C7tj%V dr^^^i^K,? '£,;,■ fife/add 1b 
 ,Jjrt|^t cl^ headed {^,W.iMpM. J. VF^couldthema^raeCt 
 ,«Teceipd f,r wdence, a^^^nsMhe Crawn r fo^ 
 
 ^.^ an4 p^tiou ready,tp,^ooV bip.:sSel/^on; l^ 
 ie^e; fJ^irfd^laratpneasptrangerB t,f ,this, ^uit. a^cirnpamdng iSr 
 
 ,,^.^wp«n,^l^e.(5rownand ^<«epb Cha«p^n. ^ur«]^ the sha^ in wI^H 
 ^ue^fa^^ ,^^s,i»yfc. coyeri^^^^ i>«^°l from theVme J^fw't 
 
 ,^^,the^ftu.tU afte^ the surrender. and ivering |>t ^ Sta^ 
 , Wiy^e ^, of the ^dl^ug ^ explanafcoiyof it. but eveS^ S 
 ,fl?Mfht l^ye^^^a^,^d bjr w^y of narration, wa« imperative for its reiel 
 
 , gJ^M^«4u^^t.<^ wron^; Such fearatL, £ 
 
 ^i^ifv-^''^:'^ ,,ay^ ^be.n^imina^eri;i; aaie i^^^ 
 ,f^.«».0,,^,70. The Jearned Ji^dge appears to have chUi^ hji Lnrl 
 *>y hjm yas afterwapJ. «;.^mK admitted'^ th^torn6y X^e^E 
 ^.Sinulwlandof Question n.,fc ii, niiwJ 'i.'^ .L'i^", \^T -ifJfj" 
 
 Court 
 
 m.W: ,#^r, -^T, b^,^iyr a»thor^t, in i^V for tile admi^on^^ ' llotS, 
 .J^a^0AVPont^e^,'edi8cretipp;a8.t^^ ;i3!r of '£3' 
 ,^oM..^d the nja«n^in^hi<fh Chi^a^^ S^^^^t^^ 
 
 t,^;|o^^ py m^ ..ho ,hear^ ,^,^ i^Jfve'it wo¥ha^; ai^e £ 
 .*«hte^t <>ddB with, the Jurvin th™'r JI'J^;!; o '■kr:T'l;: 1 [i'^Wfr'^^ 
 
 *«ht,^ <,dd» wiihthe ^,in th^ ,&d^ 
 ;:^«yadeace not,a p^^^t^r to more^HU:^ono,ii discreSn ? ' ■^^'^' '"^ 
 -\jf7r^ <rtb^^e<^ionin thi«,jud,jm^ti8 the receiving, evidence of 
 
 ,^_^elflny wh^h J[ .h^^e c^^ai^e^,^ Mft.^lF.^fl&l Justice 
 ,^W«f,F.a«WeuJ,,,^^0,i WiaU P«t, repeat J^esiii^^;^^ 
 
e, Court. Or 
 iro'tlier o^ tiie 
 y or principle 
 8 colIecW on 
 ', SoS/anct in 
 "Obciir&ied ^0 
 natt$ir aa put 
 
 ieve tiiat the 
 facljs ^roy^d 
 Vt^t |«opie 
 0^. the (^.Q- • 
 wM act, {u 
 im, or ^ith 
 mot be evi- 
 fliyii^g ,th«r 
 issue, Joined 
 in which the 
 e the^ Aij'ent 
 v what was 
 rthiq^ tiiat 
 T ite rejep- 
 ) , trial was 
 anons, ey^n 
 } immediate 
 
 drilled (^nt 
 antral : but 
 
 the rCourt 
 
 f ^the, evi- 
 
 Jwered hy 
 >,>aaj|e/liJe 
 laracter of 
 
 yidence of 
 r. Justice 
 
 fer 
 
 l^' 
 
 THE QUKEN ts. JOSEPH CHASSOX. 41 
 
 Wbtmokk. J. agrees with His Honor's judgment on the trial for recoiviag 
 
 one of fl. Tr ." '"^''^ *"^' '^^^^^^^ «Pi«i»« "Pon the poiSt." A 
 on of the pubhc however, in deferential opposition to His Honor the 
 
 Chief Justice. Ihav. fully considered the question as before referred to 
 and for the reasons there offered have not the remotest doubt that the 
 
 that His Honors reversing judgmaat is agaiast law. The evidence 
 
 SIZJlTT'T''''' *" ^ ^bbery committed at Youn;':: 
 Robins with others whose names were not given on the trial the evi 
 dence being as separately directed upon Chasson only a. if all the others 
 
 that the Chief Justice should treat the matter, in his judgment, as if Z 
 
 17 '"'^^^''r ''' ^"^"^ •''*^° «^^--' -* including robb^ 
 a^d as no hy tKepnsoners where no prisoner was named but Josel' 
 O^asson alone, and this mistake is carried out with effect again^tSe 
 r^ephonof such evidence by confounding Chasson who did Z. others 
 wh^.,.,committ robbery and confusing the matter in such a w" 
 hat His Honor could not indeed see the connexion ; but if the subjj 
 
 8 as palpable as the link in a chai... Does His Honof consider that 
 there IS any connexion between cause and effect ? between the discharge 
 of a loadcHi gun and the carriage of that change ? If so there is eq3 
 connexion between the robbery ac^«a% oo„.„».-«.^, the complaint oJ^T 
 he warrant for apprehension, a delivery thereof to the sheriff who^ 
 officers in going to execute it, are resisted and kiUed by the robber 
 they are all connected and parts of the same transaction, ahd it matrrs' 
 not whether the parts be contemporaneously, successively or re^" 
 spectively connected, the principle and effect are the same. N sedng 
 his connexion which His Honor says he does not, may be account d^r 
 n His Honor's "not particularly considering the case" or « wishing Yo 
 express any decided opinion upon the point." For the betW unde 
 tanding of the matter, however, it m.y be observed that the many cases 
 m the books are presented in three classes; 1st. Where a criLt 
 charged in the indictment is the cause of the one charged in the indict 
 ment- the pr6of of the first tending to .how guilt/llie a^a 
 moUve tn the second .^ in the many cases before r'ef6rr^ tlfhe note 
 to ^seo^sGr.^^nal E^idenc., ^, 92. and as in this c^e. aid wJe e 
 a crime not charged in the indi,itm6nt is a co„Wnn»„..«. .f:! _ . '^ 
 If one transaction with the crime charged in "the k'dlcim^^trandlenr. 
 ing to show guilty knowledge and motive in it as in m., v. iff^e B & 
 
x.^i 
 
 4^ 
 
 THE 4'uEEN vs. JOSEPH Ciiissoir! 
 
 }' 
 
 C. 145 and other ca^es. 3rd. Where a cr/me nof charged ip the indfct. 
 me^t . not the ca«se or part of and has noconne.ioa w'hai.v^;"^^^^^ 
 mme .h^rged in the , indictment, ^xcept as showing by the first a 
 practice pfth, wrongdoer in'cou^itLg such crimes J Jarged t^he 
 second, and therebj; to raise a presumption pf guilty" knowledge or 
 motive m .t as in cases of forgery, and uttering base, poin. other forgeries' 
 and other uttenngs. no way connected with the cri^ changed, 3™ 
 shown as proving a coupe of dealing or' practice in th?ac;used of 
 committing ,uch crimen, and thereby raising a presumption of his guilty 
 knowledge or purpose in, th. crime charged, as also in thelat- case ot Rel 
 y./'m«c»,(Law Jiep. 2 Crown cases reserved. 128). where a prisoner wfs 
 charged in two counts of the indictment with attempts to obt^n mol^ 
 upon, false pretences, from one Walters and one Dyer, pawnbrXt 
 r^P^tively. by offering a ring which he represente^t; LTdilmS 
 ring whereas the stones were only crystals. The prisoner's defence was 
 that h.,did not know the ring waa false, having been employed by on« 
 Roberts to pawn the ring for him upon his representation that it was a 
 diamond fing and prisoneir.believing the assertion to be true' After 
 Konog the respective charges in the indictment, in order to shew guUtv 
 b,owledge in the pris^er,. evidence was proposed that the prisoner 
 >.m days before h^ offered other false articles to o</... pawnbrokers • 
 xiam^ly to one Lazenby, a clj^in representing it to be gold while it was' 
 not and, to opj Stowcand, tp one Taylor, respectively, a waU-h and a 
 clusi^r.nng which wa, not a cluster ^r,g. The evidence was re<:eived 
 the point. reserved, th^ prisoner cpnvicted and after argument upon 
 appeal Lord Chief Justice Co..Bxi,oB in delivering the judgment of ^ 
 " t^t wh Th T^. ^."f ^^-dence said : " It saems.clear upon principle 
 tfiatwhenth^ fact of the prisoner having done, the thing charged is 
 jroved and th, only remaining question is whethe, at the tfrne he did it 
 he Md gu|lty knowledge of the quality, of his act or acted under a 
 ^ m;8tftK,eyidence of the^class, receive^ must be admissible. ,It tends 
 ^ to shew that he was pursuing a course of similar acts, and thereby 
 raises, a presumption that he was not acting undef a mistake." This 
 case^ullya|rmst^e Crown counsel's views, the judgment at the trial 
 jnd Judge, Wbtko^bb opinion in the judgment of the Supreme Court;' 
 but ov^^thrpws the reversing, judgment of the Chief, Justice, especially' 
 ^ xntim^ting that the felonies shown «,ust be ^ par^s o t£ .1 
 trai^ptio^,. See,a^so,tl^e,case befpr. fl^.Bo.n; J, confirmed. by all the 
 Judges.^^. V ^^';f<?'^u^„4 & P,14^, Therefc^e. by the strictest 
 rules, oi l^w an4 ^vide^c^, there is nothing, in the fore,roin« obiection« .. 
 
 w:arfant,U.e,reversing,of^tUp^udg^Snt;^yen«t,thetri^^^^^ 
 
 the convictions. i . . ' <|»4<wu 
 
 (iis 
 
a the indicts 
 ^^r with the 
 jthe first a 
 rged in the 
 nowledge or, 
 lier forgeries 
 ged, may he 
 
 accused of 
 'f his guilty 
 ewe of Reg. 
 arisoner was 
 fc^n mouey 
 kwnbrokers, 
 ) a diamond 
 lefence was 
 feA by one 
 at it was a 
 rue., After 
 hew guilty 
 le prisoner 
 rnbrokers : 
 lile it was 
 at^^h and a 
 I received, 
 lent upon 
 ent of the 
 L principle 
 jhargod is 
 B he did it 
 id under a 
 
 I It tept^B 
 id thereby 
 :e." This 
 the trial, 
 le Court, 
 (specially, 
 the same 
 y all the 
 
 strictest 
 ictions t-Q 
 to ^uash 
 
 ^A^Srl^^T-'^'^r"^ ''"\^«^* '' * J^^?«> diser^' '' '"'^^' 
 bon. A Juagfe on a tnal or in fcourt, sees an^ hoars all that I' 'pissing 
 around h,m, embracing many things which a functionary bUt of Court 
 cannot know a.d cannot 'Jiidge ^ of. aiiK ' hii'feetiona^ powets <S 
 n«.rf are a^,.n.h warranted b^l'^A^ li^w "of tlieTand J tZ 
 practice of pr^edure a. any part of the laW ioveming his Court, and 
 the e^rcise of his discretionary powers are as fully embraced i^ his 
 oal^ of office as auycjh.r duties he undertalces to pLfbrm.^i^,Z 
 
 S^ ""T^ '""^ ''''^^ "P-"^ specific fai'tainisterially Z- 
 emsed. and which may in some cases be appeal^ from, tut dei^Lng 
 
 lEhT't?".'''" -"I" '"""^ course, upon circnmlnce! 
 which anse befor^ him and'which none but the fudges at the trial can 
 P^ykuc^ It was said by the late Lord Chief Justice T^.^ 
 
 for a Judge, than ih decide discretionary matters, ^till it must be done 
 and what necessity/obliges, it maintains, and a matter so adiudg^ 
 especially by a Court of Supreme and exclusive jinsdiction, Elt 
 ..m,«^.a^« and no other Court can interfere with it; as infinhig 
 o committing for contenipt. ordering .Challenges to be in writftg' 
 jischarging a jury after disagreement, admission and rejection of 
 
 other matters Mr Stark e 'speaking of cross-ei'amination, 1 ' vol l88 
 Z'^ mode o^eiami^atWls; in tr^ refected' bv i c^^S 
 Ad ^£r''T- "1 ^,Hf P-iJ'on'an^ ^l^^^itne^^ 
 frol"l'' y T"-! -'^ ^^^' «P^^W"^ of theTatitude arf6#ed a 
 ^K«s.e.aminahou. «ns ^af autt^or s^^. » It' i^ p^rhapi i^.,, left, 
 ^e^t/'rt" o/,A. ^^^, - ea^'l^i^iinia^ •^ks^'.y.up. .,,^ 
 the counsd from too^g^reat a iiigressipn fe 'tie' Weitfei«' ' k^Le « 
 
 ^ercised in the (W of Xssz^s O^ra^d'^Teriiii^iand jSlllIver^ 
 as a pari; of the oi^nary l^w and Ip^actice' iif iU &, cdi^eriiin^ 'ev^ 
 
 ^^ ?^^Co« «• ^ow, k^cor^in^Uhe f(,re.oibg ; whfci L oJ 
 Jefcrty-ei^t questions ad|udg^ by the «f Jusk it tiie la«e trial^ 
 ^^a ^u^^n >^n t^e judJciaJdiic^^ 
 
 ^mrt^ decide^ ^^^,y4r^ att^ely^ii^ oVe^ the^testibiis. ^nd 
 can find ««,. the orJy question about w« fe seenOd' aHy «! 
 
 w^ ^admission^if it were'improi.r) o^thf Wi^en^ 
 out that appears ftiTiv nni.wo-:=J >.i iw. ._i. > u i . . . /' 
 „,« ' i-'iifi.,... r T, — :•■"•, yj tae vases, Dec^use, granting for 
 ^gument t^^ such evidence was }mi.'roper; ii« objeofkn ' a<* t6 thi 
 
' >-' 
 
 44 
 
 THE Q-TEEN ts. JOSEPH CHASSOjf! 
 
 the verdici, as in iZ&r. v. Ai«, R. & R. Cr'own caROR iq-> »K»- v 
 tiflU fi,„*^ „ui. L -i vrown caRes, id^ where it waa 
 
 held ihat al hpuph ,t appear, upon a case reserved that evidence was 
 admitt^ at the t^rial which, ought not to have been received Yer" 
 he Judges are of op.nipn that, after rejecting the improper evidenc 
 there was a.ple to support the conviction, they wiU not^t S 
 
 ohwL T ""^1 ^" '""^^ ^^ '^' ^'^^ J«««<='> »" to the effect of 
 obj^ted evidence, and the other evidence being ample without it, and 
 
 this Court! I *" '''' rf ? ""°'''"« *''>'^«'- -^ P'-t'- of 
 thw Court, ,t was no ground for disturbing the conviction. Then as to 
 
 "Zf of Tr"" "-^ '^ *^"'^' *° ^°"«"« *h« P'OBecutor to the 
 
 proof of one felony or to allow him to give evidence of other act, 
 
 " wbch were aU parts of one transaotion." So it was contended The 
 
 Crown counsel that the felony committed here was a part of the tnu,s^! 
 
 WUTT 7 """'"' '"'^"" '" ^^- - ^^"''-/before cited, 
 1874 where the offences were no way connected, and attempts of utter^ 
 ing false com had gone so far. B..ckb.k.. J., reserved the pTint on that 
 acoaunt and reported to the Court that he had no doubt that the evi- 
 deuce of the other pretences had much weight with the jury. It bein* 
 
 Sth^":^ «• "'^^""*"*^"' '"' conviction, but it was there 
 »riRo ^ o<5- offence, no ^ay connected could be rUiyed against the 
 prisoner an4. iher^fbre. it became the established practice otlhe Cour^ 
 to admit suph ev,deuc, generally. So that in every view the Chief 
 Justice was right in his discretion for receiving the eviienc. at the trial 
 ^en some queshons ^or the public to think of. Was npt' the Judge's 
 
 of L? otherfour, questions (Wktmobb, J. 3) upon which the majority 
 anV^it"!'" r^.''r"^""°"^' Looking at the law from Stirkie 
 olS- t^'nl ;r^ "^'"^ "^'^^^ ''''^y'^'' ^t be doubts! that iV 
 came within the Ch,ef Just ce's discretionary pow.r to reject the ques- 
 tj^on,putto8e.w^ll.to Younga,d the rejections as to tje purpe'rof 
 the Pnscmew going to Albert's house, and'as to what the peopleTaid in 
 
 ^tii^^h J^. '^^^".^ *»>«* ^^ these questions^ipr perty 
 2«un the Judge's discretionary power ? Have not the public as much 
 
 Jp^edi^ret^onary adjudications as to his administration of any part 
 of the law ? Can the trial Judge, month, after the cin^umstances of the 
 decision have gone from his memory^ sitting in another Court with pther 
 
 rlS;r""^''''"*'.^°^'f''"P°" ''" discretionary adjudications and 
 reverse tihem, ^xercasinar a discretion nnnn n -«.„„::-_ J^ i. V • 
 
 according to his own fancy, wholly defeating seven convictions L 
 
^h^re it was 
 vidence was 
 ^ed. Yet if 
 «r evidence, 
 )et it aside, 
 he effect of 
 lout it, and 
 1. practice of 
 Then, as to 
 tiink that it 
 tor to the 
 r other acts 
 ided the 
 he traiisac- 
 3fore cited, 
 ;8 of utter- 
 nt on that 
 it the evi- 
 It being 
 •rosecution 
 was there 
 gainut the 
 the Court 
 the Chie^ 
 
 the trial, 
 e Judge's 
 •o claim it 
 I majority 
 i Starkie 
 iH that it 
 the ques- 
 irposes of 
 ) said in 
 
 properly 
 
 as much 
 1 bv the 
 any part 
 es of the 
 ith iither 
 ions acd 
 a Judge 
 ions for 
 
 TttE QtJEEN vs. JOSEPH CHAS^ON. 
 
 
 45 
 
 Hon upon matters of AiJ ,."? ^""^ contempt ? No ^uch adjudici- 
 books,^S:Vr •::,r i?'!?^^/^ to be^^d^ the ^ngU«l. 
 
 books, and I think tT;.,^'"°*'"' '' *^^ ^°"P^ '° tJ'^ Engli^^ 
 
 court^ A f ' ^ ^ '^^'^^ry ^" °'^'' bofore heard of in anv 
 • ouPtry. As to asBumins inri«dUw... k„*t. c.^ „"■ "V.^n.^^y 
 
 countrv A 7 "^ »»'wy^8ay was never bofore heard of in a 
 
 Frederfcto. t„ tie Court at Sit .l/,,. "j * """^ *' 
 Chief Ju.ti«, m hi. Co„r„rf ■ ^. J»JP»™'» of the 
 
 For centunes, however, until a late oeriod if w» fv V IV- 
 
^ T^^^ffW,?- JOSEPH CHA830?^. 
 
 the pause U tried may, in his discretion, reserve aav ausstion nf 1 
 
 wbcK „ have arisen on ti,e trial for the con fdeSoftitW 
 
 r?'" -^f "»• a"*! this law whs codified by the Rev Siatut««nf l««;4 
 
 u.m««l ,„„«„„ „f ,.„, „ „p„„ . ^, „^ _^ " « PU e and 
 
 I, &W.„ V. i.„„to,-, 7 B. A C. 800, It, w., held by HoM„„ J II,"' 
 
 ^f«.to. IJ, Q B. ,24, 1 oherre itrtated i„ argument by ths Attor„.v 
 Omer,a, a mo,t eninent counetl of the time, in reference l!. I j*^ 
 d,»h«ing a jn,,. at tb. A«,„, and « ..^^.ntlT^VlL'!^ 
 a. foBow. :— "At common law tl,„r„ ».. „. „,_. ., < . °"^' *"''' 
 
 pmei^aV|Wer'&itw^^^^^ 
 diBcretion la not sulject to be reversed any more than the Z'bgtf a 
 Jd^euicnjaitiil cases as to the aamis,ability o? evidence JriTi^e 
 "o^^avrpg Ae ca^. to the jury." l^esame doctrine is' suit^S 
 held by tie ^ourt ,a ManseninerroAip.eQaeen, 8 t& % utt 
 ^e^ajfeera of practice. So in (^ray y^He Queen, ll'^^^^^ 
 l^fT "^^ """ ^: ^ «-^". 6 fi & 8.' m, upon thf exeSe^ of 
 ^u^^e^, Wretion. as ^being matters in , wii6h ^ere is^ W 
 ffom h 9 decision and m 'iile^tna y. ^oues 1 B & A "'Mo '7^^'^ 
 
 ^ F-^ce. On examining the authorities th.t have occurr^ n^ 
 M ornament, of w^c^h oup is Substantially a coj^y. from IsS t 
 1875 the cases appear to be verv few. non«J,V^nv .rth^'foi^S" S 
 <>W^°^^^;:^r.tionand.^r^^^ 
 
THE aUEE.'f V8. JOSEPH ckASSOl^! 
 
 ^tion of law 
 Hon of either 
 1849, by sec. 
 ine Supreme 
 utosof 1854, 
 n this case 
 ion is, what 
 ean ani/ and 
 to the mere 
 ircumstaiices 
 absent Judge 
 Qg the mer<} 
 
 a pure and 
 I think the 
 » the latter. 
 0, J., that a 
 In Ite^: V 
 he Attornej' 
 to a Judge 
 
 other side 
 
 no way of 
 a exception 
 er of right, 
 e power of 
 '. <S:S. 460, 
 ar^e a Jury 
 d#el9by;) 
 e the jury 
 m, and hia 
 ■uling of a 
 r his mode 
 bstantialiy 
 . 54, as to 
 P. 42, and 
 Jcercise of 
 tto appeai, 
 as to tii^' 
 discretion 
 under the 
 
 1S48 to 
 )ity-eighi; 
 W reports 
 
 ■*i 
 
 for the last ten years comprising only five or six hunitrod pages. iTio 
 Judges themselves properly take exception wherever a case does, not 
 come within the jurisdicdon oi the act, and will not hear the questiortfy 
 but q^uestions of law dccurring in any trial and opnvictiou. See lie^.v. 
 Clark, t. Rep. 1 (Cu, cases reserved) 54 -i%.v. t^m, ib.|37^, Heg^^. 
 Jenkins, ib. 186, but in Raj. v. S,tuhhs, (Cn. case? res<?rved, 1 Jurist, ^. S, 
 1115, it was there distinctly |jeld that under the Act of Parliament, the 
 Court cannot entertain questions of mere practice as to whether a case 
 •Was proiH-rly left to the jury upon the Unconfirmed testimony of an 
 accomplice, ♦,hough Parker, B., Wilms, J., auA other Judges were against 
 the sufficiency of the evidence which produced the conviction, and did 
 not approve of the Way the case was put to the jury ; yet not being 
 strictly a question of law they would not interfere. See also, as to 
 jurisdiction, Iie(/. v. Mellor,, 4 Jurist, N. S. 214. According to those 
 authorities all the objections taken in this case were in the mere discre- 
 tion of the Judge, and governed by the practice of the Court concerning 
 evidence, and did not come within the act at all, but the judgment of 
 the Su)>reme Coqrt in effect deprives the Judge of Assizes andjajl de- 
 livery of all discretionary power, and of finally deciding questions of 
 practice concerning evidence, and otherwise, and yirtuajly overthrows 
 the jurisdiction of that Court altogether. iCow, the appeal allowed by 
 the discretion of the trial Judge under our Rev. Stat, virtually copied 
 from the English Act, is not like an nppUcation to the discretion of 
 the Cpqrt above for a new trial, but upon some specific question of taw, un- 
 mixed with discretion or practice ; otherwise the appellate Court by laV 
 has no jurisdiction and no consent can give it, nor has a Judge on tri^ 
 any right to reserve questions which the appellate Court has no jurisdicf 
 tion to entertain. I should like to be informed which one of the objec- 
 tions, taken by the prisoner's counsel, came within the jurisdiction cf th^ 
 Supreme Court, according to the power referred to. The objections were 
 all of matters either immaterial, discretionary or pertaining to_ the mere 
 practice of the Court in which they arose, and from the earliest 6{ tijncf 
 to the present w,e have , no train of such questions ever taving beerf 
 entertained in the Criminal (?ourts of appeal in Engla,tid : for instance, 
 compare the nun^rous objections whichj it t^ears by I^ Honor Judge 
 Wbldon's judgment, he undertook to decide. Wlie^e is anything like it 
 to be found in the English authorities that govern us t , There is non^ 
 tobe tound! Where is anything to be found like the , five oVjection^ 
 upon which the majority of the Court quashed the coi^viction ? '. Noije ; 
 but the cases of i?*"= v, Stttbhs, 4 Jurist, N. S. 1115, and the other late 
 cases above cited, fully establish the contrary, and maintain the Court of 
 Assizes, Oyer and Terminer and jail delivery, undisturbed in its ancient 
 
 
48 
 
 THE QUEEN vb. JOSEPH CHA8S0N. 
 
 strength, d.Hcret.oA and practice ; wherefore, I think the Supreme Court 
 had .u. jurisdiction to deal with the objection, submitted, and that their 
 adjudication, for quashing the convictions, are coram non judice and void 
 However, for the various reasons «ot forth in this pamphlet, eineciatl,,' 
 there being no legal authority, precedent nor reason to support the judgl 
 ment of His Honor Judge Wki.dok for overturning the judgment of the 
 Chief Justice in the Court of Assizes, Oyer and Terminer and jail de- 
 livery I nor any legal authority, precedent nor reason in the judgment 
 of The Chief Justice and the majority of the Supreme Court to warrant 
 the reversal of the judgment in the Court of Assizes, .tc., and jail 
 delivery; nor any legal authority, precedent nor reason to interfere 
 with the Court of Assizes, Oyer and Terminer and jail de^very, as tu its 
 judgment on questions of mere discretion and practice; nor any juris- 
 diction m the Supreme Court to entertain the objections upon which 
 tney quashed the conviction, in this case. I, therefore, think that the 
 convictions were improperly quashed. The foregoing has really occupied 
 more of my time than I could conveniently spare, but less than its public 
 importance deserves. I view it as involving subjects of the highest 
 importance to the public justice of this country, and as deserving the con- 
 sideration of every body. No one, I think, felt more kindly towards 
 the prisoners than I, considering them innocent dupes of other., and 
 having suffered very much from a long imprisonment, and otherwise. The 
 question, however, is not one of Governmental clemency, ^^r which I 
 should go very great lengths, but of judicial justice for the safety of the 
 public here. A trialof forty days length upon'a charge of the highest crime 
 that can os committed against the public peace.ends with a verdict of guilty 
 of murder found upon the most ample evidence, and by one of the best 
 Junes rever saw on a trial, six other prisoners confessing themselves 
 guUty of manslaughter, subject to the objections ^alzcn on this trial 
 The objections are argued before four of the Supreme Court Jodges who 
 determine to quash aU the convictions. All the prisoners are set free 
 pubic justice defeated, and the laws of peace .nd safety brought into 
 public ndicule and contempt. The enquiry which the public makes is, 
 whose fau^t is aU this? "A mistake of the Crown Counsel." says the 
 Vnwn Advocate, "the fault of the Crown Counsel." says the Farmer. 
 Mt at all BO, Mr. Unwn Advocate. By no means so, Mr. Fanner. I can 
 speak for myself. I^o man could have used more care and diligence in 
 duty than t I could do mine, and I may truly say as mucli for tlie 
 Hon. Attorney General, who to my mind displayed remarkable abU-ty 
 and prudence in the course of this trial. We carefully considered thB 
 evidence before snbmittino- it. nnil w.»ro or.f;«„i„ ~..: J, J 1.^, . . ^ 
 ot the Court, which, to pur miude, were a«jording to law encl ttte usuiU 
 
b 
 
 THE QUEEN vo. JOHEPH OHASSONi 
 
 
 '€.' 
 
 '-^% 
 
 ■i 
 $' 
 
 diBcretion and practico of tho Court. It wan no taul of our«, ,f tho 
 «amo J«.l«e afterward revernod the very ju.lgment« winch led u«, oHpe..- 
 2 when for the rc.onH now .et furt.h, there appo.r. - lawtor h» 
 doing so, nor for tho majority of tho Court, inoludin, the Ch»ef .u«t.e 
 nu.«hinKthc convictions, thereby producing ho uyunoun a dotcat. 
 several matters are. therefore, presented in the only way .n which could 
 bring them before the public, including the editor, ot th , Un.n Advocate 
 FaZe,;m^\ any other public journalists who may have expressed or formed 
 opinion; on tl subject, to consider whether the Crown oounsel cou 
 have done more in the way of their duty, and -^^'^l\^^:\^';2li 
 „l.n.e for so serious an injury to public justice, or whdher he fau^t 
 doe. not lie with the Court itself. The pubhc have a nght to look that 
 way in order to observe how the puhli.- servants, in tho adminiHtration ot 
 ju i , perform their duties in the Supreme Court. The foregoing are 
 matter of common sense, upon which, in my opinion, properly explauud 
 all intelligent persons (nearl) as weU an lawyers) may form a reasonably 
 ^1:1 opinion, namely, upon such ..uestions offered above for in,^con- 
 clu«ions. after reading tho r.-spective judgments, and ™y/;™ » ;^;^'^^ 
 and whether the public have not the same vested nght and i uteres n 
 lestions pronounced .u-cording to tho discretionary power and long 
 established practice of the Court of Assises and Jail Dehvery as any 
 ofhtl^lgment of the law. and whether the Chief Justice, or ho 
 majori y c^' the Supremo Court, can go back upon t^-c ju.lgments aft 
 they have been acted upon and reverse them, and thus defeat pubic 
 ju."ice; looking, too. at the respective judgments, and the manner u 
 'which ;../ sho. they have been prepared, whether they appear to ha e 
 Teeived that careful attention from the Chief Justice and the majonty 
 of he Court which the ^reat importance of the subjects to Publu" JusUco 
 demanded, and whether a better attention to the facts and to he law 
 concerning the respective objections would -^ ^— -J^/^/^t al 
 Court to conclusions for sustaining the convictions ; whether in all 
 their experience, thev ever saw or heard of such a case before and 
 l: her this is a' sample of the modes in which j-udgiiients are considered 
 and justice non-administered in the Supreme Court ; and as to what 
 ^iUbetbe effect of the foregoing judgments on the future practice 
 I Court if theybefoUowed as precedents ; and if -^>-^f^^ 
 iustice can be hereafter attempted without the sure prospect of defeat 
 and whether, in order to prevent such judgments ^-- ^-«J°f^^^^^ 
 as to admissions and rejections of evidence, it may not be --ssary for 
 the Government and the Legislature to interpose, with an Act repeahng 
 any future applications to the Supremo Court or declariug ih^ttn 
 respective judgments as to the admissions and rejections of evidence m 
 
..^^> 
 
 60 
 
 THE QT7EEN vn. JOSEPH CHARSON. 
 
 this Buifc shall nob bo followed uh ii proccdout for future procedure cither 
 in the Court, of Assizes, Oyer and Terminer nnd general jail delivtry or 
 for the .Supreme Court. Tlieso and other quentions may he proper for 
 the public, to consider in ..-onnoxion with the maxim mlm populi mprema 
 lex, and the laws of peace and safety, and tho offices of conservators of 
 the peace,— the soul and life of the law which I think have boon lost 
 sight of in the Hnol disposition of this cose. 
 
 > > 
 
 \ 
 
 12th 
 36th 
 14th 
 25th 
 17th 
 32n( 
 37t^ 
 20tl 
 38tl 
 22n( 
 23rc 
 25tl 
 38tl 
 lOtl 
 33r( 
 38t] 
 84t] 
 
 Erbata.— Twelfth lin*- of Statement of Case, "for to the triers" read 
 "by triers." 
 
Jure cithur 
 dolivory or 
 pro|)«r for 
 Ui nuprema 
 jrvutors of 
 boon loHt. 
 
 
 4.M^ 
 
 ■mTtTlJi^TJL. 
 
 12th li 10 
 b6th lino 
 14th lino 
 25th lino 
 17th lino 
 32nd line 
 37th lino 
 20th line 
 38th line 
 22nd line 
 23rd line 
 25th lino 
 88th lino 
 10th line 
 33rd line 
 38th line 
 34th line 
 
 of Statement of Ca«o, for " to triers " read by trier$. 
 
 of 20th page, for " should " read shall. 
 
 of 22nd page, for " How " read 7 How. 
 
 of 28th page, for " to enquire " read / enquire, 
 
 of 30th page, for " is a " road as a. 
 
 of 38th page, for «' judiciiiUy such " read jwlieiaUy seen. 
 
 of 36th page, for «« judiciarj- " read fiduciary. 
 
 of 37th page, for " judic^iary " read fldurinr>f. 
 
 of 38th page, for " recitable " read ible. 
 
 of 41at i)age, for " link " read Unkg. 
 
 of 43rd page, for "rejccleii " ' > ' rptiulaied. 
 
 of 43rd page, for " allowed % read on. 
 
 of 43rd page, for " nine " i\ ad none. 
 
 of 47th page, for " Parkci " read Parke. 
 
 of 47th page, for " train " read trace. 
 
 of 48th page, for " do miiio " read do no more. 
 
 of 49th page, for uoa-administered " read administered. 
 
 ers" read