66 
and, records. may be. sub. modo 5, 
other. instruments and. papers are 5 
but al], without exception, are ex- 
pounded by the judges, and, the 
legal effect of them declared by the 
judges.,.. This does not rest. merely. 
on the, authority of lawyers; in the 
nature.of things it must be that the 
judges must expound or, collect the 
sense of the paper,.in order to their 
declaring the,operation of it, in law. 
The sense of a threatening letter, or 
of..any other words reduced into 
writing is nothing, more than the 
meaning which..the words do, ac- 
cording to the, common acceptation 
of words, import, and which every 
reader will put upon them,, Judges 
are, in, this respect but readers, 
They, must read and, understand, 
before they, can, pronounce upon 
criminality or innocence, which it 
belongs to them to do; it is ane- 
cessany and inseparable incident to 
theirgurisdiction. If they could re- 
sort to. a jury to,interpret for them 
in the first instance, who shall inter- 
pret the,interpretation; which, like 
the, threatening, letter, will be .but 
words upon a paper? We-shall not 
be. understood, to be, speaking of 
that.sense of\a paper which is to be 
colHected from matter dehors the 
paper, which, in legal, proceedings, 
must,be stated by way of averment; 
which averment would be to. be e- 
stablished,in point. of, fact, before 
the, judges. could. proceed to con- 
strue.a paper, Onademurrer, or 
on, motion. in. arrest of judgment, 
these averments would. stand. con- 
fessed upon the record, | If the ge- 
neral issue is placed, they are to be 
found, by the jury. Judges have.no 
means of knowing matters of fact 
dehors the paper, but by.the confes- 
sion of the party, or the finding of 
the jury: but they can collect the 
Bey 
‘APPENDIX TO 
intrinsic, sense and. meaning, of a 
paper, in the same manner as other 
readers do; and they can resort: to 
grammars and. glossaries, if they 
want such assistance. These prin- 
ciples lead to the same conclusion 
for juries as for judges, in all points 
belonging to threatening letters, or 
to any other series of words reduced 
into, writing, which fallyithin the 
province of juries. For instance,— 
Upon a general issue on an indict- 
ment for sending a threatening let- 
ter, a jury is to enquire whether 
such,a paper as the paper. charged 
inthe indictment exists. They must 
read, or hear read, and understand 
the paper. charged mri te paper 
produced to them in.evidence, in 
order to their finding that the paper 
charged does exist., The jury can- 
not know that they are the same 
papers without comparing both the 
words.and the sense: But, when the 
jury. have.read, and sufficiently un, 
derstood the paper charged, and the 
paper produced, so,as to be enabled 
to pronounce that they are the same 
papers; when the averments, haye 
been eXamined and found to.,be 
true; when the context (if there be 
a,context, not set forth) has been 
seen and understood, and found not 
to alter the sense of the paper*pro- 
duced, and to put a different sense 
upon it than that which the, paper 
charged. imports; and when the 
sending of the supposed threatening 
letter is found as charged, then all 
enquiry before the jury ends; the 
rest is matter.of legal conclusion. 
Your Lordships sixth question is, 
‘¢ Whether, on the trial of an, in- 
dictment for high treason, the cri- 
minality or innocence of letters or 
papers set forth as overt acts of 
treason, or produced as evidence of 
an. overt act of treason, be maton 
0 
