406 
THE GARDENERS 
sbesriomrngs 2 2 
[June 10, 
men, a perfect storm of shot whistling past him, and 
waving his hat, called out, ‘‘ 22d, charge!’’ when all 
resistance was instantly swept away. On gaining the even 
ground they came right shoulders forward, and directed a 
terrific fire on the enemy. The second brigade, consisting 
of the 25th, 21st, and 12th Native Infantry, commanded by 
Major Woodburn, bore down with admirable coolness, 
firing heavy volleys as they advanced. The Sepoys became 
mixed up with the European Grenadiers, who gave them 
a hearty cheer as they fearlessly rushed on. The line thus 
formed pushed forward and cleared the village. They were 
supported by Captain Whitly’s battery, whose practice, 
like that of the other Artillery, was magnificent. On the 
right of this, again, were the 8th and 1st Native Infantry 
(Grenadiers), under the command of Majors Browne and 
Clibborn, advancing upon the intrenchments with the 
regularity of a review, their officers experiencing some 
difficulty in suspending their fire when our cavalry 
were beginning to get in front of the brigade. The 
enemy had some time before been observed to move in 
considerable bodies from his centre to his left, unable ap- 
parently to sustain the cross fire ‘of the Artillery—the bat- 
teries of Captains Willoughby and Hutt crossing fire with 
Major Leslie’s guns. Major Stack, with the 3d Cavalry 
under Captain Delamain, and the Scinde horse, com- 
manded by, Captain Jacob, made a brilliant charge upon 
the enemy’s left flank, crossing the nullah, and cutting 
down the Beloochees for a distance of some miles. About 
50 of Captain Tait’s men followed four miles beyond the 
village, and cut up some two or three score of Beloochees, 
along the deep and wide canal in which the footmen were 
slowly and doggedly retreating; almost all old men, well 
armed, and determined to die hard. None asked for 
quarter, and none was given; they fought until over- 
powered and slain. The right flank was, meanwhile, 
turned by the Poonah Horse and 9th Bengal Cavalry, 
under Captain Tait and Major Story respectively, —who 
broke them, and drove them from the field before them, 
sabring many in the flight. The action had lasted three 
hours; the Scinde artillery and infantry fought well, the 
cavalry indifferently. They were now completely broken 
and driven from their position everywhere, and their flight 
had become universal. Our whole line had crossed the 
dell, and occupied the position originally held by the 
enemy. The brunt of the battle fell on Her Majesty’s 
22d, which, together with the Horse Artillery, decided 
the victory. 19 standards and 11 guns were left in our 
hands; between 500 and 600 dead were counted on the 
field, and nearly as many more were believed to be strewed 
about amongst the jungle and villages. The bodies of 
scarcely any youths were found on the battle- -ground, and 
it was remarked that the corpses were those of grim and 
powerful warriors, the pride and élite of the tribes, whose 
ample beards and grizzled hair indicated that they had 
mostly reached, and many of them passed, the prime of 
life. A braver or more determined enemy was not to be 
found in Asia. Our loss amounted to 39 kiiled and 231 
wounded—amongst the former were Captain Garrett, of 
the 9th Cavalry; and Lieutenant Smith, of the Horse 
Artillery. Lieut. F. Burr, 21st Native Infantry, after- 
wards died of his wounds. The conduct of our troops is 
beyondall praise. The finest spirit of cordiality prevailed 
between the Queen’s and Company’ s soldiers; and such 
seems to be their confidence in General Napier, and 
the admiration his conduct has excited, that his army 
might have been overwhelmed or cut to pieces, but could 
not have been defeated. Of the 19 standards which fell 
into our hands, 14 were taken by Her Majesty’s 22d, 
12 of them by privates, of whom 9 shot the standard- 
bearers. The loss of this gallant regiment amounted to 
no fewer than 23 killed and 131 wounded. Such as had 
survived, but had not recovered of their wounds before 
the 16th of April—the earliest date at which they could 
be conveyed in safety on the river—were at that time sent 
off, and reached Bombay on the 24th, to the number of 
60. They were all in excellent spirits, and, though the 
cases of some of them are severe, they are tnostly doing 
well. Eight prisoners were taken—a small number in a 
fiercely-contested action of three hours, between armies 
amounting jointly to 25,000 men.’In regard to Sir C. 
Napier’s previous victory at Meeanee, the Governor- 
General has directed “that the unserviceable guns taken 
at Hyderabad shall be sent to Bombay, and there cast 
into a triumphal coluron, whereon shall be inscribed in 
the English and two native languages the names of Major- 
General Sir Charles Napier, and of the several officers 
mentioned by his Excellency in his despatch, and likewise 
the names of the several officers, non-commissioned 
officers, and privates, mentioned in the reports, that thus 
the names way be for ever recorded of those who at 
Meeanee obtained for themselves that glory in the field 
which is the reward dearest to a true soldier.” 
Dab. 
or QusEn’s Bencu.—(Sittings in Banco.)—The Queen 
pa O° Connor and ere aoe srenments in this case were resumed. 
onday. ing notice to the eontte for 
Gafendante to éontine themselves to the einple question w 
def “ saba venue in the fourth count, and the want of. vena in BES 
nt must, or need not be fatal to indictments, the arguments 
solve i themselves into merely technical discussion. Mr. Erle 
fist ae the court in support of the rule to arrest the judgment. 
ler the more fully to explain the ground on whic! ay a8 he con- 
ented the want of venue was fatal to the indictment, he must first 
‘0 have been committed by divers persons, it then went on to 
whi 
ge the aren mts with what in a case of felony wo je the 
ories. It alleged that the defendants in uber 
e880) 
id ats an and comfort these persons to continue and per- 
lawful assembling, Under this mode of charging 
the defendants two things were essentially necessary : th 
secutor must prove the corpus delic Bate ‘pang aes - 
and, next, the aiding and assisting w: essories were 
charged. But there was no place atlegeae Fe rel ie principal 
offence was alleged to be charged, and the ete it was fatal to the 
indie fnent For the offence of the principals was, as it were, the 
foundation of the other, me there being no si ufficient oe of 
the sete “tie second must fail. he aa ib truth, in a 
very narrow compass, pee that it was pei sistent with 
all that was alleged on sue face of the Indictment, that the principal 
persons might not have done anything w! was indictable at all, 
aa iy of RH there coul uid be no eel thing as ere to 
re 0 01 been committed. Or if an, Fence 
allegation se nies) it ponieHe 
dominions of the Queen, ane a 
tted, as = here was no 
have been committe ed 0 out the 
parts where no offence aaa be com Laas against her laws. 
the count described a bic portio: 
t of these 
ies it was said that 
unsettled state on account 
n of the yeu 
wt assemblings, 
of tent 
the hen ale wa: 
charged the Fema ects aiding anc cee ommission 
of an offence which, for aught that copes ° sinerconeenep annie 
Hebeorinitiet abroad) It was said on the 
pa ide, that if the eeNapal pente Tiedt aeeabealt in any part of 
¢ Queen’s dominions, the aiding and abetting as now laid would 
hve been sufficient. But it might have peared in the dominions 
of a foreign eat and then the argu’ uld not be appli- 
cable. Itwas not! to say that the Sinjécts of rine Queen were 
Se in their Tabor, for that might be the case with the ete 
the Queen employed in factories in foreign countries, so that 
allegation did not ee the venue. he venue here was ae 
defective in stating the offence to have been committed at divers 
tags ee if it had heen alleg 
or York; tor then the ¢ 
8. 20, did me aid 
statute provided that, in order that the punishment 
might be less frequently Heats in consequence o 
i j ent indict i 
> 
be stayed or reversed for want of th 
bie conh to ved, nor for the omission of certain words, for 
mitting t the time at which si offence was con me nor 
statin fhe! inte imperfectly, nor for of a proper or perfect venue 
where the eae should appear by. es sRAlicenten? or information to 
hates had ju ‘iction over the offence.—Mr. Justice Coleridge said 
this argument proeseded” spon the supposition of the charge 
take that of being accessory to a felony. But suppose the charge 
was that of a REUeen misdemeanour; suppose it was a charge oe 
inci! murder a Eeenehmen in France; then the 
offence to be Stee a t of the pater of the 
ee st the act of inciting could b tad as an offence here.—Mr. 
Erle submitted that the act of inciting = aOulaisten be itself an o: “offen mee, 
whether the crime incited took place or not, and therefore the case 
suppoees eould, not be compared to a case of aiding, abetting, a1 
sin acrime in which th a 
a were sie engaged ie pera a 
in committing it. the all gation s stood in 
aah have been 
Te 
sae 
am 
abetting it, That was ni i supposed ineiting to 
rder, he act of ge was a ainpleta taeda an ate 
De. indietuble though the eee ing might have 
Inciting the people Taegan, to assemble Garena mi; ight sae 
pace een anour, capable o of being made the subject of indict- 
ment, though no unlawful assembling took place. But that 
was ditterent from a charge of aiding and assisting persons engaged 
in unlawful assemblies, an offence whieh in common sense, as valle 
s in law, could not be committed unless unlawful assemblies were 
proved to have been held. Ifheld, the ae lace at which they were Hel Id 
was material uch a case it was urd to contend that the 
difficulty x by ch ring ate defendants as principal 
misdemeanants he Iearned ete cited a great variety of cases 
in support of this argum ted that ee gue was bad for 
want of the sufficient allegation! ae av He submitted that the 
statute would not cure ae: is ae ‘There was not in the statute 
any express provision in favour of a case of this sort, and aneonld 
ot be made to apply by epee Besides, the act made 
curing of the defect of venne to depend on the fact that the von: aie 
the indictment itself, Hae # have jurisdiction over the offence. 
the court that this indictment 
hown that the court a any jurisdiction over the offence: 
end if so the statute 7 Geor, hase c. 64, was not epuhee ble! To 
make it applicable, oiik in re general manner, to criminal eases, it 
must be expressly declared by the Heginlatanets be so. There were 
2 
2 
act of s 
showed a sufficient allegation 1 of time time and place — Mr Justice Patte- 
son: Is there any authority for showing that a man must be charged 
as an accessory ee the fact, when thereis no allegation of the fh 
having been committed? It is very possible to charge a man 
and that would be an offence 
But that is not the 
case here.—Mr. Erle: I 
accessory before mm: : 
ate of any allegation of time and p! not be cured by 
There a as no such ellega dion, ane en the indictment was 
treo bad.—Mr. Justice Coleridge uu assume that the omission 
of e to one essentii 
Erle: That was 
within the jurisd was 
so alleged. The manginal venue now was y the venue for the 
caption of the indictm t satictent not for the offence presented, 
La only for the jurors ito present. In xford case the marginal 
ue was Oxford. ‘Ihe court held dat ae must be considered as 
ut that jas contradicted by 
ed that the 
w here,'in the fourth 
count, there wa the fifth 
count there was no Abate ade yauia aba impossible to 
easy the body of the Se the venue stated i inthe margin. 
Every material fact ought to alleged with a proper venue, ani i 
not so alleged the indictment Bor ae supported.—Mr- Dundas, 
on the same side, , submi itted that the paca {venue co ould not be 
I agreat gen 
a 
EES 
she ii 
nae ground th 
that the jury had jurtsdition, The 
in September sessions, 1833, Before Serpent cAarabiny and r 
icy us judges, was the case ‘which he referred to.—Mr. eet Goes 
: There was ae ground there for arresting the judgment 
without its suppor! ain! 
troduetion of a ve mue di 
such Sent it was i 
were the charges against him, or how 
the mater rial part of the fourth ei was without any allegation of 
venue. The abo of the fifth t was without any venue, and as 
it was necess: hat every ated allegation shuld have avenue, 
this nent Bae noi upported.—Mr. Sergeant Murp! 
wh n ame side, having inquired ‘ig intentibnvoe (6 
court in now confinin; rgument to the Gleaner Cr the venue, 
Lord epinan said saat trated wished the case to d now 
nue, as if no other peicenony existed to the 
n ‘fan ld be necessary afterwards to hi a ple 
counsel on the other point, due notice of ao aide 
argue it would be given them. Mr. Sergeant M urphy tl Renato 
the sontte and contended that no feainel incre could be supported 
was an indictment 
thief, put without an allegation of 
the case of tl 
as expe- 
rience of leader: s to say that ee maptetial ie sou betiwall Anepeds 
nue. object of the venue was 
: first, ois phe. jury in ote the case ; and next, to 
enable the defendant to know what the charge against , 50 
es he might be abl no venue or a defective venue 
e given, both these objects were “defeated. ere there was a 
eres allegation of venue in the fourth count, so as to show that th 
conte cand jut vi 
e not aided by thestatute. 
was aati clear that the rule for arresting 
absolute. Lord Denman said ae the Bese would i 
intimate to the parties its intentions wit 
cordingly on Wednesiloy le setvered the féllog 
Court has connie the Queen ee nC ee 
decisi yooae ‘another statute which might be quoted as in point here. | the count is. for eee reason. ba reve roel erated faet must be 
‘The 16 and 17 Car. I. pa that ho jude qiguld be arrested | stated, with time lace, in order that it may pst: ba 
in civil cases for want of avenue. Se’ cases (which he cited) | grand jury had jurisdiction to find the bill, and also that it may 2 
cate where such a defect was hela 0 he cured after verdict, But nown whence the petty jurymen are to come who are to oy the sas ‘ 
act that this statute was necessary to ct defect in civil | ‘This is laid down in all the books and authorities cited at the bie 
Hee singe thst ‘a. verdict would not cure it in criminal cases. | Indeed it was hardly contended, on the part of the onny thee 
Both civil and cri ses originally cei a correct venue; the | count could be supported at comm ,as it contains no vente 
ik was sleuaiie) by this statute a as to crimil cases, but it left civil | in itself, nor any words of reference to the venue in the marge ae 
cas before. In the King », Fuller, 1 Bosanquet and | which many facts stated in the fifth count cannot be referred, Oe then 
Pullen's rae “the delendant was charged with advisedly endea- | ing to the distinction hereafter to be paentionca Recourse is He 
youring to seduce from his military duty a soldier. ‘That was an | had to the statute of the 7 Geor sec+ 209) Tole, 
offence partic gulely provided for b a aes The objection to the | enacts that “no judgment after verdict, or ‘confession, oo it abi 
indictment was that it did not pee if the means by which the de- | shall be stayed for want lis dy oper or perfect venue, prov} wider ver the 
end: nt enn eccnued to seduce the ier from his duty.x—Mr. super by the indictment that the court had jurisdic! ce Panis 
Williams Tat was by analogy to ie case of false pretext No her a total omission of venue can HY) 0 con. 
Er) so. Then came th he case of the King e sees as cured by these ae whether the statute mm! wroperly or 
Bi E , W which’ was not 2 oe offence crea ated oe act of fined to cases where some venue is stated, though impenedy for 
Parliament, utd a eiovad hou efena s of this sort should be charged, impertety, ineither case the condition on which that arts by the 
That was an indictmen x hi having eae a servant to rob Bip is given by the Geo. is, that it shall pops Jf this 
master, ‘The doubt there was whether the indictment was good, fhavetment that-the court had jurisdiction aver the 0 row it, for 1O 
not stating how the offence was committed. But th ough mbvendely means local Abang eet: the we ont does not § ob ae ‘already 
stating the means, the indictment clearly enabled the defendant to plese is ‘ion e body d we teint fn the mare 
know what he was char, with. That rept not be said of the Sirens Pek? into it Hye that purpose ihe Cpr kee to say, 
indictment here, a wing and abetting might be effected m | gin, as has been done in civil act To hold this were the grand 
arti F eans used in each case ought therefore | as was Hara said by the Solicitor. Generals that w enevement TOr # 
Rae) aie case of the ane y. Burdett, 4 Barnewall | jury of any county whatever has found a_ bill Senieh: ‘akes place 
and anpeny 's Reports, was quoted on the other side, but was not es me cognizable under the commission, ae verdict, though th 
in point. ‘There the question ae whether the ceteads nt was guilty it in that county be gi after Yil1 any jurisdictio® 
ofan indictable offence m a particular county. The court did not decide indictment does not. show the court to hay nee is cured Bye 
that question, but stated that where there was an indictable offence | over the offence, on which condition poly hand 17th of Charles 1I- 
committed by various actsin different cps paehidiocne rss eek pene ‘The argument pcs ‘om the 1 gens ie joxis faRe total 
be preferred in any one of them. But i that case th . 8, and 4th ‘Ane. ce. 16, wa: of hese “Acts under the words 
q sive whether a venue was laid, and propery bay the “eal ane onaatOrd Gea is cured by the first 0 otal omission of venue in 
tio whether a proper yenue was laid. King v. Scott, in | “ for want tes ue venue ;”? 80 nea 7 Geo. IV. yh uses the 
Z Bast?s ’ Pleas of the Crown, 780, was in point. "That was a ques pas may be cured ete elect ‘enue ;? but the defect 
as to the form of an indictment for a misdemeanour for receiving Seria se wade t of a proper oF ere eof the venue, but th 
stolen iron, knowing it to have Ae sto) yeas The cone intimated an ee din civilactions is not th total es race and it is eveD then 
opinion that the statute had e: ed n cases ; and it was clear poo ua of an improper or impe? he case is tried by a jury 
f sa orion no 5 distinct 
= 
2B 
Be 
e 
that, for the purpo! 
need take place.—Mr. Justice 
prove a stealing.—Mr. Erle: Ye 
case was as to the eae a 
a 5° ». Lady Lawley was an 1 indicti ment for asia: to keep 
‘ould prove a orniees of forgery. It was con- 
fendedcbat there ought to have been a distinct atest m that there 
was a cree of forgery made and to be tried ; butthe court held that 
e of mind Liat es was set forth by the allegation that she, 
the charge was about to be tried by a tribunal which 
Oa sufficient allegation of the offence.—Lord 
rom a tribunal Bs 
ie ed idge: must allege and 
a witness who wi 
ony au the statute of Charles, if 1 
in which the a is ldid. 
ed 
4t the 
fault; all aie defects which eecatie bat 
Jeofails, in case the verdict of w 
os 
action, being essly cured by the 2d section ¢ 
Bera ee faces the 7 
s ‘unless sp! 
court had jurisdiction to phe distinction between 
the bo yor the indictment: 
