(64,9) 
DhP AR TO Ew oe 
L A W. 
OF the fubjedts of human knowledge, 
law is far from being the ‘eaft im- 
portant; within thefe lett fifty years, 
not only general law, but the particular 
law of the country in which we live, 
‘has been confidered as an obje€t of libe- 
ral enquiry, and well deferving the at- 
tention of the general fcholar: we ap- 
prehend, therefore, that our mifcellany 
might be thought dep ene: if. we left 
this fubjeét altogetiier untouched.—In 
the courfe of every year, fome new law 
Is made, or fome modifications or alrera- 
tions are introduced into the old, by the 
aéts of the legiflature ; and. fome’ quef- 
tions of general concern are difcuffed and 
decided, or fome fubjeét of curiofity 
arifes in the courts of juftice—It is our 
intention to prefent our readers with an 
account of all as they arife, fo far as our 
limits will permit.—When any new law 
is made, or modification or alteration in- 
troduced into the old, we mean not only 
to ftate the fubftance of fuch new law or 
ef fuch modification or alteration, where 
they appear to us to be of general con- 
cern; but to explain the occafion of the 
ene, and the operation of the other on 
the law, as it fiood before.—Of the cafes 
pehakee occur in the courts of juftice, we 
an to fele&t thofe which fhall appear 
to us moft interefiing from the nature of 
the fats, or moft impertant from the 
points decided. 
It will feldom happen that our limits 
will permit us to give a detail of facts; 
we fhall never do it but when they are 
peculiarly interefting : in general, we 
fhall confine ourfelves to fitate fo much 
as may appear neceffary, to render in- 
telligible the point decided : — Some- 
times, though a cafe may furnith us with 
no zew decifion, yet we may infert it, 
from its having a reference to an old 
law, which is now become an objeét of 
mere curiofity ; and which we fhall then 
take occafion to explain. 
Claim of the Solicitor to the Treafury, to 
attend the Grand Fury on the Exami- 
nation of Witneffes, in Cafes of Indid- 
ments for High Tr. eafon. 
ON the profecutions for high treafon, 
in the year 1794, the folicitor for the 
treafury afferted this claim, and it was 
admitted, the grand j jury not oppofing it. 
At the feffions of January laft, at the 
Old Bailey, when the clerk of the ar- 
raigns prefented to the grand jury the 
_ folicitor, 
[ Feb. 
bill againft Crofsfield, Smith, Higgins, 
and ‘es Maitre, he obferved, ** That 
when Pee entered upon it, the folicitor 
of the treafury, who aéted for the attor- 
ney: general, ‘would attend the exdmina- 
tion of the witneffes.” After having for 
fome time deliberated on this intimation. 
the jury fent for the clerk of the ar- 
raigns, and defired him to’ inform the 
folicitor, that they conceived themfeives 
competent and duly authorized, to ex- 
amine the witnefles, whatever might be 
the fubjeét of the Ae ciares-- and that 
therefore his attendance would not be 
admitted; the clerk of the arraigns re- 
plied, “ That the attorney-general had 
been admitted in cafes of the like na- 
ture, and that if the jury had any 
doubts, the court, on application, would 
give thew opinion.” The foreman, 
therefore, when he delivered into court 
the bills againit cther prifoners, on which 
they had determined, requefied the opi- 
nion of the chief baron, whether the 
folicitor demanded admittance as a matter 
of right? — The chief baron replied, 
‘¢ That the attorney-general had an un- 
doubted right to be admitted during fuch 
examination, and that the folicitor for 
the treafury might be admitted for the 
attorney-general, whofe time was per- 
haps occupied by other matters of im- 
portance.” — When the jury entered on 
the indiétment, and proceeded to call the 
witnefies, they were interrupted by the 
requefting to be admitted ; 
this being granted, he defired their pro- 
ceedings on the indiétment might be 
poftponed till next day, as he wifhed to 
confult the attorney-general—The fore- 
man obferved, they could not comply 
with this requeft; that they had taken 
up the indiétment in the ufual manner, 
and ihould proceed to inveftigate the truth 
of the allegations contained in it. 
Tal for High Treajon. 
IN the laft term, William Stone was 
tried at the bar in the court of King’s 
Bench, on an indiétment for high trea- 
fon. The indiétment was founded on 
two diitinét branches of the ftatute of 
Edward the Third; it charged him with 
compailing the king’s death, and ad- 
hering to the king’s enemies : on each of 
hee charges, eleven overt aéts were 
ftated, the ‘moft material of which was 
confpiring with his brother John Har- 
ford Stone, and William Jackfon, te 
give 
