COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Westminster, July 3.
THE KING v. CURRIE.
This was a rule calling on Mr James Currie, the steward of the manor of Petersfield, to show cause why a criminal information should not be exhibited against him for corrupt and partial conduct in his office. The application arose out of the state of parties in the Borough of Petersfield, which has already given rise to several proceedings in this Court. It appeared that the inhabitants of the town are divided into two parties, one headed by Mr Hylton Jolliffe, the present member, whose family have long retained an ascendancy in the place, and who is Lord of the Manor; the other by Mr Nathanial Atcheson, a gentleman of the legal profession. The officer returning the members to serve in Parliament is the Mayor of the town, and the Mayor is elected by the Jury of the Court of the Manor. From this circumstance the nomination of the Jury has become the subject of considerable jealousy and suspicion on the part of Mr Atcheson's supporters as the steward of the Court by whom they are summoned is of course, appointed by the Lord. Information is in the nature of quo warranto have been three times directed against individuals chosen as Mayor, on two of which the parties disclaimed, as the election was informal, but on the third Mr Jolliffe succeeded. The chief objection raised by Mr Atcheson was, that the steward nominated the Jury as he pleased, and was present during their deliberations; but, on the last quo warranto, it was decided that there was a good custom for the steward so to nominate, and so to be present. Before this decision, a rule was obtained for a criminal information against Mr Hector, the then steward, for corruptly selecting the Jury, on the ground that he took them all, or nearly all, from the tenants and partisans of Mr Jolliffe, and had uniformly omitted to summon any of the inhabitants who had voted on the other side. While this rule was pending, Mr Hector resigned, and Mr Currie, a young gentleman connected with the firm of Messrs Hanrott and Metcalfe, the town solicitors of Mr Jolliffe, was appointed steward in his room. The present rule was obtained against him on affidavits, alleging that he had pursued the line of conduct adopted by his predecessor, and had, by selecting the Jury almost exclusively from one side, given evidence of a partial motive, which ought not to influence an officer in the discharge of a public duty.
Mr SCARLETT, Mr ADAM, and Mr MEREWTHER now showed cause against the rule on the affidavits of Mr Currie and several gentlemen residing at Petersfield. Mr Currie, who was a young man of most honourable character, positively swore that he was actuated by no criminal or corrupt motive in summoning the Jury; that the men whom he had selected were all of them competent and fit for the office; and that he verily believed they had faithfully and honestly discharged their duties. Five of those who actually served were casually taken from the bystanders to complete the number; and as a proof that they were not swayed by any improper bias, they elected one of Mr Atcheson's party constable—an office of considerable importance, especially at times of election. How was Mr Currie to select the Jury? He candidly admitted that he did not feel himself bound to reject Mr Jolliffe's tenants and supporters, who, indeed, formed a very considerable majority of those who were competent to serve. If he took half of the jurors from one party and half from the other, they would never agree in their choice; and so high was the spirit of party in the borough, that he could scarcely find half a dozen men who were neutral, and they were infirm all unfit for the duties of Jurors. At the time of the election of Mr Blunt, the present Mayor, he entertained no expectation that there would be an election within the year, and therefore could be actuated by no immediate view to that event. It had been urged against him, that he appointed Mr Mears, an active friend of Mr Jolliffe, to be foreman of the Jury; but he did so because he was particularly fit for the office, and because it was usual to appoint a gentleman who had filled the situation of Mqyor. The two parties of this borough might fight for the ascendancy fairly with civil weapons; but it was too much for one of them to ask the Court to lend its high powers of interposition in a criminal form to aid them, when all criminal motive was denied, and when the question agitated were peculiarly fit for the decision of the ordinary tribunals.
Mr GASELEEE, Mr COLTMAN, and Mr CARTER argued in support of the rules. They admitted the general respectability of the defendant's character, and the manliness with which he had met with the charge, but urged that he had at least acted with considerable boldness. While these questions were yet before the court he pursued the very line which Mr Hector had followed, and which was really a systematic violation of the duties of his office. The jury had public functions to discharge, and no feeling of party water to influence the officer by whom they were chosen. Why did you not Mr Currie resort to the ballot, or to some mode of nomination to which no suspicion could apply? When the Court saw that a Jury were taken all from one party – when they found that these men were almost all under the influence of a particular family – would they not infer that some feeling inconsistent with public duty influenced the steward? It was sworn that he took five persons from the bystanders; and no doubt they were taken from those present; but if chance brought them to the hall, fortune was very propitious to Mr Jolliffe, for they were all more or less connected with his cause. As the Court had sanctioned the nomination of the Jury by the steward, a custom peculiarly liable to certain abuses, they were bound to protect the inhabitants from these abuses when distinctly brought before them, and therefore ought to make the rule absolute.
The COURT observed, that as the case was of considerable importance, and the affidavits were long, they would take time to look into them before they gave judgement.
In the course of the argument, and illusion was made to the practice of putting on the record, of quo warranto informations, every possible objection to the officer against whom they were directed, and who was often ousted on some slight ground scarcely mentioned when the rule was moved for: on which the Lord Chief Justice intimated a disposition of the Court to repress this practice by confining the pleadings to the points on which the informations were granted, for the future.