SUPREME COURT.

New Zealander, Volume 9, Issue 771, 3 September 1853, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

Aujkland, Monday, August 29. Before His Honor Chief Justice Martin. . Brown v. Williamson & Wilson. This was an application on the part of plaintiff that the trial in the case of libel should he removed to Wellington. Bartley and Whitaker appeared for the pkyu » Messrs. Merrimah and Russell for the d« e ants. • ' Oia The following affidavits were reau oy Registrar of the Court: . „ Thomas Shayle George, of Auck/saoj 1 New Zealand, Gentleman, inaketh oa „,, saith that he, this deponent, applied to Beckham, Esq., the Sheriff of the District, to show him, this deponent, the P , Jury List of the City and District of and also the list of persons summoned to at the next sitting of the Supreme v/ou » held on the 7th day of September next, an he, this deponent, also applied to Thomas Beckham, Esq., the Returning OW to show him the voting papers used Election of Superintendent for the Pr w Auckland, held on the 30th day of and this deponent further saith that iie r oreS aid, amined the said lists ahd voting papers w and that, so far as he is enabled to asc f e j^V Brn es, careful examination and comparisons tn residences, and descriptions in the j a with the names, residences, and descrip the said voting papers, he verily boh® ligtso the greater number of the jurors in the sa _ g examined by him as aforesaid, voted at Election of Superintendent, held on the 0 01 of June aforesaid. (Signed) Thomas. Shatee Ge . Sworn at Auckland aforesaid, this 26th day of August, 1853. Before me, Thomas 0 urn watte, . Solicitor Supreme Cow> - William Brown, of Auckland. land, Merchant, the above-named piainti*-* oath and saith that this action J8 Vv or « against the defendants, the printed, and publishers of the New-Zeai<anpkb. - per, for certain libels published of. and ing the plaintiff in the said newspaper* . that the said libels had reference to, ana published on the occasion of this depone > * . above-named plaintiff, being a candidate • r office of Superintendent of the FroviflW »

. as will more fully appear on referto the pleadings in this cause. And this deecC® t further saith that he became a canI?| S te for the said office on or about the 13th 3 rnf Anril last, and was opposed by another .lidnte namely, Lieutemnt-Colonel Robert Wvnvard. That the nomination for the •(1 office took place on the 20th day of June anc ] the polling for the same on the thirtieth kv of June last. That during the whole time fix deponent, the above-named plaintiff, was can didate as aforesaid, and since the said Action great political excitement has existed in ference to the said election contest, and many the persons whose names are on the Special ° d Common Jury Lists of the City and District Auckland have taken an active part in the °me and a great number of the said persons sa £j’ 0 sa jd lists are Electors for the said Province, °nd have voted at the said election, either for or painst the said plaintiff, this deponent ; and this Sonent further saith that during the proresss of the said contest, and since the terminafjojTof the same, and also since the commencement of this action by this deponent, the abovenamed plaintiff, there have, from time to time, been published in the said New-Zkalandkr newspaper, of and concerning this deponent, the above-named plaintiff, certain defamatory matters tendin'’- to affect the result of this action, and to prejudice and cast discredit on this deponent, the above-named plaintiff, in the minds of the nersons amongst whom the said newspaper is circulated. And that the said newspaper, as this deponent believes, is very extensively circulated amongst the persons whose names are on the said Jury List?. And this deponent further eaith that he verily believes a fair and impartial trial of the issue joined in this cause cannot be had by a jury summoned from the persons whose names are on the said Jury Lists, William Brown.

Sworn at Auckland, aforesaid, this 26th day of August, 1853. Before me, Thomas Outhwaite, Solicitor Supremo Court. -Mr. Bartlev, in a speech of considerable length, supported the application, contending that a change of venue was necessary, and that in Great Britain it was frequently granted as the sole means of securing strict, impartial, and unsuspected justice. In support of his argument he adduced the following cases : Walker v. Ridgway. —This was an action against defendant for improperly setting out tithes. The case was tried at the summer assizes at Hereford, 1825, when the jury found a verdict for the defendant, contrary to the opinion of the judge. The Court ordered a new trial, and since the trial, several anonymous latter* appeared in the Herefordshire Journal, and other provincial newspapers, reflecting on the plaintiff in hi* character of a clergyman, which would tend to influence the minds of th* jury.—and the venue was therefore sought to he changed to another county. The case, after being fully argued, the Court pronounced their opinion in favour of the rule, stating that—- “ Although if the verdict in this case bad been given against evidence, it might not have induced us to change the venue at the instance of the plaintiff, still if be has since then been held up as tyranical and overbearing, so that the minds of a second jury may be prejudiced, it is our duty to guard against it. We cannot say bow far the poison may be disseminated by these publications ; and we will therefore take care that this issue shall be removed out of the influence of their venom. It is a hardship on both parties, as it will tend to increase the expenses, and the defendant has denied any participation in these publications. We are, however, of opinion, from the facts stated to us, that the venue must be changed to the county of Warwick, and that this rule must consequently be made absolute.” Fetyt v. Berkely. — This was an application to change the venue, and arose out of an action for scandal, brought by a Gloucester Justice of the Peace, for words spoken by the defendant Betkely upon the hustings, at the time of the election of a member for the county of Gloucester; Mr. Berkely himself being then one of the candidates. In support of the application, it was alleged that the whole county of Gloucester was so agitated at the election, on the one side or the other, that it was impossible—or nt least, highly improvable—a jury of that county would try the cause impartially and without prejudice. In deliveriug judgment, Lord Mansfield stated—“ In all cases, one would wish, not only a fair but an unsuspected trial. Here the very nature of the action—the •vent which gave rise to it—and the circumstance* of the parties, show there cannot be a satisfactory trial. Of all trials, the greatest latitude for bias is open in an action for words occasioned by election leaf. A man may very safely swear there caunot be a fair trial upon hasty words uttered at the time of the poll. The Master when he takes up the freeholders’ book must pitch on men who are friends of the one side or the other. Therefore, I think the rule should be made absolute. The King v. Hunt and others. This was an application to have the trial of the case removed from the county of Lancaster to another county. —The affidavits •tated that the indictment arose cut of a supposed conspiracy connected with the proceedings of a numerous meeting held at Manchester on the 16th August last, 1819, and that that meeting had been dispersed by an attack of the military, directed by a body of the Lancashire magistrates ; that among the military whoattacked them, were the Manchester, and Salford, and Cheshire yeomanry, the privates of whom consisted chiefly, and the officers entirely of opulent manufacturers and landed proprietors in Lancashire and Cheshire, and that a very great and general prejudice existed throughout the county of Lancaster, and amongst the persons who were likely to serve upon juries, as to the nature and object of the meeting in question, and as to the share which the defendants had taken in it; and therefore that they could not have a fair and impartial trial in the •runty of Lancaster. The Attorney and Solicitor General opposed the motion. They produced the freeholders’ book for the county of Lancaster, which appeared to contain the names of about 8700 freeholders. And they referred to Rex v. Harris, in which the Court refused an application to change the place oftrial, upen the ground that the affidavits only in that case stated the apprehension and belief of the applicant. The Court delivered their opinions seriatim, and after observing, that it was of the highest importance that the administration of justice should not only be pure, but above all suspicion, they said, that as upon the affidavits it did appear that if the trial took place in the county of Lancaster, it might possibly happen that persons might be summoned on the jury whose opinions might be tainted with very strong prejudice, but whom it would nevertheless not be competent for the defendant to challenge. They thought the application should be granted. He further stated that the cases Pybut v. Scudamore , and MylocTc v. Saladine might be cited to the same effect.

Mr. Merriman wished to ask whether the expressions in the latter part of Mr. Brown’s affidavit were meant to insinuate that the New Zealander had been unfairly circulated amongst jurors! he had asked this question distinctly in Order that it might be answered plainly. Mr. Bartley replied that nothing of the kind was intended. The only meaning was that the New Zealander had a wide circulation, and that its statements were therefore calculated to prejudice the plaintiff. His Honor said that he had read it so, hut that it was as well perhaps that the question was put. Mr. Merrirman said he appeared on this motion simply to watch the proceedings, not with any intention of arguing the point raised. He thought it right, however, on behalf of the defendants to say that they arc fully prepared to meet the plaintiff at any time or in any place, but they strongly object to being compelled to travel, with their witnesses, a distance of some 400 or 500 miles, at an enormous additional expense, independently of additional trouble, unless His Honor should be convinced that it would be impossible to find twelve honest men to try the issue in the Province of Auckland, —a conclusion at which he (Mr, Merriman) thought no one could arrive from a perusal of the affidavits filed by the plaintiff. There was another point that he (Mr. Merriman) thought it right to mention, and that was, that possibly the defendants might not have pleaded in the form now adopted had they been aware that the cause would be tried elsewhere. The Chief Justice inquired in what particular would they wish to amend the Plea. ¥r. Merriman said that he could not point out the exact alteration that might be required, but he thought that they would have pleaded so us to avoid calling witnesses—-he did not mean any witnesses, hut so many as would now be tc jmred, *

Mr. Bartley said that he had not used or intended to use the word “ honest jury.” What he meant was that a man might be honest, and yet his judgment might be warped and biassed { by party prejudice. He maintained that it was 1 not so much a question of expense as of character; I if the defendants were innocent the expense j would fall on Mr. Brown, and, if the verdict i went against them they deserved to pay, and j both parties (the plaintiff and the defendants) were able to pay. Ho then stated that, to pre- ! vent the accumulation of expense, lie would consent that the evidence should be taken here, either by commission or otherwise. II e concluded by observing that no counter affidavits had been made, and no denial of the plaintiff’s statements put in. His Honor intimated that on the ensuing Wednesday he would give his decision. Wednesday, August 31. Ills Honor the Chief Justice delivered the following decision : Issue having been joined in this action, the trial was fixed, as in the ordinary course, for the 7th September next, at Auckland, with leave to the plaintiff to move that the time and place of trial be changed. He now moves accordingly, that the trial be directed to take place at Wellington, on the 7th December next. The grounds of tiic application are, first, that a fair and impartial trial is not likely to be had here, in consequence of the great political excitement caused by the recent contest for tiie office of Superintendent of this province, for which office the plaintiff’ was one of the two candidates. And, secondly, that, during that contest, and since the termination of it, and since the commencement of this action, there have been published by the defendants in the NewZealander newspaper, certain matters tending to affect the result of this action, and to prejudice and cast discredit upon the plaintiff. The fact of the public excitement is undeniable : and the publication of matters connected with this action is not denied. The fact, therefore, of such publication I must take to he admitted; though I am not at liberty to infer from the defendants’ silence, that they admit the matters published to be of such a character as has been ascribed to them. The passages themselves are not before the Court, and I can express no opinion about them. But, whatever may have been their nature, the defendants will see the propriety of abstaining from the publication in their newspaper of any matters connected with this action, so long as the action is pending, beyond a simple report of the proceedings therein. The plaintiff’ throws no imputation upon the Special Jurors of this district, but he apprehends that their decision on the matters in issue in this action being consciously honest, would, in all likelihood, be unconsciously prejudiced. Now, that there is in the nature of the case, and in human nature, some considerable ground for such an apprehension is not to be denied. It is the duty of the Court to do all that can be done, with a reasonable and duo regard to all the circumstances, to insure to the plaintiff what Lord Mansfield called “an unsuspected trial.” The course usually taken by the Courts at Westminster in such cases, is to direct the trial to be bad in an adjoining county ; though it mav be sent further, if a clear necessity be shown. In this way, in England, without any very serious increase of expense or vexation, to any of the parties concerned, a perfectly unsuspected trial can be secured. The present application is founded on the analogy of the English practice, provinces being substituted for counties. But the practical consequences of adopting this analogy in the present case, would obviously be very different. They would be different as to the enormous addition to be made to the costs of the action ; though, as to this point, I fully admit the ’force of the considerations so ably urged by the learned Counsel for the plaintiff’; ami they would be different as to the enormous hardship to be inflicted on the witnesses. And, after all, there could be no similar certainty of obtaining an unsuspected trial. The election, the sole alleged source of the excitement, of which the effects are apprehended, is part of a movement extending through the whole Colony ; and necessarily producing a like division of political feeling everywhere. We can have no reasonable assurance that, in fleeing from party-spirit in one province, wc shall not meet it in another. And the number of Special Jurymen will not be greater at Wellington than here. I come then to this conclusion, that the evil apprehended by the plaintiff is one which is at this time reasonably to be apprehended; butthat the remedy suggested would be, in its operation, oppressive, and after all, uncertain. 1 flunk that the only remedy which can be safely applied is to be found, not in space, but in time. The plaintiff has it in his power to defer the trial until the present excitement shall have abated. And I persuade myself that this will be found sufficient, especially for this reason, that the great question in this cause is not a merely personal one, but much larger than any merely personal question. It is a question which must be expected to present itself again and again under other forms, 1 cannot believe that, when present heats shall have cooled down, any single special juryman will fail to see this; or that, seeing it, he will allow himself to dispose of this action on a principle which lie would not be willing to apply to a like question if it were raised between quite different parties. Therefore, I cannot make (he Order: but as the allegation in the plaintiff’s affidavit respecting matters recently published in the New-Zeal aider is neither denied nor explained, I dismiss the motion without costs.

Criminal Side. —Thursday, Sept. Ist, 1853. Ills Honor the Chief Justice took his seat at the usual hour, when the Grand Jury Roll was called over, and the following gentlemen sworn; —• A. Kennedy, Esq., Foreman. J. W. Bain, W. Brown, A. Clark, W. Connell, J. Farmer, T. S. Forsaith, J, A. Gilfillan, W. >S. Grahame, J. Hargreaves, S. Kempthorne, 11. W. Mahon, W. Mason, H. Matson, M. G. Nixon, T. Baton, W. I. Taylor, C. J. Taylor, T. Williams, and J. Woodhouse, Esqrs. His Homr briefly addressed the Grand Jury, observing that he regretted, that since they last met, another case of personal violence, followed by death, had occurred, but upon looking carefully over the depositions taken at the Coroner’s Inquest, he did not find anything upon which he need offer remarks. The other two cases which would require their attention were of petty larceny. True bills were found against William Moore, for the murder of his wife by stabbing her; Jeremiah Cooper (a coloured man) for having stabbed, with intent to kill, Captain Abner Tucker, at the Bay of Islands, in the month of April last; William Charles Hazlot (also a coloured man) for stealing a watch, the property of T. L. Wallis, of Auckland; and James Simpson for stealing a pistol belonging to Augustus Harze at Auckland, on the 11th July last. The Petit Jury list being called over, Richard Phillips, of Thompson’s Lane, Boatman, was fined £5 for non-attendance. The Queen, v William Moore. The prisoner was placed at the bar charged with having wilfully murdered his wife, Mary Moore, by stabbing her in two places in the abdomen, at the Village of Ho wick, on the 25th June last. The prisoner pleaded—Not Guilty. The Attorney-General opened (lie case for the prosecution with a brief outline of the circumstances which were attended hy the woman’s death, and called William Moore, son of the prisoner, a boy of ton years old, (o give testimony as to what happened at his father’s house on the morning of the catastrophe, t The Chief Justice stated to the Jury tha he had taken care to ascertain that the boy had a sufficient understanding of the nature of an oath for his testimony to be received. The boy was therefore sworn, and stated that the prisoner was Ids father; he recollected the morning on which hismotberwasstabbed; hewasat home with his father and mother, and after breakfast he was going out of the house, when his father caught him back, locked the door ? and (lieu.

he saw his father stab bis mother twice, or more, I with a shoemaker's knife (like the one produced); ; his father did not say anything ; witness unlocked | the door and ran out, when he saw Mrs. Sheard; his father was sober ; he had ill-used his mother before that time ; saw him take a knife to her three times about a week before ; his mother had behaved very well to his father. The prisoner having no Counsel, Ilis Honor I enquired whether he had any questions to put to ' the witness.

j The Prisoner said it grieved him to ask the 1 hoy 7 any questions, he was so young, —but examined ! him on one or two points ; witness did not remem- : her his mother saying anything against his father; he thought his father and mother were not good friends for some weeks past. By the Court: Witness did not recollect anything being said by father or mother before the stabbing ; it was near a quarter of an hour between the breakfast time and the time he stabbed her, and he could not recollect anything being said in that time by either. Ann Sheard, wile of John Sheard, pensioner of Howick, being sworn stated, that shehad known the prisoner and his wife ; lived in the adjoining cottage to them ; on the 25th June, between seven and eight o’clock, she heard Mrs. Moore screech, and say “ Oh William !” and then screech two or three times after that; saw her after that outside her own gate, when she put up her hands and cried out “Murder,” repeatedly; she walked ns well as she could in a stooping position towards witness’s gate, and called witness to her assistance, saying she was stabbed in the belly in three places. By the Prisoner : Witness had heard words between the prisoner and his wife on former occasions, hut never heard of any blows; had heard, prisoner say on the evening before he committed the deed that he thought he would be the better of a month in the hospital; there was nothing going on in her house about having the prisoner put out of his cottage. Frances Organ, wife of a pensioner at Howick, resided near the prisoner’s cottage ; on the morning of the 25th June, she saw deceased standing in a stooping posture near Mrs. Sheard's gate; she knew nothing of the manner of life the prisoner and deceased lived ; witness went over to Mrs. Sheard’s assistance, and heard Mrs, Moore say she was stabbed in the belly ; Moore came out, when Mrs. Sheard said to him “ You murdering villain, what have you done ;” prisoner held up bis finger and said his wife’s blood was on her head and his own, that he had been brought up to do it, and told Mrs. Sheard to look at the two children —deceased’s and his, pointing to the boy; Mrs. Moore was taken into the witness’s house, and having sat for about ten minutes she said she was in great pain, and asked me to lay her on the floor; she said she was bleeding to death ; after she was removed to her own house she said she would not live, and she died on the next night. By the Prisoner : Did not know prisoner w r as on bad terras with his wife; recollects prisoner asking her husband whether he thought he was in his right senses, when her husband said he did not see anything the matter with him.

Dr. Bacot, being sworn, stated he was the Surgeon attached to the Pensioners force at Howick ; he was sent for to see Mrs. Moore at about halfpast eight o’clock on Saturday morning the 25th June; he found her lying in a neighbour’s cottage on the bed; he had her removed in a sheet to her own house; he examined her body and found two wounds, one on each side of the navel, they appeared to have been made with a very sharp weapon (like the knife produced); there was very little bleeding from the wounds; he attended her until her death which he believes loak place on' Sunday night; examined the body af.edeatli and found the cavity of the belly entered on both sides, and on the left side a small intestine had been wounded, and death was caused by internal bleeding from that wound. By the Prisoner : The deceased sent fur witness different times to see the prisoner; witness believed that there was then in him a disposition to appi caching insanity; the state he was in might have been caused by previous habits; but witness thought that close confinement to work was injurious to him, and had recommended more exercise, and a course of medicine as necessary to prevent the approaching malady. By the Court: Witness believed that prisoner was capable of conducting his own business, and of understanding the consequences of his acts, so know the stabs might kill his wife; but he was evidently labouring under some delusion of being badly used by his wife, for which witness thought he had no grounds, for so far as witness had observed his wife was exceedingly kind to him. Tli’s closed the case for the prosecution. The Judge then enquired of the prisoner if he had any witnesses to examine for his defence. The prisoner said that he was desirous that Mr. Patten, of Howick, and his wife should give some evidence for him ; but as they had not been subpoenaed, they did not answer to their names when culled in Court. Jt was then intimated that Mr. William Mason wished to offer testimony in relatioffto the prisoner, when, on being called and sworn, he stated, that four or five days before the woman was stabbed, the prisoner was seen on his (Mr. Mason’s) grounds in the morning, wandering about with a blanket under his arm ; he was brought into the house, and partook of some breakfast; when witness came in, prisoner said he wanted to place himself under his protection as there was a conspiracy going on against him in Howick, and he had hoard them, through the wall, read something against him; he spoke in such a wild, incoherent manner that witness concluded he was not in his right mind.

The Attorney-General having addressed the Jury, The Prisoner stated in defence that be believed there wap some underhand work going on, in Avhich his Avife was engaged, to get him removed from his cottage and acre; and that he often thought she had given him something to injure him—for he Avas always better when be refused to take tea and things she prepared for him. The Chief Justice then summed up the evidence, Avhen the Jury, after retiring for a short time, returned a verdict of “ Guilty,” but strongly recommended the prisoner to mercy.

William Charles Hnzlct was tlicn placed at the bar, charged with stealing a silver watch, the property of Thomas Ledru Wallis. The prisoner pleaded *• Guilty.” Jeremiah Cooper was then arraigned on an indictment charging him with stabbing Abner Tucker, with the intent to kill, or do him some grievous bodily harm. The Prisoner pleaded “ Guilty.” The Court then adjourned until 10 o’clock next morning. Friday, September 2. James Simpson was placed at the bar, charged with having stolen, on the 11th of July last, a jiistol belonging to Augustus Harzc. Prisoner pleaded ‘'Not Guilty.” The Attorney-General conducted the prosecution, and called Augustus Ilarze, who stated that after his arrival here from California, he went to lodge at Mrs. Brown’s boarding-house, in Queen-street, where the prisoner also lodged; they both slept in the one room ; he had two carpet bags in the room, which he placed under his bed, the one containing, among other things, a revolver pistol, and the other money ; between Monday the 10th July, and the irght of Tuesday, the 11th, the pistol and money were taken from his bags; he lost about 800 dollars in money, comprised in 410 dollars worth of gold dust, and JGO dollars jn coin; lie had not seen the pistol from the Monday, until he saw it again at Police-office (pistol produced), be knew the pistol by the number (.394), and the case, by a lew stitches of sewing lie had done himself at sea. Catherine Simons, wife of Walter Simons, Tailor, Crescent, stated that the prisoner brought a pistol in a case to her house, and requested her to allow him to leave it there, and take care of it for him; she put il into a box ; she identified the and case by a mark she

I made on each of them on the Friday after she j heard of the robbery; she gave them up to a j person named Stringer. j Thomas Stringer stated that he saw a pistol j and case at Mrs. Simons’s on the day after he | had heard of the robbery, and brought them |to Sergeant-Major Russell of the Police; he j could identify the case, but could not swear posii lively that the pistol produced was the same he had seen at Mrs. Simons’s house.

Sergeant-Major Russell identified the pistol as the same lie had received from Thomas Stringer. Ellen Mary Brown stated that the prisoner and the prosecutor had both lodged at her house, and occupied, with three others, the same room ; about a dozen had access to it altogether ; she remembered the prosecutor alleging that he had lost money at her house ; she saw the carpet bags on the Tuesday, and removed them, but did not notice any difference in the weight of them from the time she hud removed them on the previous Saturday. By Mr. Bartley : witness asked the prisoner to remain while the house was searched, after the robbery was discovered, and he did remain.

James Dorrell was boarding at Brown’s when some property was lost; prisoner and prosecutor were lodging there at the same time; saw prisoner leave the house on the morning of Tuesday, between eight and nine o’clock with a small bundle with him.

By Mr. Bartley : The bundle appeared to be one such as might contain a couple of shirts or something of that kind ; the person said he was going to the washerwoman. The Attorney General addressed the Jury for the prosecutor, and Mr, Bartley for the defence.

His Honor summed up, and the Jury after a few minutes consideration found the prisoner guilty. The Judge then proceeded to pass sentence on the prisoners who had been convicted. William Charles Hazlet to be imprisoned for 12 months, and kept at hard labour. James Simpson to be imprisoned for 18 months and kept at hard labour. Jeremiah Cooper to be transported beyond the seas for the term of his natural life. William Moore Avas then placed in the Dock, and His Honor before passing sentence addressed him as folloAA's:—•

You, William Moore, have been indicted for the wilful murder of Mary, your wife, and you have been found guilty. From the evidence given at the trial, it appeared that, at the time of committing this crime, you were subject to a particular delusion concerning your Avife; although not to such a degree of insanity as to deprive you of the poAver of distinguishing between the effects and consequences of actions. Under that delusion, you proceeded to destroy that life which you wore bound, most of all, to protect. Your act the Jury have pronounced to he wilful murder; and the hew of the land warrants their finding. 1 trust that their verdict may go forth throughout this community Avith a solemn and restraining power, to Avarn men that they may not yield themselves to the influence of such delusions with impunity, and that the guilt of shedding innocent blood is not lightly to be excused. The Jury have, liOAvever, strongly recommended that, in your case, the extreme penalty of the law he not inflicted. J presume (for the reason was not expressly stated) that they felt that, however fearful in every case is the crime of avilfully and wrongfully shedding human blood, yet there is a distinction to he recognised betAveen cases in Avhich a man is in part misled by an erroneous belief, and those in Avhich a man is Avholly and solely influenced by malignant passions.” That recommendation Avill be conveyed to the Governor iu Council; Avlicre it Avill no doubt receive (as 1 thiuk it deserves to receive) the most serious c msideration. Meanwhile, and subject to the decision of the Council, it becomes my duty to pronounce the sentence to Avhich, by the law of your country, you have rcncUred yourself liable. The sentence of the law is, that you, William Moore, he taken to the gaol from whence you came, and thence to the place of execution, at such time as His Excellency flic Governor shall appoint, and there be hanged by the nock till you be dead.