THE QUEEN V. BRADLAUGH.

Thames Star, Volume VII, Issue 2786, 18 January 1878, Page 2

THE QUEEN V. BRADLAUGH.

This was the case of the prosecution against Mr Brtdlaugh and Mrs Besant for publishing an obscene book. The defendants were convicted and sentenoe passed during the last sitting, but they have brought a writ of error to. reverse the judgment, on the ground that the obscene book was not set out in the in* dictment. The objection was taken before the trial in accordance with the terms of Lord Campbell's Act, 14 and IS Viet., cap. 100, which requires that ' such formal exceptions shall b« taken before the trial; but it was overruled, and the Attorney-General had granted his fiat for a writ of error to hare it considered whether the objection war fatal. The judgment-roll had been carried on, but it did not show the decision on the application, nor the time of the judgment before sentence. Mr Bradiaugh now moved in person to hare the roli>- % amended, showing the application befew trial and the judgment upon it, and the date of it, in order to show whether it was before or after trial and before or after final judgment. He insisted that the roll, as it is, was not true, and did not truly state the facts. It was material, under the statute, to show that the application was before (rial, and also when the " judgment upon the verdict was entered, for he insisted that, in fact, it was not entered until after final judgment was given and sentence was passed. The record had not been made up at the time of the sentence* and, in point of fact, was made up and entered afterwards. The Lord Chief Justice said his impression was that these were merely formal objections; but if not so, the only result would be that the record would be amended and sentence passed again. Mr Bradlaugh said that was all he asked, and accordingly the Lord Chief Justice said the SolicitorGeneral must be heard vpon the matter, and there would be a hearing for the purpose.—Home News.