HABEAS CORPUS.—CAUTIONNEMENT

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, December Term 1872.

Present : DUVAL, Ch. J., CaRON, J., BADGLEY, J., DRUMMOND, J., and MOxK, J.

Ex purte BAKER, on an application to be admitted to bail.

On a trial for murder, the jury differed in opinion and were discharged. Application was then made by prisoner’s counsel, for permission to give bail for his appearance, and take another trial, A writ of habeas corpus was allowed and argued at great length.

Held : That the application be granted and accused be admitted to bail.

Baker was accused of murder, at the coroner’s inquest, and a verdict of wilful murder was given against him. An indictment for the same crime was submitted to the grand jury, and a true bill was found. He was tried, and the jury differed in opinion and were dischargell. It did not appear how the jury were divided, or what was the precise obstacle to their unaninity,the one or the other. Application was made by

pris( ne ance allower return cation #

dent, à tion, bu case of the tent to bail, Moi was an the deci that the on the under a was ne under t learned applicat opinion, l'ASON, theretor great he

FA

Courr « Preser

Tue Cr

pon:

Held : 1 posed of 1 an assiwne under à w claim beir

On th being th Coin pose

e latrit of XECUà writ fyled perty.

t, disfrom pposie1zed, 1S6S, at the iment ed by jf the

Sly of espons sule, ained.

ed. (3

t, and ndictjury, ferel v the their le by

prisoner"s counsel for permission to give bail, for his appeurance to take another trial. A writ of Habeas Corpus was allowed, and made returnable before the full court. Upon the return of the writ, PARKYN, Q. C., was heard upon the application at great length. The solicitor general resisted the admission of the accused to bail, as being wholly without precedent, and, in that view, being not only à dangerous innovation, but, also, as likely to lead to an evasion of the law, in a case of great and paramount importance. On the last day of the term, the application was granted and accused admitted to bail, himself for £500, and two securities for £250 ench.

MoxKk, J., concurred, stating, however, that the application was an extraordinary one; that he was induced to concur in the decision rendered by the majority, solely upon the ground that the learned judge who tried the case, and who was then on the Bench, one of his own colleagues, was of opinion that, under all the circumstances of the case, and with which he was necessarily quite familiar, he did not consider it fell under the general rule in these matters, and, that he, the learned judge, was not himself oppos:d to granting the application. For him (Justice MOxKk) this expression of opinion, by the learned judge, was, he thought, à sufficient reason, perhaps, for departing from the general rule, and he, therefore, concurred with his colleagues, though not without great hesitation. (3 R. C., 45.)