Trial of Pedro de Zulueta, jun., on a Charge of Slave Trading, under 5 Geo. IV, cap. 113, on Friday the 27th, Saturday the 28th, and Monday the 30th of October, 1843, at the Central Criminal Court, Old Bailey, London / A Full Report from the Short-hand Notes of W. B. Gurney, Esq.

(From the Anti-Slavery Reporter.)
CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.
Thursday, August 24, 1843.
THE CHARGE OF TRADING IN SLAVES.

Mr. Clarkson applied to their Lordships to take the bail for Mr. de Zulueta, arranged by the Recorder on the previous evening. He explained that only one of the sureties having been present, and the hour too late to obtain the other, Mr. de Zulueta had been enlarged upon giving his own recognizance in 6,000l., and one security in 2,000l. He was now in Court with Mr. Glyn, the well-known banker, and Mr. Wilcox, who were ready to enter into the sureties of 1,000l. each, Mr. de Zulueta himself being ready to give his personal recognizance in 3,000l.

Mr. Payne, who was retained for the prosecution, had no objection.

Mr. Clarkson then applied to have the trial, both for the felony and the misdemeanor, postponed to the next session.

Mr. Payne consented.

Mr. de Zulueta then entered into the requisite securities.

AFFIDAVIT
OF DEFENDANT AND MR. EDWARD LAWFORD
IN SUPPORT OF
APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI.

IN THE QUEEN’S BENCH.

Pedro de Zulueta the younger, of the city of London, merchant, and Edward Lawford, of Drapers Hall, in the same city, gentleman, attorney for the said Pedro de Zulueta the younger, severally make oath and say, And first this deponent, Pedro de Zulueta, for himself, saith, that he, this deponent, is a merchant of London, and has been so for the last eight years, and as such engaged in large mercantile transactions with houses in different parts of the world, but particularly at Cadiz, and the Havannah. And this deponent saith, that he is engaged in such business in partnership with his this deponent’s father and brother, and that this deponent’s said father and grandfather were engaged in such business for seventy years and upwards, and that their said house of business is and always has been of good repute as honourable merchants, and that this deponent has always occupied the rank and station of a gentleman, and has always associated with gentlemen and merchants of the first respectability. And this deponent further saith, that on Wednesday, the 22nd day of August last, while this deponent was sitting in his counting-house in Moorgate street, in the city of London, he was, about three o’clock in the afternoon, to his great surprise taken into custody by a policeman, in consequence, as he was then informed, of a true bill having been then found against him for felony at the sessions then being held of the Central Criminal Court. And this deponent saith, that upon being taken to the said Court, and the said indictment being exhibited to him, he found it to be an indictment against this deponent, and against one Thomas Jennings, mariner, and one Thomas Bernardos, mariner, for illegally and feloniously manning, navigating, equipping, dispatching, using, and employing a certain ship or vessel called the Augusta, in order to accomplish a certain object, which in and by a certain Act of Parliament, made and passed in the 5th year of the reign of His late Majesty King George the Fourth, intituled “An Act to amend and consolidate the Laws relating to the Abolition of the Slave Trade,” was and is declared unlawful, and for other illegal offences against the said Act of Parliament. And this deponent saith, that he is not guilty of the offences charged against him by the said indictment, or of any or either of them, and that he never did, directly or indirectly, man, navigate, equip, dispatch, use, or employ the said ship, or any other ship, to accomplish any of the objects declared by the said Act to be unlawful, and that he is not, nor ever was, directly or indirectly, in any way or manner interested in the said ship or her earnings, or the profits of any voyage made or to be made by her. And this deponent saith, that when he was so taken into custody he was altogether ignorant that any proceedings whatever had been, or were about to be, taken against him in reference to the said ship, or to the offences charged by the said indictment. And this deponent saith, that there had been no previous examination or inquiry before any magistrate in reference to the said charges, and that he was then, as he is now, altogether ignorant of the evidence upon which such true bill was found, and has no means whatever of ascertaining, except as appears by the said indictment, what facts he is charged with. And this deponent saith, that upon his being so taken into custody and removed to the Central Criminal Court then sitting, upon a representation of the facts made by his counsel to the Recorder of London, then presiding as judge of the Central Criminal Court, it was ordered that he, this deponent, should be admitted to bail himself in the sum of 3000l., with two sureties in the sum of 1000l. each, to take his trial upon the said indictment, and that he forthwith pleaded Not Guilty to the said indictment; and that inasmuch as by reason of the lateness of the hour in the evening at which such order was made, he was unable to procure two sufficient persons as bail, the Recorder permitted him to enter into his own recognizance in 6,000l., with one surety in 2,000l., conditional for his completing the bail on the following morning pursuant to the said order, which this deponent accordingly did. And this deponent saith, that the said indictment now stands for trial at the next session of the Central Criminal Court. And both these deponents say, that they believe that this is the first instance of an indictment for felony preferred in this country under the said statute, and that they believe that questions upon the true meaning and construction of the said statute, and other and difficult questions of law will arise upon the trial thereof. And these deponents say, that in the judgment and belief of these deponents this is a case which ought to be tried by a special jury of merchants. And this deponent, Pedro de Zulueta the younger, saith, that he is desirous of having the assistance of the most eminent counsel upon the trial of this indictment, and that he has retained for that purpose one of the most eminent of Her Majesty’s counsel learned in the law, but that he is informed and believes that such counsel will not attend at the Central Criminal Court. And this deponent saith, that if he shall be permitted to remove this indictment by certiorari into this honourable Court he will have the assistance of such counsel, and he will apply for a special jury, and will take all necessary steps for having the same tried by a special jury, and for being defended therein by such eminent counsel as aforesaid, with the least possible delay. And this deponent, Pedro de Zulueta the younger, further saith, that the facts and circumstances relative to the using and employing the said ship or vessel called the Augusta, upon the occasion to which the said indictment has reference, formed one of the subjects of an inquiry in the year 1842, by a Select Committee of the Honourable House of Commons appointed to inquire into the state of the British possessions on the West Coast of Africa, and that three of the witnesses whose names appeared on the back of this indictment, (that is to say) Captain the Honourable Joseph Denman, Captain Henry Worsley Hill, and Colonel Edward Nicolls, were examined before such Committee. And this deponent saith, that it appears by the printed minutes of the evidence taken before the said Committee, and this deponent believes the fact to be, that the said Henry Worsley Hill captured the ship Augusta off the Gallinas, on the coast of Africa, and that the said Thomas Jennings, then the owner and master of the said ship, was tried in Her Majesty’s Court of Sierra Leone upon a charge similar to that now charged against him and against this deponent, and that the said Thomas Jennings was by such Court on such trial acquitted. And this deponent saith, that he is one of the mercantile correspondents in London of the mercantile house of Pedro Martinez & Co., of Cadiz and the Havannah, and that the nature of his commercial dealings with the said houses of Pedro Martinez & Co. is confined to the usual mercantile business of purchasing and selling, in this country, for the said Pedro Martinez & Co., lawful goods and merchandise, and usual mercantile banking transactions, and that he has no sort of connexion with him or with any other house, either here or abroad, as to any dealings in, or in relation to, slaves or the slave trade.

Note.—The learned Judge, to whom the application was made for a Writ of Certiorari, did not see fit to grant it.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.
MOTION TO POSTPONE THE TRIAL OF THE INDICTMENT.
The Queen versus Zulueta and others.

Proceedings at the Central Criminal Court at the Old Bailey, before the Honourable Mr. Justice Erskine and the Honourable Mr. Justice Cresswell.

(Thursday, 21st of September, 1843.)

Mr. Clarkson. My Lords, I consider it my duty to take the earliest opportunity of bringing under your Lordships’ consideration the case of the Queen v. Zulueta.

Mr. Payne. My Lords, Mr. Serjeant Bompas leads me for the prosecution in this case: he is not here now, but will be here in a moment.

Mr. Justice Erskine. This is an application only.

Mr. Clarkson. Yes, my Lord; I will give my learned friend every advantage I can. We have given him a copy of our affidavit, in answer to which an affidavit has been sworn, I understand the effect of which is this, that Captain Hill—

Mr. Justice Erskine. What is the ground of your application?

Mr. Clarkson. The absence of material witnesses. I do not mean to trouble your Lordships at any length. My application to your Lordships is to postpone the trial of these indictments, upon the ground of the absence of material witnesses from Spain, without whose evidence the defendant cannot safely go to trial, and that application is founded upon an affidavit, a copy of which has been supplied to the gentleman on the other side some days ago. It was supplied immediately upon the sitting of the Court. One of the witnesses who had been sent for, and who was not expected to arrive, having arrived within the last two days, and this indictment having been preferred without any application being made to a magistrate, or without any notice to the gentleman himself. My learned friends have made an affidavit in reply; and in order to save your Lordships hearing two speeches from me, it will be better for your Lordships to hear what my learned friends have to say in opposition to this application and then to hear me in reply.

Mr. Serjeant Bompas. My learned friend seems to assume that the trial will be put off as a matter of course.

Mr. Justice Erskine. He has stated the ground of his application, namely, the absence of material and necessary witnesses, and he leaves you to state his affidavit, and comment upon it as you please.

Mr. Serjeant Bompas. My learned friend has not quite correctly stated his affidavit when he says his application is founded upon the absence of material witnesses.

Mr. Justice Erskine. The affidavit had better be read.

Mr. Justice Cresswell. Have you got a copy of it?

Mr. Payne. Yes, my Lord.

[A copy of the affidavit was handed to his Lordship.]

The affidavit was then read by the Clerk of the Arraigns as follows:—

In the Central Criminal Court.

Pedro de Zulueta the younger, of No. 22, Moorgate Street, in the City of London, merchant, and John Lawford, of Drapers Hall, in the said city, gentleman, attorney to the said Pedro de Zulueta, severally make oath and say,—And first, this deponent, Pedro de Zulueta the younger, for himself saith, that the above mentioned indictments are preferred against this deponent, and against one Thomas Jennings, mariner, and one Thomas Bernardos, mariner, the first mentioned of such indictments being for illegally and feloniously manning, navigating, equipping, dispatching, using, and employing a certain ship or vessel called the “Augusta,” in order to accomplish a certain object, which in and by a certain Act of Parliament, made and passed in the 5th year of the reign of his late Majesty King George the Fourth, intituled “An Act to amend and consolidate the Laws relating to the Abolition of the Slave Trade,” was and is declared unlawful; and the last mentioned of such indictments for conspiring to do, &c. And this deponent saith, that he was taken into custody on the 23rd day of August last in consequence of the said indictments having been found against him. And this deponent saith, that upon his being so taken into custody and brought to the Central Criminal Court then sitting, the Recorder of London then presiding as judge of the said Court, ordered that he this deponent should be admitted to bail himself in 3,000l., with two sureties in the sum of 1,000l. each, to take his trial upon the said indictments; and that he thereupon pleaded “Not Guilty” to the said indictments, and entered into the said recognizances. And this deponent further saith, that when he was so taken into custody he was altogether ignorant that any proceedings whatever had been or were about to be taken against him in reference to the said ship, or to the offence charged by the said indictments (there having been no previous examination or inquiry before any magistrate in reference to the said charges), and that he was then, as he is now, altogether ignorant of the evidence upon which such indictments were found, excepting that this deponent has been informed that the charges contained in these indictments arise out of transactions in respect of which this deponent was examined in the year 1842 before a Committee of the Honourable the House of Commons. And this deponent further saith, that Joseph Toplis, who was the managing clerk of this deponent’s house of business at Liverpool at the time of the transactions in question, was and is a most material witness for this deponent, and most essential to enable this deponent to prepare his defence to these indictments. And this deponent saith, that at the time when these indictments were preferred the said Joseph Toplis was at Gibraltar. And this deponent saith, that on Saturday the 26th day of August last, being the third day after the said indictments were preferred, and being the first possible opportunity which this deponent had of communicating with the said Joseph Toplis, this deponent’s house of business wrote and sent a letter to him the said Joseph Toplis, requiring him to repair to England immediately, as well for the purpose of giving his evidence on the trial of these indictments as in order that the said Joseph Toplis might enable this deponent to procure such other necessary evidence for the defence of this deponent, as the knowledge of the said Joseph Toplis in relation to the transaction out of which these indictments arise might enable him to obtain. And this deponent, John Lawford, for himself saith, that in consequence of the absence of the said Joseph Toplis, and in consequence of this deponent’s belief that the said Joseph Toplis could not arrive in time to enable this deponent to prepare for the trial of these indictments, this deponent, under the advice of counsel, wrote and sent a letter to Sir George Stephen, the attorney for the prosecution, in the words and figures following:—

And this deponent saith, that in reply to such letter, this deponent received a letter from the said Sir George Stephen, in the words and figures following:—

And this deponent, Pedro de Zulueta the younger, further saith that the said Joseph Toplis, in consequence of the aforesaid requisition on the part of this deponent, came away from Gibraltar forthwith, and arrived in London on Sunday evening last, the 17th day of September instant. And this deponent further saith, that it will be absolutely necessary for the said Joseph Toplis to repair to Liverpool for the purpose of procuring the attendance of divers persons who are necessary witnesses on behalf of this deponent, who are not known to this deponent, and whose names this deponent had not the means of procuring until he had communicated with the said Joseph Toplis. And this deponent saith, that by reason of the shortness of the time since the arrival of the said Joseph Toplis, and the necessity of his repairing to Liverpool and elsewhere, to seek for and procure the necessary evidence in support of the defence of this deponent, it will be impossible for this deponent to be prepared with such evidence in time for the present session. And this deponent, John Lawford, for himself saith, that he has been retained as the attorney of the said defendant, and that he has diligently applied himself to the preparation of the defendant’s case, and that he is advised by counsel, and verily believes that it will be absolutely necessary for this deponent to procure the attendance of the witnesses above referred to, and of others who he is informed and believes are resident at Manchester, Liverpool, and Glasgow, and also of some of the crew of the said ship Augusta. And this deponent saith, that he has been informed and believes that the defendant, Thomas Jennings, has been already tried for this offence at Sierra Leone, and acquitted thereof. And this deponent saith, that he has reason to believe that it may be necessary to procure the attendance of witnesses from that settlement as well as from Spain, and other distant places. And this deponent saith, that by reason of the shortness of the time which has elapsed since the said indictments were preferred, and by reason of the entire ignorance of this deponent of the evidence against the defendant, Pedro de Zulueta the younger, it has been utterly impossible for this deponent to complete the preparations for the defence in time for the present sessions. And this deponent further saith, that from the time of the said bills being found to the present time this deponent hath been in constant communication with the said other deponent with a view to his defence, and that no time whatever has been lost in preparing for such defence; but this deponent saith, that by the reason of the circumstances hereinbefore stated this deponent hath been wholly unable to prepare the brief for the defence.

Sworn in Court, 19th September, 1843.

Mr. Serjeant Bompas. Your Lordships will probably wish to hear the affidavit in answer, before I make any observations upon that which has just been read.

Mr. Justice Cresswell. Have you a copy of it?

Mr. Payne. Yes, my Lord.

[A copy of the affidavit was handed to his Lordship.]

The affidavit was then read by the Clerk of the Arraigns as follows:—

In the Central Criminal Court.

Henry Worsley Hill, of Great Rider Street, in the parish of St. James, Esquire, a Commander in Her Majesty’s Navy, and Sir George Stephen, of King’s Arms Yard, in the city of London, the solicitor for the prosecution, severally make oath and say,—And first, the said Henry Worsley Hill for himself saith, that he is under orders to proceed to the Gold Coast on the western coast of Africa, to assume the government thereof with the least possible delay, and that arrangements are now in progress for this deponent to depart by the end of this present month. And this deponent also saith, that the public service will sustain considerable inconvenience by any delay on the part of this deponent in proceeding to Africa as aforesaid at the time now appointed, and that he this deponent has no expectation or hope of obtaining further leave of absence. And this deponent, Sir George Stephen, for himself saith, that the said Henry Worsley Hill is a most material witness on behalf of this prosecution, and that without his evidence this deponent cannot safely proceed to trial; and this deponent, Sir George Stephen, further saith, that he has perused a copy of the affidavit of Pedro de Zulueta the younger, and John Lawford, made in these matters, and that in consequence of the misdirection of the same, as this deponent believes, he, this deponent, did not receive a reply to his letter of the 12th of September, 1843, set out in the said affidavit, and therefore proceeded in his preparations for trial. And this deponent saith, that he is ready to proceed to trial at the present session of this Court. And this deponent further saith, that he has caused another witness in this matter to come over from Paris, where such witness is permanently domiciled, and that such last mentioned witness incurred much inconvenience and expense in so coming, and that as he habitually resides out of the jurisdiction this deponent has no means of compelling him to appear again, should the trial of these indictments be deferred. And this deponent saith, that the evidence of such last-mentioned witness is most material. And this deponent further saith, that he has subpœnaed three other witnesses to come to London from a great distance, one of whom is a sailor, and another of whom is an officer of rank in Her Majesty’s navy, and that the evidence of all the said last mentioned witnesses is most material, and that the said indictments cannot be safely tried in their absence, but that from the nautical profession of two of them, this deponent believes it to be very doubtful if he will again be able to compel their attendance. And this deponent further saith, that he has also subpœnaed another witness who habitually resides at Seville in Spain, and who is about to return to Seville, as this deponent is informed and believes as soon as the trial is over, and this deponent is informed and believes that the evidence of such last mentioned witness is material. And deponent saith, that he has no hope of again collecting together so many important witnesses whose professional avocations necessarily render their simultaneous presence in this country very uncertain. And this deponent further saith, that the said defendant, Pedro de Zulueta the younger, cannot have been taken by surprise by these indictments, because the said Pedro de Zulueta the younger, volunteered, as this deponent is informed and believes, to be examined as a witness before the Select Committee on the West Coast of Africa, and was so examined on the 22nd and 23rd days of July, 1843, when the nature of the case upon which this prosecution is founded was stated to the Committee, and the said Pedro de Zulueta admitted that he had received copies of the evidence given by Captain Hill on the 29th of June, the 4th of July, and the 6th of July previously. And this deponent saith, that the said Pedro de Zulueta the younger, did upon such examination admit that the house to which he belongs had been charged with criminality, and with having for a length of time been agents to slave dealers, and the said Pedro de Zulueta the younger avowed his reason for wishing to be examined before the Committee to be, that the statements contained in the said evidence were incorrect. And this deponent lastly saith, that in another part of such examination, the said Pedro de Zulueta the younger, in answer to the question, “Is there any other part of the evidence which has been given that you wish to observe upon?” after denying all knowledge of a person of the name of Kidd, adds, “With regard to my partners, I can say the same. I have been making inquiries about it; my father knew there was such a man, but I did not know even that, though I have managed all this business.”

Mr. Serjeant Bompas. My learned friend, Mr. Clarkson, has called upon me to make some observations upon this affidavit. I should not in addressing your Lordships at all wish to object to the postponement of this trial, if it could be considered even by the defendant or his counsel more advantageous to him that it should be postponed, could I consent to it without feeling that the trial could not fairly take place at any other period. I cannot help thinking, while your Lordship is looking at this affidavit, that it is one such as has been rarely produced before a Court, in order to found an application for the postponement of a trial. This indictment was preferred above a month from this time; that is, four weeks from this time. It is true, as has been stated, that no inquiry took place before a magistrate, but when long before that period at which the inquiry could have been instituted, if such had taken place, this matter had been inquired into before a Committee of the House of Commons, when Mr. Zulueta appeared before that Committee, and stated that he had had the management of all the business, and appeared in order to explain the transaction—

Mr. Clarkson. No.

Mr. Serjeant Bompas. I will refer to the words of the affidavit.

Mr. Clarkson. I beg pardon.

Mr. Serjeant Bompas. When it appears that that inquiry had taken place before a Committee of the House of Commons, this proceeding cannot have been instituted without ample notice of all that is to be now inquired into, as far as any party, under the circumstances, charged with felony, can be supposed to know the nature of the evidence to be brought against him. And what is the foundation of this application? Not that some material witness is absent—some material witness whom they have subpœnaed, and whom they know to be material, and whose attendance they cannot obtain; that is not the foundation of the application. The ground of the application is, that a person of the name of Toplis, who was managing clerk to Mr. Zulueta, was absent at Gibraltar, at the time the indictment was found. It is not even that he has not arrived: he arrived on Sunday and is now able to give any evidence that the defendant may require. It is said, that he is able to make communications in respect to the evidence of persons, whose names were not known to the defendant till he arrived, and upon whose absence the application was founded, and that it is now requisite to send for some witnesses from Liverpool, and I hardly know where. The affidavit is very singularly sworn; and when my learned friend says, “from Spain,” and so on, there is no such statement to be found in it. That which is stated is, that it may be necessary to send for various witnesses, that it may be necessary to procure the attendance of witnesses from the settlement of Sierra Leone, as well as from Spain. My learned friend, in citing it, said, that they were to obtain witnesses “from Spain.” The affidavit is, that it may be necessary to have witnesses from Spain—that it may be necessary to have witnesses from Africa, so that there is no statement whatever that there is any witness in Spain who would be wanted or can be expected, or that there is any witness in Africa who will be wanted or who is expected; there is no such statement at all. The statement is, “That it will be absolutely necessary for the said Joseph Toplis to repair to Liverpool for the purpose of procuring the attendance of divers persons, who are necessary witnesses on behalf of this deponent, who are not known to this deponent, and whose names this deponent had not the means of procuring until he had communicated with the said Joseph Toplis.” Certainly that is a statement of a very extraordinary kind: no doubt it was put into the affidavit, believing it to be true, but the statement made by Mr. Zulueta before the Committee of the House of Commons was, that he had had the management of the whole of the business; and to suppose that there is a witness in Spain, that there is a witness in Gibraltar, Mr. Toplis, and that they can make no inquiry as to the names of the individuals till he comes over, is the most extraordinary statement ever laid before a Court. As far as this affidavit goes, it does not appear that they have taken the slightest steps in order to ascertain by any inquiry as to any witnesses or any transactions; but Mr. Toplis is to go to Liverpool to hunt out for witnesses. Who they are does not appear: not any persons who are certain to be witnesses, but that he is to go to Liverpool to hunt out for witnesses who may be—

Mr. Justice Cresswell. And whose names the deponent could not procure till Mr. Toplis came.

Mr. Serjeant Bompas. “And whose names this deponent had not the means of procuring until he had communicated with the said Joseph Toplis.” He could hot tell certainly who Joseph Toplis would require till he had communicated with him; but that he could not have ascertained whether any witnesses were necessary for his defence would not appear satisfactorily to your Lordships. It is a case that will require examination by the Court, in order to do that which would be the object of the Court, to have the case most fairly and properly inquired into. Your Lordships see of necessity that the witnesses for the prosecution are witnesses in a situation not easy to be obtained upon any future occasion. There is one who is under orders to proceed abroad in order to take the government of the Gold Coast: there are others who are officers in the navy.

Mr. Justice Erskine. What was the date of the inquiry before the House of Commons?

Mr. Serjeant Bompas. 1842, my Lord.

Mr. Justice Erskine. Your affidavit states 1843.

Mr. Serjeant Bompas. It is a mistake, my Lord. It should be 1842.

Mr. Justice Erskine. Subsequently to that inquiry was any notice given to the defendant that it would be made the subject of a prosecution?

Mr. Serjeant Bompas. No notice, my Lord, till the bill was found.

Mr. Justice Erskine. What was the date of the transaction to which the indictment refers?

Mr. Serjeant Bompas. There was then an appeal pending before the Privy Council.

Mr. Justice Erskine. What was the date of the transaction to which the indictment refers? I want the date of the occurrence.

Mr. Serjeant Bompas. 1840; the end of 1840 and the beginning of 1841. The capture of the vessel, to which reference was made, was in February, 1841. She left England on the 9th of November, 1840. She was captured: there was a proceeding in the court abroad; she was condemned, and there was an appeal before the Privy Council.

Mr. Justice Cresswell. The ship sailed from Liverpool?

Mr. Serjeant Bompas. Yes, my Lord.

Mr. Justice Erskine. With a cargo of some sort. One question will be, whether it was a cargo adapted to the trade upon the African coast, or for dealing in slaves.

Mr. Serjeant Bompas. No doubt.

Mr. Justice Erskine. Was Mr. Toplis the managing clerk at Liverpool?

Mr. Serjeant Bompas. Yes, my Lord. It is stated that he was the managing clerk at Liverpool; but to suppose that the shipment of any firm at Liverpool to say that they can obtain no evidence of that shipment except by a managing clerk, is such a statement as can hardly be credited of any merchant. That is the statement; but they do not state any circumstances to explain it. That it is necessary to have his managing clerk to state the names of the parties concerned in the shipment, it is one of the most extraordinary statements ever made. Upon this statement your Lordships will have to consider the foundation of the application, and your Lordships will take into view all the circumstances of it. This case is to be proved, as it must necessarily be, by various officers in the navy besides Captain Hill, who is about to go out as governor of the Gold Coast; by officers in the navy, and sailors, and foreigners, now here ready to give their testimony.

Now, my Lord, there is one circumstance singularly deficient in this case, and without which there has never been a case in which the trial of any cause has been put off. The affidavit does not give the slightest suggestion when they are likely to be ready to take their trial; so that it is utterly impossible that the trial can be available, if they are to come when the witnesses for the prosecution may be scattered over the whole world: the prosecution may be gone through, but it would be a mere formal statement. I am willing to give due weight to every argument on behalf of a person charged with an offence, in order that the charge may be fairly and properly tried in respect to him; but at the same time there are duties on behalf of the prosecution. The crime cannot be inquired into unless there are the means to procure the evidence. If these witnesses are here, and this party has not taken the means which he might have done to have the trial now take place, and if he does not give us the slightest information when it is to be tried; if a person charged with an offence is to choose the time for trying it, every trial of this kind would be an utter abortion, because unless the witnesses for the prosecution are here it is impossible there can be a fair trial.

Now there is not a statement, there is no pretence, why the witnesses for the defendant could not have been here at the present time. To say that there were no means of knowing the general nature of the charge, and knowing the whole substance of the defence, and having the whole matter fairly considered and put into form before the Court, is what you cannot believe. Your Lordships cannot believe, that though Mr. Toplis may have been an important witness, that the general subject of the charge inquired into was not generally known, and that all the witnesses for the defence, such witnesses as were thought necessary, must not have been generally known to the defendant. There may have been a witness whose name was known only to Mr. Toplis; there may have been one or more, but it is impossible that the case might not have been got up with the exception of Mr. Toplis’s evidence, and might have been ready for trial on this day. But if they have utterly neglected to take any step till last Sunday, the time as I understand it, they have no right to come now and ask your Lordships to put off the trial. There is no statement of any sort or kind of any individual witness necessary, except those suggested to be at Liverpool. Mr. Toplis could not know the witnesses abroad more than any other gentleman. Suppose there are witnesses abroad—have there been any, the slightest step taken to bring them here? What steps have been taken? He says there are witnesses from Africa: when are they to be here? when will they come? when is the trial to take place? There is not a single intimation of the time when they will be ready to take their trial. It is to be put off till the witnesses for the prosecution are scattered, and it is impossible to have the trial. Undoubtedly it is difficult to have a number of witnesses of this description ready before the Court, and to get their testimony together. But what do they say? They say that it may be necessary to get some of the sailors of the Augusta. Was Mr. Toplis necessary for that? Why have they not taken any step to get the evidence of those witnesses? They do not appear to have taken any one step to be prepared for this trial, although then knowing that it was a matter of difficulty to collect a number of witnesses like these. If it is to be held that they can at their discretion from time to time put off the case, it is a mere abortion to attempt to prosecute any person, however guilty, in the situation of Mr. Zulueta. However important it is for the defendant—and I would not wish to withhold that from the consideration of your Lordships—it is equally important for the public good, and as well worthy of your consideration. It would be with the utmost difficulty, if there is any probability of doing it at all, that the witnesses could be got together again. If they had taken every step, and gone down to inquire at Liverpool, and proceeded as far as they could and had the means in their power, and yet could not be ready, that would be some ground for the application; but they do not appear to have taken any step—they appear to have relied upon putting off the trial, considering that that would be as good a protection as any witnesses could possibly give them.

I certainly do feel that there is a ground of opposition to this application which has never failed when there is no suggestion at all in the affidavit of what time they expect to be ready for trial. I believe there has never been a case in which a party has not given the Court some reason to believe that, if the trial is put off, they will be ready to try at a given time: on the contrary, here it is put as if it was quite loose—there may be some witnesses from Spain and Africa, though they have had a month during which they might have made inquiries.

I have thought it right to submit these observations to your Lordships, both for the sake of the prosecution and the defendant. If the prosecution is well founded, it is of the utmost importance that it should proceed; on the other hand, it is no doubt of importance that the other side should have an opportunity of bringing the case before the Court in all the views of which the case is capable: but the case is one in which your Lordships must see the great inconvenience to the prosecutors, and the difficulty of getting the witnesses together, and I trust your Lordships will feel that it is one which ought not to be adjourned; but if it be adjourned, it must be to some fixed time at which it must be understood that the case will come on.

Mr. Payne. My Lords, I will add but two or three words to what Mr. Serjeant Bompas has already addressed to your Lordships. I must say that I never in the course of my experience met with a paragraph in an affidavit to postpone a trial similar to the first paragraph in this affidavit; it is merely this, “That it will be absolutely necessary for Joseph Toplis to repair to Liverpool for the purpose of procuring the attendance of divers persons who are necessary witnesses on behalf of this deponent, who are not known to this deponent, and whose names this deponent had not the means of procuring until he had communicated with the said Joseph Toplis.” Now it is generally required, in affidavits of this description, that if you do know the names of the witnesses, and where they are to come from, that you should state them to the Court, that the opposite side may be in possession bonâ fide of the nature of the defence. If Mr. Zulueta had sworn that he did not now know the names of the witnesses, there would be some reason for not putting in the names; but he does not say that—he says he did not know them till Mr. Toplis came. Mr. Toplis came last Sunday night: he could furnish the names; and if he had put the names of the witnesses and the places they were to come from in the affidavit, instead of “divers witnesses,” it might be in the usual form upon which the Court may sometimes postpone a trial. I say that that expression is not sufficient. I say that the Court are entitled to have information of the names of the persons necessary as witnesses, in order to bring the case within the ordinary rule.

Then, my Lords, the only other part of the affidavit which has not been noticed by my learned friend, and which may be touched upon on the opposite side, is the affidavit of the attorney that he has not been able to prepare the briefs. Mr. Zulueta having stated that he was the person who managed all this business, he must have possessed information sufficient to enable the attorney in four weeks to prepare the briefs; and if he has not furnished that information, it is owing to neglect on the part of Mr. Zulueta. Their affidavit is loose and defective—ours is precise. We say we do not think we can get Captain Hill again: he states, that he is under orders to sail. Under these circumstances, we must bow to what the Court think right to decide; but we consider that a case has not been made out to justify the Court in granting this application.

Mr. Clarkson. My Lords, in answer—

Mr. Justice Erskine. You cannot ask for any further postponement beyond the next sessions.

Mr. Clarkson. I did not think that your Lordships would assume jurisdiction to postpone it beyond that.

Mr. Justice Erskine. We cannot listen to that part of the application with respect to the witnesses from Spain or Sierra Leone; they are not stated with sufficient accuracy.

Mr. Clarkson. I quite feel that, my Lord; I only wish to say this, that if my learned friend comes here to ask for the costs of the day, or for what my learned friend calls terms—

Mr. Justice Erskine. That is not necessary.

Mr. Clarkson. There is some mistake about it; such a thing was never heard of here: but there is this observation to be made in answer to the greater part of what my learned friends have said—for twelve months and more have these parties who are prosecuting been taking steps, and yet to this hour nobody knows who they are, no name has been furnished: for twelve months have they been about that which they now call upon a respectable merchant of London to meet in a month; and two or three years have elapsed since the vessel was condemned.

Mr. Justice Erskine. It is the duty of the Court to take care that the ends of justice shall not be defeated by too easily yielding to applications of this nature; but it is equally the duty of the Court to take care that a man charged with a felony shall not be brought to his trial until, he is able to present such an answer as the circumstances of the case will admit of.

It appears that the offence with which the defendant is charged is alleged to have been committed in 1840. The grounds for charging Mr. Zulueta with participation in that offence may have originated in the examinations before the Committee of the House of Commons in 1842. If it did then originate, the parties who conduct this prosecution must have known what the foundation of that accusation was, and if they intended to charge Mr. Zulueta with that offence, and particularly if they meant to support it upon the testimony of witnesses who might be absent at a future time, they ought to have taken steps by which to have secured the attendance of the defendant, and have taken him before a magistrate, and examined the witnesses there. But it appears, though this examination took place in 1842, no steps are taken in the prosecution till August 1843, and that is just upon the eve of the departure of one of the witnesses, from which circumstance the Crown, it is said, cannot avail itself of his presence, because he is going upon a public mission to some other part of the world. This is a prosecution of a singular character, and the Crown will take care that the ends of justice are not defeated by their sending away an officer whose testimony is necessary for the establishment of such a charge. I do not believe there is any risk of the ends of justice being defeated by his absence.

Then is it fair to call upon the defendant now to present himself to the Court? It appears that a person of the name of Toplis had the management of this business at Liverpool, where the circumstances are said to have originated which form the foundation of this charge; he is abroad, and from the year 1842 no notice is given.

Mr. Serjeant Bompas. The Privy Council did not decide.

Mr. Justice Cresswell. We have nothing to do with the Privy Council.

Mr. Clarkson. There is no decision by any body. It is no prosecution by the Crown.

Mr. Justice Erskine. I was not saying any thing imputing improper motives to the prosecutors, but stating facts, that no notice had been given to the defendant. If, in the year 1842, any notice had been given to Mr. Zulueta that this prosecution was to be instituted, then if he had sent Mr. Toplis abroad, he would have no right to avail himself of that circumstance; but in the absence of any notice of that sort, he had a right to assume that the evidence before the House of Commons was satisfactory, and that there was no ground to institute a prosecution, and he might then fairly send his clerk abroad. Then it appears, that, having been sent abroad, immediately the prosecution was instituted a letter was sent to him, in consequence of which he returned to this country: he only arrived on Sunday last; and it is impossible, from the state of the facts, that Mr. Zulueta could be in a state to prepare the requisite instructions for counsel, and get those witnesses necessary to enable him to proceed with his defence. We therefore think that this trial should be postponed till the next sessions. We do not yield to the necessity suggested of sending to Spain or Sierra Leone; there is no sufficient ground for that laid in the affidavit.

Mr. Clarkson. The form will be, that your Lordships will be pleased to respite the recognizances of Mr. Zulueta and his bail to the next sessions.

Mr. Justice Erskine. Yes.

(The recognizances were enlarged, and the parties left the Court.)

TRIAL
OF
PEDRO DE ZULUETA, JUN., ESQ.,

AT THE CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT, OLD BAILEY,
ON FRIDAY, 27th OCTOBER, 1843,

BEFORE