[ 47 ]
the trial of the indictment, which, in point of inuendo and averment, may be every way compleat and pleader like.
It was argued by Mr. Berarcroft and Mr. Buller, in order to blind the Jury's eyesight into the true distinction, that because they had no right to judge of the operation of a fine, in a civil cause of ejectment, nor to determine murder or no murder, in a criminal one, they had nothing to do with the criminality of any paper, for the writing or publishing whereof, a man was prosecuted as a libeller. This mode of reasoning involves a contradiction. In an ejectment, if the operation of a fine make against a plaintiff's lessor, and favour a defendant, the Judge explains the law to the Jury, who find for such defendant, because they find he committed no trespass by his ouster, though confessed by the common rule of court, so as to bring on the question of title only. Here it must be born in mind, that the Jury consider law and fact. The law is not left for the court to judge exclusively of, as it arrogantly does in the case
of
