nds of justice should be ultimately secured, though it is easy to
imagine cases in which such devices would, after all, fail; and we had
framed several illustrations of such possibilities, but our limits
forbid their insertion: instances illustrating the mischievous operation
of the rule, equally in cases of defective and unproved counts--of
felonies and misdemeanours--and in the latter case, whether the
indictment contained several offences, or only varied statements of one
offence. In the case first put, what a temptation the new rule holds out
to criminals who may be able to afford to bring a writ of error, and so
seriously embarrass the administration of justice! And if too poor to do
it, he will, under the operation of the new rule, be suffering
punishment unjustly; for the only count selected may be bad, or some one
only of several may be bad, and the judgment ought to be reversed. What
was the operation of the old rule? Most salutary and decorous. No public
account was taken of the innocuous aims, so to speak, taken by justice,
in order to hit her victim. If he fell, the public saw that it was in
consequence of a blow struck by her, and concerned themselves not with
several previous abortive blows. The prisoner, knowing himself _proved_
actually guilty, _and the numerous chances existing against him on the
record_, if he chose to make pettifogging experiments upon its technical
sufficiency, submitted to his just fate.

Let us take one more case--that of _murder_: we fear, that on even such
solemn and awful occasions, the new rule will be found to operate most
disadvantageously. There are necessarily several, possibly many,
counts. Mr Baron Parke[19] admits, that here the old rule should apply;
viz. a general judgment of death, which shall not be vitiated by one, or
several bad counts, if there be a single good one. The new rule since
laid down, says, however, the contrary; that judgment must be reversed
for a single bad count. Lord Denman, to meet this difficulty, would pass
sentence "upon some one"[20] of them, and thereby exhaust the materials
of punishment, and so in effect give a "judgment for one felony." _But
how is the record to be dealt with?_ If the prisoner choose to bring a
writ of error, and show a single bad count, must not the judgment be
reversed if entered generally? And if entered on one count with not
guilty on all the others; and that one count proved bad, while even _a
single one_ of the reject