aw, they may consider to contain one, and of signal
turpitude. On a writ of error, the court above clearly sees that B is a
bad count; but cannot reverse the judgment, because there stands count A
in the indictment--and which, therefore, (though for a common assault
only,) will support the heavy fine and imprisonment _imposed in respect
of count B_! Let me suppose another case. An indictment contains two
counts: there is a demurrer[13] to each count: each demurrer is
overruled, and a general judgment given that the defendant, 'for his
offences aforesaid,' shall be fined and imprisoned. Is it to be said,
that if he bring a writ of error, and prove one count to be bad, he
shall have no relief unless he shows the other to be bad also?"

He concluded a brief commentary (substantially identical with that of
Lord Cottenham) on the authorities cited, by affirming that "there was
neither text-book, decision, nor _dicta_ to support a doctrine so
entirely contrary to principle."

This is how his lordship thinks the like mischief may be obviated in
future:--

"If bad counts are inadvertently introduced, the mischief may be
_easily_ obviated by taking a verdict of acquittal upon them--by
entering a _nolle prosequi_ to them, or by seeing that the judgment is
expressly stated to be on the good counts only, which alone could
prevent the bad counts from invalidating the judgment upon a writ of
error."

As to the notion that the judges were uninfluenced in passing sentence
by the first three counts, on which there were numerous findings, he
observed, that--"We cannot resort to the _palpably incredible fiction_
that the judges, in violation of their duty, did not consider the guilt
of the parties aggravated by the charges in these three counts, and
proportionally increase their punishment."

After an unsuccessful attempt on the part of one or two lay peers who
had not heard the whole argument, to vote--which was resisted by both
the Lord Chancellor and Lord Wharncliffe, and Lords Brougham and
Campbell--the Lord Chancellor finally put the question:--

"Is it your lordships' pleasure that this judgment be reversed?--As many
as are of that opinion, will say '_Content_.' As many as are of a
contrary opinion, will say '_Not Content_.'"

"_Content!_" exclaimed Lords Denman, Cottenham, and Campbell.

"_Not Content!_" said the Lord Chancellor and Lord Brougham.

_Lord Chancellor._ "The _Contents_ have it. The judgment is Reversed."