be observed, that the fame judge, lord Mansfield, tried both these causes; and the fame judge, on a motion for arrest of judgment in Woodfall's cafe, delivered the opi nion of the court. THE opinion of the court, in the case of the King against Woodfall, was drawn up with great legal fubtilty. It had not the perfpicuity, which lord Camden sometimes displayed, on giving important decisions: nor was it intended for common readers, or for common auditors. It was calculated only for the initiated. The dexterity of it was, however, fufficiently manifeft, to all those who were capable of understanding it. It is well known, that the doctrines concerning juries, which are conveyed in this opinion, have been publickly queftioned by lord Camden.' No jury ought to find any man guilty of writing, printing, or publishing a libel, unless unless they are convinced it is a criminal production. If the criminality be not apparent to them, or if they are doubtful, they ought to acquit the defendant. In that cafe, the information or indictment has not been proved to them; and where the matter is doubtful, in criminal prosecutions, an acquittal is always moft confonant to the fpirit of the law of England. In many cafes, when a jury bring in a verdict of Nor GUILTY, the meaning is not, that they are affured that the accufed party is innocent, but that his guilt has not been proved to them: and this is always fufficient ground for an acquittal. Nor should incomplete verdicts ever be given in fuch cases; or any judgments be pronounced in confequence, of fuch verdicts. In the cafe of the King against Simons, upon a rule to fhew cause why a new trial should not be had, it was faid by Mr. Juftice Denison, that if the • verdia proper in juries to bring Thus it is faid in Jenwhere fraud, covin, matter of fact occurs to ught not to make a fpebut give a pofitive and 72? attempts have been he Star-chamber doc-. bels even in America, en there, as well as in ght of determining the Reports, p. 36. Edition, p. 232. law, the publicatio information t a verdict for 66 fuppofing t "that they a "that; nay, " being true "crime"3" York alfo main told the jury, the papers wer which they MI pretended lib "Trial of John the publication of the paper information to be libels, the a verdict for the king: " fuppofing they were tru "that they are not the l "that; nay, indeed, the "being true is an aggra "crime"." The chief-ju York alfo maintained fimilar told the jury, in his charg the papers were libels was a which they MIGHT leave to t pretended libels were new 73 Trial of John Peter Zenger, p. taining paffages in which the conduct of the governor of New York was arraigned. The printer was defended, with great spirit and ability, by ANDREW HAMILTON, Esq; of Philadelphia, who went from that city to New York, on purpose to act as counfel in this caufe. Mr. Hamilton firmly maintained, that the jury had a right “to deter"mine both the law and the fact." The jury afferted that right; and accordingly, though the defendant's counfel admitted the facts of printing and publishing, they found the printer NOT GUILTY. Mr. Hamilton refused to accept of any fee for his fervices on this occafion; but the mayor, and corporation of New York, presented him with the freedom of that city in a gold box, for "his generous defence of the rights of mankind, and the liberty of "the prefs, in the cafe of John Peter "Zenger." As |