general verdict, and this even in matters of property, in which the law, in many cases, may be confidered as more intricate and obfcure than in criminal cafes. The word DISSEIZIN fignifies "an unlawful difpof * feffing a man of his land, tenement, or "other immoveable, or incorporeal right." When, therefore, a jury took upon themfelves to fay," It is diffeizin," they deter mined a point of law, as well as a question of fact. It is declared by this ftatute, that they have a right to do this, and that they are not to be compelled to bring in a spe» cial verdict.

IN trials for murder, it is a point of law whether the act, by which the person was killed, be murder or manflaughter, or chance-medley, or felf-defence; but this point of law, as well as the truth of the fact itself, is almost always finally determined by the jury. In fuch cafes, the judge ex

plains to the jury the feveral kinds of ho micide, and may give them his opinion under what denomination the particular act comes which is the subject of their inquiry. But they are not obliged to adopt his opinion: they have an undoubted right to bring in a general verdict. In fome cases, an act of homicide may be attended with fuch circumstances, that it may be a very nice and difficult point of law to determine, whether it was murder, or whether it was manflaughter. But even in fuch cafes, the final determination is left by the law to the jury; for special verdicts in trials for murder are extremely uncommon, and depend entirely upon the option of the jury. Indeed, the very practice of bringing in fpecial verdicts clearly implies, that juries are judges of law, as well as of fact. This is observed by the author of the TRIAL PER PAIS, or Law of Juries, who says, A spe

• cial

*cial verdict is a plain proof that the jury are judges of law, as well as facts; for leaving the judgment of the law to the court, implies, that if they pleased they ⚫ had that power of judgment in them • felves."

It is obferved by Blackstone, that there are two different kinds of special verdicts, one, grounded on the ftatute Westm. 2. 13 Edw. I. c. 30. § 2. wherein, they state ⚫ the naked facts, as they find them to be • proved, and pray the advice of the court ⚫ thereon; concluding conditionally, that if upon the whole matter the court fhall be of opinion that the plaintiff had cause * of action, they then find for the plaintiff; if otherwise, then for the defendant.' Another, wherein the jury find a verdict generally for the plaintiff, but subject nevertheless to the opinion of the judge or the court above, on a SPECIAL • cafe

cafe ftated by the counsel on both sides with regard to a matter of law.' • But in both these cafes,' he fays, the jury 6 may, if they think proper, take upon themselves to determine at their own hazard, the complicated queftion of fact and law; and, without either special verdict, or special cafe, may find a verdict abfolutely either for the plaintiff or defendant "'.'

It is certain, that no jury should ever find a fellow-citizen GUILTY, or should bring in verdict in which the word GUILTY is any included, without a conviction of his having been guilty of fome criminal action. But writing, printing, or publishing a book or pamphlet, is no more a criminal action, than riding in a post-chaife, or walking in a man's own dining-room. It must, therefore, be the contents of fuch book or

Commentaries, Book III. ch. 23.

pamphlet

pamphlet that must determine its innocence or criminality. And if the jury attend not to the tendency of the publication, to the fubject-matter of it, they determine, in general, nothing that is of the leaft confequence.

WHEN a jury are reftrained from inquiring into any thing, but the mere fact of publication, in a trial for a libel, they certainly have not much to do, as that fact is generally fufficiently clear, and frequently not in the leaft difputed. It has, however, been thought proper, that the jury might not be wholly destitute of fomething to do, that upon them should devolve the important office of filling up the blanks, if any fhould occur in a libellous production. Thus, in the cafe of the King against the Dean of St. Afaph, though the jury were not, it feems, able to decide, whether the Dialogue, for the publication of which that gentleman