Mr. Kelly. Yes.
Mr. Justice Maule. It appears to me that that is exactly what you have been saying before.
Mr. Kelly. No, my Lord, the point is altogether and totally different.
Mr. Justice Maule. It may be a different reason, but it is the same point.
Mr. Kelly. I am sure your Lordship will see that it is different, when I come to explain.
Mr. Justice Maule. It is going for a nonsuit?
Mr. Kelly. Yes, it is in effect, my Lord; but if the Court will indulge me with a few moments of time, they will see that the Court is under a mistake, and that the point is most grave and proper for the consideration of the Court, and totally apart and distinct from that I have already submitted.
Mr. Justice Maule. All I want is that you should explain. Sometimes, when gentlemen are moving for a new trial, they are asked whether they move for a new trial on the point of misdirection, or the verdict being against evidence; I do not say it is imperative they should state distinctly, sometimes a gentleman might not feel prepared to state that?
Mr. Kelly. I will answer your Lordship’s question in as few words as I can. The point I make is this:—The charge is, that of fitting out a vessel to accomplish the object of trading in slaves, or slave trading at Gallinas, which I submit was not an illegal object: that supposing for a moment the facts were to convince the Jury that the defendant had fitted out this vessel, in order that Pedro Martinez & Co., or any other persons, might trade in slaves at Gallinas, that is not a felony within this Act of Parliament.
Mr. Justice Maule. Do you mean to say, that proof would not support the indictment; or, that supporting the indictment, it would not amount to felony? One of those things it must be.