case the king against mell on a information for perjury try at bar if the jury  believe the oath to have be false swear and not intend to find for the  defendant bring in a verdict guilty of perjury but not of wilful and corrupt  perjury and on be tell by the court that the verdict be repugnant and can not  be record they find a verdict guilty general but say at the same time that  some of the juror be not satisfy that the perjury be wilful and corrupt yet  the court will not grant anew trial on such ground after a trial at bar S c  Mod S c holt lev style salk mell be find guilty of perjury at a trial at bar  and now a motion be make for a new trial first because the verdict be against  evidence second because it be against the opinion of the jury who give it  modern the fact be thus the jury find the defendant guilty of perjury but not  of wilful and corrupt perjury as it be lie in the information and Rokeby  justice be alone in court ask the jury whether they find for the defendant  they reply No upon which he tell they that he can not record the verdict which  they have give for it be contradictory and they must find he guilty or acquit  he he ask they whether they believe that the matter swear be false they reply  yes then he ask whether they believe the defendant know it to be false they  reply they can not tell that then the foreman say that they agree before they  come into the court to find the defendant guilty of perjury modern er p but  not guilty of wilful malicious and corrupt perjury a and if that verdict shall  not be record then to find he guilty general because some of the jury be  dissatisfy to find he guilty of wilful and corrupt perjury whereupon without  alley further consideration they find he guilty general which be a verdict  both way and not only against evidence but against their own opinion which can  be dictum reality but the court hold that when a cause be try at bar a new  trial be never grant for the single reason that the jury go against evidence  it be true it be grant in my Lord Fitzwater case a for there be a misbehaviour  in the jury in fling dice to decide whether they shall find for the plaintiff  or defendant which will alter the trial by verdict of twelve to a trial by lot  so likewise for excessive damage for word as for call the plaintiff traitor  and the jury give fifteen hundred pound damage b it be insist on behalf of the  king that there be no affidavit of any misbehaviour of the jury for they be  all unanimous agree to find the defendant guilty but the ambiguity of the word  corrupt puzzle they which make they scrupulous of find the perjury to be such  because they have no evidence of any bribery to forswear himself neither be it  a misdemeanour in they to give a verdict which will have amount to make the  defendant not guilty and immediate before they go from the bar to find he  guilty as to the first they ask the opinion of the court whether such a  verdict may be receive which be what they ought to do and if they have the  opinion of the court that such verdict which be offer be not agreeable to law  then they be to consider what verdict to give modern now it be plain they have  this matter under consideration before they meat to the bar because when the  judge tell they he will not record the first verdict they immediate find the  defendant guilty which be a argument they be full agree on the fact to find he  guilty though they can not find he wilful and corrupt guilty because they have  no evidence of it now to imagine this to be a misdemeanour be all offence and  reflection upon the court for if there have be any misbehaviour the judge will  have tell they of it they shall have oppose the receive this verdict but since  it be record they must not now set it aside for authority a case in the  yearbook c be cite which be a action of conspiracy bring against two and upon  not guilty plead the jury find one guilty and acquit the other and they be  advice by the court to consider better of their verdict which be contradictory  in itself because one alone can not conspire they thereupon find both guilty  which be a strong case than this at bar it be no new thing for a jury to  recall their first verdict and for the court to receive another at the same  time d this be do in one archer case who the jury acquit upon a indictment of  felony and immediate they recollect themselves and tell the court they be miss  ken and find he guilty and this be enter as their verdict e contra new trial  have be grant in this court after a conviction of perjury it be do in the case  of one Cornelius side a who be indict for perjury for swear that such a person  be at a conventicle when in truth he be not keb Jones b and it appear that the  foreman of the jury who give the verdict be owner of the barn where the  conventicle be hold and be challenge for that reason and yet swear of the jury  the court grant a new trial it have be grant likewise for the miscarriage of  the jury to who the plaintiff deliver a paper after they be go from the bar  see king v Jolliffe to Rep c the law require the evidence to be clear to  convict a man of perjury and it must be of wilful and corrupt perjury now when  the jury be satisfy that the defendant be not guilty of wilful and corrupt  perjury and yet find he guilty general this be a verdict which be repugnant in  itself modern they ought to find he guilty of wilful modern er p and corrupt  perjury or to acquit he in a indictment for perjury bring upon the statute of  the queen the plaintiff declare Inst d that the defendant falsely dixit et to  lay and show in what issue and in what court and conclude et such To bring  together volunteer et corrupted parts perjury and the whole court be of  opinion that this declaration be insufficient because it be not say that  falsely voluntary et corrupt dixit c for the cause which follow et such To  bring together volunteer et corrupted parts perjurium will not help it because  it be a conclusion upon premise insufficient alledgedSee Cox case case in  crown law e the counsel for the king will excuse this misdemeanour in the jury  by the common case of ask the opinion of the court in a point of law which it  be their duty to do but that be not applicable to this for they be agree upon  two verdict which be inconsistent and upon the latter without any  consideration at all it be agree that they may vary from a privy verdict the  reason be because it may be presume that they have some subsequent  consideration of the evidence after such verdict give beside a privy verdict  in strictness be no verdict it be only a favour which be allow to the jury for  their ease curian if the thing swear be manifest false the mind must be  corrupt and then there need be no evidence of bribery Adjournatur