charged in the indictment; but these were clearly _partes ejusdem negotii_; they were committed in immediate sequence and in furtherance of the same “foul and atrocious design.” It was quite plain, therefore, that the cases quoted did not apply; that they had no bearing whatever on the present case, where three different and unconnected murders were charged against the same individual, and where another party was mixed up with him in one of the alleged crimes. Were they not entitled, then, to ask their Lordships, in the exercise of a sound discretion, (which it was not denied the Court possessed) “to divide and parcel out” the charges in this indictment, and to find it incompetent to go to trial upon it as it presently stood? The Learned Counsel then adverted to the state of the law of England on this subject, commenting on the passage quoted by Mr. Robertson from the work of Chitty, and concluded by observing that this was in all respects a most serious case, and deserved the utmost attention of the Court. No instance of three murders charged in one indictment had happened in his time; many instances had indeed occurred in former times; yet it had never been the practice to try the charges _in cumulo_. But the more anomalous and unprecedented the case, the more necessary was it to the ends of justice, and the more important to the law, that it should be proceeded in with the utmost caution. Their Lordships then delivered their opinions on the objection which had been raised and so ably argued by the prisoner’s Counsel. * * * * *