The Sun. — London, England, 1844-01-22 00:00:00

1? - I at "era 1...... with was the not? ,(I to nanY anY nslo yes• r one sting nnY' ? di' int& arcs mores o. • the the Irish rorns fol. ado's we'', I I. 3 in re' a t it [ the n6p6 tb 4 001 1 , 3t tO 2e eto BRaWSTER—Look at your notes of the meeting' of tlie 'la of Jul O ' CONNELL—It would be well if the officer of the'Court barked these notes. Let them be handed in for the purpose. llatirSTEß—Look to page 1 of that date; do you see the of any of the traversers entered there as being present? see the names of Mr. John O'Connell and Mr. Daniel Conn e ll ; I see the name of Mr. Barrett in page 4. At this p er i o d o f t h e procee di ngs th ere was som e little noise !!•tie t a bl e caused by the isovernment Reporter soeaking across she table to Mr. Brewster. T he Curer JUSTICE pointed down to where Mr. Edwards R as sitting, and said the disturbance came from that place. Mrs O'CONNELL, who was sitting next to Mr. Edwards, got tip And denied that it came from him. Mr. Frrzerenots said that many persons came there from cu ec4itY, and if they could not hold their tongues they ought to main at home. il r BREWSTER—Look to page 12; do you find that Mr. il 'aYdid anything at that meeting ?—Yes, he handed in several tri 4s l, l :t zney ; I find in page 13 that Dr. Gray gave in con -IMr. 13 arwseee—Look to page 3, read the contents, and read l ' aw lY, if you can. MA ror—Hold up your head, sir, and raise your voice. The witness then proceeded to read an extract from a speech Mr. O'Connell's, •in which he eulogised Mr. Murtage, and rlilised to att e nd the meeting at Baltinglass on the 6th G of f gust, which was his own birth-day. He then read a letter the Right Rev. Dr. Cohen, Roman Catholic Bishop of e 'ofert, earn sing his subscription to the Association. On the rile day Mr. Barrett handed in money from a Protestant gen an of the North of Ireland. kThe witness then read another extract from a speech of o, t o O'Connell's at the same meeting. In that speech 5 . 1. • "oriel' alluded to the necessity of attending to the mum - Zal ele c ti ons , an d sa id th a t the To r ies had refused to pay the r° Ofill rate. lie also said that Lord Brougham had been sieniring how the money received at the Association was die- N I Of , but if Lord Brougham chose to ssbscribe his pound woeld be enlightened on that point—that is, if they would tsceive the suloscription of such a man. They had invested e ,' ° ° o /. in the funds already, they intended to invest 4,0001. 'are, and 1,0001. had been advanced for the building of the " t neiliation Hall. Mr. BREWSTER—Look to page 12; do yin see an entry of „ OuY coney h an d e d i n by Mr. Ray ?--Yes, Mr. Ray handed P i s obscripitions from different parts of England and Scotland I tu e witeess enumerated them). Dr. Gray handed in money i 4 the :acne day, and stated that the Marquis of Dewnshire had a terfered to prevent his tenantry becoming Repealers. Baxwseee—Look to your notes of the meeting on the iOnth of July, p ag e 2. —I have them before me. The secretary 'anded in money on that day. In page 6, I see that Mr. O 'Connell h an d e d i n looney on the same day. In page 8 , I nd that Air. Duffy, of the Nation, handed in his subscription. I page 9, 1 find that Mr. Steele and Mr. John O'Connell "'tooled in money. Mr. Hisewseett—Look to page 6, and read the statement °f Mr. O'Connell with regard to' the finance details?—Mr. 0' 3, stated that the amount received from the 4th of aIY, 1842, to the corresponding quarter in 1843, was 15,0001. Mt. BRE WSTE ta— We will now go to the 14th day of August, la set out in the indictment. Look at page 2of your manu seript—erho appetteed to have been at that meeting of the As sociation ?—Alr. Ray, Dr. Gray, and Mr. O'Connell. Go t o page 4, and tell me who were present at that meet -14?--Mr. Steele was present. Go to page 12 ?—I don't see any names there. Look again ?—Oh, yes, I see there the name of Mr. Duffy, of the Nation. Mr. \% luITLSIDE—Wr do not find any mention of the 14th of August in our copy of the indictment. Air. lessewseett—lt is a misprint. Mr. Witrrestno—My Lord, be good enough to strike out that evideoce against Mr. Duffy. Air. ligewsese—Just alter the date, my Lord, because Mr. "offe's name cornea in the next meeting. Go to page 22 of August 3, and say who were present at that meeting?—Air. Duffy, Air. O'Connell, 11r. Steele. Go to p age 5, an d s ay w hose name do you find there 7—Mr. John O'Coonell's. Go back to page 3, and tell me did Mr. O'Connell do or say "'thing that day ?—lt states that Air. O'Connell arrived seortly after two o'clock, accompanied by Mr. Steele. He read several letters, enclosing contributions from repeal wardens, ziontan Catholic clergymen, and others. , to page 7, and tell me what do you find there ?—Mr. u 'Connell read a letter from Philadelphia, containing remit taoces and resolutions read at the Association of the friends of Irel and and Rep e al, and he moved that the letter from Judge Duran he inserted upon the minutes. Ge to page 9. Did he read any document of the Association that day ?—Yes, he read his plan for the renewed action of the Irish • rarhament ; I gut a copy of it at the Association. The deputy-clerk then read the plan for the renewed action of the Irish Isusiament. He continued to read the manner in Which members were to be given to the various cities and towns, arid considered the basis of representation should be the amount °f population. This was taken from the census of 1831, which Was prepared for a different purpose, and without reference to the report of the Union. Household suffrage, after a certain Period of occupancy. to give the right of voting, and votes to be taken by ballot. Turn to page 11 of that day ? Finds no notes referring to arbitrators at that page. Look at the last four lines ?—I see it there ; the meeting then adjourned to the next day, when they were to report on t he mode of appointing arbitrators and the abolition of the Catholic oath. Judge CRAMPTON—Abolition of what? Witness—The Catholic oath; looks to page 4; finds Mr. Barrett's name and Mr. Daniel O'Connell ; at page 5 Mr. John O'Con nell ; at page 8 Dr. Gray ; reads page 4 ; Mr. O'Con- Sell handed in several sums of money from various parts of America, arsdread letters from New York and Utica accompa nying the respective sums, which he moved might be inserted on the minutes. Witness was proceeding to read" there were kigh sounding --." Air. FITZDIEBON, Q. C.—ls this your comment on the pro ceedings ?—Yes—( Laughter.) Mr. Worresins desired him not to trouble them with refer ring to anything of his own. Witness proceeded--Air. O'Connell said it was prudent to advise with the proprietors of the several newspapers as to the prop r i ety of printing supplements, that all the letters should be published. At page 8 reads the speech of Dr. Gray, of the Freetnan's Journal, proposing the adoption of the report fur nished by the Committee as to the mode of selecting and carrying into operation the appointment of arbitrators through out Ireland. Got a document that day at the Association. Has it its Court. Hands it to officer to read. The Clerk of the Crown was then proceeding to read from manuscript on very slight paper. lodge Ceeterrox—Perhaps you have it in print; it is easier to read. Air. BREWSTER—We have it printed. The officer then read the Report of the Sub-Committee, August, 1843, on the system and appointment of arbitrators in Ireland, signed by Dr. Gray, Aug. 21, 1843. Sir. BREWSTER—Look to the meeting of the 28th of August, and say who were present?—Dar. Steele, Mr. John O'Con nell, Mr. Ray, Mr. O'Connell, and Dr. Gray. Look to page 7, arid see if Mr. Ray did anything ? —He read a letter inclosing a bill on Air. Rothschild for 120/. Did Air. J. O'Connell read a letter?--Yes; he read a letter from Cincinnati, inclosing 1131. Did Air. O'Connell say anything at that meeting?—Yes. • The witness then read some observations made by Mr. O'Connell with respect to the order on Rothschild, the Arbi tration Courts, and a letter received from Mr. harry, of Mallow. Look to the meeting of the 29th of August, at pages 3 and 5, and say who were present at it?—Air. O'Connell, Mr. Ray, arid Air. J. O'Connell. Read the observations of Mr. O'Connell at that meeting. The witness commenced to read an abstract of the speech read by Air. Ross yesterday, when Mr. Justice Ceeareeors asked whether it was necessary to read the speech over again ? Mr. Berwseee said that he only wanted to have the last Page recd ; but the other side might require to have the entire read. The witness then read some observations made by Mr. O'Connell, to the effect that Ireland had many grievances to coMplain of. She was accused of being discontented, and she pas so. It was said she was disaffected ; but he sung back the accusation by saying it was as false as hell. She was not , o isaffected, but discontented. There should be no outbreak in °is life-time; but when he was dead it would not be an un natural or unadvisable result. The expression "unadvisable result" seemed to come with surprise upon counsel for the Crown, the Solicitor-General. and Alr. Brewster again asking him what result ? To which the Witness still replied, " an unadvisable result." Sir. O'CONNELL—I never said anything of the kind. (In i me report react by Si r . Ross yesterday, the words were, we be " unavoidable esult.") Mr. Beevissoee—Can you say how any of those observations wer e received?—No. Look to page 1 of the report of the meeting of the 4th of Ray, and which of the trav ersers w ere th e re ?—Mr. 41 '1, Mr. Steele, and John O'Connell. Go to page 7, and see if Mr. O'Connell did anything ?—He handed i n sums of money from Roscommon, Circwar Bar, Bel fast, Adelaide. New York, Boston, and other places. Did Air. Ray make any observations?—He recommended the " Spirit of the Nation" to be circulated amongst the peo ple, instead of the trash tkey were in the habit of reading. As the witness read the passage very indistinctly, he was ordered to read it over again. Now go to page 16, and see if Mr. O'Connell said anything about another meeting to be held?—Mr. O'Connell said that there would be a meeting in Loughrea, where three or four hundred thousand people would be gathered together, and Wher e there would be no breach of the peace if the sub-in tpector of police would only allow him to have 200 men, hardy Repealers, to act as policemen, under the command of the sub-inspector. Now go to the 10th of September, and look at page 1, Which of the traversers were present ?—Mr. O'Connell, Mr. Barrett, and Mr. Steele. Go to page 10, for the meeting if the 12th of September, and say if Mr. Barrett did anything ?—He handed 'an a sub oeription of 211. bid Air. O'Connell do anything after that ?-Ile addressed the raveling, and handed in 500/. from Ameee ca . H e also pointed ant that the Orangemen were tryine g Re peal movement a religious character, but ti oat ito give the Re t would fail, as their object was to benefit Irishmen of all c l asses . Now go to the meeting of the 13th r e f September, and say Rho appeared at that meeting?—Mr, ry and Air. R ay . Connell, Mr. Steele, What did Mr. O'Connell first do ? —He read a letter from W ashington, United States, and desicribed it as a document characterised by good sense, practical information, and con laitliog expressions of sympathy to Ireland. What did Mr. Ray do ?—He rear'( a communication on the subject of the enumerators appointrld to take the numbers of the constituency. Air. Brewster then handed in a manifold copy of the address to all British subjects, which Mr. O'Connell, at this meeting, said should be circulated through the three kingdoms, and ;placarded on the walls of Liverpeel, London, and Bristol. As this document was rea d y ester d ay, b ee d i d not occup y t h e ti me of the Court with it, but simply put it in. He continued the r=um ination of the witne ss by telling him to go to page 1 of th notes of th e mee ti ng o f t h e 21st S eptem b er, and to state which of th e traverser , were pr esent.—Mr. Ray, Mr. J. O' Connell, and Mr. Duffy. Lid Mr. Daffy do anything ? Re handed in subscriptions. Lookat th e meeting of the 27th of September, and tell me 7 . 11 ? y?n fi n d were at that meeting: ?-3Jr. O'Connell and Air. O'Conn e ll. Witnese -, in answer to another spaertion, was reading part of oh . of Mr. O'C onne l l, but vssis stopped by Mr. Brewster, otsaid that he did not want to hear what Mr. O'Connell S aid. lie onl y wanted t o p rove t h at h e was present at t h e meeti ng , Afro .any other p erson there?—fle . Gray. BREWSTER—The subject Towner of this meeting was t f ot , ed y yesterday ; should not, th ere f ore , occup y th e the Court with goi ng over it a gain. He only wanted to proSvier. H the presence of the traversers'. ESIDE—But y ou are no t to assume that t hi s man s aw thet li ? liMr. BREWST ER I am n o t assum i ng anything. Look at . ;‘.°'&2 o :. e ri l d say who was at the meet i ng of the loth? Mr. J. lr. an bid AI r• and A. r. O'Connell state at that re .eeting anything relating to another meeting ?-11e made some a at Alullaghmast. .observ a t ions i n re f erence t o ' was reading the oisservat ions, wh en to ti_vr one said th e coarse M rreporm o t h e evideuce of Mr. _Rol, • r. .Brew s t er h a d to pursue was he ought , therefore ; • react ir:Pr; thin , of svilich the witness had takets netos, and net such extracts only as were deemed material. Mr. BREWSTER said in some instances he had certainly called on the witness to read the speeches; in a majority of cases these speeches had been already read by Mr. Ross, but where he thought it desirable he had called on this witness to read them a seconclitime;aln some instances this was not at all necessary. All he wanted to prove at present was whether Mr. 4VConnell announced the meeting at .Mullaghmast. Mr ,IloollE—lf the witness cans- forward to (rive evidence as to any of the traversers being at the meeting , 'he submit , ed that he ought to give an account of all that was done. He would not go the length of saying that a reporter ought not to give evidence as to what Mr. A. or Mr. B. said, or what every indivi dual said ; but if Mr. O'Connell or any of the other traversers made speeches on that occasion, he had no right to make ex tracts fi om those speeches, or read only those portions which he thought material. The CHIEF JUSTICE thought Mr. Moore had misunderstood Mr. Brewster. What he had stated had not been done ; the witness was stopped in his reading by Mr. Brewster. Mr. Moorte—ln one instance the witness began in the middle of a speech. Mr. BREWSTER—It was the middle of apage, not the middle of a speech. The passage was the reference made to the dis tribution of " the Spirit of the Nation" by Mr. Ray. Mr. Mooex—On this occasion Mr. O'Connell appears to have made several speeches, and when he called for any of them to be read, he called for the whole. In this particular ease nothing had been heard of the speech beyond the announce ment of the speech at Mullaghmast. The CHIEF JusTscx —You have misunderstood Mr, Brew ster, Mr. Moore. Mr. WHITESIDE said if they had half the sentence read they must have the whole. The CHIEF JUSTICE—I shall not consider a single sentence of that !pet ch as having been read. It was not wanted, and the reading it was merely a mistake. He would agree that it would be quite unfair for the Crown to give a garbled extract from a speech, and not give it entire. Mr. Wurresinx— What your Lordship has said is quite enough. Mr. Brewster asked a question about a speech of Mr. O'Connell ; if he asked more than that, and wished to have any of it read, he must read the whole. Was there anybody else present at the meeting of the 28th of Sept. ? Look at the last page and tell me.—Mr. Steele was there also. Mr. BREWSTER (to the Clerk of the Crown)—Hand me the witness's notes of the 3d of Oct. The Clerk of the Crown handed over the document. Mr. BREWSTER (to witness)—Look to page —, and try do you find there any other of the traversers?—Yes, Mr. O'Connell. Look at page 4?—Mr. Steele. Look at page s?—Mr. Duffy, of the Nation. Look to page 6 ?—Mr. Ray and Mr. J. O'Connell. Look to page 7?—Dr. Gray and the Rev. Mr. Tierney. Mr. BREWSTER—Then it appears that all the traversers were present except Mr. Barrett. My Lords, as Mr. Hughes has already read out his entire report of the proceedings of that meeting, I do not think it necessary to trouble the Court by a further reference to the witness's report of Mr. O'Connell's speech. Mr. FITZGIBBON begged leave most emphatically to protest against the Learned Counsel indulging in any such remarks as those which Lad now fallen teem him. If Mr. Brewster in tended not to ask his witness any further question, he might rest satisfied with his own determination to that effect, without troubling their Lordships with what he did not purpose doing. Such a course was wholly unnecessary. CHIEF .1 uszice—But, Mr. Fi zgibbon, the Court has a right to receive for their own satisfaction, if they think fit, such information as has been offered by Mr. Brewster. Mr. FITZGIBBON—My Lords, I most respectfully maintain that 11r. Brewster has no right whatever to state to the Court, in the hearing of the jury, the reasons which have induced him to adopt su h or such a course. Mr. MocieE, Q.C.—Besides, such a proceeding leads to the inferei.ce that the present witness may be in a position to cor roborate Mr. Hughes's notes, whereas there is no direct evi dence whatever to prove anything of the kind. Mr. BREWSTER-1 only wanted to avoid the imputation of leading the witness. To witness—At the several meetings in respect of which you have given evidence, (lid a great number of persons attend in the room ?—Sometimes more, and some times less.—(Laughter. ) Were they generally well attended ?--Yes, the meetings were usually well attended. At any of the meetings, in respect of which I have been ex amining you, are you able to call to mind whether yon heard any of the traversers say anything about newspapers? Judge PERRIN—To which of the meetings do you allude ? Mr. BREWSTER—My question has reference to any of the meetings in allusion to which he has given evidence. Mr. FITZGIBBON objected to the generality of the question Judge PERRIN—The witness you know, Mr. Fitzgibbon, must specify a date, otherwi,.e his evidence is oflittle value. Mr. BREWSTER—I merely wanted not to lead the witness. Witness—l have nothing on my notes in yeference to news papers beyond what I have already read from my reports. Mr. BREWSTER—I meant something additional, my Lords. I have done with the witness. Cross-examined by Mr. FITZGIBBON—May I take the liberty of asking you, Sir, what countryman you are ?—I am a Clare man. You are an Irishman at all events ?---Yes, I am. How long have you been a reporter ?-4 have been for two years In the capacity of Irish correspondent to the Morning Heraid. I did not ask you, Mr. Jackson, how long you had been a correspondent. That was not my question, what I asked you was how long you bad been a reporter?—l can't say lam a reporter, that is to say, I am not a shorthand writer. I did not ask you were you a shorthand writer, I asked you how long you had been a reporter ; do you mean to say you are not, and never were a reporter ?—I am not a reporter, and never was in that sense of the nerd. In what sense of the word ?—I mean in the sense of a short hand wi iter, for the term, "reporter " is usually applied to a shorthand writer. Then, by a " reporter " you mean a shorthand writer, or stenographer ?—Yes, I do. W ere you ever in the habit of reporting proceedings of meetings or courts for the purpose of such reports being pub lished in the newspapers ?—Yes, after a manner.—(Laughter. ) Then you were, in point of fact, a reporter of public pro. ceedings with a view to having them published in the news papers ?—Yes. That is just what I mean. When did you begin to practice in that capacity ?—Three or four years ago. 'With what newspaper did you begin ?—I had been in the habit of contributing to provincial papers before I was con nected with the Herald. By reports I do not mean contributions; but to what pro ♦incial papers used you to •end your reports ?—Principally to the Limerick Star and the Limerick Chronicle. Ghat were the polities of the Limerick Star?—lt was a Liberal paper. And so, too, is the Limerick Chronicle ?—No, it is not; it is Con,ervative. Did you send reports to both of these journals at the same time ?—No, I did not ; I used to send reports from my own place, and not from Limerick. And ot all this wide creation, Mr. Jackson, pray what place belongs to you ?—(Laughter.)—Kilrush. That is your place ?—Yes, it is ray native place ; my con tributions had no reference to politics. I did not ask you anything about polities, Sir; your reports had reference to public proceedings, had they not—hail they not reference to matters ot public interest ?—They were princi pally sketches of the petty sessions of Kilrush. Illustrated sketches ? —A little embellished occasionally. By being " k little embellished " do you mean to convey that there were pictures in them for the purpose of embellishment ? —No ; they were pen and ink embellishments. Then, I suppose, that by embellishments you mean some thing in the report which, in point of fact, did not occur ? Decidedly. Something, in fact, that was not true ?—Yes. I may go the length of saying I suppose, that half of them were fictions ?—There were many fictions in my sketches. And that, I suppose, is what you call reporting after a man ner ?—Yes, precisely so.—( Laughter. ) Then you commenced your career as a reporter by vending . falsehoods ?—No, not exactly that ; I wrote on the same prin cipl,, and in the same style, as a reporter to a magazine. 116 w you contributed to magazines?—l have done so a little. And your magazine articles are embellished after the same fashion ?—.ll y magazine articles were tales ot imagination. Are you a bit of a poet ?—lndeed a vt.ry large bit of a poet (the witness was remarkably tall). Are you what is called in the county Clare a poetasther ? (Laughter. )—You may, if you like, apply that appellation to me, for I do not mean to say I am a poet. Have you contributed articles in verse to any publication?— Yes, I have. art you ever contribute to the Nation?—Never. To what papers were you in the habit of sending verses? — To the Limerick papers I have named. And your poetry, I am to suppo-e, bore some conformity to the principles of the paper to which you sent it ?—ln nine cases out of ten such was not the fact. But you admit that in the tenth case it might, perhaps, be the fact?—lt might, perhaps. Were the reportsyou sent to the newspapers similar to your contributions to the magazines ?—No, they were not. To what magazines do you contribute ?—There was a sketch of mine some time billet in the University Magazine. It was a tale of fiction. Yes, but was it pot intended to pass for true ?—Yes, with those who would be fools enough to believe it true.—( Loud laughter. ) Was it sun intended by those reports to convey an accurate account of what passed at the Kilrush Petty Sessions ?—Some of wha',, was published did occur there. You intended they should all appear in the newspapers as trr..e ?—Yes. And yet they were not true ?—Some of them were. When did you cease reporting at Kilrush ?—This month two years I came up here. How did you propose to live in Dublin ?—I got a letter from the proprietors of the Morning Herald, asking me to come up here as their Irish correspondent. Who was it at (Kilrush that introduced you to the notice of the proprietor of the Morning Herald ?—I met a relation of the proprietor of the Limerick Star in Kilrush, Mr. Griffin ; he asked me if I was not the author of those sketches in the newspapers of the KilrUsh Petty Sessions, and I said I was, and then he said that the proprietor of the Morning Herald expressed a wish that I should send some of them to that paper, which I did, and then I came to Dublin to be their correspim dent. Dublin is a place where a man must have a little income to make himself smooth. Pray, how do you support yourself here? —1 have ISO guineas a year from the Morning Herald as their correspondent. A fixed salary ?—Yes. What were you to do for that ?—To send a letter every day, having reference to the leading topics of political interest, anti whatever the local papers adverted to. That is, you were daily to read the morning papers in Dublin, and to make a summary of that which you thought would be agreeable to the Morning Herald editor ?—Yes. Had you the privilege o. embellishing those before you sent them up had. And of course you exercised it ?—No, I did not, beyond the truth. There was no truth in those petty sessions' sketches you sent? —Only in same of them. Well, I now speak of those from Dublin ?—They were always true, to the best of my ability. I gave the news of the day as I found it. That is, you gave whatever you found in the morning papers, whether 'twas true or not ?—I gave what 1 thotwht was probable; if 1 saw any absurd statement, I would be slow in adopting it until I ascertained by inquiry whether it was true or not. Tell me now, by way of sample, what mode you took of as certaining the truth or falsehood of any one of those state ments ?—Genei al inquiry. From anybody you happened to meet ?—.Wherever they were the subject of conversation, I endeavoured to find out whether they were true or false. Can you describe how you proceeded on any one occasion ? I don't understand you. You don't ?—I cannot charge my memory as to any particu lar occasion. If you were to ask the editor or correspondent to vouch for the accuracy of every thing he writes, you would find it very h'rd to get him to do o.—( Laughter.) Would you be good enough to take up the first of those papers produced, that of the 30th of May. Did I understand you to say this vas the note you took for the Morning Herald?— That was my daily letter. Mr. BaswsniThe note you took. sure it's a letter. Mr. FTTZCItS6N (tiffitifigto Mr, P - i•pwster):—l beg'of yen not to assuille that - I don't understant, hat Fir, exarntlin; tbi• witness about, and it is not upon this occasion alone, but for the future. lam pretty nearly a Clare man myself, and I can un derstand the Clare brogue well enough. To the witness—Now, mind, I don't ask you about the sub stance of what is written in these scraps of paper, but I ask you are those the identical scraps of paper you forwarded to the Morning herald ?—The very identical papers. Now show them to me. (Witness handed them to the Counsel ; the manuscript was written on both shies of the sheet.) Did you send these identical papers for the pur pose of being set up in the office of the Morning Herald?- 1 did. I suppose you know enough of reporting to know that it is necessary in sending manuscript to a printing-office that it should be written only on one side 7—Yes. That is a part of the instructions of every reporter ? It is. So that it may be setup at once, without being copied ?—Yes. Was the paper you sent as it is now, in scraps of this kind? —No, thee were in full length slips. After having sent these slips to the Morning Herald, when did you see them again ?—I received a letter from the proprie tor about two months ago. Don't tell us about his letter now. I ask: you: only for a date ?—I never saw them until about two months age. In whose hands did you see them on that occasion ?—The Crown solicitor handed me a letter from the proprietor. Now don't tell us about your letters. Witness—My Lords, in justice to myself— CHIEF JUSTICE—You're not asked about that now. How did you come into communication with Mr. Kemmis 7—He sent for me and I went to his effice. Was that the first time you were in his office?—lt was the first time I ever saw him to my knowledge. Whose initials are those on that paper?—Mine. When and where did you write them ?—ln Mr. Kemmis's office, a few days atter I was called on by the proprietor to do so. But was you in communication with Dlr. Kemmis before that ?—No. Did you expect that communication from Mr. Kemmis to at tend at his office ?—Upon my oath I did not. When did you begin to attend the Association meetings ? About eight or nine montl-s ago. For the first time?—l was off and on there before. Were you a Repealer?—No. Did you pay a shilling going in at the door ?—I did, the first ,me I went in. Afterwards you went in free—you went in as a reporter ? did. Were the accounts of the proceedings you sent over from your ow n notes ?—Sometimes they were, and sometimes bor rowed from the notes of the man near me, perhaps. Were they borrowed from the notes of the man near you ? —Very frequently they were ; I copied them from the slips of the man next me. Was that a short-hand writer ?—Semetimes he was, and sometimes not ; I gave the substance of what he had written out, of course. I could not copy shorthand notes, not being a shorthand writer myself. Used 3ou ever to vary the language when you copied from the manuscript of the man next y ou ?—I used. In order that it should not have the appearance of being a copy of what he transcribed ?—Precisely. And am I to understand that that was done to prevent the appearance, to your own proprietors, that you had merely copied what another man had transcribed ?—Exactly. And those are the notes you have been reading here to-day? —Yes. Look to those notes you have read, and select out of them any one piece of paper which you will swear, upon solemn oath, contains what was taken down by you from the lips of the man represented in it to have spoken I—Upon my solemn oath this paper (holding up one of his sheets of manuscript) contains the substance of what Mr. O'Connell said. Will you swear those were his words ?—To the best of my belief it is the substance of what he said. I never attempted to give his exact words. Now, attend to me. On your oath, did you write what is upon that slip of paper while Mr. O'Connell was speaking ? Yes. Upon your oath, was that written down upon that piece of paper from the lips of Mr. O'Connell while ho was speaking it ?—Yes, occw_ionally taking a note, and catching the leading topics in hie diseoin se. 1 ask you to fix upon any one of the pieces of paper you have in your hand, that you will positively swear that you believe was written while the speaker was speaking ?—To the best of my recollection this (meaning one of his slips) was, but I cannot be positive. Then you are not positive ?—No. What is the date of that slip ?—The 30th of May. Then you are not positive as to that ?—Not very. Are you positive at all that that iece of paper was written from his lips while he was speaking —It is in substance what lie said, to the best of my recollection. Is that an answer?-1 think it is. On your oath was it written while he was speaking, and not from a -paper?—l cannot swear that, certainly. Then you won't swear that itmay have been taken from a paper ?—A certain portion of it may or may not. Might not any person in the Court give me that answer— that " portions of it may or may nit?" Must it not be either of the two thinga ?-1 do not recollect any particular case. Could you fix upon any one of all the slips ?—I could not. Take up your paper of the sth of July. Was that little bundle made up in the same way as the others ?—Yes. Was it written whilst you were in the Association? —It was. Was it written whilst the people were speaking?— Yes. Do you swear that ?-1 do. • The whole of it?—Yes. While the meeting was going on, and in the Association room ?—Every one that refers to the meeting Lof the day was written in the room. And while each particular speaker was speaking 2—lt was. Do you swear that positively—that every one of those slips were written in the Association, and while each speaker, whose language they purport to give, was speaking ?—Certainly not. Did you tell me a moment ago they were ?—I did not. Did you tell me in any sense they were ?—I said they were. —( Sensation. ) And you say now they were not?—While the money was handing in I wrote out what previously occurred. Will you now turn to the speech put into the mouth of Mr. O'Connell, on the 15th of July 7 —He said he wished to call attention to two letters he had received that morning from Sligo. One was written by a discharged soldier, stating "he was employed by Mr. O'Connell." Well now, have you the speech of Mr. O'Connell in moving the insertion in the American book of a letter received from America ?—I have. Mr. O'Connell moved that the letter be inserted in the American book, and not on the regular minutes, and that thanks be conveyed to the two office-bearers named in the letter, as subscribed to their fund. De you swear that sentence was written by yourself, when the speaker was speaking ?—To the best of my opinion it was. Was it net?-1 can't be certain. Now, listen to me while I read from this paper (Freeman's Journal) a report of the same speech you have been reading to us—" Mr. O'Connell said it was better to take np each of the American letters by itself, and therefore moved that the letter should be inserted in the American book, but not on the regu lar minutes of the association, and that the thanks of the associa tion be conveyed through the two office-bearers that were named in the letter to the subscribers to that fund." Now, is not that verbatim with what you have read from your slips. Mr. Be Ewszza—l beg your pardon, and 1 will take the opinion of the Court whether I am right or not. I have no objection if .Mr. Fitzgibbon puts this newspaper in evidence, but 1 object to his reading any quantity out of a newspaper he pleases, and then asking the witness—Does that correspond with something he has in his hands? Mr. FITZGIBBON—I am not at present asking Mr. Brewster to look at what 1 am doing at all.—(Laughter.) I am at pre sent testing the credit of this witness ; and I contend for my right to show the jury that by any human means I can: ot, without having that paper before my eyes, repeat one word or syllable that is in that paper. Mr. BREWSTER--It is not to the newspaper I object, but to the mode of examination adopted by Mr. Fitzgibbon. I object to the mode of his examination, because he reads from a newspaper the exact words of the witness's notes which he sent over in his eel-respondence. Mr. FITZGIBBON-1 don't read from the paper at all. I'll read from my brief now, I tell you.--(Laughter.) Mr. BREWSTER—If you offer the newspaper in evidence I will not object to it, and then you may examine him as to it. Mr. FITZGIBBON—Here is my brief ; will you have it in evidence ?—( Great laughter.) Mr. BREWSTER—It is not competent for yen to read from your brief or any other document, and then ask the witness if what is read agrees with notes he has taken. I say it is not competent to do so unless you put the document in evidence. Mr. FazGlessoN—l will take up this paper, and see if I don't read a report of every word the witness says he sent to the paper. Mr. BREWSTER—Rut that is what I object to. Judge BunToti—Why go on to prove what you have such a perfect transcript of ? Mr. FITZGIBBON—The course I am taking is infinitely more fair to the witness than the course alluded to on the other side ; it is the only fair and legal course which I am at present adopt ing; if 1 did not take this course, I would be stopped from reading the document, if I did not examine the witness, as to the fact, before he left the table. In the paper of the next morning, I,find a verbatim report of what the witness says he sent to London, and if I did not ask him about that 1 would have been stopped from reading it, unless I asked the man about it when I had him on the table. Here is a man who comes on the table to tell the jury that he is a reporter for a newspaper, and as such attended the meetings of the Association, where Mr. O'Connell spoke. I will show he is not a reporter, and that he was incapable of taking reports where he says he did, and that what he asserts is false. I want to show what he says is absolutely, and morally false, and a fabrication from beginning to end, and that he is now speaking to the jury what is false, when he tells them that the documents which he holds in his hand were written by him at the meetings. He comes here falsely representing to the jury that fact. He did not take a note at those meetings, nor had he the ability of taking notes, and, therefore, I want to show that what he did do was copied verbatim from the morning papers of the next day, and sent off by him, al though he tells the jury he wrote the pieces of paper at the meetings. Judge BURTON—I see your object is very clear. Judge Canme-rox—Mr. Fitzgibbon, am I to understand that you intend to give the paper in evidence? ?.Ir. FITZGIBBON—No, I do not. Judge CRAMPTON—Then I feel great difficulty in that case its allowing this sort of examination. Mr. 13REWSTER—If he puts in the newspaper as evidence I will withdraw my objection, but unless he does so I must press it. Mr. Fitzgibbon may tell me he will not read from the paper but from his brief, and I object to that also, for how am 1 to know but that brief might be a copy of what this gentle man sent to the Morning Herald. —(Laughter.) Let him put in the newspaper as evidence, and I will withdraw the ob jection. Mr. FITZGIBBON—I am here at present to but no, I will get it in another form. Come, Sir, turn round and an swer me ?—Yes, I will, Mr. Fitzgibbon. Will you now, Sir, take on yourself to swear, on your solemn oath, that you did not copy these slips of paper from the morning paper of the next day, and then send them off as your own report?—To the best of my recollection—l cannot say. 1 might have copied them either from the paper, or a notetaker's slips. Hah ! halt ! Take that down. I will repeat the question, Sir, (question repeated)?-1 might have copied them either from the piper, or another notetaker's slips. Well, did you do that while J. O'Connell was speaking ? I can't say that. One way or other ?—No one way or other. Did you do that on the same day of the meetings or the day after 2—l can't be positive as to that. Not positive ?—No, not positive. Did you see the report in the morning papers of the next day ?—I might have seen it. Then, you might have copied your report from the papers ? —Soule of it I might have copied. Youinight have copied it all ; eh ?—lt is possible. Did you ever copy irom the morning papers at all ?—Yes, I used to copy some, and cut out more from it. I sent the slips which 1_ cut from the papers over whenever I adapted them. And, you sent them to London?-1 did, possibly. On your solemn oath will you venture to swear you did not take all these papers from the newspapers, or from another note taker's slips? Judge Peitaist—Come, Sir, speak up, arid let us hear you, as it. will save a great deal of time to do so. Witness—For all I can tell, I might have copied them from thy newspaper or the note-taker's THE SUN, LONDON, MONDAY EN E_NING, JANUARY 22., 1844. Mr. FITZGIBBON—CarI cos tell from which 3.ott cepie.d-thm? .I cannot t.: , 1! r.hich. A Juror—Mr. Jackson, did you not swear, a while ago, that all you wrote was done during the time of the meetings in the Exchange, and no place else I—The majority of them were written there. Juror—Oh, but you certainly swore they were all written there, and nowhere else. CHIEF JUSTICE — Let Mr. Fitzgibbon close his examina tion of the witness, and then, gentlemen, you can examine him. Mr. FizzoinaoN—l will repeat the question of the juror, and ask did you not swear awhile age that you wrote all those slips at the meeting, and in no other place ?—To the best of my recollection the majority of them were written there. Were all of them written there ?—Not all, perhaps ; some of them were written after the meeting was over, some of them were written next day. Did you do any of them from the newspapers?—Some of them. _ I ask you again did you not swear that they were all written at the meeting?—The majority of them were written there, or, at least, genei ally speaking they were. While the meetings were going on, were you always em ployed writing?—Not alvrays—only sometimes. That is, you were sometimes only listening ?—Yes. Do you recollect Mr. O'Connell having made a speech upon aegro slavery ?—I do; he spoke several times on that subject. Turn to your note of the speech he made on that subject on the sth of July. Were you present on that occasion ? Yes. _ . one ?—Yes, to the best of my re collection. Was not the speech a long I want a positive answer ; were you present the whole time of the meeting ?—I rather think I was. Is that a positive answer?— Were you present the wholetime of the meeting ?—I will not swear positively. Will you swear you were there for an hour ?—Yes. For two hours ?—To the best of my recollection. Is that the only answer you will give ? Will you swear po sitively to one hour ?—Yes. That heur may have been made up of different periods ; were you there more than once that day ?—I won't swear I was there more than once. Will you swear positively you were there more than an hour ?—I think I was, but I did not time myself. Will you swear positively to half an hour ?—No. Will you be positive to one gutter of an hour ?—Yes, and wore. _ _ _ _ What hour of the day did you go to the meeting 7-1 don't know exactly. Who was on his legs when you entered the room ?--I don't know. Did you not offer, a while ago, to tell me? Was any one in the room when you went in?—Of course there was. When you entered the room, was it empty or full ?—I never went into the room but people were in it. Can you tell whether it was morning, noon, or night when you entered it 2—lt was about mid-day. Did you hear the whole of Mr. O'Connell's speech ?—I did not hear the whole of it. You say you went there about twelve or one o'clock ?—Yes, to the best of my recollection. And you swear you heard Mr. O'Connell speak there? — Yes. Will you swear that Mr. O'Connell was at the meeting at two o'clock ?—He came in whilst I was there, according to my note. Will you swear, from your own livingmemory, that you saw Mr. O'Connell coming into the Association on the sth of July? —I either saw him corning into the room, or he was there be fore me when I went in'o it. And that is your answer from the county of Clare ?—Yes ; and I am not ashamed of it.— ( Laughter.) I believe that the Atlantic breeze hardens people's faces very much ; does it ?—it may ; but it has not hardened mine, at all events. Will you swear that the Atlantic breeze, or anything else, has not hardened your face ?—I don't know that it has hardened me in particular ; but 1 think I will prove before I leave this table, if I am allowed to explain (as in jus tice I ought to be) that it has not. Now, turn to your note of the 4th of September, and mind, don't lose sight of the ques tion between us—namely, that you are to prove to us, before you leave the table, that you are not a hardened man. Will you find for me the passage of Ale. O'Connell's speech which you detailed to us to-day, and in which it is stated, in your report, that he said, " No tumult should take place in his day ?" Also read the passage in the report of his speech which has the word " advisable" in it. The witness then referred to his note of the speech, but it appeared that it was spoken, not on the 4th of September, but en the 29th of August. After reading his report of the speech of Mr. O'Connell on the occasion, the cross-examination was resumed. Were you that day present when Mr. O'Connell was speak ing that speech, of which that purports to be a report ?—I was. You heard him begin it, and end it ?—I did ; I was writing at the time. And that is the report you were writing 7—lt is. I wrote it out while I was there. Did you write out the identical thing that you read here to. day, while Sir. O'Connell was speaking ?—I did. On those very iden tical pieces of paper ?.—Yes. As the words fell from Sir. O'Connell's lips ?—I do not say I have the very words he said, but 1 took the substance of the speech. Then you did not take it from any other report or from any newspaper? — Positively not. I wrote it while Mr. O'Connell was speaking. On your oath, you swear that Mr. O'Connell that day used the words " It world not be an unnatural or inadvisable result" which you have just read ?—To the best of my recollection he did. On your oath, will youlswear he used the word " unadvis able?"—On my solemn oath I believe he did. Will you swear it positively ?—I would not put it down if I did not think he used it. I want you to state positively, did he use it ?—To the best of any belief he did. You will not give any answer except qualified in that way?—On that occasion I will not. Who was sitting next you on that day ?—I can not remeariber. Was any person sitting near you..—Some of the reporters. Can you mention the name of any one re porter who was sitting near you ?—The reporters of the Freeman's Journal and the Saunders's where there. Name any particular reporter.—.To the best of my belief that gentle man there, Mr. Edwards, was present. Are you certain?— To the best of any belief he was. Can you for certain name any gentleman ?—I think I could swear Mr. Edwards was there. Oh, I think you could swear it too. Then lon cannot name a single reporter who was present t—l cannot; the usual corps of reporters were there, but I cannot swear to any one reporter in particular. Let me put a simpler question to you. Can you name any single person who saw you in the Association rooms on that day?—Any one that was there might have seen we. Mr. O'Connell or Mr. Ray might have seen me. I had not the honour to speak to Mr. O'Connell that day, and I can not say that I expect to have that honour hereafter. I cannot name any others who might have seen me. And you know Mr. O'Connell and Mr. Ray are traversers and cannot give evidence. Can you name any single man who opened his lips there that day to you ?—At this distance of time I can not. It is only the 29th of August last. Did you speak to any one ?—I cannot say. Can you name any one man, woman, or child who spoke to you that day ?—I cannot, ex cept those two gentlemen. What two gentlemen/—Mr O'Con nell and Mr. Ray. kut you have not positively sworn that even they spoke to you. Who was in the chair?—l cannot re member. NI , as Mr. John O'Connell there ?—I cannot say with out referring to my notes. The witness, after looking through his notes, said that he perceived Mr. John O'Connell was there. I took notes of those three gentlemen, because one always mentions the leaders. One cannot play Hamlet, you know, with the part of Hamlet left out. Did Mr. John O'Con nell say anything ?-11e did. I have here, that " Mr. John O'Connell thought it would be better if the matter was first submitted to the committee." 1 certainly did not take this from the newspapers. I cannot swear how long Mr. O'Con nell was speaking. He was probably speaking for nearly an hour. Ido not think there was any other speech except that of Mr. O'Connell made on that day. There was no long speech made except Mr. O'Connell's, but there might bo a few short observations. And yet yen read your report of that long speech, which was the speech of the day, is three or four minutes I—Do you swear those words were used, " he would not say that such wouldbean unnatural or unadvisable result? --I think those were his words precisely. Do you swear they were his words ?—On my oath, to the best of my belief, they were. How near Mr. O'Connell were you at the time?--As near as I am now to the corner where the Attorney-General is sitting. I did not pay a shilling to get in, as the porter ad mitted me. Then the porter knew you to be the reporter : did you look at any gentleman's slips there ?—I cannot say. There were shorthand reporters there that day. The majority of the reporters wrote shorthand notes. A shorthand reporter could decidedly take a more faithful report of what Sir. O'Connell said than I could. Cross-examined by Mr. Wneresine, Queen's Counsel, on the part of Mr. Duffy.—l think you mentioned the name of Mr. Duffy?—You are quite right. Now draw on your me- m m o r r . y Dfourffyfaacttst, the e n m d e n et o i t r,g on of y t o l u ie r 6 i t iat h ag e i f n jatuiloyn. Did can o ou see without referring to my notes. Or on the 25 ? ti; fJuly t ? y i must refer to my notes. And these notes you told Sir. Fitz gibbon you sometimes copied from another reporter, and sometimes from the morning papers of the next day. You have a taste for eloquence ?—Not the slightest. Do you not deal in " thunderbolts and tarnation tine things ?" You are, I see, a literary person, and contribute to the magazines.— ( Laughter.) I have a curiosity to see the paper in which those words appeared,?—l will make you a present of it. hank you. Does that kind of writing are suit the London market 2—lt goes down with them. They very gullible, I believe ?—I cannot get the extract for you without having the date. I cannot remember what 3lr. Duffy said without my notes. I did not take down everything he said. Don't knowfriend the th the way in which you took down your report?—No ; I did not think he would have called upon me at all. Mr. Kemmis D h u e ke spo o k f e we a l b li o n u g t to N n afol D eo i n d ABionnaKpaertntemir. adsky3o,ouur wrote and l o e at e requesting ded m e a ml letter te t o r come from toth histhe Morning Herald, stating they had kept my letters to them. I did not ask you the contents of their letter. Have you all those valuable efforts of yours that you sent to the Morning proprietors offi ce I did of so, he Herald now in Court ?—Oh, no, not all of them. Look to your notes with reference to the songs in the Nation, and see, in the meeting of the 4th of September, what alltnion was made by Sir. Ray to those songs ?---Mr. Ray said—Stop Sir. Did you not say that lie made some observations in the nature of a speech ?—I did not ; I said it was a mere casual observa tion. To the best of my recollection he made those observa tions, and to the best of my recollection I was present, but I can't say positively. I will not swear that it was not copied in my report from another paper. Will you swear that he did not say, that ho had got a letter stating that some ballad-singers had been taken up for singing seditious songs, and that Mr. O'Connell approved of the conduct of the persons who took them up ?—My notes were but running commentaries on the pro ceedings taken quickly to be in time for the post, and I do not undertake to swear to their verbal accuracy. I will not swear that Sir. O'Connell did not stand up arid move a vote of thanks to the person who arrested the ballad-singer. You gave evidence of Sir. O'Connell's having read an address on the 27th of August about the Irish representatives. Now, did he not comment upon that address on that occasion? —He did. Did he not fully comment on it, and was it not a detail of grievances under which the Irish people suf fered ?—lt was such a detail, and he commented upon it. Did it not set out all Irish grievances, whether civil or politi cal ? —Tel. Did you ever consider what would remedy them ? —Never.—(Laughter.) Did not Mr. O'Connell say that the people were not disaffected ?—He did. Did he not say that the people were affectionate to the Queen and loyal to her per son ?—I frequently heard him say so. Did you not hear him speak of the French Constitution, and:allude to Louis Philippe ? —1 did, mere than once. Did he not speak of it as net being a fair and true Constitution, because the House of Lords was what he called a moc kery ?"—lle did. Don't you remember Mr. O'Connell saying that he would correct an error, in repu diating all newspapers as being organs of the Association ?—I think I heard him say so several times. Are you not sure ? lam sure, and 1 have heard him mention the Nation. Do you recollect the day upon which the plan far the renewed ac tion of the Irish Parliament was read ?—I do. You wrote about those matters according to the literary palate of your readers I—l did ; I made them up to make them spicy, by adding a little fun.—( L aug hter.) Has the Morning Herald changed hands of late ?—lt has. Was it since that occurred that you got directions to call on Mr. Kemmis, the Crown solicitor, from your proprietors?—No, but it was very shortly before. Did not Mr. O'Connell say that he would not, er the Associa tion would not, be responsible for anything any paper said ?—I often heard him say so. I suppose you were quite surprised at seeing those manuscript papers of yours handed to y ou ?—lndeed I was. Mr. WIIITESIDE having told the witness that he might go down from the table, Mr. Jackson said he wished to make one or two observations in vindication of his character. _ Mr. FITZGIEBOY objected, because thv. witn,ss, if he wihhed to oxplain, ,I,ouid have ;:one 30 during hit examinati.n. Mr. Jackson—l merely want to make one observation, my Lords, to vindicate my character before the public. Mr. FITZGIBBON—YOU shall not, Sir. The CHIEF JusTlCS—Let me hear what you have to say, witness. Mr. Jackson—Those manuscript documents, my Lords, were given b 3 the proprietors of the Morning herald to Mr. Kern mis, the Crown solicitor, and, so help me God, I never saw them, or knew he had them, until he produced me the letter of those gentlemen, stating they had furnished .him with them and requiring me to initial them. I considered it was duo to my character before the world to make this plain explanation of the truth. Cross-examined by Mr. MOORE, upon behalf of the Rev. Mr. Tierney—l have my notes of the Association meeting of the 3d of October. I took those notes upon that day. I took them at the meeting. I did not know the Rev. Mr. Tierney. I did not even known his person. I mentioned his name as being present on that day. I did so, not from my knowledge of his person, because from some of the reporters' positions at those meetings they could not see the speakers. I never saw him before or since, to my knowledge. I thought on your direct examination that you swore he was present at that meet ing ?—I heard a gentleman make a long speech whom I un derstood was Mr. Tierney. Did you not swear that the Rev. Mr. Tierney made a speech ?—I can't say that I did. If you swore it would it be true ?—I believe so. Will you swear that he was at that meeting ?—To the hest of my belief he was. At all events, you would not take upon yourself positively to swear that he was there ?—I would not; but he made a long speech, and that makes me remember it. Mr. Mooe.E—A Mr. Tierney made a speech?- Yes. The witness was then allowed to retire. Mr. Mooar (having communicated with the Crown coun sel) said, that as he had applied to them, sad they refused his application, he was obliged to make it to the Court, namely, that his client and the other traversers should be furnished with one copy of the notes of the witnesses examined upon the previous day and Thursday, in order to conduct their defence. Those extracts were very long, and they (the traversers) would not have copies of them but by their being furnished; so he hoped the Court would grant his application, which he consi dered very reasonable. The CHIEF JUSTICE said that he did not know that the Court had power to make such an order. Mr. WxyrustnE—Wr will pay for them. Mr. MOORE—I am sure even if the Court had not the power of making the order, that if there was any difficulty felt by the officers of the Crown, it would be removed if their Lordships saw no objection to allow them to be furnished. Judge CRAMPTON—If you had no means of having copies, it would be very reasonable perhaps, but you have your short hand writers. The Cause JUSTICE—What documents do you ask for ? Mr. MooßE—Copies of the documents read by the witnesses yesterday and the day before. We will pay for copies, and we could not have them transcribed from shorthand notes since the previous day. Mr. FITZGIEBON—They have read those documents in their case. The witnesses read every single word of them. They are here as documents. They are in the possession of the Crown as documents. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—Such a course never has been adopted until the present time, and I entirely object to it, and I do so the more, because I cannot fail to recollect the course that was adopted towards one of our witnesses. They have every meeting as to which they require documents re ported by their own shorthand-writers for their newspapers. They had the simplest and plainest course to adopt for ascer taining the documents which they now call for. Ido not wish to state here some matters, but certainly under all the circumstances which have taken place with respect to one of our witnesses in some newspapers, it will prevent me from de parting from the usual course, and I shall not give copies of the documents. Mr. Mooee, Queen's Counsel—l am bound to say that after what has been just said by the Attorney-General I must not call on the Court to make any order on the subject. Mr. FITZGIBBON—I now submit to the Court that the whole of the evidence given by Mr. Jackson ought to be struck out. He was produced here as a witness to tell the jury what he had heard and seen done at meetings, and read notes which he said at first were taken in particular way at particular meetings. I submit that from his own showing it is as clear as possible that the whole of his evidence ought to be struck out. The CHIEF JUSTICE—Don't you think this is not the occa sion for making this application ? Mr. FITZGIBBON.--I rather think I am just in time. It is when a witness goes off the table that such an application ought to be made. The CHIEF JUSTICE—He has been cross-examined by three gentlemen. I don't think the Court can accede to the proposi tion that you make. It may be very well deserving of consi deration at another period, but not now. John Browne examined by Mr. HoLuEs—lreside in Nassau street, and carry on the printing and stationery business. I have been long carrying on the business. It is at No. 36. I know Mr. Ray. I have known him for several years. I have heard of an Association in the city of Dublin called the Loyal National Repeal Association of Ireland. Mr. Ray holds the situation of Secretary to that Society. I was employed to do some printing work for that Society. The Association gene rally, through Mr. Ray, employed me. I have been four or five years doing work for the Society. I have been paid for the work I have done, except a running account now. I was paid by Mr. Ray, and sometimes by a clerk in his office. Have you received much money from time to time for the business you did ?—I have. Could you mention how much ? Be under the sum. Mr. 'WHITESIDE objected to the question. He did not see how this could be evidence against the traversers. Mr. HotarEs-1 will ask my own questions. Mr. WHITESIDE—Of course you will, and I will object where I see fit. Mr. HOLMES (to witness) —I now ask you to state, what amount you received from time to time?—l could not say. Oh, be under: have you kept any account-book ?—I have. The account was sometimes about 201., and— Mr. WHITESIDE—I object to any evidence of the contents of this gentleman's books, because they ought to have them here. Mr. HoLares (to witness)—Have you not been served with a duces tecum?—l have. Mr. HOLMES—WeII, now we will gratify Mr. Whiteside by getting it read from Your books. Do you kno N;what amount you received from Mr. flay from time to time for printing? Mr. Justice PERRlN—Within what period Mr. HOLMES—Within the last two years. Mr. Wiirresinx—l am obliged to your Lordship for putting me in mind of that. I submit this is not evidence; the first thing in this indictment is stated to be on the let of March. Mr. Justice CRAMPTON—I don't see, for my own part, the relevancy of the inquiry. Mr. Ilormes (handing a document to the witness)--Did you print that document ?—I did, and for the Repeal Associa tion. I printed it in the year 1843. The Deputy Clerk of the Crown read the document, which was the plan for the renewal of the Irish Parliament. He also read documents headed—" Instructions for the appointment of Repeal-wardens and collectors," and " Form fer the appoint ment of Repeal-wardens," and others, which he admitted having printed for the Association. The witness was then examined as to the printing of " the Address of the Repeal Association to the inhabitants of coun tries subject to the British Crown," " Rules to be observed by arbitrators in districts," " Arbitration notices," and others, all of which he admitted he printed. He said—l printed 4,000 or 5,000 copies of the paper called 0' Collagen's Letter ; 1,000 or 2,000 of the notices for the sitting of the Arbitration Courts; 200 of the rules to be observed by arbitrators ; 2,C00 or 3,000 of the address of the Association to the British public; and about 2,000 or 3,000 of the summonses for those Courts. I printed all these for the Association, and 1 was paid for doing so. I printed some of them from manuscript, and others from ex tracts from newspapers. I was served with a subpoena to produce the manuscript. I searched for it, but I found very little. I found the paper which I produce, headed " Lein ster for Repeal." Mr. HOUSES.—Did you print any from that?—l think I Mr. WHlTEslDE—Thinking will not do; are you certain that you did ?—I cannot swear positively. Mr. WHITESIDE—That answer will not do. Mr. HOLMES.—Have you any doubt that you did ? Where did you get the manuscript ?—I got it or the printer's offic.. file. I think it probable that something was printed from it in my office, but I am not sure. .Mr. HOLMES—You have your account-books hero ; look at them, and see if you have any entries of having printed from it ? ..Mr. WHITESIDE—The entries in his book:may be very cor re,:t, but they cannot be evidence here. 'The CHIEF JUSTICE—He can look at his book in order to refresh his memory. Mr. HoLmas—Well, witness, have you any entry of that do cument ? 31r. FITZGIBBON—I object to the question ; way entry he may have cannot be evidence. Mr. HOLMES—The fact is, these young mesa think I am I not able to stand out, but I are.—(Laughter.) Witness, Ire. peat ray question, have you any entry there relating to that docriment ?—I have two entries relative to the Mullaghmast meeting, but I cannot say whether they have reference to this docu merit or not. Mr. WHITESIDE—YOU must not read them. Mr. HOLMES—WiII you swear you did not print that docu ment entitled " Leinster for Repeal?"-1 have a printed bill h,ere with the same heading, of which I printed about 2,000 for the Association, and I was paid for it. The newspapers, I believe, called the Mullaghmast meeting a " monster meeting." I printed documents in reference to ocher monster meetings which took place about Dublin. I have none of those docu ments here. I think I printed some in reference to the Donny brook meeting. The documents I have with me I brought in cnsequence of a subpoena I received desiring me to do so. A .nd all the documents that are here did you print for the As sociation ?—I think I did. And you were paid for them?— Y es. It was rather a good thing altogether, eh ? Mr. WHITESIDE—I object to that. Hoems—Why, it was merely an observation. Mr. WHITESIDE—Yes, it was an observation, with a great &lea of point in it. IlohmEs—lf I attempted to stop you in half the obser vations you make which have nothing to say to the case, I abiovad have something to do.—( A laugh.) 'Mr. WHITESIDE—That might be true, upon the cross•ex at but you ferget your position ; you are examining uiom the direct. .Mr. Houstxs (to witness)—Look at that (revision of the ju r s y list), and say, did you print them or not, for the Associ ation ?—Yes. Were you paid for it or not ?—I don't know wlauether I was paid for it or not. Cross-examined by Mr. WHITESIDE—Did you print these ilvien documents ?.—Yes. Did you print these three documents (lae aded " To the people of Ireland," &c.) Y—Yes. 3 Ir. HoLmxs here rose to ask the witness a question. WitirEstost—l object to your asking the question unless it arose from anything which fell from me on the direct. .31r. Iloemiss—l omitted to ask the witness a question. .31r. WHITESIDE—I object, then, to your asking it now. .Mr. llor,mrs—lt is the only legal objection you have made. 'The Learned Counsel then called upon the Clerk of the C.'o - wn to have the documents handed to the witness read set tim. r. WHITESIDE submitted that none of the documents could be in ade use of against the traversers. Ni r. Iloemy.s said every one of the traversers was a member of tl s. 3 Association. The documents were printed for the AYSO-• eiati cn. The traversers attended meetings of that Association, some. of whom made speeches there, and the documents were cleari - J evidence against them all. Mx. WHITESIDE—They are no evidence against Mr. Duffy. 3.1 r. HoemEs—The documents are printed by the desire of the Secretary, one of the ,traversers being the Secretary, and were paid for by the Association. WiirrFslDE—As to Mr. Duffy, the only distinct evi denc e against bins is that given by the gentlemen who saw him one it,y at Calvert's Theatre. la.e CHIEF JUSTICE—I beg your pardon. Justice CRAMPTON—This is not the time to make these obje , ;tions. The CHIEF JUSTICE--It was proved that Mr. Duffy at tenCeci meetings of the Association, and handed in sub3crip tions. Mr. Wm ITESIDE—The evidence given to-day is net worth a rush. Th* SOLICITOR-GENERAL—This is a question for the jury. Thor ATTORNEY-GENERAL — This is not the time for a com mentary on the evidence. We will, when the time comes, show the clearest evidence against Mr. Duffy. The CHIEF JUSTICE—The Court are of opinion that the doc , ame tits are properly read against all. 117 r. WHITESIDE said he did not contend that it was not evi dence against a traverser for a witness to say that he got a ter- min document from him; hut there was no such evidence 'in that instance, therefore he made the objection. Judge BURTON—AII the traversers are members of the As sociation, and the publication is by the Association. Ju ige PEI:1111.i said that the charge on the indictment was, that a number of persons assembled for a particular purpose and a particular object, and the preparation and printing of cer tain documents was surely evidence of the object of the Asso ciation. The documents should be read against one of the tra versers, and the question was whether the evidence was against his (Mr. Whiteside's) client)? Mr. FITZGIBBON said, that the only evidence about the do cuments was, that Browne printed them for the Association, and was paid for them ; but when he printed them had not appeared, with one solitary exception—a thin in the shape of a book, said to have been printed some time in 1843, while all . the overt acts relied upon by the Crown as showing a conspiracy arose since March. There was not a single act charged in the indictment against a defendant, except acts occurring in March last. Could it be said, that acts done by the Association four years ago ought to be now read in evidence of a conspiracy said to be proved by acts done since March, 1843? The CHM' JUSTICE asked, what the Learned Counsel would say with reference to the document under date the 3d of October, 1843 ? Mr. FITZGIBBON said, that the date was 113 proof that the doeument was printed then. The Deputy Clerk of the Crown then proceeded to read a number of documents, one of which was " Instructions for the appointment of Repeal Wardens." Mr. Al'DoNoust then rose to object to the reading of the documents as against his client; and proceeded to read the several matters enumerated in the bill of particulars, to show the wide range of evidence selected by the Crown, and he contended that if these books were not included, it was quite plain that they ought to be now, on every principle of justice, excluded. To show that the Crown could not be allowed to wander out of the bill of particulars furnished, he referred to the case of " the King against Hamilton," 7 Carrington and Payne, page 453. In that case the prosecutors added to the end of the bill of particulars furnished by them a notice that they intended to produce further evidence not therein specified, and Mr. Justice Littledale said that it would be for the Judge at the trial to decide whether that further evidence, which was not included in the bill of particulars, should be received. In the present case, no such notice as that referred to was attached to the bill of particulars, which was most minute and ample in its details. Ile submitted that the point should be decided— not in reference to the magnitude of the present trial, but according to the general principle of law ; aad, confident that that was in his favour, he objected, on the part of Mr. Barrett, to the reception of the books in evidence. The CHIEF JUSTICE—When was the bill of particulars fur nished ? Mr. M'DoNoc ll—On the 13th of November, 1843. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL concurred in the observation of Mr. M'Donogh that there should, in the decision to be made, be no distinction between this and any other case. He denied that the principle relied on by the opposite side was admissible. They were not bound by any rule of law in cases of conspiracy to enumerate all the evidence they intended to give. They were only bound to specify the nature of the charge. That was the principle established in all the recent decisions upon this subject, as the Court would find by an abstract of the cases bearing upon the point which their Lordships would find in Phillips upon Evidence, p. 492 (the edition of 1838). It could not for a moment be contended that the Crown was called upon to furnish in the bill of particulars the evidence upon which the charge of conspiracy was to be based. Judge BURTON—The bill of particulars does not purport to give or to state any of the evidence that might be adduced. The ATTORNET.-GENERAC said not, and referred to a va riety of authorities in support of his position, and submitted that the documents now proposed to be read in evidence, as showing the general nature of the conspiracy with which the traversers were charged, should be admitted. Mr. MooR?, Queen's Counsel, followed on the same side with Mr. M'Donogh. He said he was not aware that Mr. Browne's evidence went further than that at some time er other he printed those documents for the Association, and was paid for them by the secretary. Judge Buxtronsaid, he thought the question to be argued was, whether these documents, as given in evidence, were admissible, as not being contained in the bill of particulars ? Mr. MooaE said, that was the question for the Court to decide, but he wished to show, in the first instance, the na ture of the evidence given. He would submit that, as there was nothing to show these documents were adopted at any of the meetings at which the traversers were present, they did not come within any of the three classes of evidence_ referred to by Mr. M'Donogh. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL, in reply upon behalf of the Crown, said that, as he understood the Counsel on the other side, there were two arguments put forward by them in support of the motion ; one of which was, that the evidence offered was not set out as an overt act in the indictment or bill of par ticulars, which it was the duty of the Crown to have given, if they intended to prove it. Now, he (the Solicitor-General) would say, that such an argument was a misconception of the law upon the subject, for it would be a most extraordinary doc trine to lay down, that the Crown was to furnish a prisoner er defendant with the evidence to be brought forward against him. The CHIEF J u STICR pronounced his opinion. He had been first greatly struck by the arguments of the traversers' counsel; but, considering the nature of the charge against the traversers, he conceived that the Crown was not called upon to embody in the bill of particulars the precise evidence to be given ; the ob jection urged by the Learned Counsel for the traversers was, therefore, untenable, and the documents should be admitted. Judges BU RTON and CRAMPTON concurred with the Learned Chief Justice ; and The COURT ruled accordingly in favour of the Crown. The Court adjourned till ten o'clock on Monday (this ) morning. THE STATE TRIALS. The readers •f the Pilot %N ill see by our columns that we aro faithfully redeeming the pledge given in our last. We have been close, and not unobservant, ear and eye witnesses of the proceedings in the Court of Queen's Bench since Monday, and our readers shall in due time be placed in full possession of the result. Never, certainly, was there a stranger proceeding ; never a lamer case. From no labouring mountain of threat ever crept forth a mainuter mouse of statement and proof than the farrago of the Attorney-General and his evidence up to the moment we write. On Monday we intend to publish a Supplement, in which shall be given the speeches of O'Ccnnell and of Mr. Barrett, delivered at Mullaghmast, on which the Crown lawyers seem to rely as the main buttresses of the case. During the reading of O'Connell's magnificent speech a thrill of admiration per vaded the Court. That speech ought to be, and it shall be, re-- published in full. Of other incidents in Court we shall speak, and amongst other things we have to make the amend. to Mr. Frederick Bond Hughes, which we shall do with much greater satisfae , tion than we felt in assailing that gentleman. j The greater portion of the time to-day was consumed by the I reading of documents—a work performed by Ross in a slow, feeble, and unsatisfactory manner. The Mullaghmast speeches were read a second amt.—Pilot. _ -- - POLICE INTELLIGENCE. (SATURDAY.) TVORSHIP-STREET. Mr. Hamm-m.IN requested the reporters to acknowledge the receipt of the following further donations for the unfortunate widow Hoscroft and her* family, who have been the objects of so much practical benevolent''-:—From Mr. Mitchell, Bradford, Yorkshire, 2/. ; T. A. G., N. ; two Ladies, " M. and E. W.," 11. ; a Gentleman, 10s. ; Aconymous, 5/. ; Mr. C. Pearce, Auction Mart, 51. ss. ; Y. 8., Ramsgate, 10s. ; " Cerdawd Cyfawrferol," Wales, 101. ; G. G.,. 1/. ; Anon., 21. 2s. ; Al., 1/. ; and M. A. S., 1/. The Majistrate also expressed his grateful a.knowledgments for the• following remittances to be applied to general charitable purposes 8., 5/. ; S. A. D., 101.,; and S., 10s. SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS, FROM THE EVENING PA PEAS OF SATURDAY. GLOBE.—The examination sot witnesses, in the Irish State Trials, on the part of the prosecution, was proceeded with on Thursday morning. Three "' gentlemen of the press," occu pied in succession " the chair s . ' as the revolving seat in the centre of the table around which counsel are arranged, is designated in the Irish Law Courts. Their evidence —a mere recapitulation of matters with which every one who has read the proceedin gs at the " monster meetings," as supplied by the daily Journals, was already familiar —afforded nothing new to the_ craving curiosity of the crowd within the Court, and will be regarded with indifference by the country at large. The heatlers of the Repeal Association seem to have courted publi city in their whole proceedings. The extraordinary facilities afforded to the reporters for the London journals, and the special attentions shown to the witness who anno a:need that he attended the meetings on leelialf of the Government, showed that se crecy formed no element in the dire " conspiracy" with which the indictment charges O'Connell and his co-defendants. The Attorney-General, in his opening speech, laid great stress on those parts of the speecht is delivered by O'Connell which asserted that the Act of Union: was not binding on the Irish peo ple. Divested of the redomo ntade which seems to be generally regarded in the sister country • as genuine eloquence, the mean ing of those passages mus t be taken as intimating that the conditions on which the. Act of Union was proposed, have not been fulfilled on the part of England. The impres sion which prevails in Ireland iF, that the distress of the popu lation of that country has largely increased since, the union of the two kingdoms ; mud that, in its results, it has not wrought any of those benefits which it was expected to produce- The Repeal leaders have, it is true, asserted that th Union has palsied, instead of invigorated, the energies of Ireland ; that it has ex cluded, instead of admitting, the talents of the country from the national councils--that it has deprived her of the benefits which she hoped to derive front the exertions of her own chil dren, born, bred, and educate d within her bosom ; that, in fine, it has not allowed her to. judge for herself on matters re lating to the management aolelv of her own interests ; and that a surrender of her legislative: independence, without compen sation or equivalent, it the character and consequence of the Union. But these things were said and published long before the Repeal Association was in existence. The question is not as to the validity of these vieacs : it relates solely to their ex istence, and to the periods of their birth. At the time when they were first promulged, it was contended that the Union ought not to be conden used before it had obtained a fair trial. Catholic Emancipation was part and parcel of Mr. Pitt's plan of uniting the two kingdoms. Nearly thirty years elapsed before that measure was conceded; and then it was wrung from the fears of a Government, the leading members of which yielded to the arrayed determination of a people to obtain, by force of compulsion, what ought long be fore to have been conferred from a sense of justice. Shortly after that great measure wit 'passed the Whigs came into office, and administered the Government in the spirit of the enact ment. The people receirised the altered disposition of the Government toward the lon g-proscribed race a; a pledge and earnest of a new dispensation. The country became peace able. The long-existing Indications of a disaffected popu lation disappeared Ancient feuds between the profes sors of the rival creeds became less frequent, and less virulent. A new order of feelings began to pervade the social so atm. This gratifying t il chan be g continued to grow in , ex tent and depth, unti e came evident th vt the hold of the Whig Ministers upon the Governnont w. axed feeble, and that the period of their government was fast drawing to a close. The apprehensions of the Cad iolicosea, that s:bed with th as unfit to pos see return to officess of the party which had lov g pr them the rights of citizens, tl tett Oractical exclusion from thoie rights would again commence, be can to operate. The raised hopes of the Ultra- limtestants found' it sterance in boasting of what would be the effects of a Tory (3 cis eminent. The first acts of the pre sent administration v reNe but little calculated to remove or loosen the Cat} ,o7iic dislike to its rule. Tile Re peal movement was th e result. With giant strides it pursued its march. Three pi evinces became embued with its spirit, and thousands of the population enlisted in its cause. The policy of the Governor a at was the very opposite of that which would have disarmed t h e hostility cherished by the Repealers. Conciliation would Is ave melted the masses into grateful submission. A very email instalment of gentleness would have sufficed ; but , that small effort to propitiate a jealous population was denied. The country this a gar rison—its shores v circled by a fleet. asthough a blockade was to ben vaintained, strict as if an invasion were dreaded by its inhabitants. 'The people are quiet; but that very quietness is inter preted into an indication of gloomy res s , ol b ve. A State trial, which p ro mises _ to 1)o extended ekas been determined on, by way of intimidating the people ; yet.. such has been the ill-advised course of the prosecutors, that even a verdict against the defendants will be deprived of all S 17 . moral influence on the nation. Such is the state—sack spirit of the country. A ~ti 6 '` STANDARD.— We have no intention to deviate fr rule invariably observed in the Standard on similar oc r ,;:„ of refraining flora any comment on the evidence addu • ,A. :•7 Thursday last, on the State prosecutions in Ireland. ; d, f r first wit ness exam i ne d was M r. F rederic k Bond M O who was upwards of six hours in the box, a who deposed to what took place at the var 4- 4 meetings and di nners he attended from the Ist:3tVry 0 A October last, beginning with that of Mullaghmast. His * 0 ' 11 1;0 evidence contained little with which the readers of news papers are not already familiar. lie obtained his admission to the Mullaghmast meeting by means of a card, which he re ceived from Mr. Ray, avowedly in his capacity of reporter for the Government. He was unable, however, to ex tract from Mr. Ray the resolutions agreed to at Mullaghmast, although Mr. O'Connell bad promised that he should be furnished with them; but he was informed by that person that they had been correctly reported in the newspapers. The witness was rigorously cross examined by one of the counsel for the traversers, Mr. Hat chell, who deemed it necessary to announce that he cross , examined on behalf of only one of these parties. Some notion may be formed of the gratuitous insolence and irrelevance of portions of this cross-examination from the following sample : " Mr. Hatchell—As a man of the woild, do you not think there is very little high treason in a cap?—l formed no opinion on the matter. It was stated that the crown was made at White's, in Tho • mas-street ?—lt was. " Then any person going to White's could get a crown to fit his head, or a cap to fit his crown ? Did youbecome Irish enough during your stay in this country to buy anything of Irish manu facture yourself ?—I did. " Perhaps you bought a tabinet for the lady ?—I did indeed. ..—(Laughter. ) " Then one great advantage that the agitation has pro duced is, that it brought you over here to encourage Irisk manufacture. I suppose if you were disengaged, you would • have no objection to take a lady for the tabinet ?—Perhapi 1 should. " Counsel—All I can say is, that the lady would have the worst of it." We say nothing of the gross insult to the Court in thus ex hausting its time on so important an occasion by coarse imper tinence like this, but we may express our belief that if the lati tude be allowed to the other counsel to the traversers which seems to have been accorded to Mr. Hatchell, there is no saying to what remote date these trials may be protracted. To the wit nesses subjected to such gratuitous insult, it must be con solatory to know that, did their evidence present any dis crepancy which could possibly be converted to their pre judice, the Counsel for the traversers would hardly find it necessary to resort to such modes of annoy ance. Mr. Leatham, the assistant of Mr. Hughes, was next examined, but did little more than corroborate the evidence of his principal. Mr. Ross, a gentleman long con nected with the London press; said that he wont to Ireland at the suggestion of the Government, and attended the Repeal meeting at Donnybrook, on the Ist of July. He re visited London shortly afterwards, but returned to Ireland in August, when he attended several meetings of the Repeal Association. The Court adjourned be fore the examination of this witness was concluded. All the Irish correspondents of the London press concur in their testi mony that no feeling stronger than that of mere curiosity ap pears to have been excited by these proceedings ; and that whatever be their result, there appears to be little chance of the agitation which has been foretold by the pro- Repeal journals. Even the Morning Cht ()nide, bold in its predictions of " public calamity," does not pretend that the interest which has been excited by. there trials in Ireland is of a nature to warrant its in ference. We omitted yesterday, by the way, to notice the indecent exultation expressed by our Contemporary at the personal ailments and infirmities disclosed in the appeals of several of the jurors, who are sitting on these trials, to be relieved from attendance. The age and rheumatism of one of these gentlemen have been grossly exaggerated, in order to afford an excuse for the suggestion that his bodily energies may be exhausted • during the five or six weeks to which the traversers propose to prolong their trials ; and it is aliirmed that, if lie be not wholly incapacitated by illness from the per. formance of his duty, he may, and " probably will, if particu larly game," die at his post ; in which case the proceed ings would be brought to an abrupt termination. It is ac cordingly hinted to him, that if he have any sense he will take to his bed, and procure a doctor's certificate, in order that the anticipations of this zealous friend to the Repeal cause may be fulfilled. The hint to protract the proceedings to the longest possible period, en the contingency of so desirable an event, will not, we dare say, be lost upon the counsel for the traversers. THE GADDESBY MURDER AGAIN RE-APPREHENSION OF MESSENGER. (From the Leicestershire Mercury of Saturday. ) This atrocious murder, which has been fur so long a period veiled in the profoundest mystery, has once more come before the public. It will be recollected by our readers that Timm and Hyman, the waggoner, both in the employ of Messenger, were takes up on suspicion of being concerned in this dreadful tragedy, and were detained to await the result of the inquest on the body. On the second examination, however, there appearing to be nothing which could at all implicate them, and having given what was, to the jury, a satisfactory account of hew they were engaged on the day the murder was committed, they were discharged by the Coroner. Timson and Hyman were subsequently called upon (as our readers will remember) to give evidence against their master, who was, after several examinations, eventually committed to take his trial for the murder at the last Summer Assizes. The grand jury, on finding that there was not enough evidence on which to convict, very wisely threw out the hill—we say wisely, because by adopting such a step they left the accused in a position to be again proceeded against, in the event of addi tional evidence being obtained. This additional evidence, we believe, will now be supplied, but as the magistrates conceive that the ends of justice will at present best be answered by keeping the examination now holding strictly private, we are not in a position to give the evidence verbatim. However, the following particulars may, we believe, be fully relied upon : Somewhere about the time of Messenger's first apprehension, he discharged Timson frcm his service, and on the latter being unable to find a fork belonging to himself, which he had been in the habit of using on the farm, he told another labourer that he would take one of his master's and keep it till his own was found. On Thursday last, as stated under our Loughborough police. head, Messenger charged Timson with stealing the fork and some other tools, and the result was that he was committed for trial. Being defended by Mr. Bell, of Leicester, Timson, by his advice, reserved his defence till his trial, and he was even tually liberated on bail. Subsequently, however, he made such revelations in reference to Messenger's connection with the murder that a warrant was immediately issued and placed is the hands of the chief constable (Mr. Goodyer) who, accom panied by Superintendent Burdett, immediately proceeded to Messenger's residence at Gaddesby-lodge. On the arrival of the officers, they found the object of their search in bed, little dreaming that he was about to be conveyed to gaol for the third time on the same charge of murder I Of course Messenger was speedily roused, and shortly afterwards was on his way to Leicester, where he arrived in the custody of Mr. Goodyer and his superintendent about eleven o'clock on Thursday night. Timson, we are. informed, states that, some time after Garner was missed, Messenger eame to him while at work, and said he believed Jeru (Garner) was dead, and in the wheat-field. At a subsequent period he said he was dead in the wheat-field. Ile then offered to give him a sovereign, or, in deed, anything, if he would bury the body. The principal cause, however, which induced the magistrates to issue a war rant for his re-apprehension was the statement made by Mrs. Hodges, which will be found below. EXAMINATION BEFORE THE MAGISTRATES. The magistrates assembled were C. W. Parke, Esq., M.P. , H. Halford, Esq., M.P., E. Dawson, Esq., and Col. Surnalay, and it will be seen that the evidence adduced was of a most im portant character. Mrs. Ellen Hodges, of 13arkby-lane, shoe-dealer, deposed that being in ill-health she was in the habit of taking a long walk every morning, and on the morning in question, June 2, about five o'clock, slie was on the Melton read, and was overtaken by some person whom she knew in a cart, who asked her to ride. She complied with his request, and got up, but rode somewhat farther than she had intended. When she was set down, at a distance of several miles from Leicester, she lost her road, and wandered to the Rotherby Hill, on which side stands Messen ger's lodge. 'The witness being alarmed at finding herself in a lonely place at so very early an hour, she began to cry. While standing in a field on the hill she heard a whistle, then a noise, as of some blow being struck by a heavy in trument, and immediately after two loud groans. This, of course, considerably increased her alarm, which was not at all allayed by seeing a man coming in a direction from the spot where the body was subsequently found, get over a teak in the hedge, at a distance of not more than 41) yards. She saw he had something red on his hands, and distinctly heard him say, " D—n it, I've done it." She hid herself in the hedge till he had gone to some distance, and then got over the very flea which she saw him cross ; and she then discovered that it bad several marks of blood upon it. On crossing the fleak she came into a field where there were several trees, and there she saw an old woman and child picking wool, and she also saw the same man going up the hedge side. She got out of the field as quickly as possible, and the woman and child also ran off on seeing this man, as if greatly alarmed. (This evidence corrobo rates that given by Kitty Paget and her chile.) After walk ing a little way she met with some person who directed her to the road, and she then returned home. Shortly after this, oft a Saturday, she was at the Crown and Anchor, Belgrave gate, and was observed to tremble very much on seeing some man in the bar, whom she had not known before, and she at once recognised him as the man she had seen in this field with bloody hands on the day in question. She made no re mark at the time, but on some man observing her emotion, lie said, " That's Messenger," and nothing further passed. Since this Messenger had been to her stall in the Market place, under the pretence of buying some shoes, though be made no purchases. The first time he went she said to him," You've got a pretty cheek, Messenger, to come to my stall." He replied " You are mistaken, my name is not Messenger." This some what alarmed him, and something further was said, when a loud altercation ensued, which was heard by several persons at the neighbouring stalls, who corroborated her statement. Since that time lie had been again and had offered her Some induce ment to " hold her tongue." She had not been examined by the magistrates previous to this time, though the chief constable had privately examined her upwards of three months since, when the statement she made was sot of the same character as that now made by her. The first discovery of her knowledge of the facts now stated was made by Mr. Charters, Inspector of the Borough police, yesterday, who communicated them with the most praiseworthy promptitude to Isaac Hodgson, Esq., and she was ultimately examined this day. She had, on several occasions, expressed a wish to Mr. Atkins, who has a stall adjoining to hers, that she should very much like to see the spot on which tho body was found. She was taken thither with Mr. Atkins, and several other persons on Thursday. They stopped in a field at some distance from the fatal spot, and lett her alone. She walked in that direction, and came up to the precise spot on which the body was found. We were not admitted to hear the examination, it being strictly private, but we can state that the above may be relied on. A considerable number of other witnesses were examined. the majority of whom only proved that Mrs. Hodges had made no secret of her knowledge of these facts, having talked about it to a great many persons, so that she had not kept it a secret till now, in hoi‘e of getting the offered reward. 'I he examination concluded about half-past four o'clock, the result being that Messenger was remanded till Saturday. lie was immediately conveyed in a fly to the county gaol, where he now is. A greater number of wild geese hare passed over the fens within the last few weeks than in any former year for some time past—an indication either that the frost has set in very se verely in the North, or that these birds have the wondrous faculty of prognosticating its approach.—Xerwidi Mercury. , GRANTIIAM.—A. fracas occu rred at the vicars annual charity ball which has agfbrded the non-privileged clan much amusement. A lady, a daughter of a deceased clergyman, refused to stand up in a quadrille with the son of a tradesman, which caused this lad's indignant papa to resent the anYelit put upon his son in "good set terms," there and then,—theft Advertiser, :sit, t t