The Express.
London, England, 1868-07-01 00:00:00

CRICKET.

GENTLEMEN v. PLAYERS.
At a quarter peat twelve yerterday play in thug great annual
contebt was rebunied at Lord's (Intim]. The " not out. "of the
previous night 'Jupp with 9, and Riekettr with 1; again feral the
bowling of Menem. Lipreombe and Abraloni, which war of bitch a
dial atter that but few runs could be obtained from it. The only
notable hit previous to Jupp's dlr.-ant:Rum was a late cut for 4 of
Meehan, when, despite his careful play, he was very adroitly run
out by Mr. Round—thin made the recond wicket for 31. Lilly-
white, who followed, war a " rucercefol candidate for the spec-
tartr," as Mr. Absalom clean bowled him forthwith. Mr.
Upbeat:Elbe also dibposed of Ricketts by bending hid off stump
flying• and ahortly after Pooley was caught by the long atop off
him. 'Then it war that Morticed( and Silmek got together, which
brought on Mr. W. Gilbert Grace vice Abentom, with the wore at
67, and Dr. Grace with it at 68, but the changer otwithrtsuiding it
wan brought up to 82 before a separation could be effected, when
Mortloek interposed his leg and wee given out. At five minutes
before two the runs were robbed off, and at this juncture Irilcock's
wicket war shot down by Mr. Gilbert Grace fur an excellent
innings of 26. Another " shooter" from the mime source settled
Mantle, and with the more at fg Wootton war eerily taken at
point. The two "left bander.," Wootton and Willsher, hit the
seore to 116, when dinner wall called. The first ball of Mr. Grace's
afterwards canoed Wootton to be finely eanght at long-on by Mr.
Richardson, and the gentlemen were therefore left to go in for 31
nma to win. They pert m Mr. Buller and Dr. Grace, the former
was clean bowled out with the third
caugh
ball before a run was
at
acored,
and Mr. Abrolom, after oratributing 8, y t short
leg. The doctor hit away bravely, and at 3.50 the winning hit
was made by him.: u•-•••• • r--41
I SURREY CLUB v.". MARLBOROUGH coumar,-:
ohm match was continued yesterday at the Oval, and ter-
minated in a drawn game.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

HOUSE OF LORDS.—JuNs 30.
APPEALS.

Present: The Lord Chancellor, lord Cranworth, Lord
Chelmsford, and Lord Colonsay.
Their lordships were assisted by the following com-
mon-law judges:—Mr. Justice Willes, Mr. Justice Black-
burn, Mr. Justice Keating, Mr. Baron Bramwell, and Mr.
Baron Pigott.
WITLCANT V. THE OIIEri.
This was a writ of error brought to reverse a judgment
of the Queen's Bench in Ireland, confirming a conviction
of Denis Dowling Mulcahy for treason-felony, the conviction
having been brought by writ of error into that court. The
prisoner was convicted in January, 1866, at a special com-
mission, and sentenced to penal servitude for ten
years. The grounds upon which it was sought
to reverse the conviction were—that jurors were
returned to serve on the jury, whose names were
not on the jurors' book for 1866 ; that jurors were
sworn who were over sixty years of age, and that the in-
dictment set out the overt acts charged against the pri-
soner in a manner so vague and uncertain as not to satisfy
the requirements of the law of treason. A fourth ob-
jection, now raised for the first time, was that there was
no assignment of error in respect of the affirmation of
some of the grand jury, or the mode in which
that fact was entered on the record. The
"overt acts" comprised among others stirring up
foreigners to invade Ireland, being a member
of the Fenian Brotherhood, publishing with others pam-
phlets in Ireland intended to excite rebellion, procuring
arms, publishing a certain newspaper called the People,
&c. On the part of the crown it was contended that no I
error appeared on the record or proceedings, and that the
judgment of the court below should be
Mr. base Butt, Q.C., Mr. Coleridge, Q.C., Mr.
O'Loghlen, and Mr. Molloy for the appellant. The
Attorney-General, the Attorney-General for Ireland, and
Mr. Lawson, Q.C., for the Treasury.
At the conclusion of the argument the following ques-
tions were submitted by their lordships for the considera-
tion of the judges :-Ist. Ought the challenge as a juror
to James Booth,on the groundof age, to have been allowed
by the court below ? 2nd. Ought the challenge to Henry
Fry, upon the ground of his not being in the juror's book
for 1866, to have been allowed ? 3rd. Was the indict-
ment open to objection by reason of the manner in which
the same alleged the matters, acts, and deeds therein set
forth, or by reason of any other error alleged to appear
upon the face of the record Y 4th. Ought judgment to
have beenven upon the whole record or upon any
part of it for the plaintiff in error
The learned judges took time to consider.