The Sun.
London, England, 1862-12-05 00:00:00

LAW IN7ELLIGENCE, Dec. 4.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
Sittings at Nisi Prins in Middlesex.—(Before Lord
Chief Justice Erie and a Specal Jury.)
IRWIN V. SIR GEORGE GREY.-ACTION FOR NOT PRE-
SENTING A PETITION OF RIGHT.
The plaintiff in this case, George O'Malley Irwin,
by his declaration, complained that the Home Sec-
retary had refused to lay before the Queen a peti-
tio❑ of right, and for this refusal he claimed dam-

ages £lO-0,000.
The defendant pleaded not guilty.
The plaintiff appeared in person, and the Atter.
ney-General and Mr. T. Jones represented the de

fendant.
The plaintiff addressed the jury, informing them
that the action was brought under the Common
Law Procedure Act, 1854, and the Petitions of
Rights Act of 1860, commonly known as Mr.
Bovill's Act, and the petition of right in question
prayed for a jury for the purpose of enforcing an
award made by the present Lord Westbury some
four years ago_ He also detailed the history of his
affairs for many years past, and the state of the law
previous and subsequent to Mr. Bovill's Ant.
In the course of the address Lord Palmerston and
' the Lord Chancellor took their seats upon the
bench. Sir G. C. Lewis, Mr_ Walpole, Mr. Wad-
dington, and other official gentlemen, were also in

court.
As far as could be gathered it seemed that the
plaintiff's claim arose out of these circumstances.
In 1832 he was an assistant barrister in Ireland, but
was convicted of a misdemeanour for deceiving the
Government by sending in the resignation of an-
other official without authority. The representa-
tives of the Government failed to produce on the
trial, and also on another trial for perjury arising
out of it, certain letters, and the plaintiff contended
that in consequence of this non-production he had
to submit to a sentence of nine months' imprison-
men and a fine of £5O. The damage that he sus-
tained was that his father diverted away from him
the descent of an estate worth £40,000, and this
amount he asked by his petition of right to be al-
lowed to claim from the crown, together with
£30,000 for loss of enjoyment of the property, and
£30,000 for injury to his professional prospects, &c.
The plaintiff's speech was of a very diffused oha-
rater, and was protracted, in spite of repeated
exhibitions of impatience on the part of the jury
and of remonstrances by his lordship, until three
hours had been consumed in its delivery, and even
at the expiration of this time it was finishea some-
what abruptly.
Mr. Johnston, a clerk at the Home. office, was
called to speak in reference to some documents, but
it appeared that he had not got them and knew
very little about them.
Lord Westbury was next examined as a witness,
and said—My letter of the 11th March, 1858 (a do-
cument spoken of as an award) I have no doubt was
sent to Mr. Walpole. There was no official decision
at all upon your case. The only document I recol-
lect is a note to Mr. Walpole.
The Attorney-General, in consequence of a ques-
tion by the plaintiff, objected that he could not give
evidence in reference to matters that took place
previous to the 24th April, 1361, the date of the
petition of right.
Mr. Irwin contended that such evidence was ne-
cessary, in order to show the damage which he had
sustained.
The Lord Chief Justice thought the truth or false-
hood of the allegations in the petition of right was
not now in issue ; and after some discussion he added
that the great question was whether there had been
any breach of duty on the part of Sir G. Grey, and
the circumstances to show this were that the petition
was left at the Home-office whilst Sir G. C. Lewis
was Home Secretary, that subsequently Sir George
Grey was appointed, and there were repeated appli-
cations to him upon the matter without any satis-
factory result.
Upon this point two letters by Mr. Irwin were
put in evidence to show that he had made applica-
tion to the Homo-office, but he refused, though re-
peatedly appealed to by his lordship and the At-
torney-General, to put in evidence the answer
received to one of these applications, saying that he
had no notice to produce it, and he was not to be
dictated to as to how he should frame his case.
The Lord Chief Justice, after a good deal more
discussion, expressed his opinion that the only da-
mages which Sir G. Grey could be held responsible
for were those arising from the delay in presenting
the petition, and not for the £lOO,OOO which was
claimed from the Crown in the petition of right.
After more time spent in discussion it was ar-
ranged that the defendant should give evidence
upon the question whether Sir G. Grey had or not
refused to present the petition.
Sir George Grey, however, was called by plaintiff
and examined at length, but the greater part of the
tiveestionts put uuotu..l. to Noj, liV wean], poLtluvut
to the principal point in the cause. He said, amongst
other things, I received a subpoena duces tecum, but
I have not any of the documents mentioned in it
with me. Many of them are not in the office, and
others are of a confidential nature. I believe Mr.
Waddington and Mr. Fitzgerald have searched for
them, and they will be better able to speak about
them. I have not got your petition of right of
1844 which Sir W. Follett as attorney-general sub-
mitted to the crown ; but I do not know whether
Mr. Waddington or Mr. Fitzgerald has it.
Mr. Irwin—Then, Mr. Waddington, or Mr. Fitz-
gerald, hand it to me. (A laugh.) I submit that the
Secretary of State is bound, like everybody else, to
obey a subpana.
The Lord Chief Justice—Yes, according to law.
lie says he has not the document in question.
Sir George Grey—All the documents that were in
the office are in the possession of Mr. Waddington
and Mr. Fitzgerald.
Mr. Irwin—l say it is the duty of the head of the
office to produce the documents.
The Lord Chief Justice—lf he does wrong in this
matter he is answerable, and you can, if you think
fit, proceed against him hereafter.
Mr. Irwin—l am open and fair ; and where there
is so much shuffling about a document, I am the more
anxious to see it.
Mr. Fitz ;erald—l could not find the petition,
though I have made strict search.
Sir G. Grey (to his lordship)—l have not seen the
document, and I do not know whether it exists or
not.

Mr. Irwin—l contend that that is not a sufficient
answer.
The Lord Chief Justice—lt will answer for to-
day, and if Sir G. Grey has done wrong you have
your remedy.
Mr. Irwin—There is an original letter which Earl
Russell has sworn in his affidavit that he had in his.
possession, on the 10th June, 1839, as Secretary: of
:gate—the letter of the 20th May, 1834, on which
Lord Westbury states that the case depend`.
vo
you produce that document in obedience to your
subpoma.
Sir G. Grey—A search was directed by me to be
made, to ascertain whether all or any. of the dem-
vaunts ntoutioued iu the subp0;110, were in the Homo-