The Sun.
London, England, 1825-01-31 00:00:00

TRIAL AT BAR.

This case came on for trial yesterday. Considerable interest
having been excited, Sheriffs Lamprey and Warren, and Mr.
Browne, Sub-Sheriff; were in attendance, with a party of Po-
lice, at an early hour; and from the judicious precautions
adopted, all inconvenient pressure in the Court was avoided.
The County Jury-box was set apart for the Gentlemen con-
nected with the public press, and no other persons were permit.
ted to enter it—a most important accommodation, for which the
Sheriffs are entitled to our, and, we think, to the public thanks.
Shortly after ten o'clock, the Chief Justice and the other
Judges took their seats on the Bench, when the Special Jury
Panel was called over ; first on fine of 201., and a second time
on a fine of 501.
When the panel had been called over, Mr. Townsend, K.C.
said, it was his wish that the Jury should not be sworn until
the Attorney_General was in Court, which would be in a few
minutes. Mr. Townsend's request was complied with.
When the Attorney_General came into Court, he inquired if
he could see the Bailiff's warrant of the persons mentioned in
the panel having been personally served, as he would request of
the Court to inflict fines on every person who did not attend.
The Loan CHIEF JUSTICE said, that what Mr. Plunkett
required was not now the practice. The Sheriff returned the
panel to the Court, and they presumed that the Sheriff had
taken special care that every one on that panel had been
served. The Gentlemen on the present panel had been called
.on fine of fifty pounds. In conclusion, his Lordship said, that
'he had not seen a Bailiff's warrant these 20 years.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL. said, that what we wished for
was, a full attendance of Jurymen. He did not know the name
of one person on the Jury. But the Gentlemen had an ini-
portant duty to peform, in respect to themselves and the pub-
lic. He had no desire to question the validity of the present
panel, and he could not, under present circumstances, think of
causing any delay, or of objecting to the present panel which
were struck to try the issue.
The Jury were then sworn.
Illr. PLUNKETT, jun. read the declaration. Here the
Learned Gentleman stated, that this was an information filed
ex-officio by the Attorney-General, charging Charles Johnston
and Joseph T. Haydn with publishing a libel on the 9th of
February last, of and concerning the present Lord Lieutenant,
and to the tenor and purport set forth in such information ;. to
which the defendants pleaded the general issue.
The ATTORNEY-CiENERAL then rose and addressed the
Jury. He said it was his duty to state to the Court briefly, yet
distinctly, the grounds on which he conceived it necessary to
appear before them. But first it would be necessary to look to
the nature of the alleged libel on which the prosecution was
founded, and to detail the evidence on which he relied to bring
the offence home to the persons charged. In the present case,
there were two defendants, Charles Bolton Johnston and .To-
seph Timothy Haydn. With respect to the first of these de-
fendants, there would be very little necessity in consuming the
public time, for in him would be vested the Proprietorship
of the Paper in which the publication of the libel had ap-
peared. At the period of the 9th February, Charles Bolton
Johnston was registered proprietor, and of this, the only
and conclusive evidence would be afforded by the production
of the documents entered at the Stamp-Office, as he was
instructed. It was here necessary to say something respect-
ing the mode in which this prosecution had been conducted,
or rather of the rumours that had been blown about respect-
ing the delays that had been practised ; and the manner in
which the prosecution was suspended over the head of Mr.
Haydn. It was a gross misrepresentation to say, that there
were three or four different prosecutions, although perhaps there
was no one who had regard to character, would make such a
statement. In the present prosecution, however, he considered
the first defendant, Johnstone, as merely a nominal person—
his name was used as a pretext, and he was quite secondary and
subordinate to Haydn, of whom there was a great moral cer-
tainty that he was the author of the present libel. Respecting
the delay that had been talked of, all he could say was this,
that the infbrMation could not be filed till Hilary Term, 1824 ;
so that all that had been said about the vindictiveness of the
prosecutors, was totally unsupported by fact. Two applications
were made about clerical errors ; the word that was changed to
the word but, and the word aforesaid was inserted preceding
the County of the City of Dublin; of each of these contem-
plated alterations the defendant was served with notice, yet, it
was ground of complaint that sufficient time was not allowed.
It would be necessary to explain now, that by the existing law
of this country, and he admitted it was a defect in the statute
law that needed remedy, no Special Jury could be had in a case
similar to that now under investigation, unless there was a trial
at bar. There was one observation further which he wished to