The Sun.
London, England, 1848-08-12 00:00:00

'll N 7 AUGUST 12, 1848.

had left Hackney early the same evening, but no tidings
were heard of her until this morning, when she returned
to her mother's house. The mother then proceeded to
state that the day following that on which her daughter
left home it was found that she had been seen in the
company of a gentleman resembling the accused, and
acting upon this information, she (the mother)
called on him, and having represented the facts
relative to her daughter's absence, and intimated
that she suspected he had inveigled her away,
his reply to her was, that she was a nice young girl,
that he had been tampering with her for the last three
weeks, but found money was of no use, and he added
that the girl was safe, and that she (the mother) might
go home and make herself easy, for her daughter would
return home to her in a month. Those latter words
the accused had used on the occasion, and the magistrate
(Mr. Cottingham) having been made acquainted with
the alleged taet, issued his warrant against the accused ;
as he was not in the way when the officer called in the
first instance to request his attendance, and to describe
that a charge had been alleged against him injurious to
his character, and the necessity for his coming to the
court to explain the matter,
The accused said, that he was from home when the
officer called, and upon being subsequently apprised of
the nature of the charge against him, ho was glad to
have an opportunity of coming forward to deny the
imputation cast upon his character with respect to this
matter.
Jessie Cabb, the young girl alluded to, was then
sworn, and in accounting for her absence from home
since last Monday afternoon, she said that after
leaving her aunt's house at Hackney, and when she
was walking along Shoreditch, a gentleman came
up and spoke to her. That after walking by her
side a short distance he went into a pastry-
cook's shop and brought her out some sweetmeats, which
he desired her to eat. That soon after she had partaken
of some she became sick and retched very much, and that
the gentleman remained by her side, and that she did not
know what took place afterwards, as she became insen-
sible until the following morning (Tuesday); she found
herself lying in bed alone, in a house in one of the streets
leading out of Blackfriars-road, and having got up she
left the house.

Mr. COTTINGHAM here questioned the girl, and in
reply she said that she saw a woman in the house, but
said nothing to her, nor did she ask her for money for
permitting her to sleep there. How she came there she
cnuld not tell, nor could she say whether the gentleman
who gave her the sweetmeats had accompanied her to
the house.
Mr. COTTINGIIAM desired the girl to look at the ac-
cused, and say whe:her he was the person whom she
had met on Monday evening? The reply was that she
had previously seen the accused in the vicinity of the
Borough hospitals, but that he was not the person whom
she described.
Mr. COTTINGRAM then asked her where she had been
since Tuesday? and she said that she been walking
about the Parks and the west-end of the town, and had
not lain on a bed since Monday night, nor had she eaten
any thing.
Mr. COTTINGIIAM said that she did not look as if she
had been starved, but fed well since her absence; that
there was so much improbability in her statement re-
lative to her having met with some man who purchased
sweetmeats for her, then becoming suddenly ill, and
afterwards finding herself alone in bed, on the south
side of the water, and lastly, her walking for so many
days and nights about the parks and streets; there were,
as he said before, so many improbabilities about it, that
he must confess he did not place much reliance on what
she had stated. He (the magistrate), however, was
persuaded that she had been enticed away from home by
some heartless seducer, with whom she had been until
that day, and that he had bound her down not to di-
vulge the circumstances that transpired during her ab-
sence. The magistrate then, addressing Mr. Craven,
explained to him the reason the warrant was issued
against him, was owing to the:words which it was alleged
he had used to the mother of the girl, but that the girl's
own statement had completely exonerated him from any
participation in her abduction.
The accused denied that he had ever uttered the words
attributed to him, and complained that his character had
suffered in consequence of the unfounded reports pro-
pagated about the affair.
Mr. COTTINGIIAM informed the mother of the girl that

in the event of her discovering the person who had in.
veigled her daughter from home, he would grant a war.
rant for his apprehension, and punish him to the extent
of the law.

IRELAND.

ARRESTS IN DUBLIN.

DUBLIN FILIDAY.-Mr. Mahony, publisher, or
Capel-street, ,11.6 astesterday arrested under thesS:s.
pension of the Ifabeas Corpus Privilege Act, and
committed to Neivglte.
Four persons, said to bOANDericans, werq.broug,
into the Castle yesterday by the police, frmn lontarf.
Mr. SMITH O'BRlEN.—Yesterday a military guard,
consisting of thirty men and an officer, was placed on
Kilmainham gaol. Mr. O'Brien is quite cheerful.
lie is not allowed to read the newspapers. Mrs.
O'Brien has access to him, and some gentlemen who
obtained orders from Government have been per-
mitted to visit him in the presence of an officer of the

prison.
now first
,o inf the
progresstri.s underat the
evin 0 Doherty,
fai is
excitementc loquestion-
ables e
this
tocllioiel)emTiljfrv:
iesta'shisiNeoo'inirpr
Court—that
100' uepulßrroistenlity.ArtlAi.
a—cottf the Irish Tribune. The
r, at least, to
greater part of the day wTaosfihsoceMcru.piied with argument,
da ba beforeyou.
whether
itTlthehhetehe
court-house,
ouer
ur
the
e. werehncooaust seh
eei
e,nriagi n
bdi nnenp eet 1
broughtholepe dl
se,haaanppdpet
appear,
of
take little interest in the proceedings.
The accounts from the south are again tranquil.
The Roman Catholic clergy, in all directions, are
warning their flocks to discountenance the rebel
movement, and to hold no cotnmunication with parties
who would endeavour to seduce them into treasonable
conspiracies. There are further arrests. The Wex-
ford .Mdependent states that warrants have been is-
sued for the arrvst of not less than eighty persons in
that county. Eighteen persons are in custody,
charged with being concerned in the attack on the
mails near Abbeyfeale.

The Dublin .Evening Post contains the following:—
We have received a communication from Dungarvan,
stating that a vessel has been seized with thirty tons of
gunpowder, and the ship's papers are said to be false.
We cannot, however, vouch for the accuracy of this
statement."

The mid-day mail from the south brings no news
beyond an idle rumour that Mr. Meagher had been
arrested ; but no one could say when, where, or by
whom.
It has been asserted that Mr. O'Gorman headed the
insurgent peasants who attacked the mail-coaches near
Abbey reale ; or that he was, at all events, the leader
of the movement in that quarter. Some decided in-
formation, implicating him in the outbreak, must
have reached the Government, as the foundation of
this proclamation. We have seen aletter from a Limerick
magistrate, written yesterday, which says :—" O'Gor-
man got into a boat on the Shannon to-day, endea-
vouring to escape to the county of Clare. There is
scarely a doubt that all the insurgent leaders are
still in the country, and that they will soon be in
custody."

THE STATE TRIALS.
DUBLIN COMMISSION COURT—Ai:Jo. 10,
The Court sat shortly after ten o'clock. The Al
torney •General, Solicitor-General, Mr. Sergeant O'Brien,
Mr. Whiteside, Q.C., Mr. Baldwin, Q.C., Mr. Smyly,
and Mr, Perrin were in attendance on the part of the
Crown ; Mr. Holmes, Mr. Butt, Q.C., Sir Colman
O'Loghlen, and Mr. O'Hagan appeared for the prisoners.
The son of Mr. J. Mitchel, a fine boy about seven
years old, was in Court during the proceedings. The
space around the dock was kept perfectly clear, and no
persons, save the police and authorities, were allowed to
approach it. The proceedings on the present occasion
presented a strong contrast to those which took place on
the trial of Mr. Mitchel. At his trial, his friends
crowded tile court to cheer him with their sympathy.
On the present occasion, not one of the political friends
of the prisoners were present to sustain them ; or, if
such persons were in court, they carefully abstained
from giving expression to their feelings.
Messrs. Martin, Williams, and O'Doherty were
brought into court about half-past ten o'clock.
Clerk of the Crown—Put Kevin Izod O'Doherty to
the bar.
Sir COLMAN O'LoauLEN—Before this case comes on
I have to apply to your Lordship to decide the question
regarding Mr. Duffy's arraignment, and that Mr. Duffy
be brought into court.
The application was acceded to, and Mr. Daffy was
placed at the bar.
Sir COLJIA.N O'LoGULEN then moved that Mr. Duffy
should be at liberty to plead. The question was, whe-
ther they were entitled, as a matter of right, to have
the plea recorded, and be submitted they were so en-
titled. He contended the arraignment of Mr. Duffy
was completed, and if it' were not completed on the
former day, that it had been since completed. In sup-
port of his proposition he cited the second volume of
Hole's Picas of the Crown, p. 219.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL submitted that Mr. Duffy
was not entitled to record his plea—for, in point of fact,
he had not been arraigned.
The CHIEF BARON—No authority is cited to show
t'aat in the circumstances that have occurred in the pre-
sent instance, the arraignment was complete. There
are two questions here—first, whether the arraign-
ment was complete, and next, whether there is any
reason, ex dubito, why the arrraignmeut should be now
completed.
Baron PENNEFATIIER—The authority cited by Sir
Colman O'Loghlen is quite decisive against its being an
arraignment. According to that authority the indict-
ment should be read out distinctly to the prisoner, unless
be waives his right to harq that Clones and consents that

an abstract only should be read, and that has not been
done in this case.
Sir C. O'LOGHLEN—We said we waived the reading
of the indictment if we got a copy. We have got the
copy, and should now be at liberty to plead.
Baron PENNEFATHER—Not until the Crown call
upon you to pleal
Mr. BUTT, Q.O .—I consider, in consequence of the
mode of proceeding the Crown has adopted in this case,
that they seek to obtain some advantage, and I consider
it would much better become the dignity of the At-
torney• General to waive any advantage he might thus
obtain. However, I do not appeal to the Attorney-
General, but I apply to the Court. I trust your Lord-
ships will not allow the Attorney-General to come in
here and control the proceedings of the court, except
in the way he is entitled to do so, by entering a ?folk
proscqui. As long as I have the honour to hold a brief,
I will never again consent, to suit the convenience of the
Court or the Attorney-General, to the slightestdeparture
from the regular course of proceeding; and I now ask of
the Court confidently, but boldly, to keep faith with .me
and the prisoner, and put us in the same condition we
would be in if we had not consented to the suggestion
for postponement.
Baron PENNEFATHER—We cannot decide that when
once a prisoner is put to the bar the arraignment should
be completed, except on express authority.
Mr. BUTT—But this proceeding went much further
than that. We put it, however, as a question for the
discretion of the Court rather than as a matter of strict
right.
SOLICITOR-GENERAL—The Learned Gentleman has
put forward a variety of grounds in support of his ap-
plication, and, amongst others, that the present pro-
ceeding on the part of the Crown is unprecedented, but
I submit it is the ordinary practice that a prisoner
should be called to the bar, and when the Clerk of the
Crown has commenced the arraignment, the counsel for
the Crown may ask the Court to let the matter stand
over for a time. The Learned Gentleman was equally
unjustifiable in saying that the counsel for the Crown
(whose only object is to bring the criminal to justice)
intend to practise any stratagem or device. I say those
insinuations are not to be tolerated, and will not be en-
dured. I hope the Court will not impose such unprece-
dented conditions on the Attorney-General as to call
upon him to disclose the circumstances which he deems
it necessary to consider before an individual who is to be
tried shall be called upon to plead. We must proceed
advisedly in this case, and not be forced to take a preci-
pitate step, if we deem such step precipitate.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—As far as I am person-
ally concerned, I am only discharging a public duty, and
I wish to do that conscientiously. If the trial goes on
this present Commission, I may be satisfied to have Mr.
Duffy tried on this indictment; but when it is suggested
that applications are to be made to postpone those
trials, I may not, perhaps, discharge my duty as I
ought, if I allow myself to be embarrassed by the bills
found for felony, when I have the grounds to send up
bills for high treason. Perhaps I have not done my
duty as I ought, in sending up bills for felony, when I
might have sent up bills for high treason. But if the
case is not determined at the present commission, the
Court, I trust, will not, by any act out of their way,
oblige me to take any course that would fetter my dis-
cretion in sending up bills for treason.
Mr. BUTT—I call upon the Court to interpose between
the prisoner and the unconstitutional threat of the
Attorney-General. Let them allow the prisoner to
plead, and the Attorney-General to take his course.
CHIEF BARON—We do not see any thing in the case
to induce us to proceed with the arraignment of the
prisoner. The proceedings of the commission are still
pending ; the commission is not about to close, and
another case was fixed for this morning. We shall not
proceed with the arraignment of Mr. Duffy, but shall
proceed, as we were about to do, with the trial of
O'Doherty.
THE QUEEN V. KEVIN IZOD O'DOHERTY, PROPRIETOR
OF THE " TRIBUNE."
PROSECUTION FOR FELONY.
Kevin Izod O'Doherty was then placed at the bar, to
take his trial on the charges on which he was arraigned
on the preceding day, namely, for imagining, devising,
and intending to depose the Queen from her royal
style, title, and honour of the Imperial Crown of the
United Kingdom, which imagination, intention, &c.,
were indicated by articles published in the Tribune
newspaper.
Proclamation was then made for a jury, and the panel
was read over. During that proceeding the prisoner's
agents were actively employed in noting down the names
ot objectionablAkperpons. a
There aie about 150 names on the pine], b& 48 per- 1
sons only, in 'the first instance, sliediered to tr es.
ilk
By the directidn of the Court illre names were 'n
called on fines of• 20/. rThe thrensened imposition o a
fine causedfnine a‘dtlitional persons to announce their
presence in.court.
It w aeemedenecessary, howe*, to call over the
i names a non fiflts-Af 501., and this additional fine had
f
tke effec e4,,fausing Tato other oputlemcn answer to
Mir names, making in all tliftersons w „ • •yedagke
summons to littend as jurors, -but of a lis 1 sposeVof
about 150 persons.
The second juror who was [called upon to be sworn,
namely. Mr. Nolan, was ordered by the Crown to stand
by, on the ground that he was bail for the printer of the
Nation.
The objection was allowed, and Mr. Nolan was ordered
to stand by.
John Phayre was objected to by the prisoner's counsel,
on the ground that he is a burgess of the city of Dublin.
The challenge was to the effect that Mr. Phayre as such
burgess was interested in the conviction of the prisoner,
because the goods and chattels ot all felons convicted
within the city of Dublin, became the property of the
Lord Mayor, and corporation, and burgesses.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL demurred to the challenge
on the part of the Crown, on the ground that it was not
shown by the challenge in what manner the goods or
chattels of felons convicted within the city of Dublin
became vested in the Lord Mayor, &c., or how Mr.
Phayre was personally interested in the matter.
After hearing counsel on both sides, the Court ruled
in favour of the Crown.
Mr. Phayre was then peremptorily challenged by the
prisoner,
When the Clerk of the Crown called the name of Mr.
Reid, merchant tailor.
Mr. BUTT—I wish to ask if this man is not a Castle
tradesman?
SOLICITOR-GENERAL—That is not a proper question
to make.
The COURT intimated that the question might be put.
Mr. BUTT (to Mr. Reid)—Are you a tradesman at the
Castle, or one of the Lord-Lieutenant's tradesmen?
Mr. Reid—l am not aware that I am.—(Laughter.)
The prisoner's challenges having been exhausted, the
following jury were sworn :—Samuel Begot Oldham, 1
Richard Ulysses Burgh, Edward Birmingham, Richard
Collier, George Yeates, William Reid, George Nesbitt,
John Kershaw, Blaney Mitchel, Charles Mathers, John
Johnson, and Thomas Stewart.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL, at three o'clock, TOse to
state the case for the Crown. The prisoner, Mr. Kevin
O'Doherty, he said, stands charged before you, gentle-
men of the jury, with the commission of an offence of a
very serious character. He is charged with the com-
mission of a felony, and the consequences of his convic-
tion may necessarily be to him very serious indeed; but
though the law makes the charge a felony, it does not
attach any certain punishment to it—it is discretionary
with the Court to state the punishment to be inflicted.
It is not a capital felony, but a felony that may be
punished either with imprisonment or transportation,
which may be extended to the full period of the life of
the individual. I mention that fact for this purpose,
that being aware of the very serious nature of the
charge, you will, I am quite sure, give your calm,
deliberate, and full attention, to the nature of the
charge that is brought forward against the prisoner,
and to the evidence which will be adduced on
the part of the Crown in support of that
charge. Sometimes it is the duty of jurors to judge of
evidence of a contradictory character; in the pre-
sent case you will have no questions of that description
to decide. About the evidence in this case there will be
no doubt, the facts being conceded, and your province
will thereby be to decide whether the evidence being all
admitted, the acts of this man are evidence of the inten-
tion which the Crown has assigned to him in the present
indictment. The charge against him, relieved from legal
form, is founded upon an Act of Parliament which in a
very few lines indeed defines the crime which is the sub-
ject matter of this investigation. 'The charge is that
since the passing of this Act this gentleman (Mr. O'Do-
herty) did compass, imagine, invent, devise, or intend to
deprive or depose our Lady the Queen of the style,
honour, or royal name of the Imperial Crown of the
United Kingdom. There is another charge against him,
that he did also compass, imagine, invent, devise, and in-
tend to levy war against her Majesty within the Unites]Kingdom, in order by force and constraint to compel
her to change her measures and counsels. And we
say that the intention of the prisoner is expressed,
uttered, mid declared by the publication of certain
printed documents. Gentlemen, at the time of the pub-
lication of those documents Mr. O'Doherty was the pro-
prietor of a newspaper in the city of Dublin. That
newspaper was, I believe, first published in the month of
June, in the present year. I say so because part of the
subject matter of the present prosecution is the fourth
number, first volume, which was published Saturday,
the
on
the Ist of July. That will be a material circumstance
for your consideration,
and I believe that altogether but
five or six numbers of the papers ever saw the light.
The present indictment is founded on publications in two
numbers of this paper. One was published on Saturday,
the Ist of July, the other on Saturday, the Bth of July.
It will be for you, Gentlemen, to bear in mind the period
at which this paper came into existence, and the object
with which it was undertaken. I charge the object ot
the publisher of this paper to be this, to excite rebellion
in the country, which unhappily they have been able to
do. It will be material for you to bear in mind some of
the matter that appears in those publications them-
selves. This article of the Ist of July refers
to, and of course was published after the
conviction of another newspaper proprietor, Mr. Mit-
chel, for the very same offence as that with which
Mr. O'Doherty stands charged before you at the bar.
Very little more than two months since the time I have
the honour of addressing you, it was my duty to address
i another jury against a young man charged precisely