The Sun.
London, England, 1848-12-21 00:00:00

TRIAL OF CHARLES GAVAN

DUBLIN, DEC. 18.—The Court sat at ten o'clock,
when Charles Gavan Duffy was arraigned.
The Court gave judgment against the prisoner on his
motion to quash the new indictment.

Judge PERRIN said that the prisoner had been called
upon to plead to an indictment found by the grand jury
of the city, charging him with felony, in compassing to
depose the Queen, and levy war against her Majesty
under the statute of last session. The prisoner had
moved through his counsel that the indictment be
quashed, on the ground that another indictment was
pending, charging the same offence, found by the grand
jury of the county of Dublin, and preferred against the
prisoner, under tho 6th of George IV., chap. 51.
It was now contended that the Crown were bound to
abide by the first indictment, so found by the county
grand jury, and could not try the prisoner under the in-
dictment found by the city grand jury; therefore, the
indictment ought to be quashed. It was plain upon the
authorities that there was no legal objection to the
Crown availing itself of a bill of indictment found by
the city grand jury while another indictment was pend-
ing; but the Court were bound to protect the prisoner
from suffering any disadvantage, or being tried a
second time for the same offence. There were clear
authorities establishing that the mere fact of the existence
or pending of another indictment for the same offence,
was not a sufficient ground for calling upon the Court to
quash a fresh indictment. It was so ruled in a case
referred to in " The King v. Stratton," cited by Mr
Butt, the case of " The King v. Wells," 3d. Barrowes,
and also in Ist Blackstone's Reports. It was not illegal,
as appeared by the authorities to which he had refer-
red, before the statute, to have a second bill found, so
that it seemed difficult to hold, that where there was no
provision in the Act they should imply the existence of
a provision restraining the Crown from preparing a
second bill in the place where the offence was committed,
and where, upon further consideration and reflection, the
first officer of the Crown might deem it fit and proper to
proceed. No doubt the Court, at the same time,would take
care to prevent any oppression, or any vexatious use or
abuse of the proceeding; but no authority was adduced
to show that one of several indictments (where more than
one had been preferred, as in the case of a larceny in a
stage coach) was either invalid, or better than the
other. He was of opinion that there was nothing in the
statute prohibiting the Attorney-General from sending
up a fresh bill of indictment in the county of the city,
although a bill of indictment had been found, or might
be found, in the county. He did not think that the
Court could imply a provision, the effect of which would
be to deprive the Crown of the power of enforcing the
due administration of justice by proffering a fit and
pruper bill, if it were the opinion of the responsible ad
visers of the Crown that that was the preferable course
to take. His Lordship then proceeded to show that the
indictment was only one-third the size of the previous
indictment, and neither the Court nor the Coun.el could
object to the indictment upon the ground of its brevity.
It appeared to the Court that the application was one of
first impressions, and as the prisoner would not be in any
manner prejudiced by the trial he felt it to be his duty to
refuse the motion.
Baron RICHARDS concurred in the judgment delivered
by the senior Judge.
Air. Duffy here addressed Judge Perrin, and observed
that it would be a serious injury to him if his Lordship
refused to withdraw the order which he had made on
Saturday—namely, that the proceedings should not be
published.
Judge PERRIN said tkat he would hear the prisoner
through counsel and for himself.
Mr. Burr, Q.C., one of Mr. Duffy's counsel, here ad-
dressed the Court. He said it was irregular for any
one to address his Lordship upon the subject; but he
lunderstood his client to be desirous that his Lordship
would sot carry out his order prohibiting the publication
of the trial till it had terminated,