The Sun.
London, England, 1848-05-27 00:00:00

A i l
...../
1
----
Wi. 11,,Z1...;:,-;.: , 4,,,..,:4,
V ;7i..' 4.,,,..,, iii , ;
,- at• Ar . . ...,„-:.„.•,,, ' .
qv,
~,,•7, ' t . ~
..:1,?•-C't', i' t /4.. k.--•,!
~.,.., ...„,.,.....,
*444' '). A ; ~.-e:„, ,
" -,
• or, , ~ .
.‘'''' ;''!.l‘,‘",4a
~, •.::-. NS,,, • -
1
7 y„., „.„..,,,.--„:„ ~,,,
~:i1....,,t„,0)..„7,.„..,::_---,..:-7----:-.77r,r;::,A------,--)_;:-7;:„':-::,;,k..... ',-,„__ -„_,.._--117'. _------;z--;% ,4,
• • -„, , ~,....
-'-'.- f,,,;.."4,
..,.
~,._-,,,
~,,,,,>-:-,,,,j c„,-.
_ , ____ ~,,.paiv ,
.. ~...,..:r,f:bw , 112.
~.,,,,Ngt.,•.;_.,;
~.., .••••,, 4,7,----;•;;. %. ireli, . ~,--t ~.:.-,,, •••••••i:, ;• • 4,.„1;?. - -4; ~N, \,,•••:--
~,...4,
''.::Li:4",----,-q ,---;',:'4••'‘"4,4“ ,40\.- -,...e. cre.ll,
. ! , ~:,
~,-1.-;•-i -,:,..N::-:-.,...22.1..f.1'r-- V .5,,1,r_• -,i,,,,- --,...1ie.t. • n-
yam,
• , , ~..;.• '7 G•
... 177•
...../.117",,.., . ,I,_. ' 1)17 o_l I •
~,,
...1";,,,4,,,:.
i
• '. '- ' 4/),41 ~.it,
_,-.• • L

[PRICE SD.

MES—I have often erett' igh judges.
Jud MOORE thought that at pi esent the evidence
ought not to be excluded. It might not be found rele-
vant by and by. At present there were not sufficient
,aterials to satisfy him that it was not so. Suppose it
should appear that the sheriff had asked what religion
certain parties were of, and had then left them off?
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL contended the sheriff was
bound to seltct the panel, and unless it could bo shown
it was done with a corrupt view it was unobjectionable,
Mr. Slevin then continued his evidence. There were , ,
upon the panel about 24 or 25 Catholics.
The witness was next asked whether he had examined
the jurors' book.
The ATTORNEY. GENERAL objected. They must pro-
duce the jury book.
Mr. Hoiztes—My Lord, we asked for the book, but
it was refused. lam really surprised at this technical
objection.
Mr. Dowling was then produced, and he proved that
he compared a book then in court, and he was sure that
the names in that book were a transcript on that of the
Recorder at the jury revision in October last. (To the
Attorney-Genera')—Did not compare the book after the
Recorder had signed it.
Mr. lloestes said that it was settled law that copies
of public records being proved as such should be received
as evidence, because records of that nature might be in
any distant part of the country at any assizes.
The Court held that as the book then produced was a copy of a list taken before the Recorder had signed the
jurors' book, it could not be received in evidence.
Mr. lIoLmEs said there could not be a doubt the book
was a tru2 copy, and though not to be pressed as a
matter of law, he would put it to the Attorney -General, .
whether he would, as a matter of justice, press its ex
elusion? The public would not be satisfied at such a
proceeding.
Mr. HENN deprecated personal references to the
Attorney-General. All his brethren concurred with
him.

John Broughton was then called, and stated that on
the lath of May he was served with n 3111211130114 to attend
there as a juror. His name did not appear on the panel.
He was asked of what religion he was.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL objected.
Sir CoLeuze o.LoouLEsr said their object was to show
that Roman Catholics summoned before the arrest of
Mr. Mitchel had been left off the panel after. That
would be a consideration for the triers.
Anne Broughton, wife of the last witness, was called,
and proved that the summons had been handed to her
by a man whom she had never seen before. Did not
know him.
Mr. Ponder, sub-sheriff of the city of Dublin, deposed
that the summons was issued by his officer when
he got the panel. He (witness) had ordered a person
named Wheeler to issue those summonses. It was his
(Mr. Ponder's) duty to prepare panels. He did not
interfere with this panel ; did not see it until the
day before the commission. Did not see the list
before the engrossment. Had no conversation about
the panel with anybody. Some of the summonses for
the present commission were issued before the calendar
was made out. Proved a summons to Mr. Rossborough,
also in Wheeler's handwriting.
To the ATTORNEY-GENERAL—He does not know of
any interference with the panel by the Crown or any.
body on their part.
Mr. Rossborough was then called and proved the
receipt of his summons. The question whether he was a
Catholic was objected to.
Mr. E. J. Milliken was then called. He was on the
present panel; was summoned on Friday last.
Mr. French (High Sheriff)—lle prepared the present
panel at Mr. Hamilton's house, his sub-sheriff. Can't
say on what day. There were persons going in and out
of the room. Thinks the whole panel was made out
on one occasion. It was about the 13th it
was made out, and all on one occasion. Gave the
copy of the panel to Mr. Hamilton, his returning
officer, and asked him as to the position of parties as to
respectability. When the list was made out, gave it to
Mr. Hamilton. Had not any consideration of religion
or politics in making it out ; religion or politics might
have been mentioned, but he cannot say.
To Mr. HENN—To the
3best of his knowledge he ar-
ranged that panel fairlNo one had suggested to him
anything as to the arral;.
geaentof the panel.
r
Mr. N. A. Hamilton,
returning officer of the High-
Sheriff, was present at the
arranging of the panel. It
was done in his office. Did not
sselect the names by
a
chance, but men whom he knewto their character
and respectability. Some he took by
chance, but cannot
say how many. Thinks respectability partly
ty
not being capable of robbing a man ; but he did
judge from that. He had no knowledge of their
relit
gion or politics. Never heard them converse upon
public question. Knows Mr. Wheeler, and asked hits
to give him a list of parties who were respectable, and
who were generally placed on juries.
Mr. HoLMES—But these were generally not on panels.
Witness, in continuation—Wheeler had given him a
list, and he took some from that list, and others from
the jury book. Wheeler had given him a list of about
100 names.
Baron LEFROY, in addressing the jurors very briefly,
said in the opinion of the Court there is no evidence
whatever to sustain the charge.
The jurors then return d as their finding, "That the
panel lied been fairly and impartially made out by the
sheriff and his officers, and therefore we find against the
challenge."
The followiiaq jury was then sworn, after the prisoner
had &SOW* his challenges, and a large number had
beeir-ordt-re3 by the....c.;jown to ")4,abyi,"-Jofl6l,
Whitty,,wOollen dr:Ter Fl,tchttobcrt Thorti;(3,
William -Horatio Nekon, Frederick Itambaud,
Mansfield, Halwoiid Clark. Diehard Yoakley, Edward
Rothwell, Jason Therwood, Thomas Bridgford, James
()Ayer.
The jury having been called over, the Clerk of the
Crown proceeded to read tie iiidictim,tit. which tho pri-
sonei's counsel demanded that he should do at length,
The first publication on valet) reliance was placed was a
speech ddivered by Mr. Mitchel, in Limerick, and tab-
segaently printed in the United Irishman. Ne>t he
read smith« r publication from the 13(11 of May, 1848,
entitled "The Times on Re bellieu." From the same
journal, another article of the same date, entitled To
the Protestant Farmers of Ireland." The second and
third counts were the same as the first ; the fourth
count vatied the other three. There were in all ten
counts, varying the charge, all founded on the publica-
tions of the 6th and 13th May. It was now, after the
reading of the indictment, twenty-five minutes to five
o'clock.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he did not like to
break the case, and as it was impossible it could termi-
nate, or even the opening, he would ask if their Lord-
ships would have any objections to adjourn till to-mor-
row, when the whole trial must conclude.
This arrangement wee acceded to, and the jury was
locked up, with instructions to the sheriff to afford them
all proper refreshment.