The Sun.
London, England, 1848-11-01 00:00:00

IRELAND.

TBIA.L OF MR. O'DOHERTY, OF THE
TRIBUNE " NEWSP,IPER.
DUBLIN, MONDAY.
The third trial of Mr. Kevin Izod O'Doherty, one of
the proprietors of the Tribune newspaper, was com-
menced this morning in the Commission Court. The
facts elicited to-day were essentially similar to those on
the first and second trials of the prisoner in the early
part of August last, when the juries on each disagreed.
At ten o'clock Judges Torrens and Crampton took
their seats on the bench, when Kevin Izod O'Doherty
was placed at the bar.
The Attorney and Solicitor Generals, Mr. Baldwin,
Q.C., Mr. O'Brien, Q.C., Messrs. Smyly, Pennefather,
and Perrin appeared as counsel for the Crown ; Mr.
Butt, Q.C., Sir Coleman O'Loghlin, and Mr. O'Hagan

for the prisoner.
Several jurors were put by on both sides.

The following jury was sworn:—
Thomas Clarendon, Great Brunswick-street; Thomas
Lead Milliken. 4, Parliament-street; George Boles, 1,
wower Ormond-quay; Isaac Farrell, 210, Great Bruns-
Rick-street; Joseph Kirk, 22, Jervis-street; Thomas
Figgis, 72, Abbey-street; Maurice Brookes, 20,
Abbemy-
street ; William Frazer, 37, Arran-quay; James Charles,
61, Mary-street; William Dunbar, 1, Dorset-street;
David Foster, 24, Lower Ormond quay; Richard Con-
nell, 54, Aungier-street.
The Clerk- of the Crown then arraigned the prisoner
the usual manner. The indictment: contained ten
distinct counts, charging the prisoner with the separate
offences of having compassed to depose the Queen from
the Imperial Crown of the United Kingdom, and of
having compassed the levying of war against her Ma-
jesty, in order to compel her to change her measures and
counsels. These two intentions were charged to have
been manifested by the prisoner in certain articles pub-
lished in a newspaper called the Irish Tribune, of which
he, together with a person named Richard D. Williams,
were the joint proprietors.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL then rose to address the
jury on the part of the Crown. He said that in this
case the prisoner, Mr. Kevin Izod O'Doherty, stood
charged before the jury with the commission of a felony.
The Legislature had thought fit, on the 22d of
April to assimilate the law of England and Ireland in
that respect—to mitigate the severity of the English law
on the one hand, and on the other to constitute the
offence a felony in both countries. Having explained
the law, he said it was but right that he should inform
the jury that the prisoner had already been tried by two
-juries of his countrymen, and that on both occasions the
juries had disagreed as to his guilt. He should remark
that the evidence given upon the first of those two trials
was not precisely the same as was given on the second;
but the evidence adduced for the Crown on the second
trial was substantially similar to that which would
be given in the present investigation. Now no one
could entertain a more sincere respect than he did for
the opinions of a jury ; and if he found, when en-
gaged in the discharge of his official duty, that one,
two, or three jurors only had come to a conclusion that
the prisoner was guilty, he would certainly not have
pee him on his trial a second time ; but such, he had
rekson to believe, was not the case; and his present im-
pression was, that they had then an opportunity of
considering with greater care than before a new doctrine,
which was propounded at the last commission, and if
possible effect a final settlement of the law which related
to the responsibility of newspaper proprietors. Uuder
these circumstance, he felt it to be his duty to submit
the case of Mr. O'Doherty to a third jury, in order to
to ascertain whether, under the direction of the Court,
they could have any doubt whatever that he was not
only legally but morally guilty of the offences with which
he was charged. The Learned Gentleman then defined
at some length the state of the law as applicable to the
proprietors of newspapers, and contended that the pri-
soner, as one of the proprietors of the Irish Tribune,
should be held responsible for every article published
in that paper. On this subject, however, he called
on them to receive the law as it would be stated to
them by the Court, and to place no reliance on any
legal definitions that might be given to them by him-
self or the counsel for the prisoner, except it was in
perfect conformity with the opinion of the Court. Of
matter% of fact, however, he should, at the same time, in-
form them, they (the jury) were the sole judges, and they
alone competent to draw inferences from the facts proved
in evidence. The Learned Counsel then stated that the
publications for which the prisoner had been indicted
consisted of five distinct articles, which appeared in two
consecutive numbers of the Irish Tribune, published on
the Ist and Bth of July, entitled as follows:—" Our
Harvest Prospects," " Courage," " A Lesson from the
Insurrection of Paris," and two other articles, each
headed " Our War Department." Having read through
all these articles, which we published at length when the
prisoner was first tried at the last commission, and hav-
ing centmented upon various passages contained in them,
the Attorney-General, in conclusion. proceeded to ob-
serve that, so far as he himself was concerned, lie en-
tertained no personal feelings of hostility towards the
prisoner, and that, whatever any portion of the public
might think to the contrary, he was resolved to die-
ohargo the duty he owed to his Sovereign to the satis-
faction of his own conscience. With reap et to any expres-
sions that might be used towards nun for the part he
had taken in any of the state prosecutions wbieli he had
found it necessary to institute, he could onl, say that
there existed in his owns mind no feeling of hostility to
the writers of any newspapers, and he looked forward
with confidence to the good sense of the public to justify
him iu every step he had tastes in the discharge of the
duties of his office. It was necessary also to mention
that when that case was tried for the first time befere
the Lord Chief Baron, at the last consmissioa, the
of ly evidence given upon the part of the Crown con-
sisted of the mere publication of tie newspapers them-
selves by the prisoner, as a responsible preprie:or o 7 the
Tribune, and that, under such circumstances, it leas
quite impossible for the prisoner to prove tbet he sac
rot, both it law and in fact, responsible fir their con-
tents. The Learned Gentleman cite„ the cases of " The
King v. Walter," the proprietor of the Times newspaper,
and " The King v. Gutch," Fisher and Alexander,
with a view to satisfy the Court that the proprietor of a
newspaper was both civilly and criminally answerable
for tee conduct of the servants or agents whem he em-
ployed to conduct his paper. He taen referred to the
manuscript of the article entitled " Our Harvest Pros-
pects." which he alleged to be in tae prisoner's own
handwriting, and drew the attention of the jury to the
fact, with which the public are already acquainted, of
the loss of one of the pages of the document. Having in
the next plats compared the imperfect manuscript with
the printed article in the Tribune, the Attorney-Ge-
neral proceeded to remark that the jury would
themselves see the document, and would have
an opportunity of examining it. It was impos-
sible for him to say why the jury on the last trial had
disagreed; but the Learned Counsel who d:4ended the pri-
soner commented upon the circumstance that only one gen-
tleman had been produced to swear to the handwriting
of the prisoner. lie the (Attorney-General) did not
say that the prisoner was bound to produce his friends
and relatives to disprove that the document was in Lie
handwriting, but the identity of hankie, riting was a mat-
ter of opinion. The prisoner was a member of the
medical profession ; he served his time to Mr. Donovan,
the chemist, Clare-street, and in that establishment
a Mr. M'Keever also did business. That gentlemen
would be produced to identify the handwriting of the
prisoner. Upon the last trial that gentleman deposed to
his handwriting ; he was the only person that would be
produced to prove the handwriting in the manuscript
ascribed teethe prisoner ; and he (the Attorney-
General) said, unfeignedly and truly, that if a single
witness conscientiously told him that he believed the
document was not in the handwriting of the prisoner, he
would feel it to be his duty to produce him. Ob-
servations were made on the last trial in reference to
the non-production of Mr. Donovan. If he (the At-
torney-General) believed that Mr. Donovan would be
able to swear that the handwriting was not that of the
prisoner he would have brought him forward as a
witness. and he should not be taunted with the non-
production of persons who might have been produced by
the prisoner's counsel if their evidence could serve him.
Charles Vernon, examined by the SOLIcITUR-GE-
NERAL—Was registrar of newspapers in the Stamp-
office. Knew the prisoner. Produced the certified
copy of the certificate of the prisoner's proprietorship of
the Trieune newspaper, and proved the signature of the
prisoner to two publications of the paper (the Ist and
Bth July.)
Luke Prender—Was a sergeant of police. On the
sth July went to the establishment of Mr. Purdon, on
Bachelor's-walk. Went there 'to apprehendlaade a
Hoban, the
ts' search for
registered printer of the Tribune.
papers. Got a great quantity of manuscripts, con-
veyed them to the Lower Castle-yard. Witness proved
his signature to ,he articles," Our Harvest Prosp
"A Lesson from the Insurrection of Paris"--" Courage"eeta,
end " Our War Department." These were portions of
the papers which he found at the establishment on Ba-
chelor's-walk.
Michael M'Glinn, police-constable, proved having pur-
chased a paper at the Tribune office.
Francis M'Keever examined—Was in the employment
of Mr. Donovan, chemist, Clare-street. The prisoner
was serving his apprenticeship at the time that he was
there. (Manuscript produced.) To the best of his
opinion it was all in the handwriting of the prisoner.
Cross-examined by Mr. BUTT—Left Mr. Donovan's
establishment about eight days ago. Thought he would
return to it. Saw no reason to say that he would not
return. His reason for leaving Mr. Donovan's was to
keep out of the way from being examined. Slept in the
Brazen Head Hotel, and during the day went to the
country. Did not ask Mr. Connor for 5/. to leave town,
but told him that he had not money to go away, other•
wise he would go to Carrick-on-Suir. Met Mr. Connor
in his yard by appointment, and he gave him 5/. to go
out of town; and, as he had already stated, he did go
to the country every day, and slept in the hotel each
night. Did tell Mr. Connor that he would go to Car-
rick- on-Sail', bat as the money was not sufficient he did
not go, but remained in the hotel, and went to the
country in the day time as described. Could not tell
what was Mr. Connor's impression as to whether he had
or had not gone to Carrick-on-Suir. Never told Mr.
Connor that the way he proved the handwriting was by
comparing it with the writing in the shop-book. Did
not expect to gain anything by giving evidence against
the prisoner,
Mr. BUTT produced a letter which was written by the
witness to Mr. Connor, to whom it was addressed.
Witness acknowledged that the letter was in his hand-
writing.
Charles Pemberton, examined by the ATTORNEY-
GEWERAL—I know the policeman Prender. lam em-
ployed by the commissioner of police. Prender brought
tome a quantity of papers, which he said he found in
the Tribune office. I delivered them to the Crownl
solicitor.

Cross-examined by Mr. BllTT—(Manuscript papers of
Our Harvest Prospects," and " Our War Department,