The Sun.
London, England, 1848-08-11 00:00:00

IRELAND

"'DUBLIN, WEDNESDAY EVENING.
TRIALS pF THE CqNSPUtATORS. - •
The enclosed eport of the proceedings at the com-
mission will show that the warlike editors of the late
revolutionary papers are determined to play the long
game with the Attorney-General; the evil day will be
staved off as long as possible. The following is the
report:—
COMMISSION COURT.--TIIIS DAY.
(Before the CHIEF BARON and Baron PENNEFA.THER.)
ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF' ARMS, PIKES, &C.
Five or six persons having been arraigned, and having
pleadedguilty to indictments charging them with having
in their possession guns, pistols, or pikes, contrary to the
provisions of the late Act of Parliament,
The CHIEF BARON proceeded to sentence them. He
said that as they were charged under the recent statute,
and might not have known that their conduct was il-
legal, the Court did not feel called on to inflict a severe
penalty. He hoped that the lenity thus shown by the
Court would induce others to be cautious, for it would
be necessary, if further violations of the Act were com-
mitted,.to inflict very severe punishments. In conclu-
sion, his Lordship directed all the traversers to be im
prisoned for 48 hours, but one, and he sentenced him to
one month's imprisonment.
THE " TRIBUNE" NEWSPAPER.
THE QUEEN V. WILLIAMS AND O'DOILETY, PROPRIETORS

OF THE " TRIBLINE,":
John Williams and Trod O'Doheray were placed at the
bar, and indicted for having, upon the Ist of. May, 1848,
and on several other subsequent occasions, at Sackville
place, in the city of Dublin, in their capacities of pro-
prietors of the Tribune newspaper, printed and 'pub-
lished certain seditious articles for the purpose of forcing
her Majesty, by threats of intimidation and ♦iolence, to
change her councils. The indictment, which contained
ten counts, was read at considerable length. It set
out the articles referred to, which were headed.—" Cou-
rage"—" Our War Department"—" Our Harvest Pros-
spects," &c.
The-Attorney-General, the Solicitor-General, Messrs.
Baldwin, Q.C., Whiteside, Q.C., Plunkett, Q.C., Smily,
Pennefather, and Perrin, attended on behalf of the
Crown; and Sir Colman O'Loghlen, for the prisoners.
Sir C. O'LocaLEN said that he had to apply for
copies of the indictment, as he had done in another case
on the previous evening.
Baron rENNEFATHER-I think the Crown ought to
furnish copies to prevent the waste of time consequent
upon having them read in open Court.

The ATTORNEY-GBNERAL stated that he had no ob
jection to copies being furnished; but he wished it not
to be supposed they were given as a matter of right.
Sir C. O'LoGHLEN observed that he would look on
the course pursued by the Crown as a matter of favour.
The prisoners were then called on to plead, and seve-
rally pleaded not guilty.
Sir C. O'LOGHLEN then stated that he had to apply
for bills of particulars in the case of both prisoners.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL--There is 110 objection to
the application. .

•
THE QUEEN V. DUFFY.
Sir C. O'LccuLEN—l have another application to
make in the case of " The Queen v. Williams and
O'Doherty," for the postponement of their trials to next
Commission ' • but, before I do so, I have to request that
the prisoner brought up last, to be arraigned, Mr. Duffy,
be called to the bar to plead. He was arraigned, but
has not pleaded.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL objected to the course
suggested by the prisoner's counsel. One case should
be disposed of before another was called on. If an ap-
plication for a postponement was to be made, it should
be made at once, because, perhaps, if it were granted,
the Crown would not consider it necessary to arraign
Mr. Duffy, the proprietor of the _Nation, as his case
would be most probably governed by the same rule.
Sir C. O'LOGRLEN said he could not move the appli-
cation for a postponement before morning, as there were
affidavits to be sworn and furnished to the Crown. The
Learned Gentleman also contended that Mr. Duffy had,
in fact, been arraigned, fort= abstract of the indictment
had been read to him; and the only thing to be done
then was for him to say whether he was or was not
guilty.
The COURT did not consider that any arraignment
had taken place, as it had, in fact, been stopped by the
prisoner's counsel when the application for a copy of the
indictment was made.

After some short discussion on the subject, the mo-
tion for postponing the trial was allowed to stand over
until morning, the prisoner's attorney uadertaking to
furnish copies of the affidavits relied on to the Crown
Solicitor.

THE QUEEN V. JOHN MARTIN, PROPRIETOR OP THE
" FELON " NEWSPAPER. .

The grand jury found true bills against the prisoner in
this case, whose trial at the present Commission will, as
in the case of the proprietors of the Nation and Tribune
newspapers, depend on the result of the application for
a postponement to be made in the case of " The Queen
v. 'Williams and O'Doherty."
The cautionary notice of the Ist instant was issued to-
day from the Castle, with the addition of the following: