The Sun.
London, England, 1848-08-16 00:00:00

PROSECUTION OF KR. MARTIN.

Mr. BUTT then applied to the Court to have the trial
of Mr. Martin postponed for a day, on the ground that
he was not yet quite prepared to defend him, owing to
the statement made by the Attorney-General, on Satur-
day, to the effect that he would put Mr. O'Doherty on
his trial once more on this day. Another ground for
this postponement was to be found in the tact, that a
variety of now matter had been introduced into the in-
dictment which did not appear in the original informa-
tions, being articles published in the Felon since the
period of Mr. Martin's arrest. The Crown would not,
he thought, bo inconvenienced it the application was
granted, as Mr. Ferguson was then prepared to defend
Mr. Williams, the other proprietor of the Irish Tribune,
whose trial might therefore be proceeded with,
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL stated that the Crown were
not prepared at that moment to go into any case with the
exception of that of Mr. Martin.
Baron PENNEFATHER was of opinion that there was
abundance of time for Mr. Butt to read over the new
matter in the indictment before ha would be called on to
defend his client.

The jury panel was then read over by the clerk of the
Crown, each juror being called upon a penalty of 501.
However, a considerable number of jurors absented
themselves, notwithstanding the largeness of the fine.
On the name of Mr. John Baggot Oldham being
called,
Mr. BUTT challenged the juror on the ground that
he was one of the jury in the trial of Mr. O'Daherty.
Baron PENNERATIIER—That is not an objection that
we can attend to, Mr. Butt.
Mr. Burr—Then, my Lord, I challenge him for
another cause, namely, that he has already expressed au
opinion in this case, to the Effect that he (Mr. Oldham)
thought Mr. Martin was guilty of the offence charged
against him, and that he ought to be convicted.
Two triers were then appointed (Messrs. William
Tilley and George Studdert) to try whether the juror
had expressed such opinions iu the case as would dis-
qualify him from serving on Mr. Martin's trial.
Mr. BUTT said he would ask Mr. Oldham this question
—whether he had ever stated that if be was placed on
the jury he would convict Mr. Martin?
Mr. WHITESIDE said that Mr. Butt was not entitled
to put such a question to the juror. Lord Tenterden
had given an opinion that it was a most disparaging
thing to a juror to suppose that he wag capable of acting
against a prisoner because of a difference in his political
sentiments, and that it was necessary for those who ob-
jected to the party to prove him to be disqualified by
adducing extrinsic evidence to show that he ought not
to be permitted to serve.
Baron PENNEFATHER stated that the Court had de-
cided on relying on the decision of the Court of Queen's
Bench in England in the case of " the King v. Edmonds,"
which was quite conclusive against the propriety of put-
ting such a question to a juror.
Mr. Charles Mathews, one of, the jury on the trial of
Mr. O'lluherty, was then sworn and examined by Mr.
Butt.

Mr. BUTT (to the witness)—llad you any conversa-
tion with Mr. Oldham in the jury-box on Friday or Sa-
turday on the subject of the State trials geum ally
Witness—l had.

. -
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL Did that conversation
occur while the jury were locked up in the last ease
Witness—lt did. We chatted on the merits of that case,
and the jury expressed opinions as to the probable effect
of those trials on the country.
Mr. BUTT—Did Mr. Oldham take part in this con.
versation?
Mr. HATCUELL, Q.C. (interrupting), submitted that
communications occurring between jurors in the jury
box were to be regarde as privileged Communications,
and should not be inquired into.
Mr. BUTT contended that cases might arise (and the
present case was one of them) in which it was necessary
to ascertain the fitness or unfitness of a juror to serve,
although the expressions which were objected to had
taken place in the jury-box. l'r example, if Mr.
Oldham had declared in the jury-box that he would con-
vict every single prisoner to be tried during the state
trials, he considered he was entitled to examine him as
to whether he had uttered such a sentiment.
Baron PENNEFATUER differed from the opinion ad-
vanced by Mr. Butt. In the ease of " the King v. Ed-
monds," already alluded to, it had been decided that
unless proof was given that the juror entertained malice
against the prisoner the Court could not order him to be
set aside; and he did not think that the Court could re-
ceive evidence of any other declaration.
Mr. BUTT observed, that although he was unable to
prove the evidence of what the law would term malice,
said "that he believed it would be es-
yet if the party
sential to the public peace that every one of these pri-
soners should be convicted," he would be prepared to
act from a motive which ought not to influence the
judgment of a juror. Re therefore contended that he
was entitled to ask. Mr. Oldham whether he had made
any declaration to the effect he had stated.
Baron PENNEFATUER stated, that there was no doubt
that if a juror declared, while in the jury-box, any
opinion unconnected with the case of the prisoner on
trial, he might be examined in reference to it; but if
such opinion was made in reference to the case then on
trial (as was the fact in the instance of this gentle-
man), he did not see how the Court could allow the
matter to be inquired into. . A line must be drawn be-
tween discussions which a jury have one with another
and discussions which take place between them on mat-
ters which are not intimately connected with the subject
of the trial.
Mr. BUTT—In that case, my lord, we will challenge
Mr. Oldham peremptorily.
On the name of Mr. John Phayre being called,
Sir C. O'LoQULEN said that he had been informed