The Sun.
London, England, 1856-05-10 00:00:00

THE MURDER OF MISS HINDS.

Mr. KENNEDY rose to call the attention of the house
to certain circumstances connected with the trial and
conviction of Thos. Dunne, under sentence of execution
for the 16th inst., for inciting Jas. Murphy and Patrick
Bannon to murder Miss C. Hinds, and to the refusal of
the Attorney-General for Ireland to grant his flat for a
writ of error. The hon. and learned gentleman then
read as affidavit, setting forth the circumstances of the
case from the solicitor for the defence of the culprit
Dunne. Those circumstances have been fully before the
public, and it is only necessary to state the substance—
namely, that one of the jury, sworn to try the prisoner,
having fallen ill, and a new juror having been substi-
tuted, the prisoner's right of challenge was withheld to
his prejudice. He thought that house a most improper
tribunal to bring this case before, for the other house
must be looked to as a Court of Appeal, as well as a
branch of the Legislature.
Mr. J, D. FITZGERALD said the hon. and learned
gentleman who brought forward this motion was entitled
to every consideration, for the question was one of life
or death ; at the same time he (the Attorney-General
for Ireland) had to consider his duty as a public officer
in some degree representing the interests of the public.
He did not complain of the course which had been pur-
sued by the hon. and learned gentleman, but there was
clearly great misapprehension upon the subject. It was
alleged that the prisoner was unfairly treated, by not
being afforded the opportunity of challenging peremp-
torily the jury. Whether there was or was not any
technical irregularity, he (Mr. Fitzgerald) was confident
that the trial of the prisoner was most impartial, and he
was at a loss to discover a single point upon which it
could be alleged that an injustice had been done to, the
prisoner. He was not aware whether the proceedings
in criminal trials in this country were similar to those in
Ireland, but there they were of a most solemn and im-
pressive nature, and the whole of them were observed
most carefully upon the occasion of the present trial. As
he had said, the complaint was that the prisoner had not
been allowed peremptorily to challenge the jury. The
course of criminal trials was this—when a jury panel
had been drain, it was the duty of the Clerk of the
Crown ,solemnly to apprise the prisoner that he had a
right peremptorily to challenge 20 jurors; that was to
say, to object to any 20 of them without assigning any
reason for so doing, by merely saying the word " chal-
lenge." That warning was given to the prisoner. It
was also the duty of the Clerk of the Crown, at the com-
mencement of the trial, to apprise the prisoner that then
was the time to challenge—that warning also was given
to the prisoner. There was a further protection offered
him. As a prisoner, from his humble circumstances, was
often unable to have the assistance and advice of coun-
sel, the following precaution was provided for him by the
Crown, and this was done in the present ease. When a

juror was sworn he was required. to hold the Testament
in his hand, the Clerk of the Crown saying these words
—"Juror, look upon the prisoner ; prisoner, look upon
the juror," the object being to give the prisoner the
opportunity of challenging. In this particular case
every one of these formalities was gone through, and
a jury of twelve was sworn, the prisoner having
exercised his right to challenge, and six persons were set
aside upon the ground of their coming from the neigh-
bourhood of the place where the crime was committed.
In addition to this, he (IVIr. Fitzgerald) took care him-
' self to lay down certain rules for the guidance of the
Crown solicitor, inasmuch as the nature of the trial was
peculiar, and he was desirous that nothing irregular
should be done. It was the right of the Crown to " set
aside" jurors ; and though the right had been sometimes
abused by the Crown for the purpose of " packing" a
jury, he hoped that it could never be said of him that he
used the power for any such unworthy purpose. He now
held in his hand a copy of the instructions which he had
given to the Crown Solicitor. let. Remove all publicans
and persons in the spirit trade. 2d. All whom you have
good reason to believe to be members of the Riband
Society or other illegal society. 3d. All persons from
the immediate vicinity of the scene of the offence.
4th. No juror to be set aside by reason of his reli-
gion. In addition to this, if the prisoner's counsel
objected to a juror, the Crown did not put him to
his challenge, but exercised its right in the prisoner's
favour, and set him aside. (Hear.) There was another
provision made for the prisoner. It was the custom of
the Crown to provide counsel for prisoners when, from
their condition of life, they were unable to obtain such
assistance. In the present case, inasmuch as it was a
special commission, and the prisoner was poor, he had
the whole bar to select from, and the Crown undertook
to pay the expense. The prisoner named to represent
him a gentleman of undoubted skill, of high character,
and of great experience—(hear)—and with such assist-
ance for the prisoner, the trial proceeded. After the jury
was sworn, but before any witnesses were examined, or
other steps taken, it was announced in court that one of
the jurors was taken so ill that he would be unable to
proceed with the trial. Accordingly, the Chief Justice
of the Common Pleas asked him (Mr. Fitzgerald) what
course ought to be adopted. The ordinary course was
to swear a medical man to examine him, and if it were
found that the juror was too ill to proceed, then
to discharge him. That course was adopted, and
upon the certificate of the medical man the juror was
discharged. Under those circumstances, although the
trial had not commenced, although no witnesses had
been examine-), the jury was formally discharged, and
another jury was sworn. The new jury was sworn, con-
sisting of the new juror and the original 11, every one of
whom was re-sworn, with the same forms and solemni-
ties as had been originally observed, except that the
formal warning was not given to the prisoner that he
was at liberty peremptorily to challenge the jury ; but
the counsel wet attorney of the prisoner were by, and
they might have challenged. When the jury was called
over, and the Clerk of the Crown came to the new jury.
man, he asked the prisoner, "Have you any reason for
objecting to this new man ?" The answer was, " I have
no reason," and he was accordingly sworn. The trial
proceeded, no objection was taken—(hear, hear)—no
suggestion was made, and he (sir. Fitzgerald) ob-
served that in the statement which had been drawn up
there was no allegation that the prisoner's counsel
was not aware that he bad the right to challenge.
The trial occupied two days, and the jury brought in a
verdict of guilty. Hon. gentlemen were aware that,
after the jury had returned their verdict, the prisoner
had another opportunity of urging any reason why the
judgment of the Court should not follow. Tae Clerk of
the Crown went through the solemn form of calling the
prisoner forward, of informing him that he had been found
guilty, and asking him if he had anything to urge why
the sentence of the law should not follow. Nothing was
said, counsel standing by, and the sentence of the law
was pronounced by the learned judge. (Hear, hear.)
It was net until some weeks after that anything further
was heard upon the subject, when an application was
made to the learned judges who tried the case to grant
their certificate; for the purpose of taking the case before
the Court of Criminal Appeal. The learned judges re-
fused their certificate. Application was then made to
him (Mr. Fitzgerald) to grant his fiat for a writ of
error. It was a matter in the discretion of the Atter
ney-General whether he should grant his fiat, and, in
the exercise of that discretion, he had done so the best
of his judgment. lie was in London when he received
the papers ; he proceeded to Dublin for the purpose of
hearing the counsel of the prisoner, and, on Monday last,
every ground was urged upon him in support of the pri-
soner's case. In the course of the discussion, .he put this
question to the prisoner's counsel, " Did you at the trial
observe what you now alleged to be a defect, or was it
something which afterwards occurred to you ?" Counsel
answered—"l did observe it at the trial ; I got two
persons to take a note of what occurred ; and I did not
take the objection at the trial, because I intended to
toke it afterwards." That was to say, he took his chance
of a verdict, and when ho found it was adverse to him,
he endeavoured to take advantage of a technical objec•
tion. Having heard all counsel had to urge on the pri-
soner'm behalf, he (tlr. Fitzgerald) entertained not the
slightest shadow of a doubt that there was no question
to be raised or discussed, and he therefore felt it t) be
his duty to refuse his fiat. The objection, if there was
any ground for it,- ought to have been taken at the
trial, and Ise felt it would have been an improper em-
ployment of the discretion vested in him if he had allowed
his fiat to have gone. The only effect of it would have
been to have prolonged the unhappy position of the con-
vict ; but if there had been the smallest ground for ac•
ceding to the application, he would have been glad to
have done so ;If the appeal to the house of the hon. and
learned gentleman should have the effect of reversing
the decision at which he (Mr. Fitzgerald) had arrived,
no member would be greater rejoiced than himself.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL felt so strong a convic-
tion in his own mind in regard to the manner in which his I
right hon. friend had exercised his discretion in the mat-