The Sun.
London, England, 1860-11-08 00:00:00

officers of that prison, I am sure the Board will
correct it. We cannot, without any affidavit, assume
that there are illegal austerities practised in that
prison.

Mr. Curran--I never said there were any, my

Mr. Justice Hayes—No, no ; but you said she
ought to be placed in one prison and not in another,
where there would be great severities practised
towards her.

Mr. Curran—l did not say severities, but rigid
austerities, according to the rules of the prison. I
did not say they were illegal, but that they were
more austere than in the Marshalsea. I should be
very far from alluding to the sentence in the man-
ner in which your lordship,seemed to think. I was
only speaking with respect to the prison itself.
One is in the city of Dublin, and convenient. The
other is on the Circular-road, and its rules are very
rigidly adhered to, and would subject this lady to
much inconvenience and hardship. I would appeal
to the merciful feeling of the Court to make the
order which I have asked.

The Chief Justice intimated that the sentence
remained as it was.

Some interval elapsed before the warrant of
committal was finally made out, and Miss Aylward
was finally removed to Richmond Bridewell in
custody of the sub-sheriff. Sir Simon Bradstreet
and some Roman Catholic clergymen remained with
her while in court.
ABSTRACTION OF TIIE SHERWOOD CHILDREN.-•THE
QUEEN V. THOMAS JAMES WROBINS.
Mr. Devitt applied on the part of Thomas James
M‘Robins, brought to the bar of the court in cus-
tody
of the tipstaff, Mr. Walker, that he might be
discharged from the custody of the tipstaff and of
the Marshal, on the ground that he had been ar-
rested so long ago as the 19th of June without being
committed to custody. Counsel proceeded to submit
that the man was entitled to his discharge, on the
ground that the prosecutor had been guilty of laches
in not obtaining an order for his committal, and
procuring a rule for the exhibition to him of inter-
rogatories.
The Chief Justice observed that the person was
in custody of the tipstaff, under the authority of an
order of attachment from the Court. He had been
arrested under the attachment, and was now in
Court under that attachment; and what was the
precise nature of the motion ?
Mr. Devitt submitted that his client was entitled
to be discharged, owing to the prosecutor not having
taken any steps for five or six months since his
arrest.

Mr. Brereton, Q C., in opposition to the applica-
tion, observed that it was the duty of the tipstaff to
make his return to the writ, and there yeas no affi-
davit on the other side—no petition for the dis-
charge of the man ; and the tipstaff would have
made his return to the writ on the day named for
that purpose—the 2d November—but that a request
was made on M'Robins's part to stay the doing so
pending the present motion.
The Chief Justice said the writ being returnable
only on the 2d November, how eould the person be
finally committed before the return day ?
Judge Hayes—The prisoner was only in the Mar-
shalsea for safe custody, as the tipstaff had no place
of his own in which to detain him, and he is now
brought up in pursuance of the exigency of the
writ.

Judge O'Brien inquired why the prisoner had
not himself applied for liberty to enter into recog-
nisances to answer interrogatories.
Judge Hayes remarked that there appeared no
lathes, and that it was for the prisoner himself, if
he wished to purge his contempt, to tender himself
to be sworn and answer interrogatories.
Judge O'Brien--Supposing you have a good
ground of complaint against some one or other,
show,us any authority establishing that the pri-
soner is now entitled to be discharged, he being in
contempt.
Air . Devitt referred to several authorities which,he
contended, indicated that it was the duty of the pro-
secutor to have the party promptly committed, and
to tender to him interrogatories.
The Chief Justice intimated that these cases had
no application to the one before the Court.
Mr. Brereton referred to the decision by Lord
Earlsfort, in this country, showing that the prose-
cutor could not oblige the prisoner to answer in-
terrogatories, and that it was for the latter to offer
to do so, if he wished to purge his contempt.
Judge Hayes remarked that that case had been
confirmed by the House of Lords.
After some discussion, it was held that the motion
for M'Robins's discharge was untenable and should
be refused.

The prisoner was then sworn, at his counsel's
request, to answer interrogatories, and in the mean-
time to be admitted to bail, on entering into recog-
nisances, himself in £lOO and two sureties in £5O
each.

Two men named O'Connor, also charged with the
abstraction of the Sherwood children, have also
been sworn to answer interrogatories ; and
Mr. Walsh, an attorney, applied on the part of
two women, also in the Marshalsea for contempt,
that they might be brought up for the same purpose. j