The Sun.
London, England, 1844-03-29 00:00:00

- -
IRISH ASSIZES.

NORTH TIPPERARY—Nenagh, March 23.
WILFUL MURDER OF THOMAS TIERNEY.
Patrick Gleeson, a powerfully-made young man, was placed
at the bar, charged with having, on the 12th of March, 1843,
been concerned in the wilful murder of Thomas Tierney.
Mr. BREWSTER, Q.C., stated the case for the Crown, and
said—Gentlemen of the Jury, the prisoner at the bar stands
indicted for one of the most barbarous murders that has dis-
graced even the annals of this county. It will appear in
evidence, that some time in the winter of 1842, or the begin •
ning of 1843, Thomas Tierney, who had been a prisoner
swore informations against two persons for firing at him.
That fact will be established beyond all doubt; but whether
he himself was mistaken in reference to the person who fired
at him we have no means of judging, as he never lived to
prosecute the parties. A man named Thomas Gleeson, the
brother of the prisoner at the bar, was one of those whom he
charged with the commission of that offence. The place
where this occurred was between Toomavara and the Devil's-
bit—a wild district in this county; and Tierney having sworn
his informations in February, 1843, and being bound over
to prosecute at the following spring assizes, it was con-
sidered advisable to put an end to the prosecution
by putting out of the way of the author of it. Thomas
Gleeson, one of the men accused, was a brother of the pri-
soner at the bar; and it is impossible to shut one's eyes to
the fact, all distressing as it is, that in this country there are
two codes of law in full operation. One is the law of the
land, which we are now assembled here to administer—one
in which every man accused has thrown around him the best
safeguard and protection, while every care is taken to pro-
tect innocence from being unjusily condemned. It is a
righteous and beneficent rule that better should ninety-nine
guilty men escape than one innocent man suffer, and such is
the code we are here to administer. By its agency the pri-
soner is put on his trial in the face of open day, with his ac
cusers before him, and the Court vigilant to see that his
cause shall suffer no unjust prejudice. Thomas Tierney, the
deceased man, met with no such trial. He was tried behind
his back—he did not know what was his crime, or who were
his accusers—no forms of justice were gone through—he was
condemned in secret, and met his death by the hands of as-
sassins, the willing instruments of that terrible code which
has made life and property, and everything dear to man,
insecure in this country. On the evening of the 12th of
March, 1843, the deceased was sitting in the house of
a woman named Sally Gleeson, or Sally Brien—in that
house where the owner of it, her two little children, and
a young girl, Bridget Grady. Bridget Grady was stand-
ing *beside the fire-place facing the door, having a
view of every one coming to the door; • the deceased was at
the opposite side of the fire, fondling one of the little chil
dren between his knees, when a party of monsters rushed
into the house, just after nightfall, and found him in that
condition, which was one calculated to disarm the most sa-
vage heart. But those executioners had no compunction ;
they desired the mother to take her children into another
small room, and she did so, getting with them under a bed,
and being in such a position as to render it impossible for
her to swear to the appearance of any of the men—or, at
least, she could not identify any engaged in that transaction.
She is an adult, and probably had not the courage to brave
the mandates -of a savage code. I find here that complaints
have been made, and sometimes I myself have indulged in
the .expression of disapprobation, of the conduct of those
who refuse to come forward to bring the perpetrators of a
crime to justice; but, after reading the details this case,
my surprise on the subject has ceased. It is an awful consi-
deration, and I am afraid you will find during the progress
of these assizes that murder is a crime committed here in
the most daring manner, and that those concerned in it
proceed in the most business-like way to put their unfortu-
nate victims to death. The child Bridget Grady, who was
in the house that night, has not sense enough to know the
danger of telling the truth. She witnessed the transaction,
and she is the only witness you can have to assist you in
your investigation. Upon her testimony alone the case
must depend. She is a very young child—not more than 11
years of age—and she, who is fully sensible of the obligation
of an oath, will tell you the entire of this transaction. It
does happen that, owing to a particular circumstance, she
was well acquainted with the person of the prisoner. She
was accustomed to receive instruction in the house of a
schoolmaster of the name of Kennedy, living very near to
the cottage of Sally Gleeson, and his place was on the road
side leading to a bog, to which the prisoner was in the habit
of going frequently to draw turf. I believe she did not know
his name, but she knew him by a soubriquet applied to him
of the" Omadhaun," and was intimately acquainted with his
person. She will prove that he was one of the five men con-
cerned in the murder, although I belieVe he did not strike a
blow. Upon the whole of the case it will be for you to form
an opinion as to the veracity of this witness, and if you en-
tertain no doubt of her veracity, and are also certain that she
could not be mistaken, why then it will be your duty to find
the prisoner guilty.
Sally Brien was examined, and corroborated the statement
of counsel as to the murder of Tierney in her house. On her
cross-examination she stated that the place was dark. She
never saw or keard who the men were that committed the
murder.

Bridget Grady, a very intelligent child of about eleven
years of age, was also examined and gave strong evidence of
the prisoner's guilt.
The prisoner's brother, sister, and mother, were examined
in support of an alibi.
Judge BALL charged the jury, remarking that the case de-
pended on the veracity and accuracy of the child.
The jury retired at ten o'clock, and after a time the fore-
man intimated that they had not agreed ; and asked if there
was any reasonable doubt of the child's accuracy, should not
the prisoner get the benefit of the doubt ?
Judge BALL said that was the great principle of the law in
criminal casas.

The jury at half-past eleven returned a verdict of Not
Guilty.
When they first went into their room the majority were,
we understand, fora conviction,