The Sun.
London, England, 1844-01-22 00:00:00

min document from him; hut there was no such evidence 'in
that instance, therefore he made the objection.
Judge BURTON—AII the traversers are members of the As-
sociation, and the publication is by the Association.
Ju ige PEI:1111.i said that the charge on the indictment was,
that a number of persons assembled for a particular purpose
and a particular object, and the preparation and printing of cer-
tain documents was surely evidence of the object of the Asso-
ciation. The documents should be read against one of the tra-
versers, and the question was whether the evidence was against
his (Mr. Whiteside's) client)?
Mr. FITZGIBBON said, that the only evidence about the do-
cuments was, that Browne printed them for the Association, and
was paid for them ; but when he printed them had not appeared,
with one solitary exception—a thin in the shape of a book, said
to have been printed some time in 1843, while all.the overt acts
relied upon by the Crown as showing a conspiracy arose since
March. There was not a single act charged in the indictment
against a defendant, except acts occurring in March last. Could
it be said, that acts done by the Association four years ago
ought to be now read in evidence of a conspiracy said to be
proved by acts done since March, 1843?
The CHM' JUSTICE asked, what the Learned Counsel
would say with reference to the document under date the 3d
of October, 1843 ?

Mr. FITZGIBBON said, that the date was 113 proof that the
doeument was printed then.
The Deputy Clerk of the Crown then proceeded to read a
number of documents, one of which was " Instructions for the
appointment of Repeal Wardens."
Mr. Al'DoNoust then rose to object to the reading of the
documents as against his client; and proceeded to read the
several matters enumerated in the bill of particulars, to show
the wide range of evidence selected by the Crown, and he
contended that if these books were not included, it was quite
plain that they ought to be now, on every principle of justice,
excluded. To show that the Crown could not be allowed to
wander out of the bill of particulars furnished, he referred to
the case of " the King against Hamilton," 7 Carrington and
Payne, page 453. In that case the prosecutors added to the
end of the bill of particulars furnished by them a notice that
they intended to produce further evidence not therein specified,
and Mr. Justice Littledale said that it would be for the Judge
at the trial to decide whether that further evidence, which was
not included in the bill of particulars, should be received. In
the present case, no such notice as that referred to was attached
to the bill of particulars, which was most minute and ample in
its details. Ile submitted that the point should be decided—
not in reference to the magnitude of the present trial, but
according to the general principle of law ; aad, confident that
that was in his favour, he objected, on the part of Mr. Barrett,
to the reception of the books in evidence.
The CHIEF JUSTICE—When was the bill of particulars fur-
nished ?

Mr. M'DoNoc ll—On the 13th of November, 1843.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL concurred in the observation of
Mr. M'Donogh that there should, in the decision to be made,
be no distinction between this and any other case. He denied
that the principle relied on by the opposite side was admissible.
They were not bound by any rule of law in cases of conspiracy
to enumerate all the evidence they intended to give. They
were only bound to specify the nature of the charge. That
was the principle established in all the recent decisions upon
this subject, as the Court would find by an abstract of the
cases bearing upon the point which their Lordships would find
in Phillips upon Evidence, p. 492 (the edition of 1838). It
could not for a moment be contended that the Crown was
called upon to furnish in the bill of particulars the evidence
upon which the charge of conspiracy was to be based.
Judge BURTON—The bill of particulars does not purport
to give or to state any of the evidence that might be adduced.
The ATTORNET.-GENERAC said not, and referred to a va-
riety of authorities in support of his position, and submitted
that the documents now proposed to be read in evidence, as
showing the general nature of the conspiracy with which the
traversers were charged, should be admitted.
Mr. MooR?, Queen's Counsel, followed on the same side
with Mr. M'Donogh. He said he was not aware that Mr.
Browne's evidence went further than that at some time er
other he printed those documents for the Association, and
was paid for them by the secretary.
Judge Buxtronsaid, he thought the question to be argued
was, whether these documents, as given in evidence, were
admissible, as not being contained in the bill of particulars ?
Mr. MooaE said, that was the question for the Court to
decide, but he wished to show, in the first instance, the na-
ture of the evidence given. He would submit that, as there
was nothing to show these documents were adopted at any of
the meetings at which the traversers were present, they did
not come within any of the three classes of evidence_ referred
to by Mr. M'Donogh.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL, in reply upon behalf of the
Crown, said that, as he understood the Counsel on the other
side, there were two arguments put forward by them in support
of the motion ; one of which was, that the evidence offered was
not set out as an overt act in the indictment or bill of par-
ticulars, which it was the duty of the Crown to have given, if
they intended to prove it. Now, he (the Solicitor-General)
would say, that such an argument was a misconception of the
law upon the subject, for it would be a most extraordinary doc-
trine to lay down, that the Crown was to furnish a prisoner er
defendant with the evidence to be brought forward against him.
The CHIEF J u STICR pronounced his opinion. He had been
first greatly struck by the arguments of the traversers' counsel;
but, considering the nature of the charge against the traversers,
he conceived that the Crown was not called upon to embody in
the bill of particulars the precise evidence to be given ; the ob-
jection urged by the Learned Counsel for the traversers was,
therefore, untenable, and the documents should be admitted.
Judges BURTON and CRAMPTON concurred with the Learned
Chief Justice ; and
The COURT ruled accordingly in favour of the Crown.
The Court adjourned till ten o'clock on Monday (this )
morning.