The Sun.
London, England, 1868-02-25 00:00:00

LTHE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY 25, 1868.

44}
74 1 Si

T SECUEITIE6,

He was remanded.

THE CLERKENWELL OUTRAGE.

BOW-STREET-THIS DAY.

William and Timothy Desmond, Nicholas Eng-

lisp, James O'Neill, John O'Keefe, Michael Bar-
rett, and Anne Justice, were again placed at the
bar, before Sir Thos. Henry, on a charge of wilful
murder.

Mr. Giffard, Q.C., and Mr. Poland appeared for
,he prosecution.

Sir T. Henry—You have closed your case for the
prosecution, Mr. Giffard ?
Mr. Giffard—Yes, sir.

Mr. Lewis said that on behalf of the prisoners
O'Keefe, Barrett, and Justice he should not make
any observations at present, preferring to reserve
their defence. But to his mind the case of O'Neill
seemed somewhat different. On the last occasion
the learned chief magistrate was kind enough, with
the consent of the learned counsel for the Crown,
to postpone the committal, in order to give him an
opportunity of calling witnesses for O'Neill. Ile
was not, however, about to call those witnesses, for
the simple reason that the poverty of O'Neill pre-
vented him from bringing them up from Glas-
gow, where they all resided. But the case
against O'Neill was so slight that he felt
that he should not be doing his duty if he did not
remark upon it. O'Neill was charged with wilful
murder—not with treason felony ; but oven if
it had been the latter offence, he should have been
prepared to contend that the evidence negatived it.
Massey, Corydon, and all the approvers, had been
evidence, and not one question had been put to
either of them about O'Neill. lie surely had a right
to assume this if they had known him. The ques-
tion would have been put to them, and as it had
not been put, it could only be because he was
not known to them. However, he had not
to deal with that question. Now, even if O'Neill
was a Fenian. What be had to consider was, what
was the evidence against him on the charge of mur-
der? The only evidence against him was that of
the witness Young, who first identified Wm. Des-
mond as the man who fired the barrel, and when
afterwards O'Neill was brought to this court he
suddenly turned round and said that was the man.
But very much stronger, in his opinion, was the'
negative evidence, and on this point he could not
do better than quote the observation of Mr. Giffard
at the last when speaking with refer-
ence
that the fact of his being
tothee prisonerxam examination,
Allen,on
unknown to Mullany rendered it difficult to believe
that he had been concerned in the plot. That
was a conclusion in which many agree, but it
derived additional weight when coming from the
learned counsel for the Crown. Now, with regard
to O'Neill, it was not merely that Mullany did not
say he knew him, but on being asked the question
by him (Mr. Lewis) he distinctly said that he did
not know O'Neill, and that he had never seen or
heard of him before. This went to show that the
case against O'Neill was one of mistaken identity.
He considered, indeed, that when the prisoner was
taken in Glasgow it was the duty of the police to
have made inquiries at once on the spot, when they
would have found what he was doing and where
he was employed the day before and for several
days after the date of the explosion, which would
have been conclusive evidence to them that he could
not have been concerned in that outrage.
Sir Thomas Henry said it was irregular for Mr.
Lewis to state what he alleged that he could prove,
if he was not about to call witnesses to prove it.
Mr. Lewis thought it was fair matter of com-
ment.
Sir Thomas Henry—l think not.

Mr. Lewis said, at all events, he was entitled to
urge the force of the negative evidence, and to com-
plain that he had been subjected to the suffering he
must have undergone, knowing himself to be inno-
cent, and being dragged away from his family and
friends and remanded to prison from week to week.

English, said
appeared for the Desmond and
Engll
would reserve thtir defence.
r.
case against the prisoners
Harper, who
they
jury.
. .
must Sir brre.suibiemnirtYte—he
submitted Ttoa

Mr. Lewis applied for the admission of O'Neil
to bail.

Sir T. Henry refused.
The several witnesses were called, and bound over
to appear at the sessions for prosecution in the sum
of £lOO.

The prisoners were all committed for trial.

CRIMINAL COURT.—This Pay.

NEW C OMlT-
(Before the Common Sergeant.)
John Houghton, 19, was indicted for a highway
robbery, with others, on Francis Lavett, and steal-
ing a watch and chain.

The prosecutor was a veterinary surgeon, in the
Minories, and on the evening of the 29th January,
about eight o'clock, he was in' Finsbury-square,
when four men came out of an archway and two
of them held him by the arms, while the others took
his watch and chain from him. An alarm was given,
but allfourmen escaped. A few days after Houghton
was taken for another robbery, and the prosecutor
on seeing him
at once identified him as the nun
who had robbed thina.
The jury returned a verdict of guilty.
_ _

The Common Sergeant told the prisoner he bad
been guilty of an offence which of late had become
very prevalent,
and which it was determined to
put down by the strong arm of the law. Had any
further violence been used other than holding his
arms he would have sentenced him to a much heavier
punishment than he was about to inflict. Under
all the circumstances he should sentence the
prisoner to be kept in penal servitude for seven
years.

Susan Dulay was indicted with feloniously mar-
rying with James Peck, her former husband being
still alive.

The parties were originally married at a very early
age, and in about two two years after frequent
quarrels occurred, and the result was that during
one of these blows were struck on each side, and a
separation took place. The second marriage took
place some time ago, and the peculiarity of the case
was that the first husband had been known to visit
the prisoner after it.

The prisoner pleaded guilty, and was ordered to
be kept in prison for one month.

POLICE INTELLIGENOL—This Day.

WESTMINSTER.

AN EXPERT PRACTITIONER.—MichaeI Narry, a
young man, was placed at the bar charged with
robbing a cabman.

Of late complaints of robberies of carriages of
every description have been very frequent, and
although detection and convictions have overtaken
many of the offenders expert thieves are still con-
stantly upon the look out, who even contrive
to carry on their depredations while carriages
are being On yesterday afternoon
iuloroadd Batched.ayliglit,Jo John Fitts, a cabman, set down
tPinavtoiliethne house, but before even a
in the Vauxhall-bridge-
road, e
a n a td
went the
glass of stout could be drawn for -him he was in.
formed that he bad been robbed of a waterproof
cape which he bad left on the driving box of his
en
cab.

Mr. Arnold—Did you leave your cab unat
tended ?

Cabman—No7 your worship. I left it in charge
of a
so manne whoe
is now here, but he did not see the
A tradesman, living next door to the Pavilion, said
that directly the driver had left the cab, and while
prirtk it.
the man in charge of it was at the horse's head,
prisoner adroitly took the cape and made off. Witness
cgaapvteurae.
an alarm, and pursued prisoner, who was

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

Two CHARGES OF ATTEMPTED SUICIDE.—Two
charges of attempted suicide were brought before
Mr. Tyrwhitt on remand.

In the first case a woman named Hannah Griffin
went into a public-house and said that she intended
to commit suicide, and took from her pocket a bottle
containing laudanum. She drank some of it, but
per§QA fiattUatelY klatnkin tho bottle out ot her