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

tain document from him ; but there was no such evidence in
that instance, therefore he made the objection.
Judge Bu ICI:ON—All the traversers are members of the As.
sociation, and the publication is by the Association.
Ju ige PERRIN 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 gueA was whether the evidence was against
his (311.. Whiteside's) client) ?
Mr. l'imunsorr 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 thing 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
31arch. 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 CHIEF JUSTICE asked, what the Learned Counsel
would say with reference to the document tinder date the 3d
of October, 1843

Mr. Irrzcianes; said, that the date was no proof that the
document 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. itl'DeNoGsr 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 he 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 ease 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. He 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 CidiEr JUSTICE—When was the bill of particulars fur-
nished ?

Mr. M‘DoNoc u—On the 13th of November, 1843.
The ATT•KNET-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 ef 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 Eridence, p. 492 (the edition of 1838). It
could not for a moment be contended that the Crown was
Galled upon to furnish is the bill of particulars the evidence
upon which the charge of conspiracy was to be based.
Judge Buicronr—The bill of particulars does not purport
to give or to state any of the evidence that might be adduced.
The ATTOENRY..GICNEKAU 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 evidebee, as
showing the general nature of the conspiracy with which the
traverserd were charged, should be admitted.
Mr. Mooag, Queen's Counsel, followed on the same side
with Mr. M'Douogh. He said he was not aware that Mr.
Browne's evidence went further than that at some time •r
other he printed those documents for the Association, and
was paid for them by the secretary.
Judge BUXTON said, 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. MoomE 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 tiaversers were present, they did
not come within any of the three classes of evidence referred
to by Mr. M'Donogh.
The SOLICI I-OK-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 JUSTICE pronounced his opinion. He lead been
first greatly struck by the arguments of the traversers' coun,el;
but, considering the nature of the charge against the traverser.,
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 Counsol for the traversers was,
therefore, untenable, and the documents should be admitted.
Judges BURTON and CRAAIPTOY 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.

THE STATE TRIALS.

The readers •f the Pilot will see by our columns that we are
faithfully redeeming the pledge given in our last. We have
been close, and not unobservant, ear and eye witnesses of the
proceedings in the Court of Queen's Bench since Monday, and
our readers shall in due time be placed in full possession of the
result.

Never, certainly, was there a stranger proceeding ; never a
lamer case. From no labouring mountain of threat ever crept
forth a lainuter mouse of statement and proof than the farrago
of the Attorney-General and his evidence up to the moment
we write.

On Monday we intend to publish a Supplement, in which
shall be given the speeches of O'Ccnnell and of Mr. Barrett,
delivered at Mullaghma,t, on which the Crown lawyers seem
to rely as the main buttresses of the case. During the reading
of O'Connell's magnificent speech a thrill of admiration per-
vaded the Court. That speech ought to be, and it shall be, re-
published in full.
Of other incidents in Court we shall speak, and amongst
other things we have to make the amend. to Mr. Frederick
Bond Hughes, which we shall do with much greater satisfac-
tion than we felt in assailing that gentleman.
'1 he greater portion of the time to-day was consumed by the
reading of documents—a work performed by Ross in a slow,
feeble, and unsatisfactory manner. The Mullaghmast speeches
were read a second tinze.—Pilot.