The Sun.
London, England, 1844-01-26 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY MORNI NG, JANUARY 20, 1844,

Tres, and grog, and coffee, and other eatables of that
sort ?—(Langhter.)
Did you know any of the people who sold these papers
that you bought one of ?—No, I did not.
They were-sold, and not circulated gratuitously among
the people ?—Yes.
You did not perceive any one giving them away fur
nothing ?—I did not.
I suppose in' these large assemblies in the south of
Ireland' you have frequently seen persons hawking
about ballads, and selling them ?—Yes.
Don't they usually take advantage of these large
meetings, and hover about the precincts of them, to sell
these ballads ?—I should think so.
They hover about the outskirts of a meetings, and en-
deavour to --retail these things for profit ? Every
place where they think they can make sale of them.
And I believe at assizes, while the judges are sitting
in the criminal courts, these ballad-singers are generally
to be found in the violnity of the courts 2—l have seen
them there.
With respect to the persons that had on their hats the words
" O'Connell's Police,' I ask you as a fair and honest man,
upon your r,ath, did not those people contribute to the pre-
servatioo oof the peace and order ?—Saw them exert themselves.
That is no answer—Did they clear the platform ?—They
may tvave intended to keep the platform clear, and to keep
order. about it; heard a man named Walsh give instructions to
the, people to keep order and quietness about the platform and
Were they peeled wands they had in their hands ?—The
sticks they had were smooth, and very slight.
,
They were not pieces of timber . They were pieces of
timber.

Oh ! they were of course made of timber, but they were
not 'what you called on your direct examination pieces of timber.
he Attorney-General—That was not what he said.
Mr. MiDonough—l beg your pardon, I insist I am right; he
called them pieces of timber, and then went on ; but it is of
no consequence.
Were you here on the entry of George the Fourth into
Dublin ?—I was not.

-----
You were at the Mullaghmast dinner ?—I was, but not all
the time.

One of the mottoes, you say, was, " No Soxon—( Laugh-
ter) betthery shall give blood-gout for a repast?—(Loud
lau_ghte.r.)—Yes .
Tkere was something better for repast on that occasion, I
believe ?—Some appeared not to be satisfied ; the dinner
appeared to be rather short.
You say another motto was—" Ireland dragged at the tail
of another nation."—That was the purport.
Mr. Al'Donough—A good heavy load she would have, would
she -not?

Mr. O'Connell—And a strong tail.—(Laughter.)
Witness—There was a private carriage in the procession.
Did you take down all the mottoes ?—I did not.
Why did you not take them down ?—Because I thought it
was no consequence.
Perfectly harmless ?—Quite so.
Not material ?—Just so.

Therefore you did net take them ?—Just so.
The witness then left the table.
The Attorney-General called on the Clerk of the Crown to
read the ballad that was circulated at Mullaghmast.
Mr. Mcore said the evidence of the last witness, as he un-
d'erstood it, was this, that there were papers distributed or sold
en the course of the meeting ; that he himself purchased one
which he had lest ; but he got the docement in question from
another policeman, with a mark upon it. Under those circum-
stances he did not consider that document admissible.
The Solicitor-General said the witness saw the other police-
man pet a mark upon it.
The Chief Justice said Mr. Moore was not acquainted with
the entire of the witness's evidence.
Mr. Moore said he had been out of Court during a part of it.
Mr. M'Donough said they had an additional objection.
They contended upon the evidence that that document was
not receivable. Very great latitude had been allowed in
cases of conspiracy where it was fair to be inferred that the
distribution of the document was in furtherance of the common
object, and by some of the conspirators; but he (Mr. M'Donough )
had never heard, and he apprehended there was no authority
to show, that where it was proved, as in this case, that in this
vast and peaceable assemblage, persons either hovered about the
skirts of the meeting, or mingled with the crowd for the purpose
of selling ballads ; persons who were proved to be in the habit of
watching large meetings to get an opportunity of selling their bal-
lads or songs,—it would be.unjust in the last degree to inculpate
those who took no part in their sale, and never sanctioned
their being sold or distributed. There was not the remotest
connexion between any of the traversers, or the parties who
convened that meeting, or who held that meeting, and the
ballad sellers, and the witness upon his examination admitted
that the people paid more attention to the speeches of Mr.
O'Connell and the other gentlemen than to the ballads. Those
ballads were distributed by sale amongst the people, not as the
act of the persons connected with that meeting, and he would
submit that, under the circumstances, the document in ques-
tion was not admissible.
The Attorney-General said there was no proof that ballads
of that description were in the habit of being sold at large
assemblies.
Mr. M'Donough contended that the witness on cross-exami-
nation alluded to a temperance meeting consisting of 300,000
persons, and admitted that ballad singers were there distribut-
ing their ballads.
The Attorney-General said there was no evidence of ballads
such as the one in question being sold at that temperance
meeting.
Mr. ll4Donough admitted that that portion of the evi-
dence did not include this particular document. It was
not for him to say what evidence would be adduced by the
traversers, in reference to that ballad ; but they had the
evidence of Mr. Brown, the printer, the authorised agent of
the Association, to show that he never printed anything of the
kind, and that such a document was never put into his hands.
Besides, they had in evidence that these ballads were sold ; and,
was it not in accordance with their knowledge of probabilities
that, if those ballads were sanctioned by the travers --s, they
would have been distributed gratuitously ? How monstrous
would it be if, at the vast temperance assemblies sworn to by
the witness, some person in that crowd sold ballads, and that
Father Mathew was to be put on his trial for those ballads, and
tales of ancient history were to be given in evidence against
bin ? If such a doctrine were admitted it would be in the
power of any designing person to convert a perfectly legal as-
sembly into an illegal one.
The Attorney-General quoted the King r. Hard, to show
that the ballad was admissible in evidence. What was the
evidence at present before the Court? They had it proved
by Mr. Hughes that Mr. O'Connell at that very meeting at
Alallaghmast said that " he had chosen it (meaning the Rath
of Mullaghmast) for an obvious reason—they were upon the
precise spot on which English treachery, and false Irish trea-
chery, too, consummated a massacre unequalled in the crimes
of the world." He said, that was a fit place, in the open air,
to assert their determination not to be destroyed by treachery ;
and that while he lived they Lever should. That the meeting
was not held there by accident but by design, and that where
his voice was then raised the yell of dispair was once heard
from the victims who had fallen beneath the swords of the
Saxons, who delightfully ground their victims to death. That
three hundred unarmed men were slaughtered in the mer-
riment •f the banquet, leaving their wives and children to
drop useless tears over them. This (continued the Atter-
nev-General) is the contents of the old Irish history,
which was printed and circulated at Mullaghmast. Mr.
O'Connell could not be heard by 300,000 men ; but it was
proved that the contents were spoken at the dinner in the
pavilion. He (the Attorney-General) for that reason proposed
reading it. It had been circulated amongst the hundreds
of thousands who could not hear Mr. O'Connell, but could
read it. The " Voice from the Grave " was also used at the
Pavilion, nand it was clearly admissible in evidence. A
distinction had been taken that it was inadmissible be-
cause it had been sold ; but surely it was not because a
penny
.or a half-penny might have been got for it that it was
to be rejected. There never was a case where the admission of such
evidence was of more importance. It was circulated at a meeting
assembled for the purpose of creating discontent and disaffection
amongst her Majesty's subjects. The slaughter committed 100
years ago, was, for this purpose, revived in the minds of the
people by this " Voice from the Grave," combining all these
circumstances together, the documents were clearly fit to be
given in evidence. He put it in evidence to show the mode
adopted of circulating such sentiments among the people, and
relied as an authority upon the case of the King v. Hunt. He
concluded by saying, that it was for the Jury to consider how
far Mr. O'Connell and the other traversers were connected
with its distribution.

Mr. Monahan (for Mr. John O'Connell) said, that the doc-
trine advanced by the Attorney-General was unsupported by
authority. If he recollected the opening statement of the At-
torney-General, he said that he had the printer of these docu-
ments, and named as such a person called Hanvey, who lived in
Fishamble-street. He had not, as he did in the case of other
documents, produced the printer to prove that they were got
out by the directions of any particular person, or the objects for
which they were printed. There was no evidence that they
were published by any one charged with the conspiracy. The
Attorney-General had not, as in the case of Brown, produced
any person to prove that they emanated from Mr. O'Connell
or the Repeal Association. On the contrary, it was likely
that the document was published by this man ( Hanvey) for
profit ; that it was his own act, and not that of any one
'charged with the conspiracy. He did not object to the placards
being given in evidence, because they were openly and publicly
exhibited at the meetings ; but there was no proof to show
that these papers were exposed in the presence of Mr. O'Connell
or his friends, or that they had any knowledge of their con-
tents. He did not say that it was necessary to prove that the
circulation was the act of Mr. O'Connell or any of the tra-
versers, but it should be proved that it was done with the know-
ledge of, or at least adopted by, some one of them. No doubt but
formerly evidence in cases of this sort was permitted to an extreme
length ; yet they had not, on the other hand, cited auy case
similar to the one before the Court. If the circulation was an
object with the Association, they would not have charged for
it ; a few pence was of no value to them. It had not been
proved that the publication was with the knowledge or sanction
of the Association, or in furtherance of its objects. The At-
torney-General, when commenting upon it in the presence of
the jury, ought to have stated that it was a slaughter committed
by Catholics.
• Mr. O'Connell—l said a slaughter of Catholics by Catholics.
Solicitor-General—The question for the Court was, should
these documents be admitted or rejected. If admitted it
was open to the traversers to give any explanation
about them which they could. He thought they ought to
be admitted upon two distinct grounds. First, they were
part of the res gestce, the character of the meeting, the
transactions there, the circulation of such matter as was con-
tained in the documents, he would assume bore directly upon
the charge in the indictment. That charge was one of en-
tering into a conspiracy to excite animosity amongst her Ma-
jesty's subjects ; and the proper means to be used for the sup-
porting of that charge was to prove the large numbers at these
meetings, the notices which convened them, the harangues
which were made and they (the Crown) were then proving
what occurred at one of these meetings. Ilull hmast meet-
ing, it should be observed, had been calledag
' by advertisement,
and it was proved that Mr. Brown, the printer of the
Association, printed that placardonr,a advertisement, calling
/the meeting. He did not care 'whether the placard calling
gratuitously
doirffersoooldre
for
that meeting was circulated
money, as it did not make any material difference
onlp t i
differed
hart p
advertisement calling
part and parcel of the meeting itself.
Association
widely with Mr. Monahan, for it was
for the Crown to show any authority from the
Yelling that meeting, as the advertisement was sufficientGeforlati°n
the
Crown in that case, and it did not lie in the mouth of the Assn_
ciation to say they are not responsible for the consequences
when the meeting did not take place. Had henot prima facie
'evidence there that several documents were circulated at the
meeting, stating the professed objects of that meeting?
Such documents might be circulated by O'Connell's Police,
or by the Repeal Wardens, for all he knew, before the
meeting ; and was it to be said that the thousands of
those documents which were circulated at the meeting,
were calculated, without the knowledge of the traverser',
was he to be told that there was not a case of prima Icicle
evidence to go to the jury, and let them take it as they rr ight ?
Mr. Monahan asked, :why not prove that the document was
printed by wish or authority of the Association ; but he did not
want to prove that, as it was given as part of the res gestce of
the case; suppose the Association had circulated their printed j
cards--

Mr. Whiteside—l beg your pardon, there is nothing private
about the Association, all is done publicly.
The Solicitior•Gentral said he would use that expression at

present to distinguish the cards distributed at the Asso-
ciation from those distributed at the meeting. Suppose the
documents were not. printed by the order or with the know-
ledge of the Association, then it was competent for the
traversers to rebut the evidence, and produce the printer aho
did print them, and let him say for whom they were executed.
He contended that the evidence could not be refused, as it was
given as part of the res gesta of the case, and that the docu-
ments were circulated by the Association. The documents
were circulated by the Association at the meeting, because the
two hundred and fifty thousand persons who composed it could
not hear all that was said by the speakers. He, therefore,
under all the circumstances, submitted that the document must
be used in evidence, and let the jury set what value they might
on it afterwards.
The Chief Justice was of opinion that the document should
beadmitted on evidence,'but he did not say what effect it would
have as evidence. At the same time, he thought it ought to
be laid before the jury, and let it form a part of the case
on which they were ultimately to give their judgment. Mr
Moore and Mr. Monahan objected to the admissibility of the
document on different grounds; but he would not say they did
agree on both grounds of objection. However, it was to Mr.
Monahan's argument he would at present direct his observations
and consideration. Mr. Monahan said it could not be proved
that the document was circulated with the consent of the par-
ties, or with ,the views of those who called the meeting, and,
therefore, it could not be admitted as evidence. Let him see
how the case case stands ; he supposed that nobody would deny
that evidence was already before the Court and jury of the
existence of the Repeal Association, which consisted of a
great body of persons, who had assembled from time to
time, and held large meetings ; nobody would deny that. It
could not be denied that the leaders of that Association were
in the habit of knowing where such meetings were held,
and that they were called by the authority of the Asso-
ciation, of which the several traversers were proved to be
members. In furtherance of the objects of the Association,
and for the purposes of those meetings, the practice was,
for some time before the meetings, to publish the
fact. It was deemed advisable, before the meeting at
Mullaghmast, to have a great monster meeting, or provin-
cial meeting, or, as it was called, the Leinster Declaration
for Repeal, and this was done, and the meeting was called by
placard to assemble on the Ist of October, at Mullaghmast,
and that place was accordingly appointed as the scene of that
great monster meeting, and it should be recollected the plan
was so appointed before the Ist of October, the day on which
the meeting was held. It was in evidence that instructions
were given to Mr. Brown, the printer ef the Association, by
the secretary of the Association, to print and publish a num-
ber of advertisements calling that meeting, and that such in-
structions were complied with, and the advertisement was cir-
culated. That placard called a meeting of the province of
Leinster to assemble at Mullaghmast on the Ist of October,
and Mullaghmast was the plane named by the parties call-
ing the meeting. The people called on to attend that
meeting got a very significant hint of what they were called
together for, as it was stated at the foot of the advertise-
ment, " Remember Mullaghmast." That was to bring the
matter to their recollection. They had it in evidence
that Mr. O'Connell attended at the meeting, and ex-
plained very fully why the scene of the meeting was chosen
at Mullaghmast. Mr. O'Connell made two speeches—one
in the morning, and one in the evening, at the banquet.
Mr. Barrett, another of the traversers, was there, and also
made a speech, and both the traversers stated that Mullagh-
mast was chosen for the meeting for a particular purpose,
and that it was done firmly and deliberately, and chosen
before hand. It should not be forgotten again that
the people were called on to remember Mullaghmast.
What was Mr. O'Connell's object in fixing on Mullagh-
mast as the place for the meeting, but to bring to the re-
membrance, and perhaps to the feelings of those assem-
bled, the scenes alleged to have taken place there in former
times ? Whether that was likely to produce excitement or
not he did not say ; but one of the seasons given by Mr.
O'Connell himself for assembling there was to bring to the
recollection of the meeting the treachery and cruelty of the
Saxon race, and the want of safety there was in dealing with
them. The people then were invited to come to Mullaghmast
as a provincial meeting, and consequently a very great one, and
the invitation or summons to them was given expressly by the
Association through their officer and secretai y, Mr. Ray, and
the cards were printed by Mr. Brown, the printer to the Asso-
ciation. Now, where Mr. O'Connell and the Association took
upon themselves to collect the people together, in such crowds,
to the amount of 250, 000, it was worthy of consideration to
say whether it was not an illegal act. He would not say
whether it was or was not, but he said that those who
ventured to collect the meeting, must abide the consequences
of their own act as to what was done connected with the meet-
ing. There were 250,000 persons assembled together at Mul:
laghmast. The first thing done was the handing about a paper
purporting to be a full and true account of the dreadful slaughter
or murder at Mnllaghmast on the bodies of four hundred
Roman Catholics. Whether this was given away as a donation,
or whether it was sold, did not appear to him to be of much
consequence. Their being circulated and dish ibuted over the
field was a necessary consequence of the assembling of the
people at the place to hear and receive a history of what had oc-
curred before Mr. O'Connell addressed them on the subject.
He could not pass ever the fact that Mr. O'Ceeeell, in the
two speeches which he made, and Mr. Barrett, in the one
which he made, drew a picture of what had occurred at Mul-
laghmast similar to the one presented for sale to the people.
They all concurred in their representations of what took place
three hundred years before, by those who were of Saxon con-
nexion—the treachery and cruelty they practised, and that
they could never be trusted again. So far, therefore, from
being unconnected with the professed object of the meeting,
it seemed to him to be intimately connected with it; and it
would be impossible to call the attention of the jury from the
fact that 250,000 persons were assembled together by adver-
tisement; and it would be for them to say whether the history
of the slaughter or murder said to have taken place was not
connected with that meeting. He had not, therefore, the
slightest doubt that the objection to the evidence ought not
to be allowed, and that the document was admissible in evidence.
Mr. Justice Crampton said he was of the same opinion, that
the evidence was admissible, his reasons for which he should
state very briefly. It was admitted on both sides that the
document was one of importance, but whatever the nature or
character of the paper was, it appeared to him it could not be
rejected as evidence. With regard to the objection urged
against it, it must be clear the meeting at Mullaghmast was one
of the overt acts in the indictment, and the acts and declarations
of all persons who formed that assembly became, therefore, of
importance to consider; prima facie all persons there be-
longed to the meeting, therefore every person might disconnect
himself from it by evidence. The act and declarations of one be-
came the acts and declaration of all, if they were considered to
act in concert, and therefore it was that what was said by one
in one part of the field, though it might be a quarter of a
mile off, became evidence against the other who might be on
the platform. Here was an assembly for the purpose ef dis-
I cussing a particular thing, and a paper was distributed by
thousands amongst the assembly, and what upon the face of it
did it purport to be ? It drew particular attention to the place
of meeting. Now let him suppose, as put by the Counsel for
the Crown, that some person in a different part of the field
read out this paper aloud, would any one contend that it could
not be received in evidence. No doubt it would be so re-
ceived. He was of opinion from the beginning that that ob-
jection was perfectly untenable.
Mr. Justice Perrin said that it appeared in evidence that
from morning till night (these were the words of the witness)
several persons were engaged in circulating—in crying about
through the meeting, those documents—that was publicly
stating the substance of them, and no person interfered to pre-
vent, or repress, or atop them. He did not say to what effect
the evidence would be; all he said was, that under those cir-
cumstances it was impossible to exclude that evidence. He
did not mean to say that it would go to affect the Association,
or to connect it with them directly, but that was a matter for
the jury to decide upon ultimately, considering the evidence
for and against the prosecution.
The document was then handed in and read. It purported
to give " a full, true, and accurate account" of the terrible
massacre of four hundred Irish Catholics at the Rath-more of
Mullaghmast. The first paragraph contained a statement of
the cruelty committed on the occasion referred to, and pro-
ceeded to give an extract from Taaffe's History of Ireland,
wherein the massacre was described as occurring during the
reign of Queen Mary. Some comments followed, wherein
Mary was designated as Bloody Mary. The document con-
cluded by giving a summary of different authorities as to the
date of the massacre ; and the author, having satisfied himself
that it occurred during Mary's reign, proceeded to show that
whether Catholicism or Protestantism were triumphant in
England, Ireland was always treated by English rulers with
equal barbarity and treachery.
Mr. Whiteside applied to have a copy of this document fur-
nished him. They wished to have the name of the printer.
The paper was handed to the Learned Gentleman.
The Attorney-General then put in a copy of her Majesty's
speech as evidence, requiring as much of it as related to Ire-
land to be read.

Mr. Moore objected to its being produced.
The Attorney-General was very much surprised at the ob-
jection. There bad been in the course of these trials several
speeches of Mr. O'Connell proved, in which he commented on
the speech of her Majesty at the prorogation of Parliament,
taking sentence by sentence, and he apprehended a document
so commented on might be taken in evidence. It was alleged
that it was not the speech of her Majesty, but the speech of
her Ministers--that it contained language only fit for a fish-
woman—that it was a Billingsgate speech—and other observa-
tions of an extraordinary character were made respecting it.
He therefore asked, quite as a matter of course, that the por-
tion of the speech so commented on by Mr. O'Connell should
be put in, it being clearly a matter of evidence.
The Landon Gazette of August 25th, and the Dublin Ga.
zette of August 29th, were then put in, and the portion of her
Majesty's speech referring to Ireland, and expressing her de-
termination to maintain the Legislative Union between the
countries, were then read.

Jarses Irwin, station-house clerk of the Liverpool constabu-
lary, sworn—He said he was at Liverpool on the 13th of Oc-
tober. He saw placards of a particular description posted in
various parts of Liverpool. He took down one of the placards
which he produced. It was a copy of the address to all the
subjects of the British Crown, containing a statement of the
guievances of Ireland, and which Mr. O'Connell had wished to
have in circulation in all the towns of the empire. The name
of Mr. Brown was attached to it as printer.
Mr. Charles Vernon called—Held the situation of Registrar
of Newspapers in the Stamp-office ; it was in his office that
the deelarations made by the proprietors and publishers of
newspapers were lodged. The newspapers themselves are also
lodged there as published. He had here the declaration of Mr.
Barrett, as proprietor of the Pilot.—(Declaration produced. )
He had seen Mr. Barrett write, and that was his hand. Had
also the declaration of Charles Gavin Duffy, as proprietor of
the Nation. He was not acquainted with Mr. Duffy. The
declaration was lodged at his office in the regular way of busi-
nese.—( Declaration produced.) Had the declaration of George
Atkinson and Dr. John Gray as proprietors of the Freeman's
Journal; E. Duffy was the printer. He was not acquainted with
Dr. Gray's writing, but he had seen Mr. Duffy write; it was
the practice for papers to be sent to his office signed
by the publishers as required by Act of Parlia-
ment. The documents which are now handed to me, are
accurate and authentic copies of the original declarations duly
signed before Mr. Cooper, the Comptroller and Accountant..
General of the Stamp Department. They bear the signatures
respectively of Richard Barrett, John Gray, George Atkin-
son, Edward Duffy, and Charles Gavin huffy. The latter
gentleman is registered as the sole proprietor, printer, and pub-
lisher of the Nation newspaper.
Mr. Smyly—Have you with you at present any copies of the
Nation, Freeman's Journal, and the Pilot newspapers which
were left in your office?—Yes, I have—here they are.—( Wit-
ness produced a file of newspapers.)
Have you got the Nation ofthe 10th of June ?—Yes ; i
has the signature of Charles Gavin Duffy.
Mr. Srnyly—Turn to the leading article of that paper.
Mr. Whiteside objected to the copy of the newspaper being
put into the witness's hands at the present stage of the pro-
ceedings. He (counsel) had not had the opportunity of exa•
wmininghandedrit n g
itbnhe been
n They
pehrr
net ivyfiehedda
;d canonopdt san
nyodef
et
rdh oetcehunems
re documents
circumstances,
n worh ihcand thi e ht
abwne edn
s
manifestly premature to ask any questions relative to the news-
paper.
The
Attorney-General—You may have the original docu-
ments to examine, if you wish, Mr. Whiteside.
The documents were handed to Mr. Whiteside, who having
examined them, said that he considered the evidence on this
branch of the case wholly defective. The declarations pur-
ported to have been signed in the presence of a Mr. Cooper,
the Accountant-General, but not a tittle of evidence had been
adduced as required by the Act to show that Mr. Cooper
was person hiTing
full and competent authority, 41
was

point of law, to take such declaration. The Learned Coun-
sel referred to:the case of the King v. White, in support of his
position, that it was necessary to prove the competency of the
officer.
Attorney-General—lf I mistake not, the witness was asked
whether Mr. Cooper was not the proper officer to take these
affidavits, and he answered distinctly in the affirmative.
Mr. Whiteside—Oh, you are labouring under a sad misap-
prehension. No such question was asked him at all.
Witness—Mr. Cooper is the proper officer to take in decla-
rations.
Mr. Whiteside—Now, how do you know that, Sir ?--I never
saw his commission ; hut I have no doubt of the fact, for I have
been acting under him for several years.
Mr. Whiteside-4n what capacity ?—As registrar of news-
' papers. I presume that Mr. Cooper has a commission, but I
never saw it.
Mr. Whiteside—My Lords, it is absolutely incumbent on
tkem to adduce proper evidence to prove the authority of Mr.
Cooper to take the declarations.
Attorney-General—l do not take the same legal view of
this point as my Learned Friend ; but Mr. Cooper is in Court,
and, for Mr. Whiteside's gratification, we will have hlm exa-
mined.
Jonathan Sisson Cooper sworn and examined by Mr. Smyly
—I am comptroller and accountant-general in the Stamp de-
partment. I have held my office for twenty years. It is one
of the duties of my office to take newspaper declarations. The
declaration now handed me was made by Charles Gavin Duffy,
and was sworn before me on the 18th of Nov., 1842. Saw it
signed by Mr. Duffy. The declaration now handed to me is that
of the .beeman's Journal, and was signed by Dr. Gray, Dr.
Atkinson, and Edward Duffy, on the Bth of Feb., 1841. Mr.
Barrett's declaration was signed in my presence on the Bth of
Dec., 1837.
Cross•examined by Mr. Whiteside—l have a commission,
but it is not here ; can't say that I know Mr. Duffy.
Ah ! why did you not tell me that before ? How then can
you swear to his handwriting ?—I know that the party whose
signature is affixed to that declaration signed it before me ; he
was present when he signed it.—( Laughter. )
lam obliged to you, for that information, Sir. You don't
know Mr. Duffy 7—No, Sir.
Thank you, Sir, that will do.—(Laughter.) Do you read
the Repeal debates in the Evening Mail 7—Sometimes, per-
haps, I do, but very seldom.
Do you read the Nation, or the Freeman's Journal 7—No,
the only paper I read is Saunders's, in the morning.
Ha! you patronise frigid Saunders, do you ?—(Laughter.)
—Sometimes I do.
The Repeal debates appeared in that paper as in every other
paper, and yet you see they have selected some journals for a
conspiracy.
Mr. Whiteside submitted that there was no particular evi-
dence of the publication, and in criminal cases the rules of evi-
dence should be strictly observed. The signature should be
proved by some one who knew Mr. Duffy.
The Attorney-General—The newspaper was published in
Dublin under the terms of the Act of Parliament, and there
is a heavy penalty imposed on any person publishing a news•
paper, without lodging the proper certificate, that certified
his bail, produced from the Stamp-office, the place
where it ought to be. Under these circumstances, the
question for the consideration of the Court was—whether
the certificate signed by this gentleman in the presence of
the proper officer, and who represented himself as Charles
Gavin Duffy, and by whom the paper was since regnlarly
published, was not primafacie evidence; and some of the wit-
nesses for the Crown proved that Mr. Duffy, as editor and pro-
prietor of that paper, attended at the meetings. The Attorney-
General then read the Bth section of the Newspaper Act, 6th
and 7th William the Fourth, and submitted that, under its
terms, the evidence offered was admissible.
Judge Perrin—Can't you prove the handwriting and get rid
of the argument.
Chief Justice—The rule of law is the same in civil and cri-
minal cases.
Judge Perrin—Sure Mr. Cooper said that Mr. Duffy signed
the declaration.
Mr. Whiteside—My Lords, the first newspaper published by
the proprietor of the Nation is dated the Bth of October, and
the document Mr. Cooper proved is dated the 18th of Novem-
ber, so that it cannot be the right document.
Mr. Brewster cited the case of Mayne v. Fletcher, in
9th Barnewall and Cresswell, page 382, and contended that, in-
asmuch as the title of the newspaper corresponded with that set
forth in the declaration produced out of the custody of the
proper officer, it was evidence of its publication by the party
charged. The paper was entitled " The Nation, published
every Saturday, at No. 12, Trinity-street, where all commu-
nications were to be addressed," and the matters set out in the
declaration corresponded with that, and he now submitted, on
the authority of the case quoted, that the Crown were not
bound to go farther.
Mr. Whiteside—That is a different view to that taken by the
Attorney-General and Mr. Smyly.
To the witness—Hand me the first copy of the Nation
newspaper.
Mr. Brewster—No question can arise except as to the paper
we offer in evidence.
Judge Crampton—Does not this plainly appear, that one
Charles Gavin Duffy is the proprietor, editor, and printer of
this newspaper called the Nation, and the only difficulty that
suggests itself is the identification of the particular individual,
as there may be two or three Charles Gavin Duffys. We have
evidence on our notes that the traverser here is the editor of the
Nation.

Mr. Whiteside—Your Lordship will excuse me for saying
that there is ne legal evidence yet to that effect.
Judge Crampton—That is not exactly what I have, but that
the traverser is editor of a newspaper, and was recognised as
such at meetings of the Association.
Mr. Whiteside—With the greatest respect I think your
Lordship is confounding two distinct things.
Mr. Brewster cited another case in which Mr. Justice Bay-
ley delivered a judgment in England, on which they also relied
in support of their argument.
Judge Crampton—Here is the evidence I alluded to. In
the evidence of a witness named John Jackson, he says that
Mr. Duffy of the Nation attended at a meeting and handed in
so and so.
Mr. Whiteside—l thought your Lordship had struck out
his evidence from your notes altogether. That's the man from
Kilrush, who reported after a manner, or took them from the
notes of whoever happened to be next him.
Chief Justice—What do you say to Mr. Brewster's case?
Mr. Whiteside—Why, that puts it better for the Crown
than it was put originally ; but I think they must give some
evidence to identify the person on trial with the person who
signed the declaration. The slightest evidence in a legal form
to identify those parties will make out their case, but without
it I rely on my objection.
Mr. Tomb called their Lordships' attention to the Bth
section of the Newspaper Act, 6th and 7th William the Fourth,
which enacted that every such copy so produced and certified,
is to have the same effect, for the purposes of evidence, against
every such person named as aforesaid, to all intents and pur-
poses whatever, as if the original declaration had been produced
in evidence, and then proved to have been duly signed by the
persons appearing by such copy to have signed it.
Mr. Bennett—He is described in the indictment as Mr.
Duffy, of Rathmines, and the description in the declaration is
the same.
Mr. Whiteside—l admit all that ; but suppose the declara-
tion was produced, you rust give sonic evidence of identity.
The cases in England are express upon that point.
Mr. Brewster said, that in the case of the King against
Hutton, in the State Trials, page 307, the Court ruled that they
were only required to produce the declaration.
Mr. Whiteside could not see what that case decided.
Mr. Justice Crampton—Suppose there were two persons of
the same name on trial on the same charge, and evidence
exactly like the present was brought forward, which of the two
is the person that is conclusively bound by the Aet of Parlia-
ment—which of the two is the evidence against?
Solicitor-General—Against either.
Mr. Justice Crampton—lf it be evidence against either, you
might have the two men convicted on the two indictments,
upon the same paper, of which it was alleged only one was the
proprietor. In my opinion very slight evidence, in addition
to the statutable evidence, is required. For my own part, I
have no difficulty in point of fact, for I find on my notes, in the
first instance, Mr. Duffy described by a witness, who was very
fully and very ably cross-examined, as being the editor of the
Nation. I think that Mr, Whiteside is right on the ground
he takes—that something in addition to the statutable evidence
is required.
Attorney-General—The Court is not to infer that a person
has been carrying on the Nation 8.3 Charles Gavin Duffy, the
person being actually another person.
Mr. Justice Perrin—The question is, whether this is that
Charles Gavin Duffy. It is not denied that some Charles
Gavin Duffy is publishing the Nation, but the question is
whether the traverser here is he.
Mr. Justice Crampton—l think you will find that Jackson,
in his evidence, said " Mr. Duffy of the Nation."
Mr. Whiteside—We understood that to be proof that Mr.
Duffy was a member of the Association, and nothing more.
Mr. Justice Crampton thought that was a scintilla of evi-
dence that he was editor of the Nation.
Mr. O'Hagan said he would suppose that there were two
Mr. Duffys at the bar, and, then, should it not be proved
which of them was the proprietor? Mr. Jackson, the reporter,
had not stated that Mr. Duffy was the proprietor of the Nation,
but that a Mr. Duffy had handed in money. He would not
say that the traverser was not identified, but he was not iden-
tilled as having signed the certificate. If two Duffys were at
the bar, clearly one should be identified ; and that applied
equally in this case, where the witness had not identified Duffy
as the proprietor.
The Chief Justice said he was not satisfied that the Crown
had given sufficient evidence of identity in the case. At that
stage the evidence was imperfect.
Mr. Bennett said he thought the Act of Parliament was
sufficiently plain to render discussion unnecessary.
The Chief Justice said the point did not come within the
meaning of the Act. In the case before the Court proof was
required that Mr. Duffy was the proprietor. The Act required
that he and his publisher sign a declaration. They had signed
it, and, if nothing more was required by the Act, that declara-
tion would be evidence against any person signing it as pro-
prietor or publisher. That was a document by which the
party was bound. But, to prevent any difficulty, the
Bth section contained another provision—enabling evi-
dence to be given against the proprietor or pub-
lisher in a summary way ; and that evidence was the certi-
ficate signed by the proper officer of the Stamp-office, and if
he had been there to give evidence in place of Mr. Cooper, all
might be right. The Act provided, that upon producing,a copy
of that document, certified under the hand of one of the Com-
missioners, and upon proof of its being signed in his hand.
writing, it should be received in evidence against any person
named in the certificate. Oh (continued the Chief Justice),
on reading the Act I am now of opinion that the statutable
proof offered is sufficient.
The Attorney-General said he could give other proof of pro-
prietorship, but he would not, except the Court decided the
point against him.
Mr. Justice Perrin said that the declaration of the Attorney.
General was rather inconsistent with the course be had pre-
viously pursued. He had given proof of the handwriting of
Mr. Barrett, and he had done so of Mr. Duffy's handwriting,
too, by Mr. Cooper, until Mr. Cooper failed upon cress-exa-
mination.

The Solicitor-General said, if the Court required proof of
the handwriting of Mr. Duffy, the Act of Parliament would
be declared nugatory. The Act guarded against the difficulty
of proving handwriting by compelling the proprietor to go
before the officer ; and as his person may, net be known, and
his writing not capable of proof, the policy of the Act only
requires—
Mr. Whiteside—The title of the Act of Parliament is wrong.
Mr. Justice Crampton—Mr. Whiteside, surely you are not
going to amend the title?
11r. Whiteside—Oh, yes. The Act ought to be entitled
thus:—" Whereas the Crown ought to be able to prosecute
any person in the community, arid whereas the Crown cannot
always do so if proof of identity be required ; be it enacted
that no such proof shall be required."
Mr. Justice Crampton said he had some difficulty in coming
to the same conclusion as the Lord Chief Justice ; but he ab-
stained from pressing his own opinion, because he consi-
dered there was abundant prima facie of the proprietorship
being in Mr. Duffy. Mr. Jackson, the reporter, proved
ha had attended a meeting at which Mr. Duffy was present,
and at which he handed in money, and he described
him as the proprietor of the Nation. If that was not evidence
of proprietorship he did not know what was. He describes him,
in fact, as present at three or four meetings, and calls him the
proprietor of the Nation all through. Counsel for the tra-
versers had not cross-examined him upon that point.
Mr. Justice Perrin said he was not satisfied with the proof of-
fered. The spirit of the Act was certainly to remove the difi-
cultiel of proof—formerly it WU ACCOSIT:
to prove plabligitiOil

by the purchase of the paper or otherwise. But the Act of Par.
hament said that a certified copy of the declaration should be
produced against the persons who had signed it.
The Attorney-General said there was another clause in the
Act, and— _

Mr. Temb handed it up to the bench, observing that the
material portion was underlined.
Mr. Justice Perrin read the Act again as far as the words,
" and shall have signed the same." He was not disposed to
make a precedent, especially in a case where there was abun-
dant evidence, in order to govern future cases.
Chief Justice—The Court has admitted the evidence.
Mr. Whiteside—Save the point.
The Court then adjourned for some time.
The Court and jury having returned,
Mr. Vernon, of the Stamp-office, was recalled and exa-
mined by Mr. Smyly.
Have you got a Nation newspaper of the 10th of June ?—I
have ; it was the paper lodged at the Stamp-office, pursuant to
the Act of Parliament. It imports to be prioted by C. G.
Duffy, proprietor and editor, Trinity-street, Dublin.
Witness was then directed to turn to the leading article of
the paper, page 552, and to read it. It was written in conse-
quence of a correspondent having condemned the placing the
names of Clontarf and other Irish battles on the Repeal card,
as he believed it would have been better to have substituted
such words as " Temperance," &c. The article dissented
from this principle, and at some length the writer agreed that
war sometimes elicited great virtues, particularly in a just war.
The article concluded with a quotation from Dr. Arnold's
" Lecture on History."
Mr. Whiteside asked the witness to turn also to the report
of the proceedings of the Association in the same paper, and
to read them. _ _

Witness did so. The speech of Mr. O'Connell was in sup-
port of a resolution for inserting on the minutes the letter of
Mr. Smith O'Brien containing the resignation of his commis-
sion of the peace for the county of Limerick. He spoke in
high terms of Mr. O'Brien, who, he stated, was the most inde-
pendent Member of Parliament, while his arguments in favour
of Repeal were unanswerable. The speech also contained a
strong expression by Mr. O'Connell of his wish that in all re-
gulations between landlord and tenant the rights of preperty,&c.,
should be respected. As the witness lowered his voice during the
reading, Mr: Whiteside desired him to read the speech as well
as he had read the leading article. Mr. Steele's speech on
this oceasion was omitted for want of space, and the resolu-
lution as to Mr. O'Brien's letter was carried. Mr. O'Connell
then addressed the meeting, condemning the conduct of the
Chartists in England, and advising the Repealer, of Ireland to
expel them from their Associations, and have nothing whatso-
ever to do with them. The speech then proceeded to allude to
the unequal state of the Parliamentary franchise in both coun-
tries, and expressed an apprehension that in a few years there
would be no such thing as a Liberal constituency in Ireland.
It then alluded, in denunciatory terms, to the Poor-law Amend-
ment Bill, and called upon the people to unite peacefully and
constitutionally to obtain redress for their grievances.
The Chief Justice—l don't know how you propose making
that evidence ?

Mr. Vernon continued to read the conclusion of Mr. O'Con-
nell's speech, and then stopped short, as he expected to be
asked to read no further, but Mr. Whiteside told him to read
the address to the people of Ireland.
The Chief Justice (appearing tired)—Vas not this read
already ?
Mr. Whiteside—No, my Lord, it was not, and this is the
document which explains all the objects of the Association.
The witness then read the address at length, and having
come to that portion of the Report which stated that Mr.
O'Connell moved the adoption of the Report,
Mr. Henn respectfully submitted that if the Crown gave in
evidence any document, and read only part of it, they had a
right to have it all used as evidence for the Crown. This was
laid down in Philips upon Evidence, Bth Carrington and Payne,
page 233 ; and in 7th Carrington and Payne, page 3t6, the
very point was decided. These authorities, he contended,
established that the whole of the document was clearly made
evidence—it was made evidence for the party wko produced it.
Judge Perrin asked Mr. Henn if he recollected the case of
the King v. Perry. He knew it was decided in that case that
the advertisement in a remote part of the paper could not be
read in evidence.

Mr. Henn--I do not know if the case had reference to the
other party or not.
Judge Perrin—lt is reported at all events.
Mr. Henn—When the party on the other side calls for a
document, and looks at a portion of it, we are entitled to have
it all in evidence.

Chief Justice—Yes, but the Crown does not call for it here.
Mr. Henn—That is an a fortiori case. The party call for
it here, and, when they look at it, wo are entitled to have any
portion of it read.
Chief Justice—That may be very good law in a particular
case, but it is no general rule. Hand me up the book.
Mr. Henn handed up the book from which he had quoted,
and the Chief Justice read it for some time.
The Attorney-General referred the Court to the last edition
of Carrington and Payne, p. 341, and said it was laid down
that such a proposition,as the other side contended for could
not be maintained. •

Mr. Fitzgibbon did net contend that he had a right to call
for the advertisements to be read. The examination of a
witness ought to be confined to the issue, and if departed from
it should only be to try the credit of a witness. They had no
right to stop short when they pleased. It was for the Crown
to interpose when anything was offered to be read which was
not pertinent to the issue.
Mr. Monahan said that the case cited by the Attorney.
General ham Adolphus and Ellis had nothing to do with the
present one.
Judge Crampton—The question is, whether one article ex-
plains or modifies the other, or whether it can be made appli-
cable to the offence charged.
The Lord Chief Justice said the'case had been so much dis-
cussed that he would be brief in assigning his reasons for the
decision he meant to give. An article published in the Nation
newspaper, entitled " The Morality of War," was given in evi-
dence by the Crown. The article in itself was perfectly com-
plete and distinct, and the whale of it was read by the Crown.
On another occasion, after an interval of same days, at a
meeting of the Association, a speech was made by one of
the traversers and reported in another part of that same
Nation newspaper, apparently having no connection with, or
requiring no qualification of, the opinions published in the
Nation on the subject of The Morality of War." Now. let
it be supposed that speech, instead of having been made by
Mr. O'Connell, was spoken by Mr. Duffy himself, at that
meeting of the Association, could it be said that he
would have been entitled to have the whole of it
read, though he was unable to show its connection with the
publication of an article entitled " The Morality of War ?"
There appeared, as his Lordship conceived, no ease bearing in
support of the preposition now advanced br the traversers, and
if he had been called upon to decide, he should have great
doubts as to whether the traversers, without the consent of the
Crown, would have a right to have a distinct independent
publication read at all. However, the Crown made no ob-
jection to the speech being read, as well as the publication,
The Morality of War." It was, not necessary at all for the
Court to decide whether, if the objection had been made, the
Court would er would not have yielded. It Las been said the
question was, by whom the speech was read. The Court were
of opinion that it had been read by the traversers.
Mr. Justice Crampton concurred with the Lord Chief
Justice.
The witness was then directed to refer to the Nation of the
'
pl2ubthliction therein of an article headed " The March of oaf August, 1843, and having identified and proved the
Na-
tionality," Mr. Bourne read it at length. ( This document was
published at length iu the opening statement of the Attorney-
General. )
Mr. Whiteside having desired the officer to read another
paragraph from page 691,
Chief Justice—Let it stand over till morning,
As the Court was about to rise, Mr. Henn, Q. C., informed
the Court that Mr. Samuel Maunsell was in attendance.
The Chief Justice said it was the opinion of the Court that
Mr. Maunsell should personally apologise to the High Sheriff,
Mr. Latouche.
Mr. Latouche said that he had no personal feeling in the
matter. Mr. Maunsell, whom he did not know, applied to him
for tickets, which it was not in his power to give.
Mr. Maunsell then apologised to the Court and its officer
in the terms suggested by the Chief Justice.
Chief Justice—Let no more be said about it.
The Court then rose.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF CHANCERY, Jan. 25.
The LORD CHANCELLOR was not sufficiently well to
attend Court to-day.

VICE-CHANCERY COURT, Jan. 25.
The VICE-CIIANCELLOrt. of England took LotliOns to
day.

ST. VICTOR V. DEVEREUX.
Tho further consideration of this case was postponed
in consequence of the absence of Counsel. The case
conies before the Court upon two demurrers put in to the
bill filed by the plaintiff.
WARM v. fistrrir.

The whole morning was occupied with the arguments
in this case, which came before the Court upon an ap-
plication on the part of the plaintiff; for an injunction to
restrain the defendant from selling or manufacturing
articles called antigropalus, or mud boots. Both parties
carry on business at Wellingborough, and the defendant
was formerly in the employ of the plaintiff.
There was, however, a previous application for
an injunction in this case, which the Court granted ex
parte, but ultimately dissolved, upon a motion for that
purpose. The plaintiff has, however, now filed a new
bill, bringing before Court an amended state of facts.
During the arguments,
Mr. WAKEFIELD objected to the case proceeding, as
he was desirous of answering certain affidavits, which
had only been filed yesterday, reflecting on the character
of some of the witnesses for the defendant.
The Cot= ordered the motion to stand for Monday.

WARNE V. GOLDING.
Mr. STUART applied in this case on behalf of the de-
fendant, who carries on business at 23, Ludgate-street,
for the dissolution of an injunction, restraining him
manufactuaing or selling any antigropaluses in imitation
of those manufactured by the plaintiff.
The COURT, after some considerable argument,
ordered the injunction to be dissolved.
Mr. BETHELL then applied upon another motion in
the same cause to commit the defendant to the Queen's
Prison for a breach of the injunction, between the time
of its being granted and notice of the intention on the
part of the defendant to apply to dissolve it.
The COURT refused to make any order upon the
motion.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Jan. 25.
(Sittings in Banco.)
THE CUSTOM-ROUSE FRAUDS.-THE QUEEN V. BLAKE.
The defendant in this case, who had filled the situa-
tion of landing waiter in the Custom-house, had been
indicted for conspiring with a person named Tye, a
Custom-house agent, who had not surrendered to take
his trial, to defraud the Queen of certain duties payable
upon certain goods, wares, and merchandise which had
been imported from foreign countries. The case was
tried at the Guildhall, before Lord Denman, and the Jury
found the defendant guilty. He was this day brought
up for judgment, when
Mr. COCKBURN moved for a redo
calling upon the pro-
secutors to show cause why the verdict should not be
set aside and a new trial granted, on the ground of the
improper admission of evidence, or why the judgment
should not be arrested, on the ground that the indictment
itself was bad. With regard to the first, his Lordship
wonld no doubt recollect that at the time of the trial he
had objected to the admission of Tye's ledger as evidence
against Blake. At the time that the ledger was offered
in evidence no proof whatever had been given of any
connection between Blake and Tye, and in the absence
of such proof he contended that it was impossible to gire
proof of the acts of one in evidence against the other,
and although it might have been good evidence
against Tye, yet as Tye was not present, and
not on his trial, it ought not to have
been received as syidenee figain4t !lake. Again

the counterfoil of Tye's cheque-book had been
received as evidence against Blake—that counterfoil
containing a memorandum of a cheque drawn in favour
of D. 8., and also of the various sums from which the
sum total was made up. Now, he submitted that in such
a case as this, the counterfoil of a cheque was not evi-
dence. A memorandum made by a party paying money
was a memorandum made by♦ him for his own guidance,
and not in furtherance of any common transaction in
which he might be engaged with other parties. If Tye
had even written or stated to a third person, " I paid
Blake such or such a sum of money for such and such
purposes," still that would not be admissible as evidence.
It would be nothing but hearsay. At the time the cheque-
book had been received, no evidence had been given of
the transactions to which it referred. All those were
subsequent transactions. Now, the connexion between
the parties ought clearly to have been shown before such
evidence could bo admitted. It could not be admitted
for the purpose of showing the connexion. In
order to make it evidence, previous connexion
between the parties, or the subsequent adoption by the
one of the acts of the other, ought to bo shown. His
Lordship would recollect that the cheque-book had
been three times offered in evidence by the counsel for
the Crown ; and had been twice withdrawn, in conse-
quence of a strong intimation from the Lord Chief
.Justice, of his opinion of its inadmissibility ; but the
counsel for the Crown at length felt themselves so
pressed that they were obliged to urge the reception of
this cheque-book, which was received accordingly. It
was a matter of the utmost importance, and he trusted
the Court would grant him a rule.
Lord DENMAN admitted that the point was one of the
utmost importance as regarded the law of evidence.
He would not now give any opinion on the subject, but
he would state the grounds on which he had proceeded
at the trial. The charge was for conspiring to withdraw
certain duties from the Crown, to which the Crown was
entitled, and he thought that the statements in the led-
ger, showing the transactions which had taken place
between the importer and his employer, might be re-
ceived as evidence of the fact whether or not certain
goods had been withdrawn which were liable to duty.
Then with regard to the reception of the counterfoils, he
had entertained in the first instance a strong opinion that
they were not admissible, and if they had remained as
mere memorandums upon the counterfoil, he should have
most probably continued of that opinion ; but looking at
the strong case of conspiracy which had been made out,
the proof which had been given of the withdrawal of
goods, without payment of duty, and the proof which
had been given that Blake had actually received the
produce of the cheque, he thought it might be given in
proof of the proceedings of the parties ; and that view
of the case had enabled him to get over the difficulty
which he had at first felt as to the propriety of admitting
the counterfoil in evidence. It was, however, a matter of
great importance, and the Court would take time
to consider the point before either granting or refusing
the application. With regard to the motion in arrest
of judgment, the Court would be happy to hear Mr.
Cockburn proceed to argue that point at once.
Mr. COCKBURN then moved that the judgment should
be arrested, on the ground that the indictment was bad
upon the face of it. It charged the parties with having
conspired together to withdraw certain goods, wares,
and merchandise, which were liable to duty, without the
payment of such duty to the Crown. Now he contended
that the indictment ought to be more certain. The
nature of the goods, wares, and merchandise, on which
the duty was payable, ought to have been more certainly
specified. It was clear, from the averments in the in-
dictment, that these goods had already been imported,
and, therefore, their qualities must have been known to
the prosecutor, and ought to have been stated. There
was no such offence at common law, inasmuch as goods
were not liable to duty at common law. They were
only liable to duty by statute, and the nature of the
goods ought to have been stated, in order that the Court
might know whether they were liable to duty or not.
Lord DENMAN—I have not the smallest doubt of the
goodness of the indictment. The gist of the indictment
is conspiracy to convey away certain goods liable to
duty. Now it was very possible that those persons
might have so conspired without knowing exactly what
those goods were.

Mr. Justice Patteson and Mr. Justice Wightman were
also of opinion that the indictment was good.
Motion in arrest of judgment refused.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL--I hope, my Lord, the case
will not go into the new trial paper.
Lord DsNmANT—The Court has not yet decided to
grant the rule nisi for a new trial. We will consider.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Jan. 25.
(Sittings in Banco.)
The attention of the Court this morning was devoted
to hearing motions for new trials in cases devoid of public
interest.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, Jan. 23.
IN RE ROBERT ALLARD.

In this case, the bankrupt applied for his final order.
He had been several times before the Court previously,
when it appeared that he had carried on a very ext"•n-
sive business as a leather dresser and currier in Stepney.
The docket was struck against him in 1840, when the
amount of his debts was found to be 10,0001., and out
of the assets the assignees had realised about 7,000/.
which had been already paid away to the creditors in
three separate dividends.
The bankrupt's application was granted.
IN RE HUGH J. GRAHAM.
The bankrupt carried on business as an architect and
builder, and the amount of his debts and liabilities were
upwards of 16,000/. This day being appointed fur the
first dividend under the fiat, the sum of 2s 4d in the
pound was declared. It was announced that a fur-
ther dividend would be shortly declared.

IN RE HOWARD AND GORE.
In this case which has been already reported in The
Sun, the appointment of assignees was fixed for this
day, when Messrs. Holland and Edwards were appointed,
without opposition.

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS.
(Before Mr. WALESBY, Chairman, and a Bench of Ma.

gistrates.)
DISGRACEFUL CONDUCT OF A POLICEMAN.—George
Pilhington and Wiltiarn Gilbertson were indicted for
assaulting, in the execution of their duty as police con-
stables, William Brooks and William Wiseman, on the
15th of October, 1843,

Mr. BALLANTINE appeared for the defendants, and
called the attention of the Court to the name of Jane
Griffiths being on the back of the indictment, who was
not in attendance. He suspected the police had kept
her back.

The Learned CHAIRMAN ordered the woman's recog.
nizance to be estreated.

William Brooks, police constable K 364, was then
called, and stated that he was on duty in Vinegar-lane,
Shadwell, on the sth of October, between eleven and
twelve o'clock at night, when he saw the defendants in a
state of intoxication, and creating a disturbance. Pil-
kington was given into custody by Jane Griffiths, and
he was very violent, 'and bit witness's finger in two
places. Gilbertson endeavoured to rescue Pilkington,
and was also taken to the station-house.

Cross•examined—He had not taken means to bring
Griffiths here to-day. He had not seen her since the
last sessions. She is a brothel-keeper, and has two
houses. There was a mob round the defendants, and two
or three girls there. The men did not complain of an
attempt having been made to rob them that he could
recollect. He did not remember that they wished to
give the woman Griffiths into custody. Had taken
others into custody at Mrs. Griffiths's, and the case was
dismissed. Will not swear that he did not have some-
thing comfortable with Mrs. Griffiths—(after much hesi-
tation)—to his knowledge he did not drink with her.
The CHAIRMAN—You are doing yourself more harm
by giving, these evasive answers than by confessing the
truth. I warn you that it may be my duty to report
the way in which you give your evidence to the Cons
missioners, and, therefore, you had better speak the
truth. It is not for a policeman on his beat to drink
with a brothel-keeper, but that is not so bad as perjury.
Cross-examination continued—Witness might have
drank with Mrs. Griffiths when off duty sometimes.
He could not tell how often, or where he drank with her.
Mr. BALLANTINE—YOU must, or I will apply to have
you committed.

The CHAIRM-AN (to the policeman)—Was it so often
that you cannot tell,?
Brooks reluctantly—lt might have been once or twice
in the Back-road.

The CIIAIR)IAN—I don't know whether you are in-
different about remaining in the police force ; but
I have already warned you, that you are placed in great
jeopardy. You are not giving your evidence at all like
an honest man.

Mr. BALLANTINE—He cannot do so, Sir. These
industrious honest men at the bar, were in frightful
jeopardy, by the evidence of this fellow, who might be
expected to protect instead of destroying our property
and liberty.
Cross-examination resumed—Did not see the de-
fendants surrounded by prostitutes. Don't know how
many times Mrs. Griffiths had been in custody for felony.
Had often been called into her house, but never passed
the night there.
By the COURT—He had made no attempt to see
her, to inform her to be in attendance for the last month.
The CHAIRMAN—I feel bound to report your case to
the Commissioners, and shall give the necessary instruc-
tions to the inspector on dnty.
William Wiseman, I{ 156, was called, and his evi-
dence negatived nearly all the chief points of Brooks'
testimony.
Mr. BALLANTINE said he had a complete objection to li
the case, but he was unwilling to stop the examination
of the witnesses, as he thought it was right their evi-
dence should go forth to the world for the benefit and
safety of the public.
Atter a brief discussion, the jury, under the direction
of the Learned Chairman, acquitted both the defendants.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
(YESTERDAY.)
MAR YLEB ONE.
William Albert, a woll•dressed foreigner, was placed
before Mr. Long, charged with a most wanton and inde-
cent assault upon Eliza Ogilvy, a respectable married
female.

The complainant said that yesterday evening, she
went to see her sister-in-law in Lisson-street, Lissun-
grove, and while standing knocking at the door, the
prisoner and two friends came up behind her, and thrust
his hands beneath her dress, caught her up, and then
with great violence threw her down upon the door-step,
and injured her very severely.
Mr. LONG asked the prisoner what he had to say in
answer to the charge ?
The prisoner said that his knowledge of English was
very limited, and if the Magistrate would hear him in
French, he would feel obliged.
Mr. LONG assented, and 1
the prisoner then said that be had been drinking with
some friends, and was very much intuxie§ted. Life WAS

not conscious of having, in any way, asauited the
female, but, if he had done so, he was sincerely sorry.
Mr. LONG was of opinion that the assault was a very
aggravated one, and he would therefore tine him in the
sum of 405., or one month in the House of Correction.
He paid the fine at once, and was discharged.
LAMBETH-STREET.

Wednesday,"while the depositions in a case of felony were
being read over by the chief clerk, Cook, the gaoler, entered
the Court in a hurried manner, and, addressing Mr. Henry,
said that a poor woman, who had been waiting in the passage
to see his Worship, had suddenly dropped to the ground, to all
appearance lifeless. He had assisted her into the air, in the
hope that it would relieve her from her temporary weakness,
but she remained insensible so long, and her pulse being scarcely
perceptible, that he feared she was really dying, end therefore
felt it necessary to take his Worship's advice as to what he
should do with her.
Mr. HENRY instantly directed that a medical man should be
sent for, and that every attention should be paid to the poor
woman. In a short time after Mr. Liddle, one of the parish
surgeons of Whitechapel, arrived ; but previous to his coming
some hot brandy and water had been administered to the poor
creature, which so far recovered her that she was enabled to
speak rather faintly, and, in reply to a question put to her, she
declared she had not tasted a morsel of any kind of food from
eight o'clock on fhe morning of the day before (Tuesday), and
that her stomach in consequence became so weak, that she
thought every moment would be her last. Mr. Liddle, on exa-
mining her, directed that she should be at once removed to the
workhouse and put into a warm bed, and the poor creature was
taken away in a cab.
Mr. Hughes, the relieving officer of Whitechapel, who was
present, and who had sent for restoratives for the poor woman,
and also a cab to have her conveyed to the workhouse, sub►e-
quently stated that on Thursday or Friday night last, the poor
woman had been taken to the workhouse by a policeman, who
found her in a state of destitution in the street, and he (Mr.
Hughes) instantly gave her an order for her admission to the
workhouse. He subsequently learned from her that she was a
native of Staffordshire, that the parish authorities of the place
where she resided had passed her children to either Limehouse
or Poplar, and that they were at present at Norwood, in
Surrey. She also said that her object in coming to town from
Staffordshire was the hope of being able to see her children.
A decent looking man, whose name did not transpire, ap-
plied to the Magistrate for his assistance in getting back a great
variety of property of which he had been robbed by a cabman
with the connivance of his wife. The applicant briefly stated
that, on going home on Tuesday night, he discovered that his
house was stripped of everything it contained, and that his wife
had also disappeared.
Cook, the gaoler, here said he recollected the applicant
coming to this Court some months ago for advica, and it then
appeared that his wife had drawn 601. or 70/. out of the
savings' bank without his knowledge, and eloped with a young
man, a lodger of theirs. It also appeared that she had pur-
chased a horse and cab for her paramour out of the money,
and lived with him as his wife. The applicant, notwithstanding
this, took her back, and it seemed, from what he had been able
to learn from him outside, that she was again gone to the
cabman.
The applicant acknowledged that this was all perfectly true,
and said that the young fellow had behaved with base ingra.
titude towards him in taking away his wife and property, as lie
had, in the first instance, taken him into his house from motives
of charity.
It was here discovered that the transaction took place in the
district of Worship-street, and that the goods were in the
hands of the Thames police, and the applicant was referred to
either of those Courts.
WORSHIP-STREET.
Wednesday, a famer, named Thomas Ship, resident at Hen-
don, Middlesex, attended before Mr. Bingham, the sitting ma-
gistrate, to answer a charge of cruelty, which consisted in his
allowing a horse to be used in a state wholly unfit for work of
any kind.
Mr. Thomas, secretary to the Society for the Prevention of
Cruelty to Animals, attended to prosecute the case, which was
admitted by all who witnessed it to be one of the very worst
ever brought to this Court.
Some of the police of the G division had been called upon
by passengers in the street to notice the miserable condition
of the horse in a cart, which bore the name of " T. Ship,
farmer, Hendon." These were two horses suffering from
Very extensive sores, and one of the wretched animals had
actually fallen to the ground from excesive pain and ex-
haustion. The police took the driver into custody, and
brought him, with the suffering horses and the cart, to this
Court. Mr. Bingham, the Magistrate then sitting, could
hardly believe that auy person would be so inhuman as to em-
ploy animals in the condition then mentioned, and being in-
formed that the horses and cart were then at the door, said
he would himself go and look at them. The officers of the
Court assured him that it was a sight almost too disgusting to
look at. He went out, however, end had ocular proof that the
statement had not been overcharged. The horses had every
appearance of having been used with the harness eating into
their old sores, until they had fallen into a condition too disgust-
ing to be further described.
Mr. BINGHAM, after an examination of the driver, ordered
the farmer himself, the owner of the horses, to be brought be-
ore him.
William Hall, the carter, was now made a witness against
his master, and stated that he drove the horses from Hendon
on Monday night, and they were then in just the same con-
dition as when he was taken by the police on Tuesday.
The defendant said that he had not meant to have the horses
used until they got. well, but he forgot to tell his foreman so on
Monday night. He could not deny that he had neglected to
give any directions to his servant upon the subject.
Mr. littecitaat said that he had never suet with a worse
case since he had been on the bench as a magistrate, and he
should certainly impose the full penalty under the statute.
The defendant w.is then ordered to pay the highest penalty
of 40s. for each horse, and to pay also the costs of the proceed..
ings against him.
THAMES POLICE.

A poor woman, named Ann Ravel!, came before Mr. Bro-
derip, on Tuesday, and stated that she had been suddenly re-
duced to great distress by a calamity which had recently
befallen her. Her son, who had lately returned from sea, paid
her a visit, and she invited him to remain for a night in her
room, and made up a bed for him. During the night a box of
lucifer matches in her boy's trousers' pocket exploded, and set
fire to the bed he was sleeping on, and before either of them
awoke the flames had communicated to the furniture in the
apartment, and they narrowly escaped being burnt alive. The
fire was extinguished by the inmates of the dwelling, but her
little stock of furniture was destroyed or rendered useless, and
she was reduced to great distress by the accident.
Mr. lhonnittr directed Blaby, the chief usher, to make in-
quiries, and if he found the applicant to be a deserving person,
he would apply some of the funds of the poor-box to relieve
the case.
Yesterday Blaby reported that the facts were as stated by the
applicant, and that she was a very industrious and deserving
woman.
Mr. BRODERIP directed the usher to re-furnish her apart-
ment and relieve her wants, and the poor woman departed with
expressions of the most grateful acknowledgment to the magis-
trate for his kindness.