The Sun.
London, England, 1844-07-05 00:00:00

RAILWAY SHARES.

VersaMes,L.B........ ..... 250 .. 250 .. 247 50 .. 248 75
Rouen
Rouen to Havre.. ••••• • • • 770 . • 772 50 .. 770 .. 772 50
Orleans „. „ ..............1000 •.1003 75 ..1000 ..1002 50
Strasburg M Bale . 248 25 .• 246 25 .. 241 25 .. 242 50
Avignon to Marseilles...." 775 .. 775 775 . 775
RAILWAY SHARES FOR THE ACCOUNT, 15ra JULY.
St. Germain
Versailles, R.B. ••••• . 380 .. 380 .. 380 .. 380
L.B.••••••
Rouen . ....... —. • —.1006 ..1000 —lOO2 50 ..1002 50
Rouen to Havre.. 772 50 .. 772 50 .. 763 75 .. 770
Strasburg to Bale • •
Avignon to Marseilles ..

THIS.- DAY'S NEWS.
QUEEN'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings at Guildhall before Mr. Justice WtourstAlt and a
• : Special Jury.)
CURLING AND TOVNO V. COLLINS, PRYCE, WARBURTON, AND

OTHERS.
Mr. Whately, Mr. Martin, and Mr. Cleasby appeared fbr
the plaintiffs ; and Mr. Sergeant Talfourd, Mr. Humfrey, Mr.
Henderson, Mr. Robinson, and Mr. Price for the defendants.
This was an action brought by the plaintiffs, the well-
knovn ship-builders, at Limehouse, against the defendants,
sharehoMers in the once celebrated British and North Ame-
rican Steam4NP Company, to recover a sum of 1,744/., the
amount alleged to be due for repairs done to the British
Queen steamer, once t 11,7 nroperty of the Company alluded to,
Z!
but since sold by them to. the Belgian Government. It was
stated to the Court by the Learne
Counsel for the plaintiffs
to take such a sum from each one of the .
%event' defendants as
he might have been, by the non-paymen: hiLealls, in-
debted to the association itself. Should counsel for ,L'a defend-
ants wisely consent to this arrangement, then the questiO for
the Court and jury, would be merely one of liability. Counsei
for the defendants at once admitted this to be a very hand-
some offer, and would not therefore trouble the plaintiffs to
prove the various items of account, but would confine their
efforts to contesting the question of liability. Upon this evi-
dence was at once adduced to show that all the defendants
had signed the deed of partnership with the exception of
Collins, and that he (Collins), as well as the rest of the de-
fendants, were all of them shareholders in the Company. On
behalf of Warburton, witnesses were put into the box to
prove that the handwriting of Warburton to the deed was
not the handwriting of the present defendant to the action,
Peter Warburton ; and it was urged generally for the other
defendants, that they had not held themselves out to the
world as responsible parties in connexion with the British
and North American Steam-ship Company. The jury, how-
ever, found for the plaintiffs against all the defendants, for
the several amounts due and unpaid by them as shareholders
in the Company.

EXCHEQUER.—(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings at Guildhall, before the CHIEF BARox and a
Special Jury.)
HALIFAX AND OTHERS v. VERNON.
Mr. Erle, Mr. Watson, and Dir. Bovill, were counsel for
the plaintiff; Mr. Jervis, Mr. Cockburn, and Mr. Unthank, for
the defendants.
This was an action brought by the eminent firm of Glyn,
Halifax, and Co., bankers, to recover the sum of 4,1371. 17s. 10d.
from the defendant, Colonel Vernon, M.P., alleged to be a
shareholder in the well-known Talacre Coal and Iron Com-
pany. The case appeared of a very intricate character, and
likely to occupy the Court Yery many hours in its unravelling.
When our reporter left Mr. Warwick Werton, jun., was under
cross-examination, a determined effort being made to extract
admission from him that several sums of money, subscribed
by shareholders to the Talacre Company, had, by witnesses
father, in conjunction with Alderman Thomas Wood, been
applied to the purposes of the St. George's Harbour Com-
pany. Many strange disclosures were expected to be made
before the conclusion of the case.

COMMON PLEAS.—(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings at Guildhall, before Mr. Justice CRESWELL and a
Special Jury.)
YOUNG v. WILCOX. _ _

This case, which is an action to recover for repairs of
damage done to, a ship-yard and dock, was partly heard yes-
terday, and was resumed by the Court this morning. The
trial, which presents not the slightest feature of interest or
importance to the public, was likely to occupy many more
hours than those already consumed in its hearing.

MONEYAND COMMERCIAL NEWS.
CITY, QUARTER TO THREE.
The Cotton Market at Liverpool yesterday was quieter.
Sales, 5,000 bales, at steady rates, including 500 Surat, at
p 1
3d. to 31d. ; 500 Perham, at ad.to bad; 200 Bahia, at 51d.
to d
Birmingham and Liverpool, and Manchester Shares were in
good demand,
Chester and Birkenhead,
291; Eastern Perpetual, 1/. 13s. 4d. ; Grand Junction, 227 ;
Ditto New, 41; Hull and Selby Quarter, ni ; Liverpool and
6.;
and
1W
butE Egyptian,
othersti an, a
quiet.t6d. to c
714—Grand unction,
Manchester, 231.; Ditto, 32/. Shares, 381 ; Ditto Quarter
Shares, 26* ; Manchester and Bury, 3* ; Midland Counties,
95 ; North Midland, 95 ; Ditto Half, 47* ; North Union, 971;
South Eastern, 351 •
, York and North Midland Half, 201
Paris and Lyons, 2/. 15s. ; Paris and Strasburg, 3811.
Arrivals from Australia bring news to the 20th March
from Van Diemen's Land, where trade was rather improving*
though for a long time to come the utmost caution will be
necessary in making shipments to the Australian colonies.
Sydney is evidently suffering the most, as up to the latest date'
insolvencies continued there.
We learn from New Zealand, under date of the 27th of
January, that Governor Fitzroy, was determined to deal
accordin to law with the natives concerned in the Wairau
massacre.
The Funds, owing to an anticipated good revenue return,
are again very firm, and there is a steady business doing.
Consols have touched 981 1. The Three per Cent. Reduced
Annuities 991 to 8 ; the Three-and-a-Half per Cents. 1021
tol, and South Sea Annuities 981. Bank Stock has been
firm at the improvement to 198 and 199. Exchequer Bills
realised 745. to 765. premium, supporting the improvement of
yesterday. East India Bonds are 965. premium.
A rally has occurred in the value of Spanish Bonds, Which
are marked 231 1 for the Five per Cents., and 331 1 for the
Three per Cents. Mexican, are 351 to 1; Dutch Two-and=
a-Half per Cents, are firm at 61; and Russian at 112.
The Railway Shares are steady, and a moderate business
is doing. Great Western obtain 501 to 511 ; Birmingham,
1221 to 123 ; Ditto, New Thirds, 35 to tol ; Bristol and Glou
cester, 16 to 1; Norwich and Brandon, 5* ; and South-East- '
ern, 11 to 1/ premium. Blackwall are 91 discount. London
and Westminster Bank Shares are 6 premium.
BRITISH FUNDS THIS DAY AT ONE O'CLOC.
Bank Stock fo r
(Fr
Account om the (Ra K
cial List.) 198 199
sss
3 per Cent. Reduced Annuities 99"
334 per Cent. Reduced Annuities 102%34
India Bonds,l,ooo .. ..... ... _ i
• Ditto under 1,000................"."." 95
South Sea Stock '""'"''" .—
Ditto Old Annuities
Consols for Open ng ..,..».».«.«.«.«.»....« ggNii
Exchequer Bills, I%d. 1)6(1
' 1,0001. •••••••I •••••••••••••••• ..' •••••••••••• 74 pm.
.."'"'" 7a pm.
Ditto 5mai1...... "
...... .... •-•• ... ...... .1. • - 7,1 r mi.—.
Ditto Advertised. —. Pm
FOREIGN FUNDS THIS DAY AT ONE O'CLOCK.
Mexican Bonds, 1837, 5 er Cent.
Ditto for the Account,
S 5
.....
' 3sl'
Russian Bonds, Imo, s per Cent 119
Spanish Bonds, Five per Cent 1840 s.,23Vsoi
Ditto for the Account. ********
"
Ditto Three per Cent. . ..." 334%
Ditto for the Account—::::"."... '"''' ***** 33
54.-
Dutch 2% per Ce ts "*"...."...
61
n ...... ****** ........ ....... .....
Dutch 5 per Cents
PRICES OF SHARES THIS DAY AT ONE.
RAILWAYS. PAID. ?SR SRAM 1
Bristol and Gloucester 3O ......... 461%
Chester and Holyhead
Eastern Counties .... .......... 93 .....» ll
Great Western . .... -:----- ..... 75 .... ..... 126 '
Ditto Fifths • •••""'"'"'».. 12
Loudon and Birmingham. lOO .222
Ditto New Thirds 9 ... ...... 373( % ... to
Ditto k Shares 2 ......... 26% ...... to
London and Blackwall 16% ...... 750
Norwich and Brandon
South Eastern and Dover • 9e% ...... 35
Ditto New '''''''' 4 .... le% % ... to
Trent Valley .. . . 2 ......... 9%......... to 10
York and North.iiaizd . —.7: 62,,•••••:•• - t. -
Ditto Scarboro' Branch ..."..• ••• '';' '.
" 21
Orleans, Tours, and Bordeaux.....
- ..... '''' itii to
Paris and Orleans ..". .... 20 to
Parisand R0uen.........7 ............ 20 ......... 39U.54
Joixr sTOCIL BANKS.
London and Westminster ....... ~. 20
MANCHESTER STOCK ExcIiANGF,, JULY 4.—The business
to-day is by no means extensive, but the market exhibits a
firmer appearance. Eastern Counties, Registered, 131 ; Lon-
don and Birmingham, 221 to 223 ; Manchester and Binning-
ham, Quarters, 3i premium ,• Manchester and Leeds, Half
Shares, 44 ; South- Eastern, 3411; Trent Valley, 8* i.

DEATH OE M. 0
oCHOLEFIELD, MEMBER FOR BIR-
MINGIIA3I.—We regret to announce the death of this gentle-
by paralysis on
Minh Which took place at his residence in Manchester-
buildings, at 3 41E4 yesterday afterP9oP• Ile Yr4s Atackeil
once pronounced to be anptless• Few men were more
this day se'nnight, Wid ills recoveTy Tr4s
esteemed in private life than the deceased Member for Bir-
mingham, and 116 has left 0 willow 841(1 SOYCIAI ellii4r01:1 tg
lament hiA lOSS,:-.-7'fpie+l,
WHITE SPARBON4.—AbcAIt three weeds ago a lad
residing at
con-
tained live young ones, foil!. of them perfectly white, the fifth
administer *d to their yonod-
.of the natural colour • they were secured in a cage, and so
fed brown."
the: othed the
placed that 04gi PPW4 Iv fed by the parent birds, both of
rPwaY, Dorset. took a sparrowisnest, which
Which were constant in ' dally attendance, and evinced' the
both the parent biro
The four white ones bait
greatest anxiety and iMpatience until' were permitted io
are trrovin.' The' ve, in the mine cage, are itt the posses3iori
or 4c,t, Rolls 'ottlith I.b. t. Niretacult. • i '.
!
. . .
natural COTOlir ; .

THE STATE TRIALS

(SECOND DAY.)

WRIT OF ERROR.

HOUSE OF LORDS.-(THIS DAY.)

THE QI7ZEN AGAINST O'CONNELL AND OTHER 3.
Their Lordships assembled at ten o'clock to hear the
arguments in the above case. Counsel having been
called on,
Mr. Prsioom said that he appeared on behalf of Mr.
Daniel O'Connell in this case, and after the able arguments
of his Learned Friend, Sir Thomas Wilde, he thought it
unnecessary to call the attention of their Lordships, or
to make any observations on that part of the case which
related to the generality of the counts, but he would en-
deavour to sllow their Lordships that judgmedt had been
given against Mr. Daniel O'Connell and the other parties
for offences, or a greater number of offences, than had
been charged against them in the indictment, and he
would submit to their Lordships that in cases where
punishment was discretionary, and where it appeared
that the court had given any . part of the judgment fur
offences not charged in the indictment, or for offences
badly
.charged in the indictment, it was a ground for
reversing the whole judgment. He would also submit
that this judgment was bad on the ground of the verdict
having been entered in the way it was on the third count.
He would also submit that the judgment was bad for
want of entering into the proper continuances ; that it
was also bad as regarded the recognisances the parties
were called on to enter into ; that it was also bad in not
having given judgment of acquittal as to those parts of
the indictment of which the jury had found the parties
not guilty ; and finally, he would submit that
judgment should be reversed altogether ; that their
Lordships had no power to amend the judg-
ment, but that the judgment must be reversed be-
fore their Lordships could pass their judgment,
and that as punishment was discretionary with
the court which tried the parties, that their
Lordships would not pass any fresh judgment.
With regard to the first point, he would submit that the
parties had been found guilty of three several and dis-
tinct conspiracies under the first count, and of three
distinct conspiracies under the second count, sad that
under each the parties were charged with one offence.
The case would be simplified by treating this part of it
as applicable to the second count of the indictment, be-
cause the second count was the same as the first, with
the exception that it set out the overt acts. Their
Lordships would observe that by the second count nine
persons were charged, one of them being the Rev. Mr.
Tyrrell, who was since dead, with a joint conspiracy, to
do several acts. It charged them that " they did unlaw-
fully, maliciously, and seditiously combine, conspire,
confederate. and agree with each other, and with divers
other persons, whose names are to the jurors aforesaid
unknown, to raise and create discontent and diaffection
amongst the liege subjects of our said Lady the Queen,
and to excite such subjects to hatred and contempt of
the government and Constitution of this realm, as by
law established, and to unlawful and seditious opposi-
tion to the said Government and Constitution, and also
to stir up jealousies, hatred, and between different
classes of her Majesty's subjects, and especially to pro-
mote amongst her Majesty's subjects in Ireland feelings
of ill-will and hostility towards and against her Ma-
jesty's subjects in. the other parts of the said United
Kingdom, and especially in that part of the said
United Kingdom called England." Now he would not
contend that the jury were not justified, under this count,
in finding the whole of those parties guilty of a part of
the conspiracy charged ; but what he would submit to
their Lordships was, that having found them all jointly
guilty of one conspiracy, they could not find others
guilty of a distinct and separate conspiracy. The jury
found the parties guilty of one thing, and then they
found them guilty of conspiring to do another thing ;
'hey found them guilty of so much as charged them with
to cause others to meet, but they acquitted
Ul na"'m
of coliniring
unlawfully, maliciously, and sedi-
tiously to procure SSIld assist them to meet.
The LORD CHANCEL; OB—Are you quite sure that is
in the record ? lam informed it is a misstatement in
the case.
Mr. PEACOCK said he would satisfy their Lordships
that it was in the printed copy of the record, at page 77.
He would then proceed to the residue. As to the resi-
due of the premises, they acquitted Mr. Tierney, there-
fore he could no longer be received as a conspirator with
the other parties. The words of the finding were—
" And as to the residue of the said premises, in the said
first and second counts of the said indictment, respec-
tively charged as aforesaid, the said jurors, upon their
oath aforesaid, say that the said Thomas Tierney is not
guilty thereof." Then the remainder were found guilt)
of conspiring for certain other objects, not with Mr.
Tierney, but with 'each other and divers persons un
known. The words of this part of the finding were
these :—" And the said jurors upon their oath aforesaid
further say that the said Daniel O'Connell, John
O'Connell, Thomas Steele, Thomas M. Ray, Charles
Gavan Duffy, John Gray,and Richard Barrett, are, and
each of them is, guilty of so much of the said residue
as charges them for that they unlawfully, maliciously
and seditiously intending as aforesaid, and further un
lawfully, maliciously and seditiously contriving, intend-
ing and devising to bring into disrepute, and to diminish
the confidence of her Majesty's subjects in the tribunah
duly and lawfully constituted for the administration of
justice, and further contriving, intending and devis-
ing, by means of intimidation and the demonstra-
tion of great physical force, to procure and effect
changes to be made in the government, laws and
Constitution of this realm .as by law established, did un-
lawfully, maliciously, and seditiously combine, conspire,
confederate, and agree with each other, and with divers
other persons whose names are to the jurors unknown,
to cause and procure, and aid and assist in causing and
procuring, divers subjects of our said Lady the Queen
to meet and assemble together in large numbers, at vs
rious times and in different places within Ireland, for the
unlawful and seditious purpose of obtaining, by means
of the intimidation to be thereby caused, and by means
of the exhibition, and 'demonstration of great physical
force at such assemblies and meetings, changes and
alterations in the government, laws, and Constitution
of this realm as by law established ; and further, to,
bring into hatred and disrepute the Courts by law esta
blished in Ireland for 'the administration of justice, and
to diminish the confidence of her said Majesty's liege
subjects in Ireland in the administration of the law
therein, with the intent to induce her Majesty's subjects
to withdraw the adjudication of their differences with
and claims upon each other from the cognizance of the
said Courts by law established, and to submit the same
to the judgment and determination of other tribunals, to
be constituted and contrived for that purpose, in the said
residue of the said first and second counts of the said
indictment respectively charged as aforesaid, in manner
and form as therein is so above charged." So that they
were found guilty of conspiring on what he would call
No. 2 charge. The case was this—The indictment, con-
tains charge No. 1, charge No. 2, and charge No. 3.
Eight were found guilty of charge No. 1, seven
without the eighth were found guilty of charge
No. 2, and charge No. 3 was still left behind.
Then with regard to the residue of the remain-
der the jury acquitted all the defendants except
Daniel O'Connell, Barrett, and Duffy ; therefore, with
regard to this third part none were found guilty of con-
spiring except these three. The verdict went on thus—
" And as to the remainder of the said residue of the said
premises in the said first and second counts of the said
indictment respectively therein charged as aforesaid, the
said jurors upon their oath say, that the said John
O'Connell, Thomas Steele, Thomas M. Ray, and John
Gray, are not nor is any of them guilty thereof. And
the said jurors upon their oath aforesaid further say, that
the said Daniel O'Connell, Richard Barrett, and Charles
Gavan Duffy, are and each of them is guilty of so much
of the said remainder of the said residue as charges them
for that they unlawfully, maliciously and seditiously in-
tending as aforesaid, and further contriving, devising,
and intending to create discontent and disaffection
amongst divers of the said subjects, and amongst others
her Majesty's subjects serving in her Majesty's army,
did unlawfully, maliciously, and seditiously combine and
conspire, confederate and agree with each other, and
with divers other persons, whose names are to the jurors
unknown, to excite discontent and disaffection amongst
divers of her Majesty's subjects serving in her Majesty's
army ; in the said remainder of the said residue so
charged as aforesaid, in manner and form as therein is
so above charged." Mr. Tierney, therefore, was ac-
quitted of all except the first count, and with respect to
conspiring to cause disaffection in the army all were ac-
quitted except Mr. Daniel O'Connell, Mr. Barrett, and Mr.
Duffy. They were found guilty of conspiring with each other
but not with the other six. If that were an offence
punishable by law, Mr. Daniel O'Connell, Mr. Barrett,
and Mr. Duffy were found guilty of it. But he sub-
mitted that the finding was not good ; and if it was not
good on that count it must be bad on all the others, as
had been submitted by Sir Thomas Wilde. But there
was still something behind, and of that the jury found
Daniel O'Connell, Barrett, and Duffy not guilty:--" And
as to other the premises in the said remainder of the
said residue charged as aforesaid, the said jurors upon
their oath aforesaid further say, that the said Daniel
O'Connell, Richard Barrett, and Charles G. Duffy, are
not nor is any of them guilty thereof." They were not
found guilty of conspiring to cause seditious and un-
lawful meetings. The words of the indictment were
" And further to excite discontent and disaffection
amongst divers of her Majesty's subjects serving in her
said Majesty's army ; and further to cause, and procure,
and aid, and assist in causing and procuring divers sub-
jects of our said Lady the Queen, unlawfully, malici
ously, and seditiously to meet and assemble together in
large numbers, at various times and at different places
within Ireland, for the unlawful and seditious purpose
of obtaining, by means of the intimidation to be thereby
caused, and by means of the exhibition and demonstra-
tion of great physical force at such assemblies and
meetings, changes and alterations in the govern
merit, laws, and Constitution of this realm, as by
law established ; and further to bring into hatred
and disrepute the Courts by law established in Ire-
land for the administration of justice, and to diminish
the confidence of her said Majesty's liege sub.je cts in
Ireland in the administration of the law therein, with
the intent to induce her Majesty's subjects to withdraw
the adjadication of their differences with, ar.d Claims
upon, each other, from the cognisance of the said courts
by law established, and to sulisnit the same to the judg-
ment and uptervaipation of other tribunals, to be consti-
tuted and contrived for that purpose, in contempt of our
said Lady the Queen and the laws of this realm, to the
evil example of all others in the like case offending, and
against the peace of our said Lady the Queen, her Crows).
and dignity. While the finding was, that they did
lawfully and seditiotislf combine, arid dpUseira .' 4.6 e'aile
cll iers subjects of 'her Majeity meet, they w'prenbt:
foilfid guilty of causing them " unlawfully and
tiously" 'to meet, which are the werds of We indictment,
and, thetefore, 'they are acquitted' of that 11004.91 'the
charge. ' ' •

Lord BROUGHAIVI—The words of the finding are " to I
meet together in large numbers for the unlawful and se-
ditious purpose,"
The LORI) CHANCELLOR—As I understand the objet-
Lion, it is, that they are not found guilty of having con-
spired unlawfully and seditiously to meet for an unlaw-
ful and seditious object.
Mr. PEACOCK said that was the case. Daniel O'Connell,
Barrett and Duffy were found guilty of so much of the
residue of the remainder as related te the charge of
endeavouring to corrupt the army ; bat they were
acquitted of something, and he contended that this was
the portion of which they were acquitted. Mr. Tierney
was acquitted of the greater portion. Five were ac-
quitted of that portion relating to the corruption of the
army, and three of the rest of the charge.
The LORD Cnateem.toe—Does not that mean that the
three Were found guilty of all ?
Mr. PtacocK--No.They were acquitted of something—
of all the residue of the remainder. Now they were
charged with conspiring, unlawfully, and seditiously to
meet : they were found guilty ofconspiring to cause to meet.
The LORD CHANCELLOR—To cause them to meet for
an unlawful and seditious purpose?
Mr. reaccicx—Yes, my Lord. The jury had pro-
fessed, however, to find them not guilty of that offence;
they had found them guilty of all the residue of the re-
mainder except that, and they must, therefore, have in-
tended to find them not guilty of something. There
was also another part of the residue of the remainder :
the parties were not only charged with conspiring with
acl other, but with Mr. Tierney. It was clear that
such a conspiracj, might take place ; but the death of
one of the conspirators could not acquit the others,
and yet by the verdict, of the jury all were acquitted
A* the charge of conspiring with Mr. Tierney. They
were found guilty of conspiring with eight persons, and
not with the ninth. Now those very parties might be
indicted to-morrow with conspiring with Mr. Tierney ;
and what had they got to defend themselves with but
the finding of the jury ?
The LORD CHANCELLOR— Suppose they were indicted
with conspiring with Mr. Tyrrell ?
Mr. PEACOCK—The finding of the jury would be a
treed answer, but he should have to deal with that more
fully by and bye. Now although the jury had found them
not guilty of that part of the charge, the Court had given
no judgment of acquittal. The jury had also found Mr.
Tierney not guilty of certain parts of the indictment, and
the Attorney-General bad entered a nolle prosequi ; but
there still remained in the indictment five persons who
had been acquitted of attempting to excite discontent
;n the army • those persons were John O'Connell,
Mr.. Steele, Dr. Gray, and Mr. Ray, and the Court
in giving judgment upon them gave it for that on
which they had been 'found guilty, but they had given
no judgment of acquittal. He submitted that on this
finding eight persons had been found guilty of a joint
conspiracy, No. 1. Seven were found guilty of conspi-
racy with each other, but not with the eighth, to do No.
2. Three bad been found guilty of conspiracy with each
other, but not with any other parties, to do No. 3. He
supposed his Learned Friend the Attorney-General
'would contend that it was an offence to excite discontent
in the army. If that was so, Daniel O'Conuell, Mr.
Duffy, and Mr. 'Barrett had been found only guilty
of it ; and how could that be said to be any portion
of the conspiracy of the eight to do some-
thing else, that was no portion of the conspiracy
of the three to raise discontent in the army ? Unless the
Attorney-General could say that it was an offence—
unless he could do that he could not support the finding
of the jury. The jury had found the parties guilty of
three conspiracies, and the jury had given judgment
against the parties for three conspiracies, in which
they had been found guilty on the first count. Which
of the three offences was the punishment for, if it was
not for the whole ? And if it was for the whole then
Mr. O'Connell had been convicted of three offences
under one indictment that only charged him with one.
Was it to be supposed that the Court would give the
same amount of punishment to a man that was found
guilty of one conspiracy as it would upon a man who had
been found guilty of fifteen? The Court, it was true, in
cases of misdemeanour, had a discretionary punishment,
and in the exercise of that discretion they had sentenced
Mr. O'Connell to a year's imprisonment and a large fine.
Mr. John O'Connell not having been found guilty of
conspiring to cause discontent in the army, was to have
nine months ; whereas Daniel O'Connell, who had been
found guilty of the same offence, was to have one year's
imprisonment and pay double the amount of fine. Why
was that ? Was it not because Mr. Daniel O'Connell
was considered by the Court to have been guilty of a
greater number of offences, though their nature was the
same, than Mr. John O'Connell ? The one had been
found guilty of simple conspiracy, the other of endea-
vouring to cause discontent in the army. Therefore he
thought their Lordships must assume that the Court of
Queen's Bench in Ireland, in apportioning the punish,
went, had taken into consideration the finding of the
jury, and the extent to which the defendants had been
found guilty ; and he submitted that if they had
passed judgment upon the defendants for se-
veral offences for which ' they, bad never been
indicted, and which had never been presented
Against them by the grand jury, their punishment had
been aggravated by the finding of the common jury upon
the first count, and that consequently judgment had
been pronounced against them for a greater number of
offences than they had been found guilty of. The jury
naving acquitted some of the parties of a conspiracy, to
ause discontent in the army, and the petty jury having
found them not guilty of that conspiracy, he appre-
hended that the conspiracy of which the others had been
found guilty was a separate and distinct conspiracy, and
that the conspiracy to cause discontent in the army was
a separate and distinct conspiracy from that of which
they were found guilty conjointly with the other five
in the first part of this finding. Suppose seven persons
were to go into one room and conspire to do
certain ' things. Three of them said " Let us
all conspire to do two things." The other
four said, " No, we'll not go to the extent of
No. 1, but we'll go the extent of No. 2." In that case,
he contended, the three would not be guilty of conspir-
ing to do. No. 1 and No. 2. The conspiracy, inslaw, de-
pended not on the act, but on the combination and agree-
ment between the parties. If seven parties agreed to do
one thing, it was perfectly distinct from an agreement
between three of them to do another thing ; it was a
distinct conspiracy and separate offence. He thought
he could not better illustrate this than by reading the
charge of Mr. Baron Rolfe to the jury who tried Mr.
Feargus O'Connor. The Learned Counsel then read an
extract from the charge. The Judge said, that in order
to convict all or three of the defendants, they must con-
vict them of one and the same conspiracy. If they
thought that all the defendants, or any number
of them, had combined together for the purpose of
carrying the Charter, and some of them said, " I will
not use any violence, I will give no countenance to any-
thing hut voluntary abstinence from labour ;" and
others said, " I will give my countenance not only to
voluntary, but also to forced abstinence ;" if they found
the parties all agreeing in one act they might convict
them all upon separate ceunts. So here, Mr. Daniel
O'Connell, Mr. Barrett, and Mr. Duffy, might have been
found guilty—assuming the evidence to be sufficient—
under separate and distinct counts, of having-conspired
together to cause discontent in the army. But having
been found guilty under the first count of one joint
offence, they could not afterwards be found guilty of a
separate and distinct offence.
Lord CAMPBELL—The question is whether it was a
separate and distinct offence, or a part of the general
offence.

Mr. PEACOCK—Suppose all of them had been found
guilty of conspiring to create discontent in the army,
except Mr. Daniel O'Connell, and then Mr. Daniel
O'Connell himself had been found guilty of conspiring to
cause discontent in the army. Would that be a good
conspiracy ? One person could not conspire. If
Mr. Daniel O'Connell was found guilty of alone conspiring
to create discontent in the army, that finding was faulty.
With whom did he conspire ? Certainly not with the
others, who were not fouled guilty of conspiring with him.
If Mr. Daniel O'Connell had alone been found guilty
of conspiring to cause discontent in the army, the finding
that the other seven were guilty of some other conspi-
racy, would not support the finding as to Mr. Daniel
O'Connell of being- guilty of conspiring to cause dis-
content in the army. If that were so, then Mr. Daniel
O'Connell and the others, were found guilty of three
distinct offences. Now, the same rule, he believed, held
in every case, in civil cases as well as in criminal. If
several- persons were charged in an action of trespass,
with a joint trespass, and some of them were found
guilty of part of the trespass, but all could not be found
guilty jointly of part, each must then be found guilty of
nome other part separately. Unless their Lordships
could come to the conclusion that a conspiracy be-
tween eight persons to di one thing, was the same as a
conspiracy between other persons to do another thing,
he thought their Lordships would agree with him in
what he had stated. The grand jury had presented
ten offences, and the common jury had found
the parties guilty of fifteen. In one action
for trespass in which several parties are charged
with one joint offence, which is proved against
some of them, and not against another, the jury roust
acquit him. He quoted, in support of his argument, the
case of Heron, Alexander, and others (3d Campbell's
Reports, p. 35), in which Lord Ellemborough said, that
they could not find one prisoner guilty of a separate
offence ; and the other two guilty of one offence, Ile
believed that the rule was universally adopted hi efautu
of justice. It was impossible to cite any (ze,eel either
criminal or civil, in which several partit s charged sith
one joint trespass, and the whole of them are found
guilty of a part of the trespass, each of them is found
guilty of separate parts of the same offence. If a jury
could go into that, it might go into as many conspiracies
as it pleased ; and by ringing the changes on all the
charges of the indictment, it might find Mr. O'Connell
guilty of a hundred conspiracies ; whereas, when the
defendants have been found guilty of one joint conspi-
racy, the count is, as it wer94 ;:eihansted, and the jury
had no right to go ell tinging them guilty of any more.
Mr. p. O'Connell was thus found guilty of three
offences; he did not mean to say that be might not have
been found guilty of nay one of theta ; he would
not go ilito that point, but he contended that
' elle pally ought to be found guilty of more than one
offence. die submitted that defendants could not be
found guilty of cite joint offence and then guilty of sepa-
rate anti distinct offences. The next point was the
tinaing on the third count, which charged all the defen-
dants with " unlaa fully, maliciously, and seditiously,
contriving, intending, and devising to raise and create ,
discontent and disaffection amongst the liege subjec,44
our said Lady the gaen, and to excite liege
subjects to, hatred and contempt 00vt-rnment and
constitution of law established, and to
.2:echo littO:ed, &4114ic!!', and ill-will amongst different
shidsubjects, and to mate discontent and •
ill4nffection amongst divers of the said subjects, and
amongst otherS. her 'Majesty's subjects serving in her
Maiesty's
the LORD CHANoELLoft.,-,Have you left your first
point ?
Pv:Acoc4l444kixil Lord,:

The LORD CuANcELLon—Then now enunciate yoi
(cond.

cur

Mr. PEACOCK proposed on this point to show that the
verdict on this count fOund Mr. O'Connell, Mr. Barrett,
and Mr. Duffy, guilty of the premises, and found the
other five defendants not guilty of conspiring with the
former three. The verdict in that respect, therefore,
was repugnant. The verdict was bad on account Of its
ambiguity, and as being argumentative, finding three
persons guilty of conspiring with six others, when four
of these others were found not guilty of conspiring at
all. The rule of law was this, that if a party is once Put
on his trial for an offence, the verdict must be such a one,
as to prevent that person from being put on his trial
again for that same offence. The verdict must be such
an answer on the judgment, that on a second trial the
prisoner shall be able to plead either previously convict
or previously acquit. He cited the case of ‘• Hunger'
ford in 2d East, 518," in which the prisoner was indicted
for burglariously entering a house, and stealing to the
value of 61. The verdict found him not guilty of the
burglary, but guilty of the stealing, and sentence of
death was passed. The case was reserved for the con-
sideration of the judges, who held that the finding was
sufficient to warrant the judgment, but said the env),
should have been "not guilty of breaking open h
night," as that would have been more dis-
tinct. It appeared to be the constant cou!s•
in indictments for murder, in which there was a verdict
of guilty of manslaughter, to enter the finding as not
guilty of the murder and guilty of the manslaughter, or
of killing and slaying, although the charge of murderin-
cluded the killing and slaying ; therefore, though the
finding of the jury might warrant the officer in entering
judgment, still he did not enter up the judgment so se
to appear distinct. Now the question was, what was lb!
meaning of the words—" Guilty of the premises ?
Daniel O'Connell, Duffy, and Barrett were found guilth
with other persons, to do several things. They were
found guilty of `the premises—that was, guilty of con-
spiring with each other. If one person was indicted far
conspiring with another, and divers other persons un-
known : say that A and B were indicted for conspiring
with each other, and divers others unknown, and that 13
was. acquitted ; A might be found guilty, but the entry
of that verdict would be, that A was guilty of conspiriug
with persons unknown, not that he was guilty of cote
spiring with B and persons unknown, sad therefore the
entry of the verdict would be, that A was pig
of conspiring with persons unknown, B not
guilty. But the verdict here was "guilty not
the premises," that was to say, guilty
conspiring the other way. Whether it was that the
jury found the eight guilty of conspiring together.
though they found four not guilty, or whether they
meant to Lind the whole eight guilty, be did not know.
The LORD CHANCELLOR—IS it an objection to the •
finding that it is argumentative of the inference fro.
the argument being clear ?
Mr. PEACOCK said it was not clear what the pal
meant here.

The LORD CHANCELLOR said this branched itself into
two points—one was, whether it was an objection to th'
finding that it was argumentative if the inference
clear ; the next was, whether it was clear.

Mr. PEACOCK said that if it was certain what the jutl
meant, he did not apprehend that it would be an objec:
Lion ; but where it was not certain, the finding was W.,.
Lord CAMPBXLL—There is another way in which
this may be viewed. The jury are to find a true verclio4
according to the evidence. This might be to shop
that A, B, and C, conspired with D upon their 04-
acknowledgment, so that there would be no evidence
against D, and D would be acquitted of the conspirs4
with A, B, and C.

Mr. PEAcoci—That was what he wanted to shelf
their Lordships. Supposing that A and B were
dieted for conspiracy together, leaving out the us°""
words, " with others unkown." Suppose that A eers
fessed that he was guilty of conspiracy with 134
would be no evidence upon which to convict B, but it
would be evidence to convict A. But if there was
failure of the evidence against B in point of law, A could
not be convicted, because it was a contradictory flails!
in the record. If A, B, and C, were charged with "
joint conspiracy, A and B could not be found guill
of conspiring with C in the same verdict in which C
found not guilty of conspiring with them.
The LORD CHA.NcELLoß—Supposii,g that A is ins
dieted for conspire 7 with B and C, and that he MI;
fessed he conspired with B and C, and that the jutry
upon the trial find that C is not guilty, because there II:
no evidence against him ; and then, supposing that
and B are guilty of the premises, and in the same fie"
icg it is found that C is not guilty, *would not that do?
Mr. PEACOCK submitted it Would not.
The LORD CHANCELLOR—The meaning of " Noti
Guilty" in that case must be, that there Was no evident
to find them guilty.
Mr. PEACOCK submitted it would not be suffieiel;
The verdict, if it was one, and on one record, must 4
consistent. The jury could not, upon the confessionty/
Daniel O'Connell, Barrett, and Duffy, find them g°ii
of conspiring with others. What they should find Ivo
that they were nut guilty of conspiring with e 4
0j
other. They were to look to the finding of the jui•YelA
they must presume that the jury meant what
found, for, if there was a difference, the reculija
would be entered up accordingly, and therefore it oula
only be on the confession of the three that they et'ore
be found guilty of conspiring with others, when
esi,
others were not found guilty of conspiring with th
(The Learned Gentleman then quoted " Cogla
Digest," title Pleader, s. p. 23, to show that a vei;
which was repugnant was void ; and also 2d Havvillub,
Pleas of the Crown, b. 2, p. 47, s. 8.) He would s
mit that if a person confessed to conspiracy with allolßh,t,Lo
but if the jury for want of evidence foetal that Per-10
not guilty, that the confession of the other would
void, because the record would be repugnant ; for if
confessed to be guilty of conspiracy with B, and 0r
found not guilty, A could not be found guilty of con'Pre".
ing with B, for there would be a repugnancy on the, 0
cord. So when in an indictment A was chargetioj.
principal, and B as accessory, if A was acquitted, 13 eeio
not be found guilty ; even it' B confessed that A wastre
principal, and that lie had been accessory, because tin;
would be a repugnancy on the record if it said that
was guilty as accessory to it, and yet that A WO
guilty as principal. ti
The LOAD CHANCELLOR—The question is, how -
that be since the alteration of the law ? You have
authority, I suppose, since the alteration of the law ,
Mr. PEAcocH apprehended that the alteration of tot
law, by which accessories could be convicted wit",„-
the conviction of the principals, would not make -fr
.difference if both parties were included in the same tv
cord. The accessory might be convicted upon a 6:„ 1,1"
rate record, but he could not found guilty in the 6,,0t
record which acquitted his principal, inasmuch as t" if
would then be a repugnancy in the record. Therefore!oo
certain parties were found guilty on their own confesslo
of a joint conspiracy with others, and those other Per nit
were acquitted, the verdict against those parties 00w,,,
own confession could not stand, because there would
a repugnancy on the record.
eifl4l
The Lop CHANCELLOR--Does not the P- 11000
apply here that the Court can correct any replig°
it they can show clearly what the jury intended.
fer
Mr. I'EACOCK apprehended that that was an
merit in his favour, because, if the repugnancy lowoel
existed in fact, the Court could not have corrected it. "•,1
were bound to have it that .he Court had entercoe
verdict according to the truth • and finding of the cso
The Court did not take it as a minute of the jury'lol
they entered it according to the actual finding to de`'
to a court of error what that real finding was. tis
The LORD CHANCELLOR--I believe the finding °I), iti
record must be presumed to be the very words e' t
,
jure.
Mr. PEACOCK had before directed their Lordsbe Aws
attention to Comyn's Digest on argumentative ver"
It was there stated that verdicts founded on argette
and inference are void. (The Learned Counsel lest
quoted several cases from Comyn's Digest and '7OO
Abridgement, in support of his position.) In lic;11
23d of Comyn's Digest, it was said, '• So if a veR '
repugnant, it is void." (The Learned Counsel sbo.,4sfi
quoted several cases in which verdicts had been tie° ltd
void on the ground of repugnancy.) He suisli
that in the present case the verdict aus repugna°ti,
00/
else that it required argument to show that it Nvint.i;
repugnant. If it was repugnant, it was void, ono ''ps
was only not repugnant by reason of its 011,
argumentative, then it was void for being4t4
argumentative verdict. If the verdict were taken 011
as an argument to show that these parties had ogle
guilty of conspiring with each other, there was 110 irod
meta to sh..w it' the parties had entered into a consi'doo
with each other, or with Mr. Tyrrell, who was 31t.
Were they guilty or not guilty of conspiring with ,81
Tyrrell ? The verdict was uncertain, ambiguous'
unargumentative ; and if it was nut intended to sayot)
ther they were guilty or not guilty of conspirii4oltl ire
Mr. Tyrrell, then it was bad, because it did nut 01
116
,
whole matter at issue. In Comyn's ]sign's"i tiPj
" Pleader," it was laid down that a, verdict .;•.as '10"
nothing as to the remainder,
to the whole, if it found only part of th-e. issue and fof
laid down that a ver,i;-'
that was " Coke upon Little t- in which.' 14
ambiguLlusly .on 227 A,
t au-thority:rstatuit:et:l:
. ..ct finding matter mice
.
insufficient, and nojudgment 0,14/
given o'':*reon. For these reasons he (Mr.of
sn_ailitted that the verdict upon the third collet's/1,cl;
void, either for repugnance, or ambiguity, or 00.,erclie
ing upon the whole matter charged,
.and if the '
was void on that count, then he submitted that the :0011,_;
ment was also void, because some portion of the toliPe
ment.must have been given in consequence of the 4"beil
the party guilty on that count, and the judgrue°l', ate;
void as to that count, was void altogether, htimpetil
Lordships could not say how much uf the pullis'irtie.6
had been given in consequence' of the finding the !iv
,11
guilty on that count. This objection applied Fit;
the sixth and all subsequent counts. The triedsliir
to which he would call the attention of their If!! util ,
was, that upon the reccrd there was a disconu°Tb
between the finding of the verdict and the sentence'
venire was returnable on the 15th January, and tirciy,; 08
day " the said jurors of the said jury so empalU' ay
aforesaid, being duly elected, tried, and sworn.',,o
the truth of the several matters in the infl'ictme°tiett°o
said specified and charged agai
,t the said ,r
O'Connell, John O'Connell ,
themes Steele, ,e-bolli",f
Mathew Ray, Ch r.:bol'ior
Gavan Duffy, the Rev. ;O s
Tierney, Jobe ‘e.e..
ray, and Richard Barrett, the 10 At)
the i6Al::es as aferesaid by the jurors aforesaitLiv
-stud court here before the Queen herself; is do 'Jai
tinued until and upon Wednesday the thirty-first,' dot
aanuary, in the year of our Lord one thous's°s i 5
hundred and forty-four ; and now at this day, th for 41
say, on the said thirty -first day of January trio
much as it appears to the Court here that
,t's'o•t
of the said issues so joined as aferb'„ et/00,
s
not, nor can the said trial thereof h./
eluded on this same day it is ordered ,i;d 00j
said court here, that the said jurors so emnalle):shclf.i
sworn to try the said issues shall have leayo *id l
the said jurors shallo
this same day from the bar of this coif, hat.,sis
court here ya the - optbQ
-wrrow, that is to say, , , •
ugail) P. me to the bar of I°.‘ clPi

(11
Gr
e,.t

file
~Lr
pre
Ipd
I),

Th
any
the
tioi
ere

chat

Were f
went

The
ag a ri

Air.
of the
that
made
added
Lrij,rc
a eert,
The
that tl

the 4i
but tf:
eertaii
The
fur t{u
of
.„e

is
cOir
e
bat
find.
do?

or Fe?-,,

Uietofu

tit the

if
.f'~~,