The Sun.
London, England, 1844-06-05 00:00:00

IRELAND.

, JUICE 3.
THE STATE TRIALS—WRIT OF DUBLIN
ERROR.
COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH—This DAY.
THE QUEEN V. O'CONNELL AND OTHERS.
Mr. WHITESIDE said that on Saturday evening an applica-
tion had been made to the Court, in the case of the Queen v.
O'Connell and others, that the solicitor for the prisoners
should be at liberty to inspect the record in the Clerk of the
Crown's office, for the purpose of taking a list of the wit-
nesses, ascertaining if they had been sworn in pursuance of
the statute, and comparing the endorsements on the back of
the indictment. He thought it was a matter of right for the
traversers to be allowed to inspect the record, but that right
was denied by Mr. Bourne, and they were driven to make
the present application to the Court for an order to compel
the Clerk of the Crown to permit the inspection required.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL spoke in reply. He was oppos-
ing a motion which was without precedent, and which was,
no doubt, made for some object, which did not appear. If the
present application were granted he would venture to say
that there would not be a case of misdemeanour tried throng-
out the country for the future, that the parties convicted
would not make the case of the Queen and O'Connell a pre-
cedent when asking for liberty to inspect the record with a
view of picking oat something wherein to found a writ
of error.

Mr. WitrrEsinE said the present application was not made
for any concealed or improper purpose. Mr. Ford had in his
affidavit stated specifically the object for which it was made,
and where there was no affidavit on the other side, or any
data upon which to found the slightest contradiction of what
had been sworn, it was not proper of her Majesty's Attorney-
General to place his assertions in opposition to it, and impute
motives which did not exist.
Mr. Justice PEnuni—l cannot, for the life of me, see why
the application is refused. I have never known counsel to be
refused an inspection of the indictment after trial. I have
myself, when counsel, been permitted to inspect the record
in open court.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said that the Crown had con-
sented to all that was necessary to bring a writ of error coram
nobis.
Mr. Justice BURTON—The application seems to be not to
sastain a writ of error, but to seek for grounds to found it on ;
but yet I cannot see what injury it could do to allow an in-
spection of the record.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said such an application was
without precedent, and the prisoners had no right to have it
granted.
ATTORNEY-GENERAL-_I have no objection that the indict-
ment be sent for, and let the judges look at it, and any-
thing they think proper to have granted I will at once
accede to.
Mr. WHITESIDE said the call upon the judges to point out
the grounds upon which error might be assigned would form
a new precedent.
CHIEF JUSTlCE—Granting the motion would be another
new precedent.
The monster indictment was then sent for, and after the
judges had inspected it,
The CHIEF JUSTICE said the application should be refused.
Mr. Justice BURTON thought that the indictment ought to
be handed to the traversers' counsel in open Court.
Mr. Justice CR,t3n-rox agreed with the Chief Justice.
Mr. Justice PERRIN agreed with Judge Burton.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL then rose, and said, as two mem.
hers of the Court were of opinion that the indictment ought
to be submitted to the prisoners' counsel, he would not ob-
ject to it.
The monster indictment was then handed down, and after
an inspection of it by the counsel for the prisoners, Pilr.White-
side and Sir C. O'Loghlen, it was handed back to the Clerk of
the Crown.
Subsequently, the solicitors for the prisoners obtained a
copy of the names of the witnesses on the back of the in-
dictment.