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

guilty of three several eonspiracies, though the indictment
presented a charge of only 'one. It would be found the same
as if it stood thus :—Eight persons conspired to cheat another
person A.B. of three horses, black, white, and grey, Eii,ht
persons are supposed to conspire, they are proved to have
met in a room—that they came to an agreement to cheat
A. B. out of his black horse ; but a part of them declined
to become parties to cheat A. B. out of another horse. Two
persons out of the eight retire from the room, and those who
remain enter into an agreement to cheat A. B. out of another
horse. A portion of them again retire, And those who are
left conspire to cheat A. B. out of the remaining horse. Now
here are three conspiracies between different persons at dif-
ferent times. Such would be found to be the conviction in
the present case Eight persons would be found to have
conspired to do certain acts. Some of thoseare found to have
conspired to do other acts, and there is a third conviction for
conspiring to do other acts, referring obviously to different
times, and with respect to some of the acts to different persons;
(The Hon. aud,Learned Gentleman here read the finding of
the jury at length on the first and second counts.) Now, by
this finding there were eight persons convicted of one cote
spiracy. seven persons convicted of another conspiracy, and
three persons convicted of a third. Now, on the record, there
is one entire charge. The first and second counts •contain
one charge only, but the finding makes them guilty of dis-
tinct offeces, some distinct as to the persons, and all as to
their objects. These offences may be more or less extensive;
they may be the whole, or a portion of the count, but upon
the finding the defendant can only be guilty of one
offence. It wag not competent for the jury to find
and the Court to give judgment upon perfectly distinct and
independent offences, although those dffences are part
of what is the entire charge, and although each of these
might have been the subject of an indictment.
This finding, therefore, cannot be a good one.
If there are three perfectly distinct legal offences, they cannot
be convicted of one entire offence. The first objection in this
part of the case is, that upon those two counts, each being
entire, the jury did not convict the defendants of one entire
offence, hut convicted them of three distinct offences. On the
th ird ci.o ut, your Lordships will find that Daniel O'Connell, Mr.
Barrett, and Mr. Duffy, are found guilty of the whole of the
third count, and that Mr. John O'Connell, Mr. Steele, 31r.
Ras, and Dr. Gray, are not found guilty of the whole of it ;
they are not guilty of that part of it which charges them
with conspiracy to excite disaffection in the army, and
the Reverend Thomas Tierney was found guilty of that
part only which relates to the exciting of disaffection in the
army. Here your Lordships will observe that Daniel O'Con'''
nell, Mr. Barrett, and Mr. Duffy, are found guilty of the
whole matter of the count. They were charged with coil-
spiring together with Mr. John O'Connell and the other de-
fendants to accomplish certain objects, and Mr. D. O'Connell,
Mr. Barrett, and Mr. Duffy, are found guilty of conspiring to cl.
that of which Mr. J. O'Connell and the others who conspired
with him are not found guilty. It is impossible that M'r. P.
O'Connell, Mr. Barrett, and Mr. Duffy could have conspired
with those other persons without those other persons con-
spiring with them, for the nature of a conspiracy is, that I
mutual agreement or contract has been entered into to effect
the common object. The count charges eight persons with
conspiring together, and they find that the eight are guilty,
but that five of the eight were not guilty of what three
others were convicted. If the acquittal of the five be light'
the conviction of the three must be wrong, and here the
same objection arises of finding two offences, and I thi4
this finding is erroneous, and ought to be set aside. •
The LORD CHANcemon—Suppose a case of three perstolt
being indicted for conspiring to do an act, of whom two'ers
found guilty and the third acquitted—would not that 138
pop_ _

Sir T. WILDE—I do not apprehend you can find that tot;
men conspired with a third, and find in the same record 09'
the third did not conspire with them. . •
The LORD CHANcnu...on-4n a conspiracy between A,
C, and other persons, if you find A guilty of a conspiracy, '"
is not necessary that C and B should be joined in the cow
spiracy.
Sir T. Wtt.DE—Every indictment for a conspiracy Must
be framed in one of two ways—either that persons unknown
had conspired with A and B, or that A and B, and others
unknown, had conspired ; but you must always prove the
conspiracy as you charge it.
The LORD CHANCELLOR—Is it necessary to grove a COr
spiracy against all the persons who are made parties to it r
(At this period of the proceedings it was announced tba,t
the Royal Commissioners were in waiting to give her MajestY ,
assent to certain Bills.)
The LORD CHANCELLOR—We will renew the argunien
after the Commission is over.
Counsel were then ordered to withdraw, and the Ito.Y
•Assent was given by Commission to certain Bills, for wine,:
set our Parliamentary report. After the Commission t"
argument was resumed.
Sir ThostAs WILDE then resumed—Your Lordship 105
asking me a question respecting the acquittal of one defog'
dant, when three were charged on an indictment for cons Pi.
racy. I know of no case in which a record properly .811.4
tered and properly prepared shows incongruity on tilt
face of it. In this case, instead of finding th%
Daniel O'Connell, Barrett, and Duffy conspired with ea;
other, and with certain persons unknown, to doeorti!Al
acts, the jury find that they are guilty of the premises charge"'
On the first and second counts they find them guilty of
,Con'
spiracy with each other to do certain acts which form a Pot
of the premises set out in those counts. In an indictrot
against those persons for conspiracy with each other to "*.
certain things, if the guilt of one of the three is not eats,
blished, the proper mode of entering the finding is, that 53 1:
No. 3; not guilty, as to Nos. 1 and 2, guilty of conspiroc2
with each other, to do so and so.
Lord CAMTBELL-.-I1 that an essential part of the We-
ment?

Sir T. WrLDE—Theessential part is, that it ;;$ an agreed eat
with several to do certain acts which constitute a cony
racy. The indictment here chargel a conspiracy not the ell
with the eight defendants who were living at the time 01
trial, but with a ninth who was not living.
The Loan CmulcELLon----Three persons are indicted
conspiracy, and two have been found guilty of the pretow''"
whilst the other is not guilty. Will not that do?
Sir T. WILDE—No, my Lord. I must pray your Lordshlp to use the word premises, without stating its meaning' The LORD CHANCELLOR—.I made use of the word prelnises
because it is in this very count.
Sir T. WILDE—And I use it for the same newton. -.t
then, when your Lordship uses this an as objection! I
what is meant by premises? The word " premises,"
prehend, means that they are
in "
guilty of having em,oeo
into the conspiracy charged the count. If it
not mean that, who can tell what it does welly
If the word "premises" be a legal word, there must he
certain meaning attached to it. Suppose they were to be w
dieted again, what would be their plea?
The LORD CHANCELLOR—I think it is precisely the sarli.
question.
Sir T. WlLDE—Surely it would be a different offence?
of
The LORD CHANCELLOR—Not at all.• Suppose the pitr.,t'.o
are charged with o conspiring with A, B, and C, to do cet'ill
acts, and the jury were to find that they had conspired 10
A only, would not that be sufficient?
Sir T. WILE:—.Yes, my Lord. But your Lordship eg'„
the most material part of the question : that B and C 1131
-been acquitted, and the conspinicy with theni deniet;
Upon this occasion a cousretracy is charged against eig".
three are found bruitey of the premises. If it was oh
petent to find teem guilty of conspiracy with the 0t"11
five, why was not the verdict consistent ? For 1,/,''to
charge had they received judgment ? This applied, to.
a certain extent, through all the subsequent collo io
He conceived, therefore, that the record was defectiv!io
what it had not found, and inasmuch as it had not foul-woo
acquittal.; for instance, the whole were found guilty et' of
premises when the jury had negatived the possibilitlite
that guilt by the acquittal of certain persons To
whom they intended to conspire, and on oleit
intention a portion of the charge wail four"oto,
There is a verdict of not guilty in favour of the defende.er
which ought to have been followed up by judgment. `pfit.
diet was of no avail which was not followed up by judgin/iol
and he was not aware of any case where judgment ws°oo
pronounced in which a verdict of acquittal was found.
.40
defendants were acquitted on the count charging them 'O6
attending an unlawful assembly, and upon this acquittal
judgment of the Court was not pronounced. 011
Lord C,AsteenLL—ls that an error of which you eal3,a,ou
yourself You can only avail yourself of that by which
are damnified.
Sir Thomas WILDS—Those for whom I appear, spA rat
he
other defendants, may be damnified in this respect,. t" -eat,
verdict of not guilty coul d not be pleaded to another indictnl.e.
The LORD CHANCELLOR—We can repair that defect he'ir,
Sir T. WILDE—I am not aware that in a criminal °of
where the Court below does not pronounce judgment, 1
Lordships have ever added it. of The Loan Cii.orcEmon—l am informed that the C..ol.`,„tef
Queen's Bench has done so in a case called " The r>i-oy,
case," and upon the distinct ground of its being discretion of
Sir THOMAS WlLDE—There are many things whiting
Court of Queen's Bench would do which this House, s"ciio
as a Court of Error, would not do. I consider that the re,,',.• 1.4
is goOd for nothing till it is sanctioned by judgment
pronounced. I have now stated the most important Pc' toe
which I intended to address to your Lordships, but there,cli:
some others of a technical nature, upon which Mr. Per„ o'
will address you My Learned Friends will address your
ships upon some of those points which I have abstained of
urging at greater length in consequence of the shortne'f.,6
time. They will address you on the challenging of the J"
and the constitution of the jury-list.
Lord BnotiGlLtx--You do not mean to give 'ap the P
with regard to the swearing of the witnesses. _
Sir T. WiLDE—The very reverse.- my Lord. Pti-epo
Learned Friends and myself ba,veP7reed that there are
rate Pints upon which each "'..r.tould address your Lord',l'ire
and was afraid
..11,iat 3:: "I
should address myself to re
Pints, that I "tu'.7.- occupy too much time, acid
what
in f_tie outset.
vent others fre;-,,, being heard. I now conclude what
to say
V.7.-e Learned Gentleman concluded ins argument g" 0.4
minute to five o'clock, and the further hearing of the
was adjourned till to-morrow at ten o'clock.

IMPORTATION OF GOODS FROM MYSOR.E.
Lords of the Treasury having had under consideratiwre,
letter from the East India and China Associatiorlir eill
speeting the admission of sugar and other artich's
Mysore, their Lordships hate directed the Ceri'z'-oce
sippers of Customs to be apprised that Mysoiep. ,
is, le2ally admis.ible as produce of Madras, A oleo°
this order has been furnished to the varion.s depart,ll4 a$
lit London, alid also to the of
the several outports of the "Ur,.ted Kingdom, for
in.i comptrobetheif
infoorition and governunlt.