The Sun.
London, England, 1844-01-16 00:00:00

Sir COLMAN O'LOUGHLIN rose, and on the part of
Mr. Daniel O'Connell put in a challenge of the array
of the whole panel. He did not make any address, but
at once proceeded to read the challenge which was
of considerable length, and in the usual legal form.
It set forth that the defendant, Mr. Daniel O'Con-
nell, put in this challenge of the array of the jury,
on his own behalf, because that a list of the persons
qualified to serve as jurors was prepared and presented
to the Recorder at the special sessions for the county and
city of Dublin, and duly signed by him ; but that
the Recorder did not according to the enactment in
that case, made and provided, deliver in a 'general
list of such jurors, in the order the statute directs,
but that on the contrary, he omitted so to do ; and
that the said Daniel O'Connell asserts that the paper
puporting to contain the names of such jurors was
illegally and fraudulently made by some person or
persons unknown ; and that the said paper did not
contain the names of ALL the persons quali-
fied to serve on the jury, and whose qualification
had been allowed by the Recorder, but from it had
been omitted the names of fifty-nine persons whose
qualifications had been so allowed. (The names were
given : twenty-seven of them are understood to be
Catholics.) The challenge also stated, that at the
time the fraudulent writing was returned the persons
so omitted were, and still are, resident in the city of
Dublin, and duly qualified to be piaced on the
list ; it also asserted that from the said writing,
purporting to be a list of the jurors, a
bock was prepared, and from the said book
was made up the list of the special jury for the year
1844, and that the persons so omitted in the writing
were also passed over in the Jury Book. Thechallenge
then stated Mr. O'Connell's protest against and chal-
lenge of the legality of the jury panel, for these rea-
sons—it being falsified by the omissions above stated.
Sir COLMAN °To-coin:lN said that similar chal-
lenges were being prepared for each of the other tra-
versers, but that they were not yet ready.
The document was handed to the Attorney-Gene-
ral, who for some time appeared to scrutinise it very
earnestly.
Sir C. O'LOUGHLIN said the other challenges would
be identically the same in form, and stated that they
might all be considered then, pro forma, though they
were not yet completely drawn up.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that he had not seen
the challenge till then—he had not heard of it, and
was not aware that it was about to be made. He
therefore asked the Court to allow the Counsel for
the Crown a short time to consider it. He should
expect, if all the challenges were to be considered to-
gether, that they should also all be disposed of at the
same time.
The CHIEF JUSTICE—Have you a copy of the Act
of Parliament, Sir Colman ?
Sir COLMAN 0'1;01161mm replied in the affirma-
tive.

The Crown lawyers then quitted the Court to-
gether for the purpose of consulting together, and
the proceedings of the Court were for a considerable
time suspended.
The Counsel for the Crown and traversers having
returned to the Court, after an absence of two hours,
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said—l wish the other
challenges to be handed in.
Mr. MOORE, on the part of the traversers, put it to
the Court whether the other traververs were bound to
put their challenges at the present moment.
The traversers were there perfectly separate and
distinct, appearing by separate and distinct solicitors,
separate and distinct counsel. The counsel for one
of the traversers, Sir C. O'Loughlin, had put in a
challenge to the array on the part of his client, and
he (Mr. Moore) submitted that the Attorne3-General
had no right to ask that other challenges should be
put in before that already put in was disposed of by
the Court.
CHIEF JUSTICE—That would be shifting your
ground ccdsiderably, Mr. Moore. It was mentioned
for the other traversers that they only wanted time
to prepare similar challenges.
Mr. MOORE—If that was done I do not think that
I ought to proceed any further in the matter.
CHIEF JUSTICE—That was done in open Court.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL---It may' be proper to
enter a suggestion on the record respecting the death
of the Rev. Mr. Tyrrell. His name having been
included in the indictment, the proper course would
be to enter a suggestion on the record, to say that he
is dead.
CHIEF JUSTICE—That has been stated by the
gentleman who was his solicitor.
A pause of considerable ;length having here takon
place in the proceedings, in consequence of several
challenges not being yet ready.
The CHIEF JUSTICE observed that there was much
time consumed in the preparation of them.
Sir C. O'LOUGHLIN_-They are all engrossed, my
Lord, and will be ready in a few minutes. They are
now being compared.
CHIEF JUSTICE—You ought to have come into
Court prepared with them all.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL--I cannot understand
the course adopted. In all those cases there might as
well have been joint challenges as separate ones.
Mr. PIERCE MAHONY, one of the traversers solici-
tors, observed, they would be ;ready and in Court in
less than five minutes.—(Lattighter.)
The different challenges on the part of the other
traversers were then handed in after some time.
Mr. O'Connell—They are signed by counsel, I
suppose.
Mr. Ford, solicitor for the txaversers—They are.
The ATTORNEY-GUN -I wish to see them.
The challenges were then b; ended to the Learned
Gentleman.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL th en rose to support the
demurrer which had been put in on behalf of the
Crown. The argument adopted by the Learned
Gentleman was that the challenges put in contained
no averment. There was no averment that the Recorder
had not made out a list from the general list accord-
ing to the respective qualifications of the parties, and
there was no allegation that the Recorder, or any
persons connected with him, h ad been guilty of fraud
with regard to the omission ,)f the names, from the

list. There was no averment -that he did not hand
over the list so made out to the Clerk of the Peace.
There was no averment that the Clerk of the Peace
did not make out a proper list from the general list.
There was no averment that the High Sheriff did not

receive the ?jury list, and that I e did not make out
the special jury list from the 717 names there was no
averment that the jury was n oil: properly struck and
balloted for from the special jury list. There was no
allegation of fraud, contrivance, or design on the part
of the Crown, or the Sheriff, or the Recorder, or the
Clerk of the Peace, or with rev trcl to any person con-

nected with them. Under the )se circumstances, he
trusted the Court would not allorw the challenges put

in on the part of the tr uversers. It was
to be presumed prima facie that: the public officers

had performed their duty, and all there was no dis-
tinct averment in them, the Court, he hoped, would
not allow them to retard this ca u:3e, which was now

ripe for trial. It was absurd to suppose that the entire

proceedings should be rendered ntxlll because a name
might be omitted from the list by some person who

was not known. The Crown waF5 as anxious as the

taversers possibly could be to make out the

guilty person. He contended 011 the authority of

a case in 4th Barnwall and Alderson, that -a
challenge to the array would no .lie in such a case.

Under these circumstances he trus to d the Court would

be of opinion that the demurrer they took to the
several challenges ought to allo wed, and that the
trial ought be permitted to proceedL.
Sir C. OIOUGHLEN replied (3,11 the part of the
traverses, and quoted Hayes and I)ickenson's Text-

book, Bacon's Abridgment. the cal.:;e of the King v,
Johnson, and the case of the King and Nolan

in Hudson and Brooke, 164, to show that a challenge

:o the array would be in a special jury case. With

regard to what the Learned Atton ley-General prin
cipally relied on, namely, that there was no aver-
ment, the fact was, that there was as distinct an
averment, as it was possible to make. They dis-

tinctly attributed fraud with regard' to the jury list,
and the omission of certain n; =es from it to

some person, but who was the precise person on

whom to fix that fraud, it was irripussible for them to

say. This fraud must have been committed before
the list came into the hands of the Sheriff. The

ATTORNEY GENERAL did not etare to deny that the

special list was illegally and fr audulently made out.

They distinctly avowed that no general list was made

out ; that no general list was hay WO to the clerk of the