The Sun.
London, England, 1844-02-10 00:00:00

power. We shall revert to some of the suggestions
concerning the material condition of Ireland put forth
by the Edinburgh Review—by Mr. Wiggins, the
land-agent, in a volume just published, and by the
author of a pamphlet, entitled " Remarks by a Junior
to his Senior."
STANDARD.—From the commencement of the
state trials in Ireland, it has been our most anxious
wish to avoid allusion to them ; but this wish we have
not been permitted to indulge. Scarcely a day of the
last two months has passed in which we have not
been compelled to protect the interests of truth and
justice by:exposing some direct falsehood or correct-
ing some misrepresentation put forward by those who
embrace the party of the traversers. It is a sigoi-
ficant circumstance, but one which ought not to
rt fleet injuriously upon the case of the gentlemen
upon their trial—that throughout their professed
friends have been the aggressors in this matter.
From the party opposed to them in politics, no
uncandid censures of their line of defence has been
offered ; no captious objections to their evi-
dence or arguments have proceeded, though,
if we had been disposed to take that course,
we surely could not want occasion. The ut-
most length to which the Conservative press has
gone has been to answer falsehood and the perver-
sion of indifferent facts; and even to this length we
have proceeded with reluctance and pain. Had our
adversaries permitted, the process would have
gone on in the decent silence out of Court
due to the administration of justice. We do not
pretend that w e have not formed an opinion upon
the case. No man, who has paid the least at-
tention to what has been passing in Ireland for the
last year, can honestly say that he has not formed an
opinion. The Opposition journals themselves, by
the manner in which they magnified the importance
of the repeal agitation, by their incessant taunts to
the Government fer so long permitting its continuance,
without some attempt to suppress or appease it,
have forbidden that any one should be without
a formed opinion upon the subject. They were suffi-
cient prompters of the prosecution if other prompters
had been wanting; and it is disgusting to see them
now cros-ing every step of the proceeding which,
four months ago, they urged, whether directly or in-
directly, with such factious violence. Let them say
what they may, they are as much responsible
for the prosecution as the Ministers by whom it
was instituted in their official capacity. The oppo-
sition journals, it is true, may have urged the prose-
cutions in the hope that they might be defeated by dis-
honest means, and their conduct for the last two
months has been perfectly consistent with that
design ; but they will scarcely avow a scheme so
treacherous and disgraceful, and so repugnant to
the best interests of the country. The Morning
Chronicle of this day has another long article
upon the subject of the ten Roman Catholics set
aside upon the formation of the jury. It will be
remarked that the:number of these Roman Catholic
gentlemen is now reduced from eleven, the number
originally stated, to ten—a circumstance not un-
worthy of consideration in a question where the
perfect knowledge of the religious profession and
political opinions of every person upon the panel,
assumed to be possessed by the Crown solicitor, is the
gravamen of the accusation. Hitherto, it has been
alleged that eleven Roman Catholics were set aside,
the number is now reduced to ten. There has,
therefore, been evidently a mistake as to the religious
profession of one gentleman, on the part of those who
have had their attention earnestly directed to the sub-
ject for weeks ; but the subject of complaint is now
reduced to the mistake of the Crown solicitor as to
the political connections of two gentlemen, upon 24
hours of inquiry, with little motive to inquire
with extraordinary diligence ; but it will, we sup
pose, be admitted, that a gentleman's temporary poli•
tical connexion is a matter less easy to be ascertained
than the faith which he has professed through life.
After many weeks of close investigation, the com-
plainants have mistaken one Protestant Repealer for
a Roman Catholic, doubtless because he is a Repealer.
The Crown Solicitor, having twenty-four hours to
study the list, mistook two Roman Catholics, who
are not Repealers, for members of the Association.
Here is the whole of the case.

BAIL COURT.--(THIS DAY.)
(Before Mr. Justice WILLIAMS and a Common Jury.)
WESTIRMAN V. MADDOX.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, who had been en.
gaged as a flute-player in the Princess's Theatre, against the lessee,
for an assault, alleged to have been committed on the 9th of No.
vember last.

Mr. Erle, Queen's Counsel, and Mr. Pearson appeared for the
plaintiff, and Mr. Platt, Queen's Counsel, for the defendant.
J. Lodes, examined by Mr. Pearson, stated the circumstances of
the case. He said in substance that he was the manager of the
orchestral department of the theatre. The plaintiff having been
dismissed he came to the defendant on the 9th of November to
claim money which he said was due to him for a broken flute and
extra services'; Mr. Maddox, in the presence of the witness, refused
to pay the amount ; words ensued, Mr. Maddox took a stick from
the defendant, and on his refusing to leave the room proceeded to
turn him out.

Cross-examined by Mr. PLATT—The defendant had been guilty
of impertinence during his engagement. During the defendant's
absence at Paris, an order was obtained by the plaintiff from the
Court of Bequests, which was reversed on Mr. Maddox's return.
Mr. Maddox only used that degree of violence which was ucces.
sary to put the plaintiff out of the room. After the plaintiff was
ordered to leave the room, he kept on talking.
Charles Henry Fountain examined by Mr. PEARSON—Was
under.treasurer of the Princess's Theatre. Was present at the
interview between the plaintiff and the defendant on the 9th of
November, in Mr. Maddox's private room. His attention was first
called to what was passing by observing the defendant take a stick
from the plaintiff. The defendant afterwards took hold of him
by the collar to turn him out of the room, having previously
ordered him to leave it, which the plaintiff refused to do. Mr.
Maddox did not shake the plaintiff. Did not hear Mr. Loder
remonstrate with Mr. Maddox on his conduct. The latter put the
plaintiff's stick in the fire, and part of it was burnt.

Cross.examined by Mr. PLArr— When Mr. Maddox rose to take
the stick the plaintiff had raised it on the other side of the table,
and was near enough to strike him. The plaintiff, on being re-
peatedly ordered to leave the room, said he would have his slick.
Mr. Maddox had first placed it in a corner of the room.

Mr. PLATT addressed the jury on behalf of the defendant, con.
telding that the action had been brought merely for the purpose of
getting damages, and that one farthing was what the plaintiff was
entitled to receive under the circumstances of the case. He re.
marked especially upon the circumstance that the stick had been
valued by the plairtiff at 21., as showing the object of the action.
In the whole matter, the defendant had shown no desire whatever
to commit an assault.

The Learned JUDGE, in summing up said, the plaintiff was un-
doubtedly entitled to the verdict, as the laying on of hands consti.
tuted an assault. The simple question was what should be the amount,
and that must of course be lett to the jury. The Learned Counsel, in
opening the case, had mentioned amongst other things, that blows
were given, but there was no proof of violence of any kind. If a person
came to the private room ofanother, and was impertinent,or remained
there longer than was desired, and after being requested to leave
would not do so, the party so requesting him might use that degree
of violence which was necessary to put him out. Although it did
not cover the roasting of the tail end of his stick, it was a justifies.
tion for turning him out of the room ; and if therefore the jury
thought the plaintiff was impertinent, or intruded himself upon the
defendant ih his private room, after being desired to leave it, that
should be taken into account in considering the amount of damages.
The jury retired to deliberate, and after being shut up several
hours they were discharged by' the judge, there not being the least
prospect of coming to an agreement.