The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1844-01-16 00:00:00

THE STATE TRTALS.

On Thursday Mr. Moore, Q.C., applied to the Court
of Queen's Bench on the part of the traversers, that the
panel of special jurors be quashed and set aside, or can-
celled, and that a mandamus, or order in the nature of a
mandamus, should be issued, directed to the Right Hon-
ourable the Recorder of the city of Dublin, commanding
him to place on the list of jurors for the year 1844, in the
county of the city of Dublin, in their proper order, the
names of divers persons—to wit, of twenty-seven persons,
whose qualifications respectively to be placed on the list
was legally proved before, and allowed by the Recorder as
special jurors.
The Attorney-General said he could not abstain from
expressing his opinion, in alluding to the affidavit made
by Mr. Mahony, if it were true that what•was stated by
him and Mr. Ford, that sixty-four were left out of the
list, of which only fourteen or fifteen were Roman Catho-
lics, that he should not mention that in the affidavit in
question. What was the meaning of making it appear by
the affidavit, that all the parties whose names were omitted
were Boman Catholics, but to create an excitement which
was not just, and to create a feeling against the officers of
the crown by the suppression of facts which ought to have
been fairly set out and stated in court. The affidavit did
not state that these were the entire of the names omitted ;
but it implied as much, while the allegation in the affida-
vit was that sixty-four names were omitted, fourteen or
fifteen of which were Roman Catholics ; it was sought to
be conveyed to their lordships that only the names of Ro-
man Catholics were omitted, and not those of any other
creed ; and that was followed up by a charge, that the
omission was effected corruptly, although Mr. Mabony,
who swore the affidavit, did not attempt to state on whom
the charge lay, or venture to prove it.
After a lengthened argument, the Chief Justice pro-
ceeded to give judgment, viewing the question in all its
bearing fully and fairly, the court could not but arrive at
the conclusion that the present application was a very un-
precedented one, and at variance with reason and princi-
ple. Things might have occurred with respect to the jury
lists the occurrence of which was to be regretted ; but he
was not sure that a fair ingenuous representation had been
made in support of that application in the particular in-
stance relied on by Mr. Kemmia, and particularised by
the Solicitor-General. He alluded to the fact of Mr.
Kemmis having in his affidavit alleged that when first a
complaint was made upon this subject by Mr. Ford, that
gentleman stated that 65 names that had been allowed by
the Recorder had been omitted from the list. Of these
65, 15 only were Roman Catholics, and this circumstance
was one which ought certainly to have been fairly and
candidly stated if the party coming before the court to
make his application desired to act an ungenerous part.
It ought not to have been unequivocally stated to the
public that 15 Roman Catholics whose names were on the
revised lists, were omitted from the sheriff's book without
making the slightest allusion to the fact that the residue
of the 65 were Protestants, and that their names also
were omitted, for this would have completely altered the
character of the imputation.
Mr. Ford.—We did not know the names of the other
persons omitted, and consequently could not particularise
them.
Mr. Justice Perrin said he agreed with the learned
Chief Justice that the application should be refused, but
he could not help adding that there was matter for great
suspicion in the case, of gross neglect somewhere; and it
was to be regretted that there was not more care taken
with that authenticated document.

On Saturday the Attorney-General moved, on the part
of the crown, for an order that, in the event of the trial
in this case not having terminated on or before the 31st
instant, that Thursday, the Ist of February, and every
day until next term, or as many as shall be necessary,
shall be fixed by the court for the purpose of said trial,
and be deemed and taken to be part of the present Hilary
Term. He could not say the precise time that would be
necessary for the trial, but he thought it well to have the
order made.

The motion was granted, judge Perrin dissenting, but
saying it was unnecessary for• him to give his reasons.
The Attorney-General asked at what hour their lord-
ships would sit on Monday (yesterday), when the Chief
Justice replied, that the court would sit punctually at
ten.