The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1844-05-28 00:00:00

Standard-office, Half-past Seven o'clo,,k.

DUBLIN, May 27th, 1844.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.

About eleven o'clock the court assembled, when Sir
Colman O'Loghlen rose and stated that he was about to
move an arrest of judgment on behalf of Daniel O'Con-
nell, and would shear that upon the record as it then
stood, judgment could not be passed against that gentle-
man ; it was evident from the way in which the learned
gentleman expressed himself, that the traversers expected
to be heard each by separate counsel, upon the present
motion. Thus they flattered themselves they would be
able to spin out the proceedings to so late a period that
the court would be unable to pass sentence until next
term. However,

The Chief Justice, perceiving their intention, interrupt-
ing Sir Colman O'Lochlen, said, that from his (Sir Col-
man O'Lochlen's) stating simply that he appeared as
counsel for Daniel O'Connell, it was right to inform him
that the court would consider the application he was about
to make as made on behalf of all the traversers, and could
not hear more than two counsel on each side.
Sir Colman O'Loghlen said that he was only instructed
on beh .If of Mr. Daniel O'Connell; and that some of
the traversers having been convicted of a different offence
from that of which he was found guilty, they would seek
to address the Court by their own counsel.
Mr. Close, also for the traversers, urged their right to
move separately in arrest of judgment ; but the Court put
an end to the mater by stating that as the points of law
relied on were the same in the case of all the traversers,
they would adhere to the ordinary practice of the Court,
and were determined not to hear more than two counsel
on each side.

Upon this the traversers' counsel appeared somewhat
crestfallen, and Sir Colman O'Loghlen proceeded to ad-
dress the court in arrest of judgment, upon the ground
that the caption to the indictment did not state which of
the grand jury had been sworn, and which were affirmed,
(there was a Quaker upon the grand jury), and also that
the indictment contained several distinct charges, and
was therefore bad for duplicity, and further that the
charges were too vague and uncertain. The learned
counsel then proceeded to argue these points at great.
length, but without seeming to produce the slightest im-
pression on the Court, the object appearing to be to be-
wilder the Court with a host of cases and authorities hav-
ing little or no reference to the subject.

Half-past Two o'clock.

Sir Colman O'Loghlen is still on his legs, addressing
the Court ; his object appears to be to speak against time,
as be is citing authorities and positions which have been
so often referred to in the proceedings that they have lost
even the air of noveltir ; indeed, when he was about to
read out one case, Judge Crampton entreated him to save
himself the trouble, as he had already heard it seven
limes during the trial, and had it almost by heart. If Sir
Colman O'Loghlen does not speedily conclude his already
threadbare argument, sentence can hardly by possibility
be passed to-night, and thus all reasonable powers of cal-
culation are likely to be baffled by the inexhaustible talk-
ing powers of the conspirators' counsel ; however, I shall
keep my letter open until the latest hour at which an ex-
press can be despatched.

Quarter-past Four.

Sir Colman O'Loghlen is still on his legs, and there-
fore, as the Attorney-General has yet to be heard in
answer, after which Mr. M`Donogh will reply on behalf
of the traversers, and then the Solicitor-General in reply
to him, there is no chance of the motion being terminated
to-night.
Sir Colman O'Loghlen has concluded, and Mr. Fitz-
gibbon is now speaking, and insisting that, notwithstand-
ing what has fallen from the Court this morning, the tra-
versers, every one of them, have a right to make a sepa-
rate motion to arrest the judgment.
The Attorney-General rose and stated, that he antici-
pated the objection would be made, and he had therefore
consulted the Attorney-General for England on the sub-
ject, and he informed him that the Queen's Bench in
England would not hear more than two counsel on such
a case.

Mr. Fitzgibbon said that Sir Wm. Follett's saying so
did not make it the law. -'

The Chief Justice observed, that the counsel for tie
traversers had no right to complain; that each of them,
throughout the case, had addressed the court as if
he was concerned on behalf of them all. The
rule of court was against Mr. Fitzgibbon's client,
and he (the Chief Justice) for one would adhere to it.
There was another able counsel to be heard on the same
side as Sir Colman O'Loghlen, and anything the other
counsel wished to urge, they could say it to him.
The other members of the Court concurred, and the
application of Mr. Fitzgibbon was unanimously refused.
The Court then adjourned at half-past four o'clock, until
to-morrow, so that another day at least has been gained
by the traversers.

There was a meeting of the Repeal Association this
day, Sir Samuel Bradstreet, Bart., in the chair. The rent
received up to three o'clock was £538 odd, including £lOO
from Savannah, and £5O from Brooklynn ; but a sun of
money from New Or:eans was rejected, as it contained
some suggestion the Repealers did not like. Mr. O'Con-
nell was present.