The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1843-11-28 00:00:00

ground that they could not have a fair trial by it. That
objection must now fall to the ground, for before the pe-
riod which he had named, the revised list would be com-
pleted, and they could select a jury from it."

On Saturday, being the last day of term, to the great
surprise of every one, including many of the infima re-
cessus of political life, a motion was made for the
court to direct the Clerk of the Crown to submit to the
traversers a list of the witnesses appearing on the record
of the indictments.

The application was pressed upon the court more in the
shape of a claim upon their discretionary power, being
founded upon the affidavits of Mr. Duffy's attorney, who
swore that a knowledge of the names of the witnesses vas
essential to his defence. The traversers' motion also
rested upon the affidavit of Mr. Coppock, an English
attorney, who swore that he was in practice in the courts
of England, and declared that, to the best of his belief, in
the Court of Queen's Bench in that country it was the
invariable practice to grant the copies of captions and
names of witnesses to all traversers.

Mr. O'Hagan and Mr. Whiteside pressed the applica-
tion on the court, and were resisted by the Attorney-
General and Solicitor-General. After a consultation for
some time,

The Lord Chief Justice declared that the majority of
the court were of opinion that the application could not
be granted. The learned judge explained the reasons
which led him to that conclusion very fully, and spoke for
upwards of three quarters of an hour. He decided that
the deponents had not sustained their application by show-
ing that it was necessary to their defence or explaining
how it could benefit them on their trial. Neither had
they sworn that they did not know the names of the wit-
nesses in any of the affidavits they had filed, which merely,
in general terms, stated the names were material to the
traversers' defence. The learned judge also refused it
because the practice of the court was not for it, and be-
cause it was not the custom in Ireland, nor sustained by
authority there ; and denied the analogy argued to exist
between cases of treason and misdemeanours, which would
go to prove that traversers in the latter case, not affected
with any danger to life, would be entitled to all the privi-
leges given to the accused in the higher order of crime in
favorem vitce. He also refused it on the grounds of the
general danger of making any such innovation, more espe-
cially in Ireland, where, by the murder, maiming, intimi-
dation, and bribery of witnesses, justice had been, as the
Attorney-General said, frustrated and defeated.

Mr. Justice Burton and Mr. Justice Crampton coin-
cided with the Lord Chief Justice.

Mr. Justice Perrin then declared the grounds on which
he had been led to differ from the rest of his learned bre-
thren.

Mr. Whiteside expressed his willingness to wait till the
sth January, ten days before the trial, for the list, but
was refused it, under any circumstances, ty the Attorney-
General.

Mr. Smyly, for the crown, then moved the court to
order the proper officer to strike a special jury in the case
of the Queen v. O'Connell and others, to be taken next
term from the revised list; and so ended the last manoeu-
vre of this great forensic battle which can take place du-
ring the present term.