The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1844-09-18


nell that the association should take steps TO get
as many persons possible to take The total absll
nehce pledge, and TO iorswear the use OF TOBACCO
IN any shape, for limited period that Is, III the
repeal OF the union. |. was also the intention Of
Mr.. OConnell himself, on the Both OF May, 1919,
TO institute pledge tor the non-consumptlon vi ex
ciseable articles III Ireland, and, also, pledge Tor
the non OF any article not OF Irish manufacture
The repeal rent for the week was announced to be
1852 IS Sd.
REPEAL AssoclArIoN.-The usual weekly meet
ing OF this association was held on Monday, the
26h ut. The chair was taken BY Sir Valentine
Blake, MP. Mr.. O'Connell, handed in several
sums OF money, and then stated that the monster
address to the Queen had been forwarded lastweek
10 Sir James Graham Tor presentation. Mr.. ID.
O'Connell then TO make his usual weekly re-
turn from the prison. He said the repeal martyrs
were, usual, in excellent health and spirits,
cheered at the tranquility OF the country, and the
spirit OF perseverance evlnced by all parts o. Ire
land. He was happy to state, that he knew it was
Mr.. O'COnnell's thorough conviction that the hour
was coming for repeal, and coming fast Let the
people then not be turned aside by false hopes OF
any kind. Somebody has said
Hereditary bondsmen, know yet not
Who would be iree themselves must strike The blow
MI. j. Kelly announced the rent for the week TO be
E634 lbs. Id
The Irish State Trials Writ OF Error-Deci-
sion OF the Judges
HOUSE or LORDS, Monday.-To day being appointed for
the Judges to give their opinions the Wrt OF Error IN
the oil OConnel and the other prisoners, the gallery
and all the approaches to the house densey DIVIDED
with persons anxious to obtain admission When the
doors opened there rush. but the
greatest order was maintained
Prayers read by the Bishop Of Lch6eld and Co
ventry.
Lord Chief Justice Tindal and most other Judges
were early III attendance.
The attendance OF lay lords was not numerous.
Amongst those who arrived FIRST noticed his Royal
Hghness the Duke OF Cambridge the Earl oil Dahousie
Lord Redesdale, Lord Beaumont and Lord ssrangiord
About 30 other peers in the house when business
commenced,
advanced.
Lord Brougham Lord Cottenham and Lord Campbell
were very early in attendance.
The Lord Chancellor took his seat the wooisack at
quarter past 10 o'clock, when the following case was
called on:--
Grey v. The Que,n-This is writ of brought
against decision Of the Court Of Queens Bench Ireland
ieon The particulars have been frequently repor
ted. When the writ Of error argued ut its conclu-
their referred to the judges for their opin
ion to whether the prisoner had right to the peremp
tory challenge OF jury which he made on his trial
but which refused by the Court the ground that
the challenge ought to have been made before the jury
were sw orn, and not afterwards.
Mr. Justice Wightman at some length, read his opir-
ion Of the question submitted for the consideration OF the
judges. His ordship after taking review OF the cir.
cumances attending the trial, and citing number Of
legal authorities on the subject said he Of opinion
fore that their l0rdshps should allow the writ Of error
Mr. Justice Coltman Of the same opinion; he consi
dered the prisoner entitled TO the right OF challenge
and therefore the writ Of error ought to be allowed
MIR Justice Williams fully eoncurred in the opinions
and remarks of his learned brethren who had preceded
him.
Mr. Justice Pattison and Mr. Baron Quincy took the
view Of the law applicable to the csse they consid
cred the writ Of ought to be allowed Their lovd
ship Of opinion that the prisoner had undoubted
right Of peremptory challenge
Mr. Baron Park OF opinion that perempory chal-
enge right, except in where prisoner
life might be jeopardy He regretted TO differ from his
brethren who had preceded him. but he felt bound
contrary the state OF the law
The learned judge at consde rabe length stated his
the case and quoted the statutes bearing on the
rl,..ts ha uaa .f no
| chalege ought to have been disallowed.
The Lord Chief Barren tsir f. Pollock) Of opinion
the right oil challenge ought to have been admit ed and
| therefore That the writ OF should be allowed
Lord Chief Justice Tindai was Of opinion that the
Court below ought have allowed the peremptoy chal
| lenge made by The prisoner.
The other judges did not state their opinion
The Lord Chancellor moved that the further considera
ton OF the be adjourned until Wednesday next,
which motion was agreed TO.
| Final judgment postponed.
The State Trials o. Council az Others v. The Queen
After short interval the Of OConnell the Queen
called on, when the greatest anxiety manifested
Lord Chief Justice Tindal said in this the first
question propounded TO her m8jesys judges II eny
OF he counts in the indictment bad in law and II
so, which OF them The answer TO this question ION
which all the judges were unanmous must depend upon
the framing vi the different If the counts had
been drawn in loose and vague terms the defendants
entitled to the benefit OF them demurrer and they
entitled to the benefit in writ Of To
constitute the offence OF conspiracy 1t must be clearly
proved that two OF more combined together oI
known illegal purposes The gist Of the offence did
the parties meet together Tor the purpose OF knowing
breaking the laws Now the wording OF the first five
counts in the Indictment were disputed count,
related to he character Of the offence the 9Th and 7
charging the defendants with creating dssaac
tion in the minds OF her majestys subjects &c. The
judges all agreed that these counts did not state the Of
fence charged in the indictment with sufficient legal
curacy and certainty Although the object Of the delen-
dants might he to break the law they considered that ii
stated with sufficient certainty The ought
have stated what person persons intended
timdae and raise discomfort m put the counts only al
lodged that such intention certain by adspay ofnum
ber They did not hnk those counts had been drawn up
with sufficient .ahty The 9Th, OH, and 10Th counts
in the indictment set forth the purposes and obecB OF
defendants which, alleged intent to violate the
laws OF the land diminish confidence in the existing &c
vernment and bring into disreprte the Of
justice Now. il either OF those offences proved it
most aerous and srevous offence The answer Of
the Judges therefore to the first question propounded 10
them was, that they Of opinion the 9th and 7th
counts not valid in law and II they had stood alone
! no judgment could have been had on them. The next
question then with respect to the finding OF the
| jury-whether thore any errors in the finding :
They all agreed that the finding of the jury the lat
in the Indictment been sustained by legal evil
dencc Each count charged all the defendants with one
conspiracy and therefore there ought to have been only
finding. II was not competent to find some OF the de-
PENDANTS guilty of parts of the charge, and others
not guilty. II not valid finding to say that the de-.
counts only charged them with one The Judges there
fore considered the findings in the first four
not correct in law and therefore improperly entered
| the record.
"The third gu stion was whether there any reason
the judgment in consequence Of the defect in
the Hndtpg OF jury some OIL
ment On this point there difference Of opinion
amongst the judges and therefore he only delivered
his humble Judgment. He was ofopinon that II
counts on which defendant convicted
good end Of the other counts detective II
not sufficient to the judgment on writ Of
error Their ordsnips' question must therefore, be an
swered in the negative.
The fourth question was, whether the plea of ahate
sufficient reason TO reverse the Judgment ?
The Judges are all OF opinion IL not and their lord
shins, question m ust be answered. in the neg alive
The fifth question was, whether the trial being
1urt fha n
the Judgment The judges all agreed that the trial
had been properly continued and therefore they
ed the question In the negative
The sixth question was whether there sufficient
to reverse the Judgment in consequence Of the
tions taken by the defendants TO the jury panel The
indges were opinion that the Sheriff bound
icct the Jury from the jury hook. He could not be held
responsible ii a mistake occurred; sr instance
seer ia the county might neglect there might be
irt has the Jury Lat q