New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1858-05-03

The trial Of Bernard for completely i'll Orsinis
attempt on the life of Louis Napoleon, of the eyi.
dence in which we have already given summary,
resulted, as appears by teegraphic dispatch from
London brought by the Borussia from Southamp-
ton, in a verdict of acquittal-our usual American
termination of strongly contested and questionable
cases in disagreement Of the jury aud their conse-
quent discharge being as yet little known in En-
gland. We have not yet received anything beyond
brief summary of Lord Csmpbelrs charge to the
Jury, which will be found in another column; but
the full report of tie speech of Mr. James, who
conducted the defense, sufficiently explains the re-
suit. Though the testimony connecting the pris-
oner with OrsiDi and his movements was vety full,
and such as in an ordinary case would hardly have
failed to satisfy jury, it was yet open to certain
exceptions, of which the counsel for the defense
sk[fu]y ayalled himself. The ground taken was
that this testimony did not necessarily imply any
completely, so far as Bernard was concerned, 10 q
plot for assassinatiDg the Emperor OF the French,
and still less any completely in the explosion which
resulted in the death of Nicholas BATH, the crime
charged in the indictment, and which the Crown
had undertaken to bring home to the prisoner.
The counsel was very careful not to expose
himself his Client or the Jury, to the odum ofJus.
tifyng assassination. The theory which he pro-
posed as sufficient to meet all the facts proved by
the Crown was that Bernard had been engaged
with Orsini in collecting aud conveying to France
arms and munitions for the purpose of an insurrec-
ton, and that Orsini and his associates at Paris,
upon some sudden impulse, had used these arms, or
some of them, in an attempt on the lie OF the
Emperor. which attempt it did not appear that
Bernard had ever contemplated, or had any cog
nizance Of. The three things most relied upon as
showing Demands completely in that attempt
were: First, the allegation that the shells exploded
on that occasion were conveyed by Bernards pro-
curement to Paris; second his transmission thiher
Of revolyers 70 and on the persons of Orsini and
Pierr; third his procuring Rudio to join Orsini in
Paris. AZ TO the first point, the counsel main
tanned that the Crown had failed 10 identify the
shells which passed through Bernards hands
with those used by Osini. According to
the testimony of Taylor, one Of the princi-
nal witnesses, the shells made by him at, Biz
ninppam, at Allsop's procurement, were six
n number. each in two parts, of unequal sizes,
one part three inches in diameter the other part
four inches, with twenty. five holes in each shell.
OF these six shells according to the prosecution,
Two were found entire on the ground after the e1
plosion; one on the person of Perri, who was ar
rested before the explosion took place, while the
other three were supposed to have exploded at the
entrance of the Opera-house. Now, the council
vas ready 70 admit that Bernard had been con-
cerned in sending to Paris, BY way ofBrussels GER
tain shells TO be used for the purpose Of general
rising. but he denied that there was any proof that
the particular shells made at Birmingham and used
BY Orsini had passed through Demands hands 1t
Was alleged BY the Crown that Bernard went to
one Giorei in London, exhibited to him some Of
the shells as part of a gas apparatus, and induced
him 10 carry them to Brussels, where they were
seen BY two or three other persons whence they
were afserward conveyed to Paris and there deliv-
cred to Orsini.
Five witt esses were produced in relation to the
SHELLS sent by Bernard, Giorsi himself, waiter
| at the Cafe Suisse, in Brussels, who saw the
shells lying on the chimney piece IN the smoking
| rctm, another person who saw them IN the