The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1873-02-28

Ireland such circumstance would be lnposslpie'
This same Mr.: Barrett gave sketch Of his rela-
sestive Of the way in A which " seridom
Of the country. Mr.. Butt very strenuonsly forced
Mr. Barrett to answer the question whether
certain tenant would not have voted for Nolan had
piled with great 1iatuete that the was left TO
himself altogether; that he had his own Tree VIII
1nat no one pressed him; and then added ExGepi
myself, or course.n Finally he admitted that had
the man been left alone he would have voted for
Nolan, and that he had induced him to vote iOf
Trench. Mr.. Barrett also described how tenant
OF his-an Old man--had gone down on his knees TO
nim kissed the ground and prayed to be allowed 70
Say away from the polling place; that ne was
horror to him. Mr. Barrett confessed the mans
abject slavery was hateful to him; but the fact re-
to landlords.
The denouement Of the business was quite in
Keeping with the miserable features OF the story.
Next morning the epeptic Old man and his two
sons drove to the poll and voted against Mr.. Bar
rett's wish, and, as they say,
ACCORDING TO THEIR CONSEQUENCE"
During the hearing OF the evidence Chief Justice
Whiteside threatened to clear the Court II any
laughter followed the answers OF Witnesses. His
vent at the prolonged absence from the box OF
Juror who, during luncheon time had lost his way
having delayed the Court, as he did, for an hour,
whereupOn rhe poor juror replied that he was out
ating rowI, as he was hungry, and that It was
dear bite to him." Alter hall dozen witnesses
had sustained the charges against Mr.. LOTUS
their direct examination remaining quite un-
shaken-the Court adjourned The trial will prob
ably conclude in day or two more.
Conclusion Of Father Lotus Case.
DUBLIN Feb. IL, 1873.
Very little evidence In addition to that sum-
married. in my last letter was produced on the
part of the Crown. Mr.. Bowles, landed proprie-
tor testified to hearing Father Lotus cry, "Down
with the landords |" at Dunmore and at Tuam. He
individual having hurled the filthiest language at
the landlord party. I regret to say that there is
little room for cavil as to whether Father Lotus
committed himself to words OF the most repre-
henslble and ndescribable character; but the case
against him did not rest on questions of taste or
decency, and this feature in his offence may there
fore be dismissed. A Mr. DAVID Rutledge, q gen.
tleman OF position In the county, dared good deal
in his answers to fierce cr0ss-examinaton by Mr..
Butt He very candidly stated that he now swore
quite differently from that which he swore at the
trial OF the election petition in Galway, for the
sufficient that his opinion of Mr.. Lotus had
changed totally since he had read the evidence
which that gentleman gave on that occasion. The
effect of Mr.. Rutledges change Of opinion
was that he would not believe what Mr..
Lotus swOre. This declaration from q Catholic
gentleman took the Court rather by surprise, and
astonished MIR. Butt into considerable anger But
Mr.. Rutledge held to his ground firmly, and swore
to the filthy language of Barrett and its approval
by LOTUS who cried out, "Well done, Pat BARRETT
Down with the landlOrdsl To he'll with the land
lords" 1t should be observed that at the election
petition trial Mr.. LOTUS swore he never used those
words, and that in this particular matter he was
contradicted by several Witnesses.
With Mr.. Rutledge's evidence the case for the
Crown closed, and Mr. Butt proceeded, in speech
Of two hours duration, to state the defence Of Mr.
Lotus. Mr.. Butt was never more beneath his
Whatever Mr. Lotus had said was JUSTIFIED by the
furious character OF the contest between priests
and landlords and, IN point OF fact, admitted much
OF the language and endeavOred to palate It's
effect. He applied himself to the particular case
in which the words ''brand OF Cain" were alleged
genuity that the ignorant peasants who heard
Father Lotus believed simply that the ''brand"
meant personal disgrace and nothing more. The
one good stroke III the speech was made IN vindi-
THE RIGHT OF CLERGYMEN TO ADDRESS THEIR
PEOPLE FROM THE ALTAR.
He quoted from Judgment reported in the
books, wherein 1t was laid down that 1t was
small matter whether language complained of in
or not. Hereupon Chief Justice Whteside i'm
petuously demanded tine Judges name, and said
he would not accept that as u judicial decision.
Mr.. Butt replied that the Judgment was reported.
and proceeded to quote the Judge--'I recognize
fully the right of the Catholic cergymen to address
their congregations, to tell them that one man is
for the country, another man against the country.
Nay more, would not hold very hard and fast
line as to the language used in excited times by
Catholic priests-lt may be iDpetuous and jealous
and doubtful provided it don't operate TO the ex-
tent OF what is known to be
ILLEGITIMATE INFLUENCE"
The Lord Chief Justice here insisted on having
the name of the Judge, and Mr. Butt, amid SHOUTS
The anger of the Chief was ill.concealed, and MIR.
Butt, as is common with him, rose from this
ment to a higher eloquence and more impassoned
appeal. But when he resumed his seat the opinion
was general that he had but amely done his part.
He called but two witnesses to prove that in ad.
words Which, being omitted by other witnesses,
considerably altered the character OF the address,
These two gentlemen, Mr.. Martin Mcdonnell and
Mr.. stephen McDonagh, agreed that he said, ''Any
one who Will vote for Captain Trench, against his
conscience will go down with the brand Of Cain
upon his brow" The words against his con-
science" were relied upon as qualifying the whole
tenor Of the observation, but 1t subject of re-
mark that Of 200 persons in the chapel but two
were produced to establish this allegation.
Sergeant Armstrong then addressed the jury for
the Crown and Mr.. McDermott replied on the
whole case for Mr.. LOTUS The Lord Chief Justice
then charged the jury. From the interests involved
in the trial, the character Of the offence, the posi-
ton OF the accused, and the well known tendency
watched by counsel for the defence. His LOrdshp
spoke Tor couple of hours. lie stated the law as
lures on the statute by saying that the pth of the
law was simply ths-that il anybody by himself
through another in any way influenced or coerced
voter IN his desire to vote, either
BY TEMPORAL OR SPIRITUAL THREAT,
or by arousing fears for the present or the future
that man was guilty OF undue influence. He then
told the jury that If they believed what witnesses
mad sworn as to the language in the chapel they
must find Mr.. Lotus guilty; il putting witness
against witness they believed those for the Crown,
they must find him guilty; but as this
was q criminal prosecution, II they had
just doubt they should lean to the accused
and give him verdict OF acquittal In reviewing
the evidence OF the Dunmore transaction His Lord
ship said II the Jury believed that cars were placed
across the read by the mob headed by Father
Lotus, and that this was done with the intention
of hndering voters on the opposite side from pur-
suing their way, then the case against Father
Lotus was proved. He concluded by warning the
jury not TO shrink rom their dufy but to prove
themselves independent Of threats and fears and
possible prosecutions
When the jury had been In consultation three.
quarters Of an hour they came into Court and the
foreman asked II they believed the witnesses as to
the Dunmore transaction what verdict should they
md. The Chief Justice replied verdict of guilty
Mr.. Butt here called upon His LOriship to recall that
expression, which he said amounted to direction