The Kenilworth Advertiser. — 1883-12-29 (Kenilworth, Warwickshire, England)

THE MURDER CONSPIRACY IN MAYO.  SCENE IN A. CHURCH.  /  Senior Er Inftrmary.  The Mayo conspiracy case terminated in a dill. agreement of the jury at 11.30 last Saturdity Right. When counsel for the prisoner and for the Crowe' had been heard, Mr. Justice Johnson pro. seeded to charge the jury. He said that in all nearly sixty-eight witnesses had been examined during the trial. With regard to the informer's evidence, he pointed out that it was not necessary that the informer should be corroborated in every particular, but in some material facts and with reference to each prisoner whom he sought to implicate. It must be evident to them how difficult it was to get evidence against the persons in conspiracy of this kind except through one of the accomplices.— The jury retired at six o'clock, and at eight they lad not agreed to a verdict, and were looked up. —The judge returned at 9.30, but no agreement bad been arrived at. It was mentioned by one of the jury that the cause of disagreement was that a few jurors were ot opinion the informer's evidence was not corroborated sufficiently. While the jury were out of court the judge commented upon the length of the indictment, and the consequent complication of the evidence. The Attorney-General with warmth defended the action of his predecessors who had drawn out the indictment.—Mr. P. O'Brien reminded the Court that the indictments in the Thcenix Park murder trials were much longer.— The Attorney-General proceeded to argue that Coleman was not an informer in the sense in which that term was ordinarily applied, and asked the judge to give a direction to the jury to that effect. He pointed out that in conspiracy cases a man who was a member of the conspiracy, and who at an early stage of it put iimself in commnnication with the authorities and gave information to them, although still remaining a member of the society for the purpose of bringing his confederates in crime to justice, was not an informer, and in that case the judge was not warranted in telling the jury that he must require corroboration. This was the decision laid down by Taylor in his work on evidenoe.—The judge said that he should distinctly advise the jury that Coleman must be regarded as an informer, and not alone that, but Mayfly must also be regarded as an informer.—Crown counsel then urged that he should direct the jury that the documentary evidence was strong proof of the existence of a conspiracy, and was corroboration of the informer.—The Judge said he had already directed the jury upon that point, and would not deliver another charge to them. He would tell them, however, that it was necessary that the informer should be corroborated on every point of hisevidenee.—The jury were then called out and addressed finally at 11.30. They informed the judge they agreed in acquitting Halloran, but they could not agree as to the other prisoners. They were then discharged with the oonsent of the Attorney-General, who announced that the prisoners would not be ftupon their trial again at this assizes.—His sli tip said he would not discharge Halloran, as there was a charge of treason felony pending against him, and declined to Admit any of the prisoners to bail. It is tuiderstad nine of the jury were for conviction and three for acquittal. •