The Sun. — 1824-03-05 (London, England)

BEST. The calendar contains a list of twenty-six prisoners committed for various offences; but the most prominent case is the alleged murder of James Grainge by Patrick Conolly and others, at Shenly Hill, on the 31st of December last. Mr. Justice BEST, who presided in the Crown Court, charged the Grand Jury, and called their attention principally to the case above-mentioned. His Lordship, after stating to them the substance of the depositions against the prisoners; as returned by the committing Magistrates, said he understood that there were two distinct charges intended to be preferred against the parties, namely, one founded on Lord Ellenborough's Act, 43d Geo. 3, for stabbing the Sheriff's officer, Watson, with a pitchfork, with intent to murder him; and the other for murdering James Grainge with a loaded gun. These charges he understood to be applicable to two distinct transactions : first, that in which Watson attempted to arrest Mr. Conolly, and the other, when the deceased was killed, in an attempt to apprehend the prisoner on a peace warrant. The first alleged offence must depend upon the question, whether, in case death had ensued from the violence committed on Watson's person, the offence would have been murder. In order to the decision of this question, it would be necessary to attend to the evidence as to the manner in which the officer attempted to make his caption. According to the depositions, the outer-door of the house was open, and in the attempt to force an inner-door the wound was inflicted. If this fact was clearly established, the first offence would be made out. An officer could not break an outer-door to execute civil process ; but finding the outerdoor open he might enter, and break inner-doors, to take his prisoner. If the door, upon which the violence was committed in this instance, was the outer entrance to the house, then the officer would not be justified in breaking it, though the prisoner was only a visitor. The depositions of the different witnesses varied in this point, and therefore it was incumbent on the Grand Jury to pay particular attention to this part of the case. Then, as to the second charge, there was no doubt that if the deceased was a Constable, and duly authorised to execute a warrant for the apprehension of Mr. Conolly for the breach of the peace committed on Watson, the breaking open the house was a lawful act, provided the prisoner had due notice of the contents and object of the warrant; and if the prisoner, in resisting the execution of the warrant under such circumstances, killed the officer, the offence would amount to murder. His Lordship observed that there was a material difference in the deposi_ dons of the several witnesses as to the notice given to the prisoner of the contents of the warrant, and the authority of the deceased to execute it. Some said that the warrant was read to the prisoner, and others, that the substance of its contents was distinctly announced. It was the duty of the Grand Jury to watch with great circumspection this part of the evidence, because it was most material as it respected the charge of wilful murder. It appeared that from the depositions, that Mrs. Brown, Moran, and the other prisoners, were encouraging the conduct of Conolly throughout the whole transaction, and therefore, in the eye of the law, they were all principals. ' The Grand Jury, however, would attend to all the circumstances of the case, as proved by viva voce evidence, and return such bills as were satisfactory to their consciences. The Grand Jury, after being out about few hours, returned a bill of Manslaughter only against Mr. Conolly and Hugh Moran, and ignored the bill against Mrs. Brown, Amelia orgen, and Edward Trayers. There was nothing of public interest on 'the Civil side.