The Atherstone, Nuneaton, and Warwickshire Times. — 1882-08-19 (Atherstone, Warwickshire, England)

GRAY, M.P., Sheriff of the City .of Dublin, and proprietor of the Dv,blin FreeSass, by Mr. Ju,stine Lawson will, at any rate, have the effect of acting as a salutary lesson to all journalists in Ireland. Under the system inaugurated by the recent Prevention of Crime Bill, the trial of the young man Hynes for murdering a caretaker, was removed from the scene of the murder to Dublin, and took place before Mr. Justice LAWSON and a City Jury. Seeing how often, in the face ofithe most conclusive evidence, prisoners had been acquitted recently in Ireland, it was a subject for congratulation that the Dublin Jury had the courage and the honesty to convict the prisoner on the satisfactory evidence adduced on behalf of the Crown. But no sooner was the verdict recorded and Hynes sentenced to death, than a letter appeared in the Dublin Freeman, bearing the signature of William O'BRIEN, editor of United Ireland, making the most damaging allegations against the Jury, and insinuating, indeed, that they were drunk when locked up during the progress of the case. In the same number of the Freeman appeared a leader commenting on this letter,accepting the information given as true, denouncing the jury, and ending, "we have heard of a prisoner hanging in order that a jury may dine, but what of a prisoner banging, not that a jury may dine, but because a jury has dined, not wisely, but too well." If this means anything,it means that the prisoner ought not to have been convicted, and would not have been convicted, had the jury not been affected by "dining." This is a gross charge to make against a body of men who earnestly and attentively discharged their daties, and no one could be surprised that on Monday the foreman of the jury called the judge's attention to the letter and the leader,  I flat%  and indignantly and emphatically denied the truth of the statements made by Mr. O'Biumv. On that occasion the SotiorroaGENERAL expressed his intention of calling attention to the matter on Wednesday, which he did. Mr. GRAy, M.P., the proprietor, was present, and increased his offence by repeating the charges mentioned ; he made other statements which amounted to a charge against the representatives of the Crown of packing the jury; and be admitted himself writing the obnoxious leader. He finished by asking for an adjournment in order that helnight obtain legal assistance. His. LORDSHIP characterised the offence as a grave and outrageous one, refused to adjourn the matter, and sentenced Mr. GRAY to three months' imprisonment, to pay a fine of £5OO, and to enter into sureties himself in £5,000, and two sureties in .£3,500 each, for his future good behaviour. No doubt the sentence is a very heavy one, but it was only propiortionate with the offence. Here was a man, himself the Sheriff of the City, responsible for the acts of the jury, and whose duty it was to protect the dignity and independence of the Court, acknowledging that he wrote a slanderous article, the intention of which is too obvious to be mistaken, and in Court repeating the outrageous charges he had allowed to be printed. This too, at a time when it sir difficult to get Irish juries to do their duty, and when charges of a similar character to that for which HYNES was 4mvicted, were being tried by jury. If pries are to be protected in Ireland, this is the only way id which it can be accomplished.  I convicted,