& 
| 
} 
@ 
1843.] 
THE GARDENERS 
CHRONICLE. 
383 
the course of a long speech, said he had been accused 
of saying that there was no hope for Ireland but in repeal, 
and he now reiterated that assertion. He also reiterated 
that he had the most unbounded contempt and hate—not, 
as he had been reported to have said, for the aristocracy 
—but for their vices. By the immoral press of England 
he had been called something like a rebel. He was re- 
ported to have roused the priests of his diocese, and to 
have maddened the people to such a pitch that there 
was no safety either for life or property while such fire- 
brands existed. He disclaimed such views, but he would 
at the same time let the people of England know, that if 
it was attempted to carry into execution the threats which 
had been held out lately against the people of this 
country, he would make every chapel in his diocese a 
Yepealing place, and would go into every sanctuary to 
Proclaim repeal. With all the respect which every man of 
common sense and judgment must entertain for the aris- 
tocracy, when they are entitled to respect on account of 
Virtues descended through a long line of ancestors, he 
Still stood to the sentiments he had uttered in Mullingar, 
and, embodying the sentiments of his clergy and people, 
€ defied them all to the death. He then proceeded to 
give the usual toasts. Mr. O’Connell’s health was pro- 
Posed, of course ; and he responded at great length, but 
We cannot give even an outline of his address. Dr. Cant- 
well, Roman Catholic Bishop of Meath, in returning 
thanks for his health, stated that he concurred in all the 
Sentiments put forward by Dr. Higgins that night. His 
Opinion represented 150 Catholic clergymen and 250,000 
of the people of his diocese; and that opinion was, that 
the wnion was a robbery, and that they could be respected 
Y no man if they did not persevere in demanding a resto- 
Yation of their rights. 
Galway.—A repeal meeting was held at Caltra in this 
County on Sunday week, at which Lord Ffrench presided. 
he resolutions were proposed and seconded alternately 
y Roman Catholic priests and laymen, the latter class 
comprehending some of the leading gentry of the imme- 
diate district, such as the Hon. Thomas Ffrench, the Hon. 
artin Ffrench, Mr. Dillon, of Caherhouse, &c. The 
resolutions embodied the following catalogue of the bene- 
S$ to be derived from Repeal :—‘‘ 1, Self-government, 
the making of our own laws, suited to the wants and 
Wishes of cur own pe ple—the interpretation and adminis- 
tration of our own laws—the filling of all offices in the 
State with Trishmen.—2. The freedom of religion, and 
the extinction of a heavy and unjust impost by the total 
abolition of the tithe-rent charge, and all compulsory 
Payments by one body of Christians to the teachers of the 
doctrines of any other persuasion.—3. The improvement 
Of the condition of all occupiers of land by a well-con- 
Sidered plan of fixity of tenure, which, while it would 
Secure to the landlord a moderate and adequate rent for 
his land, would at the same time ensure to the tenant the 
enefit of all his own labour and expenditure in perma- 
Nent improyements.—4, The total abolition of the 
oppressive grand jury cess and the present iniquitous 
System of poor laws, and the substitution of well-regu- 
lated charitable institutions.” 
Dundalk.—The borough commissioners, on Tuesday 
last, adopted a petition for repeal without a dissentient 
Voice. Ata meeting of the Repeal Association on Sun- 
day night, several new members were enrolled, amongst 
Others, Captain M‘Mahon, 13th Light Dragoons, paid 12, 
48 a member. 
SCOTLAND. 
Edinburgh—At the meeting of the General Assembly 
on Wednesday it was resolved in reference to the protest 
of the seceding party, that the ministers who attached 
thir names to the protest have, by their own act, 
Cased to be ministers of this Church ; that their parishes 
hive become vacant, and that they are disqualified from 
paceting any presentation or appointment to a parochial 
th other Spiritual charge in the Church as by law esta- 
ae till reproved by the ecclesiastical judicatories— 
f that the subscribing elders are no longer elders in any 
ih the parishes or sessions connected with the Establish- 
pare The General Assembly have therefore instructed 
ie esbyteries to intimate, without delay, the vacancies thus 
ae pone to the patrons, or to those entitled to present 
the © Nominate persons, by whom, when found qualified, 
ch °Y May be supplied. They have also declared that the 
pels and churches of the ministers who have since 
meted, and adhered to the protest, are equally void. 
Cite of clergymen who have seceded from the 
tion Of Scotland is now 450; and there is little ques- 
ane the number will soon be close on 500. This is 
wd y the half of the entire clergy, the number being 
ne 1,200. About 240,000/, have been raised in less 
or he weeks for the erection of the new churches, and 
nod © support of the seceding clergy ; and there can be 
Coubt that in a few weeks the amount will coasiderably 
ee 800,0002, Among the contributors are the 
argc bioness of Breadalbane, 1,0002. ; a Colonel in the 
Mi? 6,0007., in three yearly instalments of 2,0007. 
bookselte oA private gentleman, 2,000. 5 Mr. Nisbet, 
there ag: er, London, 1,0002. 30a Dissenter, 5002.3 and 
each, re various other subscribers of 2,0002. and J,0007. 
albane t is also rumoured that the Marquess of Bread- 
> who has signifi is adhesion to the ‘ Ney 
Secession,” ine signified his a New 
ach ; 
sbet, 
10,0007. resolyed to make a contribution of 
ground , to its funds. The Duke of Argyll has given 
a Cam te sites for such new churches as they may require 
8 chur, is elltown. Mr. Fox Maule is to build and endow 
for bet at his own expense; Mr. A. Campbell, member 
bitenteyesbite, is to do the same. In Elgin the inha- 
; ave raised 1,000/. to build a church; and th 
will ‘ + to build a > ney 
also liberally contribute for its support. So that 
provided for, solely by private munificence and local exer- 
tion, without requiring any aid from the general fund. 
Za. 
Court or Excurgurr.—(Sittings in Banco.) —Custom-House 
Frauds.—The Attorney-Generaly. Hurel and Others.—In this case, 
which our readers will recollect was tried before Lord Abinger 
at the last Nisi Prius sittings, Mr. Erle now moved to set aside 
the verdict entered for the Crown, and to enter the verdict for 
the defendant, upon a legal i h 
oint reserved at the trial 
information was laid at the instance of the Crown against the 
defendant, gn extensive importer of French gloves and other 
foreign aides under 3d and 4th William IV., cap. 52 and 53, for 
having unlawfully unshipped goods upon which the duty had not 
been duly paid, or for having such goods in his possession, the 
duty not having been paid uponthem. The learned counsel sub- 
mitted that in this case the goodsin question had been regularly 
landed, under what was called a “sight entry,” an entry founded 
on the declaration that the importer was not acquainted with the 
nature and value ofthe goods. Subsequently, and after the goods 
had been examined by the Customs officers, a perfect entry was 
made, and after payment of the duty calculated on the perfect 
entry, the goods were delivered to the importer. In the present 
case the alleged fraud was in substituting a fabricated account of 
the quantity and value of the goods for the genuine account 
originally taken, by which means the goods were delivered upon 
payment of a much smaller amount of duty than the Crown was 
entitled to receive. All the proceedings were correct, fair, and 
regular, up to the period when the goods were examined, and 
the quantity ascertained. There was no pretence, therefore, for 
saying that the goods had been illegally unshipped, and yet 
every count in the information was founded on an illegal unshi 
ment. The learned counsel sa.d he had ventured to sug: t 
objection to the information at the trial, and the Attor 
General, on behalf of the Crown, snggested, by way of reply, 
hat as the ‘perfect entry” on which the goods were delivered to 
the defendants was fraudulent, it related back to the ing of 
the goods, and rendered the goods delivered under it illegally 
unshipped within the meaning and intention of the acts of Par- 
jiament. onbt the Smuggling Act (3 and 4 Wm. 1V., c. 53, 
SS. 18, 44), declared that where goods were fraudulently landed 
under a sight entry, it was the same as if no entry had been 
made; but here the goods were properly landed under the ‘‘ sight 
entry,” and there was no reason to suppose that any 
contemplated until after the perfect entry was made. The Court 
was unanimously of opinion that the point raised by the learned 
counsel at_the tial had been answere: e@ counse! 
Crown. Under the circumstances, it was as if the goods in 
question had been unshipped without any entry, and were there- 
fore illegally unshipped 
was no ground for disturbing the verdict, 
The Attorney-General v. Candy.—In this case, which was 
before Baron Rolfe, and reported in this Paper when the trial 
took place, Sir Thomas Wilde now moved to setaside the verdict 
given for the Crown, and to obtain a new trial, on the ground 
that the verdict was against the evidence. The case against the 
defendant, who was an extensive importer of silk goods from 
France, was founded on the presumption, that in collusion with 
a landing-waiter named Homerton, since deceased, and of an 
informer named Burnby, he had contrived to falsify the entries 
of two parcels of goods, received from France in the months of 
July and August, 1840. The falsification of the entries, and the 
defendant’s cognisance of the fraud, depended altogether on the 
evidence of Burnby. In his examination, Burnby stated t! he 
was on habits of social intercourse with the fendant; that he 
had receivec ms of money by way of gratuity from him, 
and that he had o borrowed money from the defendant, for 
ich the endant held his 1O Us. T witness Rornby’e 
-éxamination farni r¢ 
statements with more th 
admission, he was a persen of most ¢ 
distinetly swore, however, that the defen 
the prer when the fraudulent entries containe 
tom-house blue beoks w concocted, and npon his testimony 
ie: y found for the Crown. In substituting the fraudulent 
entries it was necessary to use the Custom-house seal, which 
bound the threads of the blue book, and the witness Burnby said 
he had this seal made for Homerton, and saw Homerton use it in 
Mr. Candy’s premises some time in the month of July, before the 
payment of the duty on the first parcel of goods, which formed 
the subject of the information, The goods were examined on 
the sth, delivered on the gth of July, and the duty paid on the 
27th of July. Burnby swore that he saw the counterfeit seal 
used by Homerton in Candy’s drawing-room in July, and the 
workman who prepared the counterfeit seal made an affidavit 
that it was not delivered until the month of August. 
imself also made an aflidavit, negativing all the facts 
by Burnby, so far as he (Mr. Candy) was personally concerned. 
He swore that he had never given nor lent any moncy to Burnby, 
and never 
The Court, therefore, thought there 
Rule refused, 
a 
6 
Burnby had come to his warehouse one day to m 1 
about dinner-time, and that it was usual in the business to ask 
customers to stay and dine; that Burnby bad been so asked and 
No doubt he could not rely on the defendant’s 
affidavit alone asa ground for « trial; but coupling it with 
all the facts of the case, he did submit that it was deserving of their 
Loréships’ consideration.—Lord Abinger : No doubt, it was very 
proper the defendant should make an affidavit, but does he state 
that he paid, or believed ie paid, the full amount of duty pay- 
ableon the two parcels of goods, in respect of which the Crown 
has now proceeded against him ?—Sir T. Wilde admitted that the 
defendant did not swear in express terms paid the full 
amount of duty—that might be impossible for him; but he dis- 
jnctly swore that he was wholly ignorant of the frauds imputed 
to him, and did not participate in them, directly or indirectly. — 
Baron Gurney inquired if the defendant had set forth the invo 
of the goods contained in the two packages on which it was 
alleged the duty had not been paid ?—Sir T. Wilde replied that 
he had shown, at the trial, that from the course of trade it 
it was 
impossible the defendant could show by his invoices what goods 
were in any pa three years ago.—Baron Gurney 
could kardly conceive how a merchant could receive goods with- 
out having some entry of the quantity or quality. 1 
kage received 
all events 
it must be known to the defendant’s clerk.-—Lord Abinger said 
the Court would look through Baron Rolfe’s notes of the evidence 
taken on the trial, and announce in the co! of a few days 
whether they should grant or refuse a new trial. 
Saaty V. Wilkin. his was an action tried before Mr. Justice 
Patteson at the Jate ar for Essex, when a verdict was taken 
for the plaintiif for 56/. 16s., subject to the opinion of the Court, 
on the following point:—The action was on a warranty, as to the 
soundness of a horse purchased by. the plaintiff, who was a tailor, 
from the defendant, for 5 pair of trowsers of the value 
is, The plaintiff, in his declaration, stated that he had 
; d 
of 11, 
purchased the horse at ‘the price or sum of 560, 163 
here W 
declaration, and that proved on the 
who tried the cause overruled the objection, but gave the de- 
leave to move the Court, A rule having been 
peared to 
5 
4 
g 
a 
& 
= 
& 
2% 
2 
5 
g 
2 
g 
a 
5 
2 
3 
é 
9 
ted in the 9th vol. East’s Ri 
Lord Ellenborough, that where a horse was sold for 16/. in cash, 
could be no doubt that the plaintiff was bound to prove the con- 
tract as he alleged it, but in the present case this had been done. 
The horse was, in fact, sold for 567. 16s. The rule for a new trial 
must therefore be discharged. 
Court oF Queen's 
ists. ieeen v. O Connoi 
said he had to show cause against the rule obtained by his learned 
friends, calling upon the Crown to show cause why the judgment 
against Mr. O’Connor and others should not be arrested on the 
4th and 5th coun t was right he should state that, with 
respect to the remark that the 4th count did not charge conspi- 
racy, the defendants were acquitted of the conspiracy, and they 
were entitled to the benefit of that acquittal. Under the direc- 
tion of the learned Judge at the trial, as to the law of conspiracy, 
the Jury acquitted the defendants of that charge, He did not 
of conspiracy, constituted an offence, that those counts were pre- 
pared; and the learned Judge told the Jury that, with reference 
to the facts stated in the 5th count; it was impossible for him to 
ing by which the defendants could be acquitted. 
s, that to the material averment there was no 
nt went on, ‘and, that afterwards, on the Ist 
day of Angust, in the year aforesaid, and on divers other days and 
times, between that day and the 1st day of October in the year 
aforesaid, in the parish aforesaid, in the county aforesaid, the 
id Feargus O’Connor, &c., together with diver: er evil-dis- 
posed persons to the jurors aforesaid as yet unknown, did unlaw- 
2 
ae 
stated with a perfect venue—‘ and in that county aforesaid, aid, 
abet, assist, comfort, support, and encourage the said evil-dis- 
posed persons in this count first mentioned, to continue and per- 
sist in the said unlawful i threats, intimi an 
violence, and in the said impeding and stopping of the labour 
employed in the said trades, manufactures, and businesses, with 
intent thereby to cause terror and alarmin the minds of the 
peaceable subjects of this realm, and by the means of such terror 
and alarm violently and unlawfully to cause and procure certain 
great changes to be made in the constitution of this realm, as by 
law established, agains r said Lady the Queen, 
her Crown and cignity.” One of his friends had intimated, 
that it was not stated who the divers other persons were who had 
so assembled.— Jenman understood the objection to be 
that, the facts stated without a venue were facts which might 
have been committed anywhere, id not be crimi- 
nal in this country; and another objection was, that it was 
neither stated that the defendants were present when the offence 
charged was committed, nor that they knew any such offence 
was in point of fact committed, only that they were aiding 
and abetting.—Mr. Serjeant Murphy said there was no illegal 
offence charged.—Mr. Erle observed, that it was said that divers 
persons were assembled; the offence was an unlawful assembly, 
s essential that there should be three or more assembled, 
and it did not appear, except by the word ‘‘divers,’? wi at was 
the number assembled, Mr. Serjeant Murphy considered they 
ought to have been chargedas principals. The Altorney-General 
said that the count charged, ‘that divers persons at divers 
places ;” that would assume that there must have been two 
persons, which would have been sufficient. There was an offence 
a view, by terror and intimi- 
2 
evil-disposed persons to persist in unlawful 
nd violence, in impeding and stopping labour, with 
| intent to create terror and alarm, and thereby change the con- 
| stitution. it was said that it wes nct stated who those persons 
were; that was unimportant, provided the defendants became 
| principals, A verdict of—‘‘ with divers other persons to 
rors unknown” would ient, because the offence was 
in aiding persons in doing an unlawful act. Was it an offence 
‘or persons to go about for the purpose, by intimidation, of stop- 
ping the labour of the whole country, with intent to bring about 
a change in the constitution? at was an offence, it was an 
ic ssist in doing it. Mr. Justice Patteson said that such 
intention was not laid in the early part of thecount. The Attor- 
ney-General said that no doubt, with respect to several of the 
meetings, many of the parties attending them had uo view of 
changing the constitution, but others came in and carried the 
with a 
and alarm, they a 
bauge in the cons’ on. 
re, but in divers other places, these mi 
taken place, aud evidence was given to that effect. Mr, Justice 
Patteson did not see how the wn could import into the early 
part of the count that which was stated in the latter part. The 
Attorney-General said that, by the general statement,» the 
assembly might have happened anywhere, but the offence 
charged was said to have been committed in the count; 
Charging the defendants with assisting in Lancashire 
imported that they had done so in that county. Mr. Justice Pat- 
tesop.—Not if it were said to have been committed in France. 
‘The Attorney-General.—If the assistance was given in Lancashire 
to persons holding meetings in France, that would 
in Lancasbi The allegation was that the defendants had aided 
the parties with the intent to change the constitution. Theintent 
Was that of the aiders and abettors. Mr. Justice Patteson—~ 
What, although the original parties had no such intent, an 
although done in France! The Attorney-General so apprehended. 
it would be; butit was inconsistent with the averments to $ 
that it was done out of the realm, But if there was an insurrec- 
tion in Paris which would haye the effect of altering consti- 
tution, and persons here aided and ass 
that would be an offence. 
this realm, that it must be supposed the act 
within the realm. The absence of venue was cured by the 
statute. There need be no allegation of venue atall. If the 
expres: the statute had beeu that an improper venue should 
be cured, then he would understand the argument that there 
must be some yenue. ‘Phere was as much a want of a perfect or 
proper venue where there was none, as when it was improperly 
stated; and therefore the statute would cure it, because it stated 
that in such case no objection should be taken. If the want of 
time was cured, so would be the want of place, It must be sup- 
posed, after verdict, that the Court had correctly discharged its 
duty in receiving proper evidence, If the offence was ed, the 
mt of venue would not be an o! 
a 
& 
t=} 
vil- 
Cy 
& 
= 
2 
tS) 
2 
Sy 
Fs 
e 
ag 
2 
® 
& 
= 
« ll svil-disposed persons went 
about disturbing peaceable subjects of the realm, and that they, 
by violence, threats, and intimidations, forced those who were 
peaceably disposed to leave their occupations and employments, 
and that they thereby caused great confusion, terror, and alarm 
in the minds of the peaceable subjects of the realm;” and then 
the count went on to aver, “that the defendants did, in the 
parish and county aforesa id, together with divers other evil-dis- 
posed persons to the jurors unknown, unlawfully aid, abet, assist, 
comfort, Support, and encourage the said evil-disposed persons 
first mentioned in the count, to continue and per i e said 
unlawful 5 ‘i threats, i and violence, and 
: sid impeding and stopping of the labour employed in the 
said trades, manulactures, and businesses, with intent thereby to 
cause terror and alarm in the minds of the peaceable subjects of 
