Juke l,] 



THE NEWSPAPER. 



IVeymo uth.—The postmaster at Weymouth has re- 

 ceived an official notice, acquainting him that the packet 

 station for the Channel Islands will be removed to South- 

 ampton early in June. It is expected that the most 

 extensive accommodation will be afforded for the trans- 

 mission of correspondence to and from this country and 

 the Channel Islands, in consequence of the alteration. 

 The old Weymouth packets will be immediately applied 

 by Government for other purposes. 



Railways.— The following are the returns for the past 

 week -.—Birmingham and Derby, 1177/.; Birmingham 

 and Gloucester, 214 7/. ; Eastern Counties, 4318/. ; Edin- 

 burgh and Glasgow, 2180/.; Great Western, 15,407/.; 

 Grand Junction, 7914/.; Glasgow, Paislev, and Ayr, 

 1553/.; Great North of England, 1441)/.; London and 

 Birmingham, 17,240/.; South-Western, 6409/.; Black- 

 wall, 9GG/. ; Greenwich, 799/. ; Brighton, 3GG7/. ; 

 Croydon, 412/.; Liverpool and Manchester, 4790/.; 

 Manchester, Leeds, and Hull, associated, .5889/.; Mid- 

 land Counties, 2738/.; Manchester and Birmingham, 

 3033/. ; North xMidland, 4308/. ; Newcastle and Carlisle, 

 1522/.; South-Eastern and Dover, 40G9/. ; Sheffield and 

 Manchester, 601/. ; York and North Midland, 10271. 



IRELAND. 

 The State Trials. — New Trial Motion.— On 

 Friday morning the Court of Queen's Bench pronounced 

 judgment on the motion for a new trial. Mr. Justice 

 Pekiux first delivered his judgment. He stated his be- 

 lief that the objections raised by the traversers in regard 

 to the deficiency of proof that the act was done in°the 

 -county of the city of Dublin, in regard to the name of 

 JMr. Rigby, the extension of the trial beyond the usual 

 term, the permission given to the jurors to go to their 

 <>wn homes on each day of the trial, the alleged fraudu- 

 lent tampering with the jury list, and the admission of 

 illegal evidence in the shape of a printed document cir- 

 culated at Mullaghmast, were all untenable. He coin- 

 cided in the doctrines of conspiracy laid down by the 

 Lord Chief Justice, but he had doubts how far the news- 

 paper evidence ought to have been admitted with regard 

 to Mr. O Connell. It did not appear to him, that the 

 rule about the acts of co-conspirators being evidence 

 against each other was applicable here ; in an indictment 

 for speaking, it would not have been evidence ; upon 

 this ground it appeared to him that they had misdirected 

 the jury m taking those acts as evidence of acts done by 

 Mr. O Lonnell at Tara and Mallow. He could not bring 

 Ins mmd to think or induce himself to say that the news 

 paper reports of speeches should have been used against 

 Mr. O Connell. It had been said that Mr. O'Connell 

 referred to the newspapers, but there was nothing from 

 tha to infer that he admitted the accuracy of their re- 

 ports ; but it had been further said that there was abun- 



the r!!v Sld 3 thCSe » ewfi P a P er documents to connect 



cS^^^Tu h . f <* ns P" ac y-^" as the speeches at 



■Clifden and Mullaghmast. For his nart ]>» th^L n.k 



was ample evidence, independent of it obi"c onatl* SELTTW f°. the P°<nts on which .11 the J«d-ge 3 



parts, to warrant and sustain the verdict b°t C ™ ?*"S ' \ \' P P, roceeded t0 tbe 1 ues ««"' bating 



ike upon themselves to sav wh ' " ' ,5?^ f^si^ Th° f eY ' denCe ' ha , wascontend ' d <° °° in- 

 admissible. This was especially a very material ques- 

 tion. Now, in the first place, he had very great doubts 

 as to the trnth of the statement, that it was not brought 



situation which he filled : bat it w«« '^T ""'l ™ •«■ 

 himself that the consideration of Vi Sffl^ * 

 mg that charge should be left to his learned bretKr""- 

 whom it had been submitted. He would make „"' * 

 marks upon the course adopted in the n™,.. , r{ " 

 motion ; but would only say? with r^Zll^ 

 taken place in that respect, that he entirely „L hld 

 the decision which his Tearned b W tt«^ J ^^ 

 regard to the nature of the charge. The Chief t * 

 then entered into a review of the case of the Rev" M? 

 Tierney, and coincided in opinion with Judge BurL 

 to the verdict in his case not being disturbed V 

 being the case the motion for a new trial must be'refu^ 

 general y.-The Attorney-General here rose and Z 

 after what has been suggested by two Members of tu 



had been done to this particular traverser ; and have done so perfectly cons^e^T^TwiT 



unless there could be some means found for relieving -**—** *--•-* ' -» - "^wntiy with the 



him from the pressure of the verdict, so far as 



-Mr. Tierney was concerned, he was disposed to agree in 



the opinion of Mr. Justice Perrin. However incon- 

 venient and injurious a new trial might be, still, if there 



was no other mode of taking away from Mr. Tierney the 



effect of the verdict, he could not rest satisfied in his 



conscience without affording him the advantage of send- 

 ing his case before another jury. The learned judge 



proceeded to notice the other grounds of objection taken 



to the charge, which he said was not alone that of the 



Chief Justice, but of all the members of the Court ; and 



it was only necessary to read it over with common sense 



and fairness to see that it was of a peifectly impartial 



and just character. His Lordship concluded by stating 



that upon the whole of the case, he was of opinion that 



the verdict should not be set aside except as regarded the 



Rev. Mr. Tierney, who, he thought, was entitled to anew 



trial for the reasons he had stated. If he could not be 



separated from the other traversers, and if the verdict 



could not be set aside as against him without being also 



set aside against the others, then his opinion was, that 



in order to afford Mr. Tierney the benefit of what he 



believed him to be entitled to, there should be a new 



trial for the whole of the traversers. 



Mr. Justice Burton then expressed his concurrence 



with the preceding judges in regard to the jury list, the 



venue, and the admission of the Mullaghmast ballad. 



On the admission in evidence of different newspapers, 



he agreed with his brother Crampton, and differed from 



his brother Perrin. He was satisfied that this evidence 



was properly received against the traversers. Having 

 expressed dissent from the opinions formed by Judges 

 Crampton and Perrin respecting Mr. Tierney's case, 

 and stated his strong disinclination to disturb a verdict 

 arrived at after so much deliberation, he concluded by 

 reading a compendium of the reasons which had in- 

 fluenced him in refusing the motion for a new trial, as 

 regarded all the traversers, and in deciding that they had 

 been properly found guilty upon all the issues. 



The Chief Justice said, that it would, he presumed, 

 have been observed by the bar, and others who had at- 

 tended the discussion of that motion, that he had, as far 

 as possible, abstained from all interference in the case. He 

 had hitherto made neither observation nor comment, prefer- 

 mg from motives of delicacy, and upon personal grounds, 

 to leave to his brethren upon the bench the consideration 

 or the correction of any imputed error or mistake into 

 which he might have fallen in the charge delivered to the 

 jury, as the organ and the head of the court. If any 

 error or mistake had been committed it was fit that it 

 should be corrected ; and if the parties were entitled to 

 have it, no one ought to be, and he trusted no one 

 would be, more happy than he would to have his errors 

 or mistakes rectified and justice done according to right. 

 After referring to the points on which all the Judges 



«ouId not take upon themselves to say whether he Jury 

 would have thought this also-they could not pretend 

 to assert that if that evidence, which he now con 

 s.dered was clearly inadmissible, had been withheld ?he 

 jury would have come to the same conclusion ; . d i an? 

 peared to him that, as against Mr. O'Conne 1, the e£ 



hZ at cf I s r eches aU - esed t0 bavc b « n -Pok" by 



He need „l a t '" P r" 7" ilB P r0 P«ly 1« ft to the Jury' 



J™.nt . * , ^ r °! ,gh tbe * eneral Ejections further 

 -except as regarded the case of the Rev. Mr. w' 



In n* T*? ° n , h 8 behalf tbat »° «'"ence was eiven 



that traverser, was one no doubt of a highly re™etent h 

 character; it was rash, and such a, ongh ?ot to W 

 been expected from a gentleman of his profession and 

 filing, but he did not think that it was s^ffic e 2 p„t 

 to the jury as to the knowledge of Mr Tiernev of fh. 

 previous acts of Mr. O'Connell and t.eothe Averse 

 He thought this part of the case had been left onToo 

 lZ^"l ™S ue g roUDds ' and, for tbe reasons C hau 



u! 1 '' Justice tiAMPTON- neat delivered judgment 



WctZ M K ' th , Justice rerrin in fallowing thTob 

 fir. XT *""?' by C0UDSeI for "» '"versed ou the 

 R^ov he g aT , 8 ' na f; Iy ' the ° b J ection to *« J" or 

 fury £j ! t?!Z °i ffraU f T tLe c oo^«ction of the 



Wsto anu &TTZ a f^ e jUr0rS ' and tbe ' en »e 

 sarded M, ^Sffig*™*" ^ case as re- 



the Rev. Mr Tierney ; but with respect to the oTher 

 traversers he had to request that the Court would fiVT? 

 morrow for giving sentence in this case.-Jndge Cramntnn" 

 Do you mean to enter a nolle prosequi with refer.*. . 

 him ? -The Attorney- General f I w/s not awa r f u U^ 

 judgment of the Court had been given that the Court w.« 

 divided upon the subject of his case, and it will be sufficient 

 for me to state that I do not intend to call up Mr 

 T.erney for judgment; but, as to the precise manner ia 

 which this may be entered on the record, I have not vet 

 decided -Judge Crampton : As this is the course to be 

 pursued with respect to this particular traverser, I hare 

 to observe that my opinion concurs with that of mv 

 brother Burton and the Lord Chief Justice in refusing 

 the application of a new trial to the other traversers - 

 1 he Attorney-General: I do not mean that any iuoV 

 ment should be hanging over Mr. Tierney ; but I must 

 consider, with reference to the state of the record gene- 

 rally, in what way the proceeding should be entered.- 

 Mr. Hatchell, Q.C., in the absence of the traversers' 

 senior counsel, said it was their intention to move in 

 arrest of judgment ; but, as a preliminary to that, they 

 considered it necessary to have the postea amended con- 

 formably to the real facts which had taken place, and a 

 notice to that effect had been served on the crown. After 

 some discussion the further arguments on this point were 

 deferred till next day, and the Court adjourned.— On 

 Saturday counsel for the traversers applied to have cer- 

 tain amendments made in the postea, by inserting 

 thereon that the jury had been allowed to separate from 

 day to day during the trial, and also by altering the words 

 so as to be strictly in accordance with the findings of the 

 jury upon the several issues sent before them. After 

 some technical discussion the application was refused, 

 and Sir Coleman O'Loghlen was called upon to proceed 

 with his argument for an arrest of judgment, but he 

 prayed for a postponement until Monday. The Attorney- 

 General protested against further delay, but at length the 

 Court reluctantly granted the request. 



Motion for Arrest of Judgment.— On Monday Sir C. 

 O'Loghlen opened his arguments on behalf of Mr. 

 O'Connell in favour of an arrest of judgment, the Court 

 having previously announced their intention not to hear 

 more than two counsel at each side upon the motion. Sir 



home npi-Knna.u tn +k« *~~ ' I\ ~" " iV '"5 ,1, ' C. O'Loghlen said the objections he intended to urge were 



w» Kffi n°.t ?A 7 f Z'Jt ^™^l' !t S'— *"'. * technical Le as to the caption of the in- 



X>uffy. he eo^dlred the ohT; 11 " ^"^ A * " 

 curred with Mr!j£j£p& c n t, ?» nttt " able . b "' be 



As to Mr. 

 con- 



tlem, 



violent and inflammatory naturf t T ?t° f " '"* 

 y*j ardent, and aealous, and whST* ^ '° be " 

 pealer ; it showed him tobe,'ST . ln<ll «reet 

 of tie movement, that he approf d of^T' *" "* 

 the Association in the coursed the yet 'FIT* *** °f 



he was nn-fliv. *e .k- »«•_.. , ■ >eur UJ, and that 



Re- 

 head 



aware of the effects produced bv »i 

 taeetmgs-effecte likely to eicke hatred i e *, BI0Mler 

 «- of the people toward, those wh or n ^ XfT 

 Saxon race. He did not mean to say that there ' 



evidence 



was not 



waa of a .light nature. Indeed, le m gh „/ Z"'." 

 men stood, he was not quite satisfied that justice 



was his opinion that it had been most satisfactorily done 

 so. The document contended to have been illegally 

 admitted was what had been called a ballad. It was no 

 ballad nor anything like a ballad. It purported on the 

 tace of it to be a history of certain pretended scenes of 

 horror enacted at Mullaghmast. Now, let them look at 

 the nature of the meeting held there. It had been con- 

 vened by Mr. O'Connell and tbe Repeal Association, 

 and under their authority the document in question had 

 been published and extensively circulated throughout 

 the meeting. Tue next topic was the reception of the 

 newspapers. Brothers Crampton and Burton had ex- 

 pressea their opinion that they were evidence, not only 

 against Messrs Barrett and Duffy, but all the travellers 

 He agreed with them both in that opinion, and would 

 express his grounds of concurrence. It was perfect v 

 Plain tha the publication of seditious and inflammato y 

 documents was an illegal act, and done in the furtherance 



mnTth n e ,' «:r ; ii T." 0t iD tbe nature ° { a ""™ 

 t he nubwl \ I ln n Hard y s ca!e - »" of a narrative ; and 



n tfe ft r a he r an^ f™ ™ * ma,eHal aCt done b ? b ™ 

 -and that nn a . t f vl 'T™* and crimi ™ 1 Pn'pose 



0^o d n°;eH °^ b e e £fa *^£^^. 

 evidence acainst tit T meaB t0 "* H TCas conclusive 



have b^s&^r„j?i2M; ^ 



l tt°iz ht a er n 7r oe °h f rof descrip ¥ bTh; 



davit to that effect. Now he held it' „, made *V l"" 

 an objection must be made at the tr 1 a P" nC ' ple that 

 form, because addiHo"al evmence m ichrthe" V a "- gibIe 

 or in the case of a charge t™ Hud« ^?. be 8 " en ' 

 qualify, or explain, what he" V* tl ^ g T he Ch LTT' 

 at much length adverted to the speech of^-n'r^ 

 as made at tl* trial to show that he adon^ed Uh» ° ^ nn . e11 

 of the newspapers, and that at that period ^ 1, • a ?. thor,, y 



urged againVthe'newspapers beinrevidenr JeCt ' 0n f W ^ 

 the traversers. He therefore rt-tefi " ? T'° St aJ1 

 the course now adopted! of resS f^T , a ^, inSt 

 until months after the trial, and the ^H ° bjeCt '? n 



House of Lords, in a case 'already referred J" ''" 

 author tv »<r«in. f .n^k . y " Ierr «d to, was an 



authority against such a course o^7 ^7 h' T M 



not go further into this case. He meant to « ^ 



about any observations or arguments whL?^ Tl^ 



made upon the subject-matter of The rh.^ o *! e ? n 



j ma^er ot the charge. He might separate parts of the charge 



dictment ; secondly, that the first five counts were bad 

 for duplicity ; and thirdly, that all the counts were too 

 general and vague. He then at great length argued the 

 three points, adducing numerous authorities on which he 

 relied in support of his views. He called on the Court, 

 if they entertained any reasonable doubt on the case, not 

 to consign his client to a dungeon, by deciding this mo- 

 tion against him, for if the motion were decided against 

 the Crown, they could, if they thought the judgment of 

 the Court erroneous, sue out a writ of error, and then 

 the defendants would have an opportunity of haviDg sub- 

 mitted to the House of Lords the question of the chal- 

 lenge which one of their Lordships thought ought to 

 have been ruled in their favour. The Learned Gentle- 

 man then argued that it was not enough that the indict- 

 ment charged an attempt to bring about changes in the 

 law by overawing the Houses of Lords and Commons, 

 was not enough without also alleging an attempt to over- 

 awe the Queen also. He again read passages of the in- 

 dictment to show the vagueness with which the charge of 

 conspiracy was set forth. He called it unconstitutional, 

 monstrous, and called upon their Lordships to scout it 

 out of Court, and wound up with an impassioned appeal 

 to the equitable as well as constitutional feelings of the 

 Bench. Mr. Fitzgibbon, Q.C., then rose to insist on 

 the right of more than two Counsel to be heard on 

 this point. He was permitted by the Court (notwith- 

 standing their decision in the morning) to re-argue the 

 question of the number of Counsel to be heard, ana 

 at the close of his address the Judges were unanimous iio 

 giving a peremptory refusal to the application.— 

 Tuesday the Solicitor-General replied, and contend^ 

 that most of the cases and authorities cited by 

 C. O'Loghlen were wholly inapplicable in the pre s «£ 

 instance, and could not sustain an application o 

 strong a nature as to arrest the judgment of the Co 

 The learned gentleman's speech consisted of legal ar | " 

 ments which it would be useless to abridge. * 

 M'Donogh, Q.C., followed on behalf of all the traversers. 

 The Jury, he contended, had found that all the traversers 

 were not guilty of the same conspiracy. The conspir*" 

 cies of which the different defendants were found &>" 7 



were different, and had a different end in y» cW ; *\ 

 therefore contended that the parties were indicted tor 

 joint offence, and that no judgment could pass upon tn ^ 

 record against the traversers, who were found g ulU 2 



- - The question here ww> 



