The Queen v Daniel O'Connell, John O'Connell, Richard Barrett, Thomas M. Ray, John Gray, Thomas Steele, Charles G. Duffy, and Thomas Tierney

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 24 May 1844
• Date: 24 May 1844
• Court: Queen's Bench Division (Ireland)

Queen's Bench.

THE QUEEN

and

DANIEL O'CONNELL, JOHN O'CONNELL, RICHARD BARRETT, THOMAS M. RAY, JOHN GRAY, THOMAS STEELE, CHARLES G. DUFFY, and THOMAS TIERNEY.

See Arm. & T. 62.

See Arm. & T. 117.

Lucas v. Lucas 7 Br. P. C. 160.

Rex v. MawbeyENR 6 T. R. 619.

Rex v. BrisacENR 4 East, 170.

Rex v. HoltENR 5 T. R. 436.

Rex v. GoughENRUNK 2 Doug. 790; S. C. 1 Moo. & R. 71.

Fermor v. Dorrington Cro. Eliz. 222.

Norman v. BeaumontENR Barnes, 362.

Russell v. Ball Ibid, 455.

Dovey v. HobsonENR 6 Taunt. 460.

Hill v. YatesENR 12 East, 229.

Rex v. TremaineENR 5 B. & C. 254.

Rex v. Delany Jebb, C. C. 90.

Torbock v. LaingUNK 5 Jur. 318.

Evans v. KingENR Willes, 558.

Regina v. FrostENR 9 C. & P. 135; S. C. Gurney, R. 769.

Anon. 1 Moor. 126.

Mestaer v. Herty 3 M. & Sel. 451.

Rex v. Mahon 8 Bli. N. C.2.

Deybel's case 4 B. & AI.243.

Kearney v. King 1 Chit. R. 28.

The Queen's case ENR 2 Br. & B. 311.

Rex v. Horne TookeST1 25 St. Tr. 727.

Regina v. VincentENR 9 C. & P. 93.

Doe d. Read v. Harris Wil. W. & D. 106.

Haine v. Davey 4 A. & E. 892.

Earl of Egremont v. Saul 6 A. & E. 924.

Everett v. YouellsENR 4 B. & Ad. 683.

De Rutzen v. Farr 5 N. & Man. 617.

Crease v. BarrettENR 1 C. M. & R. 919.

Rex v. TophamENR 4 T. R. 126.

Hennell v. LyonENR 1 B. & A1. 182.

Rex v. BradyENR 1 Leach, 327.

Rex v. AmphlitENR 4 B. & C. 35.

Wray v. ThomENR Willes, 488.

Lessee Barton v. Quinn Batty, 555.

Rex v. HuntENR 4 B. & A1. 430.

Rex v. KinnearENR 7 C. & P. 276.

Rex v. PinneyENR 5 C. & P. 254.

Rex v. WatsonST1 32 St. Tr. 43.

Rex v. Turner Ibid, 1131.

Attorney-General v. Good 1 M. & Y. 286.

Belcher v. PrittieENR 4 M. & Sc. 295.

Davidson v. Stanley 3 Sc. N. C. 51.

Rex v. ForstST1 22 St. Tr. 516.

Rex v. HuntST1 30 St. Tr. 1315.

Rex v. LambertST1 22 St. Tr. 1017.

Rex v. RedheadST1 25 St. Tr. 1149.

Rex v. WilkesENR 4 Burr. 2527.

Arm. & T. 115.

Arm. & T. 118.

See Arm. & T. 45.

Arm. & T. 277.

Rev v. StoneENRST1 6 T. R. 527; 25 St. Tr. 1278.

ST1 24 St. Tr. 476.

Wray v. ThorneENR Willes, 488.

Rex v. HuntENR 4 B. & A1. 432.

Redford v. Birley 3 Stark. N. P. C. 87.

Rex v. MurphyENR 9 C. & P. 310.

Rex v. PollmanENR 2 Camp. 234.

Simpson v. Clayton 1 Hodg. Rep. Com. Pl., 464.

The Attorney-General v. Good Mƒ€™c. & Y. 286.

Hardy's caseST1 24 St. Tr. 475.

Rex v. WakefieldST1 27 St. Tr. 736.

The King v. Sir J. Mawby and anotherENR 6 T. R. 623, 638.

Fisher v. Magnay 6 Scott, New Rep. 602.

Rex v. Briscoe and ScottENR 4 East, 170.

Rex v. Hart and WhiteENR 10 East, 94.

Morgan v. FletcherENR 9 B. & C. 382.

Hardy's caseST1 24 St. Tr. 475.

Ibid.

Rex v. MurphyENR 8 C. & P. 811.

Ball v. Mannin 3 Bligh, P. C. N. S. 22.

Rex v. KinnearENR 2 B. & A. 462.

The King v. CarlisleENR 2 B. & Ad. 364.

Rex v. Inhabitants of TrowbridgeENR 7 B. & C. 252.

Rex v. CranburneST1 13 St. Tr. 234.

Rex v. RobertsENR Carth. 226.

Rex v. PolmanENR 2 Camp. 229.

Rex v. Turner 1 Chit. R. 58.

Rex v. TurnerENR 13 East, 228.

Rex v. RichardsonUNK 1 M. & R. 403.

Rex v. MawbeyENR 6 T. R. 619.

O'Meally v. NewellENR 8 East, 365.

Rex v. Lawley 2 Stra. 904.

Rex v. JoliffeENR 4 T. R. 285.

Rex v. De Berenger 3 M. & Sel. 67.

Rex v. VaughanENR 4 Burr. 2494.

Clifford v. BrandonENR 2 Camp. 369.

Ventue v. CliveENR 4 Burr. 2472.

Rex v. EdwardsENR 8 Mod. 321.

Rex v. TarrantENR 4 Burr. 2106.

Rex v. Warne 1 Stra. 644.

Rex v. Dixon 3 M. & Sel. 11.

Rex v. LymeENR 2 T. R. 733.

Rex v. PywellENR 1 Star. 402.

Rex v. RispalENR 3 Burr. 1320.

Poulteres' case 9 Cok. 56, c.

Rex v. SewardENR 1 Ad. & E1. 706.

Rex v. BiersENR 1 Ad. & E. 328.

Rex v. KnightENR 1 Ld. Raym. 529.

Rex v. CheeseENR 4 B. & C. 902.

Regina v. VincentENR 9 C. & P. 91.

Rex v. Reeves 2 Peak. N. P. C. 85.

Rex v. PhillipsENR 6 East, 474.

Rex v. Griffith Ven. & Scri. 612.

Rex v. Loughnan 1 Cr. & Dix, C. C. 79.

Rex v. Sparling 1 Stra. 497.

AnonymousENR 9 C. & P. 78.

Regina v. VincentENR 9 C. & P. 275.

Regina v. Shellard Ibid. 276.

Rex v. HollingburyENR 4 B. & C. 329.

Rex v. Hinchy Batty, 509.

Rex v. GillENR 2 B. & A. 204.

Regina v. Parker 3 Q. B. R. 298.

Regina v. PurchaseENR Car. & M. 620.

Huntƒ€™s caseENR 3 B. & A1. 567.

Ante 262.

See Arm. & T. 85.

See Arm. & T. 118.

CASES AT LAW. 26-1- E. T. 1544. Queen' s Bench. THE QUEEN V. DANIEL O'CONNELL, JOHN O'CONNELL, RICHARD BARRETT, THOMAS M. RAY, JOHN GRAY, THOMAS STEELE, CHARLES G. DUFFY, and THOMAS TIERNEY. April 25 to May 6. (Queen's Bench.) Trinity Term. May 24. CoNsrmAcY.-In this case the defendants had been indicted for a con- ThisCourt entertain a spiracy, and convicted on a trial at bar in last Hilary Term.* motion for a new trial in a misdemeanor case after a trial at bar. Where on such motion made on behalf of a traverser it appeared that the name of one of the Jurors was J. J.R., but on the jurors' book and on the jury panel, the name was J. R., and by that name the Juror answered and was sworn, without any objection being made by the traversers' Counsel ; Held, that this wasp no ground of mistrial. Slight evidence of venue is sufficient in such case. Where after issue joined on such indictment a venire was awarded returnable in H. T., and on the issue so joined a trial at bar was fixed for a certain day in that Term ; and it was ordered that in case the trial so fixed should not terminate on or before the last day of that Term, then that every succeeding day (if necessary) until the following Term should be appointed for the continuation of the trial, and that the days so fixed should, for the purpose of such trial, be taken to be part of such Term; Held, that this order was within the scope of the statute 1 & 2 W. 4, c. 31, and that the trial was properly conÂÂtinued in Vacation (a). On such trial the Jury having been allowed to separate each day at the adjournment of the Court ; Held, that this was no ground of mistrial. Under the provisions of 3 & 4 W. 4, c. 91, it is the duty of the Recorder of Dublin annually to revise the lists of Jurors of the county of that city, and to cause a general list of Jurors to be made out, and delivered over to the Clerk of the Peace of the said city for the purposes of the ensuing year. On motion for a new trial, on the grounds that these general jury lists from which were framed the jurors' book and the special jury list, were fraudulently dealt with, for the purpose of prejudicing the traversers in their defence; Held, that this was not a proper ground for a motion for a new trial. Where an indictment charged a conspiracy to cause the Queen's subjects to meet in unlawful and seditious assemblies, and thereby to intimidate the Government, and one of the overt acts laid in the indictment was a meeting at M. ; Held, that a ballad publicly hawked about and sold at such meeting was evidence against the parties charged with the conspiracy as part of the resgestce, and showing the character of the meeting, although the traversers may have been individually ignorant of its contents. The expression by a Judge of his opinion as to the facts of the case, without submitÂÂting them exclusively to the Jury, is no ground for setting aside a verdict for misdirecÂÂtion, such being a matter resting with the discretion of the Judge. The statutable proof of the publication of a newspaper is sufficient evidence not only against the proprietor, but also against any person affected by his acts. The act of one conspirator done in pursuance of the common object, is evidence against his co-conspirators; therefore, proof of the publication of newspapers by one of the conÂÂspirators in furtherance of the common object, is admissible evidence against the rest ; sed, per PERRIN, J., they are not evidence to be left to the Jury to establish the fact of the conspiracy. (a) Affirmed on w,it of error. • See full Report of Trial by Armstrong and Trevor. 2r 262 CASES AT LAW. The caption and the indictment were in the following form :- " County of the City of Dublin, -) "Pleas before the Queen at Dublin, to wit. j„ of Michaelmas Term in the seventh " year, &c. " Be it remembered that on Thursday the 2nd of November, in the same " Term, in the Court of our Lady the Queen, before the Queen herself, at " Dublin, in the county of the city of Dublin, upon the oath and affirroaÂÂ" Lion of twelve good and lawful men of the body of the county of the city " of Dublin, now here sworn, affirmed and charged to inquire for our said " Lady the Queen, and for the body of the said county of the city of " Dublin, it is presented as follows ; that is to say " County of the City of Dublin,1 " The Jurors for our Lady the Queen, to wit. j"upon their oath and affirmation, present "and say that Daniel O'Connell, of, &c., John O'Connell, Thomas Steele, " Thomas Matthew Ray, Charles Gavan Duffy, the Rev. Thomas Tierney, " Rev. Peter James Tyrrell, John Gray, and Richard Barrett, of, &c, "unlawfully, maliciously and seditiously contriving,"intending and devising " to raise and create discontent and disaffection amongst the liege subjects " of our said Lady the Queen, and to excite the said liege subjects to "hatred and contempt of the Government and constitution of this realm as "by law established ; and to excite hatred, jealousies and ill-will amongst " different classes of the said subjects ; and to create discontent and disafÂÂ" fection amongst divers of the said subjects, and amongst others, her " Majesty's subjects serving in her Majesty's army; and further contriving, " intending and devising to bring into disrepute and to diminish the confi dence of her Majesty's subjects in the tribunals duly and lawfully " constituted for the administration of justice ; and further, unlawfully, " maliciously and seditiously, contriving, intending and devising by means " of intimidation, and the demonstration of great physical force, to " procure and effect changes to be made in the Government, laws " and constitution of this realm, as by law established...