The Queen v Meaney

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 18 May 1867
• Date: 18 May 1867
• Court: Court for Crown Cases Reserved (Ireland)

Cr. Ca. Res.

Before WHITESIDE, C.J.; MONAHAN, C.J.; PIGOT, C.B.; KEOGH, O'BRIEN. FITZGERALD, O'HAGAN, and GEORGE, JJ.; and FITZGERALD, HUGHES, and DEASY, BB.

THE QUEEN

and

MEANEY

Reg v. StanburyENR L. & C. C. C. 128.

Rex v. Gough Doug. 796.

Danby's Case 1 Hale, 651, 2; 3 Inst. 73.

Fulwood's CaseENR Cro. Car. 488; East. P. C. 453.

Lacy's Case 3 Inst. 48.

Bingham's Case 2 Co. 93 a.

Butler's Case 3 Inst. 113.

Dowtie's Case 3 Inst. 48.

Reg. v. Martin Hodges' Report, 769.

Rex v. HenseyST1 19 St. Tr., 1345.

The King v. BrisacENR 4 East, 163.

Dr. Story's CaseST1 Dyer, 28, pl. 29; 1 St. Tr. 1087.

Campion's CaseST1 1 St. Tr. 1050.

Crohagan's CaseENR Cro. Car. 332; 1 Hale, 116; Kelyng Pl. 13; Foster, Cr. Law, 203.

Captian Vaughan's CaseST1 13 St. Tr. 485.

The Rev. William Jackson's CaseST1 25 St. Tr. 783.

William Stone's CaseENR Ibid. 1155; 6 t. R. 527.

Mulcahy v. The Queen 1 R. C. L. 12.

Watson's CaseST1 32 St. Tr. 7.

Thistlewood's CaseST1 33 St. Tr. 685.

Mulcahy v. The Queen 1 I. R. C. L. 12.

Reg. v. Button 11 q. B. 929.

Cox v. Hickman 8 H. L. 279, 304, 306, 312.

Mulcahy v. The Queen 1 I. R. C. L. p. 31.

Blunt's CaseST1 1 St. Tr. 1412.

Throckmorton's CaseST1 1 St. Tr. 890.

Rex v. BrisacENR 4 East, 163.

Rex v. Bowes Ibid.

Rex v. StoneENR 6 t. R. 527.

Hardy's CaseST1 24 St. Tr. 451.

Watson's CaseST1 32 St. Tr. 7.

United States v. Gooding 12 Wheat. 460.

The American Fur Company v. United States 2 Peters, 358.

Dr. Hensey's CaseST1 19 St. Tr. 1345.

Queen v. Duffy 1 Ir. Jur. 100.

Mulcahy v. The Queen 1 i. R. C. L. 12.

The King v. HardyST1 24 St. Tr. 451.

The King v. StoneENR 6 T. R. 527.

The King v. Brisac 4 Est, 163, 171.

The King v. The Honourable Robert JohnsonENR 6 East, 583.

The King v. BrisacENR 4 East, 163.

The King v. BrisacENR 4 East, 163.

The King v. StoneENR 6 T. R. 527.

Bulwer's Case 7 Co. 1 a.

Sir Francis Burdett's CaseENR 4 B. & Ald. 472.

Mulcahy v. The Queen 1 I. R. C. L. 12.

R. v. Lacy and others 1 Cox, C. C. 518.

Sir Henry Vane's CsaeST1 6 St. Tr. 128.

Lord Preston's CaseST1 12 St. Tr. 729.

W. Parker's CaseST1 13 St. Tr. 63.

The King v. BrisacENR 4 East, 163.

The King v. BurdettENR 4 B. & ald. 170.

The King v. StoneENR 6 T. R. 527.

The King v. BrisacENR 4 East, 163.

The Queen v. Dowling 3 Cox, C. C. 513.

The Queen v. Stowell 5 Q. B. 44.

The King v. Connop and others 4 A. & E. 942.

The King v. BurdettENRENR 3 B. & Ald. 717; 4 B. & Ald. 95.

King v. JohnsonENR 6 East, p. 590.

Platt's CaseENR 1 Leach, 151, p. 168.

the Queen v. M'Cafferty, ante, p. 363.

The King v. William StoneENR 6 T. R. 527.

The King v. BrisacENR 4 East, 171.

Coalheaver's CaseENR 1 Leach, C. C. 76.

Bernard's CaseENR 1 Leach, C. C. 515.

R. v. GordonENR 1 F. & F. 242.

R. v. BirchenoughENR 1 Mood. C. C. 477.

R. v. BrisacENR 4 East, 164.

R. v. BowesENR 4 East, 174.

R. v. StoneENR 6 t. R. 527.

R. v. Lacy 3 Cox, C. C. 517.

R. v. Bull 1 Cox, C. C. 281.

R. v. MolandENR 2 Mood. C. C. 276.

R. v. BurdettENR 3 B. & Ald. 738.

R. v. Lacy 3 Cox, C. C. 517.

Lessee of Blackwood v. Gregg Hayes, Rep. 312.

R. v. StoneST1 25 St. Tr. 1269.

Treason Felony Conspiracy Venue.

500 THE IRISH REPORTS. Cr. Ca. Res. 1867. THE QUEEN v. ME.A.NEY (1). Treason Felony-Conspiracy-Venue. April 17, 18. The Defendant, a British subject, was indicted at the ordinary Commission May 18. of Oyer and Terminer for the City of Dublin for treason felony. The venue in the indictment was the County of the City of Dublin. The indictment charged the prisoner, in three counts, with compassing, 1, to depose the Queen ; 2, to levy war against the Queen in Ireland; 3, to stir up foreigners to invade Ireland. Some of the overt acts were conspiracies to effect the objects laid. Evidence was given to show that the Defendant was an active member in America of an association existing in America, connected with a treasonable association existing in IreÂÂland. No act was proved to have been done by the prisoner in Ireland in furÂÂtherance of the object of the association, nor was it proved that the prisoner was in Ireland during the period to which the evidence applied. Evidence of acts in Ireland, and in the county of the venue, of members of the association in Ireland, co-conspirators with the Defendant, but not named in the indictment, was received against him, and the Judge directed the jury that there was eviÂÂdence on which they might find that some of the overt acts were done, and the felonies committed by the prisoner in the County of the City of Dublin.. The Defendant was convicted. Held (dissentientibus PIGOT, C. B. (O'BRIEN, and O'HAGAN, JJ.) and FITZGERALD, B.), 1st, that the Court below had jurisdiction to try the DefendÂÂont ; and, 2nd, that the direction given by the Judges was right. Tins was a case reserved by Fitzgerald and Hughes, BB., from the Commission for the county of the city of Dublin. The case stated by the Judges was as follows : The Defendant in this ease was tried at the Commission Court for the county and the county of the city of Dublin, before us, sitting under the ordinary Commission for the county of the city of Dublin, on the 16th February, 1867. The indictment charged the Defendant, in three counts, with the several felonies of compassing To depose the Queen from the honour and royal name of the Crown of the United Kingdom. (1) Before WHITESIDE, C. J.; MO- GEORGE, JJ. ; and FITZGERALD, NAHAN, C. J. ; PIGOT, C. B. ; KEOGH, HUGHES, and DEASY, BB. O'BRIEN, FITZGERALD, O'HAGAN, and COMMON LAW SERIES. 501 To levy war against the Queen in Ireland, in order to compel Cr. Ca. Res. her by force to change her counsels. 1867. To stir up foreigners by force to invade Ireland. THE QUEEN And of uttering the said several compassings by certain overt v. MEANEY. acts alleged in the indictment, some of which were conspiracies to effect the several objects aforesaid. In the indictment the same overt acts were charged in each count. The venue in the indictment is the " county of the city of Dublin," and the indictment does not charge the felonies, or any of them, to have been committed without the realm. The Defendant pleaded " Not Guilty." Sufficient evidence was given on the part of the Crown, that the Defendant was an active member and officer of an association of persons in the United States of America, called " The Fenian Brotherhood," having for its objects the .several objects aforesaid stated in the indictment. Sufficient evidence was given on the part of the Crown that the Defendant was born in Ireland, and was a subject of the Crown of the -United Kingdom. Sufficient evidence was given on the part of the Crown that there existed. in Ireland an association of persons, which bore a similar denomination to that of the said association in America, and having the same objects. Sufficient evidence was given on the part of the Crown of the connexion of the said associations in America and Ireland, as parts of one and the same society, having for its objects the several objects aforesaid. Sufficient evidence was given on the part of the Crown of acts of members of the said association in Ireland, not named in the inÂÂdictment, in promotion of the several objects aforesaid, and done within the county of the city of Dublin, to sustain some of the overt acts charged in the indictment, supposing them to have been the acts of the Defendant himself. Sufficient evidence was given on the part of the Crown that the- persons by whom the said acts were done were, in the doing thereof, conspirators with the Defendant to effect the several objects aforesaid. 502 THE IRISH REPORTS. Cr. Ca. Res, But no evidence was given on the part of the Crown or other 1867. wise (save as aforesaid), of any acts done by the Defendant himself THE QUEEN in Ireland, or that the Defendant was, antecedently to his appreÂÂhension and arrest, in Ireland, at any time, during the existence MEANEY. of the said associations either in America or Ireland. The Defendant was apprehended and arrested in England, and thenceforth continued in custody till the time of his trial, and was in custody in the county of the city of Dublin, at the time of the first sitting of the Commission Court, and thenceforth until and at his trial. Upon the evidence aforesaid we allowed the case to go to the jury, who convicted the Defendant. We reserved for the consideration of the Court for Crown Cases Reserved, the following questions, that is to say : 1st. Whether the said Commission Court had. jurisdiction to try the Defendant for the said alleged felonies, or any of them. 2nd. Whether we were right in directing (as in fact we did direct) the Jury, that there was evidence on which they might find that some or one of the said alleged overt acts were or was done, and the said felonies committed by the Defendant in the county of the city of Dublin. We postponed judgement until the questions so reserved by us shall have been considered. and decided, and we committed the Defendant so convicted to prison. Molloy (with him 0' Loghlen), for the prisoner. The jurisdiction of our criminal Courts is governed by certain rules of the Common Law, which have always been strictly observed : this conviction cannot be sustained without disregarding those rules. To give jurisdiction, it was necessary, first, that the offence should arise within the county, 2 Hale, 163 ; 2 Hawkins, book 2, oh. 25, s. 19 ; 3 Institute, 48, 49 ; Reg. v. Stanbury (1). " The King cannot by his charter give Judges authority to try in one county offences committed in another :" per Lord Mansfield, Rex v. Gough (2); and if, upon not guilty pleaded, it appeared that the offence was committed in another county, the prisoner should be acquitted, 2 Hawk. b. 2, ch. 25, sec. 36 ; Bacon's Abr. Indictment, F. Se (1) L. & C. C. C. 128. (2) Doug. 796. COMMON LAW SERIES. 503 condly, the offence must be complete within the county, or the Cr. Ca. -Res. Court could not take cognizance of it. If begun in one...