The Queen v Patrick Meehan, John Fehily and Others

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 22 April 1845
• Date: 22 April 1845
• Court: Queen's Bench Division (Ireland)

Queen's Bench.

THE QUEEN

and

PATRICK MEEHAN, JOHN FEHILY and others.

Gray v. The Queen 6 Ir. Law Rep. 482.

Rex v. Bourne 7 A. & E. 58; S. C. 2 Nev. & p. 248.

Holland v. Regina 2 J. & Sy. 375.

Regina v. Houston Jebb & B. 99.

The Queen v. Silversides 2 Gale & D. 617; S. C. 3 A. & E. N. S. 406.

Rex v. St. John Wm. Jones 407.

O'Connell v. The Queen 11 Cl. & Fin.

Rowe v. The Attorney-GeneralENR 2 Cl. & Fin 43.

Corner v. ShewENR 4 M. & W. 168.

Rex. v. George 1 Stra. 309.

Rex v. PerinENR 2 Saund. 389.

Trevor v. WallUNK 1 Term Rep. 151.

Street v. Hopkinson 2 Stra. 1055.

Rex v. Ellis 5 B. & Cress. 395.

Arundel's caseENR 6 Coke, 284.

Rex v. KeateENR Comberbach, 408.

King v. FowlerENR 4 B. & Ald. 273.

King v. EdmondsENR 4 B. & Ald. 471.

Clement v. Lewis Cooper's Rep. 89.

Harwood v. GoodrightENR 10 Price, 181.

Davies v. PearceUNK 2 Term Rep. 125.

The Queen v. Charleton 2 J. & Sy. 54.

The King v. Inhabitants of OxfordENR 13 East, 411.

The King v. MawbeyUNK 6 Term Rep. 638.

CASES AT LAW. 153 E. T. 1845. Queefe sBench. THE QUEEN v. PATRICK MEEHAN, JOHN FEHILY and others. .Tan. 30. April 22. TEE prisoners had been severally indicted for felonies, not capital, On a writ of and had peremptorily challenged some of the jurors ; the Crown emrirnoarimeasa ec,r demurred to the challenges, and the demurrers being allowed, the this Court has prisoners were then tried and found guilty -of the offences with which power to award a venire they were charged. These proceedings took place before the decision de novo, and to remand the of the House of Lords in Gray v. The Queen (a). Writs of error prisoners. were thereupon sued out by the Crown on behalf of the prisoners, and to resist their discharge The Solicitor-General was heard for the Crown. In these cases there is one common error assigned, the refusal of a peremptory challenge, the offences charged not being capital. This question has been settled by the case of Gray v. The Queen, where it was held that the challenges ought to have been allowed; the Crown therefore cannot resist these writs of error, and the judgÂment of the Court below must be reversed ; the rule to be adopted by this Court is to award a venire de novo. Napier, for the prisoner Fehily. This Court has only power to enter a general judgment of reverstd„ and has no right to award a venire de novo. The decision in Gray's case as to awarding a venire de novo, ought not to rule the prt8ent application for the prisoner's discharge, for the question as to the power of awarding it was not discussed before the...