whines

ee

186

THE EXAMINER.

ce ETE STE I a

PV Ge

in the carriage must have he out, and began to damn William (his Nephew), and said

it was all his doings. 1

Cross examined by Mr. Lawson.—Could not hear what Mooney said, but am quite sure It was In disapproval of the peopie’s conduct; the carriage was in the middke of thecrowd, Captain Swabey was sitting along side of

M r. Coles.

Mutthew May examined.—Could net swear who was in the carriage ; did not remember seeing Captain Swa- bey that night; saw Mr. Whelan in the carriage after it

Walsh on horseback; did not hear him tell the people|

whereto go. Remember telling him myself to go down Pownal Street.

cross examined by the Hon.c. Young. The car- riage was waiting at Crabb’s corner sometine before

Mr. Coles returned from the Election. (The Solicitor}

Gener! objected to a question from Mr. Young, and the latter said he would call this witness on the defence.)

J. B. Cor examined.--Saw a carriage in the crowd at Mr. Coles’s private house; saw Captain Swabey, Mr. Coles and Mr. Whelan in it, cannot say who be- sides. Saw Mr. Cochran standing on its side. Went with the procession as far as Mr. K, McKenzie’s, then went home. I think there was only one carriage. No ham was done to persons or property as far as [ went.

Cross examined by Mr. Young.—Did not see that Captain Swabey was inthe carriage at Government House ; but saw him in it at McKenzie’s; do not know where he got in; he might have been at Government House. I think I saw Clark in it at McKenzie’s; took very little notice; it was very dark. The carriage stop- ped at McKenzie’s else I should not have known any of the gentlemen in it.

SECOND DAY.

The Solicitor General having obtained leave to ex- amine another witness, called—

Jeremiah Simpson.—l know Mr. Clark, I am a friend of his. A few days after the Election I had a conversa- tion with him. I live ata distance from town—heard sad accounts of the rioting as it was called. I said to Mr. Clark, | hoped he was not implicated in the disgrace- fui doings; he acknowledged being in the carriage; | enquired if any damage was done; he said there was, but did he not know by whom. I told him he ought to have left the carriage.

Cross examined by Mr. Lawson.—I believe he wes sorry for what had happened; at the time the conver- sation took place no indictment was preferred.

Here terminated the evidence on the part of the Pro- secution. JOHN LAWSON, Esgq., then rose and addressed the Jury for TiE DEFENCE.

He commenced with observing, that the case had caused much excitement—an excitement wiiich he fear- ed was not oven now altogether allayed. That it was one of those cases to which singular importance had been attached, and one which required that the Jury should come to its consideration with that calmness so indispensably requisite in men who wish to give a just and conscientious verdict, throwing aside al! personal, but particularly divesting themselves of political and party feeling (which were the worst of ail as respected their influence over the minds of men), regard only the oath they had taken and the honest dictates of their own hearts. He gave the Hon. Solicitor General the highest praise for his candid and mild manner in opening the case for the Crown—even he had admitted that these were times of political excitement from which few es- caped participation, and so satisfied was he (Mr. Lawson) that such was the case at the time of preferring the In- dictment, that hadit not prevailed tosuch an extent as it did, no such Bill would have been found. He did not wish to be considered as making any charge against

the Grand Jury, almost all of whom were his personal lof the 23d Regt., stabbed the latter in two places, with!

ard it. Mr. McGill came were like those sudden gusts in nature whica, though |

‘accompanied with severe violence, leave a clearer —_ ‘purer atiaosphere. He wished it were otherwise, and| ‘that men could vote for Meibers of Parliament in the! ‘same quiet and unbiased manner as the Jury would give, their verdict this day. But the question here was not whe-| ther this were an Election Row, but whether it were a | riot. Now, a riot had been defined — Here the learned ‘Counsel read from ‘Russell on Crimes,’ and other ‘works, and contended that there had been no proof of 7 ‘riot.) The most essential part of the evidence neces- ‘sary to constitute a riot in the eye of the law, was want- ing, this was the mutual determination and agreement of three or more persons to assist each other in the coim- mission of some act of violence. No such mutuality had been proved. It was unfortunate for the Traversers that all who were in the carriage had been included in the ‘Indictment, or that they were mutually deprived of that evidence which would show, that so far from participat- ing in, they felt the same abhorrence at the acts of vio- lence as they, the Jury, the Crown Officers, and every well-disposed member of the community could feel. (‘The learned Gentleman proceeded to comment upon the evi- dence, and was desired to confine himself to the defence of his particular clients.) He then observed that through- ‘out the whole of the evidence the names of his Clients, Messrs. Clark and Cochran, had scarcely ever been named—the fact of their having been there at ail rested | only on their own admissions, and when these admis- sions were made, they respectively disclaimed all parti- cipation inthe acts of violence which had been commit- ted. He abstained from going into the evidence for the defence, as he felt that his own Clients needed none; but his friend, Mr. Young,‘ would follow, and he trusted that when they hid heard his address and the evidence that would be adduced on the part of the defence, they would have no difficulty in acquitting not only his clients but the whole of the Traversers.

{We are reluctantly compelled to postpone to next week the other speeches and the evidence which fol- lowed.]

SUPREME COURT. FRIDAY, JAN’Y. 7. The Queen vs. Phoebe Cole. Indictment for firing a Joaded gun at one Hugh McLeod, with an intent to kill, maim, disfigure, or do him some serious bodily in- jury.—There was no real defence in this case—Mr.

seized a cart, the property, as was alleged, of one Glydden, an absent debtor. The seizure wag re- sisted by the traversers, on the ground that the writ did not warrant the seizure. There were a great number of witnesses examined, and much contrary swearing, The Jury having remained out a considerable time, at length returned with a verdict, finding Thomas Poole and John Glydden guilty, but recommending them to the mercy of the court. Mr. Lawson for the traversers, WEDNESDAY AND THURSDAY,

The Queen vs. Edward Love—the Queen vs. Thomas Terlizzick. Indictments for Nuisance.—Traversers found guilty. As this is a matter of some importance as respects future proceedings with regard to Boundary Lines, we trust to be able to put our readers, especially those of the town, in possession of all the important facts, as well as the law, of the case.

FRIDAY.

Hobkirk vs. the Queen. Account against the Queen for services rendered as a Medical man, by order of the Government. This case commenced on Thursday af- ternoon, occupied the whole of Friday—and may be, it is possible, decided to-day. As this is the first action of the kind that has been commenced in this or in any other colony that we are aware of, an outline of the cause and proceedings shall be given in an early No. of this paper.

THE CURRENCY.

The financial affairs of this Colony must be, to: every one who feels an interest in its improvement, a subject of deep and engrossing interest. Whatever may be the scheme adopted by the Legislature in its approaching Session, public men, in both Houses, cannot fail to dis- cover the necessity of a change. We, therefore, think that—whilst we, as a public Journalist, may reasonably hesitate to enter into the details of the subject, or advance any theory of our own—we cannot more advantageously occupy a portion of our paper than in giving publicity to such information and such well-digested opinions as correspondents may from time to time bring under our

Young for the prisoner addressed the Jury, who ac- | ment, and found her guilty on the fourth—that of shoot- |ing with an intent to do some bodily injury.

The Queen vs. James Flemming. Indictment for Larceny.—The facts in this case were: that the prose- cutor (a simple sort of fellow) went into the Barrack with the prisoner, a soldier, having a bundle in which was contained a new frock coat, which he stated he put under his head when he went to bed. The prisoner was found coming into Barrack next morning with the coat on his back, when he stated that he had taken it out ofa lark. The Jury being of the same opinion, ac- quitted the prisoner. Mr. Lawson conducted the de- fence.

SATURDAY, JANUARY 8. The Queen vs. George McDonald. Indictment for

| |Catherine McEachern, in a quarrel which arose between

‘him and the prosecutor, Billingham, who is a Sergeant

ead aan A ae dal aceied Co Ge Jobservation. The following Letter. on this subject we 11q » <u xt © Indict- have read with much interest, and whilst we hold our-

selves free either to entertain or reject the views of the writer of this, or any other letterin reference to the inatter, our readers cannot fail to regard it with earnest,

if not favourable, consideration.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE EXAMINER. Sir;

Your article respecting the financial affairs of the Colony seems to invite discussion, and your Correspon- dent “Cambiatore” having left us rather hungry for another of his able letters, without catering for our appe- tites, I may, perhaps, be pardoned if I offer few remarks (intended to be practical) on the subject.

Lord Grey’s proposition includes the buying up or absorbing all the Treasury Warrants afloat, which, ac-

‘maliciously stabbing Uriah Billingham.—The case “oe to the Repent of Oey. Commlinan<a0 Aaa

‘the prosecution was, that the prisoner, in the house of j

\in circulation, which the same Report calls 11,500).

|

made to the Assembly on March 22d, 1847, then amount- ing to 29,3171. 11s. 84d., as well as the Treasury Notes

The bonds and cash available at the same date (in-

‘cluding 2,171/. 4s. Gd. retained for Warrants called in)

friends, and men who were mindful of the solemn oath | they had taken on that occasion. But this he would say, | that it was matter of notoriety, and a fact acknowledged |

Mr. George Coles. Now it unfortunately happened, } that human nature is so constituted, that when men’s. minds were labouring under the influence of political | prejudice, they viewed facts with that diseased and| jaundiced eye that gave to every event the hue of their! own distempered imaginations; and he was well satis-| fied that if the same Grand Jury were now sitting, (such| was the beneficial effect of a little time for refiection,)| that nosuch Rill would have been heard of. This was now, however, of little consequence—the Bill was! before them and they must dispose of it. The Solicitor General had anticipated that the defence! would be, that it was a mere election riot, and that at! such times all things were lawful. He (Mr. Lawson) did not stand there to uphold breaches of the peace or infractions of the laws; but it was well known that commotions and displays of popular feelings were com- mon and incidental,nay,almost inseparable from elections where every man came forward to uphold his favorite candidate on the side of party politics which he support- ed; and he would go a little further and say, that they were a kind of safety valve which allowed feelings to escape, which, if pent up, might burst'forth at other times

a sharp pointed knife. The prisoner was defended by

count of the Indictment, for stabbing with intent to do some grievous bodily injury.

Same against Same. For maliciously stabbing James Hargest.—This case arose out of the same quarrel as the former, and the same evidence adduced on both

with intent to maim. Mr. Lawson forthe Defendant.

MONDAY, JANUARY 10,

case arose out of the unfortunate transactions

Mr. Young and Mr. Longworth for the Traversers, TUESDAY, JANUARY I].

Mr. Lawson, who produced evidence to contradict ee polio

by all, that the Jury who preferred that Bill were, with|Statement of the prosecutor. The Jury having retired 15

the exception of four or five, the decided opponents of for a short time, found the prisoner guilty on the 4th| |

sence of this year’s account.

Thus the balance against the Colony was 26,185I. s. 5d. The Revenue, it is probable, will be 20,0001. But we must make use of last year’s data in the ab-

Lord Grey proposes then that the Notes and Warrants

in circulation shall be absorbed or bought up. For these | Purposes 40,8171. 11s. 84d. will be required. sides. Verdict guilty on the 2d count, for stabbing |

issue of Notes payable on’ demand, and in part by bor-

Now this amount is to be replaced, in part, by the

rowing at an interest of 6 per cent. By way of safe-

'guard for the Treasury against the consequences of too

The Queen vs. Richard Gill and others. Indict- cuick a presentation of Notes payable on demand, Lord

ment fora Riot in Belfast, preferred last term.—This

Grey proposes a restriction to be imposed on holders,

at the ine th late Belfast election. One of the prisoners only, Henry' purporting Woes they shall aot proseet See ae nome

Burns, was found guilty; the others were acquitted.

amount of Notes than represent 50/., and the Notes are made (within the Island, of course,) a legal tender. This restriction in a poor country cannot be supported, and would be so unpopular that it might risk the success of

The Queen vs. Thomas Poole and others. Indict-|the whole scheme. It cannot, therefore, be maintained.

ment for Rescue.—The facts in this case were, that

The Treasury or Bullion Office or Exchange Office,

Donald McPhee, the constable, had an attachment-is-or whatever it may be, must constantly have ready @ sum

in other forms with more destructive violence. They ‘sued from the Commissioners’ Court, under which he |sufficient to meet the contingency of these convertible

i .

eS ee