would not yield to it. It has been read, and the question now is by whom. We are of opinion, it must be considered as read by the traversers. I am not saying against the traversers, but whatever they read again during the trial, is their evidence.

Mr. JUSTICE CRAMPTON.-I concur in the opinion which has been delivered by my Lord Chief Justice. There are two questions; first, whether Mr. Duffy has a right to have a second article, containing a report of a speech, read on his part; secondly, whether, it having been read without objection, it is now to be considered as evidence on the part of the traversers or of the Crown. Now I do not think the cases cited bear exactly upon the matter before the Court. No doubt it is true where a conversation is deposed to by way of an admission on the part of a defendant or a traverser, he has a right to have the whole of the conversation given in evidence, that is, subject to this restriction, that it is relevant to the issue. An answer in Chancery may be considered as falling within the same rule. Where an answer is produced against a party as an admission, he is entitled to have the whole of it read, if it be relevant to the issue, and where an affidavit is read at Nisi Prius, the defendant is entitled to have the whole of it read, under the same restriction. Another principle is applicable to this case, and it is this, that nothing is to be received that is not relevant to the subject matter of inquiry. But there is a third principle bearing on this question, in which I own there is some difficulty; but, as my Lord Chief Justice has properly observed, the Court are not called upon to decide on it, that is, whether, in a case like the present, if one paragraph in a paper be read as being seditious, or tending to sedition, another paragraph in the same paper entirely detached from it, and not explanatory of it, or modifying it, can be read. The general rule I always understood to be this; if a piece of evidence complete in itself is put before the jury by one party, it cannot be affected by another piece of evidence of the same description, unless that other piece of evidence intends to explain and modify or qualify that which has been offered on the other side. the King v. Lambert and Perry, Lord Ellenborough has laid it down, that, although in a newspaper, which is the subject of a prosecution for libel, there be one article, and in the same paper there be a second article, which has no reference to, and is unconnected with, the former, yet there are cases in which the second article may be read. That decision, I suppose, is well-founded; but that was a case in which a question arose as to the intention of the writer, to be deduced from the article, the subject matter of the prosecution. The second article might then be introduced for the purpose of aiding the jury in coming to a conclusion as to what were the intentions and mo tives of the writer, in writing the article the subject of the prosecution. Supposing that doctrine to be well-founded, then arises the impor tant question, and the only question upon which I mean to give an opinion-whose evidence is this? The Crown say that it is not part of their evidence: my opinion is, that the traverser who has called for the reading of it, has thereby made it his own evidence. I will not say that if the article had been also an editorial article

In

bearing upon the same subject, or if, without being an editorial article, or without being written by the same party, it had been one from which there could be deduced anything like a test of the intention of the party in writing the former article, that it might not be admissible in evidence. But the question is, if it is admitted in evidence, whose evidence is it? In the King v. Perry, Lord Ellenborough says: "If there be any parts of the same paper upon the "same topic with the libel, or fairly connected with it, the defen"dants have a right to their being read, although locally disjoined "from it. But," he says, "the Courts have gone further, for they "have allowed the defendant to give in evidence various extracts from "works which he had published at a former period of his life." One would certainly infer that it was read as the defendant's evidence, for Lord Ellenborough puts it on the same ground as if it was a paragraph in another paper, and it cannot be contended that a paragraph taken from another paper could be read in cross-examination by the defendant as part of the plaintiff's evidence. I therefore take it, that in that case the article, though in the same newspaper, was read as part of the defendant's evidence. But another test has been suggested; is this paragraph to be considered as part of the cross-examination? if so, then undoubtedly it comes within the rule that no part of the cross-examination is evidence of the party who crossexamines. The witness was called to prove only certain matters relating to this paper, the officer was the person who should have read, and the fact of the paper having been read by the witness does not give it the character of a cross-examination. The defendant proves a new document in the course of his cross-examination of the witness; he chooses to have it read, and therefore it becomes part of his evidence, unless it refers to, or explains, or modifies, or qualifies that which has been read by the opposite party. It appears to me, that supposing this article to be admissible, which it is not necessary to decide, as the Crown have consented to its being read, that it is no part of the cross-examination, but part of the defendant's evidence; he is entitled to the benefit of it, but he must take it as his own evidence.

Mr. JUSTICE PERRIN. The question appears to me simply this: A newspaper is given in evidence on the part of the prosecution, from which an article is read for the purpose of showing that the traverser who published that paper entertained the intention and object of the conspiracy charged in the indictment. It was offered as evidence of such intention having been entertained by him. In no other point of view can that be looked on as evidence. That having been read by the Crown, the traverser's counsel calls upon the witness or the officer to read another part of the same publication, an article distinct from, and not referring to the former article, but which, he says, being published at the same time, and uno flatu, and being indicative of a directly different intention, ought to be read to show he had not the same intention as that which had been inferred from the first article. It is offered as explanatory of and qualifying the article read by the Crown, and as part of the same publication, under the

authority of the King v. Perry. In the language of Lord Ellenborough: "the passage alluded to will deserve more or less attention ac"cording to its connexion with the subject matter of the libel." The whole question is for the jury whether the person who published these two articles in one paper entertained the intention charged. I do not think it necessary for the jury to consider whose evidence it is. It is given at the instance and desire of the traversers, for the purpose of protecting them from the inference which might be drawn from the article read by the Crown. The prosecutor reads what, as he conceives, sustains his case. He is not bound to read the whole of the paper. The traverser then calls for another part of the same paper, which he conceives to be favourable to him, but it does not belong to anybody.

According to the case of The King v. Perry, the article was very properly admitted in evidence. If the second article related to different subjects from the first, and had no possible reference to it, it would not be received, but it is not necessary that it should relate to the same particular matter as the first article, if it relates to the object with which that article was given in evidence. In the case of The King v. Perry, the first article was used to shew that Lambert and Perry, the defendants, had published a seditious libel with the intention of defaming King George the Third, and the second article was referred to, to show that they were not persons who could entertain those disloyal feelings, that being an article praising the king, and mentioning several circumstances highly creditable to him. It did not relate to the particular matter in the former article, but as the two articles were parts of the same publication, both were the subject matter for the consideration of a jury. In Horne Tooke's case, and The King v. Stockdale, the same doctrine was established; but in that latter case there was this distinction, that all the passages were contained in the publication and part of the same book. I therefore think that this evidence is admissible, but I concur with the other members of the Court in thinking that it should form part of the evidence given for the traverser.

The Officer then read for the Crown an article, entitled "The March of Nationality."

Mr. Whiteside required that Mr. Sharman Crawford's letter in the same paper should be read.

At the suggestion of the Court it was agreed, that for convenience each paper should be disposed of by both parties before another was produced.

THURSDAY, JANUARY 25TH.

Mr. JUSTICE BURTON was still absent.

Mr. Vernon produced the Nation of the 12th of August.

Mr. O'Hagan, on the part of Mr. Duffy, required that the address to the people of Great Britain, signed by Mr. Smith O'Brien, and several other Irish Members should be read, and it was read by the Clerk of the Crown.

The Nation of the 26th of August was produced, and the articles "The Crisis is upon us," and "The Irish Congress," were read on behalf of the Crown.

Mr. O'Hagan required that the article headed "Superseding Magistrates," and containing a correspondence between Mr. Henry Sugden, and Mr. Valentine Blake, should be read.

The Attorney-General. I do not think this document bears upon the article which we have read. I would not object, but that articles and letters have been read which have no reference to the documents which have been read by the Crown. I wish, therefore, the ordinary course to be pursued. We wish to close the case for the Crown as soon as possible, by merely reading portions important for the prosecution, and when the Crown close their case, the traversers can offer such evidence as they consider bears on the issue.

Mr. Hatchell.We thought we had the full acquiescence of the counsel for the Crown to read those documents, and it is now too late to take the objection. We understood that this course was to be adopted as a matter of convenience, and we have made our arrangements accordingly, and it would now embarrass us in the course we have adopted, if that arrangement is to be deviated from.

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE.-We conceived that the arrangement which had been entered into at the time was, that it would be the most convenient way to get rid of one paper before another was produced. At the time that arrangement was made, it was not probably anticipated that the reading of documents unconnected in their nature with the evidence which had been produced by the Crown would have been called for. I do not see there can be any embarrassment by pursuing that arrangement, but it is to be hoped that counsel for the traversers will not take any unnecessary advantage of that arrangement.

Mr. JUSTICE CRAMPTON.-No doubt the strict rule is with the Crown, at the same time it was suggested by the Court, and it was thought the most convenient course would be, to dispose of each paper in its order. I do not, nor will I anticipate that that suggestion will be abused by reading matters not relevant to the issue between the parties.

The article was then read.

The Pilot of the 7th of June, was then produced, and an article containing a description of the great Repeal demonstration at Drogheda, Mr. O'Connell's, Mr. Barrett's and Mr. Steele's speeches on that occasion were read on the part of the Crown.

Mr. Macdonagh, on the part of Dr. Gray, required that the article headed, We are not Slaves, and a petition praying for a Repeal of the Union, which was adopted at that meeting, should be read. The article was read.

The Pilot of the 12th June was produced, and proved. The report of the Kilkenny dinner, and Mr. O'Connell's speech at that dinner, were then read on the part of the Crown.

Mr. Macdonagh read the account of that dinner in that paper, as taken from the Kilkenny Journal, and the Morning Freeman. The Deputy Clerk of the Crown read the article required.

The Pilot of the 14th of June, was then produced, and proved, and the proceedings at the Mallow meeting read, and Mr. O'Connell's speech on that occasion was also read for the Crown [see ante, page 84].

At the request of Mr. Macdonagh, the speech of Edmund B. Roche, M.P., and that of Dr. Gray were read.

The Freeman's Journal of 7th August was produced, and proved, and the proceedings of the Baltinglass meeting read on the part of the Crown.

The Pilot of the 16th August was then produced, and proved, and the proceedings at the Tara meeting, and the speeches of Mr. O'Connell and Dr. Gray read, on the part of the Crown.

Mr. Macdonagh required that the names of several persons who attended that meeting should be read, which was accordingly done. The Nation of the 19th August was produced, and proved. The article relating to the Tara meeting was read for the Crown.

The Pilot, 15th May, was produced, and proved, and the proceedings at the Mullingar meeting, read for the Crown.

The Freeman's Journal of the 30th of May was then produced, and proved, and the speech of Mr. O'Connell, at Longford, read for the Crown.

At the instance of Mr. Fitzgibbon, the speech made by Count Nugent, the Chairman of that meeting, was read.

FRIDAY, JANUARY 26TH.

Mr. JUSTICE BURTON took his seat on the Bench, with the other Judges.

Mr. VERNON's Examination continued.

He produced the Freeman's Journal of the 4th of April. The proceedings of the Repeal Association, on the 3rd of April, were read for the Crown.

The Freeman's Journal of the 31st May was then produced, and the proceedings of the Association on the 30th of May read.

The Pilot of the 5th July was produced. The article headed "Repeal is coming-the Affairs of Spain," and the proceedings at the Association, were read.

The Freeman's Journal of the 23rd August was produced, and proved. The speech of Mr. O'Connell at the Association, and an article entitled "The National Manifesto," were read for the Crown.

Mr. Close read the observations of Mr. O'Connell on Mr. M'Kennie's letter.

The Freeman's Journal of the 24th August was then produced, and proved. The proceedings of the Association, and the Report of the Sub-Committee in reference to the Arbitration Courts, were read.

The Pilot of the 10th of March was produced, and proved. The leading articles headed "Repeal-America," were read.