Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

Are you quite sure of that? I copied the report from the notes, and before I sent it in, I made a copy of it which I brought home with me to the station, and I coppied the book from that.

What became of that copy which you brought home with you? I dare say it is at home.

Are you quite sure that you have not it with you? (Witness searched his pockets, and produced the copy of the report.)

Have you the expression, "The devil's cure to Saunders,” in that report? No.

Why, you have not read it to try; don't you think it worth your while to look into your report, to try whether it contains that expression? I know it is not in it.

Where did you write out the report? In a house at Baltinglass.

In what house? It was a carpenter's house.

What was the carpenter's name? I don't recollect.

You may have been ten or eleven years in Baltinglass, or its vicinity, doing duty there; and yet you cannot tell the name of the man in whose house you lodged! You may go down, sir.

(Witness before leaving the table stated that he had been only stationed about a fortnight at Baltinglass.)

HENRY TWISS SWORN AND EXAMINED BY MR. MARTLEY, Q.C.

Do you belong to the constabulary? I do.

At Red Cross in the county

What rank do you hold? I am a sub-constable. Where were you stationed in August last? Wicklow.

How far is that from Baltinglass? I can't say precisely, but it may be about thirty miles.

Were you at the meeting which was held at Baltinglass on the 6th of August? Yes; I went there on duty.

Did you make a report to your superior officer of what you saw at the meeting? I did.

When did you make that report?

[The report was here handed to the witness, and identified as being in his own handwriting].

Could you form any opinion of the number of persons who attended that meeting? I could not form any correct opinion of the numbers; but I believe that there were more than five thousand persons present there. Who did you see at the meeting? I saw Mr. O'Connell there.

Did you see any of the other traversers there? I saw many other persons, but I did not know them.

By whom was the chair taken? At one time the chair was taken by Mr. Copeland; but afterwards 1 saw another gentleman take the chair. Who was that gentlemen? He was some gentleman from Kilcullenbridge, but I do not know his name. My orders did not extend as far as that.

Were you near the crowd? Yes.

Was there a platform? Yes.

Did you get near the platform? At one time 1 got within a few yards of it.

Did you hear the people say anything about you? Yes.

Tell the jury some of the expressions which you heard on that occasion ? 1 heard one person say "Wait with patience for a few months, the time is nigher than you think." Another said, "Ireland has been trampled on, but it shall be so no longer."

How long did the meeting last?

I can't remember; it commenced

about half-past two, and continued up to half-past six.

Did you ever see Mr. Steele ? I was shown him.

Do you see him in court? Yes; there he is (pointing to Mr. Steele), I was shown him; I believe that is he.

Chief Justice-You say he was there?

I was shown him.

Was the Rev. Mr. Murtagh, the Catholic clergyman from Kilcullenbridge ? He was called to the chair.

If you made a report of what he said will you refer to it; I can't, I made no report of what he said.

CROSS-EXAMINED BY MR. M'DONOUGH, Q.C.

Did you take any notes? No. None at all. What I heard I took down at the time.

but

Mr. O'Connell was there was he not? He was.

And speaking of a repeal of the union? I believe so.

you may think it.

I cannot tell;

Then you are not able to ascribe any meaning to the expressions he used?

No.

The repeal of the union was the subject under discussion? I believe so; for the placards posted up announced it..

You heard the speeches.?. Yes; I heard them speaking of the Repeal; but I can't ascribe any meaning to them.

Did you see all the people retire ?

were going in every direction.

I can't say I saw them all, they

There was no breach of the peace committed? Not that I could see. You would say nothing but what was true?

I would not.

Then everything went on peaceably? I am exceedinly sorry you did not take a note. You may go down (laughter).

PATRICK LENIHAN EXAMINED BY MR. TOMB, Q.C.

You are in the police? I am; I am a constable.

Were you at Baltinglas? I was.

Did you see the people going out of the town to meet Mr. O'Connell. I did.

There were great numbers there?

I should say some thousands.

Did you see men go over the bridge on the Dublin road to meet Mr. O'Connell? I did.

Did you go in that direction yourselves? No; I remained in town. I saw him coming in. I was below where the meeting was held at the Carlow side when he came.

Did you see him coming to the place of meeting? I did. I was not in uniform but in coloured clothes.

Did you get near the platform? I did; but after the gentlemen came

on the platform I was obliged, in consequence of the crushing, to move out about thirty yards.

Who also were on the platform? Father Lalor, of Baltinglass; Mr. Steele, the Rev Mr. Murtagh, of Kilcullen, and others.

Did you hear the speeches made? I heard Mr. O'Connell tell the people he was glad to see them all there, and hoped to see them in the same place when they'd come again (laughter).

Did they say anything to that? Yes; they all shouted (a laugh). After the meeting was over did you see them go away? They went towards Baltinglass, across the bridge, and in the direction of the barrack. As you were going over the bridge did you here the people say anything?

Mr. Moore---Does your lordship think that is evidence to affect the traversers. The meeting was held, the people were going away, and to seek after that to give a character to the meeting from expressions used by well-known individuals is decidedly no evidence.

Mr. Tomb replied that it was such expressions which gave a character to, and proved what the intentions of the meeting really were.

Mr. Moore---The only evidence given is what was said by some persons unknown in a field; and they were not certainly calculated to give it any effect whatever.

The Chief Justice---We cannot exclude the evidence; but it is not of much codsequence one way or another.

Examination resumed I was obliged to stop on the bridge the crowds were so great. I then got into a field where I heard one man say, "Repeal is certain." "Yes," said another, "if we do not get it we will fight for it." "Aye," said a third, we will turn out for it."

[ocr errors]

Mr. Moore submitted that the traversers could not be affected by what any individual might choose to say after the meeting was dispersed. The court had already ruled that a party of men going to a meeting with banners, was admissible evidence to explain what its meaning and intention was; but it would, he contended, be going to a very dangerous length indeed, and one, in his mind, unknown to the law, to make the traversers accountable for the conversations of unknown individuals going home perhaps, or, at all events, found together by a policeman in a field a long distance from the place of meeting. If that were once admitted by a court of law as legal evidence, there was no man in the community safe from being implicated in the commission of crimes and offences of which he may be totally innocent.

Mr. Hatchell-If such conversation had occurred before the meeting was held, and with the knowledge of the traversers, then an oppertunity would have been afforded them of withdrawing themselves; but after it was held tranquilly, and peaceably, and laudably, it would be monstrous to hold that any language, or misconduct, or declaration of others, who were not there, although coming from the same direction, could be held as eaidence, or be allowed to affect the character, or property, or perhaps the lives of innocent individuals.

Mr. Tomb-Perhaps I may adopt an expedient which may raise the question properly for argument, by asking the distance from the bridge to the platform, and how long after the meeting had dispersed the conversation took place?

To the Witness-What was the distance from the bridge to the platforın” Not half a mile.

How long after the meeting did you hear the conversation?

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

Mr. Tomb---Was there a separation of the crowd?

Mr. Moore objected to this question being answered.

Not an

He

Mr. Tomb submitted the question was a proper and legal one. wished to show the effect produced by the meeting held, and the speeches made by the different speakers, which he contended he had a perfectly legal right to do.

Mr. Justice Crampton---Was it in the house you heard this? No, it was on the side of the bridge.

Oh! I thought you went into a house? No, my lord.

Mr. Tomb---It has been ruled that what has been done by persons going to a meeting is evidence to show the character and nature of that meeting. This was so ruled in the Manchester riots, and hence the expressions of the persons who had attended the meeting must show both the nature of that meeting, and what was their conception of the character of the meeting.

Mr. Justice Perrin---In the case that you allude to the expressions were proved of parties who compelled others to go to a meeting and to form part of the meeting.

Mr. Moore, Q.C.,-- Conceived that in the absence of all authority, they must look to what was common sense and justice. The court was asked to take as evidence, against persons who had taken part in meeting, that which had occurred an hour after the meeting-to seek to make individuals responsible for what one now might say to another, and when no one could tell but those persons had been drinking, when they might have put themselves in a situation of being incapable of knowing what they were saying or doing; and then, for whatever act they might commit, or whatever improper expression they might use, to make those who attended the meeting an hour before, responsible for those acts and those expressions, would be inconsistent with common sense and justice.

The Attorney-General deemed that it would not be incosistent with common sense and justice to receive such evidence-that so far from it, it would be inconsistent with common sense and justice not to hold the parties responsible for what was said and done after a meeting. In the case of Redford and Burley the expressions used by persons going to a meeting were held to be evidence. This would be found in page 55 of the case already referred to. These were admitted on the part of the defendants, who justified the dispersion of the meeting. In that case counsel had been proceeding to ask as to persons having been seen on the night of the 14th, and the expressions they used, for the purpose of showing that they were going to be drilled. It was contended on the part of the plaintiff, that unless it was shown that the plaintiff was one of those parties, the evidence was not admissible. Mr. Justice Holroyde ruled, and it was afterwards confirmed by the full court. When the parties moved for a new tria), it was declared by Lord Tenterden that the evidence was clearly admissible as to whether there had been an unlawful conspiracy to excite discontent, and to show whether the meeting that had been dispersed was unlawful-for this

purpose, evidence was properly admitted as to transactions that had occurred in the neighbourhood of Manchester. This was one part of the case, and another was, the admissibility of the evidence of witnesses seeing parties going to a meeting. In the opinion of Judge Holroyd this was evidence, and it was confirmed by Judge Tenterden, who observed, with respect to the declarations of parties going to a meeting, that it was undoubtedly evidence. Now, if it were of importance to show what had been said going to a meeting, or preparing to go to a meeting, it was equally important to show what had been said leaving the meeting to show the character of that meeting. They had there the remarkable expression used, whether if Mr. O'Connell were to come there again, the people wonld be there to meet him-and the question for the jury was, how was that language understood. They had the language of the persons who had attended that meeting that they were ready to turn out to a man and to fight for Repeal if necessary. Common sense told them that this was the manner in which the language that had been used at the meeting was so understood by the persons who had attended it. It was part of the res gesta-the meeting was not over, because the people were dispersing. He referred to Phillips on Evidence, and to a case supplied to him by his learned friend, Sergeant Warren, in the 15th volume of the State Trials, page 553, where there was given in evidence the declarations of the mob, who pulled down meeting-houses, after having accompanied Doctor Sacheverell from the place where he had been preaching. Here the persons were going home, and nothing would be more important than to show what was their understanding of what had been said to them by the speakers.

Mr. Justice Crampton wished, he said, to look at the case of Redford and Burley.

The Attorney General continued by saying, that let it be supposed that some of the parties had pulled down Mr. Saunders's house--if they had committed that act of violence as they were going from the meeting, he insisted upon it that that would be considered against every one who took part in the meeting. It showed to the court and the jury the impressions which were made on the people by the speakers that addressed them at the meeting. The learned gentleman then referred to page 552 of the State Trials, in Dr. Sacheverell's case, in which such evidence was allowed to be given by a witness named Daniel Davaron. On these grounds he submitted that the evidence should be perfectly admissible.

Mr. Whiteside, Q C., in reply, said he did not contend that what was said or done by persons at the meeting would not be evidence against the traversers; but he contended that they could not be held responsible for language uttered by persons over whom they had no control, and who were at a distance from them when the alleged words were used. In conclusion he said that there was no case decided that after a meeting was broken up a traverser was accountable for observations uttered by persons

Justice Perrin said that it would be a different thing if the shoutings "We will have Repeal, or die for it," were the act of the whole body. But the only thing proved in the case was a private conversation between two individuals.

The Chief Justice called upon the learned counsel (Tomb) to examine

« ForrigeFortsett »