COURT OF KING'S BENCH, DUBLIN, January 1, 1825.

INDICTMENTS AGAINST MR O'CONNELL, FOR SEDITION.

At half-past ten, this morning, Mr O'Connell entered the Commission Court, Dublin, accompanied by Messrs Wallace, Sheil, Perrin, &c., and followed by the Crown Counsel. The judges immediately took their seats, and the Grand Jury was sworn in. Mr Justice Moore then proceeded to charge the Jury; and after adverting to the combinations among the operative tradesmen, he said, he perceived by the indictment, that bills were to be sent to the Jury, in the case of an individual on a charge, the nature of which he should find it necessary to explain at some length. The principle that he would adhere to, in this case, would be a principle supported by the first law authorities in these countries he meant the English Court of King's Bench. In the case of Sir Francis Burdett's Leicester letter case, it was deter

mined that the words should be expressed, and that there should be no ambiguity-in fact, that there should be an identity of person as well as of words. They should apply this doctrine to the case of the individual before them.-They should first be sure that the express words were spoken. Secondly, that they were spoken by the person charged with having uttered them-and, thirdly, that these were of the nature and tendency described in the indictment ;-that tendency should be unequivocal. It should have the effect of alienating the minds of his Majesty's subjects, or of producing a change, by unlawful means, in the constitution, as by law established.

It was necessary that this tendency should be strictly proved, and that was matter of inference for the Jury to decide, when the express words were testified. It would then be necessary to consider the intent with which these words were spoken-whether the person uttering them, taking into account their spirit and context, the time when, and the place where uttered, had a sedi

tious and unlawful intention in uttering them, or whether they were spoken in the plain and ordinary sense, without any such meaning.

VAN DIEMAN'S LAND.-CANNI

BALISM.

TRIAL OF ALEXANDER PIERCE.

June 14, 1824.

Immediately after the sending up the bills, Mr O'Connell left Court, accompanied by Mr Perrin and his solicitor Mr Kildahl. On appearing in Green-street, Mr O'Connell was greeted by the most enthusiastic cheers from the populace, who assembled in great numbers, and who continued following him down Capelstreet, Parliament-street, and Damestreet, notwithstanding his frequent remonstrances, even to his own house in Merrion-square.

A strong detachment of horse and foot police were stationed in Greenstreet during the whole of the day. Quarter to Five o'Clock.-Candles have been lighted, and the Jury have not as yet returned their finding. The Court continues crowded. At a quarter past five o'clock, Mr Hickman Kearney came into Court, and addressing the Judge, asked if it were necessary that the words should be proved verbatim. Mr Justice Moore replied, that it was not necessary that the words should be proved word for word as spoken; but that, if the spirit, tone, and tendency of them were proved to be of a seditious character, that would be quite sufficient.

Quarter to Seven o'Clock.-The bills against Mr O'Connell have been thrown out! The Jury were in for four hours!

Alexander Pierce, à convict, was arraigned for the murder of a fellow prisoner, named Thomas Cox, at, or near King's River, in the month of November last, and he pleaded-Not Guilty.

The circumstances which were understood to have accompanied the above crime, had long been considered with extreme horror. Report had associated the prisoner with cannibals; and recollecting as we did, the vampire legends of Modern Greece, we confess, that on this occasion our eyes glanced in fearfulness at the being who stood before a retributive judge, laden with the weight of human blood, and believed to have banqueted on human flesh! It was, therefore, with much satisfaction we heard his Majesty's Attorney-General, whilst candidly opening his case for the prosecution, entreat the Jury to dismiss from their minds all previous impressions against the prisoner; as, however justly their hearts must execrate the foul enormities imputed to him, they must in duty judge him, not by rumours, but by indubitable evidence. The learned gentleman then proceeded to detail certain confessions made by the prisoner, before the late much lamented Lieutenant Cuthbertson, commandant at Macquarrie Harbour, and at his examination by the Rev. Robert Knopwood-confessions which, although in some respects inconsistent, would yet, when coupled with all the facts, merit the most serious attention. From them, it appeared, that, as other evidence would prove, the prisoner and the deceased,

on the 13th November, absconded from their duty into the woods, each of them taking his axe, and the prisoner being heavily ironed; that they for several days wandered on without provisions, and reduced by weakness, until, on the following Sunday evening, the deceased and prisoner arrived at King's River; a quarrel then arose because the deceased could not swim, and after prisoner had struck him on the head three or four times with his axe, the deceased seeing him about to go away, (his irons having been knocked off,) said, in a faint voice, "For mercy's sake come back and put me out of my misery!" Prisoner struck him a fourth blow, which immediately caused his death; he then cut a piece off one thigh, which he roasted and ate; and after putting another piece in his pocket, he swam across the river, with an intent to reach Port Dalrymple. Soon afterwards, however, he became so overwhelmed with the agonies of remorse, that he was constrained to recross the river, and, on seeing a schooner, under weigh, from the settlement. he made a signal-fire, which, on being seen, induced the pilot boat to put off, and take him on board. He was then conveyed to the harbour, where he publicly owned the murder, and said he was willing to die for it. The Attorney-General concluded a thrilling tale of almost incredible barbarity.

The following Monday, June 21, was named for the execution to take place, and on Sunday morning, at the convict service, at nine o'clock, an appropriate sermon was preached by the Reverend W. Bedford. The whole of the convicts in and near Hobart Town, were ordered to church upon the occasion.

SESSIONS COURT, DUBLIN.

The trial of an indictment, which commenced on Monday, the 3d inst., has been before the Court for several days;-the King, in the prosecution of the Marquis of Westmeath, v. Anne Connell alias Jones, John Monaghan, Edward Bennett, William Mackenzie, Bernard Maguire, and Patrick Farley. They were charged with conspiring falsely to accuse Lord Westmeath of adultery with Anne Connell, and thus to support Lady Westmeath's application for a divorce against Lord Westmeath. The depositions of the defendant, Anne Connell, were read, in which she swore to many repeated acts of adultery committed with Lord W.; her first acquaintance with him originating in the circumstance of her appearing before him, as a magistrate, to swear an illegitimate child to another person. On the other hand, Lord W. positively swore that he had never before seen the woman in his life; and all the consequences of this denial would follow as a matter of course.

Moore summed up, and the Jury returned a verdict of guilty against Anne Connell, John Monaghan, and Patrick Farley.-Mr Justice Moore: Gentlemen, I never saw or heard of a more reasonable and discerning verdict. It is creditable to yourselves, and of advantage to the public.

MEETING OF THE FACULTY OF

ADVOCATES.

Edin. Jan. 10-The Faculty of Advocates met in their Library, for the purpose of taking into consideration the report of their Committee upon the Scotch Judicature Bill, which passed the House of Lords last Session of Parliament, but was stopped in the House of Commons by the exertions of the Lord Advocate, and several of the Scottish Members. A

to take into consideration the report of the Committee of the Faculty, before passing any act to alter the forms of process in Scotland; and the last, that copies of these resolutions be forwarded to the Lord Chancellor, Lord Gifford, Lord Redesdale, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and to all the Scottish Members of Parliament.

"That it is the opinion of the Faculty, that the period is now arrived, as originally announced, when the business of the Jury Court should form part of the Court of Session procedure; therefore resolved, that from henceforth it would be advisable that the Jury Court should cease as a distinct Judicature, and that the trial by Jury should form part of the ordinary practice of the Court of Session."

An amendment of great length was moved by Mr Moncrieff. It went to a general approval of the bill passed by the House of Lords; but in order that the benefits of the Jury Court might have full effect, it was necessary to invest it with more extensive powers, to render it independent of all other Courts, and confer on it an original jurisdiction.

Mr Forsyth's motion was carried by a considerable majority

Cox v. KEAN.

This day, Robert Albion Cox, an Alderman of London, obtained a verdict for L.800 against Mr Edmund Kean, the celebrated actor, for adultery with Mrs Cox. In the declaration, the damages were laid at L.2000. It appeared from the evidence, that the criminal intercourse had been carried on for several years, and was known to the plaintiff's servants and others in his family, but was not discovered by the plaintiff himself, till, on some information, he opened his wife's cabinet, and found a series of letters to her from the defendant, which left no doubt of his (plaintiff's) dishonour, and, indeed, exhibited the profligacy of the guilty parties in the most disgusting manner. these epistles, which are written, often in rapid succession, from various places of England and America, where Mr K. was acting, his epithet of endearment was generally "little breeches," sometimes impudent b-;" and those anticipating their meetings, frequently concluded with "then hey for kisses and blisses." These letters evince as little delicacy as morality or good taste on the part of the writer. He exults naturally enough at his success in America, where he travelled in splendour, and

66

In

had L.1000 per month to remit home; but against Bath, where he performed in 1822 without success, he absolutely raves, calling it "d-d town," "infernal city," &c. Mr Scarlett, for the defendant, made the best of a bad case, by endeavouring to show the profligacy of the defendant's wife, and that the husband must have been acquainted with it. It appeared, indeed, from the evidence, that the plaintiff and his wife were in the habit of going to the dressing-room of the defendant at Drury-Lane Theatre, and seeing him dress, and into his private box; that the defendant was often at the plaintiff's house (drunk) at late hours, and this intimacy was continued for five years after Mrs Kean (whose jealousy and tormenting watchfulness are of ten mentioned in the defendant's let, ters) had left off visiting Mrs Cox. In fact, the abandoned character of the latter lady was described by her own maid, who deposed, "that she did not think two men enough for her;" and was further proved, by her now living with a Mr Whatmore, once her husband's clerk, and against whom he has brought a similar action for damages. But the learned Advocate failed in bringing home to the husband any knowledge of his wife's guilty conduct with the defendant, (though her following her paramour to Birmingham, under pretence of going to Brighton, must have opened any other person's eyes.) There were two letters of January last, which unmasked a scene of duplicity almost unparalleled. In order to show the artifices used by the defendant, as well to effect his object as to hoodwink the plaintiff, Mr Denman, Mr Cox's counsel, called the attention of the jury to a single fact-that on the very same day the defendant had written two letters, the one to the wife, representing his ardent at

tachment to her, and the other to the husband, exculpating himself from something that had been hinted regarding his conduct towards Mrs Cox. This event arose out of the following circumstances:-In the early part of the year 1823, Mr Kean had occasion to make one of his professional tours through the west of England. In that tour he invited Mr and Mrs Cox to accompany him. Mrs Kean, and a very respectable clergyman of the Church of England, were also of the party. In the course of the journey, Mr Cox either heard or observed something regarding Mr Kean's attentions to Mrs Cox, which excited his notice. A conversation ensued between Mr Kean and Mr Cox on the subject, and the result of that conversation was the writing of the two following letters:—

sis;

(Post Mark,) Exeter, January 6, 1823. Dear little Imprudent Girl,-Your incaution has been very near bringing our acquaintance to the most lamentable criyou the letter I have written him ;-apof course, he (Mr Cox) will show pear to countenance it, and let him think we are never to meet again, and in so doing he has lost a friend; leave all further arrangements to me. My aunt desires her best wishes to you, notwithstanding her anger, she says, of your conduct before him. Love shields the

object of its wishes, not exposes it. All shall be shortly as you wish. Mrs Simpson, care of Mrs Matthews, 12, Tavistock-Row, Covent-Garden, London.

(Post Mark,) Exeter, January 6, 1823. My dear Cox,-I have been seriously considering the mass of nonsense uttered by us the two last nights at Salisbury. I must own likewise they have given me great uneasiness. If I have paid more attention to your family than any other of my acquaintances, the simple motive was to show the world that I valued my