tion, without any regard being had to his servile and degraded condition. If, on the contrary, by any contradictory statements, or by any of those indications which those who are practised in our courts know how to detect and to expose, as discrediting a witness, he will not be worthy of credit, and all that he utters will fall harmless, as it regards the prisoner at the bar. In short, it is the character of the witness, and the character of the evidence, that must prevail [1 Phil. 148]. Under these considerations, it is our unanimous opinion that this is a competent witness."

The witness, Branch Hull, was then sworn, and stated the circumstances in substance as follows: That he met the prisoner one day in Charlestown, and went, by his invitation, to his house; prisoner inquired, if he was a freeman; witness replied "no;" prisoner said, "what! such a man as you a slave?" and asked to whom witness belonged; he replied, "to Mr. Webbe;" prisoner told him, that he had carried many friends from several islands, and, if witness would get a little money, he would carry him; witness asked how much he would carry him away for; he said a doubloon; and told him, on his departure, that he must keep a still tongue, and say nothing about it. Witness went to town another day, and prisoner asked him if he was ready; he replied "I am ready-what do you ask me now?" prisoner said, as you have been picking up money a long time, 20 dollars;" witness proposed to him to take stock, to which he agreed, and witness was to carry him a pig for four dollars the following Sunday; the prisoner said, "If any body

66

asks you about the pig, say it is mine, that I bought it from you;" witness carried him the pig, and asked him, if he took him away, where he would put him? he said, "How can you ask so foolish-do you think I am going to put you where you will be troubled? give me 20 dollars, and I will give you a pass; look at your master's negro, William Laurence, I took him away, and he is making plenty of money;" told witness to call next night; when prisoner took him to Arrindell's house, and the bargain was made-witness was to give a goat and two sheep, and what money he could get; witness carried the sheep to Fletcher and Arrindell, and gave the latter two dollars towards the passage money; this was on Friday; prisoner told him to call the next day early, and he would take him away; he went, carried his clothes to Arrindell's house, and slept at Fletcher's that night; on Sunday morning, prisoner said, "You must not stay here through the day, people will suspect;" witness went to Blackrock Fort, and remained there till night, when he returned to prisoner, and told him, he had forgot his promise about the pass; prisoner wrapped him up in the boat's sails, and told him to stay until he came for him; prisoner came, and witness assisted in carrying five or six boxes of salt fish and other things to the boat, and also put into it his clothes; prisoner, Arrindell, and witness, got into the boat (called the Vigilant, belonging to Mary Gardner), and proceeded to sea; it was very calm; witness asked for something to eat, prisoner said he had not a knife, witness gave him his, which he did not return, and witness afterwards saw he had one tied up

in a handkerchief, which gave him suspicion; shortly after, prisoner said to witness, "We are going to gibe;" they were then in the channel between Montserrat and Rodunda, Arrindell steering; prisoner went to trim the boat, and said to witness, "We are going to gibe, you must sit on the gunnel ;" witness sat close to, but not on, the gunnel; prisoner edged up to him, and bade him sit on the gunnel; he did so, and Fletcher and Arrindell then spoke in some language he did not understand; Arrindell afterwards said to prisoner, "What the devil are you about?" upon which, prisoner took witness by the leg, and chucked him overboard, saying, "Ah, my boy, I have got you, you will soon be stiff;" witness caught the boat aft, and told prisoner it was cruel; Arrindell laid hold of his wrists, saying, "Let go the boat, you d-d rascal!" witness held on; prisoner came to the stern, held witness's head down on the gunnel, and Arrindell raised the tiller; witness looked up, and exclaimed, "Oh, God!" and Arrindell let the tiller fall; prisoner said, "What the devil are you doing, why not kill the man? do you want a fishing-boat to come up, and make trouble for us, and we shall not be able to go to Nevis again?" Prisoner then stretched out his foot for the knife that had fallen out of his handkerchief, which witness seeing, he slipped away, and went down in the water; when he rose, he pretended to be unable to swim; prisoner said, "Ah, my boy, I have put you where I have put many, in a few minutes you'll be stiff;" this happened between one and two in the morning of Monday (Oct. 11); they had left Nevis the preceding

night late; the boat sailed away with witness's clothes, &c. which he never recovered: he remained in the sea until nine or ten o'clock, when he was picked up by a fishing-boat; he had been swimming all the time, endeavouring to get back to Nevis.

John Wilkinson sworn. He said, that he had gone out fishing early on the morning of the 11th October, and seeing something at a distance in the sea he made up to it, and it proved to be Branch Hull, who attempted to get into the boat, but was unable to do so from weakness; witness assisted him in, and he sat down, trembling very much, and, on recovering a little strength, he related to witness the circumstances he had given in evidence; when picked up, he was about three miles from the land.

The counsel for the prisoner declined any further interference in a case of guilt so heinous and palpable, and the court called on him for his defence. What he stated fully corroborated the evidence given, but he denied any wilful intention of destroying the man he had thrown overboard, who, he expected, he said, would have easily made the shore.

His honour the chief justice charged the jury, who immediately returned a verdict of Guilty.

Another jury was then empanelled, and the other prisoner, Arrindell, put on his trial; and, on the same evidence, he was likewise found Guilty.

The sentence of the law was then pronounced on them.

On the day appointed for their execution, they were conveyed from the gaol, in a cart, to the bay at the foot of the Pond estate, where the gallows was erected ; and

were both launched into eternity, in the presence of an immense concourse of spectators.

KILKENNY ASSIZES.

Farley v. Joseph Timothy Haydn. This was an action against the defendant as part proprietor and general editor of the Dublin Star newspaper, for a libel on the character of the plaintiff, published in that paper on the 16th of March, 1824. In addition to Mr. Scott, who is a king's counsel, and Mr. Hatchell, who is a gentleman in respectable practice at the bar, the defendant brought down Mr. T. Glascock, a Dublin attorney, short in stature, spruce in dress, and violently vehement in manner.

The Lord Chief Justice Bushe, haivng taken his seat on the bench, inquired, if the parties were ready to proceed; but there being some delay in consequence of the absence of one of the counsel for the plaintiff,

Mr. Glascock stood up, and said "My lord, I think my learned friends on the other side have agreed to withdraw this record. If they had not, this delay could not occur. We will not, however, consent to it."

Mr. Scott. My lord, I would not have it supposed, that I am a party to what is now passing before the Court.

Mr. Glascock. Oh, dear, certainly not, Mr. Scott. I don't mean to inculpate you; for if you were obliged to answer for my acts, God only knows where you would be now.

Mr. Doherty stated the case on the part of the plaintiff, in doing which he was repeatedly interrupted by Mr. Glascock.

The learned gentleman was pro

ceeding to call witnesses, when he was once more interrupted by him.

"My lord," said Mr. Glascock, "before any evidence is produced in this cause, I wish to state that I am especially retained in it, with a fee of fifty guineas on the back of my brief. This is ten times more than Mr. Scott, or any other barrister here, has received. The bar is a close borough; they wish to exclude all intruders, but I am determined they shall not exclude

me.

I have established my right to be heard before the chief baron in the case of Carr v. Shannon,' and though I had three king's counsel against me, I beat them all single-handed."

Mr. Scott now requested the interference of the Court.

The Chief Justice.-The first thing that I shall consider is, what gentleman at the bar is authorized to undertake the defence. I shall next consider, whether a gentleman who is not a barrister, but belongs to the other department of the law, is at liberty to examine witnesses, and address the jury. Who is the attorney on the record?

Mr. Talbot Glascock.-I am, my lord; and my client could no where find my equal.

Mr. Lanigan. He is not the attorney, my lord.

The Chief Justice.-Who is the attorney retained in the cause.

Mr. Malone.-I have been retained, my lord; but my client has instructed me to give a brief to Mr. Glascock.

The Chief Justice.-Then I will not allow any other person to act as counsel than the professional gentleman or gentlemen whom you have engaged.

Mr. Haydn, the defendant, was then called, and stated that Mr. Scott and Mr. Hatchell were his counsel.

This avowal inflamed the choler of Mr. Talbot Glascock, who imagining himself disclaimed by his client cried out, "Here is a pretty business-I have nothing to do but to make my bow to the Court, and be off. But I'll be sure to take the brief with me, and the 50 guineas into the bargain. I have been gulled, bamboozled, humbugged. I should have been by this at Mallow, canvassing the whole town for my friend and client, lord Glentworth, who is not able to represent himself, and I should not be surprised if this was a ruse played off upon me by his two opponents, Becher and Longfield, to keep me away. They might have said, 'Give that vain fellow a bribe of 50 guineas to go down to Kilkenny, and we shall not see his face in Mallow. We shall thus be enabled to walk over the course.' But I know that Mr. Haydn wishes me to act as his leading counsel. I now put the question to him, whether he does

or not ?"

Mr. Haydn said, that, though he had every confidence in the talents of Mr. Scott and Mr. Hatchell, yet he also wished to avail himself of the well-known abilities of Mr. Glascock.

After a most absurd harangue from Mr. Glascock, the trial was allowed to go on, and the first witness was examined by Mr. Shiel. Mr. Haydn then, to the great surprise of the Court, said, he wished the learned gentlemen whom he had retained as his counsel would return their briefs, and that Mr. Glascock might be permitted to act as his sole counsel.

Mr. Scott and Mr. Hatchell gave back their briefs at once, but the gentlemen of the bar were determined to vindicate their own

privileges, and retired to consider what course they should adopt. In the mean time the chief justice retired to hold a conference with Mr. Justice Johnson. As soon as the gentlemen of the bar had returned,

Mr. Sergeant Lloyd, as their representative, stated, that as the question as to whether or not a person who did not belong to the profession should be allowed to be heard as a counsel for another involved the interests of the bar, they would from delicacy prefer leaving the decision to his lordship.

The Lord Chief Justice decided that Mr. Glascock should not be heard, observing, that as the duties of the respective professions were already precisely defined, he would suffer no one to address the Court as an advocate for another, who did not belong to the bar.

The defendant's counsel were then induced to take back their briefs.

Another incident now occurred, which added one more to the strange catalogue of events, with which this notable trial was connected. One of the jury was suddenly taken ill, and it being proved, on the affidavit of a physician, that he was unable to continue in the box, the plaintiff's counsel proposed that the remaining eleven should try the cause, to which, however, the counsel for defendant would not consent.

Another jury were immediately empannelled, and the trial proceeded, the counsel for the defendant having previously determined not to appear.

Evidence was then adduced in support of the plaintiff's case. Verdict for the plaintiff-Damages 6001.