The Solicitors' Journal & Reporter 1867-12-21: Vol 12
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
149 Dec. 21,1867. THE SOLICITORS’ JOURNAL & REPORTER. Subscription to the Souictrors’ JoURNAL is—Town, ments, to have received further instructions from friends ., Country, 288., with the WEEKLY ReporTER, 52s. of the prisoner’s; a circumstance which, as all members Payment in advance includes Double Numbers and of the Common Law Bar know, is very frequently un- 6. e avoidable; and his speech is directed to this, that he fewie 3 can have their Volumes bound at the Office—cloth, was dissatisfied with their conduct or attitude in relation 99, 6d; half law calf, 4s. 6d. to the outrage. But the conduct of the prisoner’s friends Ail Letters intended for publication in the ‘* Solicitors’ Jour- does not affect the relation between the counsel and the nal” must be authenticated by the name of the writer, accused. This is the gist of the matter, and when the though not necessarily for publication. Where difficulty is experienced in procuring the Journal with matter is viewed in this light, the conclusion cannot well regularity in the Provinces, it is requested that application be avoided, that Dr. Kenealy was, strictly speaking, wrong in throwing up his brief on this occasion. be made direct to the Publisher. But while saying this we cannot help remarking that the principle above mentioned is one with reference to which a counsel may at least be excused if he shrink Che Solicitors’ Journal. from carrying it out to the furthest extent. We do not know what Dr. Kenealy may have discovered, and can- not tell what provocation, so to speak, he may have had. LONDON, DECEMBER 21, 1867. The matter then comes to this, that Dr. Kenealy ap- —>——— pears to have acted wrongly, but possibly with an excuse TwiIcE during the last few weeks has it occurred that for doing so. Wecan find no excuse, however, for the a barrister, engaged before a magistrate for prisoners speech which he made before Sir Thomas Henry. If charged on suspicion of being the perpetrators of a Fe- anything had come to his knowledge giving rise to an nian outrage,—has thrown up his brief and retired from invincible repugnance to hold his brief any further, he the case which he had: been retained to defend. The should have quietly notified to the prisoners his relin- circumstances, however, under which these two events quishment of their defence and disappeared from the case, lave happened, were widely different. The ground He had no business to volunteer any statement referring which Mr. Ernest Jones made for throwing up his brief to the prisoner’s friends in connection with the outrage; at Manchester was, that he considered that the prisoners he had no business to volunteer the statement that he for whom he appeared were being unfairly and impre- originally undertook the defence with reluctance, and the perly treated by the magistrote, in being kept manacled observations which he made respecting the manner in while in court. Dr. Kenealy, on ‘the contrary, appears to which the prosecution had been conducted by the Crown have been dissatisfied, rot with the Court but with—and were, to say the very least, irrelevant. here is a difficulty—with whom? It is not very clear from Dr. Kenealy’s speech before Sir Thomas Henry, Some of the incidents which arise in connection with what is the precise reason which induced him to retire Fenianism are even more curious from their want of pur- from the case. He says :—“I would have fought it (the pose and reason, than the existence of the conspiracy case) to the end, but the dreadful proceedings of Friday itself, They are truly Hibernian, in the sense in which have so influenced my mind that I could not bring tothe that word provoked such an angry discussion at the Old case that attention which a counsel ought to devote to Bailey this week. What can be more astounding than for so important an investigation. When a party to a cause a member of parliament to interrupt the proceedings of a or his friends retain counsel, there is at least a tacit under- court of justice in order to complain of a personal indignity of the blica- standing that the law is to regulate their conduct through- to himself, inflicted on him by certain persons in hisemploy- ry to out the proceedings, which are to be conducted wholly ment having been summoned to give evidence as wit- Intel. under the sacred abitrament of justice and within its nesses in thecourt. Thisappears to have been the substance ional holy temple ; that there is to be no resort to violence nor of Sir John Gray’s complaint at the police court in Dublin, nded to any acts that could interfere with the proper course of and having, as we understand the report, explained that he law ; and if that compact is broken the counsel has no had prevented those persons appearing or the summonses tight to appear for any person by whom, or on whose be- from being served, by agreeing to take their place. He then half, it has been violated. As far as the prisoners them- proceeded to “ state most distinctly that he would never selves are concerned, I do not intend to impute that they consent to be examined as a Crown witness.” Whether had any complicity in the act of last night; but I can- he meant to take the same ground as Mr. Sullivan, the not disguise from myself that those persons who in- editor of the Nation had previously done, that he ought structed me may have sympathies with that attempt, to have been charged as a defendant, does not quite ap- and that it was their duty, if they did not sympathise pear. It is certainly a new doctrine that to be summoned with it, to satisfy me and the solicitor through whom I was as a witness can possibly be an indignity. Questions put instructed, that they at least were not concerned in it, to a witness might possibly be so, but the witness must and, they not having done that, I must commit to other wait till they are put before he objects. So if these per- hands the task of defending the prisoners.” sons had intended to decline to give evidence on the If, as the opening sentence of the passage which we ground that they would be criminating themselves, which, ’ have extracted states, Dr. Kenealy was so unnerved by however, was clearly not their ground, they could not the horrible occurence at Clerkenwell; that he felt him- have refused to be sworn, but must have waited until self incapable of doing justice to the prisoner’s case, he questions were asked, the answers to which might crim- was certainly to be felt for, but we may observe, that un- inate them. The whole proceeding certainly are as in- less counsel knew himself to be so utterly prostrated consistent as anything could be with the “ profound re- (which we do not suppose to have been the case) as to spect for the bench and court ” which was expressed. It be absolutely incapable in the matter, it was for the is, however, idle to point out to these persons the ab- prisoner to say whether or no he was dissatisfied with surdity of their conduct. If not entirely wanting in all the prospective efficiency of his counsel, and if the prisoner reasoning power, they must have seen that they were persisted in trusting to the shattered remains of his either acting childishly, or else openly and treasonably Counsel’s nerve and skill, it was the counsel’s duty to go defying the government and denying their authority. on. But it is sufficiently evident that the consideration Such conduct is, to say the least of it, mischievous on the of his own incompetence was not the motive which in- part of persons who might be expected to set an example duced Dr. Kenealy to do as he has done. His subsequent to others who have more excuse for being ignorant. It remarks show that. Now, although Dr. Kenealy appears is at least a question whether the magistrate ought not to to have been instructed in the first instance by an have directed charges to be preferred against all whoavowed attorney, in accordance with the requirements of pro- their participation in the procession and its objects. etiquette, he appears, from his own state- Whether the procession was legal or illegal, of course was 150 THE SOLICITORS’ JOURNAL & REPORTER. Dec. 21, 1867, and still is undecided, but there was at least as much and delay, and to repress as far as possible all Vexations reason for trying the question in the case of persons who and merely cost-creating proceedings. openly avowed and justified their participation in it, after Our winding-up machinery, however, has not yet been its legality had been challenged in a conrt of law, as in brought to this pitch ; it ought to be worked mor the case of others who possibly may have supposed its cheaply and quickly than at present. A few daysagos legality unquestionable. correspondent of the Zimes called attention to a case in which a liquidation, begun in 1849, had, not until the Our ConTEMPORARY the Lancet, this week, in an article present month, culminated in a first and final dividend of which we reprint, notices the unsatisfactory character of 2s. 9d., and there are still lingering on liquidations jp medical evidence in trials for compensation for personal bankruptcy under the Companies Act of 1856 ; it istime injuries.