* THE UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS LIBRARY From the .collection of James Collins, Drumcondra, Ireland. Purchased, 1918. * 941-68 I r 2 rd Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2017 with funding from University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign Alternates https://archive.org/details/dublindecembercoOOirel J.OII/jll j (•/• nu» laii/h Jtirtfhr*/ /.nuyh H UJJXHOHK mo. a nx$l-rasnxt ’'/brtlAl/f BOVGOTT L h 1 N C / t •-/ i\,$< *r Lough Niil'ooc' LOT 3 G HUD1 °CIBBONS\- D MOUN' IORRIS /li/frpnrtr M/yor General A C (holts. C H , it Director General Prepared at the Ordnance Survey thiicc Phunix Park nndrr the direction of (alone! Stothfni.lt T. 0 I ho locality in Which the Estate ol‘ MICEAEL 0 KELLY 8. OTHERS Scale of' One Inch to atiolule Mile 1 ; is situated is marked [ ORDNANCE SURVEY OF IRELAND TRANSFER OF PROPERTY under die LAND JUDCES. N ° 3+38 S H E Ers >85 94 & 95 part of C ENERAL MAP oMl-S* ^ Xt£tcI ( X-RLOOaVcI / (L&OuZX*- ^ 0-^*-H> OxvGL l^~ O^vA A*Xc*>-4A^ , f THE DUBLIN DECEMBER COMMISSION. 5th DECEMBER, 1882. Count y of Galway. - M THE LOUGH MASK MURDERS. *o The Hon. Mr. .1 ustice O’Brien sat in the Court-house, Green-street, at 1 1 o’clock. In the course of the forenoon, the County Dublin Grand Jury returned true bills against Patrick Higgins (Long), Thomas Higgins (Tom), and Michael Flynn, for the wilful murder of Joseph and John Huddy, near Lough Mask, in the county of Galway, on the 3rd January last, the case having been removed from the local venue on certificate of the Right Hon. the Attorney-General, under the provisions of the Prevention of Crimes (Ireland) Act, 1881. James Murphy, Esq., Q.C., and Peter O'Brien, Esq., q.c. (instructed by George Bolton, Esq., Crown Solicitor), represented the Crown ; and Charles II. Teeling, Esq., and Bichard Adams, Esq. (instructed by Patrick J. B. Daly, Esq., of Ballinrobe), appeared for the accused. When the true bills were returned— Mr. Teeling. — My Lord, I am, with my learned friend Mr. Adams, counsel for the prisoners, and have an application to make Mr. Justice O’Brien. — I beg your pardon, Mr. Teeling, the prisoners must be put forward before you can make any application. Patrick Higgins (Long), Thomas Higgins (Tom), and Michael Flynn, were accordingly put to the bar. The Clerk of the Crown. — Do the prisoners understand English 1 Mr. Daly. — Except the old man — Patrick Higgins (Long) — they do Constable Bryan Collins, R. I.C., having been sworn to “truly interpret between the Court and the prisoners at the bar according to the best of his skill and ability,” and Fatrick Higgins (Long), being put to the front of the dock, The Cl count how much she got — she is speaking to the best of her judg- ment. Matthias Kerrigan , an Irish-speaking witness, sworn, and examined by the Solicitor-General through the Interpreter. Does he remember the morning the Huddys were killed ? — He does not. That is, he does not remember the date, I suppose ? Ask him was he at home the morning that the Huddys were killed ? — He was for a load of turf. When he came back with the turf was it before or after breakfast time? — That is the time. His breakfast was cooking by his mother. Was he coining back for his breakfast ?— He was. When lie came down to his house did he see any one there? -He did Whom did lie see ? — He saw Pat Higgins there and Michael Flynn and Thomas Higgins. Docs he see Thomas Higgins here? — He does. Did he see Michael Flynn and Thomas Higgins doing anythin**? He saw them murdering the boy. What boy ? — Young Huddy. 21 Where ? — At the back of the barn. How were they murdering him ? — They were right over him, murdering him with shots. Thomas H minus he names. Was that on the boreen 1 — On the boreen. Mr. Justice O'Brien. — -H e says they were right over him, murdering them with shots, and then he says Thomas Higgins ? — Yes, my lord. Mr. O' Brim . — Who was firing the shots ? — Thomas Higgins. And where was Michael Flynn at that time! — They were both over him, and he saw shots firing. Where was Pat Higgins at the time ? — Standing on the boreen or road. And he saw old Joe ITuddy ? — He saw him murdered on the boreen. Did he see him being murdered -the old man ? — -He did not ; he was killed before him. A Juror (Mr. Bussell). — What is the last answer ? Mr. Justice O’Brien. — H e says he saw him murdered on the road, and there being a doubt as to his meaning, he said he was killed before his arrival. The Solicitor-General . — When he first saw Joe Huddy was Joe Huddy living or dead 1 — He was dead — he was killed. Was there anyone near him at that time 1 — Yes ; Pat Higgins, the prisoner. Did he see anything done to the body of Joe Huddy 1 — It was put into the basket. By whom ? — Pat Higgins and Michael Flynn. And what became of it then 1 — Michael Flynn raised it, and put it on him. And what did Pat Higgins do with it 1 — They went down on the road before them. Was that in the direction of the lake ?— Drawing down towards the road. Did he see anything done to the body of young Huddy 1— He saw it put into the bag. Where was the bag got ? — He does not know, for they had it when he came. What was done with it afterwards 1 — It was hoisted on his own back. On the witness’s back ? — On the witness’s back. By whom ? — Thomas Higgins. What did Thomas Higgins say to him! — He said to the witness “ be at him,” and the witness said he would not ; and Higgins said that he would oi lie would not be thankful for it. When it was put up on him where did he go with it? — He brought it as far as James Corbett’s. Mr. Justice O’Brien. — I s the word “ thankful ” meant to say that he would be sorry for not doing it ? — Yes. The Solicitor-General. — H ad Patsey Higgins gone on befoi-e? — He went on before them — he went in front of them. How far did the witness carry the body of the boy? — As far as James Corbett’s house. And what was done with it then ? — Pat Mannion came out of James Corbett’s house; Thomas Higgins came out and dropped him, and said it should be put on his back. And was it ? — Yes. On Mannion’s back ? — Yes. What did Mannion do with it ? — He brought it o^ on his own little cross-road. And what happened then ? — Mannion turned up to his own house, and Pat Higgins (Sarah) came over the road. Thomas Higgins then raised the bag on his back. And did he carry it off ? — He took it down the road. Was that the first time he saw Pat Higgins (Sarah) ?— That is the first time that day. And how far did he see Pat Higgins (Sarah) ? — Until he went down — until he left his sight. Could he see him as far as the end of the road ? — There was a groat hillock between him and the lake, and they left his view. Cross-examined by Mr. Teeling. Ask him was he not also in jail charged with this murder? — He was. Ask him how long lie was in jail? — He is not sure whether it is a fortnight or three weeks. Charged with this murder? — Yes. Together with his father? — Yes. Ask him how far from his fathei-’s house is the place he had to go for the turf that morning? — He does not know the number of miles, but it is a good distance. Mr. Justice O’Brien — A sk him how long would he take to walk to it ? — He says a short time. It would take him half an hour. 22 Mr. Teeling To go to it ? — He says it would take an hour to go to it and from it. Did he return with the load of turf on his back that morning ? — Not on his back, but on an ass. What time in the morning did he leave to go for the turf, about what time ? — When he got up. What time was that ? — It was very early, but he had neither watch nor clock. Mr. Justice O’Brien. — H ad he the light of day? — He had. Mr. Teeling — In the month of January he had the light of day to go to the bog? — Yes. On the day of the murder ? — Yes. Ask him has he told us every one who was in the boreen with the bodies that day ? — He has. There was no body else except the persons he has named ? — Not except those he has named. Yery well. That will do. A Juror . — Ask him what is the usual hour for breakfast. Does he get his breakfast the first thing in the morning ? — Mr. Justice O’Brien. — T he juror wishes to know what time he usually gets his breakfast, about what time in the morning? — The best way he can answer is that when they get up out of bed the mother puts on the breakfast. Mr. Teeling . — Does he not in the winter take a longer sleep than in summer? — He sleeps longer in the winter. The Solicitor-General . — There was a question omitted to be asked. Ask him if he saw Mannion carrying a bag ? — He did. Did he see anything happening to Mannion before he gave up the bag ? — He puts a question to me by way of answer, and asks “ did he fall.” Ask him did he fall ? — He was tripped out on one knee. Where was that? — At James Corbett’s, when he halted. Was it after that when he gave up the sack ? — Yes, when he brought it to his own little cross road, sir. Martin Kerrigan called. Mr. Adams .— Before this little boy is sworn, he ought to be asked if he understands the nature of an oath ? Mr. Justice O’Brien.— H as he made a deposition ? Mr. Murphy . — He has. Mi - . Justice O’Brien. — T hen I will receive his evidence on that ground alone. Martin Kerrigan sworn, examined by Mr. Murphy, q.c. Ask him does he live with his father at Cloghbrack — He does. Ask him did he know a man called Joseph Huddy? — He did not. Does he recollect being in his house one morning, and hearing shots ? — He does. Where was he when he heard the shots ?— He was going out to tin; barn with a basket. After he heard the shots did he walk out to the boreen ? — He did. Did he see any persons on the boreen that he knew ? — He did. Who were the men that he knew? — He saw Pat Higgins, Michael Flynn, and Thomas Higgins (Tom). Is this the Pat Higgins that he saw (pointing to the dock) ? — Yes, that is the man, and Michael Flynn, and Thomas Higgins. Did he see any dead bodies in the boreen ? — He did. How many ? — Two. Where on the boreen were the dead bodies ? —The old man was at the back of the house, and the boy at the back of the barn. Were they both quite dead when he saw them? — They were not, but he saw Pat Higgins strike the old man with a stone, and knock him down. Had he known the old man before that ? — He had not. Did he see anything done with the two bodies ? — He saw the old man put into a basket, and the boy into a bag. Did he know where the bag was got ? — He did not. When the old man was put into the basket, who took it away ? — Michael Flynn hoisted it on Pat Higgins’s back. Did he see what was done with the little boy’s body ?— Put into a bag head foremost. What was done with it then? — It was put into the bag head down and feet up. What was done with the sack then ?— His brother came with a load of turf, and Thomas Higgins put it on the brother’s back. Where did they go with the bodies then ? — They went down the boreen. Did he see any other person coming down alter them along the boreen ? — Pat Higgins (Sarah) went down after them. Did he see Pat Higgins (Sarah) at all when they went down with the 23 bodies ? — He did not. He was coming with a basket of turf ; the others had gone on before. Did he see his brother coming up with the turf ? — He did. Ask him had he taken his breakfast that morning before he saw the men killed or dead ? — He had not. Was his brother-in-law away before he came back ? — He was not. Cross-examined by Mr. Adams. Was it after he heard the shots he came out? — He was going out to the barn with the basket. When he heard the shots where was he ? — He repeats lie was going out to the barn. Did he ever swear that he was in the house when he heard the shots? — He did not. Does he swear solemnly now that he was in the barn when he heard the shots ? — Going to the barn. With the basket ? — Y es. Was he in the yard ? — Going out to the street or yard, and to the barn. Mr. Justice O’Brien. — W as he outside the doorway when he heard the shots ? — He says he was, my lord. Mr. Adams . — Did he make a deposition in this case? — He did. Did he swear this — “ I heard shots ; I was then in the house ; I went out to the door?” — He says on his conscience he is not sure. Mr. Justice O’Brien.— A sk him which is right. Mr. Adams .— Which is true? — He says he was going out with the basket. Mr. Justice O’Brien. — W as he out of the house? — He was outside of the door when he heard the shots. Mr. Adams . — Ask him if he swore he was then in the house and went out to the door would that be true ? — It would not be true. Ask him did he swear on that table he saw Pat Pliggins knock the old man with a stone ?— He did. Ask him was the old man alive then, and standing up ? — He was. He was knocked with a stone by Pat Higgins. Was he alive w T hen Pat Higgins knocked him with a stone ? — Pat Higgins took the stone off the top of the wall, and struck him. Ask him did he also swear the two men were lying dead when he came out of the house ? — He did not. Did he swear this — “ I was then in the house, and went out to the door ; I saw long Pat Higgins on the boreen ; I also saw Tom Higgins and Michael Flynn there ; I now see them and point them out ; I saw the two dead bodies lying on the boreen.’’ Ask him is that true ? — He says he saw them firing the shots too. Ask him did he say one word before the magistrate about striking with a stone or firing the shots? — He did. Was it taken down? — It was put on paper. Mr. Adams . — We will put in that deposition, which I will read to the end of it. Ask him was he out of the house, or how long was he out of the house before he saw Tat Higgins strike the man with the stone? — He was a little bit of the door. Was he long? — He only went outside the door. Did he know his father was in jail on a charge of murdering the Huddys ? — He did. Ask him had he any talk recently with anyone about what happened that day?— -He had not. Ask him is he living with his mother? — He is. Did she ever say anything to him about what he saw that day? — lie says did not herself see it. Had she any conversation with him about that day ? — She had not. Ask him was he told by anyone what he was to swear here to-day ? —No. Did his mother ever say a word to him about what he was to swear to-day ? — She did not. Nor his father? — No. Nor any one? — No. Nor his brother? — Not a word. He had not a word of talk at all with any one about it ? — No ; did they not see it themselves as he did ? Did his father or mother or he ever talk a word since that day about what happened ? — His reply is no ; they saw it as well as himself. Mr. Adams . — We will read the deposition. Mr. Justice O’Brien. — V ery well. Mr. Murphy . — We will read it. Mr. Adams . — I will read it in order that it may be distinctly under- stood by whom it is put in. It is as follows : — “ Depositions of Martin Kerrigan, of Cloughbrack. — I am roii of Mathias Kerrigan of Cloughbrack. I was at my father’s house the day the men were killed in the boreen. I heard shots. I was then in the E 2 24 house and went out to the door. I saw long Patt Higgins on the boreen I also saw Tom Higgins and Michael Flynn there. I now see them and point them out. I saw the two dead bodies lying on the boreen, the old man was at the end of the house on the boreen, and the young man at the end of the barn. I saw Pat Higgins (Long) carry the old mail away. I saw Tom Higgins put the sack on my brother’s back. Michael Flynn went with Pat Higgins (Long) and Tom Higgins Mr. Justice O’Brien. — L et me see a copy of the deposition. I want to see in what order it comes. (Deposition handed to his lordship). Mr. Adams . — It is number 13. Mr. Murphy . — (To the Interpreter) — You were not the interpreter for this witness at Galway ? Interpreter. — No, I was not. Mr. Justice O’Brien. — W as the evidence cf the father Matthias Kerrigan, and the mother Bridget Kerrigan taken before the evidence of the present witness ? Mr. Murphy . — We have the magistrate who took them here. (To the Interpreter) — You were not interpreting at Galway ? Interpreter. — No. Mr. Murphy . — Ask him, did he tell his story in Irish in Galway 1 — He did. Did he answer truly any questions that were put to him ?- — He did. When he said it was taken down in writing, did he know except through the interpreter, what was taken down in writing ? — No, but as the other man was telling it again — when he would tell it in Irish the man would tell it again. A Juror (Mr. T. W. Kussell).- — When you were going out to the barn where was your brother? — He was spilling the water oft' potatoes out of the door. Patrick Mannion, an Irish -speaking witness, sworn, and examined through the Interpreter by Mr. O’Brien, q.c. Ask him does he remember being in Michael Corbett’s at Cloglibrack in January last? — Yes. What time was he there — was it in the morning ? — After breakfast- time in the morning. Does he remember coming out of the house ? — He does. When he came out who did he see in the boreen? — When he came down out of the house he saw Thomas Higgins, young Mathias Kerrigan, and Pat Higgins (Sara). Very well ; now had Mathias Kerrigan anything on his back? — He had a bag on his back. Was anything done to the bag, ask him? — When he came down, Tom Higgins got up to him, and said to him, “ walk out here.” “ No, I won’t,” said the witness. He told him again, and tripped him. He pulled him after him along the road. He took the bag off Kerrigan’s back, and put it on witness, and told him to walk out, and the witness replied, that he was not able to walk out. He was still bearing it when it bore him down after going a bit of the road, and he went to rise the bag. Who went to rise the bag? — Thomas Higgins. He went down the road before him. The bag was falling off him, and he was rising the bag on him, and tripped, and Pat Higgins then took it off him. When he tripped and fell on his knee, did Tom Higgins (Sara) take the bag and go off? — He said, yes. Ask him what he did then? — He turned on his foot, and went into his own house. Now, when he came out were they just at the boreen or nearer ?• — - They were coming along the road from the boreen towards him. Did he see any persons in front then at all ? — Not one but the three. He saw no dead bodies? —No, he did not. Cross-examined by Mr. Teeling. Was it not Matthias Kerrigan ; was not Matthias Kerrigan one of those ; the man who put the sack on his back ? The Interpreter . — That is, young Matthias, sir? — Yes. Witness (through interpreter) — They both raised it on his back. They both ; that is, young Matthias and Thomas Higgins? — Yes. Is Matthias Kerrigan one of the men who lives here (pointing to model) ? — Yes, and young Matthias is his son. And the man who was examined here to-day ? — Yes. Now, wi.l you ask him when he first made this statement to the police ? — About nine or ten weeks ago. About nine or ten weeks ago— very well. That will do. Re examined by Mr. O’Brien, q.c. Now, you say he fell on his knee, and when Tom Higgins Saral went away with the bag what became of Matthias Kerrigan ?- He mined as if to go back home. 25 At the same time as lie went to bis home? — Exactly. When he turned to go to his own house young Kerrigan turned as if to go to his own house. Jolm Hallorun sworn, and examined by the Solicitor-General. J)o you live in Cloghbrack? — Yes, sir. Do you remember in January last hearing some shots ? — I do, sir. Do you know what day in January it was? — I don’t know, sir. Mr. Justice O’Brien. — T hey can always tell you by reference to Christmas, Mr. Solicitor-General. The Solicitor-General. — Thanks, my lord. How soon after Christmas was it ? — -Not long. What day of the week was it ? — I think it was Tuesday. How far off is your house from Kerrigan’s house ?— Not so far. Are there fields between? — Yes, and a hillock. Where were you when you heard the shots ? — I was going out to my own barn with a load of oats I had. W here were you when you heard these shots ? — I went into the barn going out towards the yard. Very well; where did you go then? — I set about setting them up in the bam. Did you go then to see wdiere the shots were fired from ? — I went to the other end of the garden. I went to look where 1 thought they were fired. I did not know exactly where they were. I looked where I thought they were for I often heard shots in that place before. Very well ; but we are talking about this morning now. Did you look down shortly after to Kerrigan’s house — towards the boreen ? — You know the boreen there? — Yes. Did you see anybody there? — I saw a couple of men there in the. boreen. How many — two men ? — About two or three men. Did you know anybody that was there? — No. No man that was there ? — I seen Thomas Higgins standing at his own house, doing nothing at all. His back was to his own wall. Convenient to his own house ? — Yes, doing nothing at all. That is one of the men (pointing to the prisoner) that you saw in the boreen ? — That is one of the men. That vou saw in the boreen ? — Yes, near his own house. W as Pat Higgins one of the men that was in the boreen?— Ho was near his own house. Were there any other men with him ? — There were a couple of men in the boreen, going towards Kerrigan’s house, but I could not know them. I could only see their backs and heads. Who was the last man in the street — which was last of the three ? — 1 did not know any of them at the time but Kerrigan. Higgins was near his own house standing. Whereabouts was his own house ?— It was very near Kerrigan’s house standing when I saw him. Was he with the other men? — No, he was a little distance from them. What? — A little distance from the other men. Yes. Was there a wall between him and you ? — There was, sir. Alongside of the boreen ? — Yes, and a hillock. And you saw him ? — Yes, I did. You saw the top of him over the wall ? — I did. And knew him that way? — Yes. And what did you do then after that ? — I went back to my barn to thresh mv oats. Was tiiere anybody with you ?— Yes, my son. Did you ever see Joe Huddy alive — did you know Joe Huddy previously ? — I did not know it was him at the time. Of course you heard talk of him being lost after that? — The police- man told me the next morning. The policeman told you the next morning ? — Yes. The witness was not cross-examined. John IJalloran sworn, and cross-examined by Mr. James Mekpiiv, q.c., through the Interpreter. Ask him does he recollect the morning he heard shots in the boreen, near Kerrigan’s house ? — He d oes. Does he recollect going with his father to look down the boreen ? He does. Ask him did he see the prisoner then when lie looked down ?— He saw him standing at the back of his own house. Tell me, how many more men did he see there? — Ho cannot say at all. Did he see any of the men do anything at all ?— He did not. 26 Did he go back at once then when he got a look at them ? — He went back home on his business. And heard no more shots ? — He did not. About how many shots did he hear altogether ? — One. Ask him does he recollect being examined in Galway ? — He does. Does he recollect stating there where he saw long Pat Higgins ? — He does. Did he say he saw him in the boreen between Kerrigan’s and Pat Higgins’s house ? — He did. He did, very good? — Yes. He did, but he answers he saw him do nothing — that he had his hands out by him doing nothing at all. The witness was not cross-examined. Thomas Mannion sworn, and examined by Mr. Peter O’Brien, q.c., through the Interpreter. Ask does he recollect the morning in January last when the polic e were looking for the Huddvs ? — Yes. Ask him does he recollect the morning before being in the boreen there ? — He does. Ask him was Michael Flinn there, and if he passed any remark to him. Mr. Teeling . — My lord, I respectfully submit that this is not evidence against my client at all. Suppose, my lord, he answers this question, and informs us that he saw Michael Flynn in the boreen on the morn- ing of the 3rd of January, how does that bear against my client? Mr. Justice O’Brien. — I f the other witnesses established that Michael Flynn was seen there in company with the prisoner, is not this witness to be allowed to corroborate their statements ? Mr. Teeling . — If your lordship thinks, they have. Mr. O'Brien . — Did you see Michael Flynn there at the boreen that morning ? — He did. Ask him was he speaking to him ? — He was not talking to him, but Flynn spoke to him. Very well. Now did he speak much to him ? — He told him to go on home, and not to be in the boreen. Do you know where Pat Macken’s house is ? — He did. Is it between Corbett’s and Macken’s ? — It is between Pat Macken’s and Thomas Corbett’s. Was it there that Michael Flynn was speaking to him ? — Between the houses. He met him on the road. Mr. Justice O’Brien. — B etween Pat Macken’s and Michael Corbett’s ? — Yes, my lord. Mr. O'Brien . — Was it there ? — Yes, sir. About what time in the morning, ask him ? — When he got up and went and had his breakfast, that is the time. William Henry Ellis sworn, and examined by the Solicitor-General. Are you one of the crew of the “ Valorous ” ? — Yes. Was it searching in Lough Mask for the bodies of the Huddys in January ? — Yes. Yes ; were you one of the party that were on board, when they were found ? — Yes, I was. Where were they found ? — At Lough Mask. Do you know where — near what island ? — They were found at the north-west corner. How were they found l — The young boy was found in a bag contain- ing a stone. Were you grappling for them ? — Yes ; we were dragging for them. You say there were stones found in the sack ? — That is the young man. Was the body of the old man near that? — It was found about ten or twelve yards away. Was it in anything ? — It had a stone attached to the legs. What was done with the bodies when you got them ? They were taken to the island. Were they given there in charge to the police? — They were given then in charge to the police. On what day was that ? — On the 27th of January. Cross-examined by Mr. Adams. Do you know, Mr. Ellis, whether any documents were found ? I do not know at all. Mr. Murphy . — We have other witnesses. A Juror (Mr. Russell).— Do you know in which position the bodies were found ? Oh, no, I don’t know in what position the> were. Was the body put into a sack head foremost?— I could not say because the grappling iron caught in the back. I could not say. 27 Were they not in a sack when you brought them Mr. Justice O’Brien. — Did you open the sack No, my lord. Did you say that the body of the older man was found some yards from there ! — Some ten or twelve yards away. Constable Terence Bound sworn, and examined by Mr. Murphy, q.c. Were you there, on the 27th January, when these bodies were found ? — I vvas. Now, was either of them in a sack ? — The boy was in the sack. Did you see the body taken out of the sack ? — I did. How was the body placed in the sack ? — Head foremost, and a large stone tied up with him. Did you search the pockets of the clothes of Joe Huddy ? — I did, sir. Did you find any documents in the pockets'? — I did, sir. Where are the documents you found ? — I handed them over. They were produced, I believe, before the magistrate? — Yes, sir ; I initialed them all. (The documents were here handed to witness). Well, now, look at these. Have you got a list of them ? — They are— An original civil bill ejectment process at the suit of Lord Ardilaun against Matthias Kerrigan ; two copies of a civil bill ejectment against Peter Kyne, Patrick Kyne, and Luke Kyne. Mr. Justice O’Brien. — W hat is that you say ? Mr. Murphy . — Two copies of civil bill ejectment, my lord, against the two Kvnes, and an original civil bill ejectment at the suit of Lord Ardilaun against Patrick Connor, and copies of two civil bill ejectments at the same suit against Pat Macken, Martin Kyne and Pat Kyne, and an original ejectment at the suit of Lord Ardilaun against Thomas Hyland. J Vitness . — They are all here, my lord. In the same condition as you got them ? — Yes. Have you examined them and counted them, and ascertained the number, how many there are, and if you have got altogether, tell us at a later stage. These are all you recollect finding ? — Yes. Did you initial them ? — Yes Mr. Murphy . — This is all you recollect finding I suppose? — Yes. Have you initialed them ? — I have. You did not find one there against the prisoner, Pat H iggins ?— I don’t recollect finding any ; all I found are there. Mr. Teeling . — Would your lordship take it down with regard to this man. Matthias Kerrigan had to appear at Oughterard on the 19th January, on the original writ for £13 12s. 5*f., which upon the back of it seems to be rent from the 1st November, 1878, to the 1st November, 1881. The Solicitor-General . — They are all for the 19th January, which is the printed date only. Mr. Teeling . — (To witness)— -The Kynes you spoke of don’t you know where they resided ? — I don’t know where any of them resided. Mr. Murphy . — It is a fact that they lived off some distance — (To witness) — Are your initials on the39 ? — They are, sir. Mr. Justice O’Brien. — T hese words, “Mat Kerrigan,” is that written by you ? — No, my lord. Nothing written by me only the initials. Do you know whose handwriting that is in ? — No, my lord. Mr. Justice O’Brien. — (T o Mr. Teeling) — Isn’t that name put there in accordance with the rule or practice that a civil bill officer is to put the name of the person for whom the process is intended on the back ? Mr. Teeling . — I will look at Carlton this evening and see how that is. I am much obliged to your lordship for drawing attention to that. Mr. Justice O’Brien. — T he ordinary rule is that he writes it on the back. Mr. Teeling . — That had escaped our observation. Mr. Justice O’Brien. — M r. Bolton, isn’t that the practice? Mr. Bolton. — Yes, my lord. Dr. John Hegarty sworn, and examined by Mr. P. O’Brien, q.c. I believe you made a post-mortem examination of the body of Joseph Huddy on the 28th January last? — Yes. You had known him in his lifetime? — Yes. Will you describe to his lordship or the jury what appearance the body presented? — Shall I describe the appearance as regards the state of preservation ? No. What did he die of? — He had five bullet wounds in th ; body altogether — four in the head, and one in the right shoulder. How many had John ? — Two in the head. Were these the cause of death in both case? — Yes. Mr. Murphy . — In one of the original writs Pat and Luke Kyne is on the back of it. 28 Dr. Ilcgarty recalled by Mr. O’Brien, q.c. Did you get the bullets in the bodies ? — Some of them, not the whole of them. Were they pistol or revolver bullets ? — Revolver bullets. Patrick Kyne sworn, and examined by the Solicitor-General through the Interpreter. Are you the brother of Luke Kyne ? — Yes. Do you live in Cloughbrack ? — Yes. On the same boreen with Kerrigan and Pat Higgins ? — Yes. But further up ? — Yes, at the head of the village altogether. Does he and his brother live together! — Yes, in the same house. Were they served with any ejectments'! Mr. Teeling . — I respectfully object to this question — whether Luke Kyne was served with an ejectment, that is not relevant to the issue respecting my client. Mr. Justice O’Brien. — I t is a matter-of-fact to determine how far the deceased men had gone in the execution of their duty, and it is a matter-of-fact whether they had reached that man’s house, but only material in that respect. Is that the point of view you ask this question ? The Solicitor-General. — Exclusively. (To witness) — Was he served with any document? — He got none himself. Was he in his house that morning ? — Yes. Did J oe Huddy go to his house that morning ? — He did not. Or his grandson, John ? — He did not. Did he not see them at all ? — No, he did not, big or little. The Solicitor-General . — There may be a short witness whom we will ask your lordship to allow us to produce in the morning; subject to that, we do not propose to give any further evidence. Mr. Justice O’Brien — I n form we are not to consider the case for the Crown as closed until morning. Mr. Teeling. — Don’t you think it would be a reasonable thing that the Cro wn should intimate who the short witness is to be? The Solicitor-General . — He may not produce any. Mr. Teeling . — Still it would be only fair to those conducting the defence. Mr. Justice O’Brien. — H ave you exhausted all the constabulary evidence — The Solicitor-General . — I think so. Mr. Teeling . — I will have to open the case for the prisoners im- mediately after this witness is examined. Mr. Murpliy . — We don’t know whether we will examine him or not. Mr. Justice O’Brien. — I t is the usual practice to give counsel engaged for the defence a note of the evidence they intend to produce. They have not given any note of any other evidence, and that is a reason perhaps why they should tell the name of the witness. The Solicitor-General . — There is no mystery at all about it. If we can in the morning have the governor of Galway gaol, we will examine him in reference to the subject of the clothes given to the prisoner. Mr. Teeling . — So far as you are aware at present subject to that the case is closed. Mr. Murphy . — It does not go further than that — Mr. Teeling . — Subject to that, then you close ? Mr. Murphy. — Yes. The court adjourned till eleven o'clock next morning. THE DUBLIN DECEMBER COMMISSION. 8th DECEMBER, 1882. County of Galway. THE LOUGH MASK MURDERS. The Queen v. Patrick Higgins (Long). The Hon. Mr. Justice O’Brien sat in the Court House, Green-street, at eleven o’clock, and resumed the trial of Patrick Higgins (Long), for the wilful murder of Joseph Huddv, at Cloghbrack, Co. Galway, on the 3rd of January 1882. The Hon. the Solicitor-General (A. M. Porter, Esq., Q.c., m.p.), James Murphy, Esq., Q.c., and Peter O'Brien, Esq., Q.c. (instructed by George Bolton, Esq., Crown Solicitor), attended to conduct the prosecution ; and Charles II. Teeling, Esq., and Richard Adams, Esq. (instructed by Patrick J. B. Daly , Esq., of Ballinrobe), appeared for the accused. The J ury having answered their names : — Henry A. Phillipson (foreman), John Lowe, William Glenn, Michael Roe, Thomas W. Russell, John Martin, John Miller, William Owen, James P. O’Reilly, George O’Neill, William R. F. Godley, and James King. Mr. George Mason sworn, and examined by the Solicitor-General. Mr. Mason, you are the Governor of Galway jail? — Yes, sir. Are you acquainted with Patrick Higgins, the prisoner at the bar ? — Yes, I know him as having been in my custody. Was Matthew Kerrigan in your custody also ? — Yes. Matthias Kerrigan, not Matthew. Quite right — charged with the murder of the Huddys ? — Yes. Were you aware, during the time he was in your custody, of his rece ving any money? — Yes. Do you yourself know where it came from ? Mr. Teeling. — I respectfully object — this is not relevant. Mr. Justice O’Brien. — You have stated that he had received clothes, and suggested that these clothes were given to him as an inducement to give evidence, or had that operation upon his mind. Counsel for the Crown asked him had he received money at the same time, and he said yes. They now proposed to ask the Governor of the jail from whom that money came, and I hold that that is legal evidence. Air. Adams. — We asked about the clothes, and we were bound by the answer that he knew nothing about them, but we asked no question about money. Mr. Justice O'Brien. — But if the money received furnished the means of procuring the clothes, counsel has a right to ask the question whence that money came. Mr. Adams. — The money could not have been the means of procuring the clothes, for he swore the clothes were brought to him before he got any money. The Solicitor -General — (To witness). Where did that money come from. Mr. Mason ? — It was sent to me as a portion of a cheque by the Ladies’ Land League, from Dublin. Was it from that source that all the money came that he got? — (After consulting a memorandum). Yes, with the exception of Is. 9 d. Mr. Justice O’Brien. — Now, Air. Adams, do you propose to ask the witness anything about these clothes ? Mr. Adams. — No, my lord ; I do not. Mr. Justice O’Brien. —Do you propose doing so, Mr. Solicitor- General ? The Solicitor-General. — (To witness.) Did Kerrigan get clothes while in jail ? — Yes. I am given to understand he received one suit of clothes. In fact I am sure he did. From whom? — Well, I believe they were supplied from the agent of-- Mr. Adams. — Don’t mind what you believe, sir, only what you know yourself. Mr. Justice O’Brien. — Did you, Air. Alason, provide or furnish them to him ? — No, I did not. Or anybody — to your knowledge — connected with the administration of the jail ? — No, my lord. so That is the question. Kindly tell me have you any account of when Matthias Kerrigan was first in your custody ? — I have, my lord, a record of the dates. Will you please tell me these, as matter for my own information ? — He was committed on remand on the 7th of January, 1882. And how long did he remain in custody 1 — He went to petty sessions on the 20th of February, and was recommitted as a suspect on the 21st February. And, Mr. Mason, how long did he remain then — when was he re- leased from custody 1 ? — He was discharged on the lltli of September. Mr. Teeling . — Just one question. On what charge was he committed to you on the 21st ot February 1 — He was first committed to me on the 7th of January on a charge of murder. Who was the person — or who were the persons of whose murder he was accused ? — That was not stated in the committal order, but Mr. Murphy . — There is no doubt but that it was for the murder of the Huddys ; Kerrigan stated so himself. Mr. Teeling . — His recommittal as a suspect 1 Mr. Justice O’Brien. — W as on the 21st February, the day after his being sent to sessions. Mr. Teeling . — (To witness), kindly state what the warrant charged him with, Mr. Mason ? Mr. Justice O’Brien. — H e is not at liberty to state that, I think, under the Act of Parliament. Mr. Teeling . — It is a public document — published in the “ Gazette,” my lord. Mr. Justice O’Brien.— I t is a document which the person committed under has the right to see, but no other person. Mr. Adams . — They were published as a Parliamentary return, and also in the “ Gazette.” Mr. Justice O’Brien. — T he witness may answer the question if he can — I have no objection. Mr. Teeling (to witness). — K indly state what did the warrant say he was “ reasonably suspected ” of 1 — It would be very difficult to say posi- tively from memoi-y, but to the best of my belief it was “ reasonably suspected of murder.” Mr. Justice O’Brien. — Y ou may be perfectly satisfied that that was so. There can be no question in the world about it. The Solicitor-General . — Certainly not ; no question about it. Mr. Justice O’Brien. — M r. Mason, do the rules of the prison admit of the access of relatives to a person imprisoned on that kind of charge ; a charge of murder, or “ reasonably suspected of murder ”? — Oh, yes. Does that access take, place in the presence of any officer % — Yes ; in presence of the chief warder, or one of the warders. And no communication takes place except in their presence? — No. Mr. Teeling . — As a matter of fact, Mr. Mason, would you kindly tell us whether his wife had visited him during his imprisonment ? — I could not tax my memory with that ; there were so many visits paid to suspects. But have you any doubt about it ? As to whether she did or not ? — Yes, I am under the impression that she did, but I am only under the impression. It is hard to tax my memory as to an individual, when so many visitors come in. Mr. Andrew Newton Brady , r.m., sworn, and examined by Mr. Murphy, q.c. You were the magistrate who took the depositions of the witnesses — the Kerrigans ? — I took their depositions. The date of them, I believe, was the 14th of October? — Yes, the 14th of October. Now, do you recollect the order in which they were taken? — I do. Who was the first examined ? — Matthias Kerrigan, the father, then his wife, Bridget, then his son, Matthias. Mr. J ustice O’Brien. — W hich son ?— The elder boy, my lord, and then Martin, the youngest son, last of all. Mr. Murphy . — Where did you take the depositions, Mr. Brady ? — In the jail of Galway. How were the witnesses taken — each one separately ? — Yes, each was taken separately and apart. Now, do you recollect taking the deposition of Catherine Moran ?— I do. She was an English-speaking witness ? — Yes, I remember. You see her name (to information) to that? — Yes, Now, was that deposition read out to her in your presence? — Yes. Read by yourself, I understand ? — Yes. Do you see there the concluding line, “ This was early in the morn- ing”! — I do. Was that her statement to you ?- — Those were the words she used. 31 Mr. Justice O’Brien. — I s there any question you think proper to ask> Mr. Adams ! Mr. Adams. — No, my lord. Mr. Justice O’Brien. — A re you aware where those different deponents came from — the mother and the two sons — were they stopping in Galway or did they come from home ? — They were brought from home to Galway for the purpose of having their informations taken. The Solicitor-General . — That is the case for the Crown, my lord. A Juror (Mr. T. W. Russell). — May I ask a question, my lord. Mr. Justice O’Brien. — O f whom, Mr. Russell! Mr. u.-sell . — Not of that witness, my lord. Mr. Justice O’Brien.- — O f any witness, Mr. Russell, of course you may Mr. Russell . — I think the witness I want is the last man examined yesterday — the constable who found the documents on the body of Joseph Huddy. Constable Terence Dowd, R.I.C., being recalled. Mr. Russell . — T think you told us last night, constable, that you found certain documents upon the body of the elder Huddy ! — Yes, sir. Can you say— I want to be clear about it — if you found an ejectment process to be served upon Matthias Kerrigan ; did you find that process on the body ! — An original one. That is the point I want to have made clear — you found only one ejectment process for Matthias Kerrigan, and that the original ! — That is all. You did not find the copy! — No. And isn’t it the copy that would be served upon Matthias Kerrigan 1 Mr. Justice O’Brien. — T hat is so, Mr. Russell. Mr. Russell . — I did not know very well about these matters, my lord, but I thought it was so. Mr. Justice O’Brien — N o doubt, it would be the copy that would be served in the ordinary course, and the original retained, Mr. Russell (to Witness).- — Then you found the original and not the copy ! — That is so. And it would have been the copy that would have been served upon Matthias Kerrigan. Mr. Justice O’Brien. — Certainly — in ordinai-y course ; there is no question in the world about that. Mr. Murphy (to Witness). — In what pocket were these documents found — were they all in the one pocket %— They were not, sir. How were they 1 — They were in the outside pocket of the coat. The two pockets of the coat! — Yes, in this one (right hand coat pocket), and in that (left hand coat pocket). Mr. Teeling . — Am I right in saying that the depositions given in evidence were taken on the 14th of October! Mr. Justice O’Brien. — A s I understand, Mr. Teeling, the depositions were all taken on the same day — the 14th of October. Mr. Teeling . — And that Kerrigan was discharged from custody on the 11th of September 1 Mr. Justice O’Brien. — A s I understand there is no question about that — discharged from Galway jail. Mr. Teeling . — Discharged altogether, for there was no other jail in question. Mr. Justice O’Brien. — B ut Mr. Adams asked him the question, was he in custody of the police since, which, I understand the meaning of. His release from actual legal custody was on the 11th September. Mr. Adams . — And his wife stated that he was a free man from the 11th September. Mr. Justice O’Brien. — S he did not state the date, but said the sergeant told him he was a free man. Whether the constable choose to keep a supervision over him or not for other objects is another thing. Mr. Teeling. — Now, may it please your lordship and gentlemen of the jury — it now becomes my duty to address some observations to you on behalf of the prisoner at the bar, and at the outset of those observations I feel myself bound to acknowledge in the frankest and clearest manner the perfect fairness and calmness, a calmness almost amounting to a judicial calmness — of the statement with which this case was introduced to you by the learned Solicitor-General who conducts the prosecution. The Solicitor-General in the course of his observations asked you gentlemen, having regard to the special circumstances of the times in which we exist, and especially having regard to the peculiar circumstances of the times as they exist in this city of Dublin, where you are about to discharge your duty — to exhibit courage and firmness. In that observation of the Solicitor-General, and in that request, I as counsel on behalf of the prisoner cordially concur, but the Solicitor-General will not be offended with me if I add to the request he has made, a request of another character, namely gentlemen, F 2 32 that you shall be watchful least the influences of that very panic to which he has referred, should lead you to a conclusion in this case which perhaps if the times were calmer and different you might not be led to and might regret if you were led to now. The Solicitor- General also has said that, having regard to the composition of yo U r body, he has every confidence that you will exhibit that firmness, and that you will exhibit that courage; and I, on behalf of the prisoner at the bar, wish to add the humble expression of my confidence that you will exhibit also that just as necessary watchfulness of the influence of panic to which I have referred, when ■\ ou are coming to determine upon the fate of the prisoner at the bar. Gentlemen, I am sure that, in response to the request made from one point of view by the Solicitor-General, doing his duty for the Crown, and in response to my request from another point of view, doing my duty on behalf of the prisoner at the bar. that your verdict will be founded upon nothing but a calm and judicial interpretation of the evi- dence that that verdict will be delivered without fear, without favour- dr affection. My lord, the name of a distinguished nobleman was intro- duced, and necessarily introduced, in the statement of the Solicitor, General in connection with this case — necessarily introduced, because, unfortunately, this case is conversant with the investigation of the murder of one of his trusted servants ; and I think it only right, on be- half of the prisoner at the bar, who is a tenant of the noble lord to make this public statement in court, that so far as the evidence in this case is concerned, and as far, I venture also to say, as the evidence outside the case goes, the conduct of that noble lord in the west, and wherever else lie has estates, has been characterised by fairness, by consideration, and by forbearance, and that certainly, gentlemen, no one can blame him if, not having received one farthing rent for three years and a half from Matthias Kerrigan, the principal Crown witness, he should have sought to enforce his rights against him by that process of ejectment which I will ask you confidently to say — having regard to the answers elicited by Mr. Russell, one of your body — was served upon him to enforce from him at least an instalment of the three and a half years’ rent or the giving up of his land. Gentlemen of the jury, I think you will be satisfied before this case closes, that the real explanation of the murder of these unhappy Huddys was a circumstance now proved to demonstration. In answer to that question — that important question asked by one of vour body — is really due to the fact that that process of ejectment was served upon Matthias Kerrigan, and that the real person responsible for the murder of that unhappy man is not, gentlemen, the prisoner at the bar, but that very same Matthias Kerrigan. N ow, gentlemen, Matthias Kerrigan has sworn in this case, — and I ask your particular attention t 0 this — he has sworn in the most deliberate manner in this case, that he had nothing whatever to do, in a criminal sense, — for he was of course, upon his own statement brought physically into connection with this murder — but he has sworn in the most de- liberate manner that he had no criminal connection whatever with this case : that he is totally innocent of a any criminality in the transaction, and that the whole of that criminality is to be placed at the door of the prisoner at the bar, and the two other prisoners he has named. Gentlemen of the jury, I tell you, under the correction of his lordship, that if you are satisfied that he has sworn falsely in that particular, that is to say, has sworn falsely when he says he had no criminal connection with this murder ; and, gentlemen, if you be in doubt on that question, which will be quite sufficient for my purpose, I tell you, under the correction of his lordship that you cannot safely act upon any portion of his evidence, so far as it goes to incriminate the prisoner at the bar, unless that evidence is corroborated by other independent testimony in the case, upon which you think you can safely act. Gentlemen, it will be my duty to show you first that he has perjured himself in reference to that statement, that he had no criminal connection with the case, and it will then be my further duty to show you, having established that point to your satisfaction — (and if I merely leave you in doubt it will be enough) — to proceed to show you that looking to the other evidence in the case, there is really no independent corroboration of his testimony upon which you could fairly or satisfactorily act. Now, gentlemen, first let us see had Kerrigan any criminal connection with this murder ; and the first question you will ask yourselves is had he any motive foe the commission of the crime. Well, if the fact that a man is about to be evicted from his farm, is a motive for the commission of murder, and is about to be evicted from his farm through the instrumentality of the service of a process of eject- ment made by the specified individual here and nobody else, then, gentlemen, assuredly there was the existence of a motive upon the part of Kerrigan himself for the commission of this murder. I would be sorry personally to say that — the fact that a man was about to be evicted from a farm through the instrumentality of the simple discharge of his duty by another man, should be any motive for the commission 33 of a murder ; but nevertheless, we know that in this country that lias been a motive, and that that motive has resulted in too many instances in the commission of murder in this country. Indeed, gentlemen, if you were to subtract from the number of murders com- mitted in Ireland, those which are committed through the influence of the motive to which I have referred, you would reduce this country to a country in which no murder existed at all. Well, then, had he this motive 1 Who is Matthias Kerrigan ? First of all, gentlemen, upon his own confession he is a tenant of Lord Ardilaun. Secondly, upon his own confession, he, at the time of this murder, owed three and a half years’ rent, a sum that, as I have already said to you, fully justified Lord Ardilaun in exercising his right against him. He owed three and a half years’ rent — one year’s arrears of rent, according to law, is sufficient to j ustify a landlord in recovering his land. He owed three and a half years. The conditions were, therefore, present under which, if Lord Ardilaun chose to exercise his right he might have dispossessed that man from his farm. Let us see was Lord Ardilaun about to do that. Again, gen- tlemen, I have here not to rely upon any evidence to be produced by me, but again I take it from the lips of his own wife and from himself — that he had the most distinct intimation for some time before the visit of the Huddys upon that unfortunate morning of the 3rd of January in the present year — that he had the most distinct intimation, through the visit paid to Mr. Burke, the agent, that no settlement having been come to on foot of his arrears of rent, a process of eject- ment would be issued against him for the next sessions. These sessions were to take place on the 19th of January, and the murder took place on the 3rd of January — the very last day for the service of an ejectment for the sessions of the 19th. The process of ejectment is giveu to Huddy in the latter end of December, and the fact that the threat which had been made, and properly made, by Mr. Burke, was about to be carried out by giving it to Huddy, you may be certain was per- fectly well known to Matthias Kerrigan on that morning of the 3rd January. Therefore, every circumstance exists which, as far as a motive of this kind could justify, was present. But, gentlemen, was he served on the 3rd of January by lluddy? Was he served — was he put in such a position, that upon the 19th of January, when the case would be heard bef 3 re thi county court judge, that the county court judge would be bound to pronounce a decree of dis- possession against him for the non-payment of this tln-ee and a-half years' rent. Now, gentlemen, when you are coming to consider the credence, you will give to Matthias Kerrigan — and the wh ile case turns, as I will show you presently, upon his evidence and nothing else — remember that in addition to swearing in the most solemn manner, that he had no criminal connection with this murder, he has sworn with equal determination and equal clearness, that he was not served on the 3rd January, 1X82, with that ejectment process. If he be false in that second "statement of his with regard to the non service of the ejectment, then there is a second item of perjury — one, at all events, a clear item of perjury fixed against him in this case, which 1 tell you again under the correction of his lordship, is sufficient to destroy every other particle of his evidence, unless it is corroborated by other independent testimony. Well, gentlemen, was he served in contradiction to Ins own oath, on the 3rd January ? Mr. Wood, a clerk, in the agent’s office, tells you that that ejectment, which, as a matter of fact, was out against him, was given to poor Huddy, and that it was so given in the month of December. Now, that Huddy was in that boreen where all these people lived on that morning of the 3rd January, and was at other places removed from that, doing his duty in the service of ejectments, not one of you in that box can doubt, and I don’t present to you any such case as that he was no'; or that he was not discharging his duty as far as he had brought the proper documents with him —and this will be an important matter for you by-and-byc, because you will find that as regards some of these tenants whom there was an intention to serve, he had not brought with him the whole of the documents, a thing that sometimes happens. Now, was he sei ved, and was lie served by Huddy? He says he was not. Huddy speaks from his grave and tells you he was, because upon the body of Huddy, as was eheited by a question put by Mr. Russell, there was found, and I have it now in my hand, the original ejectment with the larger stamp of 2n. 6 d., which is to be kept in the possession of the b.iililf, and to be afterwards exhibited in the court of justice, there was found upon his dead body, and there (holding process) is the document, the original ejectment, the service of which had been threatened against Kerrigan, so far back as the month of November previously. His lordship asked last night, and it was got out this morning again, and it is important to remember it in this case — the mode of the service of an ejectment — Mr. Justice O'Brien'. — I did not ask the question, because I knew it. Mr. Tw.Unrj . — I know, but you elicted it, for the information of the 31 jury. It is done, gentlemen, in this way. The original document bearino-the larger stamp of two and sixpence, is drawn out by the solicitor for the° plaintiff, and with that original document there is given to the bailiff, a copy bearing a smaller stamp, of six pence, which he is to serve upon the tenant, at the same time exhibiting to that tenant, not of course giving it to him, but exhibiting it, and saying “ here- is the original process of ejectment” or “this is the original” and “that (which I leave with .you) the copy.” Well, gentlemen, upon the dead body is found the original, which the bailiff ought to have ; but, upon the dead body there is not found the copy which would be there if it had not been served upon Matthias Kerrigan. Now, gentlemen of the jury, the Crown cannot, having regard to the cause of the evidence, make the case in presence of these remarkable, facts ; they cannot make the case that, by some extraordinary accident, this copy to be served upon Matthias Kerrigan was in some way got rid of. There is no such evidence in the case ; there is no evidence that during the progress of the body down from the house of Kerrigan — mark you, where the murder was committed — to the lake, that there was the slightest rifling of the pockets of that unhappy man, or the slightest ab- stracting of the slightest documents, or of any species of property, whether money or otherwise, taken from him. They may say that may be so, but something may have occurred at the lake. Gentlemen, if anything had occurred at the lake, the motive would be equally strong, and the necessity equally strong, to have got rid of every document in the pockets of that unfortunate Huddy which would show that he was engaged in any mission of service of processes on that unfortunate morning. The motive would be the same, whoever was the murderer, to destroy the traces of any ejectment process or ejectment proceeding against him which may, if it was found in his possession, be clear and cogent evidence that he was a person who had an interest in the work of process serving, which Huddy was then carrying on. There was found, in addition to the original ejectment for service on Matthias Kerrigan — there are found also several copies for service upon other persons — the originals, mark you, of the other services — that are, for instance, upon Pat Conor (Mark), and upon another person named Thomas Hyland. These originals were found on the body, and in addition are found — and to this I ask your particular atfention when you come hereafter to consider the question, whether he had a copy also for service on the prisoner at the bar — there are found copies for service upon Pat Macken and Pat Kyne with no origi- nals whatever, showing that it was the habit of this bailiff sometimes when travelling not to furnish himself with all the necessary documents for service upon any particular person. You will, however, with regard to Patrick Kyne, remember that his evidence was, he was not served upon that morning. He lives lower down at the foot of the map, yet there is evidence that the bailiff had some intention to serve the process upon him, but came away without the original documents necessary for the perfection of the service, showing that Huddy, however excellent he may have been some- times, started without some of the documents he might have intended to serve, 'lhat may raise an important question whether he had any document or ejectment for service upon any client whatever. I need scarcely say, as 1 am reminded by my friend, Mr. Adams, he would not have brought the originals without the copies, and these you see are not the originals, but only the copies, and if you came to the conclusion that upon that morning Kerrigan was served with that ejectment, then I ask you what becomes of the case on the part of the Crown so far as it affects the credibility and the implication of this Matthias Kerrigan when he has sworn, first, that he had no connexion with this murder, and secondly, that he was not served with that ejectment. I will treat this case as one in which it is proved that he was duly served with a copy of the ejectment, and then how will the case, as you like to know, stand for Matthias Kerrigan upon the question whether he woidd have been the person likely to have committed this murder or not. Now, gentlemen, the service was plainly a good one, and the only way to get rid of the effect of that service which must have ripened into a decree for possession on the 19th of January, would be by destroying the evidence of the person who served it, and the only effective way to do that was to destroy that man himself, and, gentle- men of the jury, that was undoubtedly destroyed, and sent to his doom upon that very morning of the 3rd of January, and beyond all question without the briefest possible time. That unfortunate Huddy had reached the very spot where Matthias Kerrigan lived. Gentlemen, in addition to the ordinary motive which in this country, as I said before, has so often led to the commission of murder in reference to these land cases, there were, my lord, special circumstances in the state of this country existing, gentlemen, in the month of January, 1882, which 1 regret deeply to say would have gone strongly to strengthen, and strongly to stimidate the tendency to murder, which undoubtedly existed in somebody that morning, because, gentlemen, that was the period 35 when the tendencies of this country were, I deeply regret to say it, made familiar with doctrines and taught doctrines by those who ought to be ashamed of it, from their position, their circumstances, and their education — were taught doctrines which could have no outcome, at least which would have the very probable outcome — increasing that terrible tendency to murder in agrarian cases. There were these circumstances and doctrines which would go to strengthen and stimulate that ten- dency, and to confirm any waverer who was meditating murder. That was on the 3rd of January. The no-rent mauifesto had been issued on the previous October. The persons who taught these doctrines were then in jail — popular heroes, according to the notions of the tenantry of Ireland, and the tenantry of Ireland were standing by them, and glorying in the doctrines they taught, and their doctrines were doctrines that would be very grateful to the heart of Matthias Kerrigan, “ Pay no rent, although you owe 3.V years rent ; keep a firm grip of the land.” Under these circumstances, on the 3rd of January, 1882, and under the influence of such teaching and doctrines, that the service was made upon Matthias Kerrigan, and now, with reference to these doctrines and with reference to this teaching and with reference to that period, what have you established now in the case by a question that I put yesterday that was thought imprudent ? What have you established now with regard to the same Matthias Kerrigan ? That he was a person ardently attached to that very movement, ardently attached to it in its most extreme and criminal form, because you have heard that same Matthias Kerrigan made the object of the bounty, and the consideration, and the approval of that very same organization which is led, I deeply regret to say it, after it passed from legitimate bounds — the League has led to the commission of so much crime in this country. The clothes he got were not got from the Government, they were not got from the police, the sustenance that Matthias Kerrigan got was not got from the govern- ment, it was got from the Land League, and undoubtedly that same Land League, I say it boldly here to-day, is responsible for three-fourths of the crime which has been committed within the last two or three years in this country. Well, gentlemen, so far so good. Is there not in ihe circumstances connected with this murder the plainest proof. I won’t labour the point of the service of this ejectment, but are there not in the circumstances connected with the place, and the manner of the commission of this murder, indications that go almost conclusively to establish that the murder was committed by Matthias Kerrigan, or by some person under his control, in his house, on that unfortunate morning. I have shown you he had a motive, the strongest that could exist in the mind of a tenant for that murder. To him the destruction of that evidence meant possession for another three months, at least, of hisfarm, and God knows what might turn up in the meantime. His dispossession from that farm within a fortnight or three weeks meant the destruction of every hope he had in the world. I asked him what his means were, whether they were not totally and completely confined to the possession of this poor, wretched little tract of land. I was led to ask that question when I saw the apparent affluence of dress in which he appeared before you, and I elicited this important information, that the whole of his property, and of the fortune he possessed in the world consisted of that little tract of land, there- fore if he was dispossessed on the 19th January, there was nothing for him but this — you shall go to the workhouse, or you shall take the lower status in life of a common farm labourer, if he caul 1 get employment as such. What was the result on the other hand if he evaded the service of that ejectment 1 There could be no decree — another three or four months would elapse during which he would be legally in possession, and then, after that period, there might come the realization of the hopes with which the minds of the tenantry of Ireland have been filled to exaggeration. But, gentlemen, were there not in the circumstances of the murder itself, apart from proof of motive in this same Matthias Kerrigan — were there not in the actual circumstances of the murder itself indications of the strongest kind to justify one in imagining that it may fairly be left at his door, and at no one else’s. Where gentlemen is that murder committed 1 It is committed close to the barn of Mr. Matthias Kerrigan. Remember that always — that the murder took place down there at the house of Matthias Kerrigan himself. If Huddy was to be murdered on that morning, by Matthias Kerrigan, what fitter or more convenient place for the deed to be done, than at the house, or the spot where he had just succeeded in effecting service of the ejectment. Gentlemen, you can not put aside the considera- tions of the operations of human nature, in a case like this. The man is served beyond all question, he knows then his doom is sealed, and under that influence, and under the other considerations to which I have referred, it was scarcely in human nature, that he should have calmly stood by, that his blood should not have risen, and that when it did rise, it should not have risen to that point that would culminate in the murder of that man. If, gentlemen, as the Crown says, this murder 36 was not committed by Matthias Kerrigan but was committed by the prisoner at tliebar, he not having been proved to have been served with any ejectment, is it at the house of 'Matthias Kerrigan — who, upon the theory of the Crown, is a truth-telling, independent witness — that the prisoner at the bar would have murdered poor Huddy, where he would have been certainly detected by the person the Crown now presents as the person who had no sympathy with the crime, and didnotcommitit. Is it at the house of Matthias Kerrigan he would have committed that murder, or rather at his own house, where there would be some hope of escape, and an absence of evidence against him, and where he would be able to dispose of the body in the many ways that we know they are disposed of when murders are committed. You cannot credit the prisoner at the bar with the possession of the greatest insanity that could afflict any man — namely, the insanity of not seeing in the clearest manner the consequences which the commission of a murder at the house of a perfectly unsympathetic person would create for him. If the prisoner wanted to murder poor Huddy, the only reason- able view to take of the case is that the murder would have taken place at the prisoner’s house, and not at the place where he was certain of detection, and in the presence of a person whom the Crown tell you now, because they would present him as a frank and as a truth telling witness, who would be certain to place the prisoner at the bar in very great danger. Well, gentlemen, in addition to the murder being committed at Matthias Kerrigan’s house, what else have you ? Why, gentlemen, that the very sack — now bear with me in this — the very sack used for the disposal of that body, is the sack of Matthias Kerrigan. And I think you can have little doubt also that the cleave upon which the body of the larger man was taken down to the lake is also the cleave of Matthias Kerrigan. Because why? He would not frankly admit it was his cleave ; but he was obliged to admit iu cross-examination that he thad two cleaves, and it is immaterial to me in which of them the body of larger man was carried down to the lake. Now, gentlemen, there was a circumstance proved with regard to that sack — not the sack of the prisoner at the bar, but the sack of Matthias Kerrigan. It came out just in the way that important evidence some- times comes out — without being asked, a witness under examination saying it — he being ignorant of the force or weight of it. It was proved that the sack was brought out from the house of Matthias Kerrigan, not as you would expect by Kerrigan, who was under the operation of fear and would have done anything he was asked, but it was brought out of the house, according to his story, by the prisoner at the bar himself, who went into the house unaccompanied — that is the point of the argument, and 1 wish to call your attention to it — by the prisoner at the bar, and in some miraculous fashion was able at once to go to the very spot, and that was up in the loft, to the very spot where the sack was to be found that was to be used in the disposal of the body. Gentlemen, do you believe that ? Do you believe that that sack, which was used for the disposal of that body — was brought out of that house by the prisoner at the bar, unaccompanied by Matthias Ker- rigan ? Because that is the case that the Crown have made. Do you believe that that sack could be brought under circumstances, as that after two seconds, without the assistance of Matthias Kerrigan himself, and he did not give it — that it could be brought, the property of Mat- thias Kerrigan, for the disposal of the body of poor Huddy the bailiff? That, gentlemen, seems to me to be a circumstance of enormous strength and of enormous importance in this case. Now, mark you, too, with regard to it, that in the whole of the evidence of Matthias Kerrigan he gives you no definite information or definite statement that upon that morning anything was really done to him, whatever may have been done to his sons, which would have prevented his perfect freedom of action, either by running away from that place or remonstrating against the commission of the murder, or, at all events, from doing something to indicate that he had no sympathy with it. What took place, by his own evidence, appears to be that not one word of remonstrance is ad- dressed by him, this innocent, truth-telling witness for the Crown — not a single word of remonstrance, no crv for mercy, no single cry for mercy, no cry for help is uttered by that same Matthias Kerrigan to interpose between these unfortunate men and the foul deed that was being perpetrated upon them in his own presence. Gentlemen, again I say I appeal to human nature, and I say, my lord, that no instinct of self-preservation, no sense of prudence or caution could explain such conduct as that; because even' the most cautious and most prudent of us, when we are in a position of danger, and when our deepest sympathies are appealed to, we disregard such considerations, and the most prudent, and most cautious, and most callous, give way to the natural feeling. It is not in human nature to refrain from crying out for mercy, or for help, from doing something or other by way of remon- strance in the hope of preventing the awful crime from being com- 37 mitted. The case of Matthias Kerrigan, as proved by the Crown, is that he made no cry for mercy, that he protested against nothing, that he stood there stolidly — I was almost going to say without the semblance of a human being — looking on at that transaction, while these men were being sent to their doom. But, gentlemen, is that the conduct of an innocent man ; is that the conduct of a man who had no sympathy with this crime, and who took no part in it? I submit to you, gentlemen, that it is utterly inconceivable, and from that part of the case I now pass away with just this observation, that when this same innocent Matthias Kerrigan comes to give an account of why he was committed to prison, he tells ycu, gentlemen, in describing that, that he could only account for it upon the ground that “the job was done at his own house.” The job was done at his own house. Gentlemen, that is nice language to be used by a man who had a horror of the crime — a nice way of describing the murder. The job was done at his own house, and that is the only reason he was com- mitted to prison. 1 think that one word used by that man lets in a flood of light upon this case, and tells you the sort of character he is ; and certainly, gentlemen, that is the sort of language in which people in this country engaged in crime are in the habit of describing these deeds when they are accomplished — by saying that the job is done. Well, gentlemen, what is there further in this case ? This man is arrested on the 3rd of January. The police with unerring instinct at once marked him as the man who committed the murder, and on the night of the 3rd January, he was arrested, not however, without having had the opportunity for several hours of communicating with his own family. On the 3rd January he is arrested and brought up to petty sessions. There could then be no evidence against him. T cannot blame the unfortunate prisoner at the bar that he did not come forward against him, under the terrible terror which was existing at that time in they country, when if they had done so at that period, God knows where they might have been the next night. But, gentlemen, he is in jail, this innocent man, for nine months. During the whole of those nine months he is in jail, not the slightest communication is made by him, not ascintilla of assistance is given by him, although he has it in his breast, and he being a safe man lodged in that jail, and you may be sure his family under the most ample Government protection — during the whole of that nine months he never communicates one solitary bit of that information, never until the time I now come to mention to you. And that time, gentlemen, shows that that information was given under such circumstances as deprives it of the slightest value whatever, and really makes it information given for the purpose of taking the rope from about his own neck and putting it on the neck of an innocent man. You heard it sworn yesterday that he was not — we have the date now on which he was finally discharged from Galway jail — you had important evidence given yesterday that he was not discharged from Galway jail — that is, was not finally discharged from Galway jail — until three weeks after all the other persons who were accused of this crime, in- cluding my client, had been discharged. So you see that his position was this. And first, being discharged on the 28th February, so far as Petty Ses- sions was concerned, there being no evidence against him, lie was again arrested on a warrant which Mr. Mason, the governor of the jail, says he has no doubt, charged him with being reasonably suspected of mur- der. He remains in the jail until the time I have mentioned. There his position is this. The fact that he was kept in, and was so kept in after all the other prisoners were discharged, should be borne in mind. And notwithstanding all their secrecy in jails, and all the precautions they take with reference to the communication of one prisoner with another, or of the prisoners inside the jail with people outside — notwithstanding these, facts of this kind do get out, and possibly would be communicated by the prison officials themselves. Well, the other prisoners are discharged, but the Crown kept him there — the solitary person detained in custody upon the charge of the muider of the Huddys. The other persons who were supposed to be implicated are discharged. They are at large. The circumstances of the country are then completely changed, because we are then, mark you, in the month of September, 1882, when, beyond all question, the country was to some extent relieved from the frightful tyranny which had prevailed in the country before. The Solicitor-General . — Perhaps it is right that 1 should mention the dates which are alluded to. This man was re-arrested on the 1 1th, and discharged on the 25th September. If there is anything material in the dates, as affecting the prisoner, it would l>e in his favour, and it is as well they should be known correctly, lie wiis dis- charged as a suspect on the 1 1th, and was re-arrested on the 1 1th. 1 beg my learned friend's pardon for interrupting him. Mr. Teeliruj . — 1 am very much obliged to the Solicitor-General for the interruption, because, as lie says very properly, it is a circumstance which if it tells any way — and I think it does— tells in favour of the ’ ' G 38 prisoner. He was discharged at all events, as we see from the state- ment of the Solicitor-General, on the 11th September. Mr. Justice O’Brien. — He was discharged in October. Mr. Teeling. — In September. The Solicitor -General. — -He was discharged on the lltli, and re- arrested on the same day, and was discharged on the 25th. Mr. Teeling. — You see the meaning of that. If I don’t mistake that was the date of the expiration of the then existing Coercion Act. The Solicitor-General. — No. Mr. Teeling. — Well, about that time. He is then set at large for some time, and that is the way which, as the Solicitor-General says, it tells in favour of the prisoner. He is re-arrested upon this very same charge, and between the 11th and 25th September there was the most abundant opportunity for the communication with his family, which would have enabled him and them to tell and concoct the story which they have concocted and told here to-day. There was the most abundant opportunity. I was slightly A Juror (Mr. Kussell). — It is important that we should have these dates accurately. The Solicitor-Genera 1 . — You are quite right. Mr. Teeling. — He was discharged — if I am wrong, the Solicitor- General will correct me. He \yas discharged on the 11th September. Mr. Justice O’Brien. — And re-arrested on the same day. Mr. Teeling. — Yes. Mr. Justice O’Brien. — And he was finally discharged on the 25th. Mr. Teeling. — Yes ; we do. not know how long it was after his discharge on the lltli September that he was re-arrested upon the same day. We have no information upon it; you have no informa- tion upon it ; that is all I’ll say. What may have occurred upon that occasion we have no information about whatever. I am at liberty to suggest to you that he had, even in the interval between his discharge on the 11th September, and his re-arrest on the same day, in the absence of any proof to the contrary, that lie had an opportunity of communicating with his family, and so fabricating and concocting this story vfith the members of his family. I am at liberty to suggest, that even upon that day lie had this opportunity ; but I need not rely upon it, for there is time enough afterwards. But we have this ; that on the 25th September he is finally discharged — that, gentlemen, upon that day he is finally discharged, and these proceedings before the magistrates, which resulted in the sending forward for trial upon his evidence and the evidence of the other persons. That took place on the 14th October. There was then an interval which gave the opportunity I have referred to. I am not driven to rely upon the other one, because you will probably be of opinion — and there is no use in my suggesting to gentlemen of your positions views that are hot reasonable — you will probably be of opinion that the interval I have mentioned was just a technical differ- ence of time — that is, that at the moment he walked out of gaol a friendly constable walked up to him, put his hand upon his shoulder, and brought him back again. But we have this : that, on the 25th September, he is finally discharged, and we have then, before the matter comes before the magistrates for judicial termination as to who is to be brought for trial, an interval up to the 25th October when the proceedings terminated, and my client was com- mitted upon his evidence. Now, gentlemen, that is the way that the case stands as regards his communication of the secret, and I say, that that communication, having regard to the discharge of all the other men, mark you, before the 11th September, is given under circumstances which deprive it of any value whatever as a story upon which a jury should act for the purpose of sending a man to the gallows, because it is given at a time when he is worked out by the definite action of the Grown, as the person whom they have made up their minds finally to go against — that final determination being indicated by their action in the discharge of all the other men, and his detention in their place. Now, gentlemen of the jury, remember that a few months ago, as I said, some little freedom was given to the country that at that time people were looking abroad without fear and without dread of terrorism of any organization. whatever, I care not by what name it is called. The position of Matthias Kerrigan then was this — that being finally set aside by the Crown as the person against whom they would proceed , and knowing that the fear and terror which had been over witnesses was wiriidrawn— because it is the experience of all of us that that time waPcontemp'oraneous with the progress of a better state of things, in the country -^knowing this, Isay he made up his mind. Now T see how it is. The Higgins are free men. The Land League is suppressed. ThehJ is no society which could throw its glatuour of protection around them. They will tell the story, knowing it as they did, residing as they did, nextdoor to where the murder was committed. Now is the time if at all,” and then he is out with his story. Isay 39 that tli at story, a communication given under such circumstances as these — and these are the circumstances — ought to deprive it, in the minds of an impartial jury, of any credence whatever. Why ? Be- cause it is an interested statement, made at a time when he is in their power — made at a time when he is marked out for punishment by the Crown — made at a time when, if he does not make it, his doom is sealed ; and when, if he made it, he would be made a free man. He gave it then, and under circumstances which mark it to be, as I denounce it in this case to be, the common information of merely a common in- former, to save himself from the gallows, and to put another person there instead. These are the circumstances under which he gives that information ; and I say that information, which merely amounts to the information of a common informer, who has complicity in the crime himself, and who comes forward for the purpose of getting a pardon from the Crown, is such evidence as you cannot act upon. I do not, gentlemen, blame the Crown here, in that state of facts, for putting this man upon his trial. Their position was this. They had no communication from Higgins at that time, but they had a communi- cation made from the man who up to that time had been in jail, and having received no communication from the Higgins, and having received this definite account of the transaction from Matthias Kerrigan, they were bound to take that as evidence, and put it in process of legal enquiry, to submit it to the jury, and say to the jury, “there it is for you ; it is a case for investigation ; it is a case of suspicion ; we are bound, in the interests of the public, with "Such evidence given by Matthias Kerrigan, no evidence yet given by the Higgins”- — although the prisoner only anticipated them by a very short time — “ the Crown are bound in the interests of justice to put the man upon his trial. But this is a very different affair, and it is for you to say in this case whether, with that information given by Kerrigan, these men should be allowed to go scot free until the case is sifted in court.” I beg leave to say, gentlemen, that that is really the position of the Crown in this case, and that being so I have no quarrell with them upon it. Now, gentlemen, I have exhausted what I have to say to you as going to show that Matthias Kerrigan was implicated in this transaction, and I think I have established that he had first of all a criminal complicity in this case, and that he has in reference to the same matter committed wilful deliberate perjury, by saying that he had nothing to say to the transaction. But it is also established through a question put by one of yourselves gentlemen, that, secondly, in addition to this perjury he has been guilty of the additional perjury, by saying that, he was not served with the ejectment, while in fact he was served with it upon that occasion by poor Huddy. 1 say that in point of law, as his lordship will say to you when he comes to charge you, that if you believe that state of things, or if vou are in doubt as to whether that is not the true state of things, you are not at liberty to act upon the evidence of this Matthias Kerrigan unless it is abundantly corroborated in the- material matters as far as they go to touch the prisoner at the bar. That is binding ‘on you. You are only trying the prisoner at the bar, and unless there is that corroboration you cannot act upon his evidence. I say that I have established a state of things which if it does not satisfy you that this witness is a man who cannot be relied upon, at all events does establish that the case is in such a position of doubt as that no reasonable jury unaffected by panic would act upon it. And, now, gentlemen, I am happy to say that I am approaching a portion of this case which will require very few remarks from me, and that is the question of how far there has been any corroboration given in this case, to the story told by Matthias Kerrigan, so far as it goes, to implicate the prisoner at the bar, and the Kerrigans of course generally. Now, gentlemen, the other evidence given to you in the case, touching the prisoner at the bar, is the evidence of the Kerrigan family, and two other witnesses were relied upon by the Crown, namely Mannions, and the two Hallorans. These witnesses exhausted all the witnesses for the Crown, so far as the immediate subject of inquiry is concerned — al? to who committed thuHnurder. They have rightly produced all the other witnesses in the case who would lead you through all the preliminary circumstances of the transaction, but you may put that evidence out of consideration altogether, because it gives you no assistance whatever, and the matter you have to consider is the evidence of the Kerrigans — the mother and the two sons, the evidence of Mann ion, and the evidence of the two Hallorans. With regard to the evidence of Mrs. Kerrigan, I think I may say that you cannot rely upon it at all. It is the evidence given by a wife to save the life of her hus- }, an ,l .that is really what it comes to. Because it iJlibsurd to say that Matthias Kerrigon was to give information* upon any theory like this, that he would be in a position to point out who the actual murderer was, ancl so to assist in the administration of justice. Well, gentle- men, the wife gives such corroboration to his story as you have heard, but it is the evidence of his wife, and certainly if Providence ever looks with mitigating eye upon the commission of perjury, ✓ (J 1 40 great as that crime is, one would say it would be in the case where a wife has committed it to save the life of her husband, and that is the position which Mrs. Kerrigan occupies in this case. The same obser- vations apply, I do not think with less force, to the evidence given by the one boy of fair age, and by the other boy. The evidence that they are giving is evidence that is really not so much intended upon their part to put a halter around the neck of the prisoner, as to save their father from the same fate. The evidence given by people in that position and under such tremendous temptations to truth telling, I respectfully submit to you that, although possibly legal evidence as far as the two boys are concerned, is hardly the evidence upon which you can act, when you come to determine the fate of the prisoner at the bar. Now, I submit to your lordship, as a matter of law, that if the true view of this case is that Matthias Kerrigan is really an approver — that is to say, gentlemen, a person who was implicated in this offence himself, and has come forward to give this evidence against other persons for the purpose of removing that charge from him — if that is the case, then the evidence of his wife in point of law is no corroboration whatever. Mr. Justice O’Brien. — I assent to that proposition. Mr. Teeling . — It is a judgment in the case of the Queen v. Neale in 7 Carrington and Payne — a judgment of Mr. Baron Parke. So I have the opinion of his lordship, gentlemen, that if the position of Kerrigan is really that of an approver or person who had a criminal connexion with the murder himself, that the evidence of his wife must be wiped out of the case altogether, reducing the legal evidence of cor- roboration to that of the two little boys, given under the circumstances, under the terrible temptation that I have described to you, a tempta- tion that it would scarcely be, even in the most angelic or perfect form of human nature possible to resist — given then under the influence of these coercive circumstances to save the life of perhaps a loved and honoured father ; it was evidence that could not be relied upon. Mr. Justice O’Brien. — D o not understand me as saying that that cannot be evidence in corroboration. Mr. Teeling — But it is perfectly plain that though technically that may be so, yet the value of it, gentlemen, is reduced to a minimum, and evidence which is reduced in value to a minimum should never be evi- dence upon which a jury should send a prisoner to a gallows. I can put the proposition in that way. We now pass from the evidence of the two littl/ boys, but before doing so it is only right that I should call your attention to the evidence of one of them. I do not propose to do it in detail, because it will be done by my friend, Mr. Adams, who cross-examined the witness. But you cannot forget the remarkable discrepancy that existed between the story as told in his deposition and the story as deposed to yesterday upon the table. These differences were so marked that we thought it our duty, at the close of his examin- ation, to read- the whole of that deposition to you, and I think you appreciated these discrepancies, and that they are not m er verbal criticisms which you will see resorted to by counsel in desperate cases — it was not a case as to whether an “ i” was dotted or a “ t” crossed. That is not the kind of discrepancy which existed in the evidence given on the table and the evidence given when he had not so much opportunity of considering the whole of his story as he has had in the long interval between the month of October and yesterday. These discrepancies are clear enough and alarming enough to put his evidence out of the case, and then the only legal corroboration would be the corroboration of the other boy, whose evidence I dealt with, and who, if he is telling the truth, equally with his father showed a callousness, and want of consideration, and want of humanity such as, I think, has rarely been equalled, because, with full opportunities of makiug a noise, with full opportunities of calling attention to what was being done, he seems practically to have played his part without protest, practically to have done it without giving the slightest alarm to a human being who might have interrupted that frightful transaction. Weil, gentlemen, if the evidence of the Kerrigans is out of the case as corroboration, how then does it stand 1 The only evidence that 1 then have to deal with, and to push aside from your consideration, and part of it I’il ask you to make evidence in my favour, is the evidence of the two Mannions and the evidence of the Hallorans. Well, I do not know whether, as these two Mannions gave their evidence, you took it down. It would be very difficult to do it. I have to tell you, and about this there is no dispute, that in the evidence of these Mannions — bear this in mind, for it is the vital part of the case — that in all the evidence of these men from the commencement to the close, there is no mention of the name of the prisoner at the bar as being present at any portion of the transaction. If necessary, now, I’ll read to you the depositions of these two Mannions to put that matter beyond dispute, but if I was wrong I would be immediately stopped by the watchful counsel for the Crown, and immediately interrupted by his lordship. 1 am 41 interrupted by neither, and you will take it from me as established in this case, that from the commencement to the close of the evidence of the Mannions, they do not once say that Patrick Higgins, the pri- soner at the bar, was present at any portion of the transaction that day. His name, gentlemen, does not merely not appear on the evidence that they gave upon the table there, but his name does not appear in one single line of the depositions which I have upon that table before me, nor is there one single word said about the prisoner at the bar. Well, gentlemen, if the Mannions and the Kerrigans are out of the case as corroboration of what I call the story of the common approver, then where is the remaining shred of corroboration and confirmation uj on which the Crown are to rely for a verdict in the case ? Gentle- men, the only remaining evidence of any of the persons who were witnesses of any portion of the transaction which occurred upon that day, are the two Hallorans, presented to you by the Crown, not cross- examined, not application made to his lordship, as was made in the case of Mary Moran, to treat them as hostile witnesses and to cross-examine them. The only other evidence of eye-witnesses is that of the Hallo- rans, truth-telling witnesses according to the Crown. What is their evidence! There is not from the beginning to the close of it one single word which goes to show that they saw upon that day Patrick Higgins do one single act which w T as of a criminal nature. Their evidence is this. That having heard, as I understand it, shots fired in that direction — there being a little hillock between them — they went to the garden wall, the father and son — that they took one rapid glance in the direction of the place where the shots were fired — that they saw undoubtedly, as undoubtedly there was men at Kerrigan’s place, but that Patrick Higgins, whom they identified, was not down at the house of the Kerrigan’s, but was just here, about a yard or so from his own door, at the end, doing nothing but looking out. “ Con- venient to his house,” said both the witnesses in their own language — “ Convenient to his own house, and doing nothing at all.” That is the evidence of the Hallorans, fixing the locality of Patrick Higgins at that spot, and fixing also, which shows they are not inventing the story, other persons whom I ask you to say were the Kerrigans, at the place where the murder was committed, just close to the Kerrigans’ house. Is that corroboration ? Are you, upon the statement that when the shots were fired they looked across the wall, and saw the prisoner standing at his own door, at the place where he had the best right to be — are you to receive that as < \ idence of corroboration that he was at that moment in concert, or [in sympathy, or in complicity in any way wit lithe murderous transaction which was taking place at the house of another man. Gentlemen, it would be awful if the panic yvhicli is sur- rounding us — for that panic there is in this city at the present moment, no one can do\ibt, I feel it, I do not know if you are strong enough not to feel it — it would be awful if that panic should reach such a point, that there being no other reliable evidence in the case but the statement of a man that he saw the prisoner at his own house, doing nothing — if under the influence of panic that was to be taken as proving positively that he was then engaged in a murderous transac- tion ; and, gentlemen, I cannot believe, great as is the panic, that it has yet reached that point. Unless, gentlemen, it has reached that point, no jury could be found, I don’t care of what constitution, of one side or another, which could be induced upon such evidence as that to send a man to the gallows. But now, gentlemen, I approach the short statement of my own case, and I am glad to tell you that it will be a very short one. Well, gentlemen, my case is this : It is true, as sworn by the Hallorans, that at the time they leaned over the garden gate, the prisoner was, as they described it, shortly a little removed from his own house, or looking down the boreen. Well, gentlemen, lie yvas looking down the boreen under circumstances that I will describe to you ; but give me just one second before I do so, lest I should forget it ; during the progress of the case, and I have now nearly concluded the observations that I have thought fit to address to you. 1 want to draw voub attention to a point that was made by the Grown counsel yester- day when they tried, having presented Halloran a truth-telling witness, to treat him as a hostile witness, by applying to his lordship for the necessary and usual liberty to cross-examine him, which of course, they were entitled to do, even if we had striven not to permit such cross-examination. They thought they had made a great point, because they suggested that in his deposition, when he came to describe the position of the prisoner at the liar, he said that instead of standing immediately outside his own door, he was a little removed from it. He had seen him, as he thought, on the boreefi between his own house and the house of the Kerrigans, and the Grown sought, and I suppose Mr. Murphy will labour the same point in replying — the Crown sought to fix upon that little word — that he saw him on the boreen, between his own house and Kerrigan’s “ between” his own house and Kerrigan’s- -they sought to fix upon the interpretation of that word, that he saw him between those two houses on the boreen and at a considerable distance from his own house ; the man not having said that, and the word “between” as given in his deposition equally- applying to any distance from his own house ; because that distance from his own house would be accurately and truly described by the word “between” the house of Kerrigan and his own house. I will now tell you what my case is. The Hallorans have told you that the prisoner was standing at his own door, and I will state to you now the circumstances under which he was standing. At that portion of the morning he had been out in his own barn, threshing oats. There were present in the house at that time, his wife — the family consisted of six members. Two of those were in America — about this there is no question or doubt, and two were residing in England. He had one little son living at home. That little son, will be proved to you — and it won’t be contradicted by any evidence on the part of the Crown, because it is literally a fact — had been, and as a matter of fact he was, absent on that day. Now, whether he was present or absent does not really make any substantial difference, except that he was, as I am instructed, absent on that day, as will be proved by his sister, at Maam on the other side of the lough. Whether he was away or in his own place is not of much consequence, but he was absent on that day, and the only other inmates of that house were his wife, who, according to the laws of our land — and I wish they were altered — cannot be produced before you— cannot be, no matter how much we presented her, she could not be examined, she not being a competent witness — she cannot be produced, although I would gladly produce her if the law permitted — she cannot be produced, and the inmates of that house on that morning were her little daughter, Kate Higgins, and another girl named Mary Conroy, who had gone there to assist Mrs. Higgins in carding wool, but the wool not being ready, she assisted in threshing the oats. And those two girls while out in the garden, having each taken up a little load of oats for the purpose of threshing, their attention was called by hearing the firing of shots. They ran out. They saw what had happened on the boreen. They saw there were two dead persons there. They actually saw one of these Kerrigans — as he has deposed to it himself here — putting a body in a sack. They walked back to the house, and they there told what they had seen. I can- not tell you what they told, but they told the prisoner at the bar what had happened. He rushed out — just what any man under the circumstances would do — he rushed out — -what, as 1 say, anyone would have done on being told that a murder had been committed in that place — that there were then two dead bodies lying on the road— he rushed out, and saw the appalling sight before him, and he did that which some of you may understand — and I do not see why he should not have done it, seeing that horrible scene, and knowing nothing of the men’s murders, and being appalled, he did that which is often done under solemn cir- cumstances — he crossed himself — he blessed himself — he invoked the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost — he rushed back to the house in terror, and remained there. The terrible corteje then passed on — the funeral passed by the two houses — -his and the Kerrigans’ — the body being carried, be it never forgotten — upon the back of one of the young Kerrigans — the strapping fellow who has been produced before you. He saw that terrible transaction, and rushed back revolting from it. You cannot blame him that he didn’t go out; you cannot blame him if, in the presence of that awful scene — having no one to assist him - no one at home but his wife and two little girls, and such assistance as lie might have derived from his son if he had been present — he rushed back until that ghastly funeral went on. He had no more to do with it, I tell you upon my instructions — no more to do with that transaction than what I have just shortly indicated to you. Well, gentlemen, if that case be proved, I apprehend that you will have a simple duty, and that is, in acquitting the prisoner at the bar. I have concluded the observations which I intended to make to you. J am sure I have passed over some matters that I should have brought under your notice. I rely upon mv learned friend to supplement those observations of mine. I rely on the conscientious supplement that you will give to them, if it be possible, in favour of the prisoner. I have discharged my duty now to him. I have respect- fully to submit to you that he is entitled to a verdict of acquittal. He is entitled, I say, to a verdict of acquittal on the case as presented by the Crown itself without the production of a single witness upon his part ; he is entitled to it impartially. 1 f he is not entitled to it upon that point he is entitled to it upon this — that the farthest point to which the Crown can press their case is that the whole of this matter is shrouded in doubt, and gloom, and difficulty. But if that is the onlv point, if that is the only extent to which the Crown can push their case, then, gentlemen, by that merciful principle of our law with which we are all familiar — that of the benefit of the doubt, where it is a rational one and a manly one I ask for no other — even in the prevalence of this panic ; and he is entitled upon that second ground to vour a •quittal the Solicitor-General asked 43 you to give this ease a careful, a patient, and at least so far as the the prisoner was concerned a merciful interpretation. I fully recognise and appreciate the generous impulse which led the Solicitor-General to make that observation. But I must say I, standing as the advocate of the prisoner at the bar, ask for no mercy. I ask for no mercy for him if he be guilty of this offence — for if ever an offence deserved the fate of the gallows, undoubtedly then this offence, by whomso- ever committed, deserves that fate. I ask for no mercy ; I simply ask for justice — that is, gentlemen, to be tried by the calm, unruffled, law of the land, not by the law of panic, and with your verdict so given my learned friend and I will be content. Kate Iligyitis — an Irisli-speaking witness — sworn, and examined through the Interpreter by Mr. Adams. Ask her is she the daughter of the prisoner, Patrick Higgins ? — She is. Is her mother alive ? — She is. Does she reside with the prisoner ? — Yes. Did she live with the prisoner at this place at Cloughbrack, in Janu- ary last? — She was. In January last ? — Yes. Ask her how many brothers and sisters she has ? — Two in England, two sisters in America, and one brother and herself at home. Does she remember a morning last January when she heard shots? — She does not, but she knows the day. Ask her where her brother was that day? — He was in Glentreague with goats. Ask her does she remember that day — ask her was there anyone else in the house that day but her father, her brother, and herself and another girl ? — There was not. Who was the other girl, ask her? — Mary Conroy. Ask her does she remember hearing shots on the morning of that day ? — Yes. A sk her where she was when she heard the shots ? — She was coming down the garden with an armful of oats. Ask her where her father was when she heard the shots ? — Within the barn, threshing oats. Ask her what she did when she heard the shots? — She was coming down the garden when she heard shots. She didn’t do anything until she brought in the corn. Ask her what she did then — did she run out? — She put in the oats within the barn, and she and the other little girl ran out on the road. Ask her what she saw when she ran out on the road? — She saw two men in Kerrigan’s “ street,” or yard, killed. Ask her, did she see Kerrigan there? — She did, she saw himself, and his wife, and his family. Ask her, were himself, and his wife, and his family out on the road ? — They were. Ask her, where her father was all that time ? — In the bam, threshing oats. Ask her, did she go back to the barn? — She did, and she told her father of it. and her father went out on the road and blessed himself. Ask her, when her father blessed himself, did they go back? — They did. Ask her, did she see her father do anything to those two men that were lying on the road ? — She did not. Cross-examined by the Solicitor-General, m.i\ Where is her father’s barn? — At the mouth of the door. Is it under the same roof as the house? — You could throw a potatoe from the barn into the house. There is about two lengths of a “ loy,” or spade handle from the bam to the house. Ask her is it facing the house ? — It is. How long had she been with her father that morning before she heard the shots? — She says she was drawing com until it was dark. Had she been drawing corn with him all the morning from the time she got up ? — She was. And her father was with her the whole time? — Yes. Her father was with her the whole day? — Yes. Was her mother about the house that morning? — Yes ; she was tying corn from him. Did she see Joe Huddy that morning, or John ? SI e did not. Did they not come to the house that morning to serve anything?— They did not. And what was the first thing that drew her attention ? —She was drawing oats to the father, and the father was threshing. Where was she standing when she heard the shots?. — She was going O O O down with a load of oats. 44 Where was she going down to ? — Down the garden. Was there a stack down there ? — There was. And after she heaixl the shots what did she do first ? — She went and brought in the load of oats and threw it into the barn. Then what did she do ? — She went out then on the road by herself and the other little girl. What was the name of the other girl ? — Mary Conroy. How far did she go on the boreen ? — She went across until she saw the two men dead on Kerrigan’s street. Were they on the boreen ? — On the street. Was it on the street or boreen ? — She said on the street, sir. I know that, but I want you to ask her was it on the street or on the boreen ? — On the street she says distinctly, when they were murdered. Ask her how she could see them if they were on the street? — There were geese annoying them, picking oats, and she went across with them, and she saw them then. Was she standing on the boreen herself when she saw the Huddys — the men? — She was going along near to the house when Kerrigan told her to make off or that he would do the very same thing to herself. Who told her that? — Matthias Kerrigan. Where was she when he told her that ? — She was going over with the geese. She had no other way to go except she Hew in the air. Then she was going with geese — and she was going with geese at the time that Kerrigan spoke to her ? — So she says. Where was she going with the geese ? — Driving them over, out of the way of the oats. Where was she driving them to ?— Driving them over the road — driving them over the boreen. And how far was she from her own house at the time that Kerrigan spoke to her ? — By his own house. At Kerrigans’ house ? — Yes. And then she walked with the geese up to Kerrigan’s house ? — She did. And then she ran oft with her life, and she saw enough. Did she go up with the geese when she heard the shots?— -When she was going down she heard the shots. Although she heard shots she didn’t return back, until she brought her load of oats. Mr. Justice O’Brien. — W hen she was going down with the geese she says she heard the shots ? The Interpreter — No, my lord, she says not, but going back from the garden she heard the shots. The Solicitor-General . — She was on the boreen at that time ? — She was not ; she first went down with the oats, brought them back, and then herself and the other little girl went down the road, until she saw what she states. Were there any geese on the road at all when she went down to Kerrigan’s house? Is it not in that direction that the geese and cattle of the village go down to the hill. Was she driving geese down or was she not when she heard the shots? — She was not, but they were killed when sbe went down to the geese. Then she left the geese and went on to Kerrigan’s? — Yes, and ran away home, and says she saw Kerrigan and his son putting a man down into a bag. She saw them putting a man into a bag — was that before or after they told her to go away, or that he would serve her the same way ? — That is the time. Was there anybody else besides Kerrigan there ? — She saw no one but the Kerrigans. How many of the Kerrigans? — She saw himself and his wife, his two sons, and his daughter. The little boy, too — was the little boy there ? — Yes, he was. And Kerrigan’s daughter? — Yes, and his daughter. What is the daughter’s name? — Mary. Did she go back to her own house then ? — She did. Where was her father? — In the barn, threshing oats. Was it after that he went out and blessed himself? — He blessed him- self then, out on the boreen. After she came back from the Kerrigans ? — Yes. She has given a repetition of everything she said before — that it was after she saw the dead men that she went back and told her father, and it was then that he went out and blessed himself. Ask her was there any reason why he did not bless himself in the barn ? — He went out on the boreen, and when he saw the thing it was, then he blessed himself, and he gave orders to the rest of them to go into the house. Saw what thing ? — He saw Matthias’s family gathered there. Gathered where ? — All by the boreen at his own house. 45 Was that what made him bless himself when he saw the Kerrigans ? — When he saw the men murdered. Was the man in the sack at that time ? — He was not. Didn’t she see the man put into the sack by Kerrigans before he went back to the house ? — He saw it as he was done his business, and no other one went near. Ask her does she still swear that when she was up at Kerrigan’s street, she saw Kerrigan put the man into the bag ? — She will, and she swears the truth. Then she went back and told her father ? — She did. And then her father went out on the boreen ? — He did. And did he see the men then when he went out — the two bodies ? — He did. Although one of them was in the sack ? — The two men were on the ground when he saw them, but she saw one of them put into the bag. ^ Where were they on the ground when she saw them ? — On the street. Then does she swear that her father saw them on the street ? — She does. Then how could he see them on the street if he was not up at Ker- rigan’s ? — When you would stand at the back of her house you could see the street of Kerrigan’s and who were in it. At the back of the house ? — That’s what she says, sir. Did she swear this minute that her father was on the boreen ? — And that is what she says now. And that from the boreen does she swear that her father could see the men on Kerrigan’s street ? — She does. Ask her would not he have to look through the house to see that ? — He could not, he had no cause to do it. Does she know a man called Michael Flynn? — She does. Did she see him that day ? — She did not. Does she know a man called Tom Higgins ? — She does. Did she see him that day 1 — She did not. Did she see Patrick Higgins (Sara), that day? — She did not; he might be there unknown to her. But she was up at Kerrigan’s, and there was no one there but Kerrigan’s family? — There was not. Did you see anything carried along the road — the boreen ? — No, but she saw Kerrigan and his son putting a man into the bag. What became of the bag ? — Kerrigan hoisted it on his son’s back. She saw that done ? — She did. What did the son do with it when it was hoisted on his back ? — Took it down the boreen. Did he pass her house? — He did. Then she saw it passing the house ? — She did. And her father saw it? — No, he was still threshing the corn in the bam. Then, after blessing himself he returned to his business in the barn ?— He did. And never came out when they were carrying the bag with the man in it? — He did not. Ask her did she see anything done to the other dead man ?— She did not. What became of him ? — She does not know what became of him, or does not know who took him ; the man she saw put him into a bag, and he went away — that was Kerrigan. That was carrying the man in the bag — who was with him when he was carrying the bag ? — His father. And the two of them went down past her house with the bag? — They did. Was the mother with them ? — She ^didn't see the mother at all with them. Nor the little boy ? — No. Nor the daughter, Mary ? — No. Did she ever ask what became of the old man — the other man? — She did not. Nor her father ? Mr. Adams . — Oh she cannot answer that question. The Solicitor -General . — You forget that she has already' sworn that she was with her father the entire day. (To the interpreter.) — She was not from him that day? — No. Not a moment from morning until night? — No not at all. Did she ever ask what became of the bodies of the two men? — She did not. Did she ever hear her father ask anything about them ? — She did not. Nor the other little girl that was in the house? — She did not. Were the | olice there that evening — the same evening? — They were not at her house, but went past by Kerrigan’s. li 40 She saw them going past ? — She did not, but heard they past that way. Very well. Now, ask her does she know that gentleman, Mr. Brady — She does not remember. Ask her does she remember being sworn, and swearing informations before that gentleman on 11th October! — She does not. In Cloghbrack ? — No, she does not. In her own house in Cloghbrack on the lltli October? — She replies she has no recollection at all. She never gave an oath. Is her name Kate Higgins? — Yes, Kate Higgins. Is she a daughter of Pat Higgins (Long) ? — She is. Has he any other daughter, Kate Higgins? — He has not. She has no recollection of seeing, or ever seeing, that gentleman (pointing to Mr. Brady) ? — No. Did she ever see both these gentlemen (pointing to Mr. Brady and Mr. Bolton) ? — [Witness here looked at these gentlemen, and replied] — “ She had no recollection of it.” Ask her did she ever swear to tell the truth ? — She has no recollec- tion of it. Did she swear before these two gentlemen I am pointing to, “ I am the daughter of Pat Higgins (Long) ”? — She did not. She never took an oath. Did she swear, “ I am over twelve years of age, and I don’t know how much more ” (quoting from deposition) ? — She did not. Did she swear, “ I was at Glanlusk the mornii g the Huddys were killed” ? — She says she was not at home ] she said sc mething to the police for fear they would take her with them. Did she swear, this “ I was at Glanlusk the morning the Huddys were killed” — — Mr Justice O’Brien. -I beg your pardon Mr. Solicitor-General, I had a difficulty in hearing the answer to that last question. A juror (Mr. Bussell).— There is the greatest difficulty experienced by the jury in hearing the answers, there is so much coughing. The Solicitor-General . — I will do that if I can Mr. Justice O’Brien (addressing Mr. Teeling, who was standing) — Take your seat it you please, Mr. Teeling. The Solicitor-General . — Here is Mr. Justice O’Brien. — I t is not a question, but she gave an answer already which the jury also desires to be repeated. She said something that she would be taken by the police. The Solicitor-General (to the Interpreter) — Ask her what she said? — She said she told the police that she was in Glanlusk on Tuesday, but it was not the Tuesday the police passed by. Now, tell her 1 am not asking anything at all about the day the police passed or what she said to the police. I am asking her what she said in the presence of these two gentlemen, the day she was sworn ? — She gave no oath she says. Did she swear this before them. “ I was at Glanlusk the morning the Huddys were killed, at the house of a man named Stephen Collins ”? — She did not swear it, but she is going to say what she did. Did she say anything, whether she swore it or not in the presence of Mr. Bolton ? — She does not remember she ever saw him. Does she remember did she ever see the gentlemen in her life before? — She does not remember. Did she ever see any gentleman (pointing to Mr. Bolton) in her father’s house, with a white beard? — There were a great many gentle- men going there by. Does she see that gentleman (pointing to Mr. Brady). Did she ever see that gentleman in her house writing down with pen and ink what I hold in my hand ? — She never swore this nor that. Did she make her mark on that with the pen ? — She did not. Did she swear, “ I went that morning from my father’s house when I eat my breakfast, and returned about the fall of the evening ” ?— In the morning, sir ? In the morning ? — She did not. Did she swear, “ No one wrnnt with me to Collins’s ” ? — She did not. Did she swear, “ When I left the house that morning I left my father and brother behind me threshing oats ” ? — She did not. Did she swear, “ My mother was in the house also tyeing straw ” ? — She did not. Did she swear, “ My brother is older than I am” ? — She did not. Did she swear, “ I did not hear of the murder of the Huddys until tire police were looking for them ” ? — She did not. Did she swear, “No stranger came into our house that morning” ? — She did not. Well, she had not sworn anything or put her mark to any paper whatever on that morning? — No. And she never kissed the book until she kissed it here today? — She did not ever at all. 47 A Juror (Mr. Russell). — Ask her if she had any knowledge of Joseph Huddy — if she did not know him by appearance? — She did not. She did not know him. She has sworn that there was no process of ejectment served. Ask her if her father or mother never mentioned that there was an ejectment served that morning ? — She has sworn she never saw it. She did not. Ask her where. 1 am at a loss, my lord, to understand what is the difference between the boreen and the street. Mr. Justice O’Brien. — V ery well, Mr. Russell. I was about asking the same question myself. Mr. Russell . — I fear I am giving a great deal of trouble. Mr. Justice O’Brien. — I myself thought the boreen was the street. Mr. Russell (to witness). — I want to know where she saw the two dead bodies. Was it in the street, or in the boreen behind Kerrigan’s house ? — In the street. Very well. Does she mean by the street the yard in front of Kerri- gan’s house ? Mr. Justice O’Brien. — T ell her to put her hand on it — on the street. (The witness then pointed out the position of the bodies already described). Mow, that is where she saw the dead bodies l — Yes, sir. The Solicitor-General — Might I suggest to your lordship to ask if she says they were both there in the same place?— They were both there, she says. A Juror . — Ask her what oath she has taken? — She replies, the oath. She asks me again is it a truthful oath. I asked her if she was sworn — if she was swearing at all, and she says she was, sir. A Juror (Mr. Russell). — Did she draw a distinction between a truth- ful and an untruthful oath ?— Yes. She states that an untruthful oath is eternal damnation. Mr. Justice O’Brien.- — S he has no recollection of taking an oath as she has taken to-day ? — I beg your pardon, sir; she said she did not take an oath, or did not make any statements wrote out here. Mr. Murphy . — That she never kissed the book until she came here on the table. Mr. Justice O’Brien. — W hat, Mr. Murphy — That she did not kiss the book until she came on the table. Mr. Adams . — Ask her is not the Irish word for street “ stroid,” or “troid.” Ask is not the word boreen taken in the word “ troid ”? — She says part of the boreen and the street is one. Is part of the boreen at the end of the house part of the troid ? — She says — To Interpretor . — What is the meaning of the word “ troid ” ?— ' To his lordship — It includes all curtilage about the house. Solicitor-General . — Teli her (the witness) not to go away altogether. Mary Conroy sworn, and examined by Mr. Adams. What is your name ? — Mary Conroy. Where do you live? — At Cloglibrack — Middle Cloghbrack. Were you up at Pat Higgins’ one morning in January? — I was, one morning in it. What did you go up for ? — I went up for Higgins’ wife to card wool. You went up to card wool then ? — No, but for Higgins’ wife to come to my house to card wool. Did you remain there — was she ready to go down ?— No, she was tieing straw for her husband in the barn. Did you remain at Higgins’ for any time? — I stopped a time. And that time you stopped there ?— I did, sir. They kept me a time drawing oats into the barn. Did you help to draw oats with Kate Higgins? — I did. When you were drawing oats did you hear anything? — No ; we were a while drawing oats, and we were going down afterwards for oats. Did you hear any shots then ? — I did, sir, but 1 did not turn after I went down with the load of oats. You did not turn that — you did not go out? — No, sir. Mr. Murphy . — She went on. Mr. Adams . — Did you afterwards go out with the oats on the boreen ? — Yes. Well, after you went with the oats to the boreen, and you went there, who did you see there? — The Kerrigans. Did you see any bodies there? — No, sir. Did you see a dead man there? I did, sir. Who? — I do not know, sir. How many? — Two, sir. Two dead men. Whqre was Pat Higgins (Long) when you ran down ? — He was in his own barn threshing oats. That is the prisoner there? Yes. After seeing the bodies did you run buck ?- I ran into the stable again, sir. 48 Did you tell him anything 1 — His daughter told him first, and he ran him out, and ran down again, and said, “ God help us. Let us go on, and not mind it.” Did he go then into his own house ?— ' To his own house. Was he in the barn at the time yon heard shots? — He was, sir. Did you see him do anything to the dead bodies before they were killed? — No, sir. Cross-examined by Mr. Murphy, q.c. Did you hear any shots ?— I did, but I don’t know how many. I suppose you did not count them ? — No. Were thei'e five or six ? — Yes, sir. What did you think they were firing the shots for?— I did not think of anything. You did not think of anything? — No, sir. They were so near to me. So near to you. Very good. But you were going off fast at the time ? —To the garden. To the stack ? — Yes, sir. And you heard all those shots ? — Yes, sir. Were you astonished at the shots? — We did not turn after, sir. Wait now, were you astonished at hearing the shots? — I was, sir. Did you say “ What is that ” 1 — I said “ I don’t know Kate Higgins what is that.” She said he did not know r it either. Did you say “ After we bring in the oats we will go up and see ” ? — Yes I said that. And you went — and were you along time taking the oats out of the stack ? — Yes. And you were a good while taking down the sheaves? — We were, sir, and putting it in. And tidying it? — Yes, sir. And you were talking about the shots— what they could have been ? — Yes, sir, hearing them so near. Hearing them so near. Had you seen Joseph Huddy coming up? — No. You brought the girl back into the barn where her father was ? — Yes, sir. And did you see him then — when you heard the shots fired? — We did not. W e went up the road a while. Did you say to him you heard shots? — Yes, we said that there had been shots. So you said about these shots, when you came into this man in the barn. He was then nearer the shots than you were ? — He was. What did he say ? — He was threshing oats. What did he say ? — He said he heard something. Something like shots ? — Y es, sir. Did he tell you then to go out, or what did he say ? — We had run ou ourselves. And you ran out? — No, sir, we came in first. Did he tell you to go and see what it was ? — Yes. Did you run up as quickly as you could ? — We did. How far did you run up in the boreen ? — It was not long at all, sir, to look. To look — did you come as far as Kerrigan’s house? — No, sir. Did you come — this is Kerrigan’s house (pointing on model) — this is Higgins’s house down here, and the barn about here — this is the boreen. Now, will you just show me the part you came to about ? — Well, there — that side at the hill. Oh you went on the boreen and went up the hill ? — Yes. And it was there you got a view ? — Yes. And when you came out you ran up at once on the hill? — Y T es, sir, we did. You and the other little girl, Kate, ran up on the hill ? — Yes, we did, sir. Yes, and whereabouts there did you see the bodies lying? — On the boreen— one of them on the boreen. Whereabouts now. Well, you were standing there at the hillock, and you saw the two men. Were they apart or together? — Yes, apart. On the boreen. Show me exactly where ?— 1 The witness then pointed out the position of the bodies. Did you stop long at the hillock? — No, we were afraid. Now, whom did you see about there? — I don’t know. Waa anyone about there only the Kerrigans — only the old man ? — The old man and his two sons. And the little boy of all ? — Yes, sir. You saw all the bodies ? — I did not stop there long. Did not Kate run with you ? — Yes, sir. Y ou know the Kerrigans — did you see them about the body there ? — - They were all going round entirely. 4-9 Going up and down from one to the other 1 — -Yes, sir. Did you stop long or only long enough to see them going from one body to another at Kerrigan’s.- — you only took a short look ? — Yes, sir. And were they about the body that was here (pointing to model) ? — T seen them going round behind entirely. Were they walking about between the two when you saw them 1 — Yes, sir. Was the daughter there'?— No, I did not see her. Tell me. She was not alone at the time ? — I do not know. Did you not know that she was away at service ? — I heard that she was away at service. A Juror . — Marv Kerrigan ? — Yes, Kerrigan’s daughter. Mr. Adams . — Did you stay long after that at Pat Higgins’s? — T did, sir. I was a good while in it. When Pat Higgins came out, did he go up the boreen? — No, sir. Had he a view of the place where the bodies were, near his own house, or did he come up where the shots were? — No, he stopped at his own house. Did he go up the hill where you were?— No, sir. And were the bodies in the boreen still ? — I do not know whether he saw them or not. You told him that you saw the two dead men ? — Yes. You knew what the shots were for then?— Yes, sir ; but I did not know who fired them. But you knew who they" were fired at ? — I did. Did you see any of the men going down the road with the bodies after- wards ? — No, sir. Where did you go to ? — I stayed a good while in the barn. Y on saw not the bodies ? — Kate was going in and out. You did not stir out ? — No. Were there any geese there? — They were up the hill. They were down here [indicating] ? — No, sir, I did not see them. Well, now you and Kate ran up the hill, saw the bodies, and ran back again? — Yes, sir. You did not go up afterwards ? — No. She, Kate, was going in and out of the door? — Yes. Did the father, after he had blessed himself, take a look after that l — He was minding his business. I did not see. After he told you to mind your business? — Yes, after he told us to mind our business. Do you know Michael Flynn ? — I do, sir. He does not live far away from this? — No. You know Tom Higgins ? — Yes, sir. You did not get a sight of him that morning ? — -No. You know the other, Pat Higgins ? — Yes. Did you see him ? — I did not see him that time. You did not see him that day at all ? — No, sir. Do you recollect seeing Constable Finn in October last ? — Tom Finn. You know him and his Christian name?— Yes. You were talking to him about this murder? — I was afraid of him to tell him a word. Afraid of him to tell him a word ? — Yes. Did he ask you if you knew anything about the Huddys ? — He did. You told him you knew nothing? — I did. You told him that you dill not see them that morning? — Yes. You said you went to school at 10 o’clock ? — Yes. That was not true ? — No ; but I was afraid — I did not know any police up in the neighbourhood. Didn’t you know any police up country, didn’t you ?- No. How did you know him to be Tom Finn ? — While he was in the hut. Hadn’t he been there some time before that? — He was, going* in and out of the school house. And wasn’t it after the Huddys were murdered the hut was put there ? — Yes. And Tom Finn was asking something about the murder? — Yes, sir. And tell me, when did you hear that your friend Kate’s father was taken ?— Pat Higgins? Yes ; wasn’t he taken before Tom Finn was asking you ? — lie was. And now why didn’t you, for the sake of Pat Higgins, tell the truth, if it was the truth, as to what you had seen? — I was afraid to tell him anything. And you thought it safe to say you were not there at all? — ] did, sir. You did ? — I did, sir. Though you then knew that an innocent man was up for it — the man who blessed himself, and that was all he had to do witli it? — Yes, sir. And you knew he was up for it?— He put the sign of the cross upon him. 50 To be sure he did ; you knew lie was up for it ?— He was. Why didn’t you tell this story then in order to get him, the sign of the cross, out of it?— Well, I was afraid to tell it. And then you made up all this ; not merely saying you knew noth- ing, but you made up this story about not being there that day at all ; and that you went to school at ten o’clock?— I did, sir; I told an untruth. And did yon go to school at ten o’clock ? — I did not. That was altogether an invention? — I did not go to school that day. Was it a fine lie ? — It was a fine lie that I told Tom Finn. And all the time instead of being at school you were up on the hill looking at what was going on ? — I was, sir. Did you hear Pat Higgins talking at all as to who the two men were who were killed ? — He w r as saying he did not know what sort of men they were at all. Or whether they were men or boys ? — N o, he did not know what sort they were at all. Did he say anything about w r here they were carrying the bodies ? — No, sir. Or saying perhaps they may put the body of one of them near our house, and put the blame on us ? — He was not saying where they would put them. He was saying that in the barn ? — Yes, on going in. Didn’t he take the flail and begin freshing again ? — Yes. And while he was freshing was he talking about where they would put the body ? — Yes, he was. What did you say — that may be they would put them into the lake ? — No ; but he said he did not know anything about them. Did he say they may be after taking them to the lake ? — No, he said he did not know in the wide world where they would put them. Did he say 1 don’t know whether they were going to bury them ? — He did, sir. Was he saying perhaps they will put them down in the lake? — No, sir. Wasn’t there anything said about putting them into the lake instead of burying them ?— 1 did not hear him saying that. You heard him saying maybe they will bury them ? — Yes. He said maybe they will bury them on my ground ! — He did. And so blame me ? — Yes, or some other person. He said maybe they would bury them in my ground or some other ground and then blame me or some one else ? — Yes. When you were talking of the danger of burying them so, I wonder you did not go out ? — No, sir. And he did not go out himself? — No, sir Were you talking afterwards about it at all ? — Yes. Several days after?— Yes, sir. Then you always talked about it when you went there ? — Yes, sir. You heard afterwards their bodies were found in the lake ? — I did, sir. Did you think they were the same ? — I did. What did Pat Higgins say — did he say they were the same? — Well, he did, sir, maybe they were. He said maybe they were? — He did, sir. You never mentioned anything to the police at all ? — No, sir. When the hut came there, you did not sav anything about it? — No, sir. Mr. Adams — Has not Matthias Kerrigan two daughters ?- -He has, sir. One of them is at service ? — Old Kerrigan — Mat Kerrigan. Yes ; isn’t one daughter at service ? — Yes. And isn’t one at home ? — Yes, he has. Mr .Murphy . — How old is the little child? — I don’t know. Is she younger than the boy, Martin ? — She is. Mr. Adams . — Is she nine years old ? — I don’t know. A Juror (Mr. Russell). — When you heard the shot you went on with vour work a little bit — did you and Kate Higgins go out together ? —We did, sir. Did you go straight up to that land there ? — We did, sir. Were you and Kate separated at all until you came back, and went to the threshing of the oats again? — Yes, sir. Were you parted from each other? — We were, sir, she went in before me. And you were both on the hillock together? — Yes, sir. May I ask for the recalling of the last witness? Mr. Justice O’Brien. — T o be sure. I have one question to ask the witness. Put forward the other girl. (To juror). — Is it for the purpose of asking some question from the other witness ? Juror (Mr. Russell). -I wish to ask her whether she stood on that hillock. Mr. Justice O'Brien. — There is an objection to that. Her own evidence stands on entirely different footing. She says she was standing on the boreen ; it is hardly a matter to be explained at all. Juror (to witness). — Did you that day, when you went out upon the hillock with Kate Higgins, say anything to the people you saw on the road near Kerrigan’s ? — No, sir, only to run in again. Did you see them put any of the bodies in the sack? — No, sir, I did not remark any more. She was going in and out. Mr. A dams. — If the j uror wishes to have Kate Higgins recalled we have no objection. Juror (Mr. Russell).— I have a right to draw my own inference. Mr. Justice O’Brien. — She is absolutely distinct on the subject. Mr. Murphy . — Five times repeated. Mr. Teeling . — She was not asked the question. Mr. Justice O’Brien.— Call back Kate Higgins. ilr. Murphy . — I would respectfully submit that you read that portion of her evidence to her, for my recollection is, that at least live times she distinctly repeated she was going on the road — driving geese up the road. Kate Higgins recalled, and further examined. Mr. Justice O’Brien (to Interpreter). — Ask her where she went when she came out after hearing the shots, and leaving the corn inside Let her point out what way she went, and where she went (stick handed to witness) ? — About that length from her own house. (Half way down the boreen, towards Kerrigan’s house). Mr. Adams . — Will you allow her to be asked how often she went down to where the bodies were ? Mr. Justice O’Brien. — A sk her when she went out, and saw the bodies that day, didn’t she go back, and did she go out again after that time or did she remain inside ? — It was then, secondly, she went with the geese. She took the geese along the boreen. Was she off the boreen at any time? — Not either time. Sue did not leave the boreen either time ? — No, not on either of the two times. The Solicitor -General . — I am informed there are no more witnesses to be called for the defence. A Juror (Mr. Russell). — Might I ask to have the doctor recalled. Mr. A 1 ewtoun Brady , r.m., recalled, and examined by the Solicitor- General. You are sworn already ? — Yes. Did you see the girl examined here last, Kate Higgins ? — I did. Did you, on the 11th October, go to her father’s house in Cloughbrack ? —I did. Who went with you ? — Mr. Bolton, Crown Solicitor. And who else? — The interpreter. A man named Collins? — Yes. Is he here ? — Y es. Was that girl brought before you ? — She was. Was she sworn? — She was. Was the interpreter sworn? — He was. Did she kiss the book ? — She did. Was the oath administered to her — you don’t know Irish? — I am accustomed to hear the oath given in Irish, and I would recognise it. Was she sworn? — She was. Did you examine her? — Yes. Were her answers interpreted by the sworn interpreter? — Yes. Were they written down in her presence ? —They were. W as it read over to her? — Yes, and interpreted through the inter- preter. Did she express her agreement with it?— She said that was all true, Did she then put her mark to it? — She did. And was that formal information taken on the 1 1th October ? — It was. And doesn’t that information correctly state the answers she gave through the interpreter ? — Perfectly correct. Was Mr. Bolton present the whole time ?— Yes. Mr. Adamt . — I have nothing to ask the witness. Bryan Collins sworn, ami examined by the Solicitor-General. Are you a constable ? — Yes. Are you able to speak Irish ? — A es. And understand it when interpreted ? — Yes. Were vou, on the 11th October, present at the prisoner’s house at Cloughbrack ? — Yes. With Mr. Brady, the magistrate ?— Yes 52 Did she see that girl, Kate Higgins, that was examined here to-day 1 Y 0g. Were you present when she was sworn ? — -Yes. Did you repeat the oath in Irish ? — I did. And did she understand it and kiss the book ?— She did. Was she then asked questions and examined 1 — She was. Did you explain in Irish ? — 1 did. Did she give the answers in Irish ? — She did. Did you translate these into English 1— Yes. Was that taken down in the presence of Mr. Brady ?— It was. Was it read over to her afterwards ? — It was. Did you repeat it to her in Irish'? — Yes. Slowly and deliberately ? — I did. Did she understand it 1— She did. What did she say ?— It was true. Did she say it was true 1 ?— Yes. Did she afterwards swear it 1 ?— Yes. Is that the information ? — Yes. Mr. George Bolton, Croivn Solicitor , sworn, and examined by Mr. Murphy, q.c. Were you with Mr. Brady in this house when this girl, Kate Higgins swore this ? — -I was. Did you see the interpreter sworn and hear him told a conversation with the witness ? — I did. It was done under my direction. Mr. Adams. — This gentleman does not know Irish, surely. Mr. Murphy. — You heard her sworn? — Yes. And Mr. Brady was there present? — He was. The Solicitor-General. — We enter this document — (Kate Higgins s information handed in). Mr. Justice O’Brien. — T here is one further witness that ought to be examined. Mr. Bolton. — Yes, Constable Finn. Dr. Uegarty, recalled and examined by a Juror. Mr. Russell. — Are you able to tell the jury whether there was any wound on the elder Huddy’s head that might have been caused by a stone ? — No, I did not perceive any wound. You observed no wound — was the body in an advanced state of decom- position ? — It was not. Mr. Justice O’Brien. — What was the first injury you discovered on the body ? — Bullet wounds. You said you found live altogether — four in the head and one in the shoulder ? — Yes. What part of the head ? — One in the front, one behind, and one on each side ; the bullets on the side had glanced off. Which of these had penetrated? — The one in front and the one behind. Was either of these sufficient to cause death ? — Oh, yes. The person shot by either of these wounds, would he fall immediately ? —Yes. Are you able to inform the jury, or to form any opinion, bearing in mind the fact of the wound in front and the bullet wound in the back of the head, whether or not these four bullet wounds proceeded from a weapon held by the same person, or more than one person ? — I could not say, my lord, because two of the bullets were broken to pieces in the brain. I don’t mean from comparison of the bullets, but from the situation of the wounds, one in front, one in the back, and one at each side ? — I could not say. Was the hair still upon the head of the man? — It was. Tne Solicitor-General . — Was there any discolouration about the head There was discolouration between the shoulders behind. A Juror (Mr. Russell). — Might that have been caused by a blow ? — Yes, it was possibly from a blow. At the same time, I think it was pod mortem lividity. It might be something else, I cannot say positively. The rest of the body appeared to be well preserved. In all bodies after death, there is a black mark at the place on which the body rests ; if it lies on the back, the mark will be on the back, and if on the shoulder it will be on the shoulder. Mr. Justice O’Brien. — That is supposing it lies for some considerable time ? — Yes. This lividity would then take place ?— Yes. 53 Matthias Kerrigan recalled, and sworn, and examined by the Solicitor- General (through Interpreter). Ask him has he any daughters — He has, two. What age is the eldest 1 — He thinks the eldest is eighteen this harvest. Was she at home the day the Huddys were killed 1 — She was not. Where was she ? — At service. What age is the other daughter ? — She will be ten next St. Stephen’s Day. Mr. Justice O’Brien. — What is the name of the eldest ? — Bridget. What is the younger’s name 1 — Mary. The Solicitor-General. — Does he know Kate Higgins? — He does, indeed. • Ask him did he speak to her or she speak to him on the morning the Huddys were killed? — She did not speak to him nor he did not see her that morning at all. Is it true she came up his street on the morning of that day and that he told her she would be served the same way?— He did not say the like since he was born. Mr. John H. Ryan, c.e., recalled and examined by the Solicitor- General. Is this part of the model quite correct (pointing to Kerrigan’s house) ? — Yes, up to the black mark near Higgins’s house. And the fall of the ground is down this way ? — Y es. Where is the barn belonging to the prisoner’s house? — I don’t know exactly. I did not make an exact measurement of Pat Higgins’s house, only this one of Kerrigan’s. Mr. Murphy . — Where would you first get a view of the street ? — You would certainly have to go to the turn of the road before you could possibly see the street. Mr Justice O’Brien. — Y ou should go to the angle of the road? — Yes. Mr. Murphy .-— The curvature of the boreen is accurately represented here ? — Yes. And any one standing where Kate Higgins said she stood could not see the bodies where she said they lay? — No. Mr. Teeling. — There is portion of the wall along the boreen of loose stone ? — Yes. I am glad I asked this — this model represents a wall of some con- sistency ? — It is a loose wall ; but all walls are represented that way. It is irregular; it is not very much broken; it is very well defined ; all along the walls on each side are of that character to make the boreen quite distinct from the fields on each side. A loose sort of wall with gaps here and there?— No, I think not; I could not say there are any gaps. Mr. Justice O’Brien. — A re there any gaps at the prisoner’s house? — No, I did not notice any at all. The chief gaps occur where the street abuts on the boreen. It is the usual thing in the country. Mr. Teeling. — This model has only been made quite recently, and represents matters as they now are ? — I meant to try to represent it as it was at the time of the murder. Then am I right in saying this model represents an imaginary state of things ? — It represents the correct state of affairs as far as the ground, and the delineation of everything on the ground, is concerned. Of course it does not represent the state of the seasons, summer or winter, exactly. Mr. Justice O’Brien. — B ut the trees are there, and the wall, and the house ? — Yes. A Juror (Mr. Russell). — And the boreen is correct? — Yes. Mr. Teeling . — You said part of the model had to be readjusted ? — I said so. Mr. Justice O’Brien. — A nd it was Mr. Ryan himself who corrected it. The court then adjourned for lunch. Mr. Adams . — May it please your lordship, and gentlemen of the jury, it now becomes my duty to offer a very lew remarks to you on be- half of Patrick Higgins (Long), the prisoner at the bar, standing his charge here for the murder of Joseph Huddy. And, gentlemen of the jury, as far as the Crown case is concerned, my tiisk has been rendered very light indeed by the speech which was delivered early to-day by mv learned friend and leader, Mr. Teeling. I am sure he will not consider it insincere my saying what every man in this court must have felt, that an abler or more powerful speech I never heard delivered since I had the honour of being called to the Irish Bar. Gentlemen of the jury, there are, of course, certain topics which it is the duty of prisoner’s counsel to always urge upon juries; and, gentlemen, I 54 that counsel forgets his duty to his profession and to his client, if from any fear that these topics were hackneyed or worn out or were threadbare, he fails to remind every jury before whom he appears o what is their duty on behalf of the Crown and the prisoner at the bar ; and above all, when he is defending a man charged with a capital offence. And, gentlemen of the jury, my lord will tell you that the plain duty of the jury here is only to find a verdict if they are certain beyond aye or nay — a verdict of guilty if they are certain beyond aye or nay of the guilt of the prisoner at the bar. If you are enabled by the evidence given here on both sides, and by its careful consideration, to arrive at that condition of certainty, that you are as certain as you are of your own existence — as certain as that the sun rises each morning, then I say, and then only, it is your duty to pro- nounce a verdict of guilty. If, gentlemen, this was a civil case, if this was an action about the possession of a bit of land or the price of a horse, when you would have retired from that box it would be your duty to weigh the evidence carefully ; but more particularly in a case of this kind it is your duty to weigh the evidence of the Kerrigans in one scale and of Higgins’ witnesses in the other scale, and arrive at the best conclusion you can, be lancing one side against the other. But that is not alone your duty in a criminal case, and above all, in a capital case. If you are only able to say to the Crown what Festus said to Paul, “ Almost thou persuadest me,” if you are in that position you are bound to find a verdict of not guilty ; but to find a verdict of guilty it must be proved beyond aye or nay — beyond all rational doubt — proved with as much certainty as that the sun rose this mor- ning. Gentlemen, I ask you has that case been so proved ? If you are left, for example, in the condition of mind — I don’t say you are, for my contention is that you are considering this evidence of guilt as taken off the shoulders of the accused, and put upon the shoulders of the man, who, to take his own neck out of the rope, has tried to fasten the rope on the neck of his neighbour — but, if, gentlemen, you are left by the evidence in this condition of mind, that that day Joseph Huddy, and his grandson, were murdered at Cloughbrack — and the transaction is involved in mystery — for we don’t believe that any witness examined here has told the truth — that truth which will never be discovered till after the day when the secrets of all hearts are laid bare — but if you retire from that box in that mental condition of doubt, my lord will tell you it is your duty to bring in a verdict of not guilty. Is this case proved 1 That’s the question. Gentlemen of the jury, I will first address to you a few words upon the testimony of Kate Higgins and Mary Conroy ; and I say that these girls, though they left that box of course with a certain cloud over them, for not having told the truth on a former occasion ; when the case is fairly considered, and when their evidence is compared with the Crown evidence, you must believe what is the only thing you are asked to believe by me, that their evidence is satisfactory, and that Patrick Higgins (Long) did not commit the murder. If you believe these girls told the magistrates and the police ten thousand lies — I say they did not— but if you, as I assume, believe what they said, that Patrick Higgins (Long) was in his barn when these shots were fired, he is entitled to your acquittal. Gentlemen, the Crown possesses of course the service, of the first advocates of the day — possessing of course these enormous advantages which the Crown possesses in cases of this kind — a bottomless fund of money — able ministers to collect evidence— able counsel to conduct their case, every advantage men could have against this poor peasant brought up here, from the remote part of the country in which he resides, and not even understanding the language in which the trial is conducted. They have assailed the evidence of these girls. You are not asked here, gentlemen, whether they told lies to the magistrates and the police ; but if you believe that it is true as they swore — that Patrick Higgins (Long) did not commit that murder, theprisoneris entitled to your verdict. What did they tell you in their story 1 — That they were both in the house, and they heard the shots. They don’t appear at first to connect the shots or noise they heard with any tragedy or murder. One of the witnesses was about to say yesterday that shots were often heard in the neighbourhood, but he was stopped. I don’t know, gentle- men, whether it is a district where sports are carried on or not, but erv one knows it is a common thing to hear shots if sports are carried on there. But they heard the shots, went out, and they saw two dead bodies. They came back and told Patrick Higgins (Long) what they had seen. He went out, blessed himself, and went back ; but you are asked, and will be asked in an able speech, not to believe these girls. And why not, believe them 1 First, you are asked not to believe Kate Higgins, because when she was confronted with the magistrate it was said she made a deposition, which was untrue. Now, gentlemen, if that is a reason for dis- believing Kate Higgins, you can’t believe a word that was stated by the Crown witnesses, because I ask you to arrive at this conclusion as men of common sense, that whole district was threshed and re-threshed 55 by the magistrate and the police, and up to a recent date not one word of information could be obtained about the murders, and that Kate Higgins and Mary Conroy told lies on a former occasion is only applic- able to the whole district of Cloghbrack, and does not touch the question. But what was the story which Kate Higgins told on a former occasion ? She told an untruth I admit. She saw her father’s hut filled with police — her father either arrested or in danger of arrest, and she was full of fear that she too would be included in this desperate charge if she admitted she was there, and would stand here to-day at that dock to answer this charge. An d what did she do 1 She did not attempt — and it would have been most important, to set up an alibi for her father — but she said, “ When I left the house that morning I left my father and brother behind threshing oats ; my mother was in the house also tying the straw.” She attempts to make no alibi for her father. She admitted he was there. She says she herself went away — that was a lie. It was told out of fear. It was told when she knew her father was charged with the crime. It was told when she knew the shadow of that crime was over the whole disti’ict. It was told though, and fear is no answer here ; but if this was a concocted story to save her father, made up by that daughter, I ask you would she not have said in- stead, “ I was at the house, my mother was at the the house, but my father was away — somewhere ten or twelve miles distant.” That would be a concocted story, but there in presence of the police, fearing if she said she was present, she told a lie, and denied her presence there, but she did not tell the story in the way a person would who would concoct a story. But you are asked, gentlemen, to dis- believe her on these grounds. Certainly, she and the other witnesses were not treated with any great tenderness when the question came as to localities. Gentlemen, you are not to hang this man on the strength of the accuracy of this plan — you are not to hang him on the strength of what the daughter says, that he only went there, and there (pointing to the plan) or on the theory that the walls there in that plan are in the same condition that they were in on the month of January, 1882. You are not to hang this man on this plan which to give it any strength of accuracy, the engineer, who no doubt is most pro- ficient, and prepared in some respects a very good plan, had actually to tear up one of the houses by the foundation and twist it round to give an accurate idea of how it was. If he had not come here to-day to give evidence, and that was presented to you and the court as an accurate plan of the scene of the murder, and something turned upon it about a man looking out of a window here [pointing to plan] and saying that something happened over there, might not a strong argument be constructed as to how he could see from the point he said he was at, when in truth and fact the first operation the engineer had to go through to give a semblance of accuracy to the plan was to tear up the house and turn it around. And are you to say then that this plan is not constructed rather more with an eye to the picturesque than accuracy. Now, I say the evidence of Kate Higgins and the other girl in the all important parts is perfectly connected, and is borne out by the other evidence in the case. But let me first, gentlemen, direct your attention to the evidence of Mary Conroy. She, too, was interrogated by a policeman who never was pro- duced — who never told the ciicumstances under which he interrogated her ; but she was interrogated by a policeman, and she gave him an in- accurate account of the transaction, knowing that the whole district was implicated in the charge of murder — that poor girl knowing, too, that many persons were actually arrested and confined in Galway gaol. But, gentlemen, are you to say that because she did not tell the truth to a policeman, not knowing for what purpose he wanted the information — and bearing in mind the unwillingness of country people to give information to the officers of the law, are you to say that that is a sufficient reason why you are not to believe this girl. The story told by these girls, gentlemen, is in the main features true, although contradicting each other in small particulars. Old Higgins was in the barn. The girls were feeding him — feeding his flail — with oats, when they heard the shots. They don’t appear at the time to have regarded it as an astounding occurrence, and the thought of murder never occurred to them. They put down the oats and went out to see what was up, and when they went down the road they saw the Huddys lying dead. Now, gentlemen, whether they went down tin- road or went up by the field is a matter which, at the expi- ration of twelve months, girls may very well indeed be mistaken about. That they saw the Huddys lying murdered there was the great fact that would burn itself into their minds. You have already heard, gentlemen, that this fanciful plan does not represent the true position of the Connemara district. 1 will tell you why. Anyone who looks at the walls will see big stones, and between them black matter that con- nects them some way. I myself believed, until the engineer was ex- amined, that these were built walls of mortar and stone, but it turns out now that they are mere stones one placed on top of the other. J 2 56 Everyone knows that the face of a wall of that kind is of a most unequal description. It may be up high in one place and down at another, and suppose that these 1 iting to plan) to see what was going on, or walked down here — surely it is a matter which any human being may be mistaken about at the end of twelve months. But the great fact is that they went out, saw the bodies, returned, told old Higgins what they had seen, and then he went out and viewed for himself. You heard that story, gentlemen ; and it is for you to say whether that is probable or not. And then they say that the younger girl, Kate Higgins, notwithstanding the threat used " against her, was going in and out, under the pre- text of driving the geese ; for she should have some pre- text to go down there, even when her life was threatened. She must have gone down again and seen the murdered bodies, and the men j Hitting them in the sack. She says she was down there twice. Mary Conroy says she stopped in the barn ; but Kate Higgins was running in and out. It is quite plain, and I can see the whole transaction as if it was re enacted before my eyes ; but it is for you, gentlemen, to say if it is a rational and intelligible explanation. Patrick Higgins threshing in the barn — they heard the shots — the girls run out to see what occurred, and running down here or along the boreen — along an imaginary lane — with walls not properly built, but the stones all loosely placed one over the other, until they came to the end of the ditch, and then they saw what was going on, and ran back. The girl Mary Conroy was terrified, and admitted that what she saw remained on her brain. The girl Kate Higgins went out again, and was again driven back. They were anxious to see what was going on, and made the most of everything, but now questions are raised as to whether they are accurate in what they state, or whether the old man could see the bodies from the point indicated or not. In the first place, that would be to ask you to hang the prisoner, Patrick Higgins, alone on the accuracy of the plan, when the engineer himself admits that he had to tear up the foundations and twist it round in order to give a semblance of accuracy to it. This is the way in which this plan has been prepared, on the accuracy of which you are asked to hang this man, and no amount of explanation can make this plan as it stands an accurate plan, for here again he builds the wall running up to the yard. “ No,” said he, “that is wrong — this house should face more round that way,” and he turned it round that way. If that plan is right, observe between the end of the wall and the gable end of the house, there would be a gap of some five or six feet. Then when he constructed the plan originally the wall of the house — and the wall here running down the lane — was that right ? It was not right, for the house should be that way (changing its position on the plan). Therefore, gentlemen, that cannot represent the condition of things at all. Why do I labour that so much ? I labour it for this reason — to warn you against being guilty of the cruelty of hanging a man because you believe that on this picturesque plan the rise of the ground here (pointing) is so accurately represented that a man could not see down to the end, or that it represents the state of things with much photographic accuracy. / But as to this remarkable plan, I must say there was one thing about it that puzzled me more than anything that ever occurred to me in my professional experience. Remember it is not a plan that can be relied upon to give a right description of the locality to you. It is not a plan to enable you to follow rightly the lie of the place ; and yet it is a plan which, on the cross-examination of these two young gh’ls, is relied on for the purpose of hanging Patrick Higgins, by sayine that from the position where he stood he could not possibly see the bodies of the Huddys. But what was to prevent him ? — They could go into the big house if they liked, and then there would be only a field between them. But where is the boreen there ? Any man can, by the exercise of his eyesight, see that it should be in the neighbourhood of the house, but there is not a trace of it. I don’t blame the engineer for it. I don’t believe that he prepared the plan with the view that this gritty field should represent the condition of things. He only put it roughly together to represent what he thought might have been the condition of things, and what I say is that the plan is inaccurate, and that a person standing where Patrick Higgins was could see what was going on where the bodies were found. Gentlemen, I say you cannot accept this plan as an accurate one. The question of distance makes a great difference in this matter, and a few yards one way or the other is a matter on which any human being might be mistaken. I venture to say if any one of you were asked which of you first entered that jury room from your list you could not answer ; and when these girls give evidence that Patrick Higgins (Long) was threshing in the barn, to expect them to fix on the exact spot he went to would be absurd. Then I say the testi- mony of these two girls must be regarded as a whole. You must say 57 whether, although they were called without an opportunity of commu nicating with each other, the one did not corroborate the other, and that Kate Higgins was running in and out — that she saw the two bodies lying dead, and saw the Kerrigans putting them into the sack, and went down once with the girl Conroy, and went out again, pretending to be drivin'g the geese for she would not dare go down to the scene of the murder without a pretence. She went down the second time, and saw the bodies thrust into the sack. That evidence is borne out by Conroy, who said she saw Kate Higgins running in and out. I ask you is that statement made to the place to free themselves, and bring themselves from the scene ■ -but not as a concocted lie to save that man — is that to weigli against the testimony of these two girls? No, gentlemen, the doctor was called, and he was asked a most important ques- tion. If the story of Matthias Kerrigan is true, we know how it was that Joseph Huddy met his death. Joseph Huddy was an elderly man, but there is no pretence that he was a decrepit man. No, he wasin as good health and physique as any man of his age. He was on the road, according to the story of Kerrigan, on which you are asked to hang this man. Patrick Higgins, the prisoner, he says, came behind him and downed him with a stone. You know, gentlemen, that a man may have his skull fractured by the blow of a stone and will not be killed by it. A man may have his face cut into the bone, and will not be killed by it. A stone may cut five inches in but not level him to the ground. The picture given to you I say is false, when he said that a man came with a rock behind him and downed him with a blow. If that blow was given, bringing that man to the earth so prostrate that he did not move again or speak again, although he was despatched afterwards by pistols, gentlemen, I ask you as men of sense — as men of observation to bring to bear on this grave case — for, gentlemen, it is a grave case, as every one is that involves the life of a human being — bring to bear on it the light of your experience — and ask yourselves was it possible that that tremendous blow which brought this man speechless to the earth could be inflicted by that huge stone, and that, if so inflicted, it would not have left on the body of Joseph Huddy a discolouration — an abrasure — a laceration — bruises or marks of that enormous rock with which he was levelled to the ground. The body is found. It is found preserved in the waters of the lough after being there for twenty days. The doctor says that decomposition had not advanced far. He searches the body. He finds the bullet wounds, and he could not find, he said, on his direct examination, any other marks of injury. True it is, that he now tells us that there was some discolouration between the shoulders ; but he tells you that when a man is lying dead one of the natural incidents that follow decease is that in some spot on the body — where the tody rests— discolouration sets in. Gentlemen, the medical man examined here appeared to be a man of learning, ability, and experience, and he with all his experience cannot explain these things to you ; but he tells you that he came to the conclusion then that that discolouration was caused by an injury ; but it is plain it was one of the natural things taking place on tiie dead body of a man after death. Gentlemen of the jury, he says whatever spot the body finally rests on, becomes discolored after death. There is not a pretence there was discoloration on any other part of the body except the spot between the shoulders. Then the body must have rested where the discoloration was. There was no other discoloration. The doctor says, in every corpse the place where the body rests, becomes discolored, but if the story of Matthias Kerrigan be correct, there was laceration, for the blow could not be given without causing the greatest injury to the place. You will have to consider this as a most important feature in this case. The witnesses may be lining, but there was one class of evidence which cannot lie, and that was the condition of the dead body of Joseph Huddy ; and I say the story told by the dead body of Joseph Huddy is in its every detail a story which cannot lie, and I submit it tells forcibly in favour of the prisoner at the bar. No mark was found on the body no mark was found on the body save the^ bullet wound. No mark of that blow of the rock or stone which, according to Matthias Kerrigan, rendered him speechless and insensible. But, gentle- men, that is not all. One of you put a question vital to this case. If you believe Matthias Kerrigan, be was not served with an ejectment .that day. On that point alone the prisoner at the bar is entitled to your verdict, for you must believe Matthias Kerrigan was telling a lie in the most important part of the case. You cannot believe his statement about the rest if lie told a lie in that important particular, when he said he never was served with the ejectment. Gentlemen, let me go over, even at the risk of wearying you, some of the ground tiken by Mr. Teeling in this most important case. He told you the testimony of the Kerrigans alone is the evidence against the prisoner. You have it clearly shown in this most reasonable 58 case that this man Matthias Kerrigan knew the process was coming from the office against him. He knew the Oughterard sessions was to be on the 1 8th. He knew, and all the country people in the district knew, that the 3rd of January was the last day on which the processes could be served. You have Matthias Kerrigan the only man in all that place that had any knowledge of the coming of Huddy there. Let us consider what evidence there is outside that man against the prisoner at the bar. Young Mannion says he saw Flynn in the boreen. This Mannion says he brought the body half way to the lake. Young Mat Kerrigan, he says, “ put the body on my back ; I did not see Pat Higgins < Long) there at all.” Was there ever such a case presented by the Crown as this ? A man is killed. One Crown witness carries the body half-way down to the lake, and he received it he said, from the son of the principal Crown witness. “ He helped to put it on my back, I did not see Pat Higgins (Long) there at all.” Gentlemen, the distances, as you see by the map, are small, the path to the lake is short. Mannion would have seen Pat Higgins ( Long) if he was there. All that Mannion tells you is, “ I brought the body to the lake.” From the hands of another Crown witness he received it. At the house of another Crown witness the Huddys were slain. You have the whole dramatis personae of the murder here. You have Matthias Kerrigan the only man in the village that knew Huddy was coming out with the processes and who got a process from Huddy. You may take it that the Huddys passed in safety by the other doors. They passed in safety until they came to the door of Matthias Kerrigan. Huddy served his process and the job was done ! You have Matthias Kerrigan, at whose door he died. You have his son, who took the body half way down to the lake — the son of the man who was concerned in the murder. In the family of the Kerrigan’s you have the whole dramatis persona; of the murder, as I submit. But you have also the unfortunate prisoner at the bar offered up as a victim by the Kerrigans to save their own necks, for, gentlemen, if Matthias Kerrigan did not tie the rope round the neck of that man in the dock, Matthias Kerrigan would be standing at the bar of this court, at this Winter Assize, on his trial for this murder. If Matthias Kerrigan were on his trial how forcible would be the evidence of Mannion, who received the body of the murdered man from the hands of the son of the prisoner. Then, gentle- men, you would be told by the Crown you were yielding to panic unless you brought in a verdict of guilty against Matthias Kerrigan, the men who brought this against themselves — a case of an overwhelming kind. They have saved themselves, ic is true, but do not pay to justice — or rather to injustice — the price that is asked, and that is the sacrifice of an innocent man’s life. Gentlemen, I fear I have grossly understated the case. I have told you that Matthias Kerrigan knew the civil bill officer was coming. You have him receiving the civil bill. You have his son carrying the body to the lake. You have the coffin, if I may so call it, in which the murdered min’s body was carried coming, as he himself confesses, coming out of the loft of Matthias Kerrigan’s house. Gentlemen, that is a tremendous point in the case. He does not say he told Pat Higgins (Long) there is a sack in the loft. The loft is a place in these little cottages generally used for storing things, and sometimes used as a sleeping apartment for some member of the family. Any neighbour coming into one of these houses has an opportunity of observing the condition of the houses, and the position of whatever furniture it contains, but no one but the man of the house knows what is stored in the loft. He knew where the sack or basket was to be got into which the body was put. He says Pat Higgins (Long), downed Huddy with a stone, and then that another man despatched him with a pistol. Pat Higgins (Long), he says, went into ray loft, and got the sack. I have two creaves, I don’t know which creave it was Joseph Huddy was carried to the lake in. Matthias Kerrigan was there with his son, and he has a vital interest in placing the guilt on another to save his neck. If the documents found on the dead body proved Joseph Huddy had served Matthias Kerrigan with the ejectment — if it was proved aliunde his creave was used, and his bag to carry the bodies to the lake, and proved by Mannion that young Kerrigan was found with the dead body on his back — if Matthias Kerrigan were on trial — you would be told in burning words that you would be perjured before God andfalse to your country if you did not bring in a verdict of guilty. Gentlemen, in Kerrigan and his family you have before you the dramatis personce of the murder. As to the testimony of the other people produced by the Crown, what is that ? What is the testimony of these two men who were called by the Crown after carefully sifting the evidence? These two Hal lorans heard the shots. They looked towards the place where the firing took place, and they saw Pat Higgins (Long), the prisoner at the bar, where he was described near his own door doing nothing at all ! Does not that tend ten thousand times more strongly. What was the evidence of these two girls who were examined for the defence? Recollect, gentlemen, the Hallorans are Crown witnesses, and is their evidence not con- 59 tirmation, strong as Holy Writ, of the evidence of the two girls, and that they were telling the truth when they swore that old Pat Higgins (Long) was threshing in his barn ; that he came out when the shots were tired, and at the moment was seen at a hasty glance. It is proved he went some yards down the road and came back. That is the Crown case. It tends as I submit in every detail to show that the rope should be round the neck of Michael Kerrigan, and taken from the neck of the prisoner on whose neck you are asked here to place it. Gentlemen, you cannot give too much weight to the question of the papers that were found in the pocket of Joseph Huddy ; and now, gentlemen, I will tell you why. Mr. Russell, one of the jurors — I will not pay him any compliments, but he and I have often met at opposite fields — we put a significant question — a question as to the documents found on Joseph Huddy, the process server. In a case of this kind, in which the life of a man is involved, counsel need not apologize for wearying you, for he is justified in stating everything which might tell in favour of his client. What is the course of the business of a process server % He starts in every case with two docu- ments, one containing a sixpenny stamp, and the other a half-crown stamp, the latter document, with the half-crown stamp, being the original, and if the defendant does not admit it. the fact that he was served will be proved by the process-server (reading from the original) served so and so, and judgment goes against the defendant by default. Now it is quite possible that a man may leave behind him the originals, and bring some copies, there might be case for the formula of showing the original was one to which the person named pays no attention at all. It is perfectly impossible that any man would go to the trouble of bringing the originals without having the copy, for you will observe, the original is a thing he never serves that would be bad service. The original he kept with him, and a process-server making up his mind to serve A B would take an original with him, but he would also take the copy, for the original would be no use for service. What is the evidence of Constable Terence Dowd, who searched the dead body of Joseph Huddy 1 He found three originals only, Patrick Conner (Mark), Thomas Hyland, Matthias Kerigsn. Pat Conner (Mark), is the father of Mrs. Walsh. Mr. Murphy . — That is an error. Mr. Adams . — At anv rate, gentlemen, you have it in evidence that only one Conner is proved to have been at Cloughbrack that day. That Pat Conner was dead at the time, and the only Conner of which we have any knowledge was the father of Mrs. Walsh, and Mrs. Walsh said yesterday — “ Joe Huddy was at my house that day, he left me to process Bridget Conner,” and the original of the Conner process is found on the dead body of Joseph Huddy, the meaning of that is that the woman is telling the truth. The second is Tom Hyland. Tom Hyland is not called for the Crown. He could have been ; the Crown knew the significance of this evidence as well as you do, and they pre- pared their case with astounding care. They could have called him if they ventured to do so, and explain if possible the sig- nificance of Kerrigan’s original being found on the body by showing that he was not served that day. I take it then he was served, there is no evidence he was not, and you have the original found on the body of Huddy, and the original of the process on Matthias Kerrigan, showing to my mind, having regard to the law of service, and the custom proved by Mr. Good, the most overwhelming evidence that Matthias Kerrigan was served that day with the process. Gentlemen, if Huddy’s body or pockets were ransacked they would have taken away the papers. It is as plain as night the body was with untidy haste carried to the lake, They don’t pretend it was ransacked. It is suggested the original was taken away. Matthias Kerrigan saw the whole trans- action. Yount: Kerrigan conducted the bodv on this awlul funeral march. The evidence leaves no doubt the papers found m Joseph Huddy’s pockets were the same as when he met his death. The original of the process against Matthias Kerrigan was there. Where was the copy 1 It was served on Michael Kerrigan one moment before the job was done. Here there are four or five copies proved. Where are the originals 1 The copies are for Patrick Kyne, Luke Kyne, and ano- ther, Pat Kyne. No originals. Is it proved he had forgotten the originals, or that lie was about to shirk the 'ceremony ot showing the originals f But it is a remarkable thing that these unserved copies were for these people the Kynes, who lived further on from the scene of the murder, and who were therefore served, because Huddy’s progress was cut short. He may have intended only to serve some on that day. He may have in- tended not to make two bites of a cherry. He passed some houses. He passed the village of “ America,” where, as sure as fate, some of the people owed rent. The only deduction you can draw, is that at any rate the originals represented persons who were served, that Conner was served, and Hylands, and Matthias Kerrigan, although Kerrigan swears he was not, and therefore the job was done. Gentlemen, there is only 60 one other topic I wish to press on you. Gentlemen, it has been urged on you that Huddy came that day to serve Patrick Higgins (Long), that he served him as he naturally would before he came to Matthias Kerrigan, and the solemn farce was gone through by the Crown of serving us with notice to proclaim that summons alleged to be served on us. If that civil bill was served on the prisoner, the original would be in the pocket of Joseph Huddy, where Matthias Kerrigan’s was. The man is “ drowned,” pistols fired into his body, a sack brought out of Kerrigan’s house and tied. There is not a single particle of evidence that anyone put his hand into the pocket of Joseph Huddy. It is proved no human being ransacked the pockets of the dead man. If the process was served on the prisoner, as alleged by the Crown, why was not the original found on the person of Huddy 1 Because he was not served. Of course it may be said in respect of any theory, there are difficulties ; but you are to consider probabilities, and whether the absence of any original does not raise the greatest doubt that Pat Higgins (Long) was served, and whether there is not strong proof that Matthias Kerrigan was served. Gentlemen of the jury, there is only one other point to be observed. When Kate Higgins came forward to give testimony for the prisoner, for her father, she is treated as you saw. But the Kerrigans are put for wax-d as irreproachable witnesses. That M atthias Kerrigan was in peril from the commencement is plain, for the grasp of the police on him is never relaxed. Some weight was put on the fact that these people, on the 14 th October, told the same stox-y ; but this man, Matthias Kerrigan, having found a victim, was discharged from custody on the 25th September, and now that during a period of three weeks he had ample opportunity of conversation and intercourse with his family, and concocting the plot to take away this man’s life and save his own. You ai'e asked to give the most weighty regard to the story told here by young Kerrigan, and the substantial stoi-y he told the magistrates, but you are not to believe Kate Higgins, because she went awhile up the boreen. The story told by M artin Kerrigan was different from what he told befoL-e the magistrates. What was his story before the magistrates ? “ I was then in my house. I came out and saw the dead bodies.” What is his stoi-y now ? That he was outside his own door, and saw the whole murder from beginning to end — saw them put into the sack, and the whole thing. Ten weeks ago he told a different story. He pledged his solemn oath that he was then in the house, and the necessai-y implication is, all was over befoi-e he came out. Gentlemen, he was also asked did he ever speak to his father, mother, bi’other, or sister about this. Never a word. He having seen this awful murder, pledged his oath he never, yes or no, spoke a word aboxit it to any member of his family. On that testimony you are asked to send the prisoner to the gallows. Matthias Kei'rigan has the most ti-emendous interest in swearing away the life of Pat Higgins (Long), because he has to take off the l'ope from his own neck. Rightly or wrongly the police believed, not that Pat Higgins was the mur- derer, but that Matthias Kerrigan was the mui'derer, and they held him a close prisoner when eveiy other human being from Clough- brack was discharged. You will say what weight should attach to the suggestion of Mr. Teeling, that Kerrigan, knowing lie was the murderer, fearing the state of things in the country, struck the bril- liant coup by which he changed himself from being in the dock to the witness-box. I have no intention of troubling you with any general remarks upon your duty. I thoroughly agree witli my friend, that with the state of the country you have nothing to do. What you are trying there is not whether executions are not useful in checking turbulence, or in improving the condition of the country. You are to retire to your box and consider the question, is this crime pi-oved beyond all doubt against the prisoner, and to consider it just, as if the whole of this country “ wrapt in universal peace,” and no crime of this kind ever was heard of before or in all probability will be heard of again. You were adjui-ed by the Solicitor-General to be courageous. I also ask you to be coui’ageous, and if you leave panic on one side, I ask you to leave it aside on another — not to be guilty of any moral cowardice, or to allow the balance of weight unreasonably to go one inch against that unhappy man. I ask you to consider that Kerrigan is the man who tries to save himself by fixing the rope round the neck of another. Does the evidence establish the gxiilt of Keri-igan? I say it does, but that is not the question you have to determine. Are you sure the prisoner is guilty ? I say you cannot be. Mi-. James Murphy . — Gentlemen of the jury, I and those with me here prosecuting on behalf of the public, are glad that everythin" that ingenuity and ability could urge on behalf of the prisoner has been laid before you by the great ability of the two learned gentlemen who have so ably addressed you. The duty that devolves on them is quite distinct from the solemn duty imposed upon us. This duty, sanctioned by the custom of our profession in this and in every other counti-y where the profession of the advocate has been known to prevail, sanctioned from 61 the earliest date that we have any record of advocates coining forward with their ability to defend, date. The custom and usage is, and the duty imposed on them is, that they should strive by all means, with all their ingenuity, to put aside, to trample out, to render unimportant, to put away altogether from the view if they could, of the tribunal before which they plead, any shred or particle of evidence that may tend in any way to bring home guilt to the prisoner. No matter how true the evidence against them may be, they are warranted in urging on the jury as false and unreliable. No matter how consonant with reason the evidence may be, and the facts that were established, they are called upon to exert themselves in making all these, have an opposite appearance with the jury, and to show that the facts are not consonant with reason, and that none of them can possibly tend to attach guilt, or even suspicion of guilt, upon the prisoner, who is their client. But our duty, our solemn duty is different fi-om that. We, prosecuting on behalf of the public, should abhor the thought that for a moment we could bring home guilt to an innocent person. We should condemn ourselves in our own consciences, and befoxe our God, if we put forward or urged as true evidence which we either knew or believed to be false. Our duty is to lay before the jui-y evidence which we consider is reliable to help the jury and the court to come to a right conclusion, and if the evidence establish the guilt we, of course, are bound by our duty to the public, because that is the duty we have here, not our duty to ihe Crown, or to those connected with the Ci'own living away from this land, but our duty to the public of this country, and the peace of this country, and the society in which we live, and with which our own welfare must be knit up — it is our duty towards them to exert ourselves, as best we can, by right and truth to bring home guilt to those who have brought it home to themselves by their conduct. Now, under what circumstances does this case come before you 1 A false and brutal murder was, on the morning of the 3rd of January, committed in this remote, but still tolerably well populated, district down at Cloughbrack. You have before you, now, the scene of the mu rd ext The learned Solicitor-Genei al was saying that he was about to state that it was almost without parallel, but, said he, though appalling, unfortunately I cannot say that it is not without having many equal to it in hoiTor, committed in this our country, and unfortunately not without having some not only equalling but surpassing it, not very remote from the district where this was perpetrated on the 3rd January. The crime was committed iu broad daylight, just about breakfast time. There 1 is now no dispute as to that. There was, perhaps in older to suggest some other defence, there was for a moment some effort rexy properly made by the learned counsel for the defence to bring this down to some later period of the day, and some effort made with respect to the evidence of that woman who spoke English to go back from the word “ Early ” in the morning, and to bring it in between eleven o’clock and twelve o’clock. We have heard something about a funeral; but that is all out of the question now. It was committed early, and about breakfast time. That is now conceded. It is perfectly manifest that a good many —no matter how many there were who perpetrated it — in this tolerably well populated district, there were a good many who had knowledge of facts that were likely to bring home guilt to the perpe- trators of it. And notwithstanding what my learned friends have said — perhaps they exaggerate the power of those who pxosecute or inves- tigate crime in this country, commencing with the constabulary, the magistracy and others, when our country was blackened apd stained with these terrible crimes, they at least were without this great m: chinei y for bringing criminals to justice — either the sympathy of the public around, or the readiness of witnesses to come forward to aid them in the investigation of the truth. We are now approachingthe twelfth month since this terrible deed shocked the ears not only of. the inhabitants of this island, but even of the rest of our Kingdom. But until the 1 lilx of October, so far as we see here now- until the lltb October, no human being came forward to utter a word that would bring home guilt to the perpetrators of the crime. My learned friend Mr. ’feeding who opened this case has spoken very properly in condemnation of these terrific crimes. I don’t know whether he is right; he knows more on that matter than I do ; whether he is right in the source to which he attributes them- - from what league, from what organization, as he lias ventured to tell you, I don’t stop to inquire, but undoubtedly they sprang up in this country from some organization confederated by sacrament of hell, to perpetuate crimes against human nature, and the, God of nature too. lieraove these, said my learned friend, anil f believe he is very nearly correct— remove these ghastly crimes from off the land, and our country may rival any other perhaps in its freedom from crime. But, gentlemen of the jury, nations do not, whole populations do not on a sudden turn assassins. If some there are so constituted by nature, or so depraved by teaching, that they assume the character of foul assassins, the vast majority, let us trust in God, of those around K though through terror and alarm, they may conceal the knowledge that they have of perpetrators of crime, yet if a God rules this world, if there are Divine promptings, if there are amongst the spirits, who if they suggest evil thoughts, also suggest good or holy promptings — if such there are let us hope they will not allow the consciences of all to remain for ever callous and slumbering, but that prompted, either from their own instincts, or from the workings of good within them, or from the lessons taught them by the ministers of religion, they will come forward and aid in the discovery of crime, for while they keep it secret they are burdened with the sense of a heavy crime themselves. And, said my learned friend, in September last or so, there was a symptom of the country awaking to its duty. There was a symptom of witnesses coming forward substantially to say, we witnessed terrific crimes, we will no longer keep them concealed within us ; it cannot be, what would be the end of all this if by secret assassination, and under terror and threat we are suffered to live and thrive. And some wholesome symptoms did arise, and some terrific criminals were brought to justice, by evidence adduced that had long lain locked up in secret ; and let us see now whether we have brought forward by some such promptings the terrible events of that day, and whether the evidence establishes that you have now before vou one of the perpetrators of that awful deed. If you have — if it is brought home to you, as I will submit it is by as clear, conclusive, and irresistible evidence as ever was given before a jury ; if your own nature, if your own teaching of the God you adore, or the religion in which you worship does not point out to you what is your duty as manly and intrepid inhabitants of this country, it is idle for me to attempt to do so. You are the last tribunal of appeal in this country. Jt is by juries the liberties of our country have been established, so that the administration of our law's and liberties are the envy of less happier lands. But if a jury fail in their duty through terror or panic, they are checked in the honest dis- charge of their duty, let us all hence and seek no administration of law, let the assassin range unchecked and uncontrolled. But you will pur- chase no safety by that. We are more safe if with bold intrepid breasts we meet these devilish organizations ; and if we face one or two more, w'e will succeed ere long in destroying the serpent’s track that makes our country loathsome and almost uninhabitable. Now, let me con- sider what evidence you have for a moment, putting aside the family of the Kerrigans — what evidence you have bringing the guilt of this ter- rific deed home to the prisoner at the bar, as one of three perpetrators of it. God forbid that I and my learned friend- — or if we did entertain the notion for an instant it would be tolerated by the eminent judge who presides here — should seek to fasten guilt on these or any other men by means of a model made in this or that way, or by means of inconclusive arguments with respect to documents or other little trifles in a case of that kind. We seek to establish the guilt solely by laying before you firm, solid, reliable evidence, < n which you can rest with firm footing as you advance, and see does it lead up to the door of proof, aye, and of demonstration I may say in this case. If it does, and if it satisfies you as reasonable men, and produces that degree of moral certainty that would call on you in your own houses at home — for don’t suppose when you enter the jury box you are to use different faculties, different reasoning, different powers, from those youuse athome. Youareto use the same, and if the facts that we establish would entitle you to say justly and honestly in your own house, these facts satisfy me of the guilt of this man, your duty is to find that verdict, and if your conscience is clear you have nothing more to do. Now, gentlemen of thejury,letus in the firstinstancetakethesedocuments. I shall notaskyou to draw — to come to any very strong or firm conclusion — I suppose I may use the term — on what I urge with respect to this ; but I say this, that undoubtedly tlfe condition of things manifested so far as these docu- ments furnish any proof at all — the condition of things manifested by them is consistent, more consistent certainly with the guilt of the pri- soner' than with the guilt of Kerrigan. Now, you have heard in the first instance from the gentleman in the office of my Lord Ardilaun that this poor Huddy, with his little grandson, had got a good number of processes to serve — a good number — and that he was at that work on this morning of the 3rd January. It appears now in evidence — we don’t go through others, and there is no vise in going through the dis- trict. We brought you to the house of Mary Walsh, and she was served she says as for her mother the widow, and that is not at all for Pat Conner (Mark). Her mother was a widow, Bridget Con- nor, and it was for her, not for Pat Conner [Mark] at all. He served a process at tl at house. Now, the man appears to have been a very careful methodical little man— careful in his business. He was about seventy years of age, and he went to discharge this duty, probably aware of the peril of it ; but, notwithstanding the state of things in the country, men like him fearlessly advanced to do their duty, just as others — the humblest members of the constabulary, the sub-constables, constables, and head-constables — the sub-constables, constables, ami heads of our metropolitan police force, with exemplary bravery. I may say that ought to be an example to us, if we, in better plight and condition of life, looked for an example, did their duty — ought to be an example to us— aye, and to jurors, when they go into the box to do their duty boldly, like men. He served at the house of the widow Conner, serving for her Mary Walsh. He pro- ceeded then, and he served at the house of Pat Mannion. was I may tell you that these, that we found on the poor creature after the body was taken up, appear to have been folded up in a particular way and most of them, I think nearly all, having printed on the margin of them the name of the person for whom he was to take them — just as a man going about v r ith dockets collecting debts, having outside his own endorsement of persons for whom the bills or notices were. He proceeded from the house of Pat Morrin, and he is next seen down on the main road near Flynn’s house. We take for granted that he got there 1 He went by a shorter road making to that boreen, and going down to the cross roads he is seen about Flynn’s, and he is then going in the direction of two persons named Higgins, not of course the prisoner here. You see at the left hand side as you go along the little boreen breaks off, by which this represented here is a continuation. Now he had to serve in that boreen Pat Macken ; he had to serve — and now mark this suggestion by my learned friend ; they make any suggestion that may catch the jury, but they cannot say he left originals instead of copies in one case, and copies instead of originals in another. We cannot reason in that way. We assume, at first, that he brought the originals with him and the copies with him. He was to serve at that house of Pat Macken ; he was to serve at the house of Pat Higgins, the prisoner at the bar, no doubt about that, an 1 after that he was to serve at the house of Mat Kerrigan, and half a mile further on Pat and Luke Kyne. Now, gentlemen of the jury, so far as documents proving where ho was, it was his duty to produce the original and copy, to give the copy showing the original, and after that — though he might not do it till lie got home at night — endorse on the original — that would be the rule — the mode and time of service. “ I served such a one,” and so on, would be good evidence in a court in case of his death. In the ordinary way of business lie may have done that or not at the time, or when he came home, but his business was to keep the original and leave the copy. Now, gentlemen of the jury, according to all accounts here there was nothing in the world to prevent his seeing Pat Higgins. He was at home that day, he was threshing in his barn up by his house, and un- questionably, now, according to the whole case, Huddy and his little grandson passed that house. I mean by “ passed it ” when they came as far as it for the work of service and had got further on than that before they were murdered. Now, did he serve Tat Higgins or not. Why should he not? He came out to serve the persons in that district. He came up along the lane. He had got the documents in order to serve him. Why should he not have served Pat Higgins, and if lie did why should he not have the original if he was allowed to keep it? Why should not he have the original? Oh, says my learned friend, no proof is given at all that any one touched his pocket. In fact, the murderers would have had a sacred regard for the contents of his pockets. Gentlemen of the jury, no proof is given because, unfortunately, we cannot give itx Who put the bodies into the boat? No proof is given. Who took the bodies out towards such an island ? No proof is given. Who put the stones into the sack or who tied stones to the legs of the old man ? But whoever was there to do it, had quite ample opportunity and time to search the pockets and to plunder it as they liked of any legal documents, especially of any that would be injurous to themsel ’es, or perhaps to others in the townland. Now, it is strange to say, that though he had served undoubtedly at Walsh’s, though he did serve at Pat Morrin’s, though he did serve Pat Macken’s, it is strange there is no original process found in his pockets of any of those served. There is not an original process found that was served on any of the persons whom he had undoubtedly served — Morrin, Walsh, Macken, nor for Higgins for whom he had a process. Hid they make a careful selection, did they select and destroy the original processes that might have had an endorsement of service on them, or certainly the original processes that belonged to him that would have conformed with the copies that were left at houses down on the map be- fore they came to the place where the parties who murdered them knew they had ceased effecting any service. Now, look at how that stands if you are to draw any argument from it. From the way these documents stood the position was — Huddy went out with originals and copies to serve. Ho served three houses un- doubtedly before he came to Pat Higgins’. He ought to have served Pat Higgins. There was no difficulty in doing it. He was at the door, at the place where he should turn in. It is reasonable to sup- pose he should serve him, but there is not found in his possession the original of a single document which would be a testimony of scr K 2 G4 vice on these persons. There is not fonnd the original of a single document. The original fonnd for Pat Conner (Mark) has no endorse- jnent of service — it was just as if not taken out. And so with Thomas Hylands, another, and with Matthias Kerrigan’s. These are the only- three originals that are found, hut no original, as I have told you, was found that would lead to show service on any of the houses — the three that he had actually served, and this fourth that at least catne in his way for service, and that he had come up to, and, as we say, left before the fatal wounds were fired into him here. Now, so it stands on the documents, and if Kerrigan or any other person came to ride this man of documents — because of course some must have been taken away from him — if any man came to rifle him, the first thing they would do would be to take the original of the process that would testify against them — their own copy they could at any moment they wished throw into the fire. If Matthias Kerrigan had possession of the body, and had perpetrated the crime to destroy all evidence of service, I suggest he would not have left the original there, which might for all he knew be the means of establishing service against him. Furthermore, if he came there and that he was in the act of serving it, he would have been murdered before he left the street, and before the original had gone back to his pocket out of which he had effected the service, for undoubtedly he is murdered about here [pointing to model]. We will see whether there is a little truth on behalf of the defence showing accurately where the two' murders were perpetrated, and let me see whether or not the evi- dence that came out from the last witness, the second witness examined for the defence, does not prove the truth of the prosecution. Now, gentlemen of the jury, so it stands with respect to the documents Well, now let me come to some other witnesses not assailed by my learned friends — I mean whose position is not impugned by my learned friends. They, of course, as their own ingenuity and ability pointed out, attacked what they considered the only assailable witnesses, and said to themselves, “ Our only chance of turning away grief from this man is the fastening of it on the Kerrigans. “ Old and young, husband and wife, son and daughter, for I think by one of the witnesses, at least, if not by themselves, the daughter was brought in, Bridget being away at service at the time, but the evidence of the defendant’s daughter was not pointed at the little girl of seven or eight years of age. My Mr Adams. — It was said distinctly it was the daughter Mary, and it. was afterwards proved that she was the youngest. Mr. Murphy. — Very well — -evidently pointing her out as taking part in it. My learned friends adopted the only course open to them, of fastening guilt upon the whole of the Kerrigans together, as engaged in this transaction. Now, I would most respectfully submit to you that this assassination must have been in some degree planned — preparations must have been made for it. There must have been more than one or two members of some organisation to carry out this desperate deed ; and it is idle, I would submit, in the first instance, to suppose that one man there, with only the family that you have heard, and his wife, would perpetrate this double murder under the circumstance it is endeavoured — -you are endeavoured to be persuaded, it is alleged, the Kerri- gans committed. But, gentlemen of the jury, let us come now to two other witnesses, till we see whether we have the guilt coming home to the prisoner at the bar. The two Hallorans hear shots. They wait for some time. I venture to say that any person just like this girl Conroy, when she heard the shots, had a suspicion as to what they were. Sport, said my learned friend, may have been going on. I am afraid, if one could say the word on such a ghastly subject, that they thought it was big game indeed. The Halloi-ans heard the shots or shot, I don’t stop to inquire which. They came to one corner, and they gave only a terrified glance over the wall, for they looked, and went back as quickly as they could. They knew the deed that was being perpetrated. They saw some persons — three or four — two or three, one says, in the place. They don't state they saw the Kerrigans beside the bodies, or going to and fro from the road, but they saw two or three persons there. This movement of theirs must have occupied some time. They" waited some time after the shots were fired, and they came some . distance, and took a glance to see what was brought down by the shots, What was the result 1 They looked for a while, they saw some persons whom they could not identify. Mind that. It is not Kerrigan’s husband, they knew them ; it is not Kerrigan’s wife, or the little child of eight or nine years, or the boy Martin, or the boy Matthias, whom they knew as well as themselves, living over here (pointing to model). See, there is their house on the map. They saw, at least it is what they said when giving their evidence before a magistrate, between his own house and this — they saw Pat Higgins (Long) ; the others they could not identify at the dis- tance, but they saw there Pat Higgins (Long) on the street. They did not see him blessing himself, he only ran out, took a look up, and fib-ssed himself, and went in and continued threshing the coin, at the same time talking to the little girls, “ Maybe 65 they are going to bury the body, or to do something to fasten guilt upon us,” and he was not moved by curiosity to observe from the place where they were carrying the victims of the assassination, that according t a their own account they substantially witnessed. They had him on the scene of the assassination, and others there that were at that time unknown to the Hallorans, and the Hallorans not giving yon a suggestion that Kerrigan was out there, or the woman, or the little gii’l, or any of the Kerrigan family out at the scene of the slaughter. Gentlemen of the jury, what next have we? By the evidence tour persons are brought here - Tom Higgins, Michael Flynn, another Pat Higgins, and the prisoner at the bar. Michael Flynn, Tom Higgins, and the prisoner were the perpetrators of the deed. Another man comes up afterwards — I will call your attention to him afterwards. Gentlemen of the jury, the evidence for the Crown attaches guilt to these two as well a s to the prisoner at the bar. Though we put only one, thinking it the fairest thing to do, put one only on his trial at a time, the evidence for the Crown brings others into it — Tom Higgins and Michael Flynn. It is open to one and all for the prisoner to assail the evidence as to the presence of these two men, and contradict it even though they were not now on their trials. It is open to them to adduce evidence that Thomas Higgins was not there that day through members of his family or any other people, to prove that he was not there. It was open to them to prove that Michael Flynn was not there that day, that he was at a funeral or anywhere else. Anti if they established to the satisfaction of the jury the absence of either of the other two, it would certainly impair, almost completely destroy, I may say, the evidence for the Crown. You iden- tify such a man, he was not there at all, therefore we won’t act upon your evidence at all. Tom Higgins [Sara], another person is brought down there. He is brought on the scene after the murder, and he is placed by the evidence for the Crown here, as almost volunteering in taking the body away form this place at Macken’s corner, where the laneway adjoins the road. It would be open to them to prove that Pat Higgins | Sara] was not there at all, or that when he came there he saw Kerrigan, father, or son, or wife, taking an active part in the disposal of the bodies. Now, gentlemen of the jury, we have at least him as the only man that is recognised by the Hallorans as out on this roadway soon after the murder. We have Mrs. Kerrigan and the children not out on the road at that time. Now, gentlemen of the j ury, go onalittle further. W ecome to the evidence of the young boy, Mannion, a very intelligent young fellow, who gave his evidence in Irish that he tells you that he was out that morning in the boreen, that he saw Michael Flynn there, that he knew him, they were face to face with each other, and that Michael Flynn spoke to him ; it was only a few words, but he did speak to him. Therefore, by totally independent evidence we have another of those who are alleged to have taken part in this dire tragedy in the lane that morning, and no attempt made to prove chat he was not. there, though we have suggested and have com- mitted ourselves to show what work he was there for, the little boy not cross-examined. Whatever was stated to you about a funeral, and it being early in the morning — all obliged to be given up. Now what next occurs 1 I mean the evideuc outside the Kerrigans. We have the man Mannion, who gave his evidence characteristically, and described to us the way he was taken and soforth, and the way he was seized and enlisted in the service as a sort of participator in this ghastly work. 1 suppose when young Kerrigan, as we allege, reluctant in carrying the burden, was showing faintness or weakness, Mannion, who appeared on the scene, is enlisted in it, and Tom Higgins, and another man that we pointed out as being a perpetrator, seizes him by the collar, and tells him he must carry the fearful burden that lie knew was in that sack. “ Oh,” says my learned friend, and I rightly draw your attention to it for a while — “ Here are two reliable witnesses. Here is young Mannion, who doesn’t touch the prisoner; oh no, he only brings Michael Flynn there, and here is the elder Mannion who doesn’t touch the prisoner, he only brings Thomas Higgins there and Pat Higgins (Sarah); but observe, gentlemen, how accurately that accordswith thee\ idence, how accurately that accords with what took place. The body of the elder Huddy was placed in the cleave and carried off by the prisoneratthe bar, and Michael Flynn, before thebody in the sack was removed by the reluctant carriers, or less ready participators, the others were disposing of the older, and perhaps making a search for the documents ; the others, who were disposing of the older, were the advance body of a funeral procession, and they were not seen by Mannion when he was compelled to take his share in it. llow accurately that accords with the evidence- how accurately the account was given of Tom Higgins here by this man.” Oh, said my learned friend, Mr. Teeling, these Kerrigans came forward to give evidence only, when it was believed a communication was being made by three other persons, by Flynn and Mr. Teeling . — I beg your pardon. I only mentioned one name, the only person I am defending here, the prisoner at the bar. I did not certainly say three, the prisoner at the bar was the only person I mentioned. Mr. Murphy. — Well, no matter what my learned friend said I am not entitled to go back on it, but here is my argument totally inde- pendent of whether my learned friend did say anything of the kind. If he did say anything of the kind it isn’t for a moment to be urged against the prisoner. Gentlemen of the jury, this is what I call your attention to, if Kerrigan was inventing the story, if Kerrigan, his wife and children after perpetrating this deed, were getting up a charge against their next door neighbour, Pat Higgins, who was on the street, whom they knew saw it all, w'ith what object on the face of the earth could they have induced Michael Flynn, whom they had not seen, or whom they did not know where he was, or Tom Higgins, who might be able to prove that they were ten miles off at the time. Gentlemen of the jury, let me call your attention to this : undoubtedly of these murders vast numbers must have been, if not actually, privy to them in the full sense of the word, aware of the quarter from which the assassins came, they must have known who were the parties concerned, and could afford ample evidence that would be able to track home guilt. Kerrigan was in prison, but the constabulary with that, T may say, accurate instinct that they have in finding out some connexion in the crime, have had at least localised to this place, and they thought, I suppose, that at least Kerrigan knew something about it. He was in prison, charge 1 with the murder, he was placed in prison again as a suspect, but he was released from under that and he was re-arrested on the 11th September and kept in until the 25th September. Still with the charge of being concerned in this assassination hanging over him, during all that time not a word was breathed by himself, or by the members of his family, to implicate any persons. He received some money I shall not stop to inquire where it came from, but so far as we know the only claim that he had to it was that he was suspected of murder, My learned friend has made observations on that point which perhaps if I or anyone else had made they would have been considered terrific denunciations. But, gentlemen of the jury, he is released, he is a free man on the 25th September, and it is perfectly evident that, notwithstanding all the energy the constabulary could bring to bear, or those w'ho were in- vestigating the matter, could bring to bear, they could not attach guilt to the Kerrigans, and they were obliged to let Pat Kerrigan go a free man. Gentlemen, it is not for me to suggest, it isn’t for me to inquire what influences were brought to bear on Kerrigan, what influences may have been brought to bear on his wife or his chiidren, but at least, in H eaven’s, name let us hope this — that if they were possessed of any sense of religious feeling, with any sense of duty towards the God whom they adore, if in their own faith the Virgin Mother and the God-bom child was ever held up before them, if the priest of their religion ever came in contact with them, and had them face to face, let us hope, for the sake of morality, for the sake of religion, for the sake of humanity itself, that the family of the Kerrigans was at length, or some member of them, induced to reveal the terrible secret to which they were privy, and to detail the circumstances of the ghastly assassination that they witnessed. For when they were free, when there was no hope of reward held out to them, when there was no chance of any person accusing them that we have seen, you are asked to believe — strong and awful as this murder was — horrible and appalling in all its details, and showing degraded human nature — that there was yet a depth lower still, that of imagining that the whole family could conspire, and that father and mother could get their almost infant child to enter into a foul con- spiracy to attach guilt upon a man who was their next door neighbour, and two others that lived comparatively far away from them, whom they had no quarrel with nor strife with, and between whom and them no ill feeling existed. Tt is suggested that Pat Higgins was telling anything about themselves, that he was telling anything he knew and that the Kerrigans wanted to be in first! — No such thing. Kerrigan was not charged, no one dared to utter a word against him, and he is free, he is brought into connexion with the open world, he is brotiglit out into the open day, and he is brought, let us suppose, into communication with his own religion ; then his wife and two sons c me to tell us — -aud let us now see whether there is a single fact of their story that might be contradictory evidence at all reliable. But before I come to that I referred to another matter. I have referred to tlie Hallorans. I refer to the Mannions, old and young. The Hallorans put this man on the scene. The evidence of the Mannions is exactly in accordance with the evidence for the Crown. But what about the evidence adduced for the defence. Is not it of terrific weight in establishing the guilt of this deed on Patrick Higgins, the prisoner at the bar, and his confederates 1 He brings forward witnesses, witnesses that he knew were to tell truth or falsehood. He knew whether they witnessed the transaction or not, (i7 he knew whether his daughter could tell truth in giving evidence endeavouring to free him from guilt, he knew whether the girl Conroy could give evidence freeing him from guilt. In the first instance my learned friend, Mr. Adams, said that if she told ten thousand lies, that she might also tell the truth, and you are to believe her. In the first instance, gentlemen of the jury, what does that girl, Kerrigan do ? After her father is taken up, when he is in under this charge, and when she must know that he is in on the accusation of the Kerrigans, and the evidence of the Kerrigans, she is brought face to face with the magistrate, and asked can you tell us anything of this affair tending to show whether your father was there or not at that time 1 ? She had the strongest inducement, just the same as she has now to inculpate the Kerrigans and to get her father free. She is brought before the resident magistrate. As my learned friend stated, she is no stupeed girl, there is no confusion, but she is quick and agile in intellect, seizing on every point, and seeking to put everything that Kerrigan had told against her father, now as against the Kerrigan’s themselves. Put upon that table, she denied every word of that which she stated before the magistrate, namely that she was absent on the morn- ing this murder was committed, that she was absent, perhaps, but we will come to that immediately. She actually had the terrible audacity to swear that she was not brought into the presence of the magistrate at all — that she was not sworn at all. Mind, this was last month, I might say, the 11th October. She says that she was not brought into the presence of the magistrate at all, that she was not sworn at all, that she never told any such thing as that down there in writing, proved by the document itself, and bv the evidence of three witnesses. Gentlemen of the jury, what do you think of the man who brought her forward here to tell that story she tells us here to-day — false as it must be — from the story which she told in that information to the magistrate, and in the presence of others at the time, that she had a strong motive. What do you think of the man who would think it necessary to resort to that terrible remedy- — to have his daughter brought forward as evidence for him to free him from the guilt of the deed he had perpetrated, knowing that the testimony that she was to give was to be false. But does he stop there? Another witness is produced — Conroy. She does not live in the house. She tells you this most extraordinary story — that she heard the shots with the other, that they began talking about what it was, but went on with their work, and did not go out. Now, gentlemen, do you think that possible? Do you think that two girls down a lonely place of this kind, hearing shots, and suspecting what it was ; for if they denied it one hundred times over, I believe it was as public as that (the boreen) was there, that Joe Huddy was to be there that day, and was there, and that it is as sure as that Joe Huddy is now in his grave, that he was seen passing that house, and the presumption is that he did his business in that house) that when the shots were heard (if they were heard they knew well what they were) they could restrain themselves from rushing at once to see, unless they were told beforehand not to mind, and that they were not to stir. Why, gentlemen, nothing could restrain them from rushing to see what it was unless they knew well what it was about ; but you were told they went on with their work, then they came in. and they told the man in the bam, who heard the shots just as well as they had, but never stirred out, according to their account, to see what was the cause. Now, do you believe that possible ? They say that they were talking about so and so, and that he told them to go up and see. And, gentlemen of the jury, we have this, which is probably very true, we have this piece of evidence, which is probably very true, from the girl Conroy, who, though she denied knowing anything about it, may have witnessed some of this transaction that day — that she went up and took her standpoint there (pointing to the model) in order to see what was the resultof the firing. And, gentlemen of the jury, it is a remarkable coincidence — though the story of the girl Higgins — though her story may be at variance with the story of the prisoner’s daughter when she swore that she was not there at all that day, it may be perfectly true that the girl, Conroy, may have come down there, and may have been on the hill. The story about the geese not coming on the road — that is all scattered to th ; wind at once, for the witness who swore to it swore that she was not there at all before. She swore it solemnly and entered into a good many details concerning it, as to the way she went and so forth. She has had the audacity to say that she never was sworn at all. 1 do not think her evidence can for a moment be considered by the jury in any other light except the one suggested— that the man who brings her forth must know that she is telling a falsehood. Her evidence is proved to be utterly false by other witnesses. Tt is propablethat the girl, Conroy, did take the rising ground to have a view, and she places one dead body here and the other dead body there (pointing to the models). Now, if the Kerrigans were not there at all, on the evidence of these two witnesses, who wore brought forward to give this story, but from 68 whom he extracted tins much truth with respect to Pat Higgins (Sarah), who was there, and how the evidence of other witnesses have you not this man at the bar as one of the perpetrators of that assass- ination'? Now let me come to the evidence of the Kerrigans. The father swears to you that the man was coming up the road, and that he was pursued — the grandfather — the aged man is knocked down. My learned friend, Mr. Adams, was labouring this point a great deal as to the weight of the stone, its size, the strength with which it must have been hurled, and so forth, to knock a man down. Gentlemen, a man may be knocked down by a blow received between the shoulders with his coat on him, and no mark be left — a man may be struck with a stone on the head, his hat being on him, the blow knocking him down, and yet no mark be left upon the head. There might be some swelling, but that may subside, and there might be no swelling. If the body were immediately plunged into water, there might be a mark between the shoulders of a person struck, if the body were allowed to lie on the ground for a long time, but the body of poor old Huddy was not allowed to lie long on the ground. It was quickly deposited in its burying place in Lough M ask. So, gentlemen, there is nothing in all that, but I may tell you that there was a mark between the shoulders. Well, the old man is knocked down, and when lie fell he was shot. But the two other agents - the boy runs on, and he is pursued by Flynn, knocked down, and hred at, and now, gentlemen of the jury, let us see how these witnesses detail to you what exactly they saw. In the first place the father and the little boy tell it to you as I said before, I ask you why would they, if they wanted to fasten the guilt on one man, 'introduce into their evidence the names of the other two men — • Michael Flynn and Tom Higgins For these an alibi might be established, if it were true, by 100 witnesses for all the Kerrigans knew. How did they know, in October afterwards, if their story was not true ? How did they know that Michael Flynn was the man who was engaged there ; how Thomas Higgins was engaged tln-re, and how Patrick Higgins was engaged ; and how should they expose themselves to the risk of committing themselves to this statement against this man ag dnst whom they had conceived this diabolical story ? They gave you an account of the despatch of the old man, and the elder son was coming back from the bog with turf, and he comes down and he only gives you an account of what he himself saw. He only saw the boy despatched ; as far as he goes lie did not add much to the evidence against the prisoner, but then we have the evidence of the father and mother as to the circumstances that occurred before he came upon the scene. Huddy is knocked down — - knocked down by this man, who gave him a kick — and the two who fired at him were Flynn and Thomas Higgins. Were they emissaries or agents from some organization that came supplied with weapons for the perpetration of this deed ? The witness did not put the pistol, so far as I recollect, into this man’s hand. Not at all ; he put it in the hands of Flynn and Thomas Higgins. And, gentlemen of the jury, the witnesses tell you this further thing, that this man ran into their house or their loft — I don’t know where the sack was hidden — and they got the sack out. Gentlemen of the jury, you have heard the terrible use to which that sack was put ; and because these witnesses tell the truth they are not to be taken as participators in that awful deed. The sack was brought out, and it is very significant indeed, as showing that this old man did by order, this terrible assassination. He never would have ventured to do it by himself. That there must have been more selected for this deed was evident — some of the best of the cut throats — some of the best agents must have been selected for this double murder in the broad noon daylight, to be able by threats and terror to compel these people to carry the bodies away. Then Kerrigan and his wife says they saw the two bodies carried away — they did not mind where the cleaves were, but Kerrigan says he thinks there were two cleaves — he didn’t mind anything about the cleaves, but the bodies were carried away. How were the bodies disposed of? Was it for one moment to be suggested that there was any other motive than terror to be discovered in the eon- duct of those who are compelled to join in the removal of the bodies. No one suggested it, and do you think the Kerrigans would have allowed their son to carry the body by himself, and wait for somebody else to take the other, soon to be joined by Mannion, if they had dared to interfere on his behalf. Is it suggested that Tom Higgins was co-agent with the others ? No such thing, they swore to you, and it is established by evidence that the prisoner at the bar and Michael Flynn had tire body of the elder man put in a cleave. They went on in trout. 1 homas Higgins seized on young Kerrigan coming down from the. mountain. He was one ot those armed with a pistol, and he told him what he should do, and he compelled the unfortunate creature to carry the dead body of this unfortunate little boy to the place he did. But, gentlemen of the jury, as I said before, there was t G9 some suggestion to you with respect to Michael Flynn, about the hour and so forth, and about a funeral; but, gentlemen of the jury', Michael Flynn and the prisoner at the bar went on in front. Where Flynn went we don’t know. Flow far he went none of our witnesses can prove, but that he went on in front of Kerrigan ; husband and wife and child, male and female, little children, remained behind, and the son was seen compelled to take the body. Now just pause there for a moment. On what possible theory, on what possible suggestion, is this disposal of the bodies consistent with any guilt on the part of the Kerrigans. Does Kerrigan’s own conduct point to him as a guilty party in the assassina- tion. “They were talking about the body? Oh, they were.” And were they not talking about burying itl I believe there is a good deal of talk of that kind coming from Pat Kerrigan where it should be buried or disposed of. She says they were talking about it, and arranging about the disposal of it, and the curiosity of that girl never allowed her to depart from the place until she saw what was done with the body. She remained there until she saw the procession, such as it was, going down there. The girl was not there at all ; then this story r about the sack is all contradicted by her. She merely says she saw this funeral procession going down to the head of the lough ; there must have been several persons in it, but no one ventures to say' that one of the Kerrigans went with it. Young Kerrigan was made to carry it, and how is it established that he was a party, or his father, interested in the disposal of the body' ; for we may come down to the point where that old man — an unimpreached witness, came up and meets it. The body was shifted on to him, and he fell under it. Tom Higgins caught him, and he tells us how he treated him. Kerrigan got away from the scene as rapidly as he could. That man, M annion, established by evidence — it is proved beyond all question — that the Kerrigans were not parties interested in the disposal of the body — that young Kerrigan was pressed into the service by terror, that lie abandoned it as soon as he could, gave up the ghastly employment, as the old man, Mannion, did, as soon as he got the burden off his back. Both of them got away as quickly as they could — they must have felt that the carrying of the dead body' of this young man was a ghastly task. Now, gentlemen of the jury, that is the case you have to deal with— that is the evidence of eye-witnesses — the evidence of eye-witnesses brought before you, sworn to give true evidence in the case. As I said before, if your own conscience, your oaths, y'our commune with that Divine essence of the Deity that is in the bosom of every honest man, and prompts him to do right, and abide by the truth, and hold fast by that to which belongs his own salvation — if motives and inducements such as these do not compel you to give the verdict that this evidence has so clearly demonstrated, then no words of mine can do it. I leave the result with yourselves. I, for my part, have, to the best of my ability, discharged my duty. The Court at this stage adjourned until eleven o’clock next morning THE DUBLIN DECEMBER COMMISSION. 9th DECEMBER, 1882. County of Galway. THE LOUGH MASK MURDERS. i Thk Queen v. Patrick Higgins (Long). The Hon. Mr. Justice O’Brien sat in the Court House, Green-street, at eleven o’clock, and resumed the trial of Patrick Higgins (Long), for the wilful murder of Joseph Huddy, at Cloghbrack, Co. Galway, on the 3rd of January 1882. The Hon. the Solicitor-General (A. M. Porter, Esq., Q.C., M.P.), James Murphy, Esq., Q.C., and Peter O'Brien, Esq., Q.c. (instructed by George Bolton, Esq., Crown Solicitor), attended to conduct the prosecution ; and Charles II. Teeling, Esq., and Richard Adams, Esq. (instructed by Patrick J. B. Daly , Esq., of Ballinrobe), appeared for the accused. The Jury having answered their names: — Henry A. Phillipson (foreman), John Lowe, William Glenn, Michael Roe, Thomas W. Russell, John Martin, John Miller, William Owen, James P. O’Reilly, George O’Neill, William R. F. Godley, and James King. Mr. Justice O’Brien proceeded to sum up the evidence for the jury. He said — Now, gentlemen of the jury, that the man at the bar is charged with the crime of murder, and that the penalty of murder is death, is a consideration that never fails to impress any tribunal with a sense of the deepest responsibility and a sense of the greatest necessity for care and circumspection in discharging the duty that devolves upon you. That the prisoner, moreover, is a person of humble condition, not comprehending the language by means of which for the most part these solemn proceedings are conducted — an almost dumb and silent spectator of the scene in which his life or death is involved — forms an additional and strong ground for the exercise of great vigilance and circumspection in arriving at a conclusion so deeply momentous. On the other hand you must bear in mind that wherever the guilt and punishment of this crime would fall, it would necessarily fall on persons of his own class, and that the law must be vindicated, and the crime of murder punished as a very necessary essential means of maintaining civil society, no matter what may be the rank or position in life of the person by whom that crime is committed, and you have also to bear in mind that the victims of this dreadful crime were humble men of station and pursuit, and condition of life scarcely different from that of the accused. Now, in approaching the question of his guilt, J must state to you that I cannot accede to the proposition that was laid down as to the measure of proof that you ought to require as the foundation of your verdict. It is not the ordinary mode in which the rule is laid down — that a jury must be as satisfied of the guilt of the accused as of their own existence, or that the sun shines at noonday. These are pro- positions that express mathematical certainty as distinguished even from moral certainty. The ordinary rule to which I adhere, and to which you are bound to adhere, is this — you must be satisfied of the guilt of the accused. If you have a reasonable doubt of his guilt, a reasonable doubt, you ought to give him the benefit of it, and that reasonable doubt I define, as it has been often defined, to be a doubt naturally and fairly arising upon the evidence, such a doubt as men will act upon in the important concerns of life, and not that general doubt that arises from the weakness and fallibility of human understanding or the natural uncertainty of all human affairs. Now, bearing in mind that as the great canon and rule you are to go by let us see how the evidence stands in this important case. A great deal of discussion arose both in the arguments of the counsel for the accused and the counsel for the Grown upon what would be undoubtedly very important and genuine evidence if it could lead you to any definite conclusion — the written documents that were found upon the person of the elder of the two Huddys when the bodies were recovered from Lough Mask — those different civil bill ejectments which remained, and a great struggle has been made to make use of them in favour of the accused against the principal witness who bears testimony against him, Matthias Kerrigan ; and also on the other hand to make use of them on behalf of the Grown. Now any observations that I make upon this or upon any M 72 other part of the case, you are to receive only so far as it accords with your own judgment. The responsibility of this great issue is with you and not with me, though I have another kind of responsibility devolving upon me, and I wish to press no view of the case upon you — not in any degree. Far be it from me to force your judgment in the least possible degree, but merely to give you the aid of such observations as occur to my mind, and desiring you only to receive them or act upon them in so far as they concur with your own judgment. But upon the best consideration I have been able to give to these documents it does not occur to me that they furnish materials for any very dehnite or distinct conclusion, and now I will tell you why. On the day, on the occasion immediately before this 3rd January the deceased man, Joseph Huddy, had received from the agent of the estate several civil-bill ejectments, amongst others original ejectments against a person named Morrin, Michael Morrin, against the prisoner, Patrick Higgins, against the witness, Matthias Kerrigan, against several different persons of the name of Kyne, the houses of some of whom would appear to be situated on a part of the road before he approached Higgins’ house, and some at a point more distant than Kerrigan’s. When the bodies are found three civil bill ejectments alone are found. Now, Huddy being a bailiff, knew perfectly well the nature of his duties ; and it was absolutely necessary for him for the ordinary performance of his duties that he should always have with him the copies of the civil bills for service, and the originals also for production. It would be entirely contrary to the ordinary course of experience, and the ordinary course of practice if, as was suggested by the counsel for the accused, he was found in some instances to have left behind him the originals, and merely taken the copies. Now, in the case of two persons named Kyne, whose residence he did not at all reach — Luke and Patrick Kyne, whose residence he did not at all reach, the copies alone are found. The originals are wanting, and no motive can be assigned for the abstraction of those originals at all. In the case of Mary Walsh who was served with a document by him, and whom I take to be the same person in reality as Patrick Connor (Mark), because Mary Walsh’s mother was named Connor, Bridget Connor ; she was apparently the widow of a person named Patrick Connor, and the ejectment would be drawn and prepared in the name of the original deceased Patrick Connor ; she was served with this ejectment as appears by the evidence, and no motive or reason ap- pears for the abstraction of the copy in her case. The original is found. On the other hand the wife of Michael Morrin was served with an ejectment, and no reason appeal's why the original or copy should not be found, and neither is found. It may be a far- fetched thing to suggest any motive in the mind of the accused Patrick Higgins for the abstraction of the copy or original of any civil bill served on Mary Morin. But, now let us come to two particular instances where documents were not found which certainly are not un- important. The usual civil bill ejectment in the case of Matthias Kerrigan is found on the person of Huddy, and a strong alignment is founded on that by the counsel for the accused — that the service of the civil bill — because the copy is not found— the service had taken place, and that the service of that civil bill and the danger of resulting eviction from his land formed a motive in the mind of Matthias Kerrigan for the com- mission of this crime himself, and further that the presumption arising that he was served with that civil bill contradicts his own evidence here when he says he was not served with it, and tends to cast upon him the impu- tation of murder. On the other hand it is suggested— many explanations have been given of the absence of that copy of the ejectment which was intended for Matthias Kerrigan, one was that in the hasty abstraction of these documents from the pocket of Huddy after the murder, in the confusion and haste of guilt, and of the time and circumstances that document may have been taken away inadvertently amongst others as Moran’s might have been taken away original and copy without any reason at all. Another explanation is that he had not at the time his life was assailed reached the place or person for the service of that civil bill at all. Bear in mind now that the evidence of Mary Conroy, the witness who was examined for the accused in concurrence with all evidence for the prosecution, places the body of the elder Huddy upon that small road at the end of Kerrigan’s house appar- ently before he had entered it at all. He might, in preparation for the immediate service that was about to take place, have had that copy in his hand, and it might have been lost in that way ; at all events, if the fact be that lie was killed before he had reached the house of Matthias Kerrigan, the time had not come for the service at all. Now, see, on the other hand, how the absence of both the original and the f'opy of the ejectment bears in the case of the accused. The 3rd January was, according to the statement that was made here, the last day for the service of these civil bill ejectments so as to ground proceed- ings and trial upon them. The course of the elder Huddy that day — that very line of route he took was traced by the ejectments in 73 liis possession and was in accordance with those ejectments. He had gone round to the house of Moran, then to the main road to Macken’s, and then he came along the boreen where there were several persons he was to serve with these documents. He had a civil bill ejectment to be served on Patrick Higgins. The ordinary course of his duty would require him to serve it. That was the very object he was there with, and the daughter of Patrick Higgins being examined here as a witness on his behalf, swears that no service of that civil bill had taken place in his house that day. When you consider the weight you ought to give to the ordinary course of duty, especially in the case of an officer of the law, or quasi officer of the law, a person engaged in the service of civil processes, who knew the importance of what he was doing and what he had undertaken to do, who knew he was there to effect service on Patrick Higgins amongst other's, it amounts to absolute certainty, according to all reasonable conclusion that that civil bill ejectment was that day served at the house of Patrick Higgins, and that certainty would, in my opinion, out- weigh any evidence, not to speak of the evidence of his own daughter, which for reasons that are fresh in your memory I can hardly doubt you will be of opinion must be altogether laid out of this case. So that it appears to me if any reasonable, definite, probable, or certain conclusion arises from these documents it is these two conclusions — that on that day J oseph Huddy had not reached the place where he was to effect service of the civil bill upon Matthias Kerrigan, and that he had actually served that civil bill upon Higgins at his house, which he had passed, and the evidence given on behalf of the accused is entirely without foundation. Now, passing away from that for the present, let us see what is the general aspect of the case presented both by the Crown and by the accused. I don’t see myself how the question of law as to an accomplice has any application to this case at all. An accomplice is a person who takes part with others in the commission of a crime, and whether he be an accomplice upon his own express avowal or confession, or whether you come to the conclusion that the person is an accomplice and engaged jointly with other's in the commission of a crime — in that case there is, no doubt, a certain rule of evidence that is always applied in courts of justice. It is not strictly a rule of law, but upon the presumption that Matthias Kerrigan was an accomplice, coming here to charge other persons with an offence in which he was himself engaged, it will be my duty to advise you that you ought not to act upon his evidence alone without confirmation of some other kind, not confirmation as to the circumstances of the crime, but confirmation in a point that affects the participation of the accused in the offence; and supposing now, this case were to bo presented as that of one accomplice charging his partners in guilt, it would be my duty to tell you, that there is a legal requisite of confirmation in the evidence given before you. because not in the mere circumstances of the crime, but in a point that brings it home to the accused himself, you have the evidence of Matthias Kerrigan, the son, and Martin Kerrigan, the younger son, both of whom directly affects the accused with evidence of guilt. The testimony of the wife alone, on account of the theoretical identity that exists between her and her husband, has been, by a rule not altogether reasonable, but one of our highly technical rules of law, the testimony of the wife has not been received as confirmation of a husband accomplice ; but once you have the legal requisite of confirmation from other evidence, as it is from Matthias Kerrigan, the son, and Martin Kerrigan, the son, you will be at full liberty to consider the evidence of the wife, and not exclude it from your consideration. But, in reality, that has no general application to the case at all. The case of the accused is that this murder was committed by Matthias Kerrigan himself. The Crown do not present Matthias Kerrigan as an accom- plice seeking to fix upon others engaged in the crime with him partici- pation in .his guilt. They rely upon him and present him as a person entirely innocent of this crime, who comes forward in the ordinary way, whatever suspicious circumstances may attach to him, to establish the case for the prosecution. On the other hand the defendant’s counsel accept that view of the matter, and say that Matthias Kerrigan is him- self the perpetrator of the crime for which the prisoner at the bar stands charged. Now, the question is by whom the lives of these two men — Joseph Huddy, an elderly man, and his grandson, this young person of tender years, engaged in their ordinary and innocent occu pation, seeking a livelihood, foully and cruelly surprised in the course of their occupation — the question is by whom those lives were taken away. Were they taken away by Matthias Kerrigan with the co-operation, if you can suppose it, of his wife, and his two young children, or were they taken away according to the evidence of Matthias Kerrigan, his wife and their sons, by the prisoner at the bar acting in conjunction with others — two persons named Michael Flynn and Thomas Higgins (Tom). No\y, upon the great issue of that important question the consideration arises to my mind that I cannot exclude from it, and that seems to me of the most para- M 2 74 mount and supreme importance in determining this whole question — - the very nature of the crime itself. The importance of it arises from this, that the facts upon which the matter, the arguments rest are absolutely certain — the wounds indicted upon the two deceased Huddys themselves, and I can hardly say that the conclusions arising from these facts are hardly less certain than the facts themselves. It is plain that this was not a sudden encounter, arising out of sudden provocation, or out of a sudden condict with the officer of the law, by a person by whom he was aboutto effect any legal proceeding. The crime was committed atan early hour of the morning when the means of preparation had already taken place. It was a crime plainly committed with the aid of external agency, such agency as the evidence of Kerrigan and of his family establish. The life of Huddy the elder and that of Huddy the younger, was taken away by revolver bullets. Not less than seven different shots are proved to have been discharged into the bodies of those two men. The part that the evidence for the prosecution attributes to the accused was that he commenced the attack with a stone. That was a natural and accessible weapon to him. Accord- ing to the statement of the youngest of the Kerrigans, he took the stone from the svall and he knocked him down with that. But the part that is attributed by the evidence to Thomas Higgins and Michael Flynn, who were strangers, is that they were the persons who used the revolvers. His case has been treated all through as if the specific object of this crime was limited to the prevention of the service of the legal process that was about taking place. That might have been one of the objects, it was one of the immediate results that would happen from the crime. But unfortunately the state of things that existed at that time in the country, and the evidence given before you, if you were to leave that state of things entirely out of considera- tion, would point to this crime as not merely something done for the individual benefit of the persons engaged in it at the time but as part of a general organization for the purpose of making war upon the officers of the law. If Thomas Higgins and Michael Flynn were there and came there armed with revolvers at an early hour in the morning they did not come there merely for the purpose of preventing service of civil bills taking place on the different persons about. No doubt they pre- vented the civil bills being served but they came at the same time with a more general object. Now is it possible, is it conceivable or credible, according to all ordinary experience and observation, that Mathias Kerrigan, his wife, and son fifteen years of age, and the son eight years of age — and the daughter of the prisoner swears there were no other persons there — fired several shots from revolvers into the bodies of these two unhappy creatures at a considerable distance from each other. The nature of the weapon, the nature of the wounds is highly inconsistent with the ordinary forms of domestic or local violence of which evidence is usually given in courts of justice. So it appears to me absolutely certain that the very nature of that crime itself, ‘as I have said, demonstrates that it was committed with the aid of external agency, and committed by several persons, all prepared for, and competent to assist in the commission of crime. Now, let us pass from that to another view of the case. Who disposed of the bodies? What mode of disposition of the bodies of these victims is given by the evidence, or suggested, or could be conjectured, except you receive the account given by the Kerrigans themselves ? That account is that the body of the elder Huddy was put into a clieve or basket, was hoisted by Michael Flynn upon the shoulders of Patrick Higgins, and was taken away by him ; that the body of the younger Huddy was put into a sack, that the son of Kerrigan was forced to assist by threats, forced to assist in carrying that sack, that Patrick Higgins went away carrying the body of the elder Huddy in the basket, and that Michael Flynn and Thomas Higgins (Tom) and the younger Kerrigan carried away the body of the grandson. That the body of the younger Huddy was carried away in that manner, is established by evidence other than the evidence of the Kerrigans themselves, and it is an all important matter for your consideration that you are asked to fix upon this family the guilt of the crime because they have come forward to give testimony in support of the law, and mark this, that at every point where their story comes into contact with the evidence of other indepen- dent witnesses it is exactly confirmed. The daughter of the prisoner alone says that when the body of the younger Huddy was put into a sack,, and Avas carried by Mathias Kerrigan the younger, Mathias Kerrigan, the father, accompanied him. She alone says that, that evidence is most completely contradicted by the evidence of the Avitness Mannion. Noav leave out the contradiction of Mathias Kerrigan and his Avife, and his two sons although, it is completely contradicted by the evidc nee of Mannion ; and can you conceive it possible that Mathias Kerrigan and his family being perpetrators of this crime some other persons took upon them the danger and the labour and the responsibility and suspicion of disposing of those bodies. Supposing Mathias Kerrigan had himself been the person who killed this elder Huddy, or killed his 75 son, he was the person above all to whom it was important to conceal the evidence of his guilt, nevertheless yon have the undisputed fact — undisputed except by the daughter of the prisoner, uncontradicted except by her evidence, and absolutely certain upon all the reliable evidence that although the suggestion for the accused is that Matthias Kerrigan killed the elder Huddy, and the younger Huddy he remained behind at his own house, and awaited the return of his son in a very short time, who had only carried this body under threats a short distance, and left some other persons beside himself, not acting with him or co-operating with him in any manner — not interested with him — to carry away that body of the younger Huddy and deposit it in Lough Mask. But is any account given at all of what became of the elder Huddy ? None whatever, none except the account given by Matthias Kerrigan and his family ; there is absolutely no account suggested or given by any person, no surmise, no conjecture, no hypothesis suggested to you as to the mode, or the person, or the time, or by whom the body of the elder Huddy was removed. Now, keep these two leading views of the case in your consideration — the nature of the crime itself, and the mode of the disposal of the bodies. Well, I invite your attention to the evidence, which is very short — the evidence of the principal witness which is very short, and which I must read over to you in some detail. Now, leaving the former evidence entirely out of the question, or the evidence that is not subject to dispute, I shall begin with the evidence of Matthias Kerrigan. He says he lives at Cloghbrack, and was a tenant of Lord Ardilaun for 26 years. His wife’s name was Bridget, and his sons’ Matthias and Martin — the eldest is fifteen and the next eleven years last harvest. He knew the late Joseph Huddy and recollects the last day he saw him alive. He had a little boy with him His son Matthias had gone for a load of turf when he got up in the morning. When he first saw Joseph Huddy he was in his own barn cleaning oats. It was in the morning, early enough ; he had not his breakfast boiled. They come across from Higgins’. He could see that part from where he was in the barn. He saw persons follow Joe Huddy and the boy. He had known them, they were Pat Higgins, the prisoner, Tom Higgins, and Michael Flynn. He saw the prisoner come up to Joe Huddy, close to him, and hit him with a stone and knock him down, and when he was down he saw him give him two kicks. Thomas Higgius and Michael Flynn came up to him at the same instant and put shots into him. The little boy ran, and at the corner, next the end of the yard or street of the barn, theyoung Huddy was knocked down. The street, you will understand, is the mode of describing the entrance or passage down from the boreen to the curtilage of the house. At the end of the street or barn John Huddy was knocked down. Michael Flynn followed the boy, caught him by the collar, knocked him down, and Tom Higgins fired two shots into him. That isthe exact number of shots found upon the body of the deceased. The bod v of Joe Huddy was put down in a basket — that is the elder Huddy, and the boy’s body was put into a bag. The prisoner ran and took the bag off the corner of the witness’s loft, and put the body of the boy into it. When the body was put into the basket the prisoner went away with the basket or clieve, and the body of the elder Huddy. Bridget, the wife, came out to throw water into the street. Martin came into the front with a basket or clieve, and the son Matthias came back exactly when the little boy was being killed. Well, the little boy was placed in the sack, the son Matthias came up, and Thomas Higgins caught a hold of him, and called upon him to “ take that away.” Matthias, the son, was creeping into the yard, and was standing in there when Thomas Higgins said, “Stand out here or I will make you sorry.” The bodies were taken down the boreen, the fall — I suppose that means the de- clivity in the direction of the prisoner’s house ; after leaving the back of the house he could not see any further. When the two bodies were taken away he saw Pat Higgins (Sara) who came from a more distant point go down the boreen. He came from the bog with a basket of turf. Matthias was three-quarters of an hour until he came back. He saw no others go in the direction except Patrick Higgins (Sara). He is cross- examined, and he says he does not know the value of his land, but he has £4 worth of it. He has no other means of living. He got the clothes he is wearing in Galway gaol. When questioned from whom he got them he did not understand anything about them except that he got them. He was arrested the same night the Huddys were murdered ; he was three days and nights in Clonbur barracks, and was s'-nt on Saturday night to Galway gaol, where he spent nine months. He does not know what he was charged with, but he knew well it was about this business, as it was at his house the job was done And to the question, was it not because the body was carried away in his sack, he says, “that’s the man who took it." To the question, was it not because of the sack, he answered, “ the prisoner was the man who took the sack.” He is not certain whether he owes two and a half or three years’ rent, and he says he knew he was toget the ejectment if the man was allowed to keep it. He was to be served 76 with it ; his wife told him that the master, Mr. Burke, had informed her that he was to get this process. He certainly did not get the process. He is asked when he first gave information, and he says ten weeks a"o last Tuesday. Now the ten weeks last Tuesday, as far as I can make out, would be the period, not when he made the deposition, but when he gave the information that resulted in the deposition — to a period very close to the time when he was still in custody Mr. Teeling . — I made it out till the 24th September, my lord. Mr. Justice O’Brien. — Till September — that’s my own impression very close to it, and my idea would be this, that although he was undoubtedly free at the time he made this deposition he had "iven some assurance or information which led to his being released in order to make this deposition, that is the ordinary natural conclu- sion to arrive at, and it occurred to me in the same view that, even admitting that, it it did not necessarily impugn the accuracy of his in- formation at all. He got the clothes, he said, a considerable time before he left the jail, about five or six weeks after he entered the jail many months before he left. He was down in Galway for the last three weeks, he does not know where, but in Mr. Hannin’s house, it being announced that he was going to give information, he was detained under the observation and protection of the police. On the 14th October his deposition was made, as appears on the production of the deposition itself. The cleave in which the body was taken away he did not know who it belonged to : he had several, but it was not one of his. Asked had he anything to do with the killing of the Huddys, he answered that he had as little as any man in this court, and there are many here. That is as true as the document that lay at his feet was before him. There was no breakfast at the time, breakfast was on the fire. He had nothing whatsoever to do or say to the murder His wife had nothing to say to it ; his wife was not arrested ; his eldest son, Matthias, was arrested, and kept three weeks in jail. Mar’tin was not taken— his youngest child. He knew Michael Flynn twenty yeai's, and he knew Thomas Higgins (Tom), the other person mentioned, since lie was born, and he has no doubt, Michael Flynn and Thomas Higgins (Tom), were there that morning. Then he is re-examined, and he states in answer to the re-examination, that in addition to the clothes that he had received in Galway jail, he had also received considerable sums of money while in Galway jail, and I was really led under the impression, as the counsel for the accused intended to convey, that these clothes and money were given to him by the authorities, or some person connected with the authorities, or by the police, and were given to him as an inducement to give evidence, or, at all events, that this liberality shown to him had an influence upon his evidence. A very extraordinary and remarkable state of things turns out, upon the evidence of the governor of the jail, Mr. Mason, who immediately after this information came out was com- municated with, and appears and gives evidence here. Then it appears that this Matthias Kerrigan, during the time he was in custody in Galway jail, received from a body known as the Ladies’ Land League of Dublin, either under the idea that he was in possession of dangerous information, or that he was accused of an agrarian crime, or that he was guilty of an agrarian crime — he received these considerable sums of money from week to week, that these were the sums he had sent to his wife, and that the clothes spoken of had been purchased by himself or by friends, or by direction of the same body who furnished the money with which they were bought, and accordingly the founda- tion of that whole suggestion of a corrupt motive existing in his mind, proceeding from the authorities, entirely falls away. Now the next witness was his wife, Bridget Kerrigan. IShe was an Irish-speaking witness. You observed her demeanour — apparently a person of very great intelligence. I must say myself that I was greatly impressed with her testimony — the apparent directness of it, the frankness and openness of it. She seemed to have no desire to conceal anything. She answered out at once directly every question that was asked, either in direct or cross-examination, that apparently went to affect her own husband and the charge against him. She is the wife, she says, of Matthias Kerrigan, and knows the prisoner. On a morning in January last she saw the prisoner, Patrick Higgins, do something to Joe Huddy. She saw him strike him with a stone at the back of her house. It was on the boreen at the back of the house he fell, and when he was down he hit him two kicks. Next she saw shots put into him by Michael Flynn and Thomas Higgins. The body of Joseph Huddy contained not less than five bullets, and this woman states that she saw two persons — there were five bullets found in the body of the elder Huddy — and she saw Thomas Higgins and Michael Flynn fire into him, which would neces- sarily imply the possession of firearms by both. And now vou re- member the remarkable evidence given by the doctor as to the position of those various wounds. One bullet wound was in the shoulder, and four others were in extraordinary situations. It seemed to me, although the doctor could not say so, that it was impossible those 77 four bullet wounds could have been indicted by the same arm. One was directly in front, another directly at the back, another was directly at the back side of the head. It is inconceivable that unless assaile l by two persons, both armed, those wounds could have been inflicted. Now r I will proceed with her evidence. There was a young boy with Joe Huddy. He ran to the back of the barn, about live yards. Michael Flynn followed him, caught him, and knocked him down on his nose on the road. Thomas Higgins came and put a shot into him. She saw old Joe Huddy and the grandson dead upon the road — saw the old man put into a basket and the boy into a bag, and saw Flynn hoist the basket on Pat Higgins’ back — that is the prisoner’s back. The boy was put into a sack, the bag was hoisted on the back of her son Matthias. Tom Higgins caught him by the collar and put the bag on his back, and they went on the road. She was shaking — a very natural and curious — not curious but natural expression, and showed the impression produced upon her mind by the terrible scene she had witnessed. Martin was at the house, Matthias was at the bog for turf, and he came back when old Joe Huddy was murdered, and when the boy w'as being murdered. See the distinction she draws. Matthias was at the bog, and was coming back — all the witnesses were examined apart and did not hear each other’s evidence— her son Matthias came back after the old man was murdered, and when the son was being murdered. It was about the time breakfast was cooking. After her son was in jail she got money from her husband, when it would be sent to him. Then she is cross-examined, and she says she saw every bit of it. She threw water out at the door ; that was the very point she came out at. The men were not killed then. There was no shot fired then. The shots were fired when she was out. She left the water-pail inside when the old was knocked. She said then, in answer to a question — “ Why would she not know her husband was in jail ; she knew it was about the men who were killed at the back of the house.” Asked, did she know her husband was charged with murder and her son Mathias, she gave the same answer. Asked how long her husband was in jail, she said three-quarters of a year, that is nine months. Mr. Burke told her there was to be a writ against her husband, that he would send out a process. She knew it was Huddy would serve the process, asked was she threatened with a process, she said, sure the master told her about the process, and asked did she not know the sessions would be held in Oughterard within a certain period of time, and she answers would she not be making up the rent in the meantime. She says all the people arrested were let out except her husband, some in three weeks after, but all before her husband said a word. She knows her husband is not in custody, as he was free since he gave information, and so the sergeant of the police told her. In re examination she says while her husband was in jail charged with murder he was receiving money. Then Matthias Kerrigan the elder of the two youths was examined. He does not remember the day of the month or the week the Huddys were killed. He remembers the occurrence and mentions it. He was for a load of turf at the bog, the breakfast was cooking at the time, when he came down to his house he saw the prisoner, Michael Flynn and Thomas Higgins. Then he is asked did he see Pat Higgins do any- thing. He does not say he did see Pat Higgins do anything, but he saw Michael Flynn and Thomas Higgins murdering the boy at the back of the barn. They were right over him murdering him with shots. Tom Higgins was firing the shots — Pat Higgins was standing on the boreen — saw Joe Huddy murdered. There was some confusion about that, and he cleared it up rapidly by explaining not that he saw him being murdered, but that he was killed before him, exactly agreeing with his mother. He was dead. Patsy Higgins was near him. The body was put into the basket by Pat Higgins, and Michael Flynn raised it on Pat Higgins and he went away in the direction of the road. The basket in which the body was placed was raised upon the prisoner and he went away with it raised upon him, and that is the only account that can be given, that is suggested or can be conjectured in what manner the body of the elder Huddy was disposed of, for no evidence was given by any other person about it. He said the boy Huddy was put into a bag ; he does not know where it was got, for they h id it before he came up. Tom Higgins hoisted it on his back. He said to the witness to carry it, he said he would not; and Higgins said he would not be thankful if he did not do it. 1 was a little arrested at the time, in reference to the sug- gestion that these different witnesses of the Kerrigan family had made up all this account by comparison with each other, and 1 was particular to see whether the expression “ thankful” was the same expression the mother had made use 'of, which the Interpreter had rendered “sorry,” and the Interpreter told me that the mother did not use the same Irish phrase, that the phrase used by her was the equivalent for “sorry,” whereas the young boy used a phrase saying he would not be thankful for it. Patsey Higgins was on before him. He arrived with the bag 78 at James Corbett’s when Patrick Mannion and the witness came out of Corbett’s, and Tom Higgins tripped him and said he should put the bag upon him. The exact expression tripped him, I did not understand. Whether he tripped himself in carrying this load, probably as great as himself, whether he was forced on or carrying it, probably tripped. The bag was put on Mannion, who carried it some distance, and on Patrick Higgins (Sarah), who had come some distance after them with a basket of turf, approaching, the bag was taken from the back of Mannion, an elderly man, whose age or in- firmity rendered him unable to carry it, and was carried away by Tom Higgins and Patrick Higgins (Sarah). Tom Higgins raised it on his back, and that was all he saw. Mathias Kerrigan left and returned to his own home too happy to escape from this terrible business. Michael Flynn had gone on with the prisoner. Very shortly afterwards, Mannion, the other man who had been forced to carry this dreadful burden, left the party also, and left the body of the younger Huddy in the jiossession of those persons who alone had an interest in its conceal- ment. Now Thomas Higgins must be a person having no existence at all, and Michael Flynn must be a person having no existence, or in concurrence with the testimony given by all the Kerrigans, you must give absolute credence to this statement of the wit- ness Mannion that they were the persons who then as- sisted in transferring the burden to himself, and removing it from him and carrying it away, and they are not shown to have come to any understanding or privity with Matthias Kerrigan. Kerrigan’s son returns to his father, and as I have said the body remains with those persons who have the deepest stake and concern in making away with it. He is cross-examined, and he says he was in gaol charged with the murder. He is not sure whether he was a fortnight or three weeks together with his father. It would take him about an hour to go and return from the bog to which he went for the turf. That question was asked in view of the question raised in the early part of the day as to the time the crime was committed, which was not successfully contested, and is not material. He said he had a load of turf on an ass; that he got up that morning and went to the bog, and he had light to go. He said he told us every person on the road at the time — in the boreen. In answer to the Solicitor- General he was asked did he see anything done to Mannion, and he said— he ultimately said when the question was put to him, and it arrested my attention at once — he was asked was anything done to Mannion — did Mannion fall, tripped in any way, and the boy, instead of addressing the interpreter, addressed the prisoner, and he said — “ Did he fall V’ actually appealing in some involuntary and instinctive way to the prisoner himself to tell whether or not Mannion fell or was tripped on the occasion of carrying this load. Then Martin Kerrigan, the youngest of this family, was examined ; he is eight years of age Mr. Teeling . — Eleven years, my lord. Mr. Justice O’Brien. — Eleven years ? I beg your pardon, he was stated to be eleven. My own impression was that he was eight. He is a very young lad, at any rate, and considering that, even under all the difficulties of the vehicle through which it was conveyed — speaking the Irish language — he displayed such intelligence — the quickness and intelligence he showed was such that might cause a feeling of regret that that young lad should be allowed to remain in the humble and obscure condition and home from which he came. He said he lives at Cloghbrack, with his father. He did not know Joe Huddy, but recol- lects being in the house one morning, and hearing shots. He was coming out of the barn with a basket — that possibly was the cleave his father mentioned. His father was threshing oats, and for the removal of the corn a basket would be necessary. After hearing the shots, he looked but to the boreen, and he saw Pat Higgins, Michael Flynn, and Thomas Higgins (Tom). He saw dead bodies in the boreen. Fie saw two bodies, he saw Pat Higgins knock the old man, he saw the old man put into a basket and the boy into a bag. Michael Flynn raised the old man on Patsey Higgins’ back, the prisoner’s back. The little boy was put into the bag, head foremost, he said. Now let me rest upon that expression and that statement of that young child for one moment, no where in the evidence of any of the witnesses nor appearing in any of the depositions, nowhere in the evidence of any witness that came upon this table was a statement made by any person that the younger Huddv had been put into that bag head foremost. Now, to a young person of the age of that witness, seeing this extraordinary circumstance of the dead body, the body of a youth, put into a sack, a thing like that would impress itself wonderfully upon his recollection ; the body being put into the sack head foremost. And he received no kind of hint that that was so from any witness because no other witness mentioned the circumstance whatever, and it is nowhere mentioned in the depositions. One of the Jury asked the question of either one of the officers of the “Valorous” or of the Constable by whom that sack was opened, and it turns out that the case was exactly as the young lad stated — that 79 the body was put into the sack head foremost. That is a most powerful circumstance to my mind to meet the imputation that the evidence of these various witnesses was the result of comparison or concoction between themselves. He says his brother came with a load of turf and Tom Higgins put the sack on his brother’s back, and they went down the boreen. He saw Pat Higgins (Sarah) go down after them. He was going with a basket of turf. He saw his brother go with the bag. He had not taken his breakfast. His brother was not long away before he came back. In cross-examination he says he was going to the barn with the basket when he heal’d the shots. He is asked did he never swear he was in the house when lie heard the shots ; to that he says he was going to the barn, and he was outside the door. His deposition was read in which he stated he was in the house when he heai'd the shots, but now he says he was outside. And the question being put in the most direct manner to him by Counsel — “ Would it be true as lie had stated in his deposition that he was in the house,” and he says it would not be true, and the evi- dence he now gives is true evidence. He saw Pat Higgins strike the elder Huddy with a stone and knock him down with it. Thomas Higgins and Michael Flynn were together when Pat Higgins took a stone off the wall, and struck Huddy with it. He is asked did he see the two dead bodies lying on the ground, to which he answers as quick as lightning, “ and I saw them lire the shots,” and the deposition was x-ead, and put in which contained that statement. He was a little bit out when he saw him struck with a stone, he was only just out. He knew- his father was in gaol on a charge of murder. He had no talk with any one about what he had seen. He is living with his mother, but he had no talk with her on the subject, nor with his father, nor with anyone else, nor did anyone tell him what to say, his observation being. “ Did they not see it themselves as well as him” — a reason for his not having any conversation with his mother, brothei-, or any- one else. In re-examination he said he told the story in Galway in Irish, and the interpreter there was not the highly intelligent man who rendei-ed such aid in the conduct of this trial. He only knew through the Interpreter what he was stated to have said in the deposition. He was asked by one of the jury where his mother was at the time, or what his mother was doing, and he said that 'when he was going out his mother was spilling watei', and no doubt that is the exact point of time at which the mother fixes the attack upon Joseph Huddy. Then comes the witness Patrick Mannion, who supplies another scene from an entirely independent point in this diama. He remembers being in Corbett’s house in January last. It was after breakfast-time in the morning. He came out and he saw outside, Thomas Higgins, young Mathias Kerrigan, and Patrick Higgins (Sarah). Mathias Kerrigan had a bag on his back, and when witness came out, Thomas Higgins caught him and pulled him out here, or said “ Come out here,” pulled him out, and toox the bag off Kerrigan’s back, and put it on witness, Mannion’s back. He told him to “ walk out.” Now, you will observe how well the evidence that Patrick Mannion gives as to the use of force and constraint upon him to prevail upon him to carry this terrible burden agrees with all that Mathias Kerrigan, the elder, and Mathias Kerrigan, the younger, tells of force and constraint used on him also. There is not merely the presence of Thomas Higgins estiib- lished by two witnesses independent of each other, but the verv means taken by him to induce other persons to cari-y this burden. He told him to “ walk out,” he said he was not able to cany it. The oldman said he was not able, and Thomas Higgins was putting him down the road having this load upon him, or pushing him as you would push a reluctant person down the road ; he began falling off and he was pushing him, that is Thomas Higgins was pushing him, and he tripped him on his knee, that is the result of the pushing or putting him down the l’oad caused Patrick Mannion to fall upon his knee, that he was tripped on his knee, and then Thomas Higgins put the burden put the bag upon the back of Patrick Higgins (Sarah), and Patrick Higgins (Sarah) carried the corpse the remainder of the way, so far as we know. Patrick Mannion then left and returned to his own avocation and the house where he had been, and Mathias Kerrigan returned, leaving to the others the question of the disposal of the body. He says he saw no other person there. In cross- examination he is asked was not Mathias Kerrigan one of the young men who put the body on his back and he says both young Mathias Kerxigan and Tom Higgins. About nine or ten weeks ago he told the police. In re-examination he says that he fell upon his knee. Now, John Halloren is the next witness examined. He lives, as you have heard described, a little way beyond the house of Mathias Kerrigan, at a point where a hillock would separate his view. He remembers in January last hearing some shots, not long after Christmas. There was a big hillock between him and the Kerrigan’s. He was cleaning oats in his own barn when he heard the shots, and afterwards he went to the side end of the barn, and looked down towards Kerrigan’s house, N 80 wlucli would necessarily seem to imply or convey to my mind that he had a view of the road to Kerrigan’s house. “ 1 saw a couple of men, two or three; saw Patrick Higgins near his own house ; there were a couple of men following down the hollow — following down the hollow.” I cannot say whether he intended to convey the part by the hollow that was towards Kerrigan’s house or the other direction. « There was a couple of men following down the hollow, the prisoner was a little way from the other men.” He saw him over the wall. He did not see Joe Huddy alive that day. He returned to his threshing. He made another statement which seemed to indicate that he was by no means a willing witness for the Crown — by no means disposed to bear testimony against Patrick Higgins. He said he had his hands beside him, John Halloren his father, heard one shot. He was examined in Galway, and he states that he saw Patrick Higgins between Kerrigan’s and Patrick Higgins’ house. Thomas Mannion, a young labourer, deposes to one written matter of fact, but it is one of importance. The name of a man named Michael Flynn is used by all the Kerrigans as the name of a person who was engaged in the commission of this crime. They state that he went on with Patrick Higgins, the accused ; that he carried away the body of the felder Huddy ; they stated that he was present, actually engaged in the commission of this crime, and using loaded firearms for the purpose of committing it. Now, what does Thomas Mannion say? He is a very young boy, an Irish-speaking witness. He remembers the morning (hat the police came and were looking about the Huddys, and he remembers the day the Huddys were killed ; that same day they came ; they came in the evening. He saw Michael Flynn there, and had a conversation with him ; the nature of that conversation could not properly be asked upon the trial of the accused, Patrick Higgins, but the fact that he had a conversation with him removes all doubt as to the means and opportunities of knowledge the witness possessed. There was a man named Michael Flynn there, and he had a conversation with him, and that is certainly very remarkable confirmation of the account given by all the Kerrigans, that a person named Michael Flynn was engaged in the commission of the crime. He saw him there that morning ; Michael Flynn being a stranger, not residing in that locality, not shown to have any residence or any occupation there ; Thomas Higgins (Tom), also not shown to be residing there ; and the account given by the two Kerrigans being to the effect, being clearly to the effect, that the murder was committed by the aid of firearms in that way, as I have already said, shows that it was brought about by the influence of an external agency. Now. we may pass over the evidence of the doctor, and of Mr. Mason, the governor of the gaol, to which I have already drawn your attention ; and the evidence of Mr. Brady, who was examined as a witness, and told you the order ’in which these depositions were taken, because it occurred to me with regard to the question which arose as to the contradiction between the deposition and the statement of Martin Kerrigan that he was'in the house when the shots were fired, and then that he was outside the house and saw the elder Huddy knocked down with the stone — it occurred to my mind that that might be accounted for by the order in which these depositions were taken ; that if the father and mother had told their part of the story, the person taking the evidence of the young man did not think it necessary to take the whole of it, or to do more than take the substance of it. It very frequently happens that that is the case, and it does appear by the evidence of Mr. Brady that the evidence of young Martin Ker- rigan was taken last. Now, after the speech on behalf of the accused, which, as well as the second speech made for the accused, I would characterise in appropriate terms of the nature of the business we were engaged in were it not too solemn for any mere personal eulogy. After the speech of Mr. Teeling, Kate Higgins, the daughter of the prisoner, was examined. She said she is the daughter of the prisoner, and her mother was living with the prisoner ; her two brothers are in England, her two sisters in America, and one brother and herself at home. On this day she heard shots ; her brother was in Glentreagh ; besides herself, her father and mother, a girl named Mary Conroy, was the only person present ; she remembers hearing shots when she was going down the garden — the garden being the way of describing the haggard — with an armful of oats ; her father was in the boreen threshing ; she did not stir until she put in the corn, and then she and the other girl ran out on the road ; she saw two men at Kerrigan’s street or yard killed. Now the street or yard of Kerrigan’s is the en- trance to Kerrigan’s house from the boreen — you have it sufficiently described — and she fixes that as the precise locality where she saw the bodies. She saw himself, his wife, and his family — they were out on the road. Her father was in the barn threshing oats, and she went in and told him, and the father went up on the road, and blessed himself. They went back. She is asked did she see her father do anything to the men on the road, and she says not. Now bear in 81 mind that from the evidence given by Mr. Idyan the portion of the road or boreen directly adjoining it could not be seen until you had passed the angle of the road where the trees are— that the wall of the house of the Kerrigans would intercept your view. Now listen to the cross- examination by the Solicitor-General. There are two lengths of a spade or “ loy” — one of the implements with which turf is cut — from the barn where her father was engaged threshing to the dwelling-house in which they resided. He had been cleaning out the corn the whole morning, and she saw her father doing that the whole day. She did not see Joe Huddy that day. They did not come to the house that day to serve. She was going down with a load of oats to the garden when she heard the shots ; she went down herself on the road ; she went so far until she saw two men dead on the street ; she was going along over there and the Kerrigan’s told her to make off'; she was going to drive the geese over the boreen. She explained that by saying that some geese were trespassing and that she was driving them away. She was at Kerrigan’s house ; she walked after the geese ; and then she ran off for her life ; when she was coming down she heard shots ; when she went to Kerrigan’s house she saw the men killed, she left the place ; she saw Kerrigan put the man into the bag ; was asked w'hen that was and she said that was the time that they told her to go away ; she saw nobody but the Kerrigans there, herself, himself, his wife and two sons, and his daughter. Mary is the daughter’s name. She went back to the house then ; her father was in the barn, and then after that she ’came back to her father. After she came back to her father he came out and blessed himself ; he came out on the boreen, and when he saw the thing he blessed himself, and desired them to go in when the men were murdered. The man was not in the sack at that time. She saw the thing, she said, as she was there doing her own business ; it was after that she told her father that the two men were on the ground, but she saw them put the body into the sack. Asked how could she see them unless she was at the house, she said “ from the back of the house she could see them.” Whether she intended to say the back of Kerrigan’s house or the other I do not understand. I would assume, from the statement, that she went down driving the geese, that it was from the back of Kerrigan’s house. She knows a man named Michael Flynn ; did not see him that day ; did not see Thomas Higgins ; did not see Pat Higgins (Sarah); he might be there unknown to her; saw Ker- rigan and his sons putting him into the sack ; saw Kerrigan hoist it on the son’s back ; he took him down the boreen ; he — the boy — took him down the boreen ; saw it passing her house ; her father did not see it, he was still threshing the corn in the barn, and did not come out ; she does not know who took the other body. Asked who was with young Kerrigan carrying the body, she said his father — “his father was with him carrying the body;” the two of them did not see the mother, nor the little boy, nor the sister ; I under- stood her to say that she did not see them accompanying the person carrying the sack ; she never asked what became of the other body from her father or anyone else ; she heard the police pass that way ; she does not remember Mr. Brady, the resident magistrate. Now, here is a most extraordinary part of the evidence. You know well what the j tower of observation ot persons in that condition of life is, it far exceeds the power of persons in a different station of life — especially the observation and memory of the young. She did not see Mr. Brady ; does not remember seeing Mr. Brady or being sworn before him ; she never gave an oath ; she is the daughter of Pat Higgins; she has no recollection of seeing Mr Bolton, the Grown solicitor ; she never kissed the book is her deposition in Court. Then having said she did not recollect Mr. Brady or Mr. Bolton; having sworn that she never kissed the book before, and never took Ik r oath — she knew the meaning of being sworn — she is examined specifically and in detail as to all the statements in a deposition made on the 11th October, in the year 1882, a short time ago, purporting to be made by her in these terms. (Depositions were here read). >he is questioned in great detail by the Solicitor-General upon every statement in that deposition, and she positively and absolutely denies that she ever made that statement. She was examined as to whether she knew what an oath was; whether she had taken an oath, and she replied by a question that at once elicited attention, not an answer but a question to the question she received, by asking was it an untruthful oath that they meant to say she had taken. She was asked did she now understand that she was being sworn, and she said that she did understand she was sworn on the table, so that she could be in no doubt at all as to what she had done at the time that deposition was taken in the presence of Mr. Bolton, before Mr. Brady, the resident magistrate, and I am bound to tell you that it is wholly impossible to escape from the conclusion that that young person wilfully and wickedly foreswore herself It is not a question whether she made a false statement in this deposition, 1 it. a true statement upon the table, altliou'di N 2 82 one ov other would necessarily be false, but that upon the table itself she made a false statement. She was undoubtedly guilty of perjury. The counsel for the Crown is quite entitled to say that that casts a presumption of conscious guilt upon the accused himself, the production by him of wilfully false evidence, as showing the convic- tion in his own mind that he could not depend upon the true testimony, and that he therefore produced false evidence. There are, undoubtedly, circumstances or cases alleged to occur very often — they do occur sometimes, but very rarely — in which persons do produce false evi- dence to explain away circumstances of suspicion, although they aie really innocent ; still, in the present case, the Crown are entitled to say that the production of that evidence by his daughter raised a presumption against him. I would not, however, advise you to press that assumption that he was wilfully using false testimony too far against him ; but, on the other hand, you cannot get rid of the otln r conclusion that the evidence of the Higginses which that testimony sought to displace is entirely uncontradicted. The next witness is Mary Conroy, and she is the very last to whom I shall have to refer at any length. She lives at Middle Cloghbrack, and is the daughter of a person named Pat Coni-oy ; she had gone there for the prisoner’s wife to go and card wool that morning ; she stayed there for some time ; they kept her waiting there ; she helped the last witness to carry oats. When they were going out for the load they heard shots, but she did not then leave or go anywhere. “ When we brought the oats we went out and we saw the Kerrigans, and saw the two bodies ; the prisoner was in his own stable” — or barn, she means — “his daughter told him first ; he went out.” And then she uses a phrase which I could not understand at the time, but which seemed to be something that was being done — “ he went out and he told them, ‘nevermind them.’ ” I assume that “ told them never mind them” was a direction to the two girls to never mind what was going on. She said that she saw him — the accused — do nothing to the