FELONY TRIAL IN IRELAND.

Dunstan Times, Issue 1203, 20 March 1885, Page 3

FELONY TRIAL IN IRELAND.

■ On December '2O, in the Court House, Dublin, Mr Justice O’Brien resumed the triafci of James Ellis French, the head <>f the Defective Deptrtment i» Ireland, for felony. This was the third trial,.,the prisoner having previously been tried twice as to his sanity m plead. The evidence having been given, Di Boyd proceeded to o|>eii the defence. Ho complained that the accused Was being hunted down by men who were doing everything in their power, right or Wrong, to obtain a convection. When United Ireland first male the charges against French none of the evidence n ft w adduced was in existence, and it w«s not obtained until after he had brough, his ac ion, mid until that detective Meiklej »hn had been employed to get up a defence for that paper. This,truth was that Meiklejohri had put T,<yW and Job list >n into such abjectvterrots'that thf .y were ready to swear anything which would satisfy those whohad mideths charges agiinst French. Mr Macdermott Q. C, repried on behalf of the Crown. He denied the insinuations which had l»een made that there was something underneath the surfare nrging on the Crown to endeavour to oh» tain the conviction of the prisoner. Mr Justice O’Brien, in charging the. jury, said that this was a prosecution instituted by the public authority against one of the instruments of that airhority. (he prisoner had been a gentleman greatly respected, and a valuable officer, and one who held a position which undoubted ! y exposed him to a great deal of a took, and a great deal of animosity The case was a matter of great gravity to the prisoner, and was also of the greate fc gravity to the public morality and ju(ice. He asked them. io do their dntfeai less'y,- and return a verdict accord ing f<> the evidence, * Thu jury, after an hour and a-haifs ch liberation found the prisoner guilty on the second count, t at of o risjnraey to procure persons to comini immoral practices. Judge ii’Brhm. in passing sentence mi the prisoner, said he had been i n d guilty, ai.d the verdict hj d his unqu dified concurrence. He r-'g et'e'l that ad the rewards the prisoner in his official capacity had gained, which were the results of a long an I honorable scr« ic to his country, were now l»Bt—his lepu a ion, Ids pension, his ch iract' r, ids lil>ei tv It was his du y to sente ce the prisoner to the highest penalty the law allowed for this offence that was two years’, imprisonment witti hid labour from the tim • of hj s arrest. The prisoner, who wi 1 thus have to s *rve nineteen moirhs’ imp isonmei t, received his sentence without making anv observation or any outward sign of coiic rnl t' . D:.... t- - ' •