The Temuka Leader TUESDAY, OCTOBER 24, 1882. THE LINSEED COMPANY.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1021, 24 October 1882, Page 2

The Temuka Leader TUESDAY, OCTOBER 24, 1882. THE LINSEED COMPANY.

We are informed that a meeting of the Provisional Directors of tin above Company was held yesterday, but as we got no intimation of it, or any idea of the business transacted we are unable to give our reaaers any idea as to what is going to be done. It is impossible for any one not gifted with the power of foreseeing events —and we lay no claim to the possession ot such a power—to know when bodies called by invitation meet, unless some intimation ot the matter is given. In this case there was not the slightest notice taken of our existence ; we knew nothing of it until it was over. When we applied to the Secretary he had nothing to tell us, and consequently we cannot give our readers any information. We do not think we have shown ourselves such enemies of the project as to render it necessary to exclude us from the meetings. We have never reported anythingdetiimentalto the proposed scheme, and we have done our best to promote its success. However, if the general public to whom shaves wdl soon be offered will be satisfied with these sort of Star Chamber meetings we shall, but very probably the Provisional Directors will find out then that it would be as well for them to give publicity to their proceedings. We are disinclined to believe that the members of the Provisional Directory are so blind to the interests of the proposed company as to exclude the Press from getting any information regarding it. We are pretty well sure that the fault lies with the secretary in neglecting to g've the Press notice that the meeting was to be held, and we therefore tiust that that very energetic functionary will be instructed at next meeting to let us know in future when and where these meetings are to be held.

THE HIGH SHERIFF OF DUBLIN. By the last mail we received papers containing particulars of the imprisonment of Edward Dwyer Gray, High Sheriff of Dublin, and member of the House of Commons. The foots of the case may be summarised as follows : —Judge Lawson was presiding over a Court in Dublin in which a young man named Francis Hynes, the son of a solicitor) was charged with the murder of a herder named John Doloughty. On the dying testimony of the murdered man Hynes was found guilty, although the evidence for the defence was sufficient to doubt the accuracy of the dying statement. The Freeman’s Journal, of which Mr E, D. Gray is proprietor, criticised the manner in which the case was conducted. It pointed out that the jury was packed, and that not one single Catholic was allowed on it, but the chief cause for imprisoning Mr Gray was contained in. a letter to the editor. The letter is as follows : “ Imperial Hotel, Dublin, Saturday, August 12, “Dear Sir, —I think the public ought to be made aware of the following facts. The jury in the murder case of the Queen v. Hynes were last night ‘locked up,’ as it is termed, for the night at the Imperial Hotel, where I also was staying. 1 was awakened from sleep shortly after midnight by the sounds of a drunken chorus, succeeded after a time by scuffling, rushing, coarse laughter, and horse-play along the corridor on which my bedroom opens. A number of men, it seemed to me, were falling about the passage in a maudlin state of drunkenness, playing ribald jokes. I listened with patience for a considerable lime, when the door of my bedroom was burst open, and a man whom I can identify (for he carried a candle unsteadily in his hand) staggpicd _ in, plainly under the influence of drink, hicupping ‘ Hallo, ohl fellow, all alone V My answer was of a character that induced him to bolt out of the room in as disordered a manner as he had entered . Having rung the bell I ascertained that these disorderly persons were jurors in the case of the Queen v. Hynes, and that the servants of the hotel had been endeavoring in vain to bring them to a sense of their misconduct. 1 thought it right to convey them a warning that the public would hear of their proceedings. The disturbance then ceased. It is fair to add that no more than three or four men appeared to be engaged in

the roaring and in the tipsy horse-play that followed. I leave the public to judge the loatltesomeness of such a scene upon the night when these men held the issues of life and death for a young man in the flower of youth—when they had already heard evidence which, if unrebutted, they must have known would send him to a felon’s grave. The facts I am ready to support upon oath.

“ William O’Brien.”

This letter of course created a sensation. The foreman of the jury stated that he was the last to go to bed that night, and that every one of the jury was perfectly sober. Some discussion took place between the judge and the Attorney-General on the iniquity of publishing this letter, and ultimately they agreed to bring Mr Gray, the proprietor of the Freeman’s Journal before the Court on a charge of contempt. This course was adopted. Mr Gray, on being charged, acknowledged his responsibility, but asked for an adjournment so as to give him time to bring forth witnesses to to prove that the jury had been packed, and that they had been drinking in the Imperial Hotel as stated in the letter. Judge Lawson declined to hear evidence o>x give Mr Gray one minute’s time, but sentenced him right off to three months’ imprisonment, a fine of £SOO, and, after the three months, to find two sureties for £2,500 each and himself in £SOOO, or in default of getting the sureties to go to gaol for another period of three months. Mr O’Brien, the writer of the letter, on offering to prove the statements he had made was turned out of Court. Mr Gray asked for time to arrange some private business, but the Judge told him he would have plenty of time in prison to do so, and without more ado the High Sheriff cf Dublin was bundled off to prison. A few days afterwards the case was brought befoie the House of Commons, and the affidavits of Alfred Martin, the billiard marker of the hotel, of Elizabeth Josephine Carbery, a young lady who was staying at the hotel, of Richard O’Connor, a porter in the hotel, and of William O’Brien, the writer of the article, were read. The affidavits which were sworn on oath are too long to publish. They arc to the effect that six of the jury came down stairs into the billiard room, played billiards, mixed and drank with others who were in the billiard room, and behaved in a very boisterous manner. One ul them named Reis amused himself by ringing bells, making fools of the waiters, and knocking the porter O’Connor about, while about four of them led by Reis, who was said to be drunk, rushed about the corridors kicking in bedroom doors, and disturbing the sleepers. Miss Carbery, at whose room door they kicked several times, stated that Mr O’Brien’s letter described their conduct very mildly. When these documents were read in the House of Commons a sensation was created. Mr Macfarlane, a Scotchman who represents an Irish constituency, said the sentence of Judge Lawson was not against an outrage upon justice, but was prompted by revenge, owing to the Freeman’s Journal having frequently exposed the corrupt practices of that Judge. He further said that “ a more gross and shocking case of wholesale corruption than practised by that judge never was heard of.” The Attorney General promised to inquire into the matter.

A special meeting of the Corporation of Dublin, of which Mr Gray was a member, was held, and the affidavits of about six other witnesses were read, including the three waiters, the housekeeper, the hall porter, and some others. One of these proved that he supplied Mr Barrett, the foreman of the jury with a bottle of champagne which he and Mr Reis drank between them, besides having several other nobblers. These jurors were so obstreperous that the hall porter asked the constable who was supposed to have charge of them if it was not unusual to allow jurors to go on like that, but the constable said his superior officer was upstairs and he did not mind. On the whole the evidence showed that the jury did misbehave themselves and certainly it was a most proper thing for a public newspaper to expose such an outrage upon decency. The City Council then passed a resolution against Judge Lawson’s arbitrary and oppressive exercise of power, and urging that the power of judges should be defined by statute. It was also resolved that the jury packing which had been resorted to was unsatisfactory and needed a searching investigation. A committee was next formed to collect funds for the purpose of paying the fine imposed upon Mr Gray. Amongst those who wrote strong letters on the subject was a distinguished Australian,

Sir C. Gavan Duffy, who said the proceedings took him by as much surprise as if it had been a trial for witchcraft. The next step we find taken in the case is by the Lord Lieutenant, who sent for copies of the affidavits for the purpose of investigating the case, but his decision had not been made when the mail left. Mr Gray has, however, been released since, and it is probable it was through the Loul Lieutenant that it waa done. The next mail will, undoubtedly, bring fuller details.

MURDERS IN IRELAND

The locality where the Joyce family were recently murdered is the place where the two bailiffs were put in a sack and thrown into Lock Mask, where George Robinson, agent of Lord Leitrim’s heir was fired at, and only ten miles distant from the place where Lord Mouncmorris was shot, and the boy Gibbons assassinated. It is in the wildest and loneliest district in Connemara. The details of the murder appeared in our issue of Thursday last, but further particulars have since come to hand. The European Mail contains particulars of the case to the effect that it created much horror in thedistrict,that there was no public, or local sympathy with the murderers, and that three farmers had given information which led to the arrest of several of the miscreants. It appears that a young man in the neighboorhood was aroused in the middle of the night oy the noise of a baud of about 15 going along the road. Ho saw at once they were on tor some mischief, and fearing they meant to injure his brother some distance away he rushed a near way to the brother’s house and got him out before they reached the place. The two brothers then concealed themselves, and, much to their relief, saw the gang pass on. They followed them in company with another, hid themselves near the house, and witnessed the horrible murder of the whole family committed. They soon gave information, and shortly afterwards six persons were arrested. On Sunday night, the 20 th of August last, Daniel Leahy, a wealthy farmer, and formerly a bailiff on the estate of the Earl of Kenraare, was dragged out of his bed, and shot and stabbed to death in the presence of his wife and daughter in his own house, at Scarteen, near Killarnoy, in Kerry. There were about 15 in the gang, and the unfortunate man was forced to go on his knees, when the Captain gave orders to No. 1 to fire, next No. 10, and next No. 14, each of them obeying, till the man was dead. Leahy was supposed to have used his position on the Kenmare estate to acquire possession of a large number of farms for himself and his sons-in-law. Some months ago a farm was bought by Daniel Cronin, who had just returned from South Africa, but somehow the sale was annulled, and it was given to Leahy’s son-in-law, John Cronin. It was supposed Leahy had something to do in ibis transaction, and hence his unpopularity. Daniel Sheehan, Cornelius Crowley, John Courtney, Humphrey Courtney, and Batt Cronin have been arrested in connection with the murder, but there was no evidence against them when the mail left. In the clays of the Land League this man would not have been killed’. He would have been “ boycotted,” but the Government made “ boycotting ” a serious crime, and hence these tearful, shocking murders. It is most extraordinary that the more stringent the laws are the greater the number of crimes in Ireland. During the existence of the Land League there was no crime of a serious character, nothing worse than threatening letters, “boycotting,” and refusal to pay rent. When the Coercion Act was put into force, and “ boycotting ’• made a crime, murders began, and the harder the law the greater is the number of deaths by violence. Tbe Crimes Prevention Act. recently passed, was expected to crush out all disaffection, but the result is shown in these cases . Evidently a spirit is rising up in Ireland that no law will put down.