The Newfoundland Vindicator, 1842-03-26, vol. 02, no. 65

              **
</tUc.
<•
#yf ewfoundta.
■ to amor, ths bark of freedoji^to hek fort,
DF^PirETlflitlIitEA'TS,----SOtEBLA-f£llSlIME--ITSOFiCOt-RT
OF JUSTICE IIOLO THE SCAI.KS,—srrFORT THE LAWS, J
MAINTAIN THE MDS.ll.CH's AST. THE PEOPLES CAUSE:
A RETURN
OF^lLL CAUSES  TRIED   BY  SPECIAL  JURIES IN   THE   S
PREME .COURT,   FROM   TIIE   Ut. JANUARY,   1834,   TO   THE
isi    JANUARY,   ISllV SETTING    FORTH   THE    NAMES   OF
. -  THE- SIXTEEN JURORS STRUCK FOR THE TRIAL OF EACf
CAUSE.
183*.
Jan. IS.
G. Garrett     John Jennings, Richard Lungley, John Eales,
t». ijr., Hannibal Murch, Timothy Hogan,* Thos.
William    Carter. f'B. .Tobj Robert Brine, jr., Joseph Gill,  John
B. Tremlclt,     Wittinm   Wnrren, Sen.,   John
.Howley,*' John Sinclair.
Patrick Lynch.    John Dunscomb,   Jolin Nichols,    Benjamin
vs. Bowring.   John Boyd,   John Dillon ■ James
John   Job,    Thos.lCniden,   Kenneth M'Lea,   Daniel P. Muretr,
iullev,   RoLi. Job. NicholasGH1, jr., John Brine, Sen., JohnM
Thomas B. Job.     iRendell, 'William Warren.
AnastntiaBntcs
iTol
Edward Flaherty ;Wn*
fohn M. Rendell,  Hannibal Murch,  Richard
Langley,   Robert Brown,   John B. Trem'ett,
John Howley. ".   John Brine, Laurence O'Brien,*" John Bulley,
jRichnrd F. Hunt,'   John Jennings,    Moni
jHutchings,-Thomas Beck."
Warren, Sen.,   Jojin M. Rendell, Robt,
Robf *"-rinc, Sen.,   John 11. Bulley,
s.-Rii"
y "J-ohn Nichols,1 Richard Langley, John Boyd,
Peter Ls-Messuricr, Rnipli Trim ing ham, Lau
[". ;rcice O'Brien,"- John Ll. Tremlelt.
JCharlcs F. Bennett, John Eales, jr.* John Rendell, Sen., John M.
Thos. Bcnneit, und Ren Jell, Abraham Lc.Mess.tricr, Robt. Brown,
■e Morgan   Richard Howley*   Charles McCallum, Rich-
w. lord Lanrrlev.   •**•*.
obn Dun scon
'gley,   Ti.
t, Nicholas
othy Hogim,*    John  B.
Mudge,  P. LeMessorier.
HenrvHawson, CharlcsBowrinrr, JohnBi
iWiBinm Warren, Sen., Robert Alsop, jr., Han
.nib..! March,  Charles McCallum, John Sin-
flair, John Eales, jr., Richard Langley, John
|B. Tremlelt, Peter Le.Messuricr.    .
ry Peter LcMessnrier. John B. tremlelt, John
Eales, Richard P. Hunt. William Kydd, Robt
,Brown,   Robert Brine, jr., Abraham LeMi
■n.:suricr,   .James J. Grieve,   Edward Francis,
r-d.Thomas XI. Job, Kenneth McLca.
Richard  Holdcn  | William IL Gadcn,   Jas. Clift,   Thomas Bt
.,M» Nichols,    Richard Perchard
James Fergus.     .Tho*a-rW'lH.lms, John II. Bland, Daniel"P,
Mar-% Robth Job.
Doe dc.     William James J. Grieve, Garland C. Gaden, Willi
Newman Langley, John Brine, jr., Robt. Brown.. Thos.
VS.   •*" Job, John Mt-'Villinm, Kenneth MeLea, Jas.
James Lear'-.      Bong, JamesCruden, Patrick Kough,"*Thos.
Pntrick Fit zp.it rid:
Maurice Quirk.
Francis Marelt anil
Daniel P. "ilarett
Richard F. Hum, Nicholas Gill, jr., Joftn
SineUir, George Morgan, Kcnncih McLca,
Robt. Alsop, jr., John Nichols, Wm. Wnrren,
jr., James J. Grieve, Wm. Richards, Charle.
Bowring, Robert Brine, Sen.
Kenneth M'Lco, John M'William, Jas. Clift,
John Brine, jr., Richard F. Hunt, Richard
Langley, John Nichols, Robert Alsop, jr.
Nicholas Gill,
t This cause and the following one were tried by Special Juries, drawn
id mmmnod oniler the Rules of ihe Supreme Court ia force prior wiihc
January Term of 1634-1 have no reeord of the names of those of lhe 18
drawn who were noi sworn.
| 4 In Apnl, 183 '.the new General Rule ofihe Supreme Court (No, 101
- for ihe stnliing of the Spceinl Juries came inlo operaiion, but as Wrim
of Distringas were not in use until the Autumn of 183H, 1 am aot enabled
to furnish the names of more ihan the 12 Jurors.sworn on the trials previous to that time. _->
[To be Continued.]
10 Protestant*.
- Catholic
the first eleven Juries einpnnnellcd in the Supreme Courl, ns extracted from ihe Return
made hy thc proper Officer of that Court, to
His Excellency Captain Prescott, in compliance with an order of thc Assembly during
iheir last Session.
Bynreferencolothis extract it will be seen
that only 9 names being returned in two Cases
the gross number of Jurors given is 1*2'", of
vhich number 117 were Protestants, only 9
verc Catholics !—being in the proportion of
nbout three-fourths of a ""niholic on each Jury,
One Caiholic to every 13 Protestants on
the whole!! I
11 PtotcslDn-s" of these 11 Cases, 3 were tried by Juries on
1 Catholic. | enc(, of which sat 10 Protestants and 2 Catho-
lids, 3 others by Juries on each of wliich sat
11 Protestants, only One Catholic, Tvhile thc
remaining Cases were tried  by exclusively Pi
10 Protestants.
~ Catholics.
11 Protestants.
1 Catholic.
10 Protestants.
*! Catholics.
"W
THE SPECIAL JURY SYSTEM,
on this day, present our readers with
,,lestant Juries!!!
,-.      ...      .'  :.-.  ..
11 Protestants.
I C-ttholic. ■
tholic Jurors, wc find only 6 In.li -iduals, *• Liberals, and 2of the opposite or Mercantile Party;
id it is not n little remart-abie^Jiat of these i
Liberal Catholics, 1'was suB-eqer.tly arbitrarily
struck ofl'the Grand Jury, and who had served
on thnt Panel upwards of 80 years, and "placed
upon the Petit Jury by thc Sheriff, another,
although he had been excused hy lhc Court
from further oitendancc upon the G rand Juries,
on Recount of over age, nn.l after a service o:i
thc Grand Juries of this nnd his native Country
also1, of upwards of a ([u.irter of a Century
was afterwards insultingly placed upon the
Petit Jury Panel,4K no reason, tha: wc could
:hnn in order to a fiord a pretext for
putting his son upon lhc same Panel.
Indeed, ive can hardly offer a stronger commentary upon the withering system we art
writhing under, than to mention the fact that
on the Grand Juries of 1838 and 1834, Three
Liberal Catholic T5 en lie men, of not less stand
ing than 25 years, each on the Grand Jurirs'of
Newfoundland or oflreland, had been sttiniuon-
ed and sworn, vi/., ii December, IS33, Tlio-
Beck and Simon Morris—in October, 1834,
John Dillon—nnd in November of the sann
year,*Simon Morris, again, ns may be sen"by.
(ferenco to a Return, made in lsS3f,, to ihe As
scmbly (Assembly's Journal for 1S37,pages501
502 and 503), two of whom were subsequent
ly-tprbitrnrily and insultingly detruded from thi
Giand, mid all of whom were improperly placed
upon the Petit Jury Panel.
d yet, wiih these indisputable evidences
before us, of the fact that these Gentlemen had
served on the Grand Jury Pnnel,*and that
had been taken off that Panel and placed upon
thc Petit Jury Panel, thus reducing thc already
small number of Catholics on thp Special Jury
list, when h'c statcd^hat fact in the Supreme
Court, the present Sheriff actually had the h.
driood, in upon Court nnd in thc presence of
thc Country, to contradict us.
In addition lo ihcse evidences, and the exhibition of the TAr-r* names on the Grand Panel,
he same Session to the Assembly,
(see Journals of  1837; page 500)  we find,   a*
•e have said, thc names of Mr. Dillon and Mr.
Beck, here returned, as having served on Special Juries on the 18th andSlst January, 183-t-,
d we ask, where are these Three Gentlemen's
names now to bc found 1    Arc the Three names
ot upon the Petit Jury Panel 1 Are they there
bynny authority save tho uncontrolled and arbitrary power .of the Sheriff 1 And if they have
becn'so removed from the one and placed on
the other Panel, ad arbitrium, by anyone man 1
—And if thnt One man eannot bo punish
ed for the act,—if, in fact, he thereby transgress no law, lhe"n have wo more than a
'ight to complain of so vile a system—then, is
t Our most solemn duty to raise onr voice and
to dernand a change-
Tothe first and second of these interrogatories our reply is, that tbe names Of thoie Gentlemen have been, ns said before, removed from
the Grand Jury Panel, and have, been place I
upon the Petit Jury Panel, nnd our only reply
to the third n,uestion is, thnt this chongc has
been effected by lhe arbitrary exercise of tho
power of lhe Sheriff, who has no law; to control him in this case.
g answered these interrogatories, tne
next question that forces itself upon us, is, has
there beeii any, ninfwhat, alleged reason, lor
thus insulting these three Veteran Grand Juror*", other than that they were guilty of the
Offence ol'bcinj-Cnth'-liesand'prnfessinglihc-
ons" "Ho know of no re-il reason
thnt could be ns! >ned for it, if'it were not the
niter; but with' espect to Two nf these Gen-
len.cn Mr.' Morr s nntl Mr. Beck, n reason has
Been alleged which would in our mind tend
to rivet the opinion that the cause alleged is nol
the true cause, and wo shnll candidly give our
■cason3 for it.
1 We find, that on the occasion of removing these
two gentlemen, und Mr. Brine, a liberal ProteW
taut Gentleman, from lhe Grand Jury Panel, nnn
placing them on thnt of the Petit Jury, ihe She-
iff stated that his reason was because that they
hud disqualified themselves far the Grand Panel,
„a taking out licenses for the retail of Spirirjt-
iTpon lonl'Tn'g over The unmr- of tferic <* Ca- nt-s-*,'7'--,r.-~T'ii-* wo-tR' il,....-h -.-.,-• rery*b*d
._i:.. 1 r.~A l.«..j:j..a.l   i1:l      t  ,  ■*     ,       ,, ...    .      ■*  *     ••   . 'n    .
apology, bo all very well in iis jvn'y, if the rule
to be acted upni) without any respect *.o
persons, hut uhen we find that the taking out
of a license to retail spirituous lirj-iors by the
Messrs. Charles Fox Bcnneit nnd Thomas Ben-
ictl 10 disqunlify tAem.e,*
Jurors, hut that they were, noiwithstniidij*- their
licence permitted to remain upon that Panel,
we are compelled to look upon the excuse ol,
leget! as a mere pretext in rover iho real cause
of objection, which the Public ran only find, in
tbe difference of the political opinions'enjtcr-
iniaed by tha tatter gcnllci en from those professed hy thc former. But ns for the gross
trttge upon Mr. Dillon antl hi-*-hop, not even
this paltry pretext could he pleaded—They
held thc name rank nnd position in I83>" which
they did in 183-1*. Their wealth was, we believe, greater, nnd in every respeef" Mr. Dillon
was then just as respectable a mnn as when ho
■toad empanelled among tho Grand Jurors ol
the City of Cork and lhc County of Tipperary in
Ireland, in fact no excuse for this net wns ever,
nsfarns weean learn, even pretended lo he made.
In truth, o,;r complaint of ihis system, ns we
have before, in scvt-ral number--, alleged, is not
so riinch of the exclusion of Cat/iolicj from tne
Sroc inlJurypar---1, as of I hc-systemnlicesclusioii
of every liberal—or even every supposed—liberal Protestant.—-Before this Journal started
:ence, «c had fretjiicritly, 1hrou--li ibe
ofihe Patriot, complained of ihe im-'
proper exclusion of Mr. Douglas I rom the Grand
Jury Pane', hut in vain. Yet, the very moment
Mr. Dougliw, at the last election, severed himself from'lie popular Party, and threw himself
into the arms of their enemies—heigh presto—
lie wnsmialified as n Grand Juror, nnd wns summoned accordingly!
we have been speaking of tho Patriot wo
may as well point to the Clot of which n Inlo
iet/ger-re-aninils us, when the Editor cf that
Journal, in his Ediiorir.1 remarks, speaks of
himself as "ofihe Special Jury Panel."—Now,
why is it a fact that Mr. Parsons, the Editor of
he Patriot, a gentleman in every wny more respectable than thc other—Why is it a facAhol
Mr. Parsons is not only not on thc Grand Jury
Prinel, but hns actually been summoned en tho
Petit Juries within the last few months.
know thntj.fr.sj Parsons hns complained,
and in our opinion his complaint is n just one,
of this improper preference, and impute*, tho
latter proceeding to spleen—indeed, we believe
he use.lnn expression as strong ns "vengeance"
-on the part of the Sheriff, towards him, who
hnd forborne tb  place   him on the Petit Jury
Panel, until after be had mnde certain strictures
tho conduct of that Officer.
Wo hnvo  heard that the  Sheriff met   this
charge by alleging that he could not have sum--
d Mr, Parsons earlier, ns bo bad previously held the Office of Printer to the House df
Assembly.    Now, this cannot, certainly, in our
view, Ntfre been tbe only cause that prevented
that Gentleman's having been earlier exhibited,