The Newfoundland Vindicator, 1842-04-02, vol. 02, no. 66

              AT*    /--A»
Jkewf®mmdmmi Vimtieaim
.   ,'V.-jf-. ..•■.: : t-'tiS■''■ s* 8*' * * -' i
J
OJ1 ^IX CAUSES  TRIED   BY  SPECIAL   JURIES IN   TIIE
PREME   COURT,   FROM   THE   1st   JANUARY,   1834,   TO   Ti
1st    JANUARY,   15.11,    SETTING   FORTH   THE    NAMES
THE SIXTEEN JURORS STRUCK FOR THE~TRIAl\OF  EA
^VAJJSE.        • '        -   ,
_<_
[Continued.]
-1833.
Dec 31.
! - ....
Dec. 6.
N.tJIES   Ot-*  JuKOIlS.
William Graham -William Thomas,   Hrinnibal Mnrcb, Patrick
and others.       -Hough"", Nicholas Gill, John Brine, jun., John
vs. Nichols, James Clift, John McWiH^am^ James
William Talbot.   J. Grieve, Charles F. Bennett, John Sinclair,
James Fergus.
Charles F. Bennett
<*-.
Thomas Bennett
Robert Prowsc.
Charles F. 'fiennttt^obVNTc^iaS;
&
Thomas  Bennett
John Nichols, John Brine, John Warren, Pn-
Kough," Daniel P. Mnrrctt, Jas. Clift, Thos.
Glen, Frederick Bonnie, John H. Cozens,
James  Crudcn,   Dugald M'KeH-0",    Charles
William McCarthy.
Charles F. Bennett
&
Thomas Bennett
vs.
Thomas M. Roe.
April 27,
May "
May 11.
.May 11.
Cjarke.
il'iiu.i.   John Nichols,   Jcreininh
Ryan, James B. Wood,  Robert Clapp,   Rich.
ipp, I
F--Hunt, James Rennie, Abraham LcMessn
ricr, John Thompson, John Wyatt, John
Droscomb, James Fergus, Hannibal Murch,
John Sinclair,'Robert Alsop, John Boyd.
John Nichols, Thos. Bearnes, Henry Winton.
Hannibal MurcH, Charles Bowring, Robert
Brine, John Eales, John Thompson, Jnme.
Bong,. Robert Alsop, Laurence O'Brien,'
Thomas Glen.f
Patrick Kough John Brine, Hannibal Murch, Jns. Grieve,
Monier Hutching*, "Wm. Richards, Abraham
Robert J. Parsons. Le.Messarier, \V. Grieve, John Dunscomb,
Kenneth M'Len, Peter Lefnessurier, Richard
Perchard, John Br.So, jr., Ewen Stabb, John
.McWilliam, John Thompson, Wm. Jordan,
John Long       James Rennie,   Robert Clnpp,   James Boag,
vs. Hannibal Murch, John Sinclair, Robert Brine,
Denis Ilannigan- [Charles M'Culium, James Clift, Wm. Wnrren,
nr., Kenneth M'Len,   Matthew Stewart,   Sa-
\ jmuel Mudge, John M'William, John Wyatt,
[John Nichols,  Thomas Glen-
William Carson    John Brine, John Thompson, Thomas Willi-
'        vs., nms, EwenSiabb, Richard Perchard jr., Wm.
John .McConhrey. Thomas, Thomas Glen, John Njchols, Frederick Rennie, Richard Langley, Robt. Brine,
John Sine'air, Henry I*. Thomas, John Dun-
is-comb, William Jordan, John McWilliam.
John Dunscomb, Nicholas Gill, jr., Thos. Job., Samuel Mudge,
John Eales,jr.,and-Kich. L-inMcv. Wm. Richards, John Thomp-
tVillinna Rendell 90n, John Shen,• Dugald M'Kellnr, Thomas
Trustees of thc Es- Bennett, Walter Grieve, Jamc*; Fergus, Rich.
mteof Marrctt In-F. Hunt, Richard Howley,* James Boag,
solvent. ^Patrick Kough,* Gilbert Clapp.
' V    w*
Thomas Bearnes,
William   Carson
vs. *
John McCoubrey.
■fLingley, Peter  LoMess.irier, Joh.
Nichols, John Wyntt, John Jennings, John
Shea," John-Stuart, Mark Willoughby, Robt.
Alsop, Federiek Rennie, Dugald Mnkellar,
James Fergus, Robert Job, William Langley,
William Jordan, Robert Clapp.
John   B.  Cox and John Trimingham, John M'Witlinm,  Lobcrt
Michael Knight   !(;hpp, Rohert Brine, John Dunscomb,  Wm,
Rendell, Hannibal Murch, Thos. Glen, Robt
\*sop,   Mark  Willoughby,   John Howley,'
William Thomas,   John Cusack,"' Wm. Cal
Richard FjHunt, Wm. Jordan.
John Brine, Hannibal Murch, John Nichols,
Robert Job, John Boyd, John Thompson,
Richard PercTiord, Thos. Bennett, Kenneth
MeLea, WnltcrGrieVe, Nicholas Gill, John
B. Bland, Robert Alsop, Henry P. Thomas,
James Clift, James Boag. •
Patrick Doyle
r..'.
Thomas Bearnes.
t In'lhis case the Jurors were summoned withal a Distringas, and I am, cotstqaently unable to
'   10 struck.
11 Protest*
1 Catholic]
11 Protestanl
1 Catholic*
II Protestants.
1 Catholic.
THE SPECIAL JURY SYSTEM.
In the first extract we gave on last Saturday
from the Return of the Special Jurors in the
Supreme Couut,-between tho 1st January, ISM,
nod thc 1st January, 1S4.1, wc had shown that
out c>f 127 names returned in 11 Cases, only 9
were of Catholic Jurors; to-day we Hnd that
out of the number of 161- in lho 11 Cases next
in order, there were still but 9 Catholics returned—155 Protestants!!!—" We were all
alike!'
On last Saturday wc pointed out the fact that
tho proportion of Catholics wns only Three-
fourths of a CnihoVic on each Jury—the proportion is the same to-day, but lho proportionate number of Catholics to Protestants, on  the
hole, npon the extract given   last Saturday,
as 1 Catholic to every 13 Protestants—to-day
the proportion upon tne Return before us, is 1
Caiholic to ovory 18 Protestants!!
,£>i Ua U Q-'ff-K"^"*- ' ai thn ism
consists of "1 Catholics nnd 13 Pro test ant si, Ttoi
2 Catholics and 14 Protestants, -*■ Juries on each
of which wns em panne lied but 1 Catholic, and
5 were tried by exclutively Protestant. Juries
And the case of Kongh OS, Parsons—a political
case—was tried by a Jury on which had been
empnnnelled 16 members ofthe Mercantile Society, which Body, ft short lime before, had cx-
Eressed a censure on the Patriot, of which Mr-
arsons was the Proprietor—Every Caiholic
every liberal Protestant was stricken off!
1(i Protestants,
13 Protestants,
3 Catholics*.
IS Protestants.
1 Catholic.
t4 Protestants,
2 Catholics.
To this, then, if wc add the iff wo cases mentioned nt the-Hose of our lnstT*ssay, viz.: the
case of Rex vs. Morris and others, where the
Crown Officer struck otT every individual Catholic name that had been drawn, and the case
Winton-*. Kent nnd oihers, where the Editor
ofthe Ledger, in like manner, struck off every
Catholic from "tho Jury, surely, there need;
lore to prove, on the one hand, that thi
nnti-iimprovement aro nn nnti-Caiholic Party,
nnd on lhc other hand, (hat n system which renders it possible thus t**s%>ack a Jury, making it
to consist, exclusively, of members of one Religion, or of one Political Party, is radically
bad, and calculated to vitiate the ends of justice,
nd that the bast interests of the community
demand iis reformation,
We have been, oner and over ngsiin, charged
by the Organ of the Special Jury Party, with
being actuated by the worst of motives in giving
these revolting datails, but, although, in good
truth, wc assure our readers we have no mo-
tive whatever in  disgusting   lhe   public   eye
hem, but merely a desire, a dtterminatfi_
lo blot nut the iniquity, yet, in reality, what
has our motive to do with tho maiterl—The
only question, we rely on it, the public have to
consider, is this—- Ire ouV details correct I And
be it remembered—although these Returns are
now some Nino or Ten weeks, we believe, before the puhlic, never has a single one of them
been met or contradicted; nnd if they bo true,
it is the bounden duty of the public Journalist
>hois faithful to his duty, to expo-fe, to denounce them, nnd demand redress forthe oppressive grievance.
But stay; let us nol aa understood to say thnt
all our statements regarding thc working of the
Special Jury System have hitherto passed
altogether without an nttempt at contradiction
or explanation- . The Ledger of last Tuesday, in
fact, naa thought proper, at last, to grapple with
One of our fncts, but msrkl he doesn't dare to
contradict it! On the contrary, he fully admits
our correctness, but attempts a bungling sort
of justification, as usual, interlarded with a
quantum sufficit of direct nnd inferential falsehood:
We complained thnt the exclusion from thc
Grand Jury Panel of Mr. Brine, a liberal Protes-
thnt, nnd Mr. Morris nnd-Mr. Beck.liberal Ca«
tholios, on the. plea of their having rendered
themselves disqualified by taking out licenses
to retairSpiritcKis liquots, looked exceedingly
like partiality, when**ve saw that Mr-Charles
and Sir. Thomas Bennett wero   kept   on that
Panel notwithstanding their having taken out a
similar licence to retail Spirits.
"-"/ell it appears that this has stunglhe party
particularly, arid out comes Inst Tuesday's Ledger upon the subject, but how does ho treat the
question think yout Doe3 he deny that tho
Messrs. Bennett took out license 1 no such
thing, henffirms the facl! Does he deny they
were not, in consequence of so doing, taken
off tbe Grand Jury Panel and put npon tho
Petit Jury Panel 1 No such thing, hc admits
thc fact, hut ho begs leave to draw a. distinction, and as it ia a little laughable to bear
bis reasoning, we shall for tho amusement of
our Rcaderstrcot them wilh an ertract.    *
" In the course of their (thc Messrs. Bennett's)
large and numerous transactions it is thc practice with them, as it is with other merchants,
to issue among their miscclloneohs supplies,
thc article of spirits, in such quantities as their
Dealers may require; but tho Gentlemen referred to, besides being extensive merchants,
arc nlso magistrates, and when thc quantity of
Spirits issuable withoufa license wns raised
from One gallon to Two, they preferred taking
a license, rather than hazzard the   risk  of
».w^u^£ia£*^cujU ii?Aj(SJi4£a -l^e*'iA^p-*i-*-!sri"
Well to be sure it is extremely delectable to
listen to this twaddle of ".hese rigidly righteous
Gentlemen! and so they meicly took out li- ■***-
cence to enable them wiih a safe conscience
" to supply their Dealers," ns extensive [merchants—.Mark tho effrontery of the assertion—
"hy, now, we would beg leave, in all simplicity to ask, what had their grog-shop, kept under their license, and with their name exhibited
according to law as Retailers,-'' the oppositeside
of the Street and fur away from their mercantile
premises—a common* Cabaret—"where any
drunken blackguard reeling through lhe streets"
■•maydemand at the counter n pennyworth ot
rum," and to which they were obliged to
remove, from thcif wharf'where they "supplied
th'cir Dealers" and from their mercantile premises altogether, all thc spirits nnd low wines
which they intended to retail—What, we beg
leave to ask, had that grog-shop to do wilh "1pup-
plying their-Dealersl" Is it not a publicly
known fact that ihat house n as not reserved
for their Dealers, * it was all but one of the lowest of Rum-traps st. to catch the unwary Fisherman.
But suppose all this false reasoning were
true as holy writ, "then are wc conuelted to
enquire what became of thc Messrs. Bennett's
samples latterly 1 What has induced them to
Throw up the grog shop, and with it tho
license—Perhaps we could reply to that
question ourself, and at thc same time lend
an argument to thc Ledger, who really
seems now and then sadly at a loss for one.
The influence and praiseworthy exertions of
the Rev. K. Wnlsh in the glorious cause of
Temperance in St. John's shut up that sjiop by
rendering it so unproductive as not to be worth
the renewal o( the licence ; and this too proves
the entire correctness of our former reasoning,
and of thc falsehood ofihe Ledger's explanation,
for as t|ie Temperance movement has as yet
scarcely affected any part of the Island but the
Chief Towns, so does it appear that the calls of
Messrs. Bennett's Dealers for Spirits are pretty
nearly what they were before, ond hence it
would seem to the public that the-very same
r-aso'ns that actuated them beforu to take out
cence would, or ought, to operate still. Where
then is the distinction between the Messrs. Bcn-
id the gentlemen wo have named 1 It.is
this that the Retail shops of the latter gentlemen
—were one hundred lold riioro respectable than, ' *
theirs I
the zeal of this blundering Journal to
justify the keeping of some Retailers on tht?
Grand Jury Panel and striking off others for
being Retailers, how comes it that ho "leis thc
cat out of the bag" on the "other Merchants 1"
Whatn dangerous tbjng it is to commit one's
defence in a bad cause into thc hands of a bung-
".nd indiscreet friend!
We had heard a thousand times—nay, if is a
notorious fact—yet, realty, we wero a little put-,
zlcd to get substantial cvidenco beyond thnt notoriety—thaltherc is hardly a Merchant in St.
John's that does not constantly, year after year,