in a handkerchief, which gave him suspicion; shortly after, prisoner said to witness, "We are going to gibe;" they were then in the channel between Montserrat and Rodunda, Arrindell steering; prisoner went to trim the boat, and said to witness, "We are going to gibe, you must sit on the gunnel;" witness sat close to, but not on, the gunnel; prisoner edged up to him, and bade him sit on the gunnel; he did so, and Fletcher and Arrindell then spoke in some language he did not understand; Arrindell afterwards said to prisoner, "What the devil are you about?" upon which, prisoner took witness by the leg, and chucked him overboard, saying, "Ah, my boy, I have got you, you will soon be stiff;" witness caught the boat aft, and told prisoner it was cruel; Arrindell laid hold of his wrists, saying, "Let go the boat, you d-d rascal!" witness held on; prisoner came to the stern, held witness's head down on the gunnel, and Arrindell raised the tiller; witness looked up, and exclaimed, “Oh, God!” and Arrindell let the tiller fall; prisoner said, "What the devil are you doing, why not kill the man? do you want a fishing-boat to come up, and make trouble for us, and we shall not be able to go to Nevis again?" Prisoner then stretched out his foot for the knife that had fallen out of his handkerchief, which witness seeing, he slipped away, and went down in the water; when he rose, he pretended to be unable to swim; prisoner said, "Ah, my boy, I have put you where I have put many, in a few minutes you'll be stiff;" this happened between one and two in the morning of Monday (Oct. 11); they had left Nevis the preceding

night late; the boat sailed away with witness's clothes, &c. which he never recovered: he remained in the sea until nine or ten o'clock, when he was picked up by a fishing-boat; he had been swimming all the time, endeavouring to get back to Nevis.

John Wilkinson sworn. He said, that he had gone out fishing early on the morning of the 11th October, and seeing something at a distance in the sea he made up to it, and it proved to be Branch Hull, who attempted to get into the boat, but was unable to do so from weakness; witness assisted him in, and he sat down, trembling very much, and, on recovering a little strength, he related to witness the circumstances he had given in evidence; when picked up, he was about three miles from the land.

The counsel for the prisoner declined any further interference in a case of guilt so heinous and palpable, and the court called on him for his defence. What he stated fully corroborated the evidence given, but he denied any wilful intention of destroying the man he had thrown overboard, who, he expected, he said, would have easily made the shore.

His honour the chief justice charged the jury, who immediately returned a verdict of Guilty.

Another jury was then empanelled, and the other prisoner, Arrindell, put on his trial; and, on the same evidence, he was likewise found Guilty.

The sentence of the law was then pronounced on them.

On the day appointed for their execution, they were conveyed from the gaol, in a cart, to the bay at the foot of the Pond estate, where the gallows was erected; and

were both launched into eternity, in the presence of an immense concourse of spectators.

KILKENNY ASSIZES.

Farley v. Joseph Timothy Haydn. This was an action against the defendant as part proprietor and general editor of the Dublin Star newspaper, for a libel on the character of the plaintiff, published in that paper on the 16th of March, 1824. In addition to Mr. Scott, who is a king's counsel, and Mr. Hatchell, who is a gentleman in respectable practice at the bar, the defendant brought down Mr. T. Glascock, a Dublin attorney, short in stature, spruce in dress, and violently vehement in manner.

The Lord Chief Justice Bushe, haivng taken his seat on the bench, inquired, if the parties were ready to proceed; but there being some delay in consequence of the absence of one of the counsel for the plaintiff,

Mr. Glascock stood up, and said

My lord, I think my learned friends on the other side have agreed to withdraw this record. If they had not, this delay could not occur. We will not, however, consent to it."

Mr. Scott. My lord, I would not have it supposed, that I am a party to what is now passing before the Court.

you

Mr. Glascock.-Oh, dear, certainly not, Mr. Scott. I don't mean to inculpate you; for if were obliged to answer for my acts, God only knows where you would be now.

Mr. Doherty stated the case on the part of the plaintiff, in doing which he was repeatedly interrupted by Mr. Glascock.

The learned gentleman was pro

ceeding to call witnesses, when he was once more interrupted by him. My lord," said Mr. Glascock, "before any evidence is produced in this cause, I wish to state that I am especially retained in it, with a fee of fifty guineas on the back of my brief. This is ten times

more than Mr. Scott, or any other barrister here, has received. The bar is a close borough; they wish to exclude all intruders, but I am determined they shall not exclude

me.

I have established my right to be heard before the chief baron in the case of Carr v. Shannon,' and though I had three king's counsel against me, I beat them all single-handed."

Mr. Scott now requested the interference of the Court.

The Chief Justice.-The first thing that I shall consider is, what gentleman at the bar is authorized to undertake the defence. I shall next consider, whether a gentleman who is not a barrister, but belongs to the other department of the law, is at liberty to examine witnesses, and address the jury. Who is the attorney on the record?

Mr. Talbot Glascock.-I am, my lord; and my client could no where find my equal.

Mr. Lanigan. He is not the attorney, my lord.

The Chief Justice.-Who is the attorney retained in the cause.

Mr. Malone.-I have been retained, my lord; but my client has instructed me to give a brief to Mr. Glascock.

The Chief Justice.-Then I will not allow any other person to act as counsel than the professional gentleman or gentlemen whom you have engaged.

Mr. Haydn, the defendant, was then called, and stated that Mr. Scott and Mr. Hatchell were his counsel.

This avowal inflamed the choler of Mr. Talbot Glascock, who imagining himself disclaimed by his client cried out, "Here is a pretty business-I have nothing to do but to make my bow to the Court, and be off. But I'll be sure to take the brief with me, and the 50 guineas into the bargain. I have been gulled, bamboozled, humbugged. I should have been by this at Mallow, canvassing the whole town for my friend and client, lord Glentworth, who is not able to represent himself, and I should not be surprised if this was a ruse played off upon me by his two opponents, Becher and Longfield, to keep me away. They might have said, Give that vain fellow a bribe of 50 guineas to go down to Kilkenny, and we shall not see his face in Mallow. We shall thus be enabled to walk over the course.' But I know that Mr. Haydn wishes me to act as his leading counsel. I now put the question to him, whether he does or not ?"

Mr. Haydn said, that, though he had every confidence in the talents of Mr. Scott and Mr. Hatchell, yet he also wished to avail himself of the well-known abilities of Mr. Glascock.

After a most absurd harangue from Mr. Glascock, the trial was allowed to go on, and the first witness was examined by Mr. Shiel. Mr. Haydn then, to the great surprise of the Court, said, he wished the learned gentlemen whom he had retained as his counsel would return their briefs, and that Mr. Glascock might be permitted to act as his sole counsel. Mr. Scott and Mr. Hatchell gave back their briefs at once, but the gentlemen of the bar were determined to vindicate their own

privileges, and retired to consider what course they should adopt. In the mean time the chief justice retired to hold a conference with Mr. Justice Johnson. As soon as the gentlemen of the bar had returned,

Mr. Sergeant Lloyd, as their representative, stated, that as the question as to whether or not a person who did not belong to the profession should be allowed to be heard as a counsel for another involved the interests of the bar, they would from delicacy prefer leaving the decision to his lordship.

The Lord Chief Justice decided that Mr. Glascock should not be heard, observing, that as the duties of the respective professions were already precisely defined, he would suffer no one to address the Court as an advocate for another, who did not belong to the bar.

The defendant's counsel were then induced to take back their briefs.

Another incident now occurred, which added one more to the strange catalogue of events, with which this notable trial was connected. One of the jury was suddenly taken ill, and it being proved, on the affidavit of a physician, that he was unable to continue in the box, the plaintiff's counsel proposed that the remaining eleven should try the cause, to which, however, the counsel for defendant would not consent.

Another jury were immediately empannelled, and the trial proceeded, the counsel for the defendant having previously determined not to appear.

Evidence was then adduced in support of the plaintiff's case. Verdict for the plaintiff-Damages 600l.

parlour of Crebilly-House, according to the rites of the church of Rome, in 1786. This fact would not be disputed-it was proved on a former trial by Eleanor Dowdal 'or M'Connel, and was an undoubted truth. This is a great leading feature in this cause. After this marriage Mr. O'Hara's love increased; and he determined to go to Scotland and confirm the marriage, as the lady was then pregnant. They set out in the autumn of 1787, accompanied by Benjamin Philips, and a servant called John Johnston; and at Dumfries, the marriage was formally acknowledged by them, in the presence of competent witnesses. They reinained a few days there, cohabiting together, and then went to London. In London, Mr. O'Hara introduced his wife to his select friends; among others, to the celebrated Dr. Lawrence, brother to the archbishop of Cashel, and the first civilian of his day, and fully able to satisfy Mrs. O'Hara that the marriage was a lawful one: when this unfortunate woman was afterwards abandoned by her inconstant husband, Dr. Lawrence honoured her as the wife of his friend, and always addressed her as Mrs. O'Hara in his letters. Mr. O'Hara felt a desire that the child, of which his wife was pregnant, should be born in Ireland; they returned to Crebilly, and on the 18th of June, 1788, the warmest wishes of Mr. O'Hara were realized by the birth of the plaintiff. This birth was celebrated by bonfires as for the heir of Crebilly estate; and on the third day the child was baptized a Protestant, as the heir of the joint houses of Hamilton and O'Hara, and not like an illegitimate child, in his mother's religion. Devlin's niece,

Mary Dempsey, became the nurse of the child. Mr. O'Hara continued to reside at Crebilly for some time, till an unfortunate occurrence took him to France. His sister, Mrs. Grumbleton, was there at the point of death; he set off for that country, and Mrs. O'Hara followed him. Mr. O'Hara's father was then living in Portglenone, which was the cause why Mrs. O'Hara might not then receive all the honours of a wife. Mrs. O'Hara had a second pregnancy, and bore a dead child. His affections for her began at this time to wane and to waver; and his father now proposed to him to marry. He sent his wife to London, promising to follow her in two or three days; and packed up his clothes, and sent them with her. He, however, never followed her. In London she bore him a second son, and while she was in the pangs of child-birth, he celebrated a marriage with Miss Jackson, the niece of earl O'Neill. With her he lived 12 years-it was an unhappy marriage his conscience tormented him-she bore him no children, and closed her miserable life at the end of 12 years. Mrs. O'Hara was not apprised of the second marriage for a year and a-half, and received no support from Mr. O'Hara; but in 1795, he came to London, and although he abandoned her, he determined to take the children from her, and demanded them. She gave them up, for their own interest, and he put them to a public school. But he determined that the fact of his bigamy should not be discovered by her, and to prevent this he kept her in poverty. She complained to Mr. Graham, the presiding magistrate at Bow-street. Mr. O'Hara was crafty, and offered her money if she would sign a pro