Did he live near Ballinamuck?-He did. What was his conduct during the troublesome times?-He would go to respectable people, who were not joined with the rebels. Why?-To shun the people of the country, who were in a rebellious way.

Did you know many others do that besides himself? I never knew a man of his kind do it but himself.

George O'Brien cross-examined by the
Attorney General.

In what county do you live?-In this county, towards the borders of Leitrim.

The people of Leitrim have been very kind to the people of this county, by including them in their plans?—I have no connection with any county, but my own.

In what corps are you?-Not any at present; I was in the Carnygallan corps.

When did you quit them?-About a year ago, being inconvenient to me.

You have heard that the country has been infested with disturbers?-I have.

Do you not consider them a great nuisance? -In the way they go on; for they were with me, and put an oath to me not to take tithe.

Did that person go to a magistrate and give information?-I can't say.

Would you not be likely to know, if he did? -I can't say.

Would you not know, if a young gentleman of twenty-five years of age, five feet eleven inches high, with a drab coat, leather breeches and boots, went to a magistrate to give information? I can't say.

Did you ever hear that a person of that description had taken the Thresher's oath ?— Perhaps you mean myself.

I do not impute such a thing to you; but
did that person go to a magistrate?-He did.
To what magistrate?-To Mr. Booker.
In what time?-In a few days.

Did that person know any of them?-If you mean me, I did not.

Had you any arms in the house?—I had. Were they yeomanry arms?-They were not.

What did you do with them?—I gave them to the captain.

What arms had you in the house?—A gun. Did you ever lend it to any one?—No; except a man might ask it by way of diversion to fire at a mark.

Did you take a shot at the party that night?

Do you not consider them as innocent men, wishing to redress grievances ?—I cannot an--I did not. swer that.

Do you consider them as a set of lawless miscreants, or laudable reformers ?-From the way they are represented at present I think

How do you mean represented?-By the government.

Do you not think they are accused unjustly?--I do not know.

Can you form no belief of that?---No. Have you not expressed your opinion of the cruel treatment of the Threshers in Mayo, by the juries?--I never heard of it at all.

Did you not hear of the proceedings at Sligo and Castlebar?---No.

Did you not hear that some men were sentenced to die?---I did.

And you expressed a feeling for the poor people?--I was sorry to hear they were brought in so innocently.

Just as innocent as Morris?--I suppose the same way; there is no man so loyal or well conducted.

Do you not believe that many were frightened to join the French ?---Yes.

But Morris acted a loyal and a gallant part? He used to leave his place to avoid rebellious mobs.

When the French came, he acted like a loyal person to his king and country?--I cannot answer for that.

How long is it since the Threshers paid you a visit? I cannot rightly tell.

Try and recollect?--Some time in November.

Did they propose any oath ?---They did to myself and others.

Was that oath taken by any person ?-It

was.

Is there any person here will give a character of yourself?-There is Mr. Newman.

Is there any person, not a sworn Thresher, who will give a character of you?-I believe so; Mr. Andrew Crauford.

[Defence closed.]

SUMMING UP.

Lord Chief Justice Downes stated the indictment to the jury, and then proceeded to sum up the evidence. It appeared that the country had been infested by disturbers, assuming the name of Threshers, and who under that name, and dressed in a particular manner, went about at night, and administered oaths to the inhabitants. With regard to the fact charged against the prisoner, there was the testimony of Forbes, who appears to have gone to a magistrate recently after the fact, and he swears the prisoner was one of the party who went to the house at Dunbeggan. The party consisted of three or four score. Some of them, of whom the prisoner was one, went to the door; the man of the house was called for; he appeared; a book was thrown down, and he was sworn. The witness is not positive by whom the man was sworn; but he swears positively that the prisoner was one of four or five persons who were acting thus at the house. If the jury believed he was there, as represented, and that he participated in the general object, it is the same offence; because all who were aiding, abetting, and assisting at the moment are equally guilty with the person who administered the oath. Forbes also stated, that the oath administered was, "To be up to the Threshers laws, and not to prosecute a Thresher." It will be for the jury

to say, whether that is the import of the oath stated in the indictment; for the prosecutor is not bound to set out the exact words. If the jury believed that this oath was of the import alleged in the indictment, and that it was administered for the purpose of making the person to whom it was administered become a member of that confederacy, which is proved to exist, the first charge stated against the prisoner will be supported; provided, gentlemen, you believe that the prisoner was one of the party. With respect to that fact, the witness could not swear positively who administered the oath; and as to the arms carried by the party, he would not swear positively that the prisoner had a gun: the witness only swore upon his belief. However, the witness swore positively that the prisoner was present at the house, when the oath was administered and you, gentlemen, will determine upon his credit.

terial fact of the person of the prisoner, both the witnesses are positive.

Gentlemen, the prisoner's defence rests upon character, to which O'Brien has been examined; he states the prisoner to be a man of good character, and extremely prudent; and he describes him as always anxious to keep himself out of the power of disaffected people; and if you believe that, it is a circumstance in favour of the prisoner. And if that shall induce you to entertain a doubt of the testimony of Forbes, and the other witness; or if you shall believe, that while the prisoner was with the party at the moment the oath was administered, he was acting under the fear of death being inflicted upon him by that party, and with no other motive, it is a plain case for the prisoner, and you ought to acquit him. But you will recollect the account given of a consultation among them, in which the prisoner takes a part and advises them not to go to the village of Rathmore, and his advice was taken; because there was a party of yeomen in the place. You will consider, whether that was the conduct of a man acting under the fear of death. If the fact of the gun were positively sworn to, it would be an additional circumstance to rebut the defence endeavoured to be extracted from the cross-examination of Balfour. But I must add, that in all cases where a party sets up the defence of force, he should establish that fact to the thorough conviction of a jury; because the fact charged being proved by positive evidence to the satisfaction of a jury, the defence of force ought to be proved equally to their satisfaction to induce them to rest a verdict upon it. That defence can hold no longer than during the immediate pressure of the force. If after it is removed, the person who was so restrained, goes to a magistrate, and gives him an account of the transaction, it will add much to his defence. But if he rests without disclosing it, and waits till he is prosecuted, his defence will be considerably weakened.

Gentlemen, another witness was examined in support of the indictment, named Mathew Balfour. Both these witnesses appear by their own account to have acted in the very transaction, with regard to the conduct of which they appear to criminate the prisoner. Forbes gave information, before any charge was preferred against him: nor to this moment does it appear that any information has been sworn against him. Balfour was implicated by the account given by Forbes. Under these circumstances, gentlemen, these witnesses come before you, each participating of the offence of which they accuse the prisoner, and therefore their testimony should be received with all imaginable caution. In the ordinary cases of burglary and robbery, when a person who has participated in the offence appears, and deposes to his being present at the transaction, the fact of inculpating himself gives a credit to his narration, so far as that you may safely credit his accusation of himself: but so far as it may affect others, a jury generally require some corroboration from circumstances, or other testimony. In the present case, perhaps, you will think that they were reluctantly engaged; one of them gave an account of the transaction, and a peace officer went to the house, in expectation of finding the man who was sworn, but he was not found, nor does he appear as a witness on either side. In consequence of the information given by Forbes, Balfour was sent for, and upon his examination here, he admits he was one of the general party, but not at the house where the man was sworn. He also states, that the prisoner was one of the party, and he mentioned the reluctance expressed by the prisoner to go to a village, on account of the yeomen. As to the fact of the prisoner carrying a gun, he would not swear positively to it now: he had stated it to the magistrate, which he admits he might have done, but might be mistaken, and you 'will determine how far that affects his credit FARREL BLANEY, and THOMAS DONOUGHOE, or not. Belief is not evidence of any material were indicted, for that they, with many other circumstance against a man, but as to the ma-evil-disposed persons unknown, on the 14th

Gentlemen, if upon the whole you believe that the prisoner was one of the party who were at the house in Dunbeggan, while the oath was administered, acting voluntarily there, the indictment is supported, if you think the oath was of the import which is stated. If upon the evidence you shall have any rational doubt, either of the presence of the pri soner at the time of administering the oath, or of the import of the oath, it will be your duty to acquit him. But if you are satisfied that such an oath was administered, and that the prisoner was voluntarily present, it will be your duty to find him guilty.

The jury deliberated for a short time, and returned a verdict-Guilty.

Court. Where was the gun fired ?---They got into a field convenient to a house; there What was it?--I told them I had no call to were some men lying on a bank; a shot was the Threshers, or to their clergy, but notwith-fired, and the party immediately dispersed. standing they would not quit me, but swore ane not to take any tithe, but from the mi. nister of the parish, and to pay 4s. 4d. an acre, or leave the tithe there, and then they went on with their own minister about marriage and baptism.

You only knew them by their voices?--- | their voices; what did they say? -They anThat is all; you would not know your brother swered the challenge. from the darkness of the night.

Did you hear them say any thing, but an

Is that the only reason you have for swear-swer the challenge?-No. ing to them?--It is.

You saw no more of these men?---I did