"The Anglo Celt" Cavan; Thursday, August 26, 1852 THE AFFRAY WITH THE MILITARY AT SIX-MILE-BRIDGE - VERDICT OF "WILFUL" MURDER. The chief witness for the defence has been Lieut. HUTTON, who is an officer of considerable experience, having taken an active part in four general engagements in India. He says that when the military arrived at Six-mile-bridge, they were received with hooting, groaning and stone-throwing. This last operation proceeded continuously. The mob pressed on the party. The officer endeavoured to remonstrate with them, but this only made bad worse. Father BURKE came up to the cars and said, "Oh, my God! To see those of our own religion, our flesh and blood, treated as convicts!" Volleys of stones accompanied this exclamation. The stone-throwing became so violent that Lieut. Hutton was compelled to face his men about and drive back the people at the bayonet's point. As soon as the charge was over, the mob returned to the attack. About this time the front rank was entangled in the lane, where the fire appears to have taken place. One shot was heard in this lane, and th! en another, and others followed in rapid succession. Three of the soldiers near Lieut. Hutton were lying upon the ground. This officer distinctly swore that the lives of his party and of the voters were in the most imminent danger. His men said to him, "will you allow us to be murdered without firing?" At this moment a number of people rushed past from the front, and Lieut. Hutton, feeling that their flight would create a panic in the rear steadily refused permission to fire. Captain EAGAR swore that, but for the musketry, the affair would have ended in the disarmament and murder of the military party. Capt. Eagar swore, that in the midst of the affray, Father Burke dashed past right before him, with a whip in his hand, in a state of great excitement, as though impelling the mob to rescue the voters from the cars. One of the soldiers deposed that he was compelled to push away Father Burke from the cars, and he called on the people to drag them out. The Court sat at half-past ten o'clock this morning, when The Coroner resumed the reading of the depositions to the jury. This occupied the Court up to two o'clock. Mr. GRAYDON - Now, Mr. Coroner be good enough to tell the jury to take each case separately by itself, so that there may be separate findings. The Coroner - I intended that from the first; if that were not the case we would have only one inquest. Mr. Graydon - And I also call upon you to direct as to identity, and the non-liability of one party for the act of another. The Coroner then proceeded to charge the jury. He said - Gentlemen of the jury, I deeply regret that it has not fallen to my lot to be a person of greater legal experience, in order in some way to relieve your minds of the care and anxiety, which I know you all feel, as the time approaches when you are to decide when, where, how, and by what means the parties named came by their death. Yesterday the tediousness of this protracted inquiry was relieved for nearly four hours by the able and impassioned address of Mr. Gradyon and Mr. COFFEY. They addressed you in a style of eloquence that has been rarely excelled in the highest courts of justice in the land; but, gentlemen, you are not to be led away by any such address from the calm and dispassionate consideration of all the circumstances of this most serious and important inquiry. The coroner's jury is, in fact, a grand jury, and the general result of their verdict is to put the case in course of trial; it is not a f! inal determination of the guilt or innocence of the parties charged. The jury should inquire into and find the cause of the death of the several parties, and by whose hands occasioned. As to these particulars it will be probably found that there is no real controversy; but the jury should further inquire under what circumstances the parties severally lost their lives, and the result of that investigation may be to lead to a verdict of murder, manslaughter, of justifiable homicide against or in favour of some of the parties charged. Now, as to the law of the case. When one man kills another, the act is prima facie, felonious, and amounts to murder, unless the homicide took place under such a state of facts as would in law amount to a justification or excuse, or under such recent provocation as would reduce it to manslaughter. Where the death of one man has been occasioned by the agency of another, the law presumes it to be murder unless circumstances appear which reduce ! it to manslaughter, or amount to a justification. Murder is the malicious killing of another, and malice may be either expressed as for instance where the party charged indicates beforehand his intention to commit the felonious act, or implied from the circumstances of the case, or from the fact alone of taking life without justification or excuse. The law infers malice whenever human life is taken without just cause or provocation, and a wanton disregard of the life of another may, under the circumstances, be evidence of malice. Manslaughter is when a person takes the life of another under circumstances of provocation so fresh and strong as he could not be fairly considered the master of his own judgement (sic) or the guide of his own actions; as, for instance, where one receives a wound or a severe blow, and instantly in the heat of passion, avenges it by striking in return, and kills his adversary. The provocation in that case would rebut the inference of malice. The learned gentleman proceeded with his remarks at great length, laying down the law affecting the case clearly and forcibly. When he had concluded the jury retired to the room shortly before three o'clock, and at twenty minutes to five o'clock they caused it to be announced in open court that twelve of their number had agreed to a verdict. At this time the court was densly (sic) crowded, and the utmost anxiety was evinced to learn the result of this most protracted inquiry. The jury having come into court, the foreman announced that twelve of the jurors had agreed to a particular finding, and they resolved to have the verdict drawn up in a legal form. The coroner then read the finding as follows:- "We are satisfied that John C. DELMEGE, J. P., Jno. GLEESON (first), James POSTINGS, William BARNES, John THOMPSON, John DWYER, James SHARPE, Thos. CLARKE, and John CARTER, soldiers of the 31st Regiment, are guilty of the 'Wilful (sic) murder of Jeremiah FRAWLEY." Mr. William M'MAHON said he was one of five jurors who did not agree to that verdict. He considered the soldiers were culpable, and those who thought with him were for a verdict of manslaughter. The other issues, as to the deaths of Michael CONNELLAN, Michael COLEMAN, Thomas RYAN, James CASEY, and JAMES FLAHERTY, were then severally given into the jury, and a similar verdict of "Wilful (sic) murder" was returned upon each, against Mr. Delmege and the soldiers. On application of counsel, the coroner signed his warrant for committal of the soldiers, and they were transmitted to Ennis gaol in the evening. The coroner also signed his warrant for the apprehension and committal of Mr. John C. DELMEGE, who was not in the court during the day. The proceedings then terminated. The demise of Mrs. SHEIL, relict of the late Right Hon. Richard Sheil, has followed, after a brief interval, her distinguished husband. The lamented lady, who was borne down, by family sorrows, expired at Leghorn on the 4th instant. Her remains will be brought over for interment, and placed alongside those of the illustrious deceased in the retired churchyard of Templetuchy, county Tipperary. County Cavan Newspaper Transcription Project