ANGLO-CELT MARCH 9, 1854 CAVAN SPRING ASSIZES (Continued) CROWN COURT--MONDAY PROSECUTION OF A GOVERNMENT OFFICER THE QUEEN v. SAMUEL SWANZY AND JOHN SMITH SWANZY There having been three indictments in this case against the prisoners for extortion defrauding the County and conspiracy, when the long pond had been called over, Mr. SMYLY, Q.C., stated the intention of the Crown to proceed on the charge of conspiracy which would bring the matter fully under the notice at the Court. Mr. MAJOR, on behalf of the traversers, said that as that indictment embraced a great number of cases which would make it much more difficult for the prisoners to meet it, he would suggest that some of the other indictments should rather proceeded with. His Lordship said the question lay with the Crown; he could not put them on a selection. MR. SMYLY said he would be sorry to do anything in the case that would savour of unfairness. It was a matter of indifference which they proceed with; they selected the indictment for conspiracy because its issue might render it unnecessary to proceed with the others. He would much rather proceed with the simpler cases; but, owing to irregularities in the office, he feared they might not be able to sustain either of them. MR. MAJOR said the case of extortion would involve all the others; but, if the crown failed, they could proceed with the others. They would waive, on behalf of the prisoners, all technicalities. MR. SMYLY agreed to go on with the extortion case, whereupon. MR. MAJOR said that on behalf of Mr. John Smith SWANZY, they would withdraw the plea, and plead "guilty". The following were then sworn on the jury:--Edward KENNEDY; John CLEMENGER; Alex. KETTYLE, Patrick FAY, Peter BRADY; James KILROY; Robert ROYCROFT; Eugene M'MANUS; Alexander BERRY; John BERRY; John SHERA and Moses NETTERFIELD, Esqrs. Samuel SWANZY and John Smith SWANZY, were then indicted for unjustly and unlawfully extorting from certain parties, certain fees, not payable to Samuel SWANZY, as clerk of the Crown, nor to the other prisoner for him. MR. Samuel SWANZY pleaded not guilty. Mr. John Smith SWANZY pleaded guilty. MR. SMYLY--This being an unusual case, with which the jury cannot be supposed familiar. I will briefly describe the offence charged, and the duties of the office. The indictment is for extortion against Mr. SWANZY, clerk of the Crown for the county. Extortion in law meaning signifies an oppression under color of right, but strictly speaking the term is applied to the taking money, or anything of value, not due, or more than there is due, or before it is due, by color of office. If, therefore, in the case named in the indictment, MR. SWANZY has taken as fees anything to which he is not legally entitled, beyond doubt he has extorted. I have told you that his office is that of clerk of the Crown; that office comprehends many functions, but our enquiry will be confined to one of them, which it is alleged that the misbehaviour occurred. If the clerk of the Crown has many duties to perform, you are to take it as granted, that in all other particulars they have been well discharged. He has to attend in his office, and in court during the assizes, and must prosecute in cases where the Crown Solicitor cannot. He has also to pay to prosecutors and witnesses the expenses allowed them, and it is out of this head that the prosecution arises. The Clerk of the Crown is paid a salary, and claims certain fees of office, under 49 Geo. III; and, if what is alleged against him were limited to those fees, which he might reasonably believe due to him under the statute, he ought never be prosecuted in a criminal suit. Formerly the Clerk of the Crown received fees from prisoners acquitted, as well as from prosecutors, but the law thought it hard that men acquitted, and who were, therefore, to be supposed unjustly accused, should have to pay any money for having right done them. The 101 sec. of the statute before alluded to, regulates the fees payable to Clerks of the Crown in Ireland. (Reads)..... Now, the case we go upon is that of the Queen a. John CALLAN, in which Patrick BRADY was prosecutor, and which will be fully explained to you. Mary FITZPATRICK, Patrick MURRAY, and others, attended as witnesses in that case and we allege that towards them the extortion we complain of took place. [Here reference was had to the records...] Court. Is there a charge of extortion in the case of TAGGART? MR. SMYLY--There is my lord. MR. MAJOR--Why a moment ago you struck his name out. MR. SMYLY continued--When the 1l. was allowed him, he went to Mr. John Smith SWANZY, who filled up a draft for 1l. 9s. 9d., which Mr. SWANZY himself signed, but TAGGART got only 1l. In the same way Mary FITZPATRICK had an order for 19s. 9d., while she got only 10s. Mr. Samuel SWANZY again signing the draft, and Patrick MURRAY received only 5s. or 6s., whereas his order was for 17s 9d., drawn up by Mr. Smith SWANZY, and the draft upon it signed by Mr. Samuel. John MURPHY, also a witness, was charged 2s. 6d. out of an order for 12s. 6d., and there are many other cases.... E. E. MAYNE, Esq.--Is secretary of the grand jury; has searched through all the papers he could find in the crown office for indictments in case of the prosecution of Patrick BRADY against John CALLAN; could find none whatever, nor informations; has the crown book; finds two cases there; Patrick MURPHY, Charles and John MURPHY were witnesses in case No. 1; No. 2 is the prosecution of Francis TAGGART against John CALLAN; TAGGART and Francis DOLAN were witnesses in that case; the bills were ignored;... (Examination and cross-examination of witnesses) In many such cases there is an appeal to a hard-hearted Clerk of the Crown, and from him to one believed to be still more hard-hearted-- myself; but here Mr. SWANZY is not hard-hearted, but must considerate. He signed after a draft for an additional nine and ninepence; but gentlemen, that addition is quite a distinct hand writing and ink. What evidence is there that it was not added after the signing of the draft by Mr. SWANZY, and would such evidence be deemed superfluous, when you recollect the dealings of young SWANZY, and the police, which, I am sorry to say it of members of so respectable a body, deceived old Mr. SWANZY, and participated in the frauds, which it attempted to involve him in. Gentlemen, need I trouble you any further? The Jury immediately handed in their verdict of "Not Guilty," and the Crown entered a "nolle prosequi" on the two other indictments. (End of Cavan Spring Assizes) ________________________________________________________________ County Cavan Newspaper Transcription Project