Major Henry Charles Sirr, examined. Deposed to the arrest of the prisoner as follows: “I went on the 25th of August, to the house of one Palmer. I had heard there was a stranger in the back parlour. I rode, accompanied by a man on foot: I desired the man to knock at the door—he did, and it was opened by a girl. I alighted, and ran in directly to the back parlour—I saw the prisoner sitting at dinner; the woman of the house was there, and the girl who opened the door was the daughter of the woman of the house. I desired them to withdraw. I asked the prisoner his name, he told me his name was Cunningham. I gave him in charge to the man who accompanied me, and went into the next room to ask the woman and her daughter about him; they told me his name was Hewit; I went back and asked him how long he had been there? He said he came that morning. He had attempted to escape before I returned, for he was bloody and the man said he knocked him down with a pistol. I then went to Mrs. Palmer, who said he had lodged there for a month; I then judged he was some person of importance. When I first went in, there was a paper on the chair,[6] which I put into my pocket; I then went to the canal bridge for a guard, having desired them to be in readiness as I passed; I planted a sentry over him, and desired the non-commissioned officer to surround the house with sentries, while I searched it; I then examined Mrs. Palmer, and took down her account of the prisoner, during which time I heard a noise as if an escape was attempted: I instantly ran to the back part of the house, as the most likely part for him to get out at. I saw him going off, and ordered a sentinel not to fire, and then pursued myself; regardless of my order, the sentinel snapped, but his musket did not go off. I overtook the prisoner and he said, “I surrender.” I searched him, and found some papers upon him. “On the witness expressing concern at the necessity of the prisoner’s being treated so roughly, he (the prisoner) observed, that “All was fair in war.” The prisoner, when brought to the castle, acknowledged that his name was Emmet.” Here the case closed on the part of the crown, and the prisoner having declined to enter into any defence, either by witnesses or his counsel, an argument arose between Mr. McNally and Mr. Plunket, as to the latter’s right to reply to evidence, when no defence had been made. Lord Norbury said, that the counsel for the prisoner could not by their silence preclude the crown from that right, and, therefore, decided in favour of Mr. Plunket. Mr. Plunket then addressed the court to a considerable length, and spoke to evidence in effect, the same as the Attorney General. Lord Norbury charged the Jury, minutely recapitulating the whole of the evidence, and explained the law. The Jury, without leaving the box, pronounced the Prisoner—Guilty.