A man convicted of manslaughter almost a quarter of a century ago and who, according to his counsel, sincerely believes he was wrongly convicted, yesterday took his case to the Court of Criminal Appeal in a bid to clear his name.Mr William Gannon (45), formerly of St Brigid's Gardens, North Wall, Dublin, was convicted by a jury in the Central Criminal Court in January 1974 of the manslaughter of James Booth, a barman in the 19th O'Connell licensed premises, Upper O'Connell Street, Dublin, on April 28th, 1973.Mr Gannon, who had been charged with murder, served a sentence of two years and three months imposed by Mr Justice T.F. Higgins in respect of the manslaughter offence.Mr Felix McEnroy, for the appellant, said at the time of his conviction Mr Gannon had been refused leave to appeal.It was his client's recollection that the judge who tried him told the jury the verdict open to it was only guilty or not guilty of murder. He also insisted he was not in court when the verdict was given, though he (counsel) acknowledged there were no notes on any files to say that he was removed from the court.Mr McEnroy said the facts were that his client, two of his brothers and some friends were drinking in the 19th O'Connell on the night of the offence. A barman tried to remove two glasses from the table shortly after midnight. A row broke out, and two barmen were injured, one of them seriously.Mr Gannon was questioned by gardai and made a number of statements. In one of these he acknowledged trying to throw a barman off his back, swinging a kick at him and hitting him in the head.In subsequent Garda identification parades, his client was not picked out as the assailant, though he was picked out as being a witness to, though not involved in, the fight.Mr Justice Lavin, one of the three appeal judges, said the position was that an accused person should always be present for a verdict unless a court made a specific order.Mr Fergal Foley, for the State, said Mr Gannon, by his own statement given to gardai, admitted saying he kicked a barman, hitting him on the head. It was not necessary for an accused person to be present in court at the verdict stage. If a defendant, for instance, became unruly he could be removed.Mr Justice O'Flaherty, presiding, said the court would give its decision in written form in due course.