The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1884-09-27 00:00:00

THE XIIRDER OF A CONSTABLE.

In London, at the Central Criminal Court, on Friday
in last week, before Mr. Justice Hawkins, Thomas Ily.
Orrock, 21, cabinet-maker, was put upon his trial for
the murder of Police-constable George Cole, at
Dalston, on December 1, 1882. Mr. Poland and Mr.
Montagu Williams conducted the prosecution on
behalf of the Treasury. The prisoner was defended
by Mr. Forrest Fulton and Mr. Overend. Evidence
was given by two men, who deposed that they had
been with the prisoner on the night in question, and
swore to circumstances strongly inculpating him.
Other evidence was also given by the prosecution, and
the trial was adjourned until Saturday.

On Saturday the trial was resumed, when Mr.
Poland summed up the case for the Crown. After
some preliminary remarks, he said he need not remind
the jury that the learned counsel for the prisoner was
not required to establish the innocence of the prisoner,
but that it was the duty of the prosecution to make
out the charge against the prisoner by conclusive
evidence. He said that he thought in the first place
there would not be the least doubt that on the night
of the Ist December, 1882, some man was found by
the deceased constable near the chapel under such
circumstances as would justify him in endeavouring
to take him into custody; and there was also no doubt
that in the course of a struggle with this man the
unfortunate constable lost his life, and the question
they had to decide was whether the prisoner was that
man. They would not forget that the prisoner had a
key to the chapel, that he was aware of the ways of
the chapel, and that he knew where the Communion
plate was kept, and he considered that this was a
most important matter for their consideration. He
then referred to the evidence of the witnesses Miles
and Evans, and said that he should not think for a
moment of asking them to convict the prisoner upon
the uncorroborated testimony of these persons, but at
the same time he could not help remarking that at all
events the prisoner was very unfortunate in the choice
of his companions. He went on to urge upon the
jury that it was impossible to believe that Miles and
Evans could have invented the story they had told,
and that all the facts of the case led to the conclusion
that they had spoken the truth. He submitted that
it was clear that on this day the prisoner was in the
possession of housebreaking tools, and that he was
ready to commit an offence of that description, and
this in itself appeared to be strong corroboration of
the story told by Miles and Evans. The learned
counsel then reminded the jury of all the important
points in the evidence, and he concluded by observing
that it appeared to him that the charge of having
murdered the unfortunate police-constable upon the
night in question had been conclusively established
against the prisoner.
Mr. Forrest Fulton then addressed the jury for the
prisoner, and he commenced by stating that after
careful consideration of all the facts of the case he
had come to the conclusion that it was impossible to
find the prisoner guilty of any other crime than that
of wilful murder. He had not attempted to contra-
dict a great deal of the evidence, but he was prepared
to argue that even admitting that a great deal of what
had been said was true, yet that even upon the evi-
dence for the prosecution, it had not been satisfactorily
established that the prisoner was guilty of the crime
of murder. He thought it would be idle to dispute
that on this night the prisoner, with Miles and
Evans, intended to break into the chapel, but this
was a very different thing to intending to commit
murder. They could not doubt that Miles and
Evans were old offenders, and he argued that it was
much more probable that persons such as these
should have a revolver in their possession than that a
lad like the prisoner shouli have such an instrument.
He said that some of the witnesses were able ta iden-
tify the prisoner as the man who was seen to be
struggling with the policeman, and there was an im-
portant contradiction in this respect, that one witness
said that the man was wearing a hard felt hat and
another described the hat as a soft one. All that the
evidence proved appeared to be that the person, who-
ever he was, struggling with the policeman, was about
five feet three inches high, but the jury would not
forget that the prisoner, Miles, and Evans were all
about the same height, and that Miles admitted that
on this night he was wearing a hard felt hat. He
then proceeded to refer to the character of the
witnesses Miles and Evans, and reminded the jury
of the coolness with which Evans had spoken about
"popping off" a policeman if he interfered with
him, and who evidently appeared to be under the im-
pression that to kill a policeman when he endeavonred
to apprehend him for any offence he might have com-
mitted was really a meritorious act, and he asked
the jury whether it was not quite as likely that
either of these men should have committed the
murder, as that the prisoner should have been guilty
of such a terrible crime. In the course of his
address the learned counsel expressed deep sympathy
for a gallant young man who had lost his life while
in the discharge of his duty, but he urged). the jury at
the same time not to allow the just feeling of indigna-
tion that must exist in their minds under such cir-
cumstances to operate unfairly against the prisoner,
who was also a young man just upon the threshold of
life, and that they would not find the prisoner guilty
unless they were of opinion that the evidence was
conclusive, and left no reasonable doubt upon their
minds of his guilt.
Mr. Justice Hawkins, in summing up the case to
the jury, said that Mr. Fulton had told them cor-
rectly that the killing of a constable in the execution
of his duty was, in the eye of the law, murder under
any circumstances, and the only question they
had to consider was whether it was made out by the
evidence to their satisfaction that the prisoner was
the person who fired at the deceased on this night.
The learned judge observed that after the admission
that had been made by the learned counsel for the
prisoner, that he had intended to commit a robbery
at the chapel on this night, and that he was un-
doubtedly present, it would relieve the jury from a
good deal of trouble, because the simple question they
would have to consider was whether the prisoner was
the man by whom the shot had been fired. The learned
judge then referred to the evidence given by Miles and
Evans, and he observed that they did not appear to
have entertained any feeling of animosity towards the
prisoner, and he was at a loss to find any motive on
their part for such diabolical conduct as was suggested
—that they had trumped up a false charge against an
innocent man. It had also no doubt, been suggested
that Evans or Miles had actually committed the
murder, but he was bound to express his opinion that
there was not a tittle of evidence in the case to support
such a suggestion. They, the jury, however, were the
only persons entitled to form an opinion upon this
subject, and if after a careful consideration of the
whole of the facts they should think that the charge
was not made out against the prisoner, or if they en-
tertained any reasonable doubt upon the point, they
ought to give the prisoner the benefit of that doubt.
If, however, after a careful consideration of the evi-
dence they should feel that the charge was established,
it was unnecessary for him to remind them of their
duty in such a case.
The jury retired at half-past one o'clock to con-
sider their verdict.

They returned in twenty minutes, and found the
prisoner guilty of wilful murder.
When the prisoner was called upon, he said, "I
have no more to say than that I am not guilty.".
Mr. Justice Hawkins, having put on the black cap,
said that notwithstanding his assertion of innocence,
he was perfectly satisfied of the prisoner's guilt, and
that the-evidence made it clear that he had taken the
life of this brave young officer. He had carefully
looked over the evidence to see whether there was
any way of escaping from this conclusion, but was
utterly unable to do so. The prisoner had slain this
young officer in the discharge of his duty, and for
that offence he must die, for that was the law. lie
entreated him, when he descended the steps from
that dock, to endeavour to make his peace with God
and endeavour to obtain pardon for the terrible crime
that he had committed.

The learned judge then passci sentence of death
in the usual form.

The prisoner, who had all along presented a callous
and indifferent demeanour, did not exhibit the
slightest emotion when sentence was pronounced, was
then removed.
Mr. Justice Hawkins said that he observed that the
grand jury had expressed their unqualified approba-
tion of the manner in which Inspector Glasse, of the
N division, had got up the case against the prisoner.
H,e entirely concurred in this opinion, and he thought
that the other officers in the case were equally deserv-
ing of credit.
The jury said they concurred in the opinion ex-
pressed by his lordship.
Mr. Poland said he was requested by Inspector
Glasse to state that he had received great assistance
from Sergeant Cobb and the other officers who were
engaged in the case.