The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1883-10-27 00:00:00

SENTENCED TO DEATH.

In London, on Friday in last week, at the Central
Criminal Court, before Mr. Justice Denman, Henry
Powell, 24, bricklayer, was indicted for the wilful
murder of John Dimery Bruton.
Mr. Poland and Mr. Montagu Williams conducted
the prosecution for the Treasury ; Mr. Cluer was
counsel for the defence.

The circumstances of the case were simple, but of a
very deplorable character. The deceased, a young
man of the same age as the prisoner, was the son of
Mr. Bruton, a stone merchant, residing at Balbam.
The prisoner in May last entered into a contract With
Mr. Bruton to do the brickwork of two villas
which were being built by the father of the de-
ceased in Ormelly-road, Balboni. The deceased super-
intended the building operations for his father. The
prisoner proceeded with the work until September 8,
when a dispute occurred between him and Mr. Bruton
with reference to a demand that the sum of £3 10a.
should be advanced to him. Mr. Bruton refused to
advance more than £3 on account, and told the pri-
soner that if he continued to do the work satisfactorily
he should have the remainder the following week.
The prisoner, however did not proceed with the work,
and Mr. Bruton told him that he should have to en-
gage someone else to finish the building if he did not
go on with it On the morning of the 27th of Sep-
tember the prisoner went to the buildings, and it was
alleged on the part of the prosecution that ageing the
deceased there he attacked him in wbrutal manner with
a heavy iron chisel, with which he struck him repeatedly
about the head, inflicting several wounds and battering
the skull almost to pieces. The prisoner then called to a
workman who was at work in one of the houses,
and said, "I have settled him now," at the same time
pointing to the deceased, who was lying on the ground.
A doctor and a constable were sent for, but when the
medical man arrived on the spot he found that the
deceased was quite dead, with his head lying in a pool
of blood. The prisoner went up to a constable who
was on duty in the neighbourhood and said he had
murdered a man and wished to give himself up. The
constable asked him if it was correct, and the prisoner
replied in the affirmative, and they went to the pre-
mises In Ormeliy-road together. The constable asked
the prisoner what he did it with, and he replied with
a chisel, at the same time pointing to one on the
ground. The prisoner was then taken to the police •
station and charged with the wilful murder of the
deceased, but he declined to say anything in reply.
A number of witnesses were examined in support of
the prosecution, A boy named Butcher proved that
he saw the prisoner striking the deceased about the
head with a chisel as he was lying on the ground, it
also seemed that some days previously the pris ,ner
was heard to say that he would have his revenge upon
him, but he did did not say to whom he referred; and
it was shown that he was walking up and down outside
the building for about half-an-hour before he saw the
deceased on the morning of the occurrence.
The medical evidence showed that there were seven
wounds upon the head. The skull was frightfully
battered, and death must have been almost instan-
staneous.

For the defence witnesses were called to show that
on the morning of the occurrence the deceased had
pushed and struck the accuseu with an umbrella, and
that he had the chisel in his ppssession in order to re-
pair a fowlhouse.

Mr. Cluer then addressed the Court for the defence,
and submitted that there was no evidence to show any
premeditation or serious intention on the part of the
prisoner such as to make the death chargeable to him
as the crime of wilful murder;, nd he argued hat ;
could be reduced honestly and conscientiously by the
jury to the minor offence of manslaughter. There had
been no quarrel between the prisoner and the deceased,
and it was impossible to suppose that the dispute
between the accused and Mr. Bruton, Ben., about a
paltry 10a. had had auything to do with the commia-
sion of the act. It was preposterous to think that a
sober, steady man like the prisoner would, in revenge
for a trumpery debt he thought due by the father, kill
the son. The learned counsel contended that the
prisoner had committed the act in sudden passion,
consequent upon, and in retaliation for, the provoca-
tionle had received from the deceased in striking him
with the umbrella. That being so, the proper verdict
for the jury to return would be, he submitted, one of
manslaughter.

Mr. Poland,.reolying. for the Crown, observed that

there was no dispute ae to the facts, and the onus was
thrown upon the prisoner of showing clearly that the
act was not one of murder, but of manslaughter. He
argued that no grounds had bet-n adduced by the de.
fence to reduce the crime from murder to the lesser
offence, and he commented upon the fact that when
taken in charge the prisoner made no complaint of
having been assaulted by the deceased, or of any pro-
vocation he might have received, The offence was not
committed while the prisoner was in the heat of
passion, for the evidence showed that all along he
acted in the coolest possible way. Taking into con-
sideration all the circumstances, together with the
nature of the act itself, it was impossible to say that
the case was other than one of murder, and that the
prisoner would not be liable to the law as such.
Mr. Justice Denman summed up, observing that the
learned counsel for the prosecution, who always con-
ducted his cases with great fairness, had rightly told
the jury as a matter of law that if the prisoner struck
the deceased with the weapon, intending to kill him or
to do him grievous bodily harm, he would be guilty of
the crime of wilful murder. It war. however, con-
the part or the defalce, in the very cale
and admirable speech they had heard from the learned
counsel (Mr. Cluer), that there were circumstances in
the case which would warrant the jury in reducing it
to the minor offence of manslaughter. When a man
lost his life the presumption in law was that it was an
act of murder, and it was for the defence to show to
the satisfaction bf the jury that it to ,k pl•ice in rweh
eireutruitAnet.:B a 4 to reduce the crime to nianBlan4h,er.
Although the law bad regard and made excus..) for
human infirmities when a person was shown to have
committed a crime under provocation, it made no
allowance for inhuman ferocity. The jury must take
the whole of the circumstances into consideration in
order to see whether there was any provocation or
other ground for reducing the crime from murder to
manslaughter. The learned Judge referred to the
evidence in detail, and having again directed the jury
upon the law as applicable to the case, left them to
consider the matter.
The jury retired, and after an absence of about half-
an. hour they returned into Court finding the prisoner
Guilty of murder.
In reply to the usual question whether he had any-
thing to say why the sentence of the law should not be
passed upon him, the prisoner said he should like to
be allowed to say a few words, not,
.however, that the

. . .
sentence should not be passed upon him.
Mr. Justice Denman said that at that stage of the
proceedings the prisoner was only entitled to urge any
reason why sentence of death should not be passed.
. The prisoner replied that he had nothing to urge on
that point.
Mr. Justice Denman then assumed the black cap
and proceeded to pass sentence of death. He said,—
Henry Powell, you have been found guilty by the
jury, whp have carefully attended to the whol of the
evidence in this case, and to as able a speech for the
defence as has ever fallen to my lot to hear in a Court
of Justice, of the crime of wilful murder, and looking
at the terrible violence of your acts, the weapon that
you used, and to the extent to which you not only
injured but mutilated the body of your unhappy
victim, I feel that it is impossible for anyone to doubt
even if some provocation had bren given you by the man
whom you killed that this was a genuine and certain case
of wilful murder according to the law of this country,
and a murder done by you in consequence of some
real or supposed grievance that you had against
either the deceased man, or his father, or both of
them, Of all motives for crimes like these Ido not

know that there is any more inscrutable or more
unintelligible than that of violent revenge such as
you seem to have entertained for these people upon
a miserable petty dispute about money. Such is
the case. You are here to answer for your offence by
the punishment designed by law. I implore you to
spend the time you have remaining to you on earth in
endeavouring to make peace with your God, and ask-
ing pardon for your offence. The learned Judge then
formally sentenced the prisoner to death, and directed
that he should be handed over to the Sheriff of Surrey
for the execution of the sentence.
The prisoner, who conducted himself with perfect
calmness during his Lordship's address, was then re-
moved.

CUTTINGS FROM AMERICAN PAPERS.

A Cincinnati paper says :—" But a week since we
recorde(o. the death of one who was an old father in the
church, a careful reader of this paper, and who paid
for three papers in advance."
A Chicago daily paper contains the following ad.
verti.ement:—" Personal—Wanted, a hand to hold
mine own as down life's vale I glide; wanted, an arm
to lean upon for ever by my side. Address Miss
Emma H., Handlin, Chicago."

When in Washington, two years ago, Little Mief
and several other Cheyenne braves invested in a stook
of shins, buttoning in the back. The untutored chil•
dren of the forest paraded Pennsylvania avenue, wear-
ing the new garments, with the stiff bosom on the
back, and delicately secured with one button in front.
Thus arrayed, they appeared to enjoy themselves ina-
mensely.

The attacks on mother-in•law, it will have been
observed by the double•sighted reader, have been
growing much less frequent. It seems that one by
one the writers of paragraphs against mothers-in-law
are being drawn into matrimony; and, doubtless, for
prudential reasons, the great American mother-in•law
is permitted to occupy a less prominent position before
the reading public.

A Detroit lunatic left his house a year ago, and has
been wandering about ever since under the impression
that he is somebody else, and yet retaining a parti-
cular interest in his real self. Now and then he writes
to his wile to inquire after her husband, and especially
to know " whether he has got over that crazy fit yet."
The case is a curious one.
"Now," said an Austin lawyer, taking his client
to one side for private consultation, "you may be
huts., but I'll do what I can for you. You must, how-
ever, leave everything to me."—" Well, that's cool,"
replied the client ; "they told me before I went into
the case that I would have to pay a good sum, but
when it comes to leaving everything to you, I guess I
might as well back out and let the case go by de.
ault."

MOUNTAINEERING IN INDIA.—Mr. Graham, the
gentleman who is about to attempt the ascent of
Kinchinjunga, India, when last heard of, was still at
Jhongri, nine days' march from Darjeeling. Nothing,
however, has been heard of him since last month, when
he was deserted by all his coolies except three. The
supply of stores and money sent to him from Dar-
jeeling was lost through the carelessness of a coolie,
who dropped the box over a precipice. It is believed
that the party, consisting of Mr. Graham, two Swiss
guides, and three coolies have now nothing to sub.
aid upon except a stock of rice sent out by the Survey
Department. Fortunately, that stock is sufficient to
prevent any danger of starvation.

i iists