The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1884-01-19 00:00:00

TEE MURDER AT KENNINOTON.

In London, on Saturday, at the Central CArninal
Court, before Mr. Justice Hawkins, George Ballwin,
26, labourer, a stout, powerful man, was charged %vitb
the murder of George Hoare, by cutting his throat.
Mr. Bu nie prosecuted, and the prisoner was de-
fended by Mr. Warburton.

The prisoner and the deceased were employed at the
Lambeth Waterworks. They were on the most
friendly terms, and there did not appear to have ever
been any quarrel between them. On the 12th of
December, they had been drinking in company with a
woman na vied Powell, who lived with the deceased,
and passed as his wife. Late at night they returned
home to :floare's residence, 70, Smith-street, Ken-
nington, the prisoner and the deceased being at that
time the worse for liquor. Hoare seemed to have gone
up to bed about twelve at night, and the prisoner
shortly after said, "I shall go up and bid the old man
good night." He went into the deceased's bedroom,
where he was asleep. He was seen to take a knife out
of his pocket, lay hold of the chin of the deceased,
turn it aside, and he then inflicted a fearful wound on
the neck of the deceased, dividing all the arteries and
causing almost immediate death, After the occurrence
the prisoner seemed to glory in what he had done, and
called out, "I have done for the old man." When he
was examined before the magistrate the only explana•
tion he gave for his conduct was that he was drunk,
and had no recollection of anything that had happened.
Nothing appeared that in any way tended to explain
the conduct of the prisoner, but one of the witnesses
stated that at a certain house the prisoner had made
use of the expression "Good night, I may not seeyon
again." It is also expression,
that although the prisoner
was no doubt the worse for liquor, yet, according to
the opinion of the witnesses, he knew perfectly well
what he was about. The only question in the case,
therefore, was whether the prisoner was criminally
r spo nisible for the act he had committed. •
The facts, as above narrated, were proved by the
testimony of several witnesses, all of whom stated that
both before and after the terrible occurrence the
prisoner appeared to be perfectly calm and collected,
and there appeared to be an utter absence of anything
like a motive for the crime on the part of the prisoner.
After the priscner had cut the throat of the deceased
he wanted to be allowed to smoke, and did not appear
at all to realise the nature of the act he had committed.
He was asked to give tip the knife, babe refused, and
said, I shall not do that." He afterwards, however,
appeared to have quietly handed the knife to the
police-constable. From the evidence of the sargeon it
appeared that the point of the knife had first been
thrust into the nook and then drawn out by a heavy
cut. _

The defence set up for the prisoner was that, owing
to the condition of drunkenness In which the prisoner
was, he was incapable of forming any definite intention,
or of knowing what he was about, and on these grounds
the jury were asked to convict the prisoner of man.
slaughter.
The jury retired at two o'clock to deliberate. They
returned into court at half-past three, and found the
prisoner guilty of wilful murder, and sentence of
death was passed in the usual form.