The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1878-11-02 00:00:00

SENTENCED TO DEATH.

At the Bedford Assizes (before Baron Iluddleston), Patrick
John Byrne was charged with the wilful murder of John
Brooks and Samuel Griffiths at Northampton, on September 2.
Mr. Metcalfe, Q.C., end Mr. Austin Metcalfe prosecuted;
Mr. Buszard, QC, and Mr. Dugdale defended the prisoner.

The prisoner up to August, 1878, wps a colour-ser-
geant in the Northampton and Rutland Militia. He
had served 20 years in the Army in England and in
India, and had borne an excellent character in the
service. During the last Militia training his conduct
was not so satistactory. He had contracted drinking
habits, and had become a defaulter in his accounts
to the amount of £lO. In consequence of this he
was placed under arrest by Major Rawlins, the ad-
jutant of the regiment, and a court-martial was ordered.
This, however, was countermanded in consequence of
the previous good character of the prisoner, and the
£lO was paid by his friends; but Byrne's colour was
taken from him, and he was reduced to the rank of
sergeant. This degradation involved the giving up of
his quarters at the Militia store, and he was given to the
end of the month of August to procure lodgings for him-
self and his family and to remove his kit and effects.
On the 2nd of September Byrne wbs in the sergeants'
reading-room at the Northampton Barracks with
Quartermaster-Sergeant Brooks, Colour Sergeant
Potter, and some other sergeants, when the subject of
his change of quarters was mentioned, and the quarter-
master-sergeant told him that he had left his quarters
in a dirty condition. He said that he would clean
them or have them cleaned, and left the reading-room
as if to see about the cleaning. Shortly after Quarter-
master-Sergeant Brooks left the reading-room and
went down a flight of steps into the front court of the
barracks, Immediately a report was heard, and
Colour-sergeant Potter, running out, found Brooks on
the ground, shot through the heart. At the same time
Griffiths ran from the orderly room, and both he and
Brooks ran after Byrne. who waswaiking away round
the corner of the barracks in the direction of the bar-
rack-yard, where his quarters were. Byrne turned
round and presented his rifle. Potter called to Griffiths
tocomeback,but toolate. ByrnefiredandshotGriffiths
through the head, killing him on the spot. He
then loaded again and walked towards the barrack-
yard. On the way he met a son of Quartermaster.
Sergeant Hill and threatened to kill him. The boy
ran a few paces, and then threw himself down. Byrne
fired, but missed him, and the boy's father, running
out at the time, with the assistance of his son, dis-
armed the prisoner, and handed him over to the
custody of two sergeants. During the struggle Byrne
exclaimed, "Let me go; they have turned me out of
my house."
The evidence ot the soldiers was corroborated by a
boy and a man who were in the street outside the
barracks at the time. They saw the prisoner shoot
Brooks, load again, and shoot Griffiths, and heard him
exclaim with an oath that he "would shoot evcry one
of them."

For the defence, Mr. Buszard made a forcible appeal
to the jury, with a view to reducing the crime to man-
slaughter. He dwelt on the insufficient motive for
the deed ; the admitted fact that Griffiths was an in-
timate friend of the prisoner, and the excellent cha-
racter the-prisoner had borne; and pointed out that
the deed was without premeditation, and the result of
a wild impulse which, ft r the moment, the prisoner
was unable to control, and that a verdict of man-
slaughter would be sufficient for the protection of the
public.
His Lordship, however, told the jury that it was their
solemn duty to find their verdict according to law, or the
protection afforded by juries to the public would be at
an end. He said that if the jury believed the evidence
and came to the conclusion that Griffiths and Brooks
had met their deaths at the. hands of the prisoner, in
the circumstances proved, the prisoner's act was
murder, and there was no pretence for saying that it
was possible to reduce the crime to manslaughter. The
fact that the prisoner's mind was disturbed by evil
and wicked passions was no defence; and the protec-
tion of the public depended on the honest discharge of
the duties of jurymen.
After a short deliberation the jury fount the prisoner
Guilty, and
His Lordship passed sentence of death in the usual
form.