The Dorset County Express and Agricultural Gazette.
Dorchester, Dorset, England, 1858-01-12 00:00:00

Legal.

THE MURDER OF TRAIN, THE DETECTIVE OFFICER.
—Chrirtian Settler, a Bervarius, and described as a sur-
veyor, was indicted at the Central Criminal Court on
Wedgesday, with having miutlered Charles Thais, a
detective officer. At his own request, he was tried by
• jury composed wholly of Englishmen. The prisoner
had been suspected of stealing s carpet bag, the property
of a Mr. Arthur Ballantine, 4, stock broker, and was
arrested on the charge at Hamburg. Thain was des-
patched to take charge of the prisoner and bring him to
England, and they sailed in the Caledonian steamer,
from Hamburg, on the morning of the 20th of Novem-
ber. The prisoner was placed in a private cabin and
handcuffed. He complained that the irons were too
small, and that they hurt him. Thain replied that lie
had been warned of him, but that he would take the
irons off when he arrived in tngland. On the after.
noon of the 22nd Thain left the prisoner for a short time,
and on returning to the cabin tte prisoner presented a
pistol at him and shot him in the breast. It appeared

that during the short interval the officer was absent the
prisoner had contrived to force down an iron used to
suspend a lamp upon, had broken open his chest, and
taken out a pistol, and although he was handcuffed,
managed the pistol well or ill enough to inflict the
deadly injury upon the deceased. The prisoner did not
attempt to deny that his was the hand that committed
the act, but he said that the officer had broken faith
with him, in handcuffing him when he had pro-
mised that he would not do so, and he would shoot
him or any one else like a dog who broke faith with
him. He subsequently said that he did not knoW
how much powder he put into the pistol ; there might
have been one, two, or three charges, but there were two
bullets, and the pistol was loaded quite anflicientry to
kill him. He inquired whether the bullet had gone
through and through Tliain's body, and expressed hia
surprise that he was not dead. He also said that he
had bought the pistol in Hambnrgh, to shoot a man
named Millar, who had swindled him out of LW. Upon
the arrival of the vessel in England, Thain was taken
to Guy's Hospital, where he died shortly afterwards
from the injury he had received; but before his death
he made a deposition to the effect that immediately upon
his entering the cabin on the afternoon in question, the
prisoner, deliberately presented the pistol at him and
discharged it into his breast. It appeared by the testi-
' molly of all the witnesses that the unfortunate officer
had behaved with great kindness 'to the prisoner, and
that he had altered the position of the handcuffs when
he complained that they hurt him ; and after the oc-
currence the passengers on board the vessel were so ex-
asperated &garnet the prisoner that they wished to inflict
Lynch law upon him, and to throw him overboard or to
hang him. Evidence was gone into at great length to
prove the felony by the prisoner in stealing the property
of Mr. Ballantine, at the Golden Lion, St. Ives, part of
which was found in the possession of the prisoner when
apprehended. Mr. Lilly raised the legal objection that
the arrest being illegal he was not guilty of any crime
more serious than manslaughter. Mr. Baron Martin
said the whole case must go to the jury. Mr. Lilly then
addressed the jury, insisting that the death was
cci-
dental, or at all events it was reduoable to man-
slaughter. The jury, however, took another view of the
matter, and after half an hour's consultation, returned a
verdict of wilful murder. The prisoner was sentenced
to death.

A trial, which has excited great interest in Ireland,
bas recently terminated. The action was for slander,
and involved the notorious details of the murder of the
late Mrs. Kelley. One Mr. Campion, the defendant if
the cause, had been the attorney of the deceased lady,
and Mr. Stevens, the plaintiff, was her nephew, and as
may be remembered, was in her company at the mo-
ment when the murderers deprived her of life. He fled
from the spot at that dreadful time, he passed men to
whom he did not appeal for assistance, and gave no
alarm until he reached her residence. He objected per-
sonally even then to pursue the assassins, and was
charged with cowerdice by Mr. Campion, who happened
to be the present, and whose sudden suspicions led him
to exclaim, in reference to Stevens "Thin is the man,
I believe got it done!" Mr. Campion, who himself
profited by Mrs. Kelly's death, does not appear to have
been at all careful in concealing his own opinions of the
murder. For the words spoken by him the action was
brought. The evidence adduced was voluminous, cir-
cumstantial, and contradictory. It was argued for the
defence that the words we have quoted did not poaitively
charge the plaintiff with the foul crime, but only ex-
pressed the opinion of the defendant upon the matter—
that is to say, it was argued that if one person Bay of
another, "He a thief," and the person charged be not a
thief, this Is a scandal. If, however, it is only said "I
believe him to be a thief," and he is no a thief, but the
person speaking honestly believe him to be so, this is no
iieandal at 'all. The jury gave a verdict for the plaintiff,
with 6d. damages and 64. costs. They declined to ad-
judicate upon the issue raising the question as to the
substantial truth of the implied charge. The meaning
of this verdict is, that the jury believe the evidence as
to the speaking of the slanderous words; that without
considering the implication substantiated by the
evidence, they considered the character of plaintiff to
have been so clouded by his proved conduct with res-
pect to the matter, that a charge of murder damages it
to the extent only of sixpenny worth of reputation.
At the Central Criminal Court, before the Recorder, a
gentleman came to serve on the grand jury objected to
take the necessary oath, upon conscientious grounds.
He said that he considered the act as "pledging the
favour of God, which he had no right to do." The
Times misprints the word "favour" as "power,"
thereby making nonsense of a sensible and respectable
objection, which so puzzled the Recorder, that a consul-
tation of authorities followed, and was only terminated
by the fortunate accession of a volunteer juryman. Of
all oaths administered in our courts, those to juries are
the most futile. How can a man "well and truly try"
questions requiring perspicacity and power of deduction,
if his education has been limited, and his intellectual
powers are below the average? How can he "a true
verdict give according to the evidence," when any
strong-willed, wrong-headed fellow in his box may force
the rest, if not into a wrong verdict, at least into no
decision whatever? Swearing as to a true and necessary
relation of past facts may, perhaps, be rationable and
justifiable; but casuists must be ingenious to find an
excuse for swearing a man to perform duties, which it
may be utterly beyond his powers to fulfil, and his
conscientious completion of which, according to the
light within him cannot possibly be judged of by others
than himself.

THE EARNINGS OF DESERTED MARRIED WOMEN.—
The following provision in the Divorce and Matrimonial '
Causes Act with respect to the property and earnings of
deserted married woman, came into operation yes-
terday :—A wife deserted by her husband may at
any time after such desertion, if resident within the
metropolitan district, apply to a police magistrate, or if
resident in the country to justices in petty session, or in
either case to the court, for an order to protect any
money or property she may acquire by her own lawful
industry, and property which she may become possessed
of after such desertion, against her husband or his credi-
tors, or any person claiming under him ; and such
magistrate or justices or court, if satisfied of the fact
of such desertion, and that the same was without rea-
sonable cause, and that the wife is maintaining herself
by her own industry or property, may make and give to
the wife an order protecting her earnings and property
acquired since the commencement of such desertion
from her husband, and all creditors and persons claim-
ing under him, and such earnings and property shall
belong to the wife as if she were a feme sole ; provided
always that every such order, if made by a police magis-
trate, or justices at petty sessions, shall within ten days
after the making thereof be entered with the registrar
of the county aourt within whose jurisdiction the wife
, is resident, and that it shall be lawful for the husband
and any creditor or other person claiming under him to
apply to the court, or to the magistrate or justices by
whom such order was made, for the discharge; provided
also that if the husband or any creditor of a person
claiming under the husband shall seize or continue to
hold any property of the wife after notice of any such
order, he shall be liable at the suit of Ins wife (which
she is hereby empowered to bring) to restore the spe-
cific property, and also for a sum equal to double the
value of the property so seized or held after such notice
as aforesaid. If any such order of protection be made,
the wife shall, during The continuance thereof, be, and
be deemed to have been, during such desertion of her,
in the like position in all respects with regard to pro-
perty and contracts, and suing and being sued, as she
would be under this act if she obtained a decree of
judicial separation.