The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1881-11-12 00:00:00

. .
believed ; but then they Innet reinembbr that with the fact Of
the prisener bln t holte all day on the 21st June they
Said nothing about it until they came here; no suggestion
b'efoets, the magistrates or the coroner that the murder could
hot have been committed by
.the prisoner with that pistol,
because he was not near the shop oh the day it was
pledged. That would have been cogent evidence for the
prisoner, and it tsars not brought forward. Mr. Clayton
Said he had known it all along, and that he knew of the
isVidence of Creek; and Of courSe, he was deeply interested
in the case. He was a man of sense and education,
and must have known the 'value of this piece of evidence,
if true, Fite le`ast have known that the pledging was a most
inaPortant element in the transaction. He admitted that
he knew the prisoner was at home 9,11 day on the 21st of
June, when the pledging tools. plaee. He and his wife had
discussed the matter between themselves, and yet they
deliberately withheld it. It seemed to be very difficult,
in the face of the evidence which had been given, to believe
that some mistake had not been made. The day was the
point they wished to arrive at, end he di..s not think
that the evtdence of the Cir.:stens had established the 21st
of June as tese day the prisoner 'remained,at home all day.
s'ega:n, they must remember that there were other people
in the house. There was, for instance, the servant, who
within a week of the time might have remembered the day,
but she was in doubt about it. Now after a period of some
months, an independent witness like Johannah Chamber-
lain would have been most valuable had her evidence been
given at the time ; but after a lapte of so long a period, she
herself appeated tO be in doubt, and could not move in
this case without being carried back to probabilities ; and
where was the preponderating weight of evidence upon
this point? Did or did not the prisoner pawn the pistol.
The preponderating evidente appeared to him to be
entirely in favour Of the supposition- that he was the
man who pledged the pistol on the 21st June. The learned
judge theta referred to the redemption of the pistol on the
and said they were able to trace the prisoner to
London Bridge, where he entered the carriage where Mr.
Goll was sittirg. Certainly he was in th carriage When
the struggle took place. It had ben said that the collector
Franks StkV7 the &Torture of many trains during the day, and
he seae questioned as to how he remembered this trans
particularly; but it was the witness's duty to be observant,
and it was astonishing how matters were impressed upon
a mind which was really trained to duties of this kind.
The train left London, and at Croydon Mr. Gold was seen
with a handkerchief over his head, and with Lefroy in
the cat:re:tee. The train proceeded to Preston without a
stoppage, and the prisoner was still in the carriage, but
Mr. Gold was absent, his body being -afterwards dis-
covered in the tunnel, cut to pieces, as it were. Therefore,
unless there was a third person in the carriage, either the
prisoner attacked Mr. Gold, or Mr. Gold attacked the pri-
soner. Now what was the evidence as to the third person.
It had never been said that there was any trace of the third
party, although the prisoner had declared there was a third
party. There was no actual tangible evidence whatever of
the third party, but there was a good deal against that
theory. There were only three first-class tickets
issued by the train at London Bridge, and these had
been regularly collected with the • exception of the one
found upon the prisoner himself. There were only
three tickets issued at Croydon, all of which were
issued to ladies and had been regularly returned.
But then again they had the evidence of Franks and the
guara ox the tram auaea Cu this that no third persons did
enter the train at London or Croydon. They were, there-
fore, forced to this conclusion, that the only way in which
a third person could have got into the train was when it
was in motion—an express train, mind—and without a
ticket. It had been said that a person might leave, with
danger, a train going at any speed, but it had never been
said that a person could get into a train whilst it was in
ful I motion. The slackening speed at Hassock's-gate
would not have enabled anyone to enter the train;
besides, even if it did, the murder had been com-
mitted before that spot was reached. Therefore the third
person must have got into the train before Baloombe
tunnel was reached, for it was there that the murder
was committed; and he must have left at Clayton, where
the umbrella was found, for if the prisoner had been
attacked, and had become insensible, there must have been
some one else to have thrown Mr. Gold's umbrella out of
the train at that spot. Something had been said about the
return half ticket, but he did not think that they need trouble
themselves further with reference to the subject of the rail-
way tickets. Now Mr. Williams had put in the statement of
the prisoner and had argued simply upon that statement.
Ile deprecated following this line too closely, because the,
law had provided that a prisoner could not be cross-
examined. He could not be asked how he accounted
for this and that, and it must lead inevitably to what
they saw yesterday, namely, a powerful address in reply
from the Counsel for the Crown, who really ought to be
the minister of justice, and whose duty it was simply to
elicit the facts of the case. If they were to accept the theory
of the third party, that party must have murdered Mr.
Gold, stunned the prisoner, thrown Mr. Gold out of the train,
disposed of the property, and himself escaped between
Clayton tunnel and Preston. Whilst the prisoner must have
been rendered insensible 13 or 14 miles from London, and must
have remained so whilst this terrific hand-to-hand struggle
was going on in the carriage, nothing disturbed, the body
and the property were disposed of, and consciousness was
recovered just as the train reached Preston. But what
was the evidence? Shots were heard in the carriage at
Merstham Tunnel by Mr. Gilbert; a struggle was seen
going on about eight miles below ; the body was thrown
out, it might be in a dying condition, but if so the fall
was sufficient to cause the death, and that struggle had
lasted for a distance of fourteen miles. They did not know
whether the first shot disabled Mr. Gold in any way, but
they had it that four shots were fired in rapid succession,
and there could be no doubt that it was after he was struck
by the bullet that the struggle commenced, and proceeded
as he had stated. The body was in Balcombe tunnel, and
the prisoner arrived at Freston alone in the carriage. Sus-
picion naturally attached to the prisoner, and everything
which he Said was of importance. It seemed to be remark-
able that those who were in charge did not regard the story
is a strange one, or that the prisoner should have been
allowed to go away without suspicion being aroused. Here
there seemed to be a want of cohesion, which he must
allow them to fill up as nearly as they could for them-
selves, for he had been unable to do it to his own satisfac-
tion, and he should, Ithrefore, not be able to make it clear
to theist. They would remember the watch being found, a
very strong.facf, which Mr. Williams did Licit deey. What ,
did Watson soy owes it? He took it. from the shoe of the
prisoner, there being a small piece of chain attached to
it. But what had become of the chain? ‘i atson de-
clared that he put the watch and chain on the seat of
the carriage at Preston, and Gibson, who went with the pri-
soner to Brighton, said he eid not see it; but that the prisoner
had the watch without the chain at Brighton was un-
doubted. If that were the case, then the prisoner must
himself have disposed of the chain between Preston and
Brighton. "The prisoner said that at London-bridge
there was a young man in the carriage with an old man ;
the younger man struck me on the head, and I became
insensible till I came to Preston ?" Is that credible?
"At the office at Brighton," said a witness, "he took a
white-faced watch from his pocket; there was no chain to
it. He first said the coins were not his; he afterwards
said he might have got them in playing at whist." If
so, why did lie not say so at first, and where are the people
who played with him with them? Of that there is DO
Proof whatever. As to the evidence of Mr. Weston, it was
or DO importance, as all he said was that, in hisensinion at
the time, it was a case of murder, and that the man ought
to be detained. He was a town councillor and seemed to
be a respectable man; he spoke of an umbrella, which had
not then been mentioned, unless, perhaps, he knew of Mr.
Gold's habits and knew he carried one ; but really his evi-
dence was of no importance in the case.—His Lordship
went on to read and comment on the evidence of the
other witnesses, observing in passing that the medals
and the handkerchief had disappeared. Mr. Terry, the
police superintendent, said he asked the prisoner if
the medals were his, and he said he knew nothing of
them unless they were dropped by the other person in
the carriage. But as some were found upon him the com-
mon-sense conclusion is that they were his. Another
curious thing was the object which prisoner said he went
to Brighton for. At the Town Wall he said he wished
to see Mrs. .Sye Chart, the proprietress of the theatre. Well
as a writer, that was a very reasonable cause for his going
to Brighton, but then when he gut there he did not see Mrs.
Nye Chart, excusing himself by his appearance, and being
told by the superintendent of the police that he was sure the
lady would see him if he desired. A second story of the
visit was told through the mouth of his counsel, namely,
that he went to meet a young lady there. Well, again, that
would account for the visit. But where was the young
lady? Why had she not been produced? She must know
that the prisoner was on his trial for murder, and that his
life was at stake, and there was no English girl, in his
belief, who would not have come forward if she existed and
said she expected to meet him. He did not believe in
the existence of an English girl capable of such conduct,
and he did not suppose the jury did. It had, however,
been put through the counsel, who could not be cross-
examined, and it was a libel on English women. His lord-
ship then referred to the prisoner's anxiety to get back to
Loudon, on the ground that he had an engagement at his
club ; and a short adjournment of the court took place.
On the court reassembling, his lordship proceeded to read
over the evidence of liolmes, the detective, and the state-
ment taken down by him at the prisoner's house at
at ter their return fromßrighton. He referred again to the
watch, pointing out that the prisoner gave the wrong number,
and did not know the name of the maker. The watch, Holms
discovered, was made by Griffiths, of Mile-end, and the
correct number was ascertained, and then the prisoner said
he bought it a few days previously" of a friend, which was
evidently untrue, and had been proved to be untrue. He
then referred to the conflicting statements made by the
prisoner from time to time. His statement as to the
countryman, his statement as to the medals, and his state-
ment as to his intention to visit Mrs. Nye-Chart. All these
were false, and they were made, many of them, after he
was aware of the death of Mr. Gold, and that a,
body had been found. Finding that he had corn
-
nutted himself, and been found in possession of
Mr. Gold's watch, he made all sorts of state-
ments. He had been found in possession of
Hanoverian medals on the morning of the murder; Han-
overian coins were found in the carriage, and they were
also found upon the prisoner, and there were several other
connecting links which were calculated to point suspicion
to him. The rest of the case is comparatively unimportant,
for what he did after he knew the police were after him
is not so strong. that he did run away and did
secrete himself is quite plain. It is said that was
the result of weakness, but it may also have been the
result of consciousness of guilt, and he may have
meant to escape, or may have thought that the centre of
four millions of people was the best hiding-place. These
were matters of speculation, as must be the case with re-
fer ewe to motives. The absence of any evidence that the
prisoner was aware of Mr. Gold's habits had been observed
upon. He may, however, have known him as a person
coming constantly to town, and well known at the stations
on the line, hut he may not, and no presumption could be
made against him. Ile should suppose the probabilities
were that against Mr. Gold himself personally lie had
no design. It is possible that he saw him for the first
time on that day, and being in straits, and seeing a re-
spectable old gentleman there, it may be that t may have
come across Ids mind, with some obscure. elea in his head,
to get into the carriage. If he went there NNith the pistol,
he could hardly have gone there with an innocent motive ;
and as to motives of (limes in general, they had better be
left where they usually were—in obscurity. These crimes
are often the result of motives that can hardly be
fathomed. It has been well said by a fine writer, " Who
could bear to look upon a naked human heart ?" But,
happily, we are not left to any inquiry into motive.
The law is that a man must be taken to have intended the
natural cOnsetinenceS of his ac,s ; and if you t hunk that
the prisoner went to the station with a determination to
make somebody give up to him the money of which he
stood so sorely in need, end if, knowing nothing of Mr.
Gold, when he saw Mr Gold there coins across leis mental
vision a purpose which he had previously formed only in-
definitely, and he resolved to force hint to surrender his
money, and in the pursuit of that object took his life, then
he would be just as guilty as if he had planned his death
deliberately.
Gentlemen (said hie Lordship, in conclusion), you were
, told by the prisoner's counsel that the evidence is all
-circumstantial, and that though persons have often been
convicted on such evidence he does not helieve in it, that
it is not conclusive, and that you must not act upon it,
because possibly it may be consistent with innocence.
But just see what that involves. It involves that, even
supposing there was no third person in the carriage, and
that the prisoner did really murder Mr. Gold, yet that, as
nobody saw it, and as there could be no ditect proof of it,
neither he nor anyone would ever be convicted of it,
however clear the proof might be. Gentlemen, the law
says nothing of the kind. The law says that in this, as in
every other case, you must act on high moral probabilities.
You must in this, as in every other case, be morally satis-
fied of the conclusion at which you are asked to arrive,
and if you are not so satisfied in this, as in any other case,
you must not come to that conclusion. There is no
difference between circumstantial and direct evidence in
this respect as to the effect it ought to produce on the
mired. Direct evidence may deceive you. The man who
gives it may himself be deceived. The human mind is Bo
constituted that it is impossible to be absolutely certain
of anything, for appearances may be deceptive. You may
make a mistake as to what happens under your own eyes.
But in life you must act on what you see and believe • in
all serious and grave affairs of life you must act on that
amount of evidence which sensible, honourable, and con-
scientious men think sufficient to act upon in their own
case. The only difference that I am aware of between
direct and circumstantial evidence is this, that direct
evidence must be either believed or disbelieved ; it must
be either true or false ; and if it is believed there is an
end of the case one way; if disbelieved, then there is an
end of it the other; it admits of no degrees. But we know'
that almost every crime in the calendar is proved day after
&day to the; ee.tisfactioia of Aries, not by direct evidence.,
-tnit be:evidence In itiliature-ciivetnibilantial: "%limes of thii
kind are not committed before witnesses ; and if you