The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1880-02-28 00:00:00

- - -
which, la \ CMltiargb
naert got

THE DEATH OF MISS MACLEAN.
THE SUMMING-UP, VERDICT, AND
SENTENCE.

On Tuesday, at the Central Criminal Court, the
trial of Lewis James Paine for the wilful murder of
Annie Jane Fanny Maclean, aged 33, the daughter of
the late Colonel aclean, C.B. of the Broadway,
Worcestershire, was resumed and concluded (having
lasted eight days) before Mr. Justice Hawkins.
The Attorney-General, Mr. Poland, and Mr. A. L. Smith
were counrel for the Crown; Mr. Serjeant Bsilantine, Mr.
It. Williams, and Mr. S. Bennett were for the defence; Mr.
Brooks watched the case for the witness Fanny Matthews:
and Mr. Warner Sleigh watched the case on behalf of Dr.
Norman Maclean.—We take the following report of the con-
clusion of the trial from The Times of Wednesday :
Mr. Justice Hawkins proceeded to sum up the whole case
to the jury. He said,—Gentlemen of the Jury,—
dwnetlyl avisshuierhedyomne
have
by your verdict to perform. The magnitude of these issues
b e
thoew
eudn wo:its/
hi ei
ad
vpe
rayt
leonncge a
na ndd
paattineinn
it I oonar we h
fromich ytohue
oho% e.
ymoenn caerme eanut ,ont oywo
ne lagl
ihvte
dtoaytsh the g grave duty
Ills absolutely impossible to overrate, or its importance
you depend his life. To the public the issue is equally im-
to the prisoner, for upon the issues to be determined by
portant, for, if a grave crime has been committed, the
public have a right to demand that it shall not go un-
punished. On the other hand, if the crime charged in this
indictment is not established to your satisfaction by the
evidence which has been offered, the prisoner is entitled,
whatever you may think of his conduct, to go free and be
acquitted by your verdict. I make these observations not
to make you think I have the slightest doubt as to the un-
divided attention,you have bestowed on the matter, or be-
cause I think you can by any possibility be otherwise than
alive to the awful and solemn responsibility which will rest
upon you, and upon you alone, when my observations are con.
eluded. The responsibility of the verdict rate upon you
alone, and I have no right, sitting here to administer
justice, to do more than lay down to you, as well as I am
able, the law on the subject. It is my duty, by such observa-
tions as occur to me, to aid and assist you in arriving at an
honest, conscientious, and a true verdict; beyond that
I have no duty and no responsibility. You must form
your own opinion, and if you feel that my observa-
tions, or any part of them, are unworthy of your attention,
I beg and entreat of you, as solemnly as if I were pleading
for my own he, to disregard anything I say which may not
crinmend itself to your good, sound, common sense. Com-
ing nowto the case before us, let me first ask yon to discard
all considerations as to the conduct of the prisoner except
so far as they enable you to form a judgment on material
matter. Do not let them prejudice you and induce you to
strain the evidence against him because he is an immora
man. Bear that steadily in mind, and be without prejudice
against the prisoner. He is charged with wilful murder,
and your duties on this occasion leave three courses open so
you, according as your consciences dictate. If neither charge
Is brought home, find him not guilty. If you think he has
been guilty of crime, and you think it murder, say so; or if
of manslaughter, that is a matter for your decision. The
law on the subject was well and briefly laid down yesterday
by the learned Attorney-General, except as to part of his
remarks with regard to manslaughter. I should submit to
you, as a broad proposition of law, that if a person admin-
isters to another that which he knows to be dangerous to
that other with a view to destroy life, and that life is
so destroyed by the matters so administered, that would
be murder in the eye of the law. It a man wilfully ad-
ministers to another that which he knows to be deleter-
ious to the other with the idea of destroying life,
and that life is destroyed, he is guilty of the crime of murder.
If a man administers to another that which is deleterious,
and death is the consequence, and there is no intention
to bring about the fatal result, then the question would arise
whether the person who so administered was guilty of cul-
pable and criminal negligence. Mere ordinary negligent*
or want of care and precaution would not be sufficient.
The negligence which will make the man amenable for the
crime of manslaughter must be culpable, wicked negligence
and that must be established before a jury can find him
guilty of manslaughter. It that is not made out the
law does not punish the man. Be may have been guilty
of want of care, but unless that is criminal want
of care he cannot be convicted. Before passing away from
that first proposition of the law there are one or two obser-
vations I think I ought to make. In the first place, we
have to consider the nature of what was administered.
In order to make an administration there must be some
active steps taken. I do not mean in the shape of action,
but an active step must be taken. If I were sitting at a
table, for instance, where was a man not under my care,
and 1 saw him take up a tumbler of poison, I should not
be guilty of a crime if I did not stop him, because I am
under no obligation to protect a stranger who chooses of his
own free will to take his own he. And again, now, to
illustrate the distinction between administering and
merely sitting by. Supposing I were to go to a person
and take a tumbler up to him, knowing that it contained
poison, and were to say to him, "Now, drink this, 10 will
do you good," and that man fell dead in consequence, I
should be guilty of his murder, because my active encourage-
ment induced him to do that which possibly otherwise he
would not have done. When you are considering whether
or not a man haa induced another to take that which is de-
leterious to him, you must consider the state and condition
of health and mind of the person upon whom the crime is
said to have been perpetrated. . Take for instance, the
case of a lunatic or an idiot being induced to take some-
thing which killed him. This is a strong case. Then I
will take another case—that in which a person is so en-
feebled that the slightest suggestion will operate in in-
fluencing him to take that which will kill. In those cases
the person so influencing would be guilty of a crime in the
eye of the law. As regards the character of the substance
administered, it may be poison in a thousand different
eisapes. Stimulants taken in excessive quantities are just as
capable of destroying life as more rapidly acting poisons.
The Attorney-General says, however, "Assuming that
you do not find that the prisoner administered to this lady
excessive quantities of ardent spirits, I will then show
you another mode in which he may and ought to be held
responsible, and that is for criminal neglect of duty.' It
is not necessary that I should detain you at length by
explaining the law of obligation cast upon persons. The
duty which a father owes to his child, a husband to his
wife, or a master to his servant, are obligations of this cha-
racter. If an individual, owing an obligation to a helpless
person, wilfully neglects to fulfil that obligation and by
reason of his neglect that person dies, and that' neglect
has been brought about by a desire for the death of the
other, that is just as much murder as it he had slaughtered
the individual with his own hand. It a man's wife is
enfeebled by a sick bed, and he has means to support her
and preserve life in her, knows she is helpless and cannot
leave the house, and knows that if he does not bring her
those means she will die, and he neg'ects to bring them
and wishes her to die, and she does so, that Is murder in the
eye of the law. If, however, in such a eitOf• Chlatei. WPM DO
interest en the part of the individual to bring about a fatal
result, but only grossly culpable and criminal in the sense I
have explained, it would be manslaughter' and not murder.
The Attorney-General puts a different case, where no
obligation is cast by the law to maintain a life, but the
man takes it on himself. He argues that if a man takes the
obligations he must fulfil them the same as if the law sanc-
tioned them. Nobody here can say that the necessaries of life
such as food and drink, were not supplied. The criminal
negligence alleged is that on the part of the prisoner there
was an obligation towards the deceased during the time she
was in an enfeebled state of body and mind to his knowledge,
and that he neglected to protect her against those dangers
which beset her, and against which she could not protect
herself. if a person is in care of another, and obligation and
duty such as that is cast upon him, it seems to me that
if by gross, culpable, and wicked negligence he omits to
protect the person against what she could have protected
herself when strong, if that is done, and done with the in-
tention to take life, the Attorney-General, and rightly
too, says it is murder' but if there is a mere reckless
inattention to wants of the individual, that would be man-
slaughter, and not murder, in the eye si the law. I will
now proceed to call your attention to the circumstances
t
of the case and the facts for your attention. Before
you can convict of manslaughter you must come to
the conclusion, as a matter of fact, that the par-
son charged had taken on himself the duty. I have ex-
plained that the person so taken charge of was in a feeble
state of mind or body or both, so as to render him or her in-
capable of protecting himself or herself against dangers,
and that reckless, wilful, culpable neglect brought about
death. I am not sure that you will have to embarrass
yourself with the last alternative view of the Attorney-
General. The learned Judge then proceeded to state that
the prisonerovas charged with the murder of Miss Maclean,
who died in Seymour-place at about nine o'clock in the
evening of the 17th of November last, and with bringing
about ner death by the administratten of ardent spirits with
that view ; and his Lordship next gave in some detail an
outline of the history of the deoeased and the prisoner prior
to the death.of the former, as gathered from the evidence
already reported. The deceased lady, he said, was of
good social position, and of some considerable property ;
she was 33 years of age, and she had curvature of the spine,
which rendered her unable to walk without a stick or um-
brella. In other respects she was happy and amiable
enough, considering her deformity; but there could be no
doubt that prior to her mother's death she had acquired, if
not a habit of drinking, at least a liking for drink. Of
that there csuld be no question, for her brother, Dr.
Maclean, said that before her mother's death she had com-
plained to him of the deceased being rather too fond of
drink. Beyond that, however, there was no evidence of
intemperance except that one day she went out and returned
to her aunt's residence intoxicated, and that Dr. Maclean,
when staying at Broadway, thought she took more drink than
was good for her. Upon her mother's death Miss Maclean
became entitled, with her brother, to the house in Eutbourne-
terrace worth £l3O a year, a long leasehold of sixty years to
run, and a sum of £l,BOO which had been invested on mort-
gage, and of certain gas shares. Miss Maclean thus became
entitled to £1,200 for the house; furniture, £3o' £9OO of
the mortgage; arrear of interest, £3O; and a suit of £450
in gas shares. She was thus left in May with a fortune, by
arrangement with her brother, of the house and £450 in
cash. The prisoner was a married man who had lived at
Quebec-street, but he had made Miss Maclean's acquaint-
ance some considerable time before the death of the mother,
who, according to Dr. Maclean, expressed her dislike of
the acquaintance; so they were on intimate terms, and
Mrs. Wilson said he was paying hi a addresses to her at her
house, for she had lett them together. There was no posi-
tive evidence when a criminal intimacy commenced be-
tween them, nor could they from the evidence even con-
jecture. At the commencement of 1879, about April or
May, Dr. Maclean said he saw the prisoner and his sister
together, and they spoke to him then of their being about
to be married. He advised his shOer then, most pru-
dently, to have her property settled on her, and he
caused his solicitor to prepare a draft settlement, which
was handed to Miss Mitclean. who e-ete.a eesieeie
the executor to her motnerat will. The matter rested
until tidings came to Dr. Maclean as to the relations
between his sister and the prisoner, to the effect that
they had actually been married since March. Believing
them to be man and wife, it became no longer a quest-
lion of settlement, for, as Dr. Maclean said, as they were
married, it was no use having a marriage settlement,
and so the proposition dropped. S. matters remained
till August 19, when information came to Dr. Maclean that
the prisoner and his sister had called on the family solicitor
to execute a transfer of a mortgage and that they were not
married. He, therefore, saw his sister and taxed her with
deceiving him. She and the prisoner admitted that it was
true they were not married, heat they were about to be, and
so the caPe stood when Dr. Maclean left England, on the
30th of August, with the knowledge that his sister and the
prisoner had been living as man and wife, though not mar-
ried. Friendly relations, however, still remained, for they
all called on the day of leaving England at the house of Mrs
Wilson, who then saw her niece for the last time till the
9th of November. That was, then, the starting point.
Before the 30th of August there was nothing which affected
the case beyond that which was calculated to excite disgust.
In the month of August a new state of things existed, and
from that time the Shrubbery seemed to have been occu-
pied by the prisoner and Miss Maclean only. From the
30th of August none of her relatives saw Miss Maclean until
the time of her death, and they had from the evidence of
Mrs. Smith the life which these people led from the com-
mencement of September. That was the first date at
which they would find it necceesary to attend to the details.
they
probableconi d
accuracy upo n o
f theirth the
With reference to the witnesses generally, it would be for
ttehieticuroyntoy
andedtetromoinonesitdhere credit
the t
recollection of each witness. Mrs. Smith, at whose house
they first lodged, spoke to finding on their departure, after
a stay of five weeks, seven bottles of brandy, one of whisky,
one of gin, one of sherry, two of ginger wine, and eleven of
clareVesides various flat bottles found in the bedroom.
There was no doubt that at that time they both had con-
tracted habits of Intoxication. On leaving sirs. Smith's
they went to the Shrubbery, where Fanny Matthews was
taken Into their service, and upon her testimony, with
any corroboration it might receive, the jury must rely a great
what occurred there between the 181 h of September
beginning of October. It was well that they should
badneeaadrltfinhoermind and consider the testimony of the various wit-
nesses and ask when was the first indication of failing health
that produced the ultimate condition in which the deceased
Ws, s Mrs. Smith parted with her thinking her in the family.
Way, and there was nothing more to call her attentloh to her
than that she was a cripple. In dealing with the testimony
of Fanny Matthews he should like to make one or two
was a witness on whose testimony they
observations, bnt they would have to form their own judg-
ment whether she
,aceowy reliance. It was true that she was originally
upon the verdict of the coroner's fury, with being a
tor in the murder of Miss Maclean. At the opening
Of the same she was committed to liewgate to take her trial
then. In Ws openlng addregg the learned AttorneY•General

•-• • '

,

said that, having considered the evidence carefully and
with a view to do that which common justice required, he
would offer no evidence against her, as he felt that no case
could be established. There was no evidence of her actually
having done anything to cause death, either to cause it abso-
lutely or to accelerate it; and she was under no obligation in
law to provide necessaries for Miss Maclean or to protect
her from harm, and had no interest in her. He thoroughly
agreed with the view of the learned Attorney-General, and
had the trial proceeded to that morning, he should have told
them that there was no evidence to find a verdict against
the girl, and that she must be acquitted. She said she was
not under that impression when she made her statement in
prieon. She was examined before the coroner, and most
unquestionably her object seemed to have been to protect
the prisoner at the bar and herself, and in her evidence there
was much to exculpate both of them She said that then
she tole a wilful untruth for certain reasons, but now she
was telling the truth. Mr, Serjeant Ballanttne cross-
examined her on details, and commented strongly on them,
saying the discrepancies in her evidence should make the
jury disbelieve them; but, on the other hand, the Attorney-
General said that the girl had no object in Inventing a story
to injure Paine, as she was free, and would be more likely
to be in favour of the prisoner, with whom she had rela-
tions of some affection. On the other hand, the argument
was that she was utterly unworthy of consideration, and on
the other it was said they were immaterial discrepancies that
they might all be guilty of in giving evidence, that they
should look on her with jealousy and caution, but that
they ought not to discard her testimony in a broad and
off-hand manner. Let them consider, therefore, in dealing
with the evidence of Fanny Matthews, the ;observations
made for and against her, and take it from him that
the credibility of her story rested with them. They
might believe it all or none. Her testimony was of
such vital importance that be did not think he should
trust to his memory. Every portion of it was important,
and every expression in it should be scanned minutely.
The learned Judge then read in full the evidence
given by the witness. The theory of the prosecution was
that the prisoner wanted to obtain the lady's property, and
having got it, he cared no more for her life. It was sup
gested that the lady had shown she was fond of drink, yet
nevertheless she had not so drunk that her mind had become
enfeebled or her body prostrate. But it was so important
to throw every paseitee light on the case, that he would
recall the evidence of the three witnesses at Worcester.
Mr. Goldingham said he was first called upon by the pri-
soner, who wanted him to perform a little matter of trans-
ferring property from a young lady to whom he was not
married, and he gave in a document which he said they had
got from London, but which was not what they both quite
required. Mr. Goldlngham suggested a mutual will,
which he Prepared, and both called the following
day and said that was just what they wanted, but
they had there a document or will dated the
6th of September, 1879, devising all rent and per-
sonal property to the prisoner, and that was substantially
the same as that which was executed by Mr. Goldingham, so
that the object of the second will he did not quite see. Mr.
Goldlngham said he read the will, and she seemed in good
health and in perfect possession of her faculties, and they
left together. To Mr. Watkin the prisoner told the same story
as to his living with the lady. He was told that he could not
have an insurance unless he had som3 interest, and as he had
not it was arranged that she should attend. He then repre-
sented her as being sober and temperate, and she said the
same thing That statement was to some extent untrue,
and the object was no doubt to deceive the insurance office.
Neither Mr. Watkin nor Mr. Everett, another witness, saw
anything which led them to believe that she was addicted to
drink or that there would be a speedy termination of her life.
Fadny Matthews, however, testified as to the constant ad-
ministration of spirits by the prisoner to the deceased.
When she asked for food Paine gave her spirits, Baying that
was only her polite way of asking for them, and Matthews
had seen him pour a decanter-glass three parts full of neat
spirits down her throat. When the deceased said she could
not take it, as it burnt her mouth, he replied, "Do as I tell
you: ft will do you good." It was impossible, considering
the previous warning of the physician, to suppose that the
prisoner did not then know he was giving her something
which was Injurious to her. Bottles were found all over the
house, and the prisoner, like the deceased, was hardly ever
sober. Mr. Foss said that "Mrs. Paine" used to come to his
shop, but that he never supplied her with any laudanum. He
said that Paine called on the 28th or 29th, and said that
Mrs. Paine was in a despondent state, and that if she sent
for anything of a poisonous nature, he was not to supply it
without Pedne's orders. Previous to that such things had
been supplied to the Broadway. A similar expression as to
bliss Maclean being in a low, despondent state was made
by Paine to Mr. Fitzpatrick when he called for the rent
at Eastbourne-terrace. A striking fact in favour of the
was that, if he desired she should die on the
28
prisoner, and showing at that time he did not desire her
death,
htilior 29th of September, or about that period, he would
not have interfered to check her having drugs of a
poisonous character. Mr. Serjeant Ballantlne said that
he had no motive then for protecting her life because the
will had been made in his favour as long before as the
17th, so that it he wanted her to die for him to become
possessor of her property the earlier she died the better.
It would be a forcible observation and have much more
weight—not that it was without weiiht as it was—if there
had not at that time been a correspondence passing between
himself and Mr. Goldingbam with reference to a deed of
gift which was not executed until the 4th of October. There
was no evidence whether at that time the insurance in the
Gresham had been retailed. It was refused, but they did
not know the date of that refusal. The effect of the deed
assigned to the prisoner was to give him, subject to ground.
rent, absolute properly in the house from she moment of
execution, and not subject to revocation, whether she lived
or died. On their return to Worcester, after the execution
of the deed, Fanny Matthews said she saw him give her
spirits once, but not more than once; as to which state-
ment the Attorney-General truly remarked that if he gave
them once when seen, the inference was that he did so
more frequently when he was not seen.. On the
16th of October Paine appeared to have gone to
Lenden for a week, and during the time he was away,
according to Fanny Matthews, Miss Maclean did not ask for
much spirits, and that she diluted them till the deceased
Raid it was so weak that it made her sick. On Paine's re-
turn she told him deceased had been better since he was
away, and had bad more to eat, and she had put water in
her spirits, but the witness did not remember the prisoner's
answer. About that time he spoke of taking her to Lon-
don for medical advice, and said, "When she gets to Lon-
don she may have as much as she likes and be to
her." Now came the testimony of Mrs Porter, a wit-
ness who lived next door to the Shrubbery. He did not know
whether the jury recollected her and the manner in which
she gave her evidence, but he himself failed to see anything
in her demeanour to lead him to suppose she had come
there to say anything that was false. In Mrs. Porter's
evidence he could find nothing to discredit. Paine had
told her that the deceased, who was ill, bad drunk a bottle
of brandy during the Wednesday night. That evidence
was of grave importance, because upon it they would have
to ask themselves whether or not, if the bottle was in the
I top shelf of the wardrobe, the deceased was in a physical
condition such as that she could have got at it for the pur-
pose of helping herself, or whether somebody may not have
assisted her by getting the bottles and giving spirits to her.
mrs, roster says she assisted her to gee so oeu ; mac she
could not stand by herself; and that, calling next day, she
was refused admission by Fanny Matthews, who told wit-
ness the prisoner should not give it to her so strong. The
witness said that Mies Maclean spoke to her while Paine
was in London; that she was fretting very much, and said
Paine was away wasting and squandering her money; and it
was important to remember that deceased was at that
time content with weak gin and water and did not complain,
and when Mrs. Porter 'peke about her drinking a bottle of
brandy in a day, she replied, "lie forced me to drink it. He
makes me drink it." The importance of the witness's evidence
was the physical condition of the deceased, and that she did
not complain of weak spirits and water. With regard to
the conversation about the bottle of brandy, they must
draw their own inference. If they believed her story, the
deceased was too weak to stand, and had no craving for
anything but weak ,gin and water. That was of vital
importance if they believed it. As to the melancholy
journey which followed, from Broadway to London, Fanny
Matthews said that on Monday, the 3rd of November,
they left Broadway,
rand arrived at Paddington at
about four o'clock. She stated that they had some. to drink, but she could not say that the de-
ceased was intoxicated, but there was something the
matter with her feet. Brick, the " 8 wan" hotel keeper, sent
a fly to the Shrubbery and carried the lady, who was
in a bad state, down to the wagonette. He saw Fanny
Matthews and the prisoner both ready for travelling.
Then Kite, the driver, corroborated, and said that Miss
Maclean appeared to him to be very ill. He drove them to.
Evesham, six miles off, and on the way they stopped at a
public-house and had some spirits. They were then taken to
the station, where Wall, the signalman, took her out of the
wagonette, and he said she appeared to be intoxicated, as
she could not stand. He placed her upon the bench in the
waiting-room, and with the aseistance of the parties he subse-
quently placed her in a third-class carriage of the London
train. They must now enter into the history of the few re-
mktning days et her life, but before doing so he muatcall their
attention to the note as to taking her up for advice and to
her friends, and the profession on the part of the prisoner
as to attending to her and sitting up night and day. All
these things were, if tree, and it he honestly intended to
carry out the advice given him, pieces of evidences very
strongly in the manei favour, as what more could be do
than do all that the physician told him? The prosecu-
tion however, said that notwithstanding he wrote all
that, during this period, and certainly during the latter
part of the month of October, the prisoner was sys-
administerin neat spirits to her, not with
tematically a
view of merely doing her good and following the
doctor's advice, and not merely permitting her to do what
g
she would do, but had power and will to avoid if she
thought fit, but that he administered it to her, sometimes
making her take it, end sometimes by throwing it in her
way; and they said it was dope with the deliberate inten-
tion to take her life. In these circumstances every feat
became of importance. Fanny Matthews stated that on
arriving in London they drove to the coffee-house in
Seymour-place, and the landlord carried Miss Maclean, who
was not then the worse for liquor, upstairs. Powell said that
'
Paine told him he had an invalid lady with money to take
care of; .
rmnee, she
that he would not leave her for long: He said that the lady
g then. Paine,
some words, but he did not remember her speak-
and he thought dying, but
abwefaosrevegrYoinligi, out, ten minutes afterwards,
it
told him he had brought the lady to London to get a certifi-
cate for her. The jury had seen both the man and his wife,
and heard them give their evidence, and it would he for them
to say whether they were telling the truth. It had been
suggested that they had been squabbling with Paine, and
were angry in consequence of not getting their bill paid;
but that they must consider. It they thought the man's
testimony untrue they must dismiss it, and with it
that of his wife, as the same remark applied to both. The
evidence of the woman corroborated the statement of
her husband as to carrying the lady upstairs, and went
on to say that the lady asked for a cup often or some hot
whisky and water. Paine said if anything was given to
her It must be sense milk, which 31rs. Powell accordingly
sent un e seta. in +1,,,
molting into the room saw Paine and Matthews there. Paine
afterwards left the house, and after ten o'clock she went
upstairs and found the deceased, who was nearly naked, lying
on the floor, and she helped to put her in bed, on which
Matthews ultimately lay down by the side of the deceased.
Matthews stated that at eight o'clock Patne came back to
the house the worse for liquor, and said he was "awfully
dickey," and used bad language to the deceased. He
threatened to go away and leave her, on which the deceased
said, "Oh, give me one more trial ; only one!' Paine, with
an oath, replied that he had given her too many, and with
that he put his arm round Fenny Matthews, and they went
out together. Mrs Powell had accused Fanny Matthews of
treating the deceased with great brutality, but Matthews
called it a deliberate lie, and the Fay must judge between
them. The prisoner and Matthews left the loogTga together
on the 6th of November, and afterwards lived as man and wile,
and from that date Matthews, at any rate, never saw the de-
ceased again. On the 4th of November Mrs. Powell said that
she saw Paine between nine and ten o'clock, and noticed two
tumblers standing near the bed, each of which was nearly
half full of spirit. Powell moved the tumblers away aua
placed them on the mantelpiece. Credit was due to Mrs.
Powell for having paid every attention to the lady, and no
one would say that, as far as sustenance was concerned,
she did not have sufficient while at the coffee-house;
but that was not the question. The question was,
whether or not she was "dosed," as one of the
witnesses termed it, with brandy? Mrs. Jones sat up
with the deceased on the night of the 513, and Paine
objected to her remaining Mrs. Powell saw Paine in
the evening and spoke about getting a doctor, and he said
that he would get a doctor of his own: On the morning of
Thursday, the 6th, Dr. Thorman came with the prisoner, and
went up to see the deceased. Dr. Tnorman examined her,
and the prisoner took a bottle of rum out ot his pocket and
poured some out in a tumbler, and, handing it to the de-
ceased, said tq, Dr. Tborman, "I want you to see her weak-
ness." The deceased said that she did not want it, and then
Paine said, "You artful little devil; you would drink it if
he were not here." Upon that she took two good drinks of
the rum. The learned Judge, after dwelling on the adminis-
tration of drink to the deceased by the prisoner on the sue.
concluded contrary to the doctor's orders,
cluded his summing up :—Was
the alcoholic excess brought about by a deliberate and
ucenetdilin tgier days
designed act, by an administration with intent to bring
aotth, her illness, ln
about her death; or were stimulants administered in ex-
cessive quantities under circumstances that satisfy you
there was gross criminal negligence? With reference to
the administration, it must always be brought into consi-
deration how far a person is induced by the act of another
or the encouragement of another, or the moral influence of
another to do that which their better judgment would have
rebeljtel against. What I shall ask you to tell me by your
verdict is this ;—Looking at the whole of the circumstances
now before you, do you 9r do you not come to the conclusion
that her death was occasioned ber- the exceseive taking of
alcoholic spirits? Do you find that that caused her death
If you do, was that alcohol administered to her by the
prisoner in such a MIMS! SS 10 Cause the oatintroPho which

•-• 1 •
t 4.4

happened, or to accelerate it? for I should tell you it is as
equally criminal by the law of the country to accelerate
by an hour the death of a person as it is to cause it. If
I, knowing that a man is on his dying bed, and that he
has but an hour to live, with a view o ishortening his life
by half an hour, administer that which I know will kill
him, if it does so lam responsible for his death. If, there-
fore, you come to the conclusion that death was occa-
sioned or accelerated by the undue use of stimulants, having
regard to the law, you will have to consider the following
matters :—Was it so caused or accelerated by the adminis-
tration of spirits by the prisoner at the bar? If
so, did he do it believing he was himself administering it so
as to endanger her life and accelerate her death? Did he
do it with the intention that death should be brought
about or accelerated? If you think he did and answer in
the affirmative he will be guilty of the crime of murder. If
you think death was caused by the use of alcoholic spirits
administered to her by the prisoner calculated to endanger
her life, and in administering them he had not the object of
killing her, but that it was done from gross, culpable, reck-
less, criminal negllgsnce of the prisoner without intention
to kill, it will be manslaughter. If you find neither of
those issues, it will be your dui yto acquit him. There
isijan alternative question which you have to consider
Was it the prisoner's duty to take care of the deceased?
Did he take charge of her in the same way that a rn‘n
under similar circumstances takes charge of his wife ?
If so, was he not bound to supply her with the necessaries
of life; and if she was in an enfeebled condition, so as to
be unable to procure such things for herself, was not he
bound to see that she obtained them? She being in such an
enfeebled condition of mind and body that she would be
likely to do acts which in a state of health she would not
have done, was he not bound to protect her against acts*
which in a state of health she would have been able to pro-
tect herself against? It he did not so protect, but allowed
her to commit acts which would produce death, with the
intent that she should die, that would be murder; and if he
simply allowed such acts recklessly and negligently, without
intending her death, that would be manslaughter. It is for
you to say by your verdict 11 you consider the prisoner
guilty; to say of which of these offences you c9nsider the
prisoner guilty—of the one crime or the other.

The Foreman of the Jury asked that they might be allowed
to look at certain papers, which request was immediately
granted by his Lordship.

A Juror asked his Lordship whether the prisoner, as soon
as he had obtained the deed of gift, might have stepped into
immediate possession of her property, without causing or
waiting for Miss Maclean's death.
Mr. Justice Hawkins replied that a will, of course, only
came Into operation after the death of the testator. A
deed of gift would, however, immediately vest the property
in the person in whose favour it was executed. A policy of
assurance would, of course, also only become payable after
the death of the insured person. A .policy obtained under
fraud and a will executed under undue influence were both
liable to be set aside.

The Jury then retired, at half-past four o'clock, to con-
sider their verdict, and returned to court at ten minutes to
six, after an absence of an hour and forty minutes.
Mr. Read, the Deputy Clerk of Arraigns, asked if they had
agreed upon their verdict.

The Foreman said they had.
Mr. Read: Do you find the prisoner guilty of wilful murder
or nottuilty 1

- -
Tb e Foremen : We find him Not Guilty of wilful murder,
but Guilty of Manslaughter.

Mr. Read asked the prisoner if he had anything to say
before sentence was parsed upon him.
The prisoner made a long statement to the Court as to
his life with Miss Maclean, and assured the Court that he
was wholly innocent of any unkindneer, to her. The Court
he said, saw he was perfectly calm, and that was occasioned
by his knowledge that he was absolutely innocent of what
had been imputed to him. He went on to narrate how be
had renewed his acquaintance with the deceased, and how
by her request he went to the chambers of Dr. Maclean, in
Barnard's-inn. The brother of the deceased left them alone
for some time, and Miss Maclean then stated that she was
vneeinte, and implored him to get her out of her terrible
difficulty. He told her that he should never take any such
course. Subsequently he asked her to dinner with his
wife, and at her request he went out and procured her
some spirits. He then went on to tell the Court how he
was invited down to Broadway at the request of the de-
ceased, and said it was there that they concocted the idea
of getting up a mock marriage. He asserted that he could
have called numerous witnesses had he not been so satisfied
of his innocence and that he would be acquitted. While
In London, he proceeded to say, they went into a restaurant
and there had some whisky, and explained that It was
in consequence of a ruse played upon him by Miss Maclean,
in order to get some more spirits, that he called her an
"artful little devil ;" but it was only in friendship.
Her brother came down to the Shrubbery, and reference
was then made by him (the brother) to the marriages
settlement, he believing that they were about to be
married. When he found out to the contrary he was
broken-hearted, but said he could not help it, and
that he was going to America, and they must settle
the matter together as best they could. His (the pri-
sener'e) life was insured in the New York Life Office for a
small amount. The deceased was always a very business-
like little woman, and sbe suggested that she should re-
insure his life for £5OO. He wrote to the secretary, who
requested him to go to Dr. Shepherd, of Worcester, to be
examined. While there the thought struck them that her
life should be insured, and out of kindness he had her exa-
mined also. They subsequently had a quarrel, and she told
him if be could not do what she wanted he had better go
about his business. Afterwards they made it up, and she
suggested, as they were going to Worcester, that the house
should be settled on him, so that she could not insult him
again by what she said. He was very heedless about that—
so much so that he told the solicitor to keep the deed of
gift. In consequence of her mother's death she took to
drinking, and after her brother's departure for America
the habit increased. When he (the prisoner) got into the
scrape at Stratford-upon-Avon she bailed him out, and she
was then in quite a collapsed state through drink. The
plate was originally intended to be left at a bank at
Evesham, but he subsequently deposited it, with her con-
sent at Attenborough's. He paid a great many of
Mrs. hlacleart's debts and all those of the household.
Be had -never taken any money of the deceased for him-
self, except ss, a week for his wife. In reference to the
Alexander-street lodgings he asserted that there they only
had four bottles of claret, and he knew nothing about the
rest. Miss Maclean often complained of dreadful pains in
her side, and in consequence he and Fanny Matthews
attended her night and day. When they were at Powell's
he positively declared that he never hurt her by word or
deed. Be knew the name of the person by • whom Miss
Maclean had been first led astray, and he thought he ought
to have come forward and relieved him of so serious a por-
tion of the charge. If he had not been sure of a verdict
of acquittal he would have instructed his solicitors very
difrtEirtintly Vfa heti no pc...vas to prevont her drinking,
and it could have been proved that Miss Maclean had
been tipsy as early as twelve o'clock in the day. He
believed that what Fanny Matthews had said before the
eoroner was true; but that now she had made up a
London Journal statement of revolvers, pistols, seductions,
murders, and so on.
Mr, Justice Hawkins, in passing sentence, said :—Lewis
James Paine,—You were tried for the murder of Annie Jane
Maclean. Had the Jury found you guilty of the murder most
unquestionably you would have expiated your crimes upon
the scaffold. The jary have, however, taken a merciful view
of the case, and have found you not guilty of wilful murder,
but guilty of manslaughter, in about as cruel and barbarous
circumstances as I ever remember to have heard of. When you
say, from the place where you now stand, that you did not
seduce the poor creature, lean only say I believe not one word
of the statement. It is the first time to my knowledge that
you have ever suggested such a thing, and I do not believe
If it had been so I do not believe that your month would
have been closed until after the verdict of the jury was
given. Daring the time her mother was alive you visited
her, and her mother disapproved ot your visits. You visited
her at her aunt's, and if you knew that she had con
tracted habits of intemperance, it was your duty, with your
profession of attachment, to check them. You deceived her
brother in the first place by pretending that you were
married to her, and under that pretence you went down to
Broadway as a member of the family. Her brother had made
arrangements to go to America, and it was not until the
eve of his departure that he found you were not mar-
ried. You then solemnly assured her brother, and sub-
sequently repeated the assurance in the letters which
have been produced, that you would do all you could to
make her happy and marry her. You knew well enough at
the time that you could do no such thing, as you were
already married, and you were in friendly communication
with your wife. Ido not believe, as you say, that there was
any ill.feeline between Mrs Wilson and the deceased; bat
what I do believe is that the mother being dead and the
brother having gone abroad,. you, knowing that this
poor girl had property, kept her from her aunt and every
other soul who was interested in her. No sooner had you
gone down to Broadway alter you had isolated this poor
creature from her friends than you made your way over to
Worcester, where you had made for her a will bequeathing
to you every farthing she possessed. You then tried to get
her life insured in the Gresham Office for £250, and if
that proposal had been accepted it would have been
4.250 more in your favour in the event of her death.
l'hen you tell me that all this was done for the purpose
of satisfying her. You really must think people very
credulous indeed. I confess, for my own part, 1 believe
not one word you have s %id in that respect. I cannot
search your mind. I can only infer what you thought from
what you did. Something occurred to you which led you to
write. to Mr. G oldingb.arn, &sten him to prepare the deed
of gift; which you no-donbl thotiffit would be more secure
for you, as a will fa not always secure—it might be impeached
on the ground of undue influence. You got this deed of
gift prepared, and got her to execute I. At that time she
seems to have been in perfect health, as there is not a single
witness who speaks to her health having been failing
before that time, although it was said that she was fond
of drinking and given to taking more than was good for her.
She, however, suffered little from that, and was always
cheerful and happy, and appeared to be attached to
you. You appeared to be attached to her, and you made
use of expressions when at the insurance agent's
which led him to believe that you were a little too affec•
tionste. Possibly you thought that a great deal of affec•
tion shown at that time would the more readily induce her
to sign more documents to put her property into your
hands at the time when she had no friends and no advisers
—her mother dead and her brother gone. I wish to draw a
marked contrast between her condition when she signed
that deed of gift, no longer ago than the 4th of October,
and the miserable' wretched condition in which she was
before another twelve months had passed. How came all
5:155 tibuut, 111/11.1 VT Oftlelner kokaie
girl in a condition in which she had never been seen before
—so drunk that she fell down upon the lawn. She went with
you to Stratford, and returned to Worcester. You consulted
Dr. Sheppard, who advised you to prevent her taking sti-
mulants, and yet you did not follow that advice : on the,
conteery, you not only permitted but encouraged free in-
dulgence. Within a short fortnight of her falling down
upon the lawn, when you bad gone to London she was'
lying helpless at the Shrubbery except for the kind offices
afforded by Mrs. Perter, who attended her, and who
managed by her.attention to alleviate in a slight degree
her sufferings. She gave her mild stimulants till you came
beck. You were not in the house 24 hours before you
shooed Mrs Porter a bottle of brandy, and insisted upon
the poor creature drinking it; for if Mrs. Porter speaks the
truth you must have made her drink it One would have
thought, if you had a spark of feeling in you, with the
knowledge lOU had of the warning given 10 )011 by the
medicai men, that from the moment you had undertaken,
this duty you would have taken care that, in her miserably
eafeebled condition, everything was doers for her welfare;
but you did no such thing When sho was reduced to this
condition Dr. Beadles was called in, and he recommended
that she should have the assistance of a good physician, and
that she should go to London among her friends. What
course did you adopt? You tooleher in her miserable plight,
unable to move and unable to speak, to a lodgiug.house in
Seymour-place—respectable enough, I know, but at the
same time it is not the place in which the daughter
of Colonel Maclean should have been placed. When you got
her there, you told the Powell' that she would not
be there long, and that she was likely to die. You told
her that, and I believe you thought it, and that you
would not be sorry for it. You have spoken of your kind-
ness and attachment to her. How did you show it on the
first night? You left her alone. How did you show it
the next night? Why, by taking from 'the house her
only attendant, and from that time you and Fanny Mat-
thews lived together as man and wife. Teen you wanted
to make believe that this poor creature had gone to
B ighton with you. I cannot dwell with moderation
upon your inhuman conduct I can conceive nothing more
attrocious than the exclamation you made on the last
morning on which that poor creature saw the light of day—
to her you said it was a sin to preserve su Al a life. Under
these circumstances what ought I to do with you, who have
in my Judgment, been guilty of a crime next in enormity
to the crime of murder. lied you been guilty of murder,
most unquestionably you would have been hanged, as you
richly deserve to be. As it is, I have the power to pass uponA
you the next sentence in severity to that ot death, and
that sentence I think it my duty to pronounce. For the
atrocious crime of which you have been convicted I cnfl.
derail you to be kept in penal servitude for the term of your
natural life.

The prisoner, who exhibited not the slightest emotion, was
then taken from the dock.
Mr, Justice liwilkilii•then diagertid tiVe costly-of the prose-
cution to be paid out of such of the property as bad passed
Into the prisoner's hands, Before dbcharging the logY. Who

had not been allowed to separate since the commencement
of the case on Monday week, he complimented and thanked
them for the great care, attention, and patience which they
had given to the case. The only recompense he had power
to make to them was the assurance that he would take care
that they were not called upon to serve again for some long
time to come.

LORD HARTINGTON ON LOCAL OPTION.
Lord Hartington, replying to a memorial of the temper-
ance electors in North-East Lancashire, writes :
I have never been opposed in principle to the policy
of conferring on the ratepayers or their representa-
tives some control over the issue and regulation of
licences in their own districts. There may be can-
siderable difficulty in devising the best means of
giving effect to such a poliey ; but I am strongly of
opinion that it is desirable that the publieopinion of
the locality should be brought to bear upon this
matter and that the inhabitants of a district should
possess a greater power than they now have of pro-
tecting themselves against the evils and inconveniences
resulting from the excessive number and imperfect
regulation of licensed houses. I trust that before the
election I may have the opportunity either in Parlia-
ment or in Lancashire of more fully explaining my
opinions on this question.