The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1875-03-20 00:00:00

THE SHORNCLIFFE MURDER.

At the Maidstone Assizes, John Morgan, 19, quite a strip-
ling in appearance, a private in the 82nd Regiment, was in-
dicted for the wilful murder of Joseph Falstone, another
private in the same regiment
Mr. Birom and Mr. Deering conducted the prosecution:
and Mr. Norman, at the desire of the learned judge, defended
the prisoner, and was assisted by Mr. Grubb.
The prisoner, deceased, who was about his own age,
and two drummer boys belonging to the 82nd Regi-
ment, were stationed at Shorncliffe camp, and they
occupied hut No. 26 with a number of other men. On
Saturday night the prisoner and the deceased were in
the hut, and no one else yeas present except two
drummer boys named Brown and Simmons, and a
drunken soldier named Reader, who was asleep.
They were about to have their supper, when the
prisoner appeared to have given one of the boys
a penny to go and buy himself some sweetstuff,
and he gave the other boy a shilling to purchase
a bottle of sauce in order to make the supper
nice. The deceased, the prisoner, and the drunken
man, who did not appear to have the least
knowledge of anything that took place, were
then left in the hut, and almost immediately after-
wards the deceased appeared to have staggered from
No. 26 hut to the-adjoining one, No. 25, with his throat
cut in a frightful manner. He saiik upon a seat, and
an alarm was given, and he appeared to have made
signs for writing materials to be brought to him, and
he wrote "John Morgan done this." The prisoner
was brought into the room, and the deceived, who was
on the point of expiring, raised his right hand and
pointed at him, and died immediately afterwards.
What made the case the more extraordinary was that
there did not appear to have been any quarrel between
the prisoner and the deceased, and there seemed to be
an entire absence of motive on the part of the pri-
soner for the commission of such a dreadful crime.
Michael Rowan, a private in the regiment, proved
that upon hearing the alarm, he went into No. 25 hut,
and saw the deceased sitting on a stool, with a fright-
ful wound in his throat, and covered with blood. He
tried to stop the blood with a handkerchief, but It was
of no use. The deceased appeared about to fall, and
he supported him by holding him round the waist.
He was unable to speak, but he moved his fingers on
the table as though he wished to write, and witness
sent for writing materials, and the deceased wrote
something on a piece of paper. When he had finished
the prisoner was brought into the room, and the mo-
ment the deceased saw him he raised his right arm and
pointed towards him. At this time his left arm was
lying helpless by his side. The deceased appeared to
be dead almost immediately after this.
In cross-examination, this witness said he was quite
sure that the deceased raised his right arm in a point-
ing direction, and that there was nothing to prevent
him from seeing the prisoner at the time, and he was
certain that he pointed at him.
The two drummer boys were then called to prove
that they were sent out of the hut by the nrisoner
under the circumstances above stated, and one of them
said that when he returned he saw prisoner apparently
in the act of washing his face in No. 26 hut.
All the witnesses concurred in stating that they did
not hear any sound of quarrelling or struggling before
the affair happened.
Mr. Alexander Turner, the regimental doctor, de- '
posed that he arrived at the hut soon after nine o'clock,
and found the deceased supported by the witness
Rowan. He was bleeding profusely from a wound in
his throat, and the front of his clothes was completely
saturated with blood. He tried to stop the bleeding;
but the injuries were of such a character that he found
it impossible to do so, and the deceased was evidently
in a dying condition. In a very few minutes his eyes
presented the glassy stare which denoted unconscious-
ness and approaching death, and in about ten minutes
he expired. He examined the wounds, and found that
the principal one was a cut extending from the left hand
side at the angle of the jaw for several inches, and
divided in its passage the windpipe, the external carotid
artery, and all the principal blood vessels of the neck.
The wound was so deep that the bcne of the spine
could be seen from the outside. This injury was such
as might have been inflicted by a razor like the one
produced, and it was of such a character that he did
not believe it was possible for the deceased tolave
inflicted it himself. The deepest part of the wound
was at the right side of the neck, and in his opinion it
was inflicted by some one from behind the deceased.
In addition to this wound there were altogether
eleven others on the person of the deceased. One was
behind the left ear, extending downwards, and seven
inches long, but this was not a very deep wound, and
was not a mortal one. On the back of the left hand
there was another wound three inches long, which
divided the tendons, and they protruded. On the
back of the left wrist there were four other wounds of a
jagged character, and which were such as might have
been caused by the point of a razor. There were also
three cuts of a similar character on the fingers of the
same hand, and they appeared to have been caused by
one cut of the razor across them.
A long discussion then took place as to whether the
written paper referred to was admissible in evidence,
the learned counsel for the prosecution contending that
it was so on the ground that it stood in the position of
a dying declaration; and, on the other hand, Mr.
Norman contending that there was nothing to show
that at the time the deceased wrote what he did on the
paper, he believed he was in a dying condition, and
that it was impossible for him to recover.
Mr. Justice Denman eventually left the court to
consult the Lord Chief Justice upon-the point, and he
was absent nearly twenty minutes in consultation with
his lordship. Upon his return the learned Judge said
that, although the question was to some extent an
entirely novel one, he and the Lord Chief Justice were
not at all prepared to rule that the evidence was in-
admissible, and he should receive it if it was pressed.
In a certain event, however, he should reserve the
question as to the admissibility of this writing as a
dying declaration for consideration by the Court of
Criminal Appeal, and there might possibly be a
failure of justice. He therefore suggested that the
learned counsel for the prosecution should consider
whether they ought to press for the reception of this
piece of evidence.
In the result Mr. Birom declined to press for the
reception of the piece of evidence in question.
Some further evidence was adduced for the prosecu-
tion, and it appeared that when the prisoner was taken
into custody he declared his entire innocence of the
charge, and asserted that the deceased had inflicted the
fatal injuries upon himself, and he accounted for certain
marks of blood that were discovered upon his own per-
son by stating that he received them in his attempt to
prevent the deceased from injuring himself.
Mr. Biron, in addressing the jury upon the evidence
for the prisoner, expressed his hope that they would
be prepared to do their duty courageously, however
painful might be the conclusions to which they might
find themselves compelled to Come, and however ter-
rible the consequences that must ensue. He urged that
the nature of the wounds was not consistent with
suicide. On the theory of suicide, how did the man
get the wounds not mortal? Did he gratuitously
inflict them before the fatal wound? And would
he have inflicted them after his head was nearly
severed from his body? How did the deceased get
cuts on both hands if he had held the weapon in
either? And, on the other hand, the wound on
the prisoner's thumb would be naturally caused in a
terrible struggle with another man. One fact alone was
almost conclusive of guilt—that a man in a greatcoat
was seen on the bed, under the shelf where the razor
was. That man was not the deceased, for he had no
greatcoat on. Who could he be but the prisoner, and
what was he there for but to get the razor? And
what did he get it for? Again, what was the conduct
of the prisoner? Was it like that of a man who had
seen his comrade commit suicide? or was it lice that of
a man who had just murdered him? He let his com-
rade stagger out bleeding to death, and turned to wash
his hands and his clothes. Then look at the conduct
of the dying man, who, when he saw the prisoner,
gathered up his dying enrrgies to raise his hand and
point him out as his murderer.
Mr. Norman, in addressing the jury on behalf of the
prisoner, dwelt upon the apparent improbability of his
having committed such a dreadful murder upon his
comrade without any known motive, and in the pre-
sence of another man (the man lying on the bed asleep).
Moreover, the boys would be back in a few minutes.
No doubt the case was one either of murder or suicide,
and if the act was the prisoner's it was a case of
murder without mitigation. But if the act was the
prisoner's, why did he allow his victim to leave the hut
alive? Again, the theory of suicide was probable,
because the deceased had at one time been addicted to
drink. The probability was that as soon as , the
the boys left the hut, the deceased took the razor in
some drunken fit or frenzy and committed suicide. If
it was the prisoner who got the razor down, it might
have been to shave himself (as soldiers shave at all times),
and the deceased might have seized it. That there was a
struggle there could be no doubt, but this was in the
attempts of the prisoner to prevent him from com-
mitting the rash act. This would account for the
struggle and the wounds, and the upsetting of the
table and the water-can—in fact, it would account for
everything, and such was the theory of the defence.
On the other hand, if the prisoner had meant to
murder the man, would he have used a razor? Would
he not rather have used his bayonet? As to the
second wound on the neck, the deceased, in a mad
frenzy, might have hacked himself twice; and as to
the wounds on the hand they might have been
caused by the prisoner in trying to wrest the weapon
from the hands of the deceased; and so of the wound
on the prisoner's thumb. All the circumstances, he
urged, were consistent with suicide, and none of
them inconsistent. Again, why had not the prisoner
feed to escape? As to Ins conduct in not giving an