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

THE STOUR'MME MMV'Elts

alarm, he was staggered and affrighted by the dreadful
scene he had just witnessed. As to the washing
it was natural enough that blood should drop upon
him in the struggle, and that he should seek to wash
it off; but if there was blood seen on his hands he
could not have washed them, and if conscious of guilt
he would have done mo. Then as to the act of the de-
teased in pointing out—as was suggested—the prisoner,
it was doubtful and ambiguous act, and on the theory
of suicide the deceased might have made this mere
gesture, meaning, "That is the man who knows of it,
and had a struggle with me." At all events, did the
dumb gesture of pointing at the prisoner necessarily.
mean he is my murderer?" The evidence was cir-
cumstantial, and the prisoner was called upon to ex-
plain a number of circumstances which, no
doubt, he would have been able to do if
he could be examined, as he could not be.
But the theory of suicide was what he had first
suggested. It might seem a strange and improbable
thing that his unfortunate comrade should all of a
sudden get up and commit suicide, but it was just as
improbable that the prisoner should all of a sudden,
without any apparent motive get up and murder his
comrade. From the nature Of the case it was not in
the power of the prisoner to call witnesses for his
defence, since no one was present but himself and the
sleeping man. In conclusion, he reminded the jury
that if they should convict, the penalty of the crime
was death; and if a mistake was made it would be
irrevocable, for which reason the prisoner was entitled
to the benefit of a doubt; and if the theory of suicide
had any probability the jury would gladly adopt it to
avert a painful alternative.
The learned Judge, in summing up the case to the
jury, observed that the prisoner had had the benefit of
counsel, and nothing was wanting that could be done
or said in his defence consistently with honour and
right feeling. The case was free from many difficul-
ties, for the sole question was whether the deceased
committed suicide or whether the prisoner murdered
1177 m, for of course, if the act was the prisoner's there
would be no doubt it was murder. He observed
that the counsel for the defence had had unrestricted
communication with the prisoner, and if he had
thought that delay could have been of any avail,
or would have enabled him to procure any evidence,
the trial might have been put off. He further
observed that the occurrence was recent and the
memory of the facts quite fresh; and, indeed, as to
the facts themselves there appeared to be no doubt,
and the question was only as to the concln-
sions to be drawn from them. The drunken soldier
lying fast asleep on the bed was as one not present, as
he was not conscious. The two boys were sent out of
the way by the prisoner, the deceased being left read-
ing. There was no evidence of any previous ill-will
between the men, though, of fours*, that was not
material if the jury were convinced that the act was
committed by the prisoner. It was an important fact
that the prisoner had his great coat on, and that the
man seen at the window had a great coat on, while
the deceased had not; and this was strong and cogent
evidence to show that the prisoner was the man seen
standing on the bed, and that he might have been
standing there in order to get at the razor.

A juror observed that it did not appear that there
was light by which the boy could see whether the man
at the window had a great coat on or a tunic.
The learned Judge thereupon recalled the boy, who
said the man he saw had a big. coat on, and this he saw
because there were gaslights in the room—two lights,
one on each side; and he saw the man clearly. The
boy, in answer to another juror, said he believed the
deceased had a red coat on. The other boy, being re-
called, also said he thought it was a red coat, and he
was sure it was not a greatcoat. He was quite sure
of that, and the deceased had no other coat except his
red coat and his greatcoat.
Another juror desired to know if the soldiers wore
any other coats; but the Sergeant-Major, being re-
called, stated that there were no other coats than either
a red coat or the greatcoat.

The learned Judge then resumed his summing-up,
and observed that, if this evidence was true, it seemed
to be conclusive to show that the prisoner was the
man seen standing on the bed, and that fact was so
important in the case that no pains were thrown away
which tended to make it clear. As to the theory Of
suicide, it would have been more probable if the
deceased had been at the time labouring, as he had
been, under delirium tremens or some incipient affec-
tion of that kind, but it appeared from the doctor's
evidence that the man was in good health and spirits
since he gave up drinking. As to the observation that
the prisoner, if he had meant to murder the man,
would have used a bayonet, the obvious answer was that
such a weapon would have caused an outcry, whereas a
razor drawn across the throat at once silenced speech
and prevented any cry. The deceased made signs for
paper and wrote upon it, and the question had arisen
whether it was admissible against the prisoner. He
was by no means certain that it was not evidence, but
if it was admitted and it was held inadmissible, then,
though on the other evidence the jury might be satisfied,
he would go forth acquitted. Therefore, all that was
in evidence was that the deceased called for paper and
wrote upon it. But when the deceased saw the prisoner,
several witnesses stated, he held up his arm and pointed
to him. Then the evidence of the surgeon was of great
importance, and if it led the jury to the conclusion that
it would be outrageous to common sense to suppose
that the wound in the throat was self-inflicted, then
they must not shrink from the conclusion to which this
inevitably pointed—that the wounds were inflicted by
the prisoner. There were many wounds—two on the
throat, several upon one hand, and several upon another
—and the wound whith caused death cut right through
the windpipe and all blood-vessels back to the bone of
the spine; and yet there was another wound at the back
of the neck in quite a different direction' not transverse,
but right down towards the collar-bone. Would a man in
committing suicide, either before or after cutting his
throat right through to the bone, also inflict such a
different kind of wound—a sort of chop right down to
the collar bone? Then there were the wounds
on both hands; were all these wounds likely
to be inflicted by the man upon himself, or
were they more likely to be inflicted by
another in the course of a struggle with him? It had
been urged that if the prisoner had inflicted the
wounds he would not have allowed the deceased to leave
the hut alive, and that he would have attemped to
escape. But he might have believed that the man
would die even sooner than he did, and as to escape at
that hour the gates would probably be closed • and then
he might, on the theory of guilt, have provided himself
with the theory of suicide. It was possible, of
course, that the prisoner might have witnessed a
suicide and ignorantly washed his bands to clear him-
self from suspicion; but the jury must not give way to
doubts or theories not reasonable.

A juror asked if it appeared that the deceased had
money about him.
The learned Judge said there was no evidence of it,
but in all probability, on the theory of murder, money
was not the motive. There might be a difficulty as to
motive, but if it was necessary to prove the motive for
a murder, more than one half of the murders Which
were committed would go unpunished, for it most
usually happened that the motive was unknown. The
thing was manifest that, if this was a case of suicide,
it must have been a most desperate one, and the
suicide then must have falsely charged his comrade
with his murder. That must have been the case if the
jury thought the deceased meant to point at the pri-
soner as his murderer; and it was difficult to adopt
any other conclusion. It might be difficult to discover
the motive for a murder, but it was not necessary to
do so, and it was the duty of the jury—a solemn duty
they owed to the prisoner on one hand, and to society
on the other—to give a verdict on the evidence, accord.
ing to the effect it had on their minds; and they need
fear no responsibility if only they gave their verdict
conscientiously and honestly, according to their con-
victions.

Before the jury withdrew,
The Foreman asked if it appeared that the prisoner
betted.
The learned Judge did not think it material.
The Foreman.—There must have been some motive,
lord.
The learned Judge, as the jvcry seemed to desire it,
recalled the Sergeant, who said, as had been stated
before, that the deceased betted, but not, that he was
aware of, the prisoner.
The jury then, at nearly six o'clock, retiredto consider
their verdict, taking with them the clothes of the
prisoner and the razor.
In about half an hour they returned into Court with
a verdict of Guilty.
The learned Judge passed sentence of death, telling
the prisoner that he could hold out no hopes to him,
and that he must prepare to meet his sentence.