The Express.
London, England, 1851-03-10 00:00:00

I hour with cardinals equally dead to every generous
emotion, and equally absorbed in an ignoble and
despicable egotism. (Cheers.)

THE DODDINGIIURST MURDER

VERDICT AND SENTENCE OF DEATH.
The proceedings in this extraordinary ease were
resumed at Chelmsford on Saturday morning at 8 o'clock,
at which hour Lord Chief Justice Campbell took his seat
on the bench.

The prisoner was then placed in the dock. He appeared
very downcast throughout the day, and sat with his head
buried in his chest, apparently absorbed in deep thought.
Mr. E. James, Q.C., and Mr. ltodwell, again attended WI
counsel for the Crown; and Mr. Clarkson, Mr. Bodkin, and
Mr. Hawkins, for the prisoner.

Mr. Clarkson then proceeded to address the jury for the
defence. Having expressed the deep anxiety he felt upon
the occasion, and entreated the jury to dismiss from their
minds all the prejudice which must almost, he said, natu-
rally be excited by a case of this description, he proceeded
to comment upon the evidence that had been adduced for
the prosecution. With regard to the medical testimony,
he entreated the jury to look at it very carefully, and he
said that although no one could doubt the great experience
and the extent of scientific knowledge possessed by Dr. Tay-
lor, still a good deal of his evidence was purely theoretical,
and it was possible that he might be mistaken, and therefore
he said evidence of that description ought not to have such
weight with a jury as testimony of a positive character.
He called their attention to a case of poisoning dis-
posed of ut the Central Criminal Court, in which
upon the medical evidence as to how long before the death
arsenic had been administered, that question was left to the
jury, and they returned a terdiet of guilty; but it was
afterwards discovered that the medical gentleman, although
a man of great experience and knowledge of his profession,
was certainly mistaken, and the woman was not executed,
and he urged upon the jury the possibility that the medical
witnesses were mistaken in the present instance. There
had been a most excessive degree of real imparted into the
case, and the 'adieu-officers had evidently done all they
could to hunt up evidence against the prisoner. A most
aggravated and dreadful crime was suggested to have been
committed, and of course ho could nut complain that all
proper endeavours should be made to detect the guilty party,
if guilt really existed; but, at the Mane time, a prisoner
ought to be dealt with fairly, and inn evidence ought to be
made use of but that which was legitimate and legal. The
learned counsel then commented at considerable length
upon the evidence of Inspector Coulson, and particularly
upon the fact of his having sworn originally that he had
carefully compared the piece of rope found in the prisoner's
box with that which was round the neck of the deceased,
and that they entirely corresponded. Ile said that this
statement turned out to be entirely false, and it was pe:-
teeny clear that if the two pieces of rope had been examined
it would have been seen immediately that they did nut cor-
respond, because they were twisted different ways, and
yet if it had happened that Coulson had died between
the first and second examinations his deposition would have
been legally admissible in evidence, and it would hare
gone to the jury as a fact, that the two pieces of rope cor-
responded, and the life of the prisoner might have been
sacrificed upon evidence which was not true. With regard
to the evidence of the constable Lerman, and the oinversas
tion he was represented to have had with the prisoner,
he said it appeared to him rather favourable to the pri-
soner than otherwise, for if he really had been the man
who committed the dreadful crime there could have been
no necessity for his inquiring how many times the rope
was round her neck, and the observation that he afterwards
made, " Well, I don't care, I did nut do it," would seem
to imply merely that if a crime had been committed
he was not the guilty party, and nothing more. Au to the
letter regarding the child, it seemed to him that if it was to
have any effect at all it was in favour of the prisoner. It
was suggested that the object in destroying this poor girl
WWI to relieve himself from the inconvenience of her being
in the family way ; hut, if he really believed that this letter
would exonerate him from all liability—and the evidence
went to show that this was the ease—then there was an en-
tire absence of motive for the commission of the crime. The
learned counsel then proceeded to observe upon the possi-
bility of the deceased hating destroyed herself, and,
while he admitted the extraordinary character of some of
the circumstances, he contended that it_ was impossible

for the jury to come to a positive conclusion upon' their
oaths that she did not commit suicide, and lie said he
should call medical witnesses, whose evidence he hoped
would influence the jury, and induce them to be of
opinion that ut all events there was a doubt upon the sub-
ject, and that the prisoner ought to have the benefit of that
doubt. 1k should also, he believed, be able to show them by
positive testimony how the prisoner employed his time on the
night iu question utter he had bud hisera in his own house,
and he should satisfy them that until past nine o'clock
on that night the prisoner could not have committed
the murder, if murder there was, and if he did this
he was certain the jury would not come to the
conclusion that the murder was committed after that hour
in the absence of all evidence on the part of the prosecution
to show how the deceased passed her time in the interval
between leaving her mother's cottage and the period in
question. The learned counsel concluded a very eloquent
and able address by stating that he should call before the
jury the witnesses ter the prisoner, and his life would then
be in their hands; he thanked God the responsibility was
with them, and he trusted Providence would guide them
to a righteous decision.
The following witnesses were then examined for the
prisoner :
Mr. John Thorpe said—l am a surgeon, and have been
in practice at Malden, in this county, for '27 years. I have
had a good deal of experience in cases of suicidal and hoini•
eithil strangulation, and, since the occurrence of a rather re-
markable ease in February last, I have directed my atten-
tion more particularly to the subject. I have heard the
evidence in this ease with regard to the manner in which
the deceased appeared to have been strangled, and there is
a doubt in my I.llilliOß whether it was not a case of suicide.
By Mr. James-1 agree with Dr. Taylor that any heavy
pressure on the trachea would produce immediate in-
sensibility. There must undoubtedly have been very great',
violence used in this case. The power to put the two
other coils of rope round the neck would depend a
great deal upon what part of the neck the pressure of the
brat coil rested. I have heard the evidence with ragard to
there being uo object used as a lever to tighten the rope, as
being confirmatory of the opinion that the case was not one
of suicide. In the case I have referred to, a person had put
a rope round the neck, and a piece of stick was then put in
and twisted, so as to act as a tourniquet, and the end of the
stick was found by the side of the party tucked into the
waistcoat, and by tlds means the rope was kept tightened
so as to cause death. I do not say that there is any
analogy between this case and that of the end of the rope
being found loose in a girl's hand.
Re-examined—l believe that in the case I have men-
tioned, after the rope had been twisted tight enough to
occasion death, the end of the stick gut where it was tuund
by accident.
The Lord Chief Justice—lf in addition to the state of the
rope you had discovered other marks of violence upon dif-
ferent parts of the body, would not that have made a great
deal of difference in your opinion ?
Witness—Undoubtedly it would.
The Lord Chief J ustice—lf you had heard that blood had
been found at some distance front the body, and that it did
nut ;appear to have flowed from it, would nut that make a
i difference ?

itness--Certainly, a very great difference.
Mr. Frederick Pollock—l am a surgeon in Hatton-
garden. I have been thirty years in practice, and I have
lately directed a good deal of my attention to cases of
suicidal and homicidal strangulation. and I have acted in
my professional capacity in many cases of strangulation.
Under all the circumstances of the present case, and the
evidence that has been adduced, 1 feel considerable doubt
whether the deceased did not destroy herself.
Dy Mr. James—l did not see the body. My opinion in
such a case would be very materially affected by surround-
ing circumstances. If 1 had found that the chest of the
deceased was black, as from a blow, or by strong pressure,
that would have made a great difference.
Mr. James—And the nose fattened to the face, by the
bead being forced violently against the ground ?
Witness—Yes, that would have been a very strong cir-
cumstauce to be taken into consideration.
Cross-examination continued—There must have been a
very great deal of violence indeed made use of to flatten
the nose, and occasion it to retain that form after death. I
agree with Dr. Taylor, that acurd placed so tight round the
throat as to cause laceration of the skin, must, by the first
coil, have produced immediate insensibility, and the blood
und bubbling from the nose were indications of very great
violence having been used. The laceration of the skin of
the neck, and the protrusion of the tongue between the
teeth, were likewise indications of great violence.
Dy Mr. Bodkin—l do not think the injuries are attribu-
table to the fall of a heavy full-grown person such as the
deceased was represented to be. I should be cautious in
coming to the conclusion, notwithstanding all I have heard,
that this was not the act of a determined suicide.

The Lord Chief Justice—l really do not understand what
you mean by that answer.
Witness—l am of opinion that the violence was not
gmater than might be occasioned by the act of a determined
suicide.

Susannah Hubbard said—l am the wife of the witness
Hubbard who was examined yesterday. 1 acted us house-
keeper at the prisoner's farm. I remember the night of the
12th of October. I should suppose the prisoner came home '
between five and six o'clock to his tea. That was the
usual tea-time. I have every reason to believe that ho
suckled the calves on this evening. We sill had tea together,
and I should say it lasted twenty minutes or more. Atter j
tea the prisoner changed his shoes and gaiters, and went up I
stairs, and I gut him a basket and he put some eggs in it. ;
He then went out. It was about half-past six or seven
o'ilock when he left the farm. We went to bed at eight
u'ilock, and I saw no more of the prisoner until six the
next morning. He was then attending to his cows, as usual.
Ile also went about the other business of the farm, and I
saw nothing at all unusual in his appearance. I tw•lieve he
wore the same corduroy trousers this morning that he had
on the previous evening, Ile brought some sugar home
v ith hint in the basket which he had purchased at Brent-
wool, _ -

Iwtac Gay—l am a carter in the service of Mr. Gay. On
the night of the 12th of October I was engaged in carting