The Northern Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1856-07-21 00:00:00

THE NORTHERN TIMES. LIVERPOOL, MONDAY.

acts of anger, passion, and cruelty, from which they
gathered the conclusion that he was insane. But could it
be supposed that a respectable person like Mrs. Jenkins
would allow her daughter to marry a lunatic? or did they
suppose that a pious and exemplary man like Mr. Chris-
topher Dove, the prisoner's father, would permit his son
to marry into such a fl.mily as that of airs. Jenkins, if
he was of unsound mind ? or would he have allowed him,
in that condition, to go alone to America? There could
be no doubt that the prisoner was often drunk, and
eccentric, but drunkenness and eccentricity were not
madness. It was not because the man was insane, but it
was because his life was in danger, that this absurd de-
fence was set up on his behalf. He submitted, that the
whole of the prisoner's antecedents exhibited a vicious
and uncontrolled temper, but that there had not been a
particle of evidence tendered to the jury to prove that he
was insane when he committed this atrocious crime.
Where was the mother of the prisoner ? where his
brothers and sisters, and who knew every phase of his
character? He knew that it would be an agonizing trial
to them, to bring thaw into a court of justice on such an
occasion. His mother was absent, not because she would
not make sacrifice to save the life of her child, but be-
cause she knew in her heart that she dare not come into
court, and swear that her son was mad. The argument
that the early attacks from which prisoner's wife suffered
were caused by hysteria and not by strychnine, was
blown to the winds by the circumstance that the prisoner's
counsel had not ventured to call a single medical man to
show that her symptoms were inconsistent with strychnine.
It had been said by the counsel for the prisoner that there
was nothing so encouraging in Palmer's case that he
should have attempted to follow his example. But what
were the facts ? Why, that at the very time when th
prisoner was reading the report of the inquest on Per'sain
victims at Rugeley, Dr. Taylor was reporting that he
could not detect strychnine in the body of John Parsons
Cook. This it was that encouraged the prisoner to do the
act. The extreme anxiety of the prisoner to prevent a
post mortem examination was a feature in the case preg-
nant with suspicion against him. It was true he af er-
wards gave his consent to the post mortem examination,
but he delayed it as long as he could, because he believed
Dr. Alfred Taylor's statement that, in his opinion, strych-
nine could not be discovered more than fourteen hours
after death. The learned geutlomen concluded a powerful
address by calling on the jury, as they valued their oaths
and what they owed to society, to discharge their duty
fearlessly and independently.
Mr. Baron BRAMWELL commenced his summing up a
few minutes before four o'clock. He said : Gentlemen of
the jury, you have now heard all the evidence, and the
addresses of counsel on both sides. You have now to
hear me, and then to consider and give your verdict. I
need not repeat to 'oil that you have a most important
duty to perform, for upon your verdict depends the life of
the prisoner at the bar. You have also entrusted to your
care the interests of public justice, and the interests of
society at large. If you return a verdict of acquittal
when you ought to return one of guilty, you do society
an injury and a wrong. But if, in order to vindicate
society, you find a man guilty when he ought to be
acquitted, that man's life is then taken away when it
ought to have been preserved. Your duty is therefore a
most responsible one. I hardly know, for my part, which
of the two errors would be the most fatal—that an
innocent man should suffer, on the one hand, or that a
man guilty of such a dreadful crime as this should go
unpunished. Gentlemen, I must join in the recommenda-
tion of counsel on both sides that you should dismiss
from your minds anything which you have heard of this
case, and any opinion that you may have formed upon it,
because yeti cannot have heard the circumstances of the
case in so complete a form as you have now heard them here.
The question which you will have to form an opinion on
will be this:—The prisoner being charged with the
crime of wilful murder, the defence is, that if he did
the deed he ought to be acquitted on the ground of insa-
nity. Now, you will have to determine this. Did the
deceased die from the administration of strychnia, and
was the prisoner the person who administered it ; and if
so, was his state of mind when he administered it such as
to exempt him from the consequences of this act ? It is
mindsfor t h et
hp
ar ots
tehceu tdieoene
at os
emd adki
eedofurte
mt o
stthreyseahtni
afa, catnido nt of fa ytyour
wp
counselraissoinn prisoner
such administeredteshanthat i f iht
e;
dida d
administer
i s for tthhee
poison,
cwondition of mind at the time as to exempt
him from the consequences of the act. Now, gentlemen,
the rule I shall lay down is this, that every man is pre-
sumed to be responsible for his actions until the contrary
is proved to the satisfaction of the jary. That is to say,
that at the time the accused committed the act charged
against him he was labouring under such a defect ofreason or
disease of the mind as not to know the nature and quality
of the act he was doing, or if he did know its nature and
quality that he did not know he was doing that which was
wrong. If he was conscious that it was an act which he
ought not to do, and that it was contrary to law, and
that he would be punishable, if detected, you will
have to consider this view of the case, and to say whether
you are of opinion that the prisoner had sufficient know-
ledge to be aware that he was doing wrong. It' you should
be of opinion that he was labouring under a partial delu-
sion only, and was not in other respects insane, he must
be considered in the same situation, as far as responsibility
is concerned, as though there was no delusion at all.
That is the law. It is not for me to justify the law, or for
you to approve of it. We are bound to administer the
low as we find it. You have sworn to administer it to the
best of your judgment, and even if you may think that the
law is hard upon the prisoner, still it is your duty to obey
it, and seek the improvement of it not by violating it and
your own consciences, but by appealing to the legislature
as you can do, having the power of selecting representa-
tives. But so long as it is the law we are bound to obey
it. Do not, however, suppose that I doubt the reason-
ableness of the law I have laid down, for to me it is most
reasonable. Now, suppose a case. A man labours under
a delusion, and thinks I have done him a wrong, and
he waylays bn the road and murders me, can it be
conceived that the present state of the law will excuse his
acts on the ground that he was not an accountable being ?
I must tell you, gentlemen, that such is not the law. Why
should his delusion, for which I assume there would be no
foundation, excuse him in the commission of the crime ?
Again, we have heard of some people imagining that some
parts of their body was made of glass, and under this
delusion committed various kinds of crimes. Well, sup-
posing a man robs and shoots another under the influence
of this delusion, is he to be acquitted because he happens
to have got hold of some insane notion about some part of
his body ? Punishment, gentlemen, is not administered
Out of revenge, but in order to correct the vicious, and to
hold him up as an example to others. If you punish a
man who is not accountable for his actions, you can do no
good, either to the individual or to society, but if you
punish a man who has done wrong knowingly, the next
time temptation comes upon him to exescise his propensity
for evil he remembers the punishment, and is probably
deterred from repeating the offence, whilst you also deter
others, who have the same propensity, from exercising it.
But, if you announce to the world that a man of strong
animal propensities may thieve, and murder with impu-
nity, the more likely will you be to encourage the vicious
to do so, the less likely will it be that others will be de-
deterred from the commission of such offences, and the
less probability will there be that the true interests of
society will be consulted. The learned judge then com-
menced to read over the evidence on the part of the
prosecution, commenting upon it as he proceeded. Having
gone through the evidence offered on the part of the
crown, he gave the jury a resume of the case, expressing
an opinion that the evidence showed that the deceased
had died from the administration of strychnia, and that
it would be for the jury to say whether the prisoner had
administered it, and if so, was he in such a state of mind
as to render him accountable for his conduct at the time
he committed the act. [The court was here again
adjourned for a quarter of an hour.] His Lordship then
went through the evidence offered on behalf of the
prisoner, and at the commencement, he observed that he
did not know whether the jury understood the character
of the evidence, but for himself, he must confess, that he
could not reconcile it with the consistency of the prisoner's
insanity. Referring to the evidence of Dr. Caleb Wil-
liams and other medical witnesses, he remarked that the
jury had no right to receive the evidence of those witnesses
as to the state of mind of the prisoner as the general
opinion of the Profession.
Mr. Bliss here remarked that the prosecution might
have called other medical evidence to rebut their testi-
mony.
His Lordship said undoubtedly they might, but as they
had not thought proper to do so he must only take the
case as he found it. If the jury could understand rationally .
the character of the medical evidence offered on behalf of
the prisoner, they would, of course, be guided by it in
some measure in considering their verdict. His Lordship,
in continuation, read the evidence of Dr. Caleb Williams.
This witness stated that he believed the prisoner's state-
ment that he had sold himself to the devil was a genuine
statement. Now he (the learned judge) confessed that he
did not set the same value on this portion of the witness's
evidence as the jury perhaps might. As another proof
of the prisoner's insanity, this witness stated that he
seemed to have brooded over the poisoning of his wife for
some time, and that this brooding over the intended com-
mission of the offence would necessarily induce a condition
of mind amounting to moral insanity. Now, he must
remind the jury that the same argument applied to many
criminals who were brought to justice for the commission
of small offences. There could be little doubt that crimi_
nals of this caste had, in many instances, brooded over
their crimes before they were actually committed, but
still, in point of law, such characters had never, as a
general rule, been regarded as insane. The witnesses had
also stated that the prisoner's state of mind was such that
his uncontrollable impulse placed him in this position, that
he could not refrain from doing wrong. because the temp-
tation was too strong for him ; but if the jury believed
the theory of these medical men, it would amount to this,
that they wished to remove one great check to committing
crime which now existed, and which applied more parti-
cularly to the cases of weak minded men. The state of
the law, as regarded weak minded men was intended to
operate as a check upon their committing crime, and con-
sequently to operate against temptation; but if the theory
of these medical witnesses was to be received as sound and
desirable to act upon, this check ought to be removed, and
the consequence would be, as he (the learned judge)
thought, that greater temptation to the commission of
crime would be offered, and the effects upon society would
be injurious and dangerous. Having gone through the
evidence, his lordship said it would be for the jury to say,
taking all the facts into consideration, whether, in law,
supposing them to believe that the prisoner had adminis-
tered the poison, he knew at the time that what he was
doing was wrong, and that, if detected, he would be. pun-
ished for it : and if he laboured under a delusion, was there
any grounds for believing that such delusion was founded
on fact. Their duty was a most solemn one, and in the
consideration of their verdict they might perhaps take a
long time. He was afraid that he had occupied an unusu- ,
ally long period in laying the evidence before them, but
the erious nature of the ease demanded from him that he I

I should carefully bring before them all the facts and
circumstances. He had endeavoured so to sum up the
case as to present those topics before the jury which
were in favour of the prisoner, as well as those which
were against him. It was his duty to lay before them
the law, but not to give them any opinions of his own.
It was for the jury to act on their own judgment, and be
guided by that alone. If the prisoner should be found
guilty, it would be by a jury of his country, and not by
the judge. Let them not be led by him. Judge of the facts,
and the law of the case, as he endeavoured to place it
before. them. Weigh well the nature of the evidence which
they had heard and do not come to a hasty conclusion.
Probably they would be anxious to retire. If they did so
he advised them ,to deliberate seriously and dispassion.
ately, because the life of the prisoner was in their keepinw.
If they should be of opinion that he was guilty they would
say so by their verdict, whatever their feelings or dispo-
sition might be. If, on the other hand, they should come
to the conclusion that the charge was not fairly and fully
brought home to the prisoner, it would be their duty to
acquit him. His lordship concluded his address at ten
O'clock, having occupied six hours in its delivery.
The jury then retired to consider their verdict, and at
a quarter to eleven returned into court.

The Clerk of Arraigns : Gentlemen of the jury, have
you agreed upon your verdict ?

The Foreman : We have. We find the prisoner
6,* tr TY, Tr, but recommend him to mercy on the ground
of his defective Intellect."

The learned Judge, having pug n the black cap, said :
William Dove, you have been found gu;!!:y of the crime of
wilful murder. You have been found guilty upon evi-
dence which must have been clear to the mina of every
person who has heard it. Crime in all cases of ii;!q
nature is of a very serious kind, but in your case it is
much worse than in ordinary cases. You have murdered
your wife, a woman whom you had sworn to cherish, to
and to preserve. It is a murder under circum-
stances of ektradrdinary aggravation. In my mind the jury
have done their duty to their country in the verdict
which they have returned. In repelling the defence which
has been made in your behalf, they have shown a firm
determination to do their duty, but in the recornrnenda•
tion with which their verdict is accompanied, they have
yielded to a natural impulse. That recommendation shall
be forwarded to the proper quarter, and if it be concurred
in, your life will be Spared; but it is my duty to pass
upon you, not my sentence, but the sentence of the law.
cannot hold out to you any hope that the recommenda-
tion of the jury will be attended to, and, therefore, I
implore you to employ the short time allotted to you in
this world, in preparing for that solemn change which
awaits you, just as though no such recommendation on
your behalf had been made. I have no doubt, from what I
have heard, that you have a capacity for receiving religioal
consolation, and I do hope that you may now employ your
time in endeavouring to benefit by its consolations. As I have
already said, the recommendation on your behalf will be
forwarded to the authorities, but I cannot encourage you
in the hope that will have any avail. My duty is to pass
upon you that solemn sentence of the law. That sentence
is, that you be taken from hence to the prison from which
you came, and from there to some place of execution,
there to be hanged by the neck until you are dead, and
that your body afterwards be buried within the precincts
of the prison in which you shall have been confined, and
may the Lord have mercy on your soul.
The prisoner received both the verdict and sentence
without evincing the slightest emotion, and left the dock
with a firm step.

POLICE COURT.-SATURDAY,

(BEFORE MR. MANSFIELD.)

A RUFFIANLY CAR DRlVER.—Charles falter, a car
driver, in the employment of Mr. Morton, Dale-street,
was charged by a boy named John Lomax, the driver of
a spring cart, belonging to Mr. Peacock, for having
assaulted him. It appeared that on Friday evening the
boy was driving his cart down Byrom-street, and was
walking quietly along, when the prisoner came down
Shaw's-brow, driving his car rather rapidly. On
coming in right angles with the cart, the prisoner drew
up, and without any provocation commenced lashing
the boy most furiously. A policeman who saw the
transaction, took him into custody, and stated that he
had acted in a very ruffianly manner to the boy. Mr.
Mansfield said the conduct of the prisoner was brutal,
and he would fine him 10s, and costs, or to be committed
for one month.

STABBING BY FEMALEB.—Bridget Clinton, and Mary
Anne Clinton, her sister-in-law, were charged with
having committed a violent assault on a woman named
Catherine Holt, in Saltney-street. Mr. Chilton and Mr.
Bluck defended the prisoners. The complainant said, on
Friday afternoon she was walking in the street, when
the prisoners and another woman (not in custody)
attacked her; one of them had a hand brush, with
which she struck her violently, and the third woman
had a knife in her hand, and with this she was wounded
very severely in the arm. She had several cuts, and the
doctor who attended her said these wounds were
of a very serious description. On cross examina-
tion by Mr. Bluck, the complainant admitted that
there was a general fight between them all, and
she had hold of the hair of one of the prisoners, and that
she beat her ; also, she could not tell who struck her
with the knife, but she saw it in the hand of the woman
who was not now present. Mr. Bluck, on this, con-
tended that there was no evidence to convict the prison •
ers. It was clear, he said that the woman had been
seriously injured, but from her own evidence it was
equally clear his clients were not the persons who
indicted the wound. He contended that they must be
discharged. They would be forthcoming at any time to
answer any charge that might be preferred against them.
Mr. Man,field did not think the evidence sufficient to
sustain the case against the prisoners, and discharged
them.

THE CHARGE OF SCUTTLING A SHIP.—John Town, who
had been remanded on the above charge, was brought
up. Mr. Bluck, for the prisoner, asked for a further
adjournment, in consequence of the absence of Mr.
Tindal Atkinson, who was counsel in the case, and Mr.
Harvey, for the prosecution, consenting, the case was
allowed to stand over to one o'clock this day.
(BEFORE MESSRS. R. GLADSTONE AND BENN.)
A DIGGER ROBBED OF £1,645.—A young man named
Timothy Murphy, a native of Queenstown, who had
just arrived from Australia by the Earl of Sefton,
charged two women named Margaret .Al'Kenzie, and
Jane Anderson, on suspicion of having stolen £45 in
gold, and two drafts on London for £BOO each. Wilson
and Laycock, two detectives, who had the
prisoners in custody, said they were informed on
Friday morning of the robbery, which took place in
Banastre-street the previous night. They went to a
house in Byrom-terrace, Byrom-street, where they got
the two prisoners. They asked M'Kenzie if she had
any money P and she replied she had not. They pro-
ceeded to search the place, when they observed M'Kenzie
take something from under her dress and throw it
behind her. This proved to be a purse, which Wilson
picked up, and asked her what it contained ? and she
replied £6, which she got for her furniture that she sold,
to send her daughter to America. The purse contained
eight sovereigns and the prisoner gave various accounts
of how she came by it, There was no money found on
Anderson, and the only evidence against her was, that
Mr. Murphy was under the impression that he saw her
in the house where he was robbed. Mr. Bluck, who
defended the prisoners, urged that this was not sufficient
to detain her, and the magistrates agreeing in that view
of the case, discharged her, In reply to Mr. Bluck, the
officers said they had not got any one to identify the
purse or money ; Mr. Murphy did not claim either, as
he knew nothing of the purse, and could not identify
the gold. Mr. Bluck strongly contended that the
woman ought to be discharged. Mr. Clough said he
would produce evidence to show that she handed several
sovereigns out through a window to her friends, and that
she had not got the coin honestly. He asked for a remand,
as he said he would be able to prove something
additional. The officers said they knew who had the
drafts on London, but could not yet catch that party ;
hut they were sure to do so in a short time. Payment
of the drafts had been stopped. Murphy said he had
been at the " diggings " for some time, where he made a
trifle of " tin," and then went to Melbourne and entered
into businees, where he realised the remainder; and
now he had lost all. The magistrates said that was the
inevitable consequence of his own folly, in going to the
house he did in a state of drunkenness. The woman
was then remanded.

BIRKENHEAD POLICE COURT.-SATURDAY,

(BEFORE MB. JACKSON AND MR. BRYANT.)

A RAILWAY CASE.—A gentleman, who was represented as
a commercial traveller, was summoned for having travelled in
a railway carriage, from Chester to Birkenhead, without
having one of the company's tickets in his possession. It
appeared that lie had taken a return ticket on the previous
day, which he imagined would ho available to retur❑ with at
any time, but in that be was mistaken, having, by order of the
court, to pay the fare, 2s 6d, and was fined lOs and costs.

E A MILITARY D saarioN.—A Cork paper says : "tin
officer of the 39th Regiment arrived in Cork from Malta last
week, in charge of some invalids, and in coming up th,e
river the Quartermaster-General noticed in him a breach of
military regulations, and placed him under arrest. Ile was
sent to his room, but on Wednesday he broke his ayaest and
absconded. He has not been since heard of."
ITALIAN BRIGANDS.—We read in the IJilan Gazette, of
the 12th instant :—" Michell, the guard of the mail coach
proceeding from Mantua to Milan, was attacked to-day
by twelve or fourteen malefactors, who broke open the
iron chest and carried away all the money it contained.
This daring outrage occurred within two miles of Cremona.
The carriage, with the guard and postillion, was brought
into the fields to the distance of a mile by the banditti,
chiefs
who were armed with guns and pistols, and had handke -
over thcir faces to disguise themselves,