The Sun.
London, England, 1863-08-19 00:00:00

jury, telling them they must not be prejudiced against the
prisoner because he was first apprehended upon a more
serious charge, but must look at the case as it stood before
them according to the evidence, With regard to the con-
duct of the Government, he thought it had been very fair
throughout the whole proceedings.
The jury then retired, and in a few minutes returned into
court with a verdict of guilty on the two first counts.
The Common Sergeant, addressing the prisoner, said he
had been convicted after a most patient hearing, and he
certainly concurred in the verdict. His conduct throughout
had been most infamous, and there was only one thing which.
could lie said in palliation, and that was his youth. The,
Common Sergeant then sentenced him to two years' impri-
sonment with hard labour.

The prisoner in the-moat cool manner in the world then
asked whether he might be allowed to see his legal adviser,
to sEe what steps could be taken on his behalf, as he was
quite innocent.

The Common Sergeant said he had nothing to do with
that.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

NORTHERN CIRCUIT.—LIVEItPOOL, AUG. 18.
CRIMINAL COURT.
(Before Mr. Justice Blackburn).
Jose Maria Alvan z, a Spanish sailor, aged 22, was in-
dicted for having, at Liverpool, on the 12th May, feloniously
and of his malice aforethought, killed and murdered one
James Harrison. He was also charged with feloniously
wounding one Henry Cohen, with intent to murder him.
Mr. Conway and Mr. A. Peel appeared for the prosecu-
tion; Mr. Charles Russell defended the prisoner.
It appeared from the statement of the learned counsel for
the prosecution, and from the evidence of the witnesses
called, that en the evening of the 12th of May, about a
quarter past nine o'clock, the unfortunate deceased man, in
company with two other men, named Cohen and Howell,
was proceeding down Old Hall-street, in the direction of
the Exchange. They had been together about a quarter of
an hour in a publichouse, and, according to the evidence of
Cohen and Howell, they were perfectly sober. When nearly
opposite Faz Aeries,- street they met the prisoner, and
Cohen accidentally jostled against him. There was no pre-
tence for saying that there was an assault on his part; it
was purely accidental, So far from being intentional, or im-
plying any wish to offend, the moment he had done it
Cohen turned round and begged the prisoner's pardon.
The prisoner said some words in Spanish, and immediately
pulled out a dagger and stabbed Cohen twice—first in the
breast, and afterwards, Cohen turning round to escape from
him, he stabbed him again in the back. The prisoner then
went across the street, and Harrison, the deceased man,
immediately followed him. Harrison caught him somewhere
near a breadshop kept by a person named Simpson, and
then the prisoner stabbed Harrison twice, inflicting the two
stab wounds, one of them mortal, in the belly. There could
be no question that in this case Harrison was perfectly jus-
tified, because all he did was his bounden duty to do.
When he saw the offence which had been described com-
mitted on Cohen it was his duty, if possible, to arrest the
offender, and therefore any act done to him in the execu-
tion of that duty was clearly unjustifiable on the part of the
prisoner, and would be no defence to the charge of murder.
Harrison fell down, and the prisoner then crossed the street
and made for Pazakerley-street. There were three women
standing there. One of them called out to him, "
villain, what have you done ?" He le ade no reply, but
walked up to another woman who was standing close by,
and having said in Spanish, " Come here," he took hold of
her apron and deliberately wiped the bloody dagger on it,
after which he walked down the street. The learned coun-
sel felt it his duty to call the special attention of the jury to
the act, because it appeared to him to show very great cool-
ness and very great deliberation on the part of the prisoner.
He was followed down Lancelot's-hey, and was there lost
sight of. It appeared that he went to the hoarding-house
where he had been in the habit of stopping, kept by a Spa-
niard and his wife, named Antonio and Maria Bargus. The
prisoner there entered in an excited state and changed his
dress. When asked what was the matter with him he said
he had fought four Englishmen in the street and bad used
his knife. It seemed that the prisoner left the boarding-
house about 7 o'clock that evening, and returned, appa-
rently very much out of breath, a little after a quarter past
9. In point of fact, the time of his return exactly coincided
with the time that the murder was alleged to have taken
place, He had on at the time a blue shirt and a scarf or
muffler, which would be produced before them. Ho said to
Bargus in Spanish, "Antonio, pardon me for what I have
done." Bargus asked what was the matter ; and the pri-
soner replied, "I have come from Oldhall-street, after
having stabbed one Englishman." Bargus said, "Have
you used your knife ?" He replied, "Yes*" " Have you
killed him ?" inquired Bargus, to which the prisoner re-
plied, "I don't know." He added that he had fought with
four Englishmen, and wounded four of them. He then took
off the blue shirt and the muffler, which would be proved
by several witnesses to have been the dress in which he was
at the time the offence was committed. He went away with
his dress so changed, saying that "he would go to his girl."
It appeared that he did go to a girl of whom he had some
knowledge, and he was taken into custody on the following
day. When arrested, he said that ho had been at a coffee-
houee from d o'clock that evening until 11 o'clock, and
that he was not the guilty party. Now, that was clearly.
! untrue, because, as had been already stated, it
would be proved by the evidence of the boarding-
housekeeper that hd only left their house at 7 o'clock, and
returned immediately after the time when the offence was
committed. There would be some slight discrepancy—as
might be easily expected, considering the time of night and
the natural excitement which would exist among parties wit.
nessing this
dreadful transaction—with regard to the dress
the prisoner was wearing at the time. One witness would say
that he was wearing a blue, another that it was a blue and
whiteshirt; one that he had a cap on with a peak, and another
that he had no cap on at all. The learned counsel said that
he would be able, however, to prove the identity beyond
all doubt. It appeared to him that the real question for
them to consider was not whether or not the prisoner com-
mitted the deed, but what was the quality of that deed, as-
suming it to have taken place. The deceased was picked up
andtakenwihentroe his
Simpson's shop, and thence removed to the
hospital,wounds were examined, and where he
died. The medical man who attended the deceased would
be called before the jury, and he would give a description
of the nature of the wounds, and would state that beyond
all question those wounds were the cause of death. The
learned counsel then submitted that in point of law the
homicide of the deceased, committed under these circum-
stances, amounted to the crime of murder, and was not
manslaughter.
The learned counsel for the defence, contended, first, on
the evidence, that the identity of the prisoner with the man
who had stabbed the deceased had not been satisfactorily
established ; and, secondly, that all the circumstances of the
original quarrel were probably not before the jury, and it
was difficult to say how far the prisoner had been provoked
before he used the knife he wore, and, as a foreigner, igno-
rant of ourlanguage, he was probably not able to understand
having directed the jury
the conduct of the men who jostled him, or their apology.
murder and manslaughter,
directeda tHiso
tLh
eo
themrddsishtiitpno9c takeitnioasuimbnetmtowi consideration i ration, the circumstances
attending the first part of the quarrel, and also how far they
might think a foreigner, unacquainted with our language
apnecloPtloer might perhaps be more dis-
fancy himself endangered, than
circumstances leave been the case with
pa no sdedt
mighthtueo
nthda habits
tt
ohs f
feoesfnaocmee
u,r
ieHistoLhourdmshanipfrailty, was not so to human
remarked, however, that the
law, though
Englishman
lenient
ferocity; and if they were of opinion that the provocation
was not sufficient to reduce the crime to manslaugter, then
it was their duty as a jury to find a verdict of murder, and not
of manslaughter. Of course they would have first to satisfy
themselves as to the identity of the prisoner as the person
who committed the offence charged in the indictment ; and
with regard to that they would have to weigh carefully the
evidence of the various witnesses. It they were satisfied
that the prisoner knew that he was about to inflict a wound
under such circumstances end with such an instrument as

to show that he contemplate-d doing grievous bodily harm,
-
and was reckless as to whether death ensued or not, then
the crime could not be reduced to manslaughter. In con-
clusion, he would say to them that they should perform
their duty carefully, and, while they were called upon to do
their duty firmly to justice, they were carefully to consider
if there was anything in the case which led them to think
that it did not amount to murder, and give the prisoner the
benefit of it. Were they satisfied that the prisoner inflicted
the wounds, having received such provocat ion as might take
away from the act what the law called malice, and reduce
the crime from murder to manslaughter? The jury would,
he hoped, consider the question calmly and carefully, with-
outof the consequences, but honestly doing their
duty, for the consequences were the act of the law, and
thinging
not their act. If they thought the prisoner had not been
made out to be the man who had indicted the wounds, then,
he need scarcely say, they would acquit him altogether
but it they thought he was the man, the question lay be-

tween murder and manslaughter.
Ile jury, having retired, returned shortly before 5 o'clock
with a verdict of guilty, coupled with a recommendation to

mercy.

His Lordship---Upon what grounds, gentlemen ?
The Foreman—On account of his being a foreigner, and
not understanding the English language.
His Lordship—I understand you to mean, gentlemen,
that although you do not think that sufficient to justify you
in saying that it mitigated the cffenee from murder to man-
slaughter, yet it is a matter which somewhat palliates the
offence?

The Foreman—That is so, my Lord.
The usual proclamation having been made, his Lordship
assumed the black cap, and, addressing the prisoner, said,
—You have been found guilty by tho verdict of the jury,
after a patient consideration, of the crime of wilful murder,
and it now only remains for me to do that which the law lin-
poses upon me to do—to pass sentence upon you. The jury
have recommended you to mercy. That recommendation I
will forward to the proper authorities; but from the nature
of the crime you have cemmit'cd, I would not recommend
you to e;ntcr,ain any hopes that that recommendation will
be carried into street by hor Majesty's Govrrinacnt. upon
that I have not the power to decide, and I must now pass
upon you—having no °Ulu- alterniVive—ib 3 sentence of the
1.;;;,,c xa-ar.4r, tkca i,:cc,-;;;;La iG