The Sun.
London, England, 1837-12-01 00:00:00

CRIMINAL COURT-(THIS DAY.)

OLD COURT.
(Before Baron PARKE and Mr. Justice PARKE. )
MURDER OF RANDALL.— William Fisher was indicted for
the wilful murder of James Randall, on the 3d of November
last, in the parish of St. George, Hanover-square, by inflicting
upon him, with a knife, a wound in the left side, of which he
languished and died.
The prisoner pleaded not guilty.
Mr. BODKIN stated the case for the prosecution, and called
the following witness.

George Freeman deposed that he was a drayman in the em-
ployment of Combo and Delafield, the brewers. On Friday,
Nov. 3, between one and two o'clock, he was in Davis-street,
Mount-street, and saw a man beating another with a short
stick. Identifies the prisoner at the bar as the person who had
the stick ; observed the stick drop from the prisoner's hand ;
he then saw him put his hand in his coat pocket, and draw a
knife from it ; he stabbed the man whom he had been
beating with it. The deceased walked a little distance, and
exclaimed that he was stabbed. Witness went forward with
a fellow-servant of his, named Fosberry, to take him into
custody. Asked him why he had stabbed the man, and
where the knife was. He answered, "In my pocket."
Witness then put his hand into his pocket and drew out
from it a table-knife. Gave the knife to a constable.—(The
knife was here produced, and identified by witness.) When
witness saw the parties first, there was a sort of scuffle between
them. .

Cross-examined by Mr. PHILLIPS.—WhiIe prisoner was
beating the deceased with the stick, and when he used the
knife, he appeared greatly excited.
Henry Fosberry deposed that he was along with Freeman
when this occurrence happened. His evidence was in every
respect similar to that of the last witness.
Mr. Stafford John Berkeley deposed that he was house sur-
geon at St. George's Hospital. The deceased was brought to
the Hospital between two and three o'clock on Friday, Nov. 3.
There was a flesh wound on his left side, between the tenth
and eleventh ribs. He was fast sinking from loss of blood, and
died about a quarter past six in the afternoon of the following
day. Was present at the post mortent examination. Described
the appearance which the body presented. Has no doubt that
the wound in the man's side was the cause of his death.
Peter Hay deposed that lie was constable of the parish of
St. George, Hanover square. On Friday, Nov. 3, the prisoner
was delivered into his charge. He told witness the reason
he had stabbed Randall was, that lie had taken unnatural
liberties with his son, and that he had only done what a father
and an Englishman would have done under similar circum-
stances. Ile also said that he never saw the deceased until
about two minutes before he stabbed him, when he was pointed
out to him.
Charles Meredyth deposed that he knew the deceased, who

to the Ist
had lodged in his 'Joust, nearly eight months iletvnas a single
of November. He was a valet out of place. Hew
ces occurred.
man, and aged about 40 years. Some eircurnstanitieb
excited
a short time previous to the Ist of November W
the eight
his suspicions with respect to his conduct. During
the ha.
months he lived with him six or seven youths were 'll
bed -room.
bit of calling on him, and they always went to in the
They generally called early in the morning
evening. Remembered a youth about 15, with a In copse'
coming to him on the evening of the Ist Novembento
object
quence of his suspicions being aroused with respect
s:!1, art_
of these visits, he proceeded up stairs to the deceased's 5 k
d to I°-
ment in order to watch what occurred. AtterliPfiel_A
through the key-hole, but found that it was mui e"
Illediatell
The door was locked ; heard whispering, and
dn3escribe the
burst in the door. Witness here proceeded to
the details
scene which he witnessed in the bedroom, but nine)
or
rivieartye on him,
of his evidence are not fit to meet the public eye. „mine)
fell on hi 2 knees, and Legged that he would not take
n
wo--
custody, saying that if he did not inform on hirn,.:nhe
_g
u°the
give him £lOO. Attemp h
ted to seize him, and d
ranm
scuffle which took place between them, the boy and
nintatirhse. m e
aFnotlilmo we eßda
nquicklyc
eiendeodridne
ffetcoti
ngh
is detain e
soiapsheir.:
securing the boy, he informed him that his name was rola the
and that he was the son of the prisoner at the bar. _ if he
next evening the prisoner called on him, and asked himutio
knew any of the family of the deceased. To this q de,,
witness made no reply. The prisoner appeared muchaie the
jetted, and shed tears abundantly. He saw him agars of
next morning, when he asked him if he had seen any
0 d
do
Randall since ; and on his replying not, said that he wo thee°
everything in his power to apprehend him. During
visits he appeared to be in a state of the greatest misery
Mr Dyer, the Magistrate, was examined, and
he went to St. George's Hospital to take the dying -a
of Randall. He was toO weak to sign it. at
The declaration was then put in and read. It statedd
the object of the boy's visit to the deceased was to get
of a disease under which he was then labouring. n Clarg"-
Mr. William Mane Tracy, a surgeon, residing 1 _ nor-
street, deposed, that in consequence of the statement liound
ing in Randall's declaration, he examined the body, n,__ was
no appearance of the disease under which it was said he
labouring. ri-
f the p
statedd claratie'l
Mr. C. PHILLIPS addressed the Jury on behalf
sower, and said, that although under ordinary etl case
stances he felt the law to be imperative, yet in thisseocr
lie was prepared to call for the full acquittal of the Pclother
at the bar. He appealed to them as fathers, Iv' not,
under the horrifying circumstances of this case, there %casco.
if not a justification, at least a strong palliation of the fled
duct of the unhappy prisoner. It could not be eeeLincdi-
for a moment that the fatal act was the result of P,reedbf
tation. Frantic at the seduction of his child, overwheilp the
a sense of shame and disgrace, and unable to appeal T so
laws of his country—for let it be remembered that DYt of
doing, he would involve his child in the punislimFf the
a capital offence; he is pointed out the seducer,'" fay
street, and in 'a paroxysm of resentment ahu.he in-
he wreaks upon him his vengeance. The law excuses iiior
jured husband who, in a moment of passion, slays the P?_,,e of
of his bed : but what analogy was there between the ehwhad
adultery—serious as it was—and that nameless sin which be
been committed in this case? There was no exact limit _
defined by human laws where passion ended and reasZ,as
aimed her sway. The Jury must put themselves, as fac•
possible, in the situation of the prisoner, and judge him
ccording to the Christian principle) as they would wish •
judged themselves. allea
Sir George Clerk (the Queen's ple, sician) was then e the
and examined by Mr. Clarkson. Previously, howevea_r!g
re-
prisoner was allowed to retire for a few minutes. On lel ea
torn into Court, Sir George stated that the prisoner. had bail,
in his service for a year and a half. He had been before j
the service of Dr. Goodge, an eminent physician, who vateal
him very highly. He was much more respectable than 11!d,
in persons of his situation in life. He was never intoxicate
and never lost sight of propriety of conduct.
Mr. John Alaudsley, surgeon, had known the prisoner
of
in the service of Dr. Goodge, and had opportuniiiesehie,
observing his conduct. He was exceedingly respect
and uniformly well conducted in all the relations of
rge
; Dr. Ferguson, Dr. Roebuck, Mr. Tracey, Mr. Ge%)
Ashby, Mr. Newman, (the job contractor of Regent-sue:oer
▪ Mr. C. Walker, and several other witnesses, gave the rie 0.
a most excellent character for kindness of disposition, bum
ity, and general respectability and propriety of conduct. :tit
yeral of them spoke particularly, to his affectionate CO'n'
towards his family.
Mr. Justice PARK, in summing up, said, he believed th°
long
this case had never occurred before, in the whole of his ,01
legal experience. And, undoubtedly the law acquitted led
of murder, if in the first transport of passion he nut
an adulterer in the act of criminality with his wife. hat
then if it was done deliberately, the crime was murder. .1
• he (Mr. Justice Park) considered the law applicable to tube
case. The strong point was that the prisoner did not seeutircl
offence committed, but had acted upon the report of a t" •
party. There was certainly great provocation in this ear;
but it was his opinion, and one in which his Learned Bretube
. concurred, that there was nothing to reduce the offence of
prisoner t less than muder.
The Jury asked leaver to retire. They were absent ah°ll
an hour and a half. On their return into Court they returneo
a verdict of Guilty of Manslaughter, accompanied with,.
recommendation to mercy, on the ground of the extreme Pt.'s,
vocation the prisoner had received, and of his excellent e"
ratter.
The verdict appeared to give great satisfaction to a 'lel
crowded Court.

NEW COURT.
George Bailey was convicted of having stolen four silceir,
spoons, the property of his master, Mr. Savory, the we i
to
known silversmith. The prosecutor recommended him
mercy, as he had committed the crime under temporary ei"
harassment.