The Sun.
London, England, 1862-07-28 00:00:00

CROWN COURT.

Mr. Baron Bramwell in his charge to the grand
jury, of whom Viscount Marsham was foreman,
said that the calendar was rather heavy, but it was
gratifying to see that although there were undoubt-
edly a great many very bad offences contained in
it, still that there were none of those atrocious
charges of personal violence and outrage that were
to be found in the calendars of some other counties ;
and he might also say that the county of Kent was
not responsible for the whole of the crime that was
represented in the calendar, inasmuch as out of the
86 prisoner who were to be tried 27 were soldiers,
who might be looked upon as strangers to the
county. There were two charges of wilful murder,
and the first of them was against two prisoners who
were charged with the murder of a gamekeeper.
It appeared that the keeper was out on the watch
with some other persons, and that they met the
prisoners and several others, and the evidence ap-
peared to leave no doubt that they were engaged in
an act which was known to the law by the name of
night poaching, and that, at all events, they were
guilty of that offence. A conflict took place, and a
gun was fired and the keeper was killed, and there
appeared to be some evidence that the person who
discharged the gun was one of the prisoners.
It was right, however, that he should tell
them that if there should be any difficulty as
to the person by whom the gun was fired
—if they should be of opinion from the evi-
dence that the gun was fired by any one of
the party, and that they were all actuated by
one common object, and determined to resist the
keepers to the last extremity, they would in that
case all be guilty in the eyes of the law of the crime
of murder, although the gun was only fired by one
of them. There was some evidence of a common
intention being entertained by all the party from
the fact that it appeared that during the struggle
one of them called out to the keeper and his com-
panions that if they came on they would shoot, and
another was heard to say " Shoot him" before the
gun was fired. He also believed that in night-
poaching expeditions a gun was not required, so
that it would seem the only object of having such
an instrument was to resist the keepers if it became
necessary to do so. It appeared that during the fatal
affray the unhappy keeper who lost his life struck
one of the poachers with a flail, and he thought it
was very probable that the man who was so struck
was the man who fired the gun; and if this should
turn out to be the case in his opinion it would reduce
the crime from murder to manslaughter. The
keeper had no right to strike the poacher with the
flail, and if he did so it was an unlawful act ; and
although it would not justify the poacher in shoot-
ing him, it would, undoubtedly in his opinion, re-
duce the crime to manslaughter, on the ground that
the act was committed in the heat of blood arising
from the blow the prisoner had received. The other
charge of murder was a very singular one. There
was very good evidence to show that the person
accused of the offence wilfully set fire to a barn that
contained a quantity of straw, and the flames spread
rapidly, and an unhappy man who had gone to the
barn to sleep could not get away and was burned to
death. Under these circumstances the prisoner was
charged with the crime of wilful murder ; and the
law undoubtedly was that if a man committed a
felony, and in the course of committing that felony
took away another person's life, he was guilty of
murder. There was an old case upon the point
where a man shot at some fowls with the in-
tention to steal them, and killed a man, and
this was declared to ba murder. If, therefore,
they should be of opinion that the prisoner
wilfully set fire to this barn, and that the de-
ceased lost his life in consequence of this act,
it would be their duty to return a true bill for mur-
der against him. The learned judge then said that
in the course of his address to the grand jury he had
alluded to the fact that a considerable number of
the prisoners in the calendar were soldiers, and he
thought it was only due to the county to state this
to show that it was not responsible, if he might use
the ;expression, for the production of the whole
number of prisoners ; but he thought he ought at
the same time also to say, that in his opinion it
ought not to be taken as an indication that the army
had a disorganising effect upon those who entered
it. A military life had attractions to many young
men who did not possess steady feeling and habits,
and, having once entered it, they were compelled to
remain until their bad propensities dropped out ;
and it should also be remembered that soldiers had
a great deal of leisure time, and that this was a
circumstance very likely to lead them into mischief;
and it appeared to him that this showed the neces-
sity of continuing those exertions that had already
been commenced to provide some rational occupa-
tion for the soldier, which would undoubtedly have
the effect of improving his habits and condition.
His lordship concluded by expressing his regret at
finding by the calendar that 74 of the prisoners who
were to be tried were unable either to read or write,
or were only able to reed or write in an imperfect
manner, and out of the whole number only one was
stated to be able to read and write well. He said
ke considered this a very lamentable thing, and he
hoped that something would be done to improve
the condition of the lower classes as regarded edu-
cation, as one of the most effectual means for the
prevention of crime.
Francis Gimber, 33, labourer, was charged with
stealing a mare, the property of John Gardner.
Mr. Russell prosecuted, and the prisoner was de-
fended by Mr. Ribton.
It appeared that the offence imputed to the pri-
soner was committed so long ago as the year 1857,
and he was subsequently tried at the Central Cri-
minal Court for stealing another horse, and the
judge was informed of the present charge, and the
prisoner was sentenced to four years' penal servi-
tude. Upon his discharge he was taken into cus-
tody for the offence of which he was now accused.
The jury having returned a verdict of guilty,

Mr. -Baron Bramwell said he believed that on the
former occasion the Court had virtually punished
the prisoner for the offence of which he was now
convicted, and he had undergone the sentence. 110
should, therefore, on the present occasion only order