The Sun.
London, England, 1865-12-22 00:00:00

THE FIVE-FOLD MUP.DER.

-

MAIDSTONE, Thursday.
The trial of Southey was resumed this morning.
Mr. Poland and Mr. Philbrick, instructed by
Mr.-Pollard, the solicitor to the Treasury, appeared
for the prosecution. Mr E. T. Smith and Mr.
Blake Ellis, instructed by Messrs. Gold and Son,
solicitors, 1, Serjerents' Inn, Chancery-lane, repre-
sented the prisoner.
- Miss Elizabeth Clifford, the daughter of the pro-
prietor of the coffee-house, proved that the prisoner
inquired on the evening of the sth for a bed, and
came again on the Monday and' paid for_ the bed,
bringing the children with him afterwards about
ten o'clock.

The chambermaid at the coffee-house was also
called, and then a woman to whom the prisoner ap-
plied for lodgings at Ramsgate. • Mr. Hills, the
governor of the gaol at Sandwich, and Mr. Emmer-
son, the surgeon, testified to the sanity of the pri-
soner, the latter gentleman stating in reply to the
Judge that Southey always demeaned himself as
an ordinary, reasonable person. During the ex-
amination of Mr. Emmersou the prisoner set
up a loud wail of grief, shedding tears, and
exclaiming, when the fit had passed, that he
felt as if he suffered from a galvanic shock, and

that he was a murdered man. In cross-examina-
tion by Mr. Smith, the doctor said that the fact of
a person disguising bitnis'Or was pot indicative of
insanity. He (the witness) did not think that the

coolness of an avowal of guilt showed mono-
mania. Mr. Emmerson, and Mr. Hills, the gover-
nor of Sandwich Prison, spoke to the fact of
prisoner being subject to fits of hysteria. Major
Bannister, the governor of Maidstone gaol, also
deposed to the apparent sanity of the prisoner,
who objected on Sunday to attend chapel, as his
religious views were not " yet settled and defined."
Mr. Joy, the surgeon, also gave evidence as to
the prisoner's state of mind, expressing an opinion
that he was perfectly sane. Though subject to
fits of excitement and hysteria, his capabilities
were strong when the fit passed away,' and he
was thoroughly coherent, though excited.
The statement made public by the prisoner on
the 14th of April, 1864, was read by Mr. Reed,
the deputy-clerk of the peace ; and Mr. Poland
said that closed the case for the prosecution.
Mr. E. T. Smith then addressed the jury on be-
half of the prisoner, urging the defence of insanity,
and called the following witnesses :

Dr. Dolney, described as a physician and genera
practitioner at Brompton, Chatham, stated that he
had seen the prisoner a night or two ago; and as the
result of the interview arrived at the conviction that
his mind was " quite unhinged." There was, he
said, a " wildness about his eye," and his pulse was
very quick, which denoted a good deal of irritability
and excitement. He had observed his demeanour
in court, and had arrived at the conclusion that he
was insane. It was possible, generally, to distin-
guish between real and feigned insanity, and witness
said he could distinguish between them, and he
should say that the prisoner was not feigning or
putting on insanity. Assuming all the facts in
evidence—
The learned Judge—What facts? You must put
specific facts to him to raise a question of science—
that is, whether such and such facts are symptoms
of insanity. But you cannot put all the facts to the
witness, that assuming (as has been proved) that
the prisoner went to the house and made an appoint-
ment with his wife for next morning, and kept the
appointment, and came to see her, and went up
stairs with her, taking a pistol with him, and then
after talking with her some time shot her, and upon
being instantly seized seemed calm and did not deny
the deed, whether these are symptoms of insanity,
or the contrary.
The witness said he should say " they were symp-
toms of insanity;" an answer which, not withstanding
the solemnity of the occasion, seemed to cause some
general amusement.
The prisoner's counsel then asked whether there
was not a partial delusion which might overcome the
moral sense and self-control of the individual.
The witness said there was.
The witness was then cross-examined by the
counsel for the prosecution, and admitted that the
prisoner spoke on common subjects, but his manner
was rambling and incoherent. He admitted, how-
ever, that persons were sometimes so who were quite
sane, and also that persons who were irritable and ex-
citable were often sane (answers which appeared to
cause considerable diversion); but, he said, the priso-
ner seemed to be suffering under a delusion. He was
then pressed as to what was the delusion he appeared
to labour under; and upon this the witness, after a
little hesitation, said he seemed " under delusions
upon religious subjects," and that there was "no
sense in him in that way"—that is; he explained,
that he had no faith, no religious creed, and went
on about Mr. John Stuart Mill. (A laugh.)
Mr. Poland—What ! is it a proof of insanity to
talk about Mr. John Stuart Mill? (Laughter.)
Witness—Well, I don't know anything about
Mr. Mill. (Laughter.)
Mr. Poland—You know he is member for West-
minster, I suppose ?—Yes.
The learned Judge—You don't assent to his doc-
trines, I suppose ?
The witness—l don't know what they are.
The learned Judge—l only want to know, when
you say that his talking about Mr. Mill was a proof
of insanity, how far you really go. Do you really
mean that you are so impressed against his opinions
(of which, perhaps, I know a little more than you
do), that you think talking of them a proof of in-
sanity ? Or, what is it you really mean ? By what
standard do you arrive at the conclusion that on
this account he was " under a delusion?"
The witness appeared to hesitate how to answer.
The learned Judge—You said he was " under a
delusion" upon religious subjects. Is it because he
was without faith, and without a creed, and talked
about Mr. John Stuart Mill, that therefore he was
under a delusion ?
Witness —No, I don't put it upon that ground.
The learned Judge—Then pray explain what you
mean by " delusion." What delusion ?
Witness said he seemed to think that he had
killed these persons from a sense duty.
The learned Judge—That is, he said so. He told
you that he thought so.
Witness--Yes. He said he had done it from a
sense of duty.
In answer to further questions witness said the
man had told him he was destitute and could not
support them, and that therefore it was better to
kill them ; and putting everything together—his
wildness of eye, his rambling manner, his excited
demeanour, and the way in which he spoke—he
should say he was insane ; and so he should judge
from his conduct and demeanour in court, his wish-
ing to conduct his own defence, &c. (A laugh.)
Mr. Poland—Oh! that you think a proof of in-
sanity ? (A laugh.)
Witness said, taking all things together—that
among the rest—he thought the man insane.
He was asked whether he did not think the tele-
gram a proof of sanity ; and answered that it might
have been written in a lucid interval.
The learned Judge—Should you say that his in-
sanity was chronic ? Witness—Yes. Then was it
the same insanity as existed on the day you saw
him which had existed for a considerable time ?
Yes ; I should say so. Did it appear to you that
he knew that murder was a crime ? It did not
strike me that he did. It is proved that shortly
before the act of homicide he said " Mind I had
reproaches enough last night; let me have not more
of them to-day ;" did that indicate any insanity ?
No, it did not ; at that time I should say he was of
sound mind. He is proved to have said just after
the deed that if he had gone up to town he should
have gone under sentence of death. Was he then
aware that the punishment of murder was death ?
Yes, he was. Taking all the circumstances together,
should you say that at that time he had the sense
of right and wrong ?—Yes ; I should think he had
then. You would not say that hysteria was a
proof of insanity ?--No. It is rather a proof, is it
not, of weakness of the nervous system, and excite-
ment?—Yes, it is. Should you say that when he
said what I have just referred to he knew that
murder was a crime ?—Yes, I should say so.
The prisoner's counsel suggested that perhaps the
witness had not understood the lati er questions,
and he was accordingly recalled, and the questions
being repeated by the learned Judge, he gave simi-
liar answers.
Mr. Fry said he was for some time medical at-
tendant at the Union, and had seen.many cases of
insanity there ; and also for 27 years at the West
Kent Hospital, He had an interview with the pri-