The Sun.
London, England, 1853-01-08 00:00:00

THE CASE OF KIRWAN.

When the new Lord of the Admiralty was addressing
his constituents the other day, he took credit to himself
for having been on the Commission which has already
effected considerable improvement in the administration
of justice in the superior courts of common law, and
gave a pledge that he and the Ministers with whom ho
is now associated would not rest content with what
their predecessors had done, but would go on to purge
the ecclesiastical courts, and do whatever else might be
needed in the way of law reform. That there is room
for further improvement there is no question, and we
beg to suggest to Sir James the propriety of turning his
attention to the necessity for a court of appeal in crimi-
nal cases, to which the convict might carry any doubt,
not only of law, but of evidence, which might arise.
Had such a tribunal existed Mr. Kirwan would not be
in his present position. He would have been able to
gain from a superior bench not merely the acquittal he
has received at the hands of public opinion, but the
liberty which ought to attend it.

Look at his case. Unfortunate in his leading counsel,
unfortunate in the judge and jury who tried him, he was
found guilty of the murder of his wife, and sentenced to
death, in terms which preclude all hope of any mitiga-
tion of his doom. Coming into court with hands which
were certainly not clean, and neither then nor since sur-
rounded by circumstances calculated to excite the least
sympathy in his behalf, no sooner had the evidence as
reported by the English press been weighed, than there
appeared in our own, and cotemporary columns, a sift-
ing of the facts of the case, any one of which, had it
been spoken by the counsel for the defence, must have
procured his acquittal. Not a dissentient voice was
raised. One and all confessed that there was no evi-
dence of his guilt ; which was all they could say of him
or any man ; for to prove a negative—as that he was
not guilty—is, as everybody knows, impossible.
In the remonstrances thus raised, there was
not the remotest symptom of prejudice. Mr.
Kirwan had for a number of years been living
in violation of the sanctity of the marriage tie. He had
huddled the dead body of his wife into the poorest,
cheapest, and worst corner of the cemetery. Her fulled
ral rites had hardly been consummated when he brought
home the partner of his guilty love. All this was ad'
mitted ; and it was all considered and set down in full
weight against him. But, in spite of it all, there was
no proof— not even presumptive proof—that he had
been guilty of the crime he was accused of. The cir'
cumstantial evidence relied upon showed, on the con'
trary, how difficult it was to reconcile the facts with the
supposition that he had murdered his wife ; while the
medical testimony established without a shadow of
doubt the facts, that none of the wounds upon her bed,
conld have occasioned death, and that the other appear•
antes were in harmony with the supposition that she
was drowned in the ordinary way. The result was, that
Mr. Kirwan was respited, and there ended all dread of
an actual murder for a supposed one.
But is not Mr. Kirwan entitled to something more
than a mitigation of his punishment ? What was he
tried far ? For murder. Why is he not to be hanged
Because the evidence is considered not conclusive of his
guilt. Then why transport him ? Suppose that the
jury had thought it inconclusive, they must have ,
ac-
quitted him, for the question was "Guilty or not guilty,'
not whether there were circumstances which raise a sus-
picion of guilt ; but here comes the great jury of public
opinion, and says that the question is not conclusive ;
that it is unsatisfactory, and irreconcileable with itself.
The Executive acting upon that, reverses the verdict,
and says Mr. Kirwan shall not be hanged. Then why,
again, is he to be transported ? He was not tried for
a transportable offence, but for a capital one. What
monstrous injustice is it to say, "We will not hang
you because we cannot prove you guilty ; but we will
transport you because you cannot prove yourself inno-
cent."—Morning Advertiser.

SOUTH WILTSELECTION.—The Sheriff has appoint/.
Tuesday next, the 11th instant, for the nomination
candidates. On Wednesday, Mr. Gra,ntley F. Berkeley,
who is to oppose Mr. Sidney Herbert, issued his
„ tlest on
THE MURDER IN DEAN FOREST.—The irnepq orted in
the body of William Peake, who, as alreaY
with a stab
this paper, was found dead in Dean Forest,broavine:
chcnnaefrt,e r
beentw o
in the face through the eye to the
adjournments before Mr. J. L
reegrcollected that a man
been taken
in the murder, he
at length concluded. It will
e 1-taken into custody on
named James Greenhalf had
suspicion of having been his company, and having been
having been seen last in in
nied the deceased part of the
known to have neeo_moPgaiyeit in evidence that the fatal
way home. It was al
with a sharp knife. The following
wound which caused s the death of the deceased must
ogre:_ending further (though only in a.
have been inflictede, w
) to criminate the prisoner, was
James Baldwin, a collier, deposed that he
caidrdeumitiosntaalnteiatder:
now taken.-the same pit with the prisoner, who was in
worked in the using a knife, which he carried about him.
the habit
knife
with .1% spring back. On the day after
the prisoner was at work with him, and had
It was
his possession in the morning. he blade
t was about 34 or 4 inches in length, a
tifit:
straightblade,leUn:di(en ri
with a sharp point to it, and rather nar-
row. Neither of the knives produced by the police-
-officer as having been found in Greenhalf's possession
was the knife in question. Witness was with the pri-
soner until four o'clock that afternoon. They talked
together about Peake's death, but Greenhalf said no-
thing about his having been in deceased's company on
the night before. In the morning of the da y after
murder the prisoner said he did not want to work ifthe he
could help it, as he had been out drinking the night be-
fore. Witness threw a stone down the " land pit " that
day to ascertain the depth of water, when the prisoner
immediately after leant over and dropped something into
the pit. Richard Meek, also a collier, retollected hear-
ing of the body of Peake having been found in the road.
He was working on that day in the Regulator Middle
Pit, which was near the pit where the prisoner worked.
Witness was going towards the land pit, on the day after
the supposed murder, when the prisoner approached.
The prisoner stopped at the mouth of the sand pit before
witness got up to him, and he saw him lean over the
" door" and drop something down the pit's mouth. The
pit had water in it, and the working of it had been
stopped in consequence of the water, which was still in
the pit, so that it could not be ascertained what was at
the bottom. The coroner then summed up the evidence
carefully, stating that it was a ease of suspicion, but no
thing more, leaving it for the jury, if they thought proper„
to send the prisoner for trial. Tl;e jury after a short,
consultation, found a verdict of wilful murder against
James Greenhalf, who was accordingly committed
Gloucester for trial at the next assizes. tn

I

I