The Sun.
London, England, 1849-10-25 00:00:00

It MUM,

quality of an alien disappears, and she becomes an
Englishwoman. It appeared to him, therefore, right
that the trial ought to proceed.
Mr. BALLANTYNE replied that the plea of the
female prisoner that she was an alien, and ought to
be tried by a jury de mcdietate ling ace, should be
entered on the record.

[This application is, no doubt, made for the purpose
of obtaining a writ of error, to be argued before all
the Judges.]
The ATTORNEY•GENERAL objected to the pro-
posed endorsement on the back of the indictment.
The CHIEF BARON said the question must be so
framed as to carry it to a court of error, or, if pre-
ferred, to the House of Lords. The option was
given to Mr. Ballantyne to take the matter before the
new Court of Error, or of putting it on the record
with the view of taking it to the House of Lords.
Mr. BALLANTYNE then formally demurred to the
courso of proceeding adopted by the Attorney-
General.

The ATTORNEY GENERAL joined in the demurrer.
Mr. BALLANTYNE suggested that the statement of
the woman that she was an alien would be sufficient.
The Crown had treated the case as if the woman was
a foreigner ; but to place the matter beyond doubt
and properly before the Court, he had an affidavit of
the fact.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he had come there
in his official capacity to promote the administration
of justice, and he did not wish to take any advantage
of a mere technical point. lie did not deny that the
woman was formerly an alien. He should not,

therefore, traverse the fact.

The completion of the necessary proceedings in
regard to the demurrer having been postponed for a
short time, the jury was sworn.
The female prisoner, who grew somewhat paler as
the time advanced, was accommodated with a seat.
The indictment having been again read by the
Clerk of Arraigns,
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL proceeded to state the
case to the jury. He said the great importance of
the case upon which they were about to enter, and
the excitement which it had occasioned in the public
mind, had induced him as public prosecutor, to appear
there that day and take upon himself any responsibility
that might arise in the course of the proceedings; and
being anxious to conduct the case calmly and dis-
passionately, so that the ends of justice might be
promoted, he was quite certain that upon a charge
of the serious nature they were about to try—almost
the most serious charge that could be made against
any member of this community—it was, he believed,
quite unnecessary for him to caution and implore
them to dismiss. altogether from their minds if pos-
sible, anything; that up to that hour they had heard
with respect to the case they were now called upon
to try—anything that they
.had read, and every impres-
sion which their minds might have formed with re-
spect to this painful investigation. He implored
them to confine themselves entirely to the evidence,
and to decide upon that evidence alone, under
the direction of the Learned Judge, as to
their verdict. It would be necessary fbr him, he
feared, at some length to enter into a detail of the
circumstances, but he would abstain as much as pos-
sible from all unnecessary circumstances and com-
ments. He was not bound, appearing there to conduct
the prosecution, to suggest anything to their consi-
deration, any theory with respect to the guilt or
innocence of the parties accused, but to lay before them
as clearly as possible, and as ably as he could, the facts
as they would afterwards be adduced in evidence.
The prisoner at the„bar,Yrederick George Manning,
was, he believed, a native of Sornersetshire, and was
in the service of the Great Western Railway as a
guard, in 1847, when he married the female prisoner,
Maria Manning. Maria Manning was a native of
Switzerland, and formerly lived in the service of
Lady Blantyre, the daughter of the Duchess of
Sutherland. They were married in 1847. They kept,
for some time after their marriage, a public house at
Taunton. Afterwards, they hired a house at No. 3, Min-
ver- place, Bermondsey, the scene of the fatal murder
with which they were charged. O'Connor, with
whose murder they were charged, was for many
years a gauger in the Customs, and on the day of
the murder—the 9th of August—was stationed at
the London-docks. He resided at Greenwood-place,
Mile-end, a distance of some two or three miles from
Minver-place, which was accessible by the ordinary
conveyances in about a quarter of an hour. On Thurs•
day, the 9th, he left his residence, in order to
attend his business at the docks at half-past seven in
the morning. He was at the London Docks during
the ordinary hours of duty, and at four o'clock signed
the departure-book which was kept in that establish-
ment, as he had done the appearance-book in the
morning on his arrival, when he left for the day. A
little before five o'clock, about a quarter before five,
he was seen by two friends on London-bridge ; and
being questioned as to where he was going, he
produced and opened to one or both of them a
letter of invitation to dinner, at the Mannings.
he believed for that day, signed " Maria." They do
not, I understand, recollect whether there was any
surname to the note or not. About five o'clock the
same day he was seen in Weston-street, about three
minutes walk from Minver• place, and a little later he
was again seen by some persons on London-bridge,
as if he was uncertain whether he should go to
Minver-place. That was the last time he was seen
alive. On the 13th of August the two prisoners
abruptly left the house in the manner he should
describe. On the 14th, the landlord finding the house
unoccupied, the prisoners having left without giving
him any notice, and the police having obtained access
to the dwelling, made a diligent search of the pre-
mises, and under the pavement in the back kitchen,
about the depth of four feet, they found the body of
O'Connor buried, the legs tied tightly back to
the haunches, and covered with lime. No clothes
were found, and no invitation to dinner, as might
have been anticipated. No instrument by which
the fatal deed was likely• to have been
inflicted was found. The body so found would be
clearly identified as the body of O'Connor; and
although, of course, the finding of the body under
such circumstances, in a house occupied and known to
belong to the prisoners, with whom he was on terms of
intimacy, was most suspicious, yet it was not to be
taken as conclusive of the guilt of one or both the
prisoners ; yet there could be no doubt that O'Con-
nor—whose body was thus found thus mutilated, shat
through the head and his skull fractured—was mur-
dered and deposited in the receptacle in which he
was found by some parties who believed that his body
would never be discovered. His Learned Friend
would have no right to complain if he started with
the assumption that the unfortunate man was mur-
dered on the evening of the 9th. It would of course
be their duty to inquire into the degree of guilt of
each of the accused ;. but he feared when

they had heard the whole of the evidence they
could not fail to be of opinion that the
deed was the result of a long deep-laid
scheme, and that the prisoners were the actual per-
petrators of it. He would before proceeding further
point out one or two legal principles with which they
would have to deal in coming to a conclusion. They
had heard that the indictment varied, as was most
necessary, the way in which the murder was sup-
posed to have been committed ; that the male prisoner
shot the deceased and then struck him with a crowbar;

that he killed him by shooting him with an air-gun,
and by striking him with it afterwards, and
that his wife was present aiding and assisting
him in the commission of the act. The law
required the charge to be thus put ; and if they
should be of opinion that Maria Manning's hand was
the one that struck the fatal blow, and that the male
prisoner was present—if he was not even in the same
room—nay, even if a third party had committed the
act, and both the prisoners were present at its com-
mission, they would stand in the light of principals in
the second degree, and, according to law, they would
have to find them guilty of murder. And, there-
fore, though they might inquire whether the hand
of the one or of the other inflicted the fatal
blow, yet if either committed the act, and the other
was present participating in the dreadful crime, both
would be guilty of the crime of murder. Formerly,
there was a difficulty in bringing about such a con-
viction under such circumstances. No one at the
commission of dreadful acts of this description was
present as a witness. It was difficult, there-
fore, to get positive eye testimony, and
juries were, therefore, of necessity, satisfied with
that which in some cases might be more
satisfactory than clear testimony, namely, sufficient
circumstantial evidence to bring home the charge to
the accused. All who were present at a murder,
though different degrees and modes of guilt might
attach to some of the parties, were equally guilty of
the offence. The parties who conceived, and those
who committed a murder of this kind, were equally
guilty. The law formerly took cognizance
of the different degrees of guilt, dealing with
principals as principals, and accessories as accessories.
Thus much injustice was done, as parties actually
present at the commission of murder were acquitted.
The 11 th and 12th of Victoria had remeditd this
defect in the law, and enacted that accessories before
the fact should stand in the position of principals.
Therefore they would be relieved of all diffi-
culty in considering whether Manning ad-
ministered the deadly blow in the absence
of his wife, or whether Maria Manning
did so in the absence or presence, or with the
connivance of her husband, or whether they did so in
concert. They could have no difficulty in coming to
a conclusion. In some cases the humanity of the law
presumes that a married woman was under the direction
and constraint of her husband, and there were some
offences for which the Rife was acquitted, if com-
mitted under the constraint and with the consent of
her husband.' But the law did not extend its protec-
tion to married women who were charged with the
commission of heinous crimes, which were abhorrent
to the laws of nature. It might be pleaded for the
female prisoner that the murder was committed by