The Sun.
London, England, 1849-10-27 00:00:00

S 17 isr

lon the evening of the murderti,ti‘,W4ritr
look Fie. Suppos.,e she knew ksi:,tintrdia--,0 411140
its cnumiission, and that she sli7644\o.tP,7thfil4
of her youth, the friend who ha 14,40.01
business afLirs, a corcse when s ' ; rt, I - .
natural that she should look pa , ttaheYikgillit
4 avinc,
not to convict her upon such testimony. The next
evening, when she came again, and might have
known of the murder, she was said to have
trembled. If so it only tended to show that she was
an accessory after the fact. During the absence of
the wife the husband might have committed the
murder in consequence of a quarrel with the de-
ceased about his wife; and she, on her return, learn-
ing from her husband the dead that had been com-
mitted, and knowing the nature of her connexion with
O'Connor, and that disgrace would attach to her,
fled in fear. Mrs. Manning had lived in the
service of Lady Blantyre and other families of dis-
tinction, and had no doubt saved some money, and
hence the conversation with O'Connor about invest-

ing a small sum of money in Sambre and Meuse
shares, which she wished to possess without
the knowledge: of her husband. Shortly before
the murder they found O'Connor purchasing Sambre
and Meuse and Amiens and Boulogne ; and it was
not unreasonable to suppose that the shares were
purchased with her money ; also, that other shares
had been purchased with her money by O'Connor,
depending on him, and nut being able to depend upon
her husband.; and that, in fact, the shares she took were
her property. That a person, when told of the murder,
as he suggested Mrs. Manning was told, would rush
into the streets and at once betray her husband, or do
her best to screen him, depended upon the tempera-
ment of the person placed in such a position. Was it
not natural that a woman like her would leave her
husband as soon as she could, and it was but natural
' that she should at once proceed to O'Connor's
lodgings and obtain her nroperty ? And it was
shown that she had taken nothing but shares • or she
might have gone to see if there was the will of which
they had heard something, and that O'Cononor in-
tended to leave her his property. The money re-
ceived by Manning might have been handed to her
by him, in order that she might leave town and meet
him elsewhere, and return it to him. Then they
found her changing, her name and seeking to
sink into obscurity. Admitting that there were
some facts, not, however, clear, that she knew of the
intent to murder, yet the balance of facts tended the
other way. The Learned Counsel concluded an elo-
quent speech, at four o'clock, by imploring the jury
to weigh all the facts, and to give the prisoner the
benefit of any circumstance or doubt that might
suggest themselves to them.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL rose to reply.
Mr. BALLA?TINE rose and objected to the Attorney-
General replying.
Mr. PARRY said Mr. Bodkin, who often represented
the Crown, did not reply in such cases.
The CHIEF BARON said the Attorney General at-
tended in his public capacity, and had the right of
reply. Did Mr. Parry object to the right of the
Attorney-General?
Mr. PARRY said he did.

The CHIEF BARON said he could not let him raise
the point, it was too late.
Mr. PARRY appealed to the Attorney-General not
to avail himself of his right in this case, where the
lives of two persons were concerned. His Learned
Friend and himself had to compete against the great
odds of two of the ablest Counsel at the bar.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL then replied, and said his
great and paramount object was to evenly hold the
scales in order that the two prisoners at the bar
might have the fullest justice accorded to them. lie
called upon them to dismiss from their minds all pre-
judice, and particularly some of the erroneous
statements which the two advocates of the

prisoners had thought; proper to introduce in their
laudable zeal to their clients. It was admitted by
both that the murder was committed on the 9th of
August, and it was committed and carried out under
such circumstances that it was altogether im-
possible that one person could have done the
whole. It vvas evident that more than one

must have been engaged in its perpetration,
It was argued on the other side that the male pri-
soner had known nothing of the murder, but on
arriving at a conclusion upon that point the jury must
couple the statements of the prisoners with the
evidence itself. The woman had stated that

finding that O'Connor had not come to dinner,
*he went to Greenwood•street to see for him,

Now it had been proved that Manning was seen

Eomk in gon the garden wall till seven, when he
jumped down. Was it not reasonable to cuppose
then that the female had returned from her search

v‘ith the deceased, and that some signal was given to
_ _

Manning when he left the wall to go and dress. -Besides
it had been proved that Manning was in negotiation
with Bainbridge for the sale of his furniture some days
before the murder, so that it was not unreasonable to
suppose that he was even then contemplating a
Hight. lie presumed, therefore, that the mur-
der had not been committed when the woman
went to Greenwood- street on the Thursday,
but there was a very important piece of evidence
which had not been touched upon by the defence.
The jury would remember that when Keating called
upon Mrs. Manning on the 1211), she said it was very
strange O'Connor bad not been there, as he was to
have dined there on Thursday. Keating said he had
been seen on London-bridge that evening by two
friends, tut mentioned no names. On the

13th, when Flynn called, she said it was very strange,
for O'Connor had been seen on London-bridge by
Keating and a friend. Now who told her that it

was Keating? Certainly not Keating himself. Why,
then, was it not natural to suppose that O'Connor
himself had told her. He insisted that the evidence

was conclusive against both prisoners, and he should
sit down in full confidence that the jury would think

so to.

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE then summed up, re-
marking that the Attorney-General, in his opening
address, had properly and rightly explained the law.
That definition of the law was also acquiesced in by
both the Learned Counsel who appeared for the de-
fence, and he therefore need not trouble the jury upon
that point. The questions they had to decide was,
first, whether the deceased came by his death from
violence, and secondly, whether either or both priso-
ners inflicted it. Whether both committed the
act, or only one of them, did not much
matter, if the jury thought there had been any
previous connivance between them. If they did,
then the two prisoners were both equally guilty
although only one of them inflicted the violence on the
deceased ; but if they thought the act was committed
by one, without the knowledge or concurrence of the
other, then their verdict must only be against that
one. There could hardly be a doubt that the
death of the deceased resulted from violence ;
but if the jury thought that neither of the
prisoners had anything to do with it,
he need hardly say that they must acquit them both.
In deciding who it was that inflicted the violence,
the jury must not be guided by minute circumstances,
they must look rather at the direct evidence which
bore upon the case ; they must, therefore, not place
too much stress on the evidence of the medical student,
as there were some circumstances of a more im-
portant character, and it would better become them
to consider. He would not go through the evidence
in detail, as that had been done by the Learned
Counsel who had defended the prisoners; but he
should content himself by directing their attention to
some of the chief circumstances which it disclosed.
The male prisoner had admitted that he was present
when the woman fired a pistol against the deceased,
and as against him that was conclusive. There
could be no doubt, after that, be was present.
The next point then for them to consider was, whether
or not he was aware beforehand that the woman in-
tended to commit the act, and to enable them to arrive
at a correct conclusion, they must look at the evidence
of Massey and Bainbridge relative to the intention of
the prisoner to leave his house and sell his furniture.
If they thought those circumstances indicated that the
murder was contemplated, then it would be their
duty to convict him. With regard to the act
itself, there was only direct evidence that the
deceased was found dead in the prisoner's house ; the
other evidence was purely of a circumstantial cha-
racter. The deceased was last seen alive on Thursiay
afternoon, the 9.h of August, and the evidence
which they had to consider related chiefly to pro-
ceedings occurring subsequently to that event, such as
the female prisoner's entering the deceased's lodgings,
and his box, though locked, being afterwards found
empty of anything valuable, the sale of shares which
were known belonged to the deceased, and the flight
and confessions of the prisoners. It would be their
oanwdeilfl, waefitgerh
Inanaktihneg eavtiidteninceaacsomminennnosfenthsee
duty to
point of view, it established the conclusion that the
prisoners concocted and carried out, either singly
with the connivance of the other, or together, a scheme
to commit this murder, then they must find them
guilty accordingly. It was their province, as men of
sense and solid justice, to consider all the cir-
cumstances which the evidence disclosed, and to de-
cide whether it was within the scope of human
events that this murder could have been committed
by one prisoner without the knowledge of the other.
Should they think that were possible, then they must
acquit the one and convict the other; but if, on the other
hand, they did not believe it was, then they must
find them both guilty. With these observations he
dismissed them to consider their verdict, with the hope,
and in the full conviction, whatever it might be, it
would be founded in justice and truth.
The jury then retired.
Upon their return, the prisoners, who in the mewl
time had been removed, were again placed in the
dock, when the roar and buzz of conversation which
had previously prevailed at once ceased, and the court
became hushed and still.
The Jury having answered to their names,
The Clerk of the Arraigns said—Gentlemen of the

.i . J- ~i 1.. i.

,e 1