The Sun.
London, England, 1847-08-12 00:00:00

SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS.
FROM THE MORNING PAPERS OF THIS DAY.
TIMES.—There have been many verdicts recently
returned by juries which lead
make large de-
ductions from the praises whichusttianve been lavished
~
on the institution. That most
itish subject
transcendant pri-
vilege," as it is called, by which no
can be affected in his property,
or his
his liberty,
person, but by the unanimous consent twelveof
his neighbours and equals, was in a fair way tof
n
sub-
vert the foundations of all law. Whether itn a
from a maudlin tenderness for the criminal who
stood
indicted at the bar, or from a downright incapacity
of appreciating the nature of the evidence adduced in
the course of the trial, we have lately seen juries
acquit prisoners in the face of all evidence and all
possibility. Thus, on Monday last, a jury at Bristol
found a verdict in favour of a ruffian who had thrown
his wife out of the window. The crime was clearly
brought home to him—there could not be a shadow
of doubt as to the nature of his offence and
yet, under cover of a verdict of Not Guilty, he
escaped the appropriate penalty of his crime.
The magnitude of the evil would have gone far
to work its own cure, could it have been shown
that the machinery of a jury was uniformly ,insuffi-
cient for its purpose. A few:More such verdicts in
the wrong direction, and none in furtherance of the
ends of justice, and so firm a standing ground would'
have been given to the opponents of the system that
it must in the end have given way before their con-
tinued and' combined assaults. So far from this
transcendent privilege being a boon to the commu-
nity, it would soon have been condemned by public
opinion, and, like other institutions in this country
so condemned, would have been speedily cast aside
as effete; unprofitable, and dangerous to the public
safety. This' being the case, we cannot but rejoice
at a verdict found on the same day as the one at
Bristol by a jury at Bridgewater against a prisoner
of the name of Maurice Perry, for having been
concerned in the murder of a peace-officer. Such
has been the deplorable laxity in the conduct
of jurymen of late, that we feel actually as though
thanks were due to the men who have had the
courage not to violate their oath as jurors. There
is no doubt that it pressed hardly on the feel-
ings of many of them, for we see by the report that
when the Chief Justice demanded an explanation
of their first verdict, and they were compelled to give
in another more formal in its terms, some of their
number were affected to tears. It is certainly a se-
vere trial to take a man from his ordinary occupations
—a stranger to the stern but indispensable necessities
of the criminal law, and to call upon him by the so-
lemn sanction of an oath, to condemn by his verdict a
fellow-creature to death. The Bridgewater jury had,
however, the sense and firmness eonscientiously to
discharge their duty, although the nature of the evi-
dence adduced was such as would by many juries (by
the one at Bristol, for example,) have been taken ad-
vantage of at any rate to diminish the penalty, if not
utterly to defeat the ends of justice and the require-
ments of the law. Let us not be mistaken. There
was no doubt that Maurice Perry was strictly guilty
of the crime laid to his charge, and that any other
verdict but the one found would have been a gross
violation of the jurors' oath. These were the facts.
On the night of the 28th of June last some rail-
way labourers were drinking in the tap-room of
the George Inn at Bathampton. Two of their num-
ber, Solomon Daynton and John Potter, fell a quar-
relling—a challenge to fight was given, and the
whole party went out to an adjoining field to see the
dispute brought to a termination by moonlight.
Maurice Perry (the man recently condemned) se-
conded Potter, and Crawley seconded Daynton.
After a round or two had been fought, a constable—
one Thomas Smith—came and told them they must
give over fighting. Some one instantly knocked him
down. John Bailey, the deceased, also a constable,
then stepped into the ring to assist his brother officer,
and to lehd his aid in parting the combatants. A
scuffle ensued, the unfortunate man Bailey was
knocked down, and when on the ground was vio-
lently kicked. From the effect of the injuries re-
ceived he almost instantly died. The evidence of the
surgeon in the case was to the effect that there was
an injury to the brain, which might have been
caused by a blow; and another injury to a vein
near the collar-bone, which caused a rupture of the
vein. The blood must have flowed from that vein,
and the effusion have caused instant death. The
questions left for the jury were simply these
there been a common unlawful purpose amongst
certain persons to prevent the deceased from putting
an end to the fight in question? If so, was the pri-
soner one of the parties so -engaged ? Whether he
himself gave the fatal blow, or merely aided others
in the common object, mattered not; in either case
he was guilty of murder. The evidence to connect
the prisoner with the offence was the united tes-
timony of many witnesses of the scene. One man
had seen the prisoner squaring up in a fighting atti-
tude to the unfortunate deceased, and then saw
Bailey lying in the people's arms. Isaac Aplin,
labourer, distinctly swore that he saw the prisoner
knock the deceased down, and that when he got up
from the ground he struck him 'a second time.
Samuel Bence, a lad who was present, deposed to
having seen the prisoner kick Bailey on the stomach
as he lay upon the ground. There is, however, it
would seem, some doubt cast on this boy's testimony.
Certainly the surgeon does not speak to injury
or contusion on the surface of the stomach, and a
violent kick must, one would think, have left some
trace behind. It would be useless to recapitulate all
the evidence. The remaining portion of it was
,heilar in character to that we have briefly touched
upon—just, in fact, what might have been expected
from persons who had been present at a contused
scuffle of the sort by moonlight, but who all agreed
in attributing to the prisoner a more or less active
participation in the direct murder of the unfortunate
deceased. Upon this evidence, which will be found
at length in the report of the trial, the jury finally
returned a verdict of Guilty. Before dismissing the
case we would remark, that in the course of the
evidence there certainly appears enough to bring
Crawley—the man who seconded Daynton—within
the reach of the law. The mode in which the un-
fortunate deceased came by his death is such as to
excite a feeling of the strongest indignation against
all the dastardly ruffians concerned, and it would be
well that all against whom sufficient evidence can
be procured should be brought up for trial.
The length to which our observations on this case
have extended will not permit us to enter with the
same minuteness into that of John Skinner, who on
the same day was acquitted at Bristol on an indict-
ment for the murder of his wife by precipitating her
from a window. The evidence for the prosecution was
such as could not leave a shadow of doubt on any rea-
sonable mind either that John Skinner had actually
thrown his unfortunate wife from the window, or
that by running at her with a knife which he had
just used against his brother-in-law, he had driven
her to cast herself out under the influence of terror.
On the strength of the evidence Of a child seven
years of age direct testimony and presumption was
cast to the four winds, and the man was acquitted.
Contrast the conduct of the Bridgewater and the
Bristol jury. A few more such verdicts as the one
returned in Skinner's case, and crime would become
so emboldened by impunity, that throughout the
country there would cease to be any security for
human life. Could we, on the other hand, always
feel secure of putting into the jury-box twelve as
firm and conscientious men as the gentlemen who
properly discharged their duty at Bridgewater,ur, ids
we should be prepared to admit that trial y
of the warm p2rtisans
entitled to all the eulogiums
of the system.
POSE.—We need scarcely, tell
the election in Middle-
feel no regret for the result our readers th.at we
sex. Indeed, been well drubbed in the
we are ratherogflad than otherwise that
Colonel Thomas Wood.hads
He was elected in 1841
county which he beery
as a Protectionist :
lties could give to the over-
-1:6 he gave all the aid which
a man of his limited fin 1847 he was ignominiously
bthreaotewnoofuptroofdthti representation by a loquacious Ra-
dical,ha neo natural claim on the Colonel ut
who e than such a, creature as
better have any non ea
constancyhis opinions
T. Wood, who had neither in
.• •
to explain why one opinion as preferable
nor capacity
to another. We acknowledge no sort or degree of
liking for .Mr. Bernal Osborne or his politics. We
regret very much that Middlesex is not represented
by a better man, but after all he is a better man than
Colonel T. Wood, the twirling sycophant of the
Traitor of Tamworth. We are wholly opposed to the
political views of Mr. B. Osborne, and we detest the
general and pervading temper of his politics, but we
know what he is—we know what we have to expect
from him. We have no fear that he will cheat us.
We could not say that, if Colonel Wood had been re-
torned. He would have called himself a Conservative ;
he -could have found some credulous people to believe
him; ;and then, when Sir R. Peel gave him the word,
he would ihave been anything which that practised
political tri aitor might have desired. In so far as
professes and open foe is far less
a
false pro. fessing friend, upon whomda
Mr. B.
could rem anably be placed, we preferidnngoeervdennepsendence
lesex, to Colonel
Osborne, as representative folsr A
T. Wood. The two Colonels
ave• their aid to the
Wood, father and son,
have had theta • reward.
.B g.
Neither is tiow in Parliament. We
Peel apostasy.