The Sun.
London, England, 1856-07-21 00:00:00

with blur as a sane man ? They dealt with him as
though ho was a responsible /remit), and the learned
counsel called upon the jury riot to let it be raid that
the prisoner had wealthy friends, who were enabled to
bring for ward persons to give speculative opinions about
him, and not to let it be propagated to the country that
be should be spared his proper due merely because he
might happen to occupy a higher position than some
other persons. He submitted that there was not a single
witness to indicate that the prisoner had not the most

perfect possession of his faculties. He argued that none
of the doctors called on the part of the prisoner agreed
in their evidence—that Dove being guilty, a verdict of

,guilty must be pronounced—and that only let the doc-
trine propounded for the defence ha established, and
there would be no safety for any one, for it was a tuon-

strous doctrine. He asked the jury whether there NV a 9

any thing like impulse connected with this crane. •Mr.
Overend a'so contended that Mrs, Dove died of strych-

nia, thlt there could not be any doubt that she died i
from the administration of the strychnia last obtained by 1
the prisoner, that the letters he had written displayed in-
telligence, and that Dove had written the letter to the
devil to induce the belief Viet he was suffering from de-
lusions. There was another letter found at the same
time, and his learned friend dared trot produce it. It
was en evidence of wicked design on his part, he was
feigning in, anity, and he feigned it still more ; he wrote a
letter to the schoolmaster to show he was not feigning.
Having gone through the whole of the fact., Mr 0 rerend
said Le had now gone through the cue, lie hoped temper-
ately, though it might be promptly. He had made no
attempt on this occision to mislead the judgments
of the jury, but he was bound to lay before
them the facts to show the prisoner had a hatred towards
his wife, that he had a motive for what he did, that he
laid plats fur the accomplishment of her death, that be
went on day after lay administering the poison, produc-
ing those dreadful agonies which resulted in death, that
be put off the post mortem examination as long as he
could, and there were evidences of arrangements and de-
liberation which rejected and renounced all idea of in-
sanity. He had now done his duty, and the jury bad a
duty to perform. That they could doubt the prisoner
caused the death of his wife he could not imagine. As to
the other point it was fur the jury to decide, and if they
did not believe it had been made out satisfactorily that
the prisoner was not aware of the turpitude of his own
acts, and not fully aware of the series of acts of poison-
ing attributed to him, then it would be their bounden
duty to find him guilty. Public justice demanded—the
social hearth of every man demanded, that the prisener,
if he had committed this dreadful murder, and was of
sound mind, should be brought to justice ; but if they
believed he was insane at the time of the murder, they
would find him not guilty on the ground of insanity. He
called upon the jury to discharge their duty faithfully,
and return such a verdict as in their consciences they
believed to be right, and in doing that they would not
only have the satisfaction of themselves, but the approval
of the country.
THE JUDGE'S SUMMING UP.

Mr. Baron Bramwell commenced his summing up at
four o'clock. He began by commenting upou the
solemnity of the duty which the jury had to perform.
jo'necl in the recommendation of counsel on both
sides, that the jury should dismiss from their minds all
prejudice and all preconceived opinions formed upon
what they might have heard or read upon the subject
of the fearful charge preferred against the prisoner.
The question would be, did the deceased die from the
effects of strychnia! Did the prisoner administer it?
And was his state of mind when he did it such as to
exempt him from the consequences which would other-
wise follow the act? If the prisoner was conscious
that the act he committed was one he ought not to
commit, and was contrary to the law of the land, he was
punishable. With regard to delusions, the law was the
s eme. If a man acted under delusions in one respect,
and was in other respects of sound mind, he must be
regarded as though he were not suffering under such de-
lusion. For instance, we have heard of people who
have imagined that a portion of their body was made of
glass. Suppose that such a person were wilfully and
deliberately to waylay another, and rob him of his pro.
perty, it would be unreasonable that such a man should
escape punishment. His lordship then proceeded to
read over the whole of the evidence commenting upon
the most prominent passages. Upon the jury devolved
a duty which, on the one hand, involved the life of the
prisoner, and on the other hand the interests of society
at large. If they returned a verdict of guilty against a
man who was innocent, they would do hint a serious
wrong ; if they, for fear of consequences to him, returned
a veruict of acquittal while he was guilty, they would be
doing a serious wrong to the public. It was difficult to
say which was the greater evil—that of pronouncing an
innocent man guilty, or that of sending back to the
world one who had been guilty of a crime, so serious—
so monstrous—as that which was alleged against the
prisoner, the accusation against him being that he had
committed wilful murder, while the defence was that he
was not guilty—or that if he was guilty, he was in a
state of insanity, which rendered him irresponsible for
his actions. The jury need not trouble themselves with
a definition of what was a murder, because, if the pri-
soner administered the poison, be was guilty of murder,
unless lip was in a state of mind that would prevent his
being amenable for his acts. Every man is supposed to
be sane until the contrary is proved. To establish the
defence on the ground of insanity, it must be proved
that the party was, at the time of the commission
of the crime, labouring under such a defect of reason
and disease of the mind as not to know the consequences
of his acts, or, if he did know them, that he did not know
that be was doing wrong. If the prisoner did know the
msequences of his acts, and that they were contrary to
the la.v of the lard, he was punishable for his acts. Ac-
cording to the law of the land, as laid down by the
highest authorities, to exempt a man from the penal con-
sequences of his actions, those actions being contrary to
law, the jury must be of opinion that at the time he did
the act he was not conscious that the act was one he
ought not to do. Even if the prisoner had had some
a reng done to him, that would not justify him in taking
life. Ile must suffer for it. Punishment was adminis-
tered not merely in reference to what had been already
done, but a man was punished for the purpose of cor-
recting him, and to hold out example to other people.
If they punished a man who did not know that he hal
done wrong, what example would that give to him or to
other people ? The people would say that they had pu-
nished a man who did not know he had done wrong,
and, instead of being a warning, it would be a positive
public injury. But if they punished a man whose evil
propensities had led him to commit crime, they not only
were taking a course to arrest him in his evil path, but
were also deterring others who were labouring under a
similar propensity. Hence, if a man had a weak mind
and strong animal propensities, and they did not punish
him for the wrong he had done, they took away one of
the first and greatest means for preventing from doing
wrong. Again, with regard to the medical evidence fur
the prosecution, his lordship observed that it had been
proved to demonstration that the deceased had died from
a dose of stryohnine. A question might arise, how did
she die? The jury might not be able to make up their
minds as to what the first attacks were, whether or not
they wose from hysteria. But it was important for them
sow to make up their minds as to what was the cause
of the last attack, and whether it was possible that the
deceased might have taken the strychnine that had
caused her death—the sixth dose—accidentally. On the
other hated limy might have reason to supp )se that five
of the doses were accidental, and the sixth and last
not accidental. His lordship went on to comment upon
the urns: elaneous evidence, and having concluded his re-
view of tue case fur the prosecution, he proposed an ad-
journment for a short time, to which the jury acceded.
On resuming his seat, his lordship proceeded to review
the evidence for the defence, commenting upon the mate-
rial portions of it as ho proceeded. Referring to the
style of the prisoner's communications to his friends, Ste.,
their coherency, their conciseness, and their grammatical
accuracy, he asked the jury whether they could believe
that a man who possessed only a glimmering of intellect,
and who was nearly an idiot., could have been the author.
He must make one remark upon the evidence which had
been called to prove the prisoner's insanity. It was rather
strange that the defence should have proved so much
with regard to the prisoner's conduct years ago, while
not a question on the subject of his sanity er insanity
had been asked of those witnesses who saw him during
the whole period in which the attacks upen Mrs. Dove,
which terminated iu her death, sceueeed.
. Conning to the medical evidence for tire defence, the
learned judge reviewed the various facts and incidents
tint had been advanced in justification of the' opinion
that the prisoner was insane, and consequently irrespon-
sible for hie acts. He criticised with seine severity the
theory which had been propounded by Dr. Winone,
Mr. hitch lig, and Dr. P. Smith, and pointed out the
feu to, state of affairs that would arise from the adoption
of such a the' ry. His lordship dwelt particularly upon
the circamstanee this: the medical man who attende I the
prisoner's own family had not been asked a (petition by
the defence as to prisoner's insanity, and he suggested
that the inference was obvious, namely, that they antici•
pawl an answer adverse to the proposition that the pri-
soner was insane. With respect to the letters written by
prisoner after his committal to York Castle, his lordship
remarked that they were open to suspicion. If they were
honest they might be taken as evidence of the prisoner's
insanity ; but if they were dishonest, and written with
an intention of assisting the defence which he knew
would be set up on his behalf, than they were strong evi-
dence of his intelligence and soundness of mind. In
conclusion, his lordship told the jury they must consider
well the facts of the case, and then decide whether in
their judgment and according to their belief the prisoner
was c mscioue when he committed this murder —cup -
posing he did commit it—that he was doing that which
was wrong and contrary to the law. He urged thorn to
consider well before they pronounced their verdict, and
having reminded them of their solemn responsibility, he
requested them to ntire.
The charge occupied nearly six Ileum The jury re-
tired at five minutes past 10 o'clock, and returned into
court at 20 minutes befcre 11, with a verdict of guilty
of teurder, to which they added a recommendation to
mercy on the ground of a defective intellee.
SENTENCE OF DEATH.

Mr. Baron Bramwell then assumed the black cap, and
prJeeedid to pass sentence. lie said the prisoner at the
bar had been found guilty of the clime laid to his charge
—the crime of murder ; and he had bef u found guilty,
moreover, upon evidence which could present no doubt
to the mind of any reasonable pason. Mulder was
fearful crime in ail its paases ; but in the case of the
prisoner it was a crime of the very worst possible de-
scription, he having destroyed his wife, whom he bad
sworn to cherish and preserve. The deadly means, too,
of which he had 'availed himself for the perpetration of
this off :fiCO—the means of the most deadly poison—KAY,
if anything, an aggravation of his crime. The jury, iu
his lordship's judgment, bad done their duty to their
country and to their own consciences in finding the pri-
soner guilty. They had also done their duty in rejecting
the defence that had been set up in the prisoner's be•