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

to kill his wife.
By the Judge—l think he would know that he was
doing wrong in proportion as he knew right from wrong.
By the Jury—l adopt the theory of previous medical
witnesses in general terms. I do not adopt it in reference
to the fatal week. I account for the murder, if the pri-
soner committed it, on different principles.
By Mr. Sergeant Wilkins.—l think we have here a
man of originally deficient mental powers, and a man
else who is insane, and this condition would render him
liable to commit any absurd, irrational, cruel, vicious,
malignant action that presented itself to his mind. Ido
not apply the term vicious or malignant as regards mo-
tive. Considering the whole circumstances of this case,
and the prisoner's conduct throughout life, the catas-
trophe which has happened is just what might have been
expected.
By Mr. Overend.—l question if he would think that
he had violated the law if he had committed murder, or
it be stole. I think this was not impulsive madness
alone. It was partly impulsive. If the prisoner thought
of the deed before he committed it, he would know he
was doing wrong to the extent I have before described.
Most likely he would know it to be a violation of the
law to take life. It is impossible for me to say whether
he knew be was doing wrong at the moment he poi-
soned his wife, if he did do it. I cannot tell whether
he would know a short time before the deed and after
that he was about to commit murder and had committed
murder. lam not prepared to say that he would not
know he was doing wrong at the moment he put the
poison into the glass. The same answer applies to each
alleged administration of strychnine.
By Mr. Sergeant Wilkins.—We have not a dangerous
ward in our retreat, but they have one in some asylums.
I should expect to find some impulsive patients in the
dangerous ward, but not a great number. The keepers
have a great deterring influence over patients,
but they are not now allowed to exercise that
influence upon their fears. If the patients wore
left in a room without a keeper, I should ex-
pect each to follow his own inclination. There is
a madness which exhibits itself in a propensity to kill.
If a stranger were left alone in a room with a patient af-
fected with such madness, I should expect the patient to
exercise his propensity and to kill him, though his
keeper might have him perfectly under his control. In
my opinion the 'prisoner was insane during the fatal
week. The patient would be restrained by his keeper
probably from a fear of some chastisement.
This concluded the case for the defence, when the
court, at 10 minutes to one o'clock, adjourned for re-
freshment. As on previous days the prisoner again made
a hearty lunch.
Mr. Overend, at 20 minutes past one o'clock, rose to
reply upon the case for the defence. His duty, he said,
was a very plain and simple one. His learned friend had
not disputed that poison had caused the death, but he
had suggested that it might be a matter of accident ;
and, secondly, that if the prisoner did the deed inten-
tionally, he was in his right mind. He had adopted a
double line of defence. He would not say that this ra-
ther showed that his learned friend had no confidence in
either ; but he would say that it compelled him (Mr.
Overend) to meet both branches of the case, in order to
satisfy the jury that a murder had been committed, and
also to satisfy them that his learned friend had not es-
tablished his case. He would address himself to the
question of insanity in the first instance. His learned
friend had started that theory, and had called a host of
witnesses to establish "the proposition. He (Mr. Over-
end) had looked at those witnesses, and had heard their
statements, and when he had himself thought over what
was the issue which they were going to try, he had cer-
tainly wondered at the kind of witnesses his learned
friend had called, and the kind of testimony he bad
given ; but he had marvelled more at the witnesses he
had not called. What was the issue they were to
try ! The issue they were to try was whether that
man, the prisoner, was of sane mind from the 25th
of February to the 21st of March ; and his learned
friend had gone and called a host of witnesses to
speak to facts which took place twenty years ago.
If his learned friend had wanted to establish the fact,
did not the jury think it would have been fairer
to the prosecution and to the jury if be had cross-ex-
amined the witnesses whom he (Mr. Overend) called,
and who knew what was the conduct of the prisoner at
the time in question. Should they not have thought
he ought to have cross-examined the housemaid as to his
acts of insanity during the time she was there ? But
his learned friend dared not put a question to her on
the subject. The prisoner's mother-in-law was there
during the fatal week. Did his learned friend put a
question to her as to the prisoner's conduct ? He left it
dark, undisclosed, unrevealed, and he did not put a
question to her upon the matter. Witness after witness
had been called that had been with prisoner day by day,
and visited with him, and his learned friend had them
in the box and never put a question to them. Mrs.
Whitham had been in the house day by day, week by
week, month by month ; she had seen him, and had
heard from his wife about his character and conduct ;
she was examined and cross-examined. His learned
friend could have asked her whether there was anything
like insanity, anything like excitement or want of re-
sponsibility, in the prisoner when she saw him; but
she was allowed to go out of the box without a single
question being asked her upon the subject. His learned
friend then brought doctors into the box. Doctors !
But he did not bring doctors. Where where the doc-
tors who ought to have been called ? Dr. Morley—the
man who attended the prisoner's wife, his family, and
who knew whether there was any particular disposition
to insanity in the family. Dr. Morley was put into
the box, but his learned friend never asked him
a question on the subject. Did that look like con-
fidence in this case ? There was Dr. Morley, who
saw the prisoner day by day, who attended him
in his childhood, who knew all his family, who
was intimate with him, who had been in court and
was in court at that moment, and who, if the prisoner had
been an insane man, must have known him to be so. Not-
withstanding the evidence of Dr. Williams, Dr. Smith,
and Dr. Kitching, his learned friends never dared to put
it to Dr. Morley as to whether the prisoner was sane or
insane during the week in question. Neither had Mr.
Scarth, Mr. Peacock, Mr. Noble (governor of York
Castle) nor the surgeon of the gaol been asked as to whe-
ther they considered the conduct of the prisoner that of
a man of unsound mind ; but the jury were asked to go
back for years, and upon the speculations of such gen-
tlemen as Dr. Williams to come to the conclusion that
the prisoner was insane. The doctrine which bad been
propounded by Dr. Williams, Dr. Smith, and Mr.
Kitching was a dangerous one. If such a doctrine was
to prevail, away all punishment. Vice would reign no
longer. It would be nothing but insanity to commit a
crime. A man had only to commit an act of atrocity,
and for Dr. Williams to say that he was insane in order
to escape the consequences of his criminality. After re-
peating that the learned counsel for the defence had not
called the witnesses they ought to have called, Mr. Over-
end proceeded to comment upon the evidence of the pri-
soner's conduct in boyhood and youth, and observed that
it was an index to vice, and not insanity. That the pri-
soner was a bad boy he did not deny. He should expect
that a man who had committed so deliberate a murder as
this would be a bad boy. The learned counsel suggested
that the evidence produced for the defence was the result
of an afterthought, to rescue the prisoner from his peril.
There were witnesses who had not been called whose evi-
dence would have been important, and there had been
witnesses called whose evidence was unimportant. There
was Mr. Markhara's steward. Where was Mr. Markham's
steward Was there anything to show that the prisoner
did not manage his farm like other people ? He had
challenged his friend to call the doctor who had attend-
ed the prisoner's wife. He would not call him, and
why ? Me was a doctor who had seen the prisoner day
by day, and his friends had called doctors who had never
seen the prisoner before. They had called doctors who
had formed an opinion upon exaggerated statements,
and having heard those statements, they said he was in-
sane. Did the jury believe that Mrs. Jenkins would
have allowed a man to marry her daughter who was in-
sane ? He visited the daughter, the mother had long
examined his character and would the mother have
allowed the daughter for a moment to have continued
in his custody, and under his protection Would his
own father have allowed bim to have brought to his
home a young woman to whom he was likely to do any
damage ! The thing was impossible. Look at his acts
and conduct, and then he (Mr. Overend) would ask the
jury whether there was any justification for the defence
which had been set up ? As to the pricking the horse
with the nail, it was the act simply of a drunken man,
and nothing more. The learned counsel alluded to other
circumstances referred to in the evidence for the de-
fence, and contended that there was no ground for sup-
posing that the prisoner was a man of unsound mind.
Then as to the shooting, if the prisoner had shot at his
father and at himself, it would have been something, but
he would say that the accused bad the most perfect con-
trol over himself. It was a grand bravado on his part,
amid it ended in nothing—not even in smoke. It bad been
shown that the prisoner knew it was perfectly wrong to
steal and to murder, and there was no doubt he was
queer and eccentric, and given to habits of intemperance,
and that when drunk he did many foolish things; but
that was not to say that he was insane. It wasbecause
be was in peril—it was because his life was in danger
that this theory is brought up, which was au afterthought
brought to rescue him front the scaffold. It was very
easy to get up a speculation after the event, but why
did not the parties come forward at the time to say w.hat
was the state of his mind 3 Why did they associate

with him as d sane than ? They dealt with him as
though he wits a responsible person, and the learned
counsel called upon the jury not to let it be said that
the prisoner had wealthy friends, echo were enabled to
bring forward persons to give speculative opinions about
him, and not to let it be propagated to the country that
he ehohld bo 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
pt.:l.feet 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 mutt be pronounced—and that only let the doc-
trine propounded for the defence be established, and
there would be no safety for any one, for it was a mon-
strous doctrine. lie asked the jury whether there was
anything like impulse connected with this creme. Mr.
0 verend also contended that Mrs, Dove died of strych-
nie, that there could not be any doubt that she died
from the administration of the strychnia last obtained by
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 that he was suffering from de-
lusions. There was another letter found at the same
time, and his learned friend dared not produce it. It
was an evidence of wicked design on his part, he was
feigning insanity, 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 facts, Mr Overend
said he had now gone through the case, he hoped temper-
ately, though it might be promptly. He had made no
attempt on this occasion 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
hie wile, that he had a motive for what he did, that he
laid plans for the accomplishment of her death, that he
went on day after lay administering the poison, produc-
ing those dreadful agonies which resulted iu death, that
he put off the post mortem examination as long as he
could, and there were evidences of arrangements and d. e-
liberation which rejected and renounced all idea of in-
sanity. He had now done his duty, and the jury had 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 for 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 prisoner,
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 satisfacdon of themselves, but the approve'
of the country.
THE JUDGE'S SUMMING UP.
Mr. Baron Bramwell commenced his summing up at
four o'clock. He began by commenting upon the
solemnity of the duty which the jury had to perform.
He joined 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
same. 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 wee 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 him a serious
wrong ; if they, for fear of consequences to him, returned
a verdict 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 bad 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, he was guilty of murder,
unless he 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 he was doing wrong. If the prisoner did know the
consequences of his acts, and that they were contrary to
the law of the laud, he was punishable for his acts. Ac-
curding 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
wrong done to him, that would not justify him in taking
life. He 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 (lid not know that he had
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
li
and strong animal propensities, and they did not puneish of
him for the wrong he had done, they took away on.
the first and greatest means for preventing from dui
wrong. Again, with regard to the medicalevh
evidence ol
the prosecution, hie lordship observed that it ad been
proved to demonstration that the deceased
haddiedfrom
a dose of strychnine. A question might arise, how did
she die? The jury might nut be able to make up their
mints as to what the first attacks were, whether or not
they ai ose 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
caueea her death—the sixth dose—accidentally. On the
other hand they might have reason to supp me that five
of the doses were accidental, and the sixth and last
not accidental. His lordship went on to comment upon
the miscellaneous evidence, and having concluded his re-
view of the case for 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 he proceeded.. Referring to the
style of the prisoner's communications to his friends, dec.,
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 or insanity
had been asked of those witnesses who saw him during
the whole period in which the attacks upon Mrs. Dove,
which terminated in her death, occurred.
Coming to the medical evidence for the defence, the
learned judge reviewed the various facts and incidents
that had been advanced in justification of the opinion
that the prisoner was insane, and consequently irrespon-
sible for his acts. He criticised with some severity the
theory which had been propounded by Dr. Williams,
Mr. Kitching, and Dr. P. Smith, and pointed out the
fearful state of affairs that would arise from the adoption
of such a theory. His lordship dwelt particularly upon
the circumstance that the medical man who attended the
prisoner's own family had not been asked a question by
the defence as to prisoner's insanity, and he suggested
that the inference was obvious, namely, that they antici-
pated 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 conscious when he committed this murder—sup-
posing he did commit it—that he was doing that which
was wrong and contrary to the law. He urged them to
consider well before they pronounced their verdict, and
having reminded them of their solemn responsibility, he
requested them to retire.
The charge occupied nearly six hours. The jury re-
tired at five minutes past 10 o'clock, and returned into
court at 20 minutes before 11, with a verdict of guilty
of murder, to which they added a recommendation to
mercy on the ground of a defective intellect.
SENTENCE OF DEATH.
Mr. Baron Bramwell then assumed the black cap, and
proceeded to pass sentence. He said the prisoner at the
bar had been found guilty of the crime laid to his charge
—the crime of murder ; and lie had been found guilty,
moreover, upon evidence which could present no doubt
to the mind of any reasonable person. Murder was a
fearful, crime in ail its pastes ; 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 had
sorn to cherish and preserve. The deadly means, too,
of which he had availed himself for the perpetration of
this offence—the means of the most deadly poison—wan
ihanything, an aggravation of his crime. The jury, in
his lordship's judgment, had 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-