The Sun.
London, England, 1860-10-27 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, OCTOBER 27, 18 O.

Emsley's house. The alleged recognitionof Mullins
by the witnesses Mitchell and Raymond was worth
nothing whatever in comparison with the more
weighty matters which had been brought before the
jury. Some stress had been laid upon the
boot which was said to correspond with
the bloody print, but before this evidence was
made available it ought to be pretty clear to
every observer that such a similarity existed
between the footprint and the boot that the one
must necessarily be a copy of the other. There was
said to be blood on the pencil-case, but Dr. Gill
could not tell whether it was human blood, and so
with the hair on the boot, this witness did not take
upon himself to say that it corresponded in appear-
ance with the hair of the deceased. The case against
the prisoner appeared to him to rest chiefly on the
conclusion to which the jury would come respecting
the parcel. Who made up that parcel ? The counsel
for the defence said that the cheque might have
passed out of Mrs. Emsley's hands and have come
into the prisoner's possession. But the prisoner had
net told them how he got it, and, if he had got it
the jury had a right to call upon him for an ex-,
planation. The identity of the spoons and the lenses
was made much more complete by their being found
along with the cheque; as to which there could be no
doubt at all that it was paid to the deceased on the
day of the murder. In the prisoner's house a spoon
was found corresponding in every respect with the
spoons in the parcel, and it would be for the jury
to consider how far this fact again connected the
prisoner with the parcel and showed that he made
it up. They should remember that the prisoner was
not to be convicted on suspicion only, nor could any
number of circumstances of mere suspicion suffice
to sustain the case against him. And here he might
for their information define what was circumstan-
tial evidence. If a man were seen coming out of a
room, that was circumstantial evidence to prove
that he had been in the room. Such evidence sup-
ported a sort of proof by giving rise to an inference
which was irresistible. It would be a great mistake
to confound under the term " circumstantial evi-
dence" the idle dreaming of the men who alleged that
they met Mullins on the evening of the murder and
on the morning afterwards with the far more reliable
evidence furnished by the cheque and the other con-
tents of the parcel. Circumstantial evidence meant a
number of facts which, if believed, left in the mind of
a rational man no reasonable doubt as to a particular
conclusion. But the jury must allow themselves:to
be influenced only by circumstances which pressed
directly against the prisoner, not by the surmises of
persons meeting somebody whom they thought was
the prisoner, or by the testimony of somebody else,
who said the prisoner did his work after the murder
so badly that it had to be done over again. Upon
the whole case did the evidence lead irresistibly to
the conclusion that the prisoner was guilty? In the
words of Lord Tenterden, did it bring to their minds
that firm persuasion, that degree of conviction, upon
which people would act in their own important con-
cerns ? If so, it was their duty to act upon this
persuasion. It was to the interest of the public that
no innocent man should suffer, and it was also to
their interest that the guilty should not escape. In
forming a judgment upon such a case it would be
idle to estimate the chances of acquitting the guilty
or of convicting the innocent. No such calculation
could be attempted. Were the jury of opinion, upon
the whole evidence, that the prisoner was guilty ?
If so, the duty of returning that verdict must, how-
ever painful, be discharged. If not, the prisoner
was entitled to be set free. But the doubt of which
the prisoner was to have the benefit must not be a
mere surmise that the case might have been other-
wise—that the cheque might have come properly
into his possession ; and so forth. The question was
what, in their opinion, really did happen, and did
they believe it with that degree of certainty upon
which they acted in their own important affairs?
This question they must now prepare to answer, and
they would answer it in such a way as would do
justice to the prisoner and satisfy their own con-
sciences.
At the conclusion of his lordship's charge, which
occupied three hours and a quarter, the jury retired
to consider their verdict, and returned into court at
a quarter past 6 o'clock, having been absent about
an hour.
The usual question was put by the Clerk of Ar-
raigns, and the foreman, amid breathless silence,
returned a verdiet of Guilty.
Being then asked in the usual form what he had
to say why sentence should not be passed upon him,
The Prisoner (who spoke with much energy and
firmness, and with a slight Irish accent) said—My
Lord, will you allow me a few words ? I am not
guilty. I know that I have not many days to live,
and I am now speaking the truth. I am most happy
to have had such a trial—an attentive jury and
also such able counsel, who have done so cleverly
for me in my defence. On Monday, the 13th, I was
at work in Temple-place, repairing some houses. I
remained there till between 6 and 7 o'clock. After
then I returned home to my own place, and, as the
Lord is my judge, and I shall see him before long,
I remained in my own place until I had my supper.
After supper I went to bed, and remained there
until 8 o'clock or so the following morning. One
witness has told your lordship that he saw me in
the urinal at the corner of a publichouse, the name
of which I now forget. I solemnly declare before
my God that I am telling your lordship and the
Court at large the simple truth. I was at home at
the time, and I was in bed at the time when the
other witness said lie saw me early next morning
at Stepney-green. I say he could not have seen me
there, for I was in my bed. Now, as for the boot
and my hammer. My hammer was not used by me
in any way to hurt any man, woman, or child ; aid
as to the boot, I protest before my God I never saw
it till I saw it at the Thames police-court. Never
did I see it before ; never did I wear it. I solemnly
declare that before all here present. What I have
stated now are the real facts as the Lord is my
judge, and He shall judge me before long. I was
in my own bed. Never did Igo out of my own
place from the time I left my work in Temple-
place until 8 o'clock the following morning. And
my heart (striking his bosom) is light at being able
to tell all my friends about me that what I say to
you now is the real truth. 1 am extremely obliged
to the jury, and I am happy to have had such a
patient jury. lam obliged to your lordship, alsc
and to the gentlemen, both against me and for me
—Mr. Parry and my own able counsel. I am happy
to say that Mr. Best has done very well, far me,
not forgetting my attorney, Mr. Wood, who has
taken more trouble than I would expect a gentle-
man in his class to take. He has done all he could
to find witnesses for me, and as yet I am sorry to
say that I have not paid him. What I have said
are the real facts.
The Lord Chief Baron, putting on the black cap,
then said :—James Mullins, you have been con-
victed of the crime of wilful murder upon the per-
son of Mary Enasley on the 13th of August last.
You have yourself, I think, very properly com-
mended the patience of the: jury and the propriety
of conduct shown by the counsel concerned in the
case, even by those retained against you. The jury
after a trial of two days and after patient delibera-
tion have found you guilty. You have addressed
the Court upon the evidence against you. It would
have been more satisfactory to me if you had
addressed your observations to some part of the case
which was considered by me as really bearing
against you. Instead of that, you have confined
your remarks entirely to those parts of the cesse
which I pointedly in some measure warned the
jury to pay very little regard to. Not that these
matters so proved by some of the witnesses were
untrue, but because it appeared to me that they
were not of a nature justly to prove the crime con-
tained in the indictment. They' might form
reasonable grounds of suspicion, but it appeared to
me that they did not furnish any pregnant proofs
against you. Had you been desirous, in your
address to the Court, to meet what I considered
to be the really grave part of the evidence against
you, you would have told us whether you were ;ri
possession of the check, or not, and whether your'
accusation against Emm was true or false. If you
were in possession of the check, you would have told
us how you camo by it. I mention thesepoints to show
that the remarks you have made appear to me
entirely beside the case which has been proved
against you. The jury have fouud you guilty, and
without some explanation of your conduct— an
explanation which you have not furnished—with-
out some evidence, of which there does not appear
to be any existence, I own that I do not see how
any reasonable person can come to any other con-
clusion than that your charge against Emm was
altogether false, and that you were responsible for
the possession of those marks of guilt contained in
the parcel. The murder of this helpless old
woman was a wicked, cruel, and aggravated
crime. The unhappy sufferer may aye felt
little, as s:ie was probably deprived of sensa-
tion by the first blow. But it is manifest that who-
ever committed the murder took good care that
there should be no possibility of recovery, and that
life should be utterly extinct. I endeavoured to
leave the case entirely for the consideration of the
jury. lam still of opinion that some of the cir-
cumstances urged against you, instead of increasing
the weight of evidence for the prosecution, only
tended to embarrass the jury in corning to a conclu-
sion. But with that conclusion am bound to state
I am perfectly satisfied, and with the evidence be-
fore them un contradicted as it was and unexplained,
as part of it might have been, 1 do not see how they
could come to any other. It oily remains for me
now to entreat you to make the best use of the time
which may be spared to you before the execution
of the sentence. It is my duty to pass the judg-
ment which the law provides for the punishment
of so awful a crime. I do not think that I am either
called upon or should be justified in adding any.