The Sun.
London, England, 1858-08-11 00:00:00

SAI4IUF.LS V. DENNIS.

This was a special jury cause.
Mr. Hawkins was for the defendant, and Mr. Watkin
Williams for the plaintiff.
This was an oction of slander brought by the plaintiff, an
extensive watch and clock maker, in Cletkenwell, against
the defendant, also a tradesman occupying a respectable
position in the same 1 calitv, in order to vindicate his cha-
racter from cat ain imputations that were alleged to hare
been cast upon him by the defendant.
Mr. Hawkins, on behalf of the defendant, said he was
instructed to state that whilst he emphatically denied ever
intentionally or at all made use of the alleged ex-
pressions, he at once freely admitted that whether he said
them or not, there was no foundation in fact for any such
imputations upon the plaintiff's character ar conduct.
Mr. Watkin Williams said, on behalf of the plaintiff, that
the explanation and apology of the defendant here all be
had e%er desired, and he was stilling-that the case should be
amicably settled, each party paying his own costs.
A juryman silo !heti withdrawn by consent.

WESTERN CIRCUIT.—WELLS, Auo. 10.
CROWN COURT.
(More Mr. Baron Watson.)
THE CRUCH ST. MICHAEL MURDERS.
The care for the pi o3ecution lasted the whole of yes'erday,
and was sought to be established by the evidence of nearly
50 witnesse,.., who deposed to the various facts stated by Mr?'
Coleridge iu his opening address to the jury.
Mr. Kingdon addressed the jury on behalf of the prisoner.
It was his duty to address them for the prisoner charged
with this fearful mime, and he besought their anxious atten-
tion to the remarks be should have to offer to them. The
enormity of the crime had led public opinion to the conclu-
sion of the prisoner's gnilt ; it had been discussed through
the length and breadth of the land ; but he would ask the
jury to exclude from their minds all they bad heard or read
upon the subject. Responsible as was his duty, still more so
was their task responsible. Let them b- jealous of any un-
due bias that might exist in their minds. lle would ask
them to go through fact by fact, and to weigh each fact cc-
cordiugto English law—not to convict upon conviction alone,
and if any doubt existed the prisoner should have the bent
of it. The prisoner was a yr,ung inan who hall lived nearly
all his life with his gra:Al:vitt r, and the charge against him
new was in r. ality that he had mureeted his grandf.after and
grandmother; and let them first icquire what could be his
object or raotive in takieg from the would there who were
most dear to blot in life. The pi oseention suggested two
motives. Let them exaluine them one by one. The first
motive was, that be had incurred some debt for drink, and
bad stayed away longer than be ought ; and they were
asked to believe that this imprudent act had induced him to
kill his grandfather and his grandmother. Could they
imagine that such a single act should have led to such a
c
rai,he
grat,mtutiree.orra.n.t Lhßeertu,
tt hweiafms jhued
theregmeo
at by the
ihl
la-
dfce oebimienemegno nsa
strong against
of human
I hTeh
best
tfoonind termshiin vs,iptehn
thedili go i
da I tal
apreviousedar a n after-
noona jt g
er.
Tup-
s thsei
raelsceaocamodtpdtai: -eyms
uolgtlgrnvees t
is
even-
ing he had heard his grandfather fatthhaet; soany
the next morning taeoinngsEt ight eig) wsrtaa grand-
mother.
the prisoner heard tht::hetl3ei previous
on was that this motive bad led to the
iaodju
osia.iteo:
act. But the witneLs called
not Owouthio to prove this conversa• ion wou:d

Hayman heard no such conversation. It rested entirely upon
the evidence of one witness. These two motives, he sub-
mi t-'d, had entirely fare I. Le.asing, the ease, then, free
from any motive let them go to the facts. He agreed that
they must take all the facts together; but they must exa-
mine them individually and separately. The first fact was
his aslcing how tt e touch-rag was made, and Read told him ;
but it was Read who suggested that reek powder might be
used for firing a gun. That conversation, if true, did not
originate in any desire on the part of the prisoner to obtain
powder, for it was Read who had suggested in what manner
it might he used; but there was no corroboration of this
statement. Read said the' the prisoner had accompanied
him to 11'3 house. Mrs. Read said the prisoner c :me after
her husband had been at horse an hour, and said he bad
come to ask William to lend him a bit of powder, and this
was inconsistent with the story told by Read. Then it had
been said that he stated he wanted it fur Miss Morris's fowls,
which had the pip. Miss Morris had been called, and she
was indignant at the idea of the fowls having the pip, hut she
admitted that he did not know what the pip was. Gelid they
place any reliance on this suggestion ? The next fact was
as to the bicol. Mr. Herapath said he could not say it was
human blood ; and he said it must have spurted from some
wound. Did not that at once remove all suspicion of its
being human blood ? because the surgeon had stated that
the blood from the o'd woman's throat would ro t have
spurted out, and the old man had been shot by some one
standing at a distance from him. They must recollect that
the prisoner was in the habit of assisting his grandfather in
killing pigs. The blood, therefore, was out of the question.
The next point was that the old man had died from a gun-
shot wound, and that some days before the prisoner had
filed a piece of iron at a blacksmith's shop; but of what
importance was that? In an idle moment he had taken up
the iron. The surgeon had stated that in his opinion the
wound was inflicted by a round bullet. What then became
of the idea of the piece of iron ? The next fact was, that
there was a gun in the house, and of so peculiar a descrip-
tion that no one but the prisoner could have used it. As to
the gun being in the 'wise there was nothing in that. Upon
the examination of the gun yesterday, he thought that the
suggestion that the prisoner alone could use it was at an
end, for upon trying the gun in court it stood both at half
and full cock. Goldsmith, the policeman, would have them
suppose that the prisoner was the first man who had sug-
gested that his uncle bad been shot, whereas the evidence
proved that the gun had been found three hours before, and
it had been suggested that the old man had been shot with
that gun. Then his friend had prominently set forth the
fact of the prisoner's having gone to ask the number of the
£5 note. He, however, submitted that that did not go one
step towards proving the guilt of the prisoner, but quite
the contrary; for it was the very thing that any reasonable
and sensible person would have done in endeavouring to
discover the murderer. He would seek to know the
number of the note, in case it should be offered for chance
by any one, so that it might afford a clue to discover the
perpetrator of the crime. If the prisoner had had a sinister
object would be have taken the policeman with him ? The
next step was one upon which touch stress had been laid by
the prosecution ; he meant the difference of the statement
of Mr. Meade King and the prisoner as'to the ladder and
looking in at the window. He wished Mr. M. King, a ma-
gistrate, had not shown so much zeal as to go and subject
the prisoner, of whom he had a suspicion, to a most severe
examination. But be was glad be had done so, for it proved
no inconsistency in the prisoner's conduct. The fist grave
charge made by Mr. King was that the ladder had not made
a sufficient impression on the soft earth of the garden, when
it was first pot there, according to the prieener'e statement.
What had Mr. King done ? He had the ladder placed in the
same position ; and he bad gone up twice and the prisoner
once, and then he stated that the impression was mach
deeper. It was unworthy if the prosecution to have relied
upon such circumstances. Thee came the question as to the
prisoner's not having seen anything in the bedroom. But
what was the conduct of Mr. King ? He had been in the
bedroom, he had inspected it, and was aware that a
murdered woman was lying in the bed ; and then with his
mind so preccupied, he had looked into the room; but if a
stranger had looked in ae the window, all he could have
seen would have been the appearance of some body
in the bed. There was nothing else for him to
have seen, for there was no blood visible. Therefore,
the prisoner, looking in hastily withent his mind being pre-
pared for anything, had nothing to 14ad his mind to ttre fact
of his grandmother being murdered, and if he had not
looked into the window in a particular way, as Mr. King
admitted, be could not have seen the bed. But Mr. King
said, look which way he would, he must have seen the
things strewn about the floor. But when the prisoner
looked in before 6 o'clock tire deed might not have been en-
tirely complete, for 'he rep a .t of the gun was not heard till
20 minutes to 6 o'clock. 14i.ght it not have been that, when
the prisoner was rattling at the door, the author of the deed
bad not completed his work of pillage ? He might have
finished that after he had been disturbed. Then he came to
the last of the many facts that had been strung together by
the prosecution to connect the prisoner with this crime—he
meant the only strong fact in the case against the prisoner.
He did not conceal from himself that it was one which
might lead to a suspicion; but it was of so vague a charac-
ter that they could not place any reliance upon it. On the
Thursday morning they found a bundle in the pigstye, and
it contained a knife and a letter belonging to the prisoner.
At first it was suggested that the handkerchief was a
strong fact, but one of the jury bad exploded that
by saying there were one hundred dozen of that sort
of handkerchiefs made by the same manufacturer ;
awl the only thing spoken to was that Mrs. Nation
had heard that it was hemmed by a child. Were they
to convict a man of murder upon such a circum-
stance ? With regard to the knife and the letter—what
possible motive or object could the prisoner, had he com-
tuit,ed the murder, have had in putting such articles into
the bundle, which would convict him of the crime ? It was
so improbable that he would rsk them, in the name of com-
mon sense, whether they could believe the prisoner could
have done such a thing. Could they believe a man would
be so insane ? The prisoner had what might be called a
double home at his grandfather's. If he had not his knife
and his letter in his pocket they would expect to find them
lying at one or other of his homes. litany foul murderer erne
into the house and took all the property he found lying
about, they would expect to find those articles among others
which had been stolen, and these things were found with the
su:ar-tongs aed the £5 note. Could they suppose, if the
prisoner had committed the act, that he would have taken
the trouble to take the knife and letter from his pocket
and put them into this bundle? Could any human
being suggest an object for such a course ? It ne.s
I not as if the murder had been committed with the knife.
If that supposition should he rejected RS tlbStird, what wis
the other alierriativa ? That he, bring at the cottage—his
home by day—might have kept little things beloncing to him
there. What more likely than that, after using the knife to
eat his supper, he might have left the knife where he bad
, sapped ? If he had committed the act he could not have
been etre!) a madman as to have put those things in the
bundle. The greater probability was that the knife was
lying carelessly about the inn and was taken up by the plun-
derer. Why, when the pelicemau searched the prisoner
and ask( d if he had anything el- e, the prisoner at once said,
"Yes, there's my knife." and he searched in his pocket for
it. If he bad put the knife in the bundle would he have
named the knife? Then, as to the letter; he had imagined
it was a love letter. Had he left that about as well as the
knife ? or had it dropped out of his pocket ? The grand-
mother might have found it, and seeing it was a love-letter,
she might have become alarmed, feeling that he could not
keep a wife, and might have taken charge of it ; and the
inurdeter in search of plunder might have caught that up
with the £5 note. But there was one little fact which ap-
peace.] to rim conclusive of the prisoner's innocence. They
had heard that some of the procet ds of the robbery had been
found in a straw rick, deposited in a glove. To whom did
that glove belong? %Vas there a tittle of evidence to con-
nect that clove with the prisoner or with Mr. and Mrs.
Bucknell Was it not cenclusive that sortie meson to whom
that glove belenged had committed the muttl,r ? hint not
only was there this strong fact but there w as another
equally cogent? A gr.) note bed been found in the butelle.
91 r. gut knell had sai,4 be had £4O upstairs. Where was
the oilier £33? Had the prisoner g it it? Not me farthing.
was found upon hien. Where was that £35? It was clear
there must have been sortie person connected with the
runnier who was a stranger to the house, and who had the
£3-i. Put n5l the facts together, andpcigh them sepa-
rately, and he thought, al hough there might be sus-
picion, t there was not a conviction such as
they could act upon. lf they had soma facts which
raised a suspicion, let them compare them with the
general bserings of the case, and if they found the general
facts co.slat eet with the prisoner's inrocerce, then how
c ,old they say the lei:enter was guilty? It was material to
consider the time. It eels clear that the report of the gun
was heard at 20 minutia to 6, there tore tha, must have been
the time at which the old man nos murdered. Then, it
was clear that the prisorier was at the gateway with his
father just before 6 o'clock; therefore they had the two points
of time-20 minutes to 6 and 6 o'clock. 'fire time of
the prisoner writ clearly aceenuted for after 6 o'clock.
Thus, as to his time before 6, it did not appear when he
was seen going to the Cottage lon on that morning; but
they had been asked to believe that, because it so happened
that no one sate hint g r there—he was there be:ore the gun'
was discharged, and, further, that they bail gone by a short
road through the fields. They were asked to believe this
without any evidence to support the proposition. Why
wire they to take any such thing for granted? To found
two such theories upon such a presumption of facts
was what he should not have expected from this
prosecution. They would not Let upon such wild specula-
tion without some evidence to support it. The prisoner,
when examined by Mr. Meade King, said he arrived at the
inn shortly betCre six o'clock, and what was there to contra-
dict it? A man named Willes was called to prove that the
prisoner did not pass along the road between five and a
quarter to six, and he then left his garden and went into his
trottee. Why, that-wave/Jest he (t)re learned counsel) wanted
to prove. hat quarter din hour would be Vie very tinge
the prisoner weuld hive gone along the road. That was the
strongest p9ssible point in favour of the prisoner. If he did
not go along that road between five o'clock and a quarter to
six he could not be the person who committed the act. To
get over this the prosecution asked them to believe that hr
had gone across the fields; but, why were they to jump to
such n conclusion ? That disposed of the question of time,
and that was only consistent with the innocence of the pri-
soner. He would nnw assume that the gun which deprived
Mr. Bucknell of life was disehareed at `2O minu'rs to 6,
and be would assume that Mt. Boricnell's life was taken
fleet. It was, therefore, moat probable that souse one was
concealed in the teller, and had shot Mr. Bucknell upon his
entering that cellar. Then the death of Mrs. Bucknell was
accomplished. This must have taken time. What did the
murderer do next? He ransacked the house. Ile mart have
selected tire things and tied them in the bundle. Ile must
have put tire silver in the glove; must have got out of the
house, gone to the pigstye, and concealed the bundle, then
to the pond to wash the hay knife, and then to the straw
rick to hide that knife and the glove,—end they were asked
to believe that the prisoner did all this in 20 minutes. But
the owner of the glove might have begun this deed at 20
minutes to 6, might have murdered both these unhappy per-
sons, amid might have been disturbed by the prisoner's
rattling at the door, and during tire time that the prisoner
I went to Mr. Morris's house the tour dryer might have con-
cealed tire things assts rf copal. The person who committed
the murder was evidently disturbed while in the act of
piunthr, for Mr. Kim had told them that everything in the
room indicated that the person must have been disturbed.
What a medley cr thiegs was in tire hendle,—tlie knife, the
key, tl:c liter, isle tong., the ;e5 note, and the half mit-
meg,—and yet the silveispoons were I. ft in the rcoin ! He
could not conedve anything extraordinary is tire conduct
of a stringer who, hayin'e; committed etteh murder, should
conceal his plunder upore the prent!ses. The next inquiry
was the conduct of the prisoner at the time and immedi-
ately after the discovery of the murder. It wen within their
experience that there were some signs about the conduct o:
a tnurderer. But what was the conduct of the prisoner?
Had ha committed the act they would hardly expect the t
immediately after it he would have gone to request the
nt ighbours to come to the spot, and then would have gone to
the a--Itar Inn to endeavour to discover the number of the nete.
Wes there any coat': sad manner, or anyt hire' to lead them at
the .ime to cast any suspicion open him? There nothieg
extraordinary cc improper in his conduct. He actuelly in-
vited the policeman to go and search tire pigstye, where, if
he was guilty, the most damning proofs assainst him would
be found. Ile Lad now gone through all the facts, and be
saved thorn to weigh them in every way. Until be came to
09 knife And the letter there was not fact wexthir their

considera'ion, and he submitted as to these it was impossible
to suppose that the prisoner had pet them into that bundle.
Would they, upon that fact alone, convict tie prisoner? If
they found there was some suspicion, let them look at the
conduct of the prisoner, and he then submitted that they
IT us feel Oat some other person had committ• d those most
foul acts, and that the prisoner must be innocent. They
were not to convict a man upon mere suspicion, but a sus-
picion beyond all doubt; and they must hear in mind that it
was a cardinal eoctrine in the admins.ration of criminal jus-
tice in this Country, that if the jury had in their minds any
reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused they must give
it in favour of the prisoner.
Mr. Baron Watson Om summed up the case. They had
been assisted with the most singular ablity and ingenuity
by the counsel on both sides. They were not there for
the purpose of allowing persols to escape from crime,
nor were they there to convict any person without sufficient
proof of his guilt. They were not to convict upon
suspicion, but to convict only upon legal evidence
leading to a conclusion that would satisfy them beyond all
reasonable doubt that the prisoner
.was the person who had
committed this act.
The jury retired at half-past 12 o'clock to consider their
verdict, an: returned at five minutes to one, and then gave
a verdict of guilty.
Mr. Baron Watson then. passed sentence of death upon
the prisoner.