The Sun.
London, England, 1859-03-14 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

and contended that there was not a particle of
evidence of expressed malice on the part of the
prisoner against the deceased, nor was any sug•
gested. He did not appear to have ever known or
seen him before. As to the evidence in support of
implied and general malice the exhibiting of the
dagger to the policeman and to the woman before
he met the deceased rather contradicted the
proposition, for had he brandished about his dagger
and threatened the policeman it would have been
the policeman's duty to take him into custody, but
the policeman's conduct showed plainly that no
such construction could be placed on the prisoner's
acts, and the woman accosted by him never pre-
tended that the prisoner had threatened her with
the dagger, or that she was alarmed at what he
had done. The evidence in support of the charge
of murder therefore failed. The learned counsel
then contended that the facts proved showed that
the deceased in his half-drunken state had stopped
the prisoner, who, being a stranger to him, was
probably alarmed ; other two men, Norton and
Hawksworth, having come up at the same time,
coupled with the fact of the vicinity of a number
of narrow streets and passages close to the place
where the prisoner had met the deceased, where
people might be concealed, and the time being past
midnight, gave reasonable ground for such alarm.
These circumstances and his fear of garotte rob-
beries might have led him to suppose that he was
about to be attacked, and have caused him to draw
his dagger-knife for protection, and if, in the con-
flict which afterwards occurred, the deceased
received a stab which unhappily had resulted in
death, the homicide fell rather under the law which
excused and justified homicide when committed
under the apprehension of a felony being committed,
and in necessary self-defence, than under the legal
decisions which made homicide manslaughter. He
submitted that the circumstances warranted this
view, and if the jury were of that opinion they
ought to acquit the prisoner altogether ; but if they
were of opinion that the knife had been used while
in the hot blood of a contest under circumstances
such as had been proved, then he submitted that at
most the offence was manslaughter, and net murder.
The learned Judge then summed up. He in-
formed the jury that the life of the prisoner was in
their hands, and if they returned a verdict of
guilty, he would have to be left for execution. His
lordship then read over the evidence. From the evi-
dence of the first witness it appeared the deceased
was a quiet industrious man, but fond of shaking
hands when a little elevated by drink with persons
with whom he came into contact, a habit. which
might be obnoxious to persons who did not know
him. All homicide is murder, for precious is the
life of a man in the sight of the law. If life is lost
n a quarrel then the offence is manslaughter. If
the prisoner had killed the deceased by a kick while
scuffling, he would be guilty of manslaughter ; and
what distinguished this case from one of that de-
scription was, that he used a deadly weapon. If
the prisoner drew out the knife before the scuffle,
intending to use it in the scuffle, then the crime
would amount to murder. He thought it would only
be fair for the jury to assume that the knife was
shut up in the pocket of the prisoner when ho came
into contact with the deceased, and the only ques-
tion left for them to decide was the circumstances
under which he drew it out, whether with malice
aforethought, or whether in the heat of blood. If
under the former circumstances, it would be their
duty to find him guilty of murder ; and if under
the latter circumstances, of manslaughter.
The jury then retired, and, after an absence of
about fifteen minutes returned a verdict of guilty of
manslaughter.
Several previous convictions for felony have
been proved against the prisoner.
The learned judge proceeded to pass sentence.
He said the prisoner's offences sank into nothing-
ness when compared with his present heinous
offence. He had had a very narrow escape with
his life, for if the jury had brought in a verdict of
guilty, he would most certainly have been left
for execution. The prisoner was guilty of
manslaughter of the most aggravated character,
if not of murder, and it was absolutely
necessary that the carrying and using of
daggers and bowie knives, which he had hoped
were almost unknown in this part of the country,
should be punished with the severest penalties of
the law. He should therefore sentence the pri-
soner to penal servitude for the natural term of his
life.

OXFORD CIRCUIT.—STAFFORD, March 12.
CIVIL COURT.

(Before Mr. Justice Crompton and Common Juries,

EARP V. TOMKINSON.