The Sun.
London, England, 1844-08-23 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY MORNING, AUGUST 23, 144.

They should remember his statement to the registrar,
that his wife had died of diseased heart, which was an
hereditary disease, as her mother had died of the same
disease in Northumberland some months before ; while
at the same time there was existing in the register in
Northumberland a statement, under his own hand, that
she had died of bilious fever. If they could entertain
any doubt as to the prisoner's guilt, it would be their
bounden duty to give the prisoner the benefit of that
doubt ; but if they could entertain no such doubt, it
would be their duty—and however painful that duty might
he, he was convinced they would not shrink from its per-
formance—then he\repeated, it would be their painful
duty to pronounce hill% guilty.
Mr. Baron GURNEY then summed up the evidence.
The crime charged against the prisoner was that of the
most odious nature--the crime of murder ; and the per-
son whom be was charged with murdering was one whom
he was bound to protect and to cherish, for she was his wife
—she was young, and beautiful, and fascinating. The
case differed from most other cases that had come under
his observation, for the doubt in other cases generally
arose as to the person who committed, and the means
by which, the crime was committed. Here there was no
doubt of that kind, for it was perfectly clear that the
prisoner was the person who purchased the poison, and
that that p ison was the means of the death of his
wife. If the
.jury were of opinion that he had admi-
nistered the poison himself, or had left it in her way know-
ing she would take it, they would find the prisoner guilty;
but if he had not administered it himself, or had not left
it in her way with a guilty, intent the prisoner was not
guilty of any crime whatever, however blameable his
want of caution might be. The secrets of the heart
were known to the God of all, and to him alone. It ap-
peared that the prisoner and the deceased lived, ap-
parently, in a happy state, so that the state in which
they lived together afforded no probate motive for
committing such a crime. Neither did the way
in which the property was so circumstanced afford any
probable motive for his committing the crime with
which he was charged. But, though neither of those
circumstances afforded any probable motive, yet it
sometimes happened that great crimes were commit-
ted, for which no reasonable motive could be assigned.
He was aware that, in the present state of the press of
this country, it was impossible for twelve gentlemen to
come into the box without knowing the cireumstances iu
which great crimes were committed before they came to
decide on them in a court of justice. If Any of them
had received the least impression of prejudice from what
they might have read of the present case, he begged of
him to dismiss it from his mind, and to weigh the case,
and 7decide upon the evidence which they had heard.
and by that alone. Some stress had been laid on the
prisoner taking a lodging in Stepney, but he did not
think, under the circumstances, that there was any rea-
sonable ground of suspicion in that. Those were the
general observations which he thought it necessary to
address to them. The Learned Judge then proceeded to
read those portions of the evidence which bore upon the
case, commenting on them as he went along. W hen
his Lordship had gone through the oral evidence
he referred to the letters written by the prisoner,
which were of great importance in this case. It ap-
peared front the first letter which he wrote to Mr. Bell
and Mr. Downing, that he had been practising a decep-
tion upon them, in telling them that his wife was ill,
and that he had two physicians attending her. With
regard to the letter of the Bth, in which he reiterated
his statement that his wife was ill, it was evident that
it was posted after his wife was dead, but whe-
ther it had been written before that event
they had no means of knowing. If the letter
was written before the death, he thought it
furnished a strong argument against the prisoner, for it
would seem to be a portion of that deception which it
was evident he had been practising, on his friends. If it
was written after the death, this view might be taken of
it—that wishing to conceal that his want of caution, if
his story was true, was the cause of his wife's death, he
wanted
the}' to prepare
tot try
hemfoNrvatsh, whether the prisoner
event. The question
which
had administered, or caused to be administered, this
poison, for the purpose of destroying his wife's life. If
they were of that opinion, they would find the prisoner
guilty ; but if, on the other hand, they believed that
he was only guilty of an indiscretion, and had
been guilty of falsehood in order to conceal it,
they would acquit him. There were some
very peculiar circumstances in this case. The
prisoner had been guilty beforehand of a falsehood
in stating that two medical men were attending his wife
—that falsehood was subsequently repeated. He stated
that his mother-in-law died of a disease of the heart,
whereas he had given it under his own hand that she
died of a bilious fever. All this was for their consider-
athtiaot the prisonerthoughtn.lftheywasguilty,' they would, however, under all these circumstances
painful to themselves, perform their duty to society, but
if they had any reasonable doubt of his guilt, they would
give the benefit of it to the prisoner, knowing that it was
better that ten guilty men should escape than that one
innocent life should be destroyed.
The jury then retired to consider their verdict.
After an absence of about an hour, they returned with
a verdict of—Not Guilty.