The Sun.
London, England, 1827-06-07 00:00:00

SHEEN, THE MURDERER.

There appears to he great anxiety felt amongst all
classes with regard to the fate of this man; and his
present situation also appears to be but indistinctly
understood. After his trial and acquittal, for the al-
leged murder of Charles Wm. Sheen, the witnesses
were all bound over in recognizances to be in attend-
ance to give evidence against him, should any bill be
preferred, before the grand jury then sitting. No bill
havingbeen preferred, the witnesses were subsequently
called upon to enter into recognizances to appear before
the Grand Jury at the next session, to give evidence
against him.
From the circumstance of his not having been
again tried at the present Session, a conclusion ap-
pears to have been come to that he will escape the
hands of justice, and that upon the ground that he
cannot be twice tried for the same offence : in fact,
that is so, but it may be a question-whether he has
been tried for the offence committed. The principle
of law laid down, and it would seem generally agreed
upon, is, " that when a person is once found ' not
guilty' on an indictment or appeal, free from error,
and well commenced before a court which has ju-
risdiction of the cause, he may by the common law, in
all cases, plead autre fois acquit (before acquitted)
in bar off any subsequent indictment or appeal for the
same cause." It is further laid down, that "if one
be acquitted on an indictment o( murdering quondam
ignotum, and afterwards indicted for killing the same
person, described by his proper name, he may show
that both indictments were for the same felony.
And if the person killed be described by his proper
name and surname in the first indictment, and by a
different surname in the second, such variance may
be helped by an averment that the person so differ-
ently named was one and the same person; but it
has been held to be advisable to add, that he was
known as well by the name in the first as by that in
the second indictment."
It is also said, " Whenever.an indictment where-
on a man is acquitted is so far erroneous (either for
want of substance in setting out the crime, or for
want of an authority in the Judge) that no good
judgment could be given upon it against the defen-
dant, the acquittal of the defendant is no bar of a
subsequent indictment, because in judgment of law
the defendant's life was not in danger; but if there
be error
.in the process only, the acquittal will be a
good bar of a subsequent prosecution, for such error
is solved by the appearance."

From these authorities, laid down by eminent men,
most certainly several questions will arise as applica-
ble to the case of Sheen.
Ist. Was the indictment under which he was tried
free from error? It is presumed that it was not;
for it charged that he murdered Charles William
Sheen, when, in fact, there was no such person ; and
as it regarded the assumption of the mother's name
(Beadle), it was merely stated; and it was shown
that by reputation (the only mode by which in law
he could have such name) the child murdered had
never been known by such name. Surely this, then
must be error, and error of that description that the
prisoner could not by possibility be convicted ; and
if so, his life could not have been in danger—the
principle uppn which it is held that he cannot be
twice tried for the same offence. He therefore cannot
plead autre fois acquit.
The next point that presents itself, is as regards
the name and surname. In fact, by law, the child
had no name; and all that was shown was, that he
was known by the name of William only, and was
not, therefore, known by the names set out in the
indictment upon which he was tried.
We have reason to think that the case of this man
is under the consideration of some of the most eminent
counsel, and have no doubt that a bill will be pre-
ferred against him at the next Sessions, seeing that
the child murdered has not vet been at all identified
in law as the child charged in the indictment. At
the same time it is only just to state, that there does
exist a great difference in opinion on the case.