Star.
London, England, 1822-03-11 00:00:00

ASSIZES.

,MI7I

OXFORD, MARCH s.
William King was charged on the Coroner's In-
quisition with the wilful murder of Sarah Foster; and
Robert Morgan, William Hartley, and Charles Starch,
were charged with being present, aiding and abetting
him in the crime. A bill of indictment bad been pre-
ferred against the prisoners for the same offence. but
the Grand Jury found it against King only for the
minor offence of manslaughter, and ignored it as to
all the others.
As soon as the Jury were sworn, Mr. Cartes, who
appeared for Hartley and Morgan, charged as prin-
cipals in the second degree, rose to state two objec-
tions, which he conceived must be fatal to the pro-
ceedings. One of these related to the description of
the offence as against the principal in the first degree,
for whom he was not concerned, but he apprehended
that if there was no sufficient allegation of the legal
guilt of the principal, none could be lawfully made
against his alders and abettors. This objection was,
that neither the length, depth, nor breadth of the
mortal wound, of which the deceased was alleged to
have died, was specified ; and he submitted that a
statement of all these particulars was clearly requi-
site. In cases of this most serious kind, the law re-
quired the utmost minuteness of- statement, for the
protection of the party accused, that he might know
distinctly to what point he must apply his defence.
In this point of view, those things which at first
seemed only matters of form, became matters of sub-
stance, the observance of which was essential to the
protection of the innocent against vague charges.
Mr. Baron GAaaow observed, that in his abstract
of the Inquisition, the alleged cause of the death was
not a wound, but a bruise. On reference, however,
to the Inquisition, it was found to be the former.
Mr. Caoss said, that the mistake, and the inference
which his Lordship was naturally drawing from the
statement as it appeared before him, strongly illus-
trated the doctrine for which he was contending. It
would be absurd to require a statement of the dimen-
sions of a bruise, but those of a wound might readily
be ascertained by persons skilled in surgery. His se-
cond objection was, if possible, still more decisive.
On a reference to the Inquisition, it would appear
that the charge against the three principals in the se-
cond degree, was set forth in the following terms;.-.
That Robert Morgan, William Hartley, and Charles
Sturch, were felonialy ?rand at the time of the
felony and murder aforesaid, is form aforesaid ions=

11,1011rMPRIP"7"7"-•--7----7-7---
, •

•
•

•
~...,
witted. that is to lay, web. Mb day of July, i*
the ISCOOd year of our Lord the now King. at the
perish aforesaid, In the county aforesaid? at midnight
of the same day, then and therecosniorting, abetting,
and aiding, the said William Kt •to ,do and coca-'
aro*
mit the felony and murder 11 Here it was
not stated that the parties faloa• add, but only
that they were istomieudyirresces, and then, after a
number of intervening words, that they aided and
abetted the principal offender. This was clearly in.
___beat, because they might have been feloniously
peasant at the time for some other parpese: in a case
of this description, nothing could be supplied by in•
tendment, and therefore no charge of participation
in the murder appeared on the record.
Mr. Twtss,who conducted the prosecution, repliii
on the objections taken ; but as be appeared, not for
vindictive purposes, but to facilitate the attainment
of justice, he conceived it his duty to mention ano-
ther defect, which had occurred to him since the ar- 1
gement: of his Learned Friend, which he felt that I
he could not obviate. It was, that in the concluding
part of the Inquisition, where the murder ought to
be expressly charged by way of inference froth the
facts previously stated, the essential words "of malice
aforethought" were omitted.
Mr. Baron G ARROW decided that all the objections
were valid. It was absolutely necessary to state the
dimensions of the wound, though it would be other-
wise if death were occasioned by a contusion. The
omission of the word " feloniously' before the charge
of aiding and abetting was also fatal ; for the inter-
vening words.could not be struck out, nor the suc-
ceeding words, gi the felony and murder aforesaid,"
be admitted to explain the meaning of the averment.
The parties might have been present with intention
to commit some felony of another kind, and one of
the party, to gratify a former resentment, might kill
one of his associates, in which case all would be felo-
niously present, but all would not be murderers. He
remembered the case of the celebrated Abershaw,
whom he prosecuted when at the bar for shooting at
and killing a Police-officer, but who was acquitted,
because in the allegation "and of which mortal wound
the deceased instantly died," the words " then and
them" were omitted. The objection also mentioned
by Mr. Twiss was fatal. AU the prisoners were,
underhisLordship's direction, immediately acquitted.
King was then arraigned on the indictment for
manslaughter found against him.
Mr. Twin stated the circumstances of the case,
and called the witnesses. .
It appeared in evidence, that King, with the
three others, had been drinking until eleven at night
on the 26th of July last, at the Crown Inn, at Ban-
bury. After they left this place they went to the
house of the deceased, which is situate in the yard of
the inn, and loudly demanded admittance,whict was
refused them. After they had retired to a little dis-
tance, Sarah Foster, who was in bed with her sister,
opened the window, and violently abused King for
the disturbance. She repeated her abusive language
till he threw a stone, which struck her on the side of
the head, and made her IA senseless. She languished,
almost always in a state of insensibility, till the Bth
of August, when she died. On examination it was
discovered that the stone had fractured a small vessel
embedded in a channel in the skull, and produced an
effusion of three ounces of blood, which occasioned
death. A deposition of the deceased had been taken
during an interval of sense, by a I%l.igistnite, but it
could not be received in evidence as an examination
taken under the statute, because it was not given in
the presence of the prisoner; nor as a dying declara-
tion, because it did not appear that the deceaied was
at the time conscious that she could not recover. The
prisoner received an excellent character for general
humanity and peaceableness of demeanour.
Mr. Baron GA RROW charged the Jury, that there
was no pretence for charging King with murder, or
the other prisoners with any crime at all. But be'
thought there would be little doubt that the charge
of manslaughter was supported by the testimony of
the witnesses.

The Jury found King Guilty of Manslaughter, and
the Learned Judge, taking into consideration the
length of imprisonment which he had already endured,
sentenced him to six weeks' imprisonment.