The Somerset press. [volume] (Somerset, Ohio) 1873-1977, 1882-06-22
1AM, NOT JUSTICE.

William Shaw, respectable trades
man of Edinburgh, was blessed with q
daughter who had formed a foolish at
tachment for young man of bad char
acter. Naturally enough. the father OBJ
jected to the whole business. The fool
ish young woman, growing desperate,
stabbed herself. When in the throes Of.
death, in the presence of witnesses, her
father appeared, and before expiring she
uttered the words, "Cruel father, thou
art the cause of my death r The father,
at this accusation, was said to exhibit
great agitation. On the evidence, then,
of the daughters dying speech, and the
decided alarm which he displayed, the
unfortunate father was condemned to the
gallows. Apparently no evidence could
be more conclusive but still, be it re-
membered, it was only apparently"
It was simply. after all, going on the
question Of precedent. It was only
presumption of fact grounded on gen..
eral belief that the confession of dying
person may always be taken for granted
to be true. But circumstances proved
otherwise. A year or SO afterward, as a
new tenant of Shaw's former apartments
was rummaging by chance in the room
in which Catherine Shaw had died, he
accidentally discovered a paper which
had fallen into cavity on one side Of
the chimney. It was folded as a letter,
and on being opened the following con-
fession was brought to light
"BARBARoUs FATHER: Your cruelty
having put it out of my power ever to
join my fate tothat of theman I could love,
and tyrannically insisting upon my mar
rying one whom I always hated, has
made me form resolution to put an end
to an existence which has become bur-
den to me. I doubt not shall find
mercy in another world, for sure no be-
nevolent Being can require thatI should
live any longer in torment to myself in
this. My death lay to your charge.
When you read this, consider yourself
an inhuman wretch that plunged the
murderous knife into the bosom of the
unhappy CATHERINE SHAW"
For another case might be quoted the
famous trial and conviction of Bradford,
the innkeeper. Here the evidence which
produced conviction consisted of the fact
that he was seen standing with bloody
knife in his hand over the body Of the
murdered man. Bradford was executed;
but by deathbed confession of guilt it
subsequently became known that the
real murderer was the servant of his VIC
tim, who had been tempted to the crime
BY the knowledge that his unfortunate
master was carrying considerable sum
of money about his person. Here, again,
was another case of the fallibility of ar
guing on precedent. Other undoubted
murderers have been convicted because
they had been caught red-handed in the
presence of their victims. Therefore
Bradford was undoubtedly guilty be-
cause he was discovered under the same
circumstances, and it was quite un-
natural to suppose anything to the con-
trary. As to the weli-known case of the
Courier of Lyons, the Geddeley case and
the recent case of Habran, who FORUM
ately escaped the gallows, there is no
need to enter into any particular de-
tails, as those already quoted are suffi-
cient for any ordinary purpose of expo
sition. It may be taken for granted,
then, that the lawyer is not always the
best, and never, at any time, the only
Judge of the value of evidence.-TSns-
leys Magazine.