Widnes Examiner. — 1900-01-26 (Widnes, Cheshire, England)

THE 14:XAM1NE11, FRIDAY, JANUARY 26, 1900.  firmary. He and Dr.T.torpe,junior house surgeon at the Intitmary,subsequently math, a post mnrtem examination of the boly on January 1511. tie described the marks externally. The heart was not hoalthy and there were signs of oneurnonia in both lungs—septic pneumonia the result of gangrene. The cause of death was primarily the injury; secundly,the extravasation of urine; and thirdly, ganrene I-, would require a fairly hard kick to have cauncd the injury A kick from either of the clogs proouced would easily cause the injury, and it might be causA more easily from a kick behind. Th.ny concluded fr on the post-morant that the chance of recovery was very roman. He should say that the de;easei was a strong man. Dr • Thorpe, junior house surgeon at the Infirmary said the deceased was admitted to the Infirmary on the 7th. He was suffering from rupture of the urethra and extravasatinn of the urine. He attended him until his doath on the morning of the 15th. He assisted Dr. Curtin at the post-mortem exa:nination, and gave the re  This conclud,Kl thtl cale for the prosecution.  For the Defence.  Mr. Browne then addressed the court for the &Fenn. He said that the magistrates had to decile whether they would commit the prisoner for trial on the most serious crime of wilful murder or oe the minor crime of manslaughter. As prefacing his remarks let him say this, that that Court was not in any way bound by what the Coroner and his jury had done. The Bench were not entitled to take inl.o consideration that the jury found a verdict of "Wilful murder" and it did not bind them in any way, Teey had to put themselves in the position of a jury and ask themselves whether it was possible or probable that this man would be convicted of wilful murder *pen the evidence given that morning,. What was wilful murder ? It was wllfully and maliciously killing or slaying a man with malice aforethetry,ht, expressed or implied. There must be some intention to commit murder. What wOre the facts? He had not disputed them so far as they had gone that morning. They had proved an 3 proved beyond all doubt, that this man and his wife went to the h,u4Q for the shawl. There was no contradiction of that. Was the man's in'ention in going there to eommir grievous bodily harm ? N. H sd he a weapon ? N. N) uelayeful weapoe was uced,and he th,refore ventured to suggest that there was no case of wilful murder. Suprosine, the kick had happened to a'ight on the de. ceased to inches from where it did no possible injury would have taken place, except perhsps a mere mark. Such a kick was a common occurrence in Warrington, but in this case the man happened to receive it on the most vital part, without any intention on the part of the priso»ei.. It was then said that he most be guilty of wilful murder. Such could not be so. There could be no wilful murder in this case.  Mr. Birchall : The man said: "I have not killed you, but I wil! do so." Mr. Browne said there was no threat in the first instance. He said I..othi'ag until the injury was committed. The threat referred to was never exnuted. Supposing the man went to the bcuse for the purpose of chastising &ceased, he only went there for that purpose and not to infliat grievous bodily harm. He ventured to suggest that the case was not °us of wilful murder, and he was sure the magistrates woull net cnmmit the man on that charge unless they absolutely found that he had an intention when he weut t 3 the  puie 'o do some unlawful act or _unlawful injury. If  they found tint he went there only for the purpoie of chas'ising the deceased, they must commit for manslaughter.  Decision of the Bench,  The magistrates retired, and on their return to curt, The Chairman said they 134 d come to the decision that they were fully justified on the evidence is committing the prisoner for wilful murder. He would be committed on tht charge to the Liverpool Assizes. Prisoner, who reserved hi i defence, was then removed.