The Telegram. — 1896-07-28 (Weymouth, Dorset, England)

THE KINGS CROSS TRAGEDY. TRIAL OF THE ACCUSED.  JURY CANNOT AGREE.  Before Mr. Justice Lawrence, at the Cent& Criminal Court on Friday, Elijah Galley (31), butcher, was indicted for the murder of James mid Emma Riley.—Mr. Bodkin and Mr. Percival Clarke prosecuted, instructed by Mr. Frayling for the Treasury; and the prisoner was defended by Lord Coleridge, Q.C., and Mr. Travers Humphreys. In opening the case, Mr. Bodkin detailed the facto. The deceased, aged respectively 40 and 36 years, lived at 40, North Street, King's Cross, and owned the premises adjoining, No. 42, which were occupied by the prisoner as a butcher. There had been some dispute between Mr. Riley and the prisoner about a week's rent, and this culminated on the 4th inst. by Riley giviug the prisoner a week's notice. About 10 o'clock at night the pri• Boner gave an employee an envelope to take care of. He left the shop for about five minutes, and made his way to the house of the Rileys, entering by the back door. The Rileys had three children, sod one of them heard the prisoner ask her father, "What is this " showing the notice to quit. Riley replied, " What it is." At the moment the mother came out of a back room and the prisoner struck her and she fell. The husband seized the poker and struck the prisoner, who then dealt the bus. band a blow, and he fell down by the side of the body of his wife. The prisoner returned to his shop and, witting down, told his employee to fetch a constable, am he was done for. The dead bodies , of the deceased presented a frightful appearance. Jas. If oultoo, employed by the prisoner, deposed to the prisoner leaving his shoe prior to the murder and to telling him to fetch • constable on his (prisoner's) return. Cross-examined : The prisoner was • quiet, sober man, and kind to hi, wife and children. He did not notice anything extraoisiinary in his manner on the day of the tragedy. The deceased man Riley was a bigger and more powerful man than the prisoner, and he was very passionate. _  Elizabeth isiley, aged nine, a daughter of the deceased, and who witnessed the murders, gave evideoce as to the facts detailed by Mr. Bodkin. Constable Wagg described the position of the bodies iminmediately after the tragedy, and Constable Nutt, who arrested the prisoner, said he found bon sitting in his back parlour, and on his (Nutt) entering, the prisoner addressed him, saying, All right, constable, I'll go quietly." Dr. Raynes deposed to wounds on the bodies of the deceased, stating that he believed they were inflicted in rapid succession. Cross-examined : The deceased man was about fift, high, and at least 14 stone in weight. Evidence was given that the prisoner was a kind and affectionate husband and father, and that be was a sober, steady, quiet, and inoffensive man. Lord Coleridge, in defence, maintained that the facts prove conclusively that the provocation he bad received justified the jury in finding a verdict of manslaughter only. To a man who had built up a business like the prisoner the service of the notice to quit was like a sentence of death. He asked the jury to disregard to some extent the evidence of the little girl as to what took place 111 the house, because she had differed in the accounts she had given of it. lie contended that there was an altercation between the prisoner and the Riley, and that the latter used the one the poker and the other the iron stove rake upon the prisoner. Both the poker and the rake were found close to the bodies of the deceased with blood upon them. Mr. Justice Lawrence said it was not disputed that the prisoner was guilty of murder or manslaughter, so that there was no contention as to the facts. lie explained the law as it would justify the jury in reducing the crime to manslaughter ; but he pointed out that thh prisoner went to the house of the deceased armed with a deadly weapon. It was imp 'mint, hoti,ver, to hear in wind the evidence Leak it was the woman who was killed first, and so fur as the evidence went it was not suggested that there was any provocation on her part. The jury, after an absence o/ one hour and a. half, retinned into court, when the foreman said that the jury could not agree as to a verdict. Mr. Justice Lawrence accordingly ordered the jury to be discharged, and the case was put back until the next sessions.