The Stockton Examiner, and South Durham and North Yorkshire Herald. — 1879-05-17 (Stockton-on-Tees, Cleveland, England)

LEGAL ROMANCE.  A question involving a case of almost romantic Merest was put to the Home Secretary in the House of Commons the other evening by Sir J. EardleyWilmot, one of the members for Warwickshire. It appears that more than forty rears ago (18:36) two men, named Oliver and Gully, Were played upon their trial at Exeter, before Mr. fustice Williams, charged with the murder f a farmer named May. They were mnvieted, and a few minutes after the verdict was delivered Oliver admitted his guilt, but declared, in the most emphatic manner, that he never beheld his alleged accomplice until he was platted by his side in the dock that morning. Oliver was executed, but the sentence upon Gaily was commuted to one of penal servitude for life, and he is now in Australia. The judge who sentenced him is no more, and it isbelieved that all the jurors who found him guilty, save one, have paid the debt of nature. This gentleman—Mr. Gregory Seccombe—still survives, and has long been thoroughly persuaded that Gaily was a victim of the fallibility of the law, and was perfectly innocent of the crime of which he was convicted. !lucent eireumstances have called public attention to the untrustworthy character of circumstantial evidence. llabron, convicted of the %Vitally Range murder, has been released and compensated upon the evidence of a man who proclaimed him innocent and admitted that he himself had fired the fatal shot. An one of the erring jury who returned the verdict which sent Gaily to penal servitude, Mt. Seecombe has from time to time addressed urgent appeals to successive secretaries of state to do the man the tardy justice of recommending that a free pardon be granted to him. The answers he received were invarial ly unfavourable. The present Lord Chief Justiee of England, who went the western circuit 43 years ago, was in court when Gaily was convicted, and formed the opinion that he was innocent. Mr. Seecombe has lately endeavoured to enlist the sympathy of the learned ! judge on behalf ef the convict. Sir Alexander Co-lcburn (than whom there is no more experienced or alit o judge upon the bench) wrote to Mr. Secretary Cross, but to no purpose. There was no disposition at , the Home Office to reopen a case the urgency of wlrch was all the more important bemuse its re, consideration had, been no long delayed. Mr. See, eornbe has again written to Mr. Cross, imploring; hint in the name of humanity to release the man , and enable him even now to vindicate his eharacter from the crime of murder. Ile declare in the • most nob-inn language that his OWn participa. lion in the trial has •' weighed upon his mind like a , millstone," and that the vindication of the unhappy man will remove a burden from his conscience in the ; closing hours of a life which tannot at his age bet ; use protracted. Ile states that the twene in the assize court at Exeter is ever before Ills eyes, and , that he remembers distinetly the distress of Gaily as he stood before the judge awaiting his sentence, while his fellow-prhoner asserted, with the earnest; ne e of a man standing, as it wee.', under the shadow at dt ails, that his f 11 ev-prisoner was absolutely inno-c:at of any hand or part in the deed. The question which Sir J. Eardley Wilmot put to the Home See. retary is whethet he will allow all the papers in connectioa with (tally's case to be deposited in the lila, y of the House of Commons, so that those who may desire to investigate the case may ;lave an oppottanity of doing so. It should be added that r, l'lore his execution. disclosed the am of ,his at.cemplice, and stated what had become ef