The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle. — 1878-11-02 (Stourbridge, West Midlands, England)

SENTENCED TO DEATH.  At the Bedford Assizes (before Baron Iluddleston), Patrick John Byrne was charged with the wilful murder of John Brooks and Samuel Griffiths at Northampton, on September 2. Mr. Metcalfe, Q.C., end Mr. Austin Metcalfe prosecuted; Mr. Buszard, QC, and Mr. Dugdale defended the prisoner.  The prisoner up to August, 1878, wps a colour-sergeant in the Northampton and Rutland Militia. He had served 20 years in the Army in England and in India, and had borne an excellent character in the service. During the last Militia training his conduct was not so satistactory. He had contracted drinking habits, and had become a defaulter in his accounts to the amount of £lO. In consequence of this he was placed under arrest by Major Rawlins, the adjutant of the regiment, and a court-martial was ordered. This, however, was countermanded in consequence of the previous good character of the prisoner, and the £lO was paid by his friends; but Byrne's colour was taken from him, and he was reduced to the rank of sergeant. This degradation involved the giving up of his quarters at the Militia store, and he was given to the end of the month of August to procure lodgings for himself and his family and to remove his kit and effects. On the 2nd of September Byrne wbs in the sergeants' reading-room at the Northampton Barracks with Quartermaster-Sergeant Brooks, Colour Sergeant Potter, and some other sergeants, when the subject of his change of quarters was mentioned, and the quartermaster-sergeant told him that he had left his quarters in a dirty condition. He said that he would clean them or have them cleaned, and left the reading-room as if to see about the cleaning. Shortly after Quartermaster-Sergeant Brooks left the reading-room and went down a flight of steps into the front court of the barracks, Immediately a report was heard, and Colour-sergeant Potter, running out, found Brooks on the ground, shot through the heart. At the same time Griffiths ran from the orderly room, and both he and Brooks ran after Byrne. who waswaiking away round the corner of the barracks in the direction of the barrack-yard, where his quarters were. Byrne turned round and presented his rifle. Potter called to Griffiths tocomeback,but toolate. ByrnefiredandshotGriffiths through the head, killing him on the spot. He then loaded again and walked towards the barrackyard. On the way he met a son of Quartermaster. Sergeant Hill and threatened to kill him. The boy ran a few paces, and then threw himself down. Byrne fired, but missed him, and the boy's father, running out at the time, with the assistance of his son, disarmed the prisoner, and handed him over to the custody of two sergeants. During the struggle Byrne exclaimed, "Let me go; they have turned me out of my house." The evidence ot the soldiers was corroborated by a boy and a man who were in the street outside the barracks at the time. They saw the prisoner shoot Brooks, load again, and shoot Griffiths, and heard him exclaim with an oath that he "would shoot evcry one of them."  For the defence, Mr. Buszard made a forcible appeal to the jury, with a view to reducing the crime to manslaughter. He dwelt on the insufficient motive for the deed ; the admitted fact that Griffiths was an intimate friend of the prisoner, and the excellent character the-prisoner had borne; and pointed out that the deed was without premeditation, and the result of a wild impulse which, ft r the moment, the prisoner was unable to control, and that a verdict of manslaughter would be sufficient for the protection of the public. His Lordship, however, told the jury that it was their solemn duty to find their verdict according to law, or the protection afforded by juries to the public would be at an end. He said that if the jury believed the evidence and came to the conclusion that Griffiths and Brooks had met their deaths at the. hands of the prisoner, in the circumstances proved, the prisoner's act was murder, and there was no pretence for saying that it was possible to reduce the crime to manslaughter. The fact that the prisoner's mind was disturbed by evil and wicked passions was no defence; and the protection of the public depended on the honest discharge of the duties of jurymen. After a short deliberation the jury fount the prisoner Guilty, and His Lordship passed sentence of death in the usual form.