The Sun. — 1856-05-10 (London, England)

KELLY.„ It was not until late i the afternoon of ThUrsday that the application was made in the ,Queen's Bench to admit to bail Mr.... George Strevens, .who was charged with conspiring to murder. Mrs. 'Sarah Kelly. The motion was resisted by the SolicitorGeneral on behalf of the Crown, and also by counsel on the part of Dr. Bailey, a nephew' and residuary legatee of•the-deceased: The arguments pro and con. did not close .until. past 4 o'clock, when the Court decided on admitting Mr. Strevens to bail in two sureties of 10001. each-48 hours'. notice to be  Sporting Intelligence.  ,even to the Crown solicitor for Westmeath and the resident magistrate at lthillingar to take the bail. In pronouncing the judgment of the Court the ford .Chief Justice said— " The principles upon which the Court acts in the ap. plicationa of this kind are perfectly well settled and understdod. We have heard a very luminous, and, at the same time, condensed and pointed statement of all the circumstances from which it is supposed that what is called a suspicion—a strong suspicion—might arise. But clearly it is.not sufficient that it should be possible, by the talent and ingenuity of counsel to educe, from the combination of some of the circumstances in the case, a possibility of suspicion. That is not a ground upon which the Court can Oessibly act. The crime imputed is a conspiracy ; not a possibility of suspicion of conspiracy, but a,conspiracy in point *of fact—a conspiracy entered into to commit the murder. Now, what strong fact has been atatedamounting to evidence tending to showand to establish the fact of conspiracy? .Avast number of collateral and independent circumstances have been adverted to, and the circumstance of the account which the accused gave,, which varied in some respects with respect to the transaction itself from the account which the girl gave.; But it must be recollected in what material porticos her evidence corroborated him, in whatever circnostanea they may have varied in giving the account of the same transaction. It was very candidly and properly admitted that seine of the circumstances adverted to as raising suspicion might be well accounted for by the circumstances .under which the accused was, the terror and confusion, and the fact of his wanting the heroism to interpose and expose himself to danger at the moment. Perhaps I ought not even to go so far into the case. Bull undertake to say that the Court, in order to deprive a party of his liberty, most feel that thereis some evidence"--and the cases referred to say strong; evidence, but it must be that which is reasonable evide ce—in point of faCtteilding to Show that the party is guilty of -the crime of which -he is accused, not the raising of a suspicion that be may have been. It must ba,eligenee to-setditi4 that the terime-iteelf Awe bee* '''eonraitted britize, or that be was "cipator. haves not had that`evidenee on whi - we "Pay eitliag ea grand jurors, we would think we had ground ufw* which to find a bill. What may have excited so great impression was, that so many irrelevant and. independent circumstances were brought together to affect the character of the accused ; and that may have excited .a suspicion=-upon which, however, we cannot act —and it should nbt be a ground to refuse the party to be admitted to bail. We ate not discharging him—that is, not the application. The crime was, indeed, a serious one ;;but that cuts both ways ; for the suspician of a heinous crime of this sort is not to be lightly entertained, as if there are reasonable and substantial grounds that it should be considered. We are of opinion that this party should be admitted to bail—substantial bail in relation to the circumstances of the party."