Northern Times. — 1857-11-02 (Liverpool, Merseyside, England)

QUEEN'S BENCH PR SON.—A, the sitting of the court this rncruing, Antonio de Sa!vi, 29, was p'aced at the bar to teke his trial upon the charge of the murder of Robert Henderson Robertson in the Queen's Bench Prison. Mr. Bodkin and Mr. Clerk appeared on behalf of the crown. Mr. E James. Q.C., and Mr. Setjeant Parry were esplcially re'ained, with Mr. Tirl'ldahon, for the defence. It has already been stated that the prisoner had pleaded autrefois acquit to the prestre indictment, upon the ground that he had been already tried and acquitted upon the eh trge of wounding the deceased with intent to murder him, and that he ought nor, therefore, to be tried on the present charge, because it erase entirely out of the same trans etion, and he ought not to have his life twice put in jeopordy for the same offence. The matter stood over until this morning, when it was arranged that the question of law should he argued. Mr. Bodkin s,st addressed the cona't, and he said it appeared to him that the plea could not be supported, ivasnench as to support the p'e► of autrefois acquit it must be shown that the charge made against the prisoner on the second occasion was identically ,he satire as that of Witich he was before acquitted. The prisoner had never before been charged with the offence of wilful murder. There was no identity between the two Offences, and the plea was I)3d in law Mr. r. James was then heard at some length in support of the plea, and he contended that the prisoner had been substantially tried before for the same identical act, and the jury had acquitted him of any intention to commit the crime of wilful murder. He cited the case of Robertson, tried before the High Cowl of Jes'iciary in Glasgow, in which it was held that a person who had been convicted by the m gistrates of an assault, could not afterwards, where the party ansaulted deed. bo tried for wilful murder. The court inquired nbether there was not a Scorch sta'r'e that applied to this matter? The learned council said he was unfortunateiv not prepar.d to give the court any inforroa ion upon the subject. lie then proceeded with his argument, end concluded by calling upon their lordships to admit tl.e plea of the prisoner, and not permit him to be tritd a second time for what was substantially tire same offence, of which ire had airea,ly been aeqrzitt .d. Mr. %Mahon was also heard at considerable length en the same point. The court, without requiring Mr. Bodkin to reply, unanimously decided that upon the fac s before the ceurt the plea of au!refois acquit could not be supported. The prisoner then pleaded Not Guilty, and the trial proceed d. Tire facts of the case have been so repeatedly an' fully given, that it will he unnecessary oa the presert occasion to do more than briefly bring to the reccollections of our readers the circumstances. undtr which the charge was preferred against the prisoner. The deceased was a prisoner in the Queen's Bench at the suit of the prisoner, and it appeared that on the Bth of July the prisoner went to the Queen's Bench, accompanied by a solicitor named Thompson, for the purpose, as it appeared, of endeavouring to make some arrangement for the peyment of the debt, and after they had had some conversation it appeared that the deceased denied owing the debt, and the prisoner upon this became dreadfully excited, and stabbed the deceased in the neck and °tin r parts of the body, one of the wounds penetrating the spine, the force of the blow breaking off the point of the knife, and leaving it centre:l3,d in the hone of the spine, where it was found firmly fixed after the death of the unfortunate man. Tire deceased lingered for a considerable time in great agony, and at the August session the prisoner, as above stated, was tried upon a charge of wounding with intent to murder. 'The jury now found the prisoner guilty of manslaughter.