The Sun. — 1842-05-16 (London, England)

ATTORNEY-GENERAL then rose to address the Jury. He said, the prisoner at the bar stood charged with harbouring Daniel Good, who was yesterday found guilty of murder, and she was charged eith harbouring him knowing him to have been guilty of that crime. It was necessary that people should know that it was a grave offence so to protect a person under the imputation of crime, and it was essential that they should know that this offence would be prosecuted whenever it was discovered. The prisoner, however, bore the name of Good, and he believed that her defence was that she was married to Daniel Goud. Ia the case of a wife the law provided that it was no offence in her to assist and to conceal her husband, whom she was bound to love, to honour, and obey. He thought there was every reason to believe that some marriage, whether strictly legal or not, did take place between the parties in the kingdom of Ireland, where the registries were extremely difficult of access, so that the absence of that proof should not be considered as fatal to the defence. They certainly did live together for a long time as man and wife, and he thought that he should be doing his duty if he said that she, thus believing herself to be the true and lawful wife of him whom she harboured and protected, would nut be a fit object fur punishment. He had obtained satisfactory information as to these facts, which he thought it right to state, and under these circumstances, he thought it was not fit to raise any case against the prisoner. He hoped that in making these observations he had not unnecessarily taken up the time of the Court. On the part of the prosecution no evidence would be offered. It would, therefore, be their duty to acquit the prisoner. Mr. BALLANTINE begged to thank the Learned Attorney-General for the manner in which he had acted in this case ; and though he believed it to be the correct course, and quite consistent with justice, it was worthy of the manner in which the whole of the inquiry bad been conducted. It had saved the prisoner the pain of a long and tedious inquiry, and, on behalf of the prisoner, he begged to thank the Learned Attorney-General for the conduct which he had pursued. Mr. Baron ALDERSON then addressed the Jury. He said there was no evidence, and it would therefore be their duty to acquit the prisoner. It was a very grievous offence to harbour and assist those who were accused of any crime. A wife, however, in legal construction, could not be guilty of harbouring her husband ; the prisoner at the bar having gone through the ceremony of marriage, though she were not perhaps legally his wife, had harboured him, she would be liable to be convicted of the offence ; nevertheless, if she had acted • under the supposition that she was his wife, the Court would have availed itself of the utmost extent of that circumstance in mitigation of her offence. He thought, therelbro, that the Attorney-General had only acted according to the duty which belonged to him, in prosecution of his high office P • •on ; and the Court entirely approved of the course he had pursued in not offering, any evidence against the prisoner, she having been induced, by the circumstances which h-td been stated, to commit the felony ; and had the case been proceeded with, the Court would not have awarded such a punishment as would be commensurate with the magnitude of the crime. If a ease should occur in which one person should harbour another, without having any excuse such as the punishment would be very -heavy, and it was necessary that it should be so, more particularly as public