The National Register. — 1820-11-13 (London, England)

CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.  The danger of convicting on circumstantial evidence may be seenjfrom the followitne feels:— A farmer was triod at the assizes 71or the murder of a neighbour, under the following circienstances : —The evidence went to prove that the deceased teas found recently murdered; and by his side lay a pitehtlirk, evidently the sort of instrument by which the wounds appeared to have been inflicted. fhe person finding him discovered upon the lurk the initials of the prisoner, to whom he, with others, • immediately repaired, to ascertain whether he hail any knowledge of the circumstance. The prisoner appeared confused, but positively denied any knowledge about it ; but not being able to account, however, for his titrk getting into the possession of, or being found near, the deceased, farther imptiries were made, and the prisoner's house sear-hed, when under hid bedding were discovered smile clothes which he usually wore (aud had been seen in that very morning) covered with blood, and the deceased's tiirk behind the bedstead. The prisoner, being called on for his defeacc, declared his innocence, and called Cod to witness that he was not the murderer. The truth, be said, was this, although he had at first denied all knowled,,e of the affair, that he was walking in one if his neighbour's grounds that morning, with his ihrk in hand (it being bay-time), and that he found the deceased weltering in his blood. That he immediately rendered him what assistance he could, by raising him up, and that the man died in his arms. Finding life gone, and observing the bloody condition his own clothes were in, and fearing he miOtt therefi•re be suspected, he hurried home, and by some mistake took up the deceased's folk instead of his own. The judge (Mr. Justice Blackstone) and jury, except ono man, immediately concluded the prisoner guilty. This juryman, fortunately for the ptisoner, knew that circumstances were not always to be relied on, and could not be brought to reconcile his mind to find him guilty. The judge, who was ready to nmve off to the next assize town, considering this man a most obstinate know, desired to know what could lead him to a supposition of the prisoner's innocence, when the circumstantial evidence of his guilt was perhaps the strongest ever known. The juryman obtained an interview with the judge, from whom he exacted n promise that Lis reasons ihr such conduct should not he named by his lordship until after his, the juryman's death. He then said to his lordship, " I am (it' I can be so called) the murderer, and not the primmer ; but the fact is, it was purely accidental. The deceased was our titheman, a man of a quarrelsome disposition, we differed about his setting out the tithe of my bay. From words we got to blows, and in a scuffle we both fell, and in the fall the lOrk penetrated his side. Considering the wound mortal, Mier a few minutes I left him, and the primmer came tip soon afterwards ; and his statement, perfectly true, although circumstances would have hanged him, but that Providence placed me liven this jury." The primmer was in consequence acquitted, and the alvve filets were, after the death of ate juryman, introduced hy the sac.c judge in his charge to the grand jury upon a subsequent circuit, by sl ayof caution against admitting in all cases, however strong, circumstantial evidence alune•  THE NATIONAL REGISTER  CO NSISTORT COURT,DOCTORSTOMMONS,Nme  DECISION ON THE PATENT Corns