The Sun. — 1827-06-07 (London, England)

SHEEN, THE MURDERER.  There appears to he great anxiety felt amongst all classes with regard to the fate of this man; and his present situation also appears to be but indistinctly understood. After his trial and acquittal, for the alleged murder of Charles Wm. Sheen, the witnesses were all bound over in recognizances to be in attendance to give evidence against him, should any bill be preferred, before the grand jury then sitting. No bill havingbeen preferred, the witnesses were subsequently called upon to enter into recognizances to appear before the Grand Jury at the next session, to give evidence against him. From the circumstance of his not having been again tried at the present Session, a conclusion appears to have been come to that he will escape the hands of justice, and that upon the ground that he cannot be twice tried for the same offence : in fact, that is so, but it may be a question-whether he has been tried for the offence committed. The principle of law laid down, and it would seem generally agreed upon, is, " that when a person is once found ' not guilty' on an indictment or appeal, free from error, and well commenced before a court which has jurisdiction of the cause, he may by the common law, in all cases, plead autre fois acquit (before acquitted) in bar off any subsequent indictment or appeal for the same cause." It is further laid down, that "if one be acquitted on an indictment o( murdering quondam ignotum, and afterwards indicted for killing the same person, described by his proper name, he may show that both indictments were for the same felony. And if the person killed be described by his proper name and surname in the first indictment, and by a different surname in the second, such variance may be helped by an averment that the person so differently named was one and the same person; but it has been held to be advisable to add, that he was known as well by the name in the first as by that in the second indictment." It is also said, " Whenever.an indictment whereon a man is acquitted is so far erroneous (either for want of substance in setting out the crime, or for want of an authority in the Judge) that no good judgment could be given upon it against the defendant, the acquittal of the defendant is no bar of a subsequent indictment, because in judgment of law the defendant's life was not in danger; but if there be error .in the process only, the acquittal will be a good bar of a subsequent prosecution, for such error is solved by the appearance."  From these authorities, laid down by eminent men, most certainly several questions will arise as applicable to the case of Sheen. Ist. Was the indictment under which he was tried free from error? It is presumed that it was not; for it charged that he murdered Charles William Sheen, when, in fact, there was no such person ; and as it regarded the assumption of the mother's name (Beadle), it was merely stated; and it was shown that by reputation (the only mode by which in law he could have such name) the child murdered had never been known by such name. Surely this, then must be error, and error of that description that the prisoner could not by possibility be convicted ; and if so, his life could not have been in danger—the principle uppn which it is held that he cannot be twice tried for the same offence. He therefore cannot plead autre fois acquit. The next point that presents itself, is as regards the name and surname. In fact, by law, the child had no name; and all that was shown was, that he was known by the name of William only, and was not, therefore, known by the names set out in the indictment upon which he was tried. We have reason to think that the case of this man is under the consideration of some of the most eminent counsel, and have no doubt that a bill will be preferred against him at the next Sessions, seeing that the child murdered has not vet been at all identified in law as the child charged in the indictment. At the same time it is only just to state, that there does exist a great difference in opinion on the case.