The Central Glamorgan Gazette, and General, Commercial, and Agricultural Advertiser. — 1867-10-04 (Bridgend, Mid Glamorgan, Wales)

THE SUMMING-UP  Mr. Justice Lush said that this was one of the difficulties of this very remarkable case, and it would be the province of the jury to come to the best conclusion they could upon this and all the other facts that had been submitted to them, and in the result, to decide upon the guilt or innocence of the prisoner. The questions for their consideration were, whether the prisoner had destroyed the life of the deceased, and then made a sham attempt upon his own life in order to avert suspicion, or whether the deceased destroyed her own life after an ineffectual attempt to kill the prisoner. The learned judge then proceeded to refer to the evidence, and he observed that there certainly did not appear to be any positive testimony that the cries of murder and the other expressions represented to have been made about two o'clock came from the house of the prisoner, and it was rather remarkable that each of the witnesses appeared to give a different account as to what took place. He then referred to the position in which the body of the deceased was found, with a pillow under her neck, and the prisoner's jacket under this pillow, with a chair over it, and be said it would be a point for the consideration of the jury how it was that she could have come into this position, the statement on the part of the prisoner being that he saw the deceased in the act of cutting her throat, and that he immediately ran out into the street. The learned judge next referred to the character of the wound that bad been inflicted upon the deceased, and said that if the theory of the medical men was correct, that such an injury could not have been selfinflicted except under the influence of frenzied excitement, it was difficult to reconcile it with the statement of the prisoner, or that the deceased wounded him before she committed the act; as if she had been in the condition referred to, she would most probably have inflicted much more serious injury upon the prisoner than he appeared to have received. ills lordship then proceeded to call the attention of the jury to the evidence relating to the period the deceased was summed to have been dead, and to show that she was killed several hours before the prisoner gave the alarm. He then said that he was of opinion that it was no part of the duty of the prosecution to call the mother and father of the prisoner as witnesses, but the former would certainly have been a most important witness for the prisoner, because she could have proved whether his statement that she was the first person who saw the deceased in the act of cutting her throat, and called out to him to tell him so, was true; and she could also probably have given some explanation how the body of deceased came in the position in which it was found. He concluded by stating that the whole of the facts were before the jury, and if the evidence satisfied . them that the prisoner was guilty of the crime, it was their duty to say so by their verdict; and on the other hand, if they had any reasonable doubt upon the matter, the prisoner was entitled to an acquittal.