Denton and Haughton Examiner, etc. — 1887-12-31 (Denton, Greater Manchester, England)

THE WOBIJRN-PI,ACE 81TOOTING  0 &SE.  At the Old Bailey in the case of Daniel Francis Doherty, 35, an American broker, charged with the wilful murder of George Michael Graham, also an American, Mr. Justice Stephen, in summing up the case to the Jury, remarked on the meaning of the legal expression "melee afor, thought," which was • natural incident to every charge of murder. The words meant. " he that doeth a cruel act vomntarily, doeth it with malice aforethought" Therefore they had not the ordn sty and common meaning of such words—they did not mean that the art most be premeditated—they did not mean that the at must ' have been decided upon beforehand—but simply, was it done intentionally. In this case, then, the whole question at issue was, did the prisoner shoot the deceased intentionally? That was, did he point the revolver at the deceased intending to hit him? If he did he was guilty of the capital charge. If he fired without aiming at ar.y one ho would be guilty of manslaughter. Another way of looking at the ease was, did the prisoner shoot intending to harm the deceived? If he did, although he had no intention to kill and death resulted, the prboner was equally guilty of murder; because the set itself was unlawful, and he that did an unlawful act must Mks the consequences of it. It was elm at trivial to remark that • man who was intoxicated was equally gull yas though he were sober. Drunkenness wean. excuse for crime. If it was, one-half the crimind courts of the kingdom would be closed. Ms lordship. then referred at length to the evidence. The excuse in this case is that the occurrence was ac,identai; but the jury would remember that when the cnnstable returned from the hospital to arrest the prisoner they found him being held by each hand by his wife and the landlady of the house. This circumstance did seem to throw a bale doubt on the statement of MU. Doherty that this was an accident. If it was an accident why were they holding his hands in that way? Why should they be alarmed at his havng • pistol shout him? Be remarked upon the barbarous practice of carrying loaded firearms such as that which the prisoner had upon him on this occsvion, and which would inflict d.edly injuries at a moment's notice. In the old days it was customary for gentlemen to carry sword., and the law reports of those days would tell thorn with what resit t. But of the two practices the carrying of the sword was infinitely less barbarous than that of carrying a revolver. The deemed, they had heard, said at first the occurrence was an accident; but he afterwards qualified the statement by observing that he said it was an accident because he was afraid that the prisoner would fire again. After the firing the prisoner did not in the least degree assist the deceased. The jury, after twenty minute.' deliberation, found the prisoner guilty of Manslaughter with wilf violence. _  Mr Justice Stephen sentenced him to penal saritude for life, stating that it was difficult to imagines worse ease. Subsequently, however, the learned judge altered the sentence to one of 20 years' penal servitude.