The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle. — 1880-11-20 (Stourbridge, West Midlands, England)

TRIAL OF A BOY FOR MANSLAUGHTER.  At the Winchester Assizes, Albert Clark, aged 10, was indicted for the manslaughter of William MeHersh, at Steep on the Ist of August last. Mr. Temple Cooke and Mr. Greenwood were for the prosecution; the prisoner was defended by Mr. Charles Mathews. A bill for murder was preferred on the previous day against this boy before the grand jury, but they ignored it, and found a bill for manslaughter only. It appeared from the evidence that on Sunday, the Ist of August, at about seven o'clock, the prisoner and some other boys came out of Steep Church and joined another party of boys, among whom was the deceased. The prhoner and some of the smaller boys began throwing stones, and the deceased, who was nearly 15 years old, told them not to do it, and, as they refuvd to stop, he chased them away. They subsequently returned and recommenced the stone-throwing, and thereupon the deceased and another boy chased the prisoner into a field. Here the prisoner fell down and the deceased struck him a blow on the eye. The prisoner then came out into the road, threw stones at him, and pulled a knife out of his pocket, threatening to stab him if he touched him. The deceased then appeared to have attempted to wrest the knife from him, and some sort of struggle occurred, which ended in the prisoner's stabbing the deceased in the left breast. The knife peraetrated the heart, and the boy died within a very short time, Ta the course of the case certain questions were proposed to be put to the master of the school which the prisoner had attended, with a view to showing that the boy was capable of knowing that the act was a mischievous and wrong act. Mr. Mathews, for thp defence, objected that they were inadmissibls, and ,conteped that the question of the capacity of the boy was one to be cl,?fzided by the jury from the circumstances that surrounded the , . , case, The learned Judge admitted the evidence, saying that he would consider whether the point. ws one to be reserved, if the objection was pressed. Mr. Mathews, for the defence, contended that the prisoner was a boy of an inoffensive character, and of no very great intelligence, being, as was proved by the schoolmaster, somewhat below the regulation standard of a boy of his aga in his school work. He further urged that the evidence of intentien was very slight, the threats used by the prisoner being pi an exaggerated description and merely spoken in bra,vade. The deceased had acted with roughness to the prisoner and unjustifiably, and the evicLnpe with regard to the actual stabbing was quite consistent with the wounds having being inflicted by accident in the course of the struggle caused by Mellersh's attempt to secure the knife and without any wilful intention. The I.earn,ed Judge. in summing up the case, told the jury that although proud facie a child between seven and fourteen was in 4.w donsid#r6d incapable of malice, yet this presumption varied with thQ ii4nre of the offence. It was a question purply fpp thcrc, afOi• considering all the circumstances of the case' to say whether or not the prisoner had, at the time the blow was struck, such a discretion as would enable him to know that the knife would inflict a wound, and that he had no right to inflict it. The jury, fter a short deliberation, Acquitted the prisoner. The learned Judge ordered him te be isebArged, first cautioning him as to his future conduct.