The Pontypridd District Herald and Rhondda Valley, Llantrisant, Caerphilly, and Mountain Ash News. — 1892-11-26 (Pontypridd, Mid Glamorgan, Wales)

VBEDIOT AND SENTIINCIS.  On Monday the Deemster (Sir W. L. Drinkwater), in summing up the case to the jury, said it was proved and admitted in this case that the prisoner stabbed his wife wi h a knife, and that the wound thus inflicted caused her death. The jury m;ght also take it that the blow was struck in auger, and during a serious altercation. This relieved the jury from having to decide the question whether the prisoner could be held altogether not guilty. They had simply to decide upon the evidence before them whether he was guilty of murder or manslaughter ; and if they did their duty, as he felt sure they would, they must convict the prisoner of one of these two offences. Continuing, the asemster said there were degrees in manslaughter as well as in murder. In this case they might find that the prisoner did not intend to do his wife any grievous bodily harm or to kill her. They might even find that the blow was given when the prisoner, as he stated, was not aware that he had the knife in his hand. This would be manslaughter: but it would be manslaughter in a minor degree. Again, they might have strong reasons for believing that he did know he had the knife in his hand. The degree of the offence would, however, be a question for the consideration of the court after the jury had found their verdict, and if they thought that circumstaeces permitted them to find a verdict of manslaughter only the Court would determine on the amount of punishment to be awarded, Defining the difference between murder and manslaughter, the judge said they must take it as an axiom that if a person irritated by his wife's language struck her a blow with intent to kill her or to do her grievous bodily harm, and thereby caused her death, this in the eye of the law, was murder. There mist be intent, and provocation by words would not justify a blow or reduce the offence to one of manslaughter. If the provocation was a blow the amount of the provocation depended on the severity of that blow. There was an instance given of a soldier running along a street, when he was stopped by a woman who made an insulting remark. He replied in the same strain, and she struck him on the face. He thereupon drew his sword and ran her through, killing her. At first the judges were inclined to think that the provocation was insufficient to reduce the charge, but it was afterwards discovered that the blow was given with an iron patten and with considerable force, and the charge was reduced. The present case, however, was not on all fours with the one quoted. The fact that the prisoner as found locked in the room with his wife threw suspicion on the case, and the jury must look upon the prisoner's statement with great caution and suspicion. The learned judge then went through the evidence. The jury, after consulting together, returned a verdict of manslaughter. The Deemster, addressing the prisoner, said : You have been found guilty, after a long trial, of the crime of masslaughter. The jury have taken a meraiful view of your case, and one with which the Court is not inclined to disagree. The Court, however, see that this is not the only act of violence which has been committed by you, but that various assaults upon your wife have beeu committed, causing her consideralde bodily injury, and that these have at last culn.inated in causing her death.  The prisoner wto then sentenced to 10 years' penal servitude, the sentence being received in court with considerable excitement.