The Express. — 1846-12-18 (London, England)

EDNIRDAY.  Before Mr.  THE STARTFORTH repeat closed yesterday when Mr. Justioe Creesserell was summing up. We now add the main points of hisaddreas His lordship haying stated that almost every part of the evidence seemed tole important, instead of giving a summary of it, detailed it to the jury entire. First, said his lordship, it pointed to the period at which the prisoners, the deceased, and the principal witness went to the spot where the crime was said to have been committed ; then it shows, by the eyewitness, the fact that the man was killed ; and then it confirms that testimony by collateral circumstances observed by other persons at the time and after the time in question. But here a question arose, " What can have induced the commission of such a crime?" It was suggested that Barker was afraid of Yates giving some evidence against him respecting a coat, and that for that reason he had 'necked him on the night in question. Barker's motive, therefore, was not so muck that of revenge as to prevent something which he feared happening to himself. As to one of the other men, Heine, the motive of getting money from Yates was assigned to him—his object, it was said, was robbery; but with regard to Breckon, no distinct motive was assigned. And, in proportion as the motile seemed obscure or inadequate, so much the more careful must the jury be to inquire whether the evidence was sufficient to overcome the improbability that the crime was committed for wean Inadequate motive. On coming to the testimony of Ann Humphreys, the principal witness, his lordship observed that It was of the utmost importance, and it was necessary that the jury should examine it most scrupulously. It was said on the part of the defence that she was a person of immoral character, having been in the habit of associating with men in public-houses, in a disreputable manner. No doubt there was a good deal of truth in all that, mid 'the jury must weigh and consider it, and compare her character with the other circumstances in the case, and then say whether they believed her or not. If her statement were believed, he did not know that he could present any alternative, as no suggestion had been offered that the crime was anything less than murder, if cammitted at all. If the jury did not believe this girl, hen the case fell to the ground ; because, whatever noises had been heard—whatever appearances there might have been at the spot, there was no proof that a murder had been committed, and of course the pnsoncn must he acquitted. The jury would either believe or not Ann Humphreys' statement. If they believed that a murder had been committed by the piigoners, then, combining her testimony with that of the other witnesses, they would find them guilty. And if found guilty, they must be found guilty of murder, because there had been no struggle or fight, as far as had appeared, which could lead the jury to reduce the offence to one of manslaughter. The learned judge read the evidence of Ann Humphreys with great care, commenting upon particular passages as he proceeded ' • and he then directed the attention of the jury to the corroborative evidence, After all, the whole case turned upon the testimony of the girl. In conclusion his lordship repeated the nature of the verdict which the jury would have to record, if they were satisfied that Joseph Yates was murdered, and by the prisoners, If they were sosatisfied, then, however painful their.duty, he was sure they would perform it like men, and return a verdict of guilty. On the other hand, if the nature of the story of the principal witness was not satisfactory—if the circumstance of the concealment of it, and the other circumstances which surrounded the case, left them in any substantial doubt, they would give the prisoners the ileac& of that doubt, and acquit them. The jury retired, and not being able to agree, they were —after their three days' attendance—locked up " without meat, drink, or fire," the weather being intensely cold, for a period of nine hours. At half past ten at night, those of them who were for a conviction surrendered their opinions in favour of those aho were for an acquittal, and returned into court with a verdict of Not guilty. The jury were s orn on Monday morning at nine o'clock, and were not discharged until eleven o'clock nn Wednesday night, having been in charge of the sheriff for sixty-six  .J 4 IS lb. Mr. 33e • se. 4 6p. 4e. i ir.