The Sun. — 1855-01-05 (London, England)

THE DOUBLE MURDER IN WARREN-STREET. ( Continued from our Third Edition of Yesterday.) The case for the prosecution having closed,  Mr. Collyer then proceeded to address the jury for the defence. He said that in every case of this kind a prejudice was very naturally excited against the individual who Was charged with having wilfully deprived a fellowcreature of existence, but in the present instance there were many other circumstances calculated to increase that prejudice, and he felt that the jury could only come to a conscientious decision by resolutely determining not to allow anything to operate upon their minds but the sworn evidence laid before them in support of the specific charge which they were called upon to dispose of. He thought that the prisoner had a right to complain of the course that had been taken in trying him upon the present indictment for killing the unfortunate man Collard, when it was perfectly clear that the original and main charge against him was that of killing Mr. Moore ; and he said that if that had been gone into be felt some confidence that he should have been able to satisfy the jury that in that case he had not committed the crime of wilful and deliberate murder, and that at most he was only amenable to a charge of manslaughter. With reference to this charge he should submit to the jury that there was no evidence of any motive for the commission of such a barbarous crime, that it was admitted the prisoner and Mr. Moore were on friendly terms, and he asked whether it was probable that if such a crime had been in contemplation the prisoner would have gone to the house accompanied by a female. He urged that it was extremely probable that sone quarrel had suddenly risen, and that under the impulse of passion the prisoner had committed the dreadful act of killing Mr. Moore. For that act, which would undoubtedly amount to the offence of manslaughter, th 3 prisoner was liable to very severe Punishment, and he said it appeared to him that the jury would he justified in acquitting the prisoner upon the present charge and leaving him to be dealt with upon the original one, from which he admitted he could not hope to escape so far as regarded a conviction for manslaughter. The learned counsel then proceeded to argue that there was nothing to show that the prisoner had deliberately fired at the unfortunate man Collard, and said the jury would bear in mind that the moment he dropped from the paling into the road he was laid hold of by three or four men, and that the' e was nothing more likely than that the pistol went off by accident. With regard to the fact of the prisoner carrying arms about him such as had been described, he said that it was the custom among foreigners to do so, and he observed that if the prisoner had really been actuated by the murderous intention imputed to him, the dagger that was found upon him was a much more ready and deadly weapon than even a pistol. He concluded an eloquent speech by earnestly entreating the jury not to return a verdict the inevitable effect of which would be to sacrifice the life of the prisoner, but that they would take a course which would give him, during a long period of misery and degradation, an opportunity for repenting of the crimes he had committed.