The Poole Telegram. — 1882-05-12 (Poole, Dorset, England)

THE FINUIILEY MURDER CASE.  At the Central Criminal Court, on Monday, before Mr. Justice Hawkins, the trial of Sohn Baker, aged 20, a carpenter, for the murder of Enoch. Clark, was resumed. Some formal evidence was given, and Mr. Poland proceeded to sum up the evidence tendered by him in ouoport of the prosecution, after which Mr. Matthews addressed the jury in defence. The learned judge reviewed the evidence at considerable length. It was difficult, said his lordship, to suggest any motive for the crime, and it was not necessary to assign one. He left it to the jury to Ray whether the death was caused by the prisoner, and if they should, it would then be necessary for them to consider whether the prisoner had shown, either by his own statement or by the argumenta of his counsel, such circumstances as in their judgment would reduce the crime from that of murder to manslaughter. At a quarter to four o'clock the jurr retired to consider their verdict, and at 90 minutes to five o clock they returned into c met, when the foreman asked the learned judge if he would define more fully the distinction between murder and manslaughter. Mr. Justice Hawkins said if the jury thought that a sudden quarrel arose between the parties, and in hot blood the deceased was stabbed by the prisi'ner, and that without any intention to kill him, they wou'd be juetifii.d in finding a verdict of manslaughter; but if they believed that at the time the men went into the wcaol it was the prisoner's intention to hi 1 him, the fact tha he did kill him was undoubtedly murder. At ten minutes past six o'clock the learned judge was again asked to explain the difference bets sea the two crimes, which his lordship did, but an hour and a half later the jury again came into court, and The Foreman stated that there was no prospect of their agreeing. Mr. Justice Hawkins said he was not disposed to digcharge them without further efforts to agree, and he procee led to explain once morethe difference between murder and manslaughter. . . . .  The Foreman remarked that it was no USO their retiring, al one of the jury declined to go over the facts. The jury. however, Oned more retired, and were absent until half-peat eight o'clock, when they returned Into court with a verdict of wilful murder, but without proof of premeditation.  Mr. Justice Hiwkine : What do you mean by "without premeditation I" The Foreman: That when they entered the wood the prisoner had no intention to kill the deceased. Mr. Juatice Hawkins: But at the time of the assault? Do you mean to say that there was no proof of intention to kill! The Foreman: Yes.  Mr. Jutic : Than, under those circumstances, you will, by my direction, find the prisoner guilty of man.  This the jury did, and Mr. Justice Hawkins. addressing the prisoner, said: You have been found guilty by a merciful jury of the manslaughter of your companion in crime, and for the olfencs of which you have been convicted, I sentence you to penal servitude for life. Prisoner—against whom there were previous convictions, which Mr. Montagu Williams proposed to put in, but which the judge did not require—was then removed.