The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle. — 1884-01-19 (Stourbridge, West Midlands, England)

TEE MURDER AT KENNINOTON.  In London, on Saturday, at the Central CArninal Court, before Mr. Justice Hawkins, George Ballwin, 26, labourer, a stout, powerful man, was charged %vitb the murder of George Hoare, by cutting his throat. Mr. Bu nie prosecuted, and the prisoner was defended by Mr. Warburton.  The prisoner and the deceased were employed at the Lambeth Waterworks. They were on the most friendly terms, and there did not appear to have ever been any quarrel between them. On the 12th of December, they had been drinking in company with a woman na vied Powell, who lived with the deceased, and passed as his wife. Late at night they returned home to :floare's residence, 70, Smith-street, Kennington, the prisoner and the deceased being at that time the worse for liquor. Hoare seemed to have gone up to bed about twelve at night, and the prisoner shortly after said, "I shall go up and bid the old man good night." He went into the deceased's bedroom, where he was asleep. He was seen to take a knife out of his pocket, lay hold of the chin of the deceased, turn it aside, and he then inflicted a fearful wound on the neck of the deceased, dividing all the arteries and causing almost immediate death, After the occurrence the prisoner seemed to glory in what he had done, and called out, "I have done for the old man." When he was examined before the magistrate the only explana• tion he gave for his conduct was that he was drunk, and had no recollection of anything that had happened. Nothing appeared that in any way tended to explain the conduct of the prisoner, but one of the witnesses stated that at a certain house the prisoner had made use of the expression "Good night, I may not seeyon again." It is also expression, that although the prisoner was no doubt the worse for liquor, yet, according to the opinion of the witnesses, he knew perfectly well what he was about. The only question in the case, therefore, was whether the prisoner was criminally r spo nisible for the act he had committed. • The facts, as above narrated, were proved by the testimony of several witnesses, all of whom stated that both before and after the terrible occurrence the prisoner appeared to be perfectly calm and collected, and there appeared to be an utter absence of anything like a motive for the crime on the part of the prisoner. After the priscner had cut the throat of the deceased he wanted to be allowed to smoke, and did not appear at all to realise the nature of the act he had committed. He was asked to give tip the knife, babe refused, and said, I shall not do that." He afterwards, however, appeared to have quietly handed the knife to the police-constable. From the evidence of the sargeon it appeared that the point of the knife had first been thrust into the nook and then drawn out by a heavy cut. _  The defence set up for the prisoner was that, owing to the condition of drunkenness In which the prisoner was, he was incapable of forming any definite intention, or of knowing what he was about, and on these grounds the jury were asked to convict the prisoner of man. slaughter. The jury retired at two o'clock to deliberate. They returned into court at half-past three, and found the prisoner guilty of wilful murder, and sentence of death was passed in the usual form.