The Blandford and Wimbourne Telegram. — 1882-05-12 (Blandford, Dorset, England)

THE FINCHLEY MURDER CASE.  At the Central Criminal Court, on Monday, before Mr. Justice Hawkins, the trial of John Baker, aged 20, a carpenter, for the murder of Enoch Clark, was resumed. Same formal evidence was given, and M. Poland proceeded to sum up the evidence tendered by him in support 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 say 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 arguments 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 jury retired to consider their verdict, and at 20 minutes to five o'clock they returned into curt, 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 prisoner, and that without any intention to kill him, they would be justified in finding a verdict of manslaughter; but if they believed that at the time the men went into the wood it was the prisoner's intention to kill 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 between the two crimee, 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 die. charge them without further efforts to agree, and he proceede d to explain MICH more the difference between murder and manslaughter. The Foreman remarked that it was no use their retiring. as one of the jury declined to go over the facts. The jury, however, once more retired, and were absent until half-past eight o'clock, when they returned into court with a verdict of wilful murder, but without proof of premeditation. _ . .  Mr. Justice Hawkins: What do you mean by "without premeditation?" The Foreman: That when they entered the wood the prisoner had no intention to kill the deceased. Mr. Justice 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. Jentice Hawkins: Then, under those circumstances, you will, by my direction, find the prisoner guilty of man. slaughter. This the jury (ill, 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 offence 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.