The Express. — 1862-10-31 (London, England)

THE MURDER IN THE CITY.  The trial of the prisoner Samuel Gardiner, for the murder of his wife, wag resumed this morning. Mr. Ribton proceeded to address the jury for the defence. He said the time bad now arrived when he had to address the jury on a most difficult and complicated cue—a case of inure difficulties and complication, with the exception of one, that was the Road murder, he had never recollected. He bail every confidence in the jury and in the learned judge who presided on the beach. If ever there was a case which required great attention to master its intricacies, this case was the one. He was SW* the learned judge would hold the scales of justice in this awful inquiry with a Fran and intrepid hand, and that no observations would fall from him which would tend to prejudice the prisoner in their minds. The law said that the jury, and the jury alone, were to be the judges. Through the kind indulgence of hie lordship, be had had time to examine the points in the evidence, and be felt some little conlideure that he should be able to couvinco them that the prisoner was not guilty, lie should first ask the jury if tt hod been satisfactorily established that the death was not the result of suicide ; and if this was established, and they should believe that a murder had been committed, the next point he should contend for was that it was equally probable this menhir wan committed by the woman Humbler as by the prisoner. He then called their attention to the medical testimony, and_ urged that too much reliance ought not to be placed upon it, and that they would not be justified in coming too hastily to the conclusion upon the mere theory that bad been put forward by the medical gentlemen who had been examined. MI that their evidence amounted to, as it appeared to hiss, was that it was improbable that the deceased woman should have committed the act herself. With regard to the cuts which were on the hands they might have bet 0 dune hy the clutching of the knife in the convulsions of death. If that were so, could they say beyond all doubt the poesibility of suicide was excluded. He next drew the attention of the jury to the letters and valentines that hail been found in the room, sod the repeated insults which the deceased had received from the girl Humbler, and to the quarrel which took place on the morning preview. to the occurrence, and he asked the jury whether this might not afford a sufficient reason for the act having been committed by the deceased herself ? He then pr seeded to comment as the evidence as to the period which elapsed from the time of death to the time the body was discovensl, 11,0/clock, and contended that vet y little reliance could be placed upon it. Taking all these feet. iuto consideration could the jury satisfactorily say that the deceased had not committed suicide. If they were of opinion that she had not done so, the next question to consoler would be, who had committed the murder, was it the prisoner or the girl Humbler? Whoever had committed the act had evidently armors! the body for the purpose of giving it the appearance of a suicide, and be drew the attention of the jury to the fact that the prisoner had never once suggested that she had committed anieide, but, on the contrary, as soon as he went into the room sod saw the body of his wife on the floor, he accused the girl Humbler of killing her, while she, on the contrary, at once said that the deceased had cut her throat, and this was evidently the complexion she desired to put upon the case, and he said be should show that in many of the statements she made when she was examined Wharfs the coroner she was not speaking the truth. The learned counsel t hen said that he should produce evidence to account for the mariner in which the prisoner's time was occupied on the morning from the period when he left his own Louse until his return, and be said that although he considered this evidence was not of any material imPort:ince, the prisoner instated that these witnesses should be called, sod he felt that he had no alternative but to comply with his wishes. The learned oounsel then proceeded at considerable length to all the attentioo of the jury to the other facts of the ease, endeavouring to show that it was as probable the crime was committed by the woman Humbler as by the prisoner. The court was ieljourned for a short time in the middle of the day in order that the jury might have some refreshment, sal the trial was then resumed. 'rhos nature of the evidence that was brought forward was to show that the prisoner had gone from his house in toe morning to several places in the City where be was etnplayed to sweep chimneys, and that nothing at ell unusual i was olserred in his appearance or conduct. Mr. Poland then replied on behalf of the prosecution, sod was proceeding when our report left.  Two private Louses at Wigan were blown into ruins cesterday by an explosion of gas. It is supposed that the gas had moped from a pipe beneath the door—not an unusual place of rec.-tee-1M nothing was done to God out where the pipe leaked, though the smell of gas had earful' the inmates some hours before the explosion. The neglect nearly cost the life of the teuriut of one cottage, bilat the two cottages were very much injured.