The Sun. — 1840-06-20 (London, England)

CLARKSON.  Mr. Jennings—l am the proprietor of the British Hotel, Jermynstreet. The prisoner has lived in my service, and both myself and my Wife remarked the probity, modesty, diffidence, and even simplicity of his character.  James Nob am waiter in the service of the last witness. I knew the prisoner while in the service of Mr. Fector, who is now going abroad, anel always considered him a quiet, humane, and inoffensive man.  Jean Peton—l am in the service of Lady Julia Lockwoo.l. I knew the prisoner while he was in her •Ladyship's service. I have known him four years, and consi,ler him a well.conducted, good tempered, quiet man. Jeanne Susanne Peten—l am the wife of the last witness, and am in the service of Lady Julia Lockwood. I have lived with her Ladyship fifteen years. I have known the prisoner ever since his arrival in England, and have always considered him a kind, good. hearted man.  Lady Julia Loc's wood—The prisoner lived in my service for nine months as under servant. I have had opportunities of observ_ ing him, and think him to be deserving of the character of a kindhearted inoffensive young man. All the witnesses to character having been examined, the Court adjourned for refreshment previous to the summing up. The Court reassembled at Half-past One o'Clock, and the Jury having answered to their names,  Lord Chief Justice TINDAL commenced the summing up. Ile desired the Jury to discharge from their minds all they might have heard previous to being sworn, and calmly to consider the evidence they had heard, and consider whether it was sufficient to hring home to their minds that the prisoner was guilty. If they enter. tained any doubt on the subject, they were bound to give the pri_ goner the benefit of it, but if they came to the conclusion that it was by the prisoner's hand that Lord William Russel died, then, however painful it might be, they were bound to convict him. The case was one of circumstantial evidence, and if circum. stantml evidence were to be always rejected, crime would always almost go unpunished, because it was very seldom that persons committed atrocious crimes in the presence of witnesses. But it would not be enough for them to be satisfied that such and such circumstances were consistent with the guilt of the prisoner, but that they were utterly inconsistent with any other suppo. sitton than that the prisoner was the person who committed the crime. He would first offer some general observations on the case and then read the evidence. It was beyond a doubt that Lord W. Russell was murdered in the night between Tuesday, the sth, and Wednesday, the 6th of May. Th. re was no possibility of saying that he had committed suicide. It was also perfectly clear that in the course of that night a robbery was com.. mated. Various valuables were taken away, all of which were afterwards found concealed in some other part of the house. It was for them to determine whether it was within the reach of human possibility that that robbery was unconnected with the murder. Whether there could have been a robbery by one set of people, and a murder by another, in the same house on the same night, was a most important point for them to consider—whether that was a robbery committed by persons breaking into the house, or by the inmates residing in it. At seven o'clock in the morning it was found that the front area door was fastened, the front door opptt, the back door fastened, the back area door open, and a cloak was found folded up, with a napkin lying upon it in the hall, near the front door. Upon the first impression, therefore, the natural inference would be that some person had entered by the back area door, which bore marks of violence, had robbed the house, murdered Lord W. Russell, and afterwards made his escape by the front door, leaving his booty behind him. But were there any circumstances leading us to suppose that this was merely a contrivance, for the pus pose of avoiding detection by the real perpetrator ? Now, it appeared that no articles were really taken away, and that many articles easily portable were left behindmnd theywere to consider whether a real thief would have left such articles behind him, some concealed with great care, and others left close to the door, when the thief might have taken them away with him on his person without exciting suspicion. Then, with regard to the door, they would hare to say whether they were marks produced by a person break. ing into the house, or made by a person after the door had been opens.. He should wish these not to place any great reliance on the expressions made use of by the prisoner, or on his agitation, as the conduct of a person under such circumstances depended so much upon his temperament and education, that it would be harsh to draw any inference from them. Neither should they suffer some of the observations of the Learned Counsel for the defence to produce too great an effect upon them. They were placed to administer not mercy, but justice, and te, give their verdict accordingly. They were bound to put the most favourable construction they could on the circumstances, and having come to a conclusion, they were to recollect that they were under the obligation of an oath to administe; justice, and they must find their verdict accordingly, regardless of the conse. euenees. The Learned Judge then proceeded to read the evi. dence, assisted by Mr. Baron