Графични страници
PDF файл
ePub

nd communicated it to the rest of he gang, who agreed, when they got rms, to go and rob the house. Cross-examined by Mr O'Gornan.--How many robberies have you een guilty of in your life?-A great nany.

When did you commence robber? -Last assizes.

You were then tried, wern't you? No, I wan't.

But you were in gaol?—I was; but I was discharged.

How long after you were discharged did you commit the first robbery? -About a week.

Whom did you rob first?—Callaghan McCarty.

Did you get any money from him?

- No.

Whom did you rob next?-One Lloyd, a farmer at Carrigtwohil.

I suppose, if you were opposed on either of these occasions, you would have committed murder?--To be sure I would!

Where did you rob the third time? At a farmer's at Dunmanway. Did you get any money there?Sixty guineas in gold.

What did you do with them?We spent them.

But you're quite sure if any body opposed you, you would have murdered them?-To be sure we would! The Chief Baron told the jury, that the five prisoners were capitally in dicted for burglary and robbery. No doubt the burglary and robbery were proved to have been committed; but there were no witnesses for the Crown of unimpeachable character, and there was no instance of an execution having taken place in this country upon such evidence. The witnesses were in that situation, covered with crime, and, according to their own confession, ready to commit murder, that they ought to be regarded with caution and doubt.

Somebody should be produced to show, either that the prisoners were near when the robbery was committed, or that the articles were found in their possession, or some circumstance should be adduced to connect them with the transaction. The two witnesses who were examined just so far corroborated each other as one desperate character would another; but here the evidence closed: and though it was his duty to tell the jury that this was legal evidence, it was also his duty to tell them they should be slow and unwilling to believe it. The jury without hesitation found verdict of Not Guilty.

CHARGE OF Murder.
Lancaster Assizes, Friday,
September 10.

Thomas Corrigan, aged 27, was tried for the murder of James Holt at Rochdale. (In the case of the person here arraigned, there was this peculiarity, that the Grand Jury had thrown out the bill against the prisoner, who was tried on the Coroner's inquest for murder.)

Mr Coltman detailed the circumstances to be proved in evidence.

Betty Holt, widow of James Holt, lived in Yorkshire-street, Rochdale : her husband went out a little past eleven o'clock, for the purpose of drinking some beer at the Crown Inn on the 9th of August. He came home a little before two, threw himself on his bed, and bemoaned himself very much, saying he had been stabbed. She found two wounds on his head, and a three-cornered wound, as by a bayonet, on the right side of his belly. He said he was killed: and he was told by the doctor on the 12th that he could not get better. On Friday the 13th, the day of his death,

he told her that he had met a soldier who struck him with his naked bayonet, without saying any thing to him. Mr Abraham Wood, surgeon at Rochdale, attended the deceased, and examined his body: a bayonet wound in his belly had occasioned his death.

James Brien, private in the 88th, said the prisoner at the bar and Philbin were privates in the same regiment, and in the same quarters. He saw them together a few minutes before nine in Yorkshire-street. They had no side arms. He left them in the Hare and Hounds, returned home, and went to bed. Philbin came afterwards to his door about twelve, and was let in by witness. Philbin got his bayonet, and went out again. In about fifteen minutes Corrigan came in, and got his bayonet. Very near an hour afterwards witness heard a rap at the door; he got up and let the prisoner in. As soon as he had let him in, a stone was struck at the door. Corrigan threw himself on the broad of his back in the bed, and said in all he went through, he never was so near being killed as that night; he said his legs were all cut with kicking. A great deal of men then came about the house, and were insisting on having the door opened. Witness asked what they wanted. They said they wanted the soldiers. They threatened to break open the door. A few minutes after they had gone, Philbin came in.

Prisoner. I have no question to ask but what he has said.

Patrick Philbin was going with the prisoner to their lodgings from the Three Tuns, about half-past eleven. They met Cornelius Corrigan, a soldier, and one Waugh, who asked them to go into a public-house to get some beer. They went to the Crown, and got some pints of beer.

As they were going up Blackwater-street, a number of people were going before them. One of them turned back and cried, "Hurra, Pat, how does the bull go? Did you come from Scotland to kill kill us?" (They had come from Scotland on their last route.) Upon that, five or six of them turned back, and began to kick witness and his party. Witness went off, and did not know how he lost Corrigan. He met a man of the name of Leach at the church. They had no side-arms, by which he meant bayonet, scabbard, and belt. They had no arms at the Three Tuns. Witness went home after they had been beaten, and found Corrigan had not then got home. He took his bayonet, and went out again, when he met Leach. Corrigan came up soon afterwards, and struck Leach a blow over the eye with his bayonet. Two or three then came up to witness, and asked his bayonet. Witness soon saw a man in his shirt running after Corrigan, with a stick in his hand. Corrigan was running off. He had run off as soon as he had struck Leach. Witness saw no more of Corrigan till he saw him in his lodgings. He was knocked down, and his bayonet taken from him. Upon going home, he found about twenty men at the door: they were saying, "Here is where the murderer went in, and we'll not leave till we have him out." The watch and guard came up, and took up one of the men. Witness was then let into his lodgings. He found Corrigan there, who asked him where his bayonet was, and added, "D-n it, what made you give up your bayonet? Why did you not stick them as fast as they came across you; for I have put four inches of my bayonet into one of them." Next morning Corrigan took his

bayonet out of the scabbard, and was about ten minutes cleaning and wiping it.

Prisoner. I have nothing to ask him but what he has said.

Edmund Leach was struck over the head with a bayonet by another soldier, while he stood by Philbin. He had said nothing to the soldier before when struck, he asked why he had done that. The soldier said, "By the holy Jesus I'll seize your heart with it." Witness went to the Beaver, where the soldier was. Hanson said to witness that the soldiers deserved a beating. Witness afterwards pointed out the soldier who had struck him to his father. His father seized him by the collar. The soldier, who was the prisoner, got loose and ran off. Witness's brother called out, "Stop thief." A number of them pursued the prisoner with that cry to his lodgings. He got in, but they could not get in.

Prisoner. I have no questions to ask. I don't know him.

Robert Stott saw a soldier running through Blackwater-street, at halfpast twelve, and a number after him calling "Stop thief." He made a click at him, but fell, and the soldier fell over him. The soldier got up, and went off. He drew his bayonet, and swore if any man went near him, he would run him through. He then got into his quarters.

Prisoner. I ask him no questions. I don't know him.

Elizabeth Hoyle, wife of John Hoyle, saw a soldier going along Cheetham-street, between twelve and one. She saw him meet a man, who said in reply to something, "The next street is Toad-lane, and the next is Blackwater-street." The soldier went forward, and the man came on and passed witness. When he had got twenty yards past her, the soldier came running back; she

did not know if it was the same soldier; he overtook the man and struck him. The man fell to the ground. She did not see any weapon, but by the sound of the blow she thought he had a weapon. The man offered to get up, and the soldier struck him again, she believed, two or three times. She saw the man get on his feet and go away. Another soldier came to the soldier that had struck, and that took her attention from the man. They stopt a little and talked, and then came back both together towards Toad-lane. Soon after, she heard a cry of Stop thief." It might be five minutes afterwards. At the same time, she saw a soldier running, and two men and a woman after him.

John Holt saw the prisoner next day opposite the Reed Inn meet another soldier. The other soldier asked how he was. The prisoner said, "I am in trouble for sticking a man last night; but if I had to do it again, I would do it. D-n and seize the man that would not. Last night, I was surrounded with half a score of young men. They shoved me, and called me an Irish b-, and I was determined that some one among them should feel the contents of my bayonet. If any man in Rochdale gives me the least offence, I'll stick him to the heart, and the man that is stuck."

to

By the Court. He was examined before the Grand Jury.

Mr Baron Wood. It is very odd. Prisoner. I never said a word of what he has sworn to.

Examination by the Court resumed.-He was not examined before the Coroner. He mentioned this that very day to several-to James Bamford and to John Sutliff. Some

one mentioned it to Wrigby, the constable, who fetched him to give evidence. He was about a yard from

the prisoner. About half a dozen came up to witness at that time.

The prisoner, in his defence, said, that as he was going home he met nine or ten men, who said, "You Irish rascal, do you come here from Scotland to keep us down?" One of them spoke up, "Go the rig" another of them knocked him down, kicked him, and trampled upon him. He called out" Mercy!" One came up and said, "Don't kill the soldier." He got off, but they got hold of him, and treated him in the same way. They followed him to his quarters, and threatened never to leave the house till they had his life. There was not a word of truth in what that man said. He had been a long time in the army, and had been in six engagements, and could never do the like. (After a long pause,) I am quite innocent, my Lord, of this business laid to my charge.

Brien recalled, said the prisoner came in the second time about one o'clock, and never was out after that.

Upon the evidence, the Grand Jury might have at least put the question in course of trial. This was all he meant to say upon that point. The case was attended with much difficulty. If they were satisfied as to the identity, the next question was, whether it had been murder or manslaughter. The prisoner had been exceedingly ill used; and if he ran for his bayonet and killed the man, supposing him to have been one of those who used him ill, in the heat of passion, and without time to cool or reflect, he was guilty of manslaughter. If he had time to reflect and cool, and if he deliberately killed the deceased, he was guilty of murder.-Guilty of Manslaughter.

INFLICTING WOUNDS WITH INTENT

TO MURDER.

The Court called Cornelius Grog- Old Bailey, Saturday, September 18. gen, who had been subpoenaed for the prisoner. He merely gave an account of the affray in which Corrigan was unarmed.

Groggen, in cross-examination, said, that Corrigan had asked of a friend, who had seen the bayonet, if there was any blood upon it. This was when Corrigan was apprehended, and his bayonet ordered to be brought.

Edward Waugh gave a similar account of the affray in which Corrigan had no bayonet.

Mr Baron Wood, in course of his summing up, remarked that it was very extraordinary that the Grand Jury had thrown out the bill. They were not to consider this as conclusive proof in favour of the prisoner.

Henry Stent the prisoner was put to the bar. A London Jury having been called, this unhappy man was arraigned upon an indictment, charging him in the usual form with having inflicted diverse wounds upon the person of his wife, Maria Stent, on the 5th of August last, with intent to kill and murder her, or to do her some grievous bodily harm. He pleaded not guilty. The Jury was then sworn. There was no counsel for the prosecution, and Mr Justice Best called Maria Stent, the wife of the prisoner, who stood up in the witness-box, and was sworn. She seemed to be greatly agitated.

Mr Alley, one of the counsel for the prisoner, instantly rose and addressed the Court. He said he was not aware that this witness would have been called so early in the proceedings; but being in the box, before she was examined he felt it his duty to submit, that as against her husband her evidence was not admissible. He had searched the books with great diligence for cases in which wives had been admitted as witnesses against their husbands; but found none except that of Lord Aud. ley, the circumstances of which were very peculiar, and even the authority of that case he had heard questioned. He recollected one case in which the question would have arisen, but the bill was ignored. Nevertheless, the opinion of Justice Buller was, on that occasion, against the propriety of the testimony of the wife being received. He knew of no instance, except in the case of a rape, where the testimony of the wife was received against her husband.

Mr Baron Graham said, that there were many cases in which the wife was considered a fit witness against her husband, particularly in one where she was in a state of danger from injury which she had received from him. In such a case, where the wife had died, her deposition was subsequently received against her husband as evidence of the fact.

Mr Alley said, that the principle upon which the evidence of a wife against her husband was rejected, was, that if it were admissible, it would tend to excite disagreements in the marriage state. Where a woman spoke in periculo mortis" this principle did not apply, and therefore the evidence might be received; but this was not the case in the pre sent instance.

Mr Adolphus addressed the Court

VOL. XII. PART II.

in support of Mr Alley's objection.

Mr Justice Best said, that he had' not the least doubt as to the admissibility of the wife's evidence in this case, or in any other case of the same description; and this opinion was founded upon the principle, that a married woman, like every other subject of the realm, was entitled to the protection of the laws, which would not be the case if the objections now taken were well founded. There were many descriptions of personal injury to which a wife was subject, independent of that to which allusion had been made, which her evidence could alone support; and if her testimony were as a matter of course to be rejected, she would be altogether without the pale of the law. The decision in Lord Audley's case was perfectly analogous to the present; and the principle upon which the evidence of Lady Audley was received was precisely the principle upon which he should admit the evidence of Mrs Stent. Whatever might be the opinion of individual judges on this question, the opinion of the House of Lords, assisted by the Twelve Judges of the land, was of too solemn a nature to be easily disturbed.

Mr Baron Graham was entirely of the same opinion; and his judgment was founded not alone upon the case of Lord Audley itself, but upon a long experience, in which he had repeatedly seen the principle laid down by his learned brother acted upon. The decisions in those cases might not be found in the books, from the universal acquiescence which they had received.

Mr Justice Richardson agreed with the other judges, that the evidence of Mrs Stent ought to be received. It was a general rule, with very few exceptions, that a wife was an admissible witness against her

G

« ПредишнаНапред »