Deposition of witness too ill to travel-Deposition taken before two county magistrates in Middlesex-Prisoner committed by police magistrate at Bow-street. A deposition taken by virtue of 11 & 12 Vict. c. 42, s. 17, may be read in evidence against the prisoner, although taken before two magistrates who acted only upon that occasion, and the prisoner was afterwards committed for trial by another magistrate. THE HE prisoner was indicted for unlawfully, maliciously, and feloniously cutting and wounding Alfred John de Vidil, with intent to murder him. There were other counts in the indictment. Clerk and Beasley for the prosecution. Ballantine (Serjt.) (Sleigh and Orridge with him) for the prisoner. A witness for the prosecution named Rivers, being proved to be too ill to travel, it was proposed to read his deposition. William Dyott Burnaby being examined, said, I am chief clerk at Bow-street. On the 16th July I went down to Twickenham, in consequence of the illness of the witness Rivers. The prisoner was then in custody. The charge against him was for unlawfully, maliciously, and feloniously cutting and wounding one Alfred John de Vidil, with intent to murder him. Ballantine (Serjt.).—Was the charge made before the magistrate at Bow-street? Witness. It was, and in consequence of the illness of the witness Rivers, the prisoner was taken down to Twickenham, and his deposition was taken before two of the county magistrates, in the presence and hearing of the prisoner, and signed by them. Subsequently, upon a further investigation at Bow-street, the prisoner was committed by Mr. Corrie. The magistrates at Twickenham (a) Reported by ROBERT ORRIDGE, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. were Mr. Donny thorne and Mr. Murray. The prisoner was attended by his solicitor, Mr. Wontner, and his counsel, Mr. Sleigh. Ballantine, (Serjt.)—I object to this deposition being read. The 11 & 12 Vict., c. 42, s. 17 enacts, that in all cases when any person shail appear or be brought before any justice or justices of the peace, charged with any indictable offence, &c., before he or they shall commit such accused person to prison for trial, shall, in the presence, &c., take the statement on oath, &c., and shall put the same into writing; and such deposition, &c., shall be signed by the justice or justices taking the same. The meaning of this is, that the deposition shall be taken by the magistrate before whom the charge is made, and by whom the prisoner is committed, and returned by him. In this case there is the intervention of other magistrates for the purpose of taking this single deposition, those magistrates not being the magistrates before whom the charge was made, or by whom the prisoner was committed. Sleigh (with Ballantine, Serjt.)-From the wording of the 17th and 18th sections of the Act, the whole proceedings should be before the same magistrate. The 18th section enacts, that the justice or justices before whom such examination shall have been completed shall caution the accused in terms before committing him for trial. BLACKBURN, J. (without calling upon the other side).—I am of opinion that it was not intended, by the two sections referred to, to confine the admissibility of a deposition to the case of a person examined before the magistrate before whom the charge is made, and who commits the prisoner for trial. The meaning of the provision in the Act is this, that when a witness may be in a distant part, and too ill to travel, the magistrate or magistrates acting for that locality may take the examination, of course in the presence of the accused, and with the formalities enjoined, and return it to the proper quarter. Here the deposition was read over to and signed by the witness, and signed also by the justices taking the same. It was taken in the presence of the prisoner, and he had full opportunity of cross-examining. It seems to me, all that is necessary has been complied with, and I shall allow the deposition to be read. Guilty. REG. 2. DE VIDIL. 1861 PracticeDeposition. Indictment for murder. Defence that deceased committed suicide. Verdict "guilty," the jury adding that they believed the act was committed without premeditation. The judge refused to receive such à verdict, and directed the jury to say guilty or not guilty. THE HE prisoner was indicted for the wilful murder of Mary Maloney, his wife. He was also charged with wilful murder upon the Coroner's inquisition. John Clerk and Orridge for the prosecution. Sleigh, for the prisoner. The deceased, Mary Maloney, was the wife of the prisoner, and it appeared by the evidence that, on Monday, the 2nd of September, the prisoner came home to dinner, and nothing occurred to excite the suspicions of the neighbours till he was found outside the door of his house looking very pale, and with blood upon his right hand and the sleeve of his smock. He said to a woman, "Mary has done it at last; she has killed herself." And upon search being made, she was found lying near a table, quite dead, with a deep punctured wound upon the shoulder, dividing the sub-clavian artery. It was a clean cut wound, and the knife with which it was made had penetrated to the cavity of the chest. was proved that the deceased had been conversing cheerfully a few minutes before this happened with some persons in the neighbourhood, and that she was quite sober. No suggestion was made that any quarrel had taken place, but a witness was called who swore that he was looking for lodgings that morning, that he opened the room door where Maloney and his wife were, that they were at the table, and that he saw the deceased leaning forward and the prisoner stab her in the shoulder. (a) Reported by ROBERT ORRIDGE, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. It The prisoner adhered to his original statement throughout, viz., that she had killed herself, and this was the defence urged by his counsel. The jury found the prisoner guilty of murder, adding, "but we believe it was done without premeditation." Sleigh. That is a verdict of manslaughter. BYLES, J.-I cannot take that verdict, you must say guilty or not guilty. You are not asked to say if it were premeditated or not. If the prisoner killed the woman he is guilty of murder. The foreman of the jury (after consulting his brother jurors.)— Can we find the prisoner guilty of manslaughter? BYLES, J.-No; and I see nothing that can justify you in desiring to find such a verdict. The jury again retired, and in a few minutes were ser for into court by his Lordship, who said he had sent for them to tell them that, although it was their province to deal with the facts of the case, it was his duty to tell them the law, and they were to take that from him. To reduce the crime to manslaughter, it must be shown there was provocation at the time, and provocation of a serious nature. The prosecutor is not bound to prove that the homicide was committed from malice prepense. If the homicide be proved, the law presumes the malice. And, although that may be rebutted by evidence, no such attempt has been made here. The defence is, that the woman took her own life. The question for you is, did the prisoner take his wife's life or not? If he did, it was murder. You must say guilty or not guilty. The jury then said guilty, but recommended the prisoner to mercy, on the ground that there was no evidence of the act being premeditated. BYLES, J.-I will take care, gentlemen, that your recommendation be forwarded to the proper quarter. (b) Sentenced to death. (b) The sentence was afterwards respited, in consequence of the recommendation to mercy by the jury. REG. v. MALONEY. 1861. Murder Verdict. CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT. October 3rd, 1861. (Before the RECORDER OF LONDON.) REG. v. COELHO. (a) Forgery-Guarantee-No consideration. Prisoner was indicted under 11 Geo. 4 & 1 Will. 4, c. 66, s. 3, for forging a guarantee. Such a document is the subject of forgery though no consideration appear. The 19 & 20 Vict. c. 97, s. 3, give validity to such an underta king. HE prisoner was indicted for feloniously forging and uttering an undertaking for the payment of money, to wit, 300%., with intent to defraud. Metcalfe (Hensman with him), for the prosecution. The instrument, the subject of the charge, was in the following terms: following promissory notes of Mr. José. "His promissory note to you for 50l. due 30 March 1862. |