Εικόνες σελίδας
PDF
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση

never saw Mrs M'Kinnon till she was
lying on the kitchen floor. Ker said
that it was a woman who had done
the act; Howat was insensible at the
time;
did not recollect hearing the
panel say who had stabbed Howat;
did not see her assist Howat into the
next room; no other woman was struck
but M'Donald. At the time witness
wished to go out, Howat was engaged
in a quarrel with M'Donald; saw no-
thing to prevent his going out with
Welsh, Wilkinson, and Johnston.

By the Solicitor-General.-Understood from what Mr Ker said, that it was the panel who had stabbed Howat; cannot say that he was so tipsy as to prevent his recollecting the circumstances detailed.

Mr Jeffrey. No other romping or quarrelling took place in the room, except the quarrel about the chair.

A number of witnesses were exami. ned, who corroborated the above testimony, with some trifling discrepan. cies, but none of them saw the blow given.

Mr Robert Allan, surgeon, one of the surgeons in the Royal Infirmary, attended Mr Howat till his death, which happened on 20th February, at one o'clock. Had no doubt that the wound in the chest was the cause of death, The direction of the wound was oblique, or slanting downward,

The declaration of the deceased was now read; it corroborated the statement of the circumstances which had been spoken to by the witnesses previous to the party going into the house of Mrs McKinnon, and some occurrences after they were there, particularly those spoken to by Mr Ker. It farther stated, that the deceased could not escape the blow of the knife which was aimed at him, though he attempted to do so. Was struck in the left breast with the knife, under the collar. The declaration corroborated the other

facts mentioned by Mr Ker. The de-
ceased became insensible, and remained
so until taken to the Infirmary. None
of his companions could have seen the
Was certain
thrust, except Mr Ker.
Mrs McKinnon was the woman who
struck him.

The jury were addressed for the
Crown by the Solicitor-General.

Mr Jeffrey replied for the panel, in a warm, eloquent, and impassioned address. The main ground of defence, and that on which he dilated at greatest length, was the discrepancies and contradictions in the evidence for the prosecution, which, he contended, could not induce an undoubted conviction of guilt in the minds of the jury. The learned counsel next viewed the case hypothetically-that the evidence was consistent in all its features; and then in this unfavourable light, he maintained that the circumstances in which the prisoner was placed, were such as justified her in having recourse to lethal weapons. Mr Jeffrey concluded, with a strong and energetic appeal to the feelings of the jury, on behalf of the unfortunate creature, who, early in life, had been cast on the wide world, with a diminished reputation, and been deserted by those, whose reclaiming discipline might have drawn her from the dreadful course of iniquity in which she had indulged.

The Lord Justice Clerk charged the jury, in a luminous and comprehensive speech.

The jury, after deliberating a minute or two, expressed a wish to retire, when they were told that, if their deliberation lasted above ten minutes, they would deliver their verdict the same morning, at 11 o'clock, in a sealed letter. The Court waited about twenty minutes, in which time the jury returned, and delivered to the Court a written verdict, finding the panel, by a plurality of voices, Guilty of the crime of murder, but also re

commending her, by a majority, to mercy.

When their verdict was about to be read, the panel, whose agitation had been increasing in proportion as the issue drew near, entirely fainted away. A glass of water was immediately handed to her, when she partly revived, and expressed her agony, by affecting

groans.

The Lord Justice Clerk observed to the jury, that, though their recommendation of mercy would be transmitted to the proper quarter, it would be accompanied by a full disclosure of all the facts of the case.

Lord Pitmilly, after dwelling shortly on the heinousness of the panel's crime, proposed that she should be executed at Edinburgh on the 16th April next.

Lord Meadowbank thought the crime of which the panel had been convicted, was unaccompanied with the least circumstance of palliation; and nothing surprised him so much as the recommendation of the jury, as he could not discover the slightest grounds for it. He sincerely trusted that the present case would be looked upon as an example, not only by the depraved of the female sex, but also by that sex which was too often, as in the present instance, the cause of female depravity and wickedness, and sometimes of the ignominious death of the objects of their dissipation.

The Lord Justice Clerk then pronounced sentence on the panel-(who still seemed in a state of insensibility, being supported in her seat, her eyes shut, and her body motionless.) He said he would not be acting mercifully towards her, if he held out any hopes of mercy from the recommendation of the jury, which he could see no reason for supposing likely to prevail, though the decision of that matter lay in an

other quarter. His Lordship, in a tone of deep feeling and sympathy, exhorted the panel to improve the short time which remained to her in this world, to the purposes of penitence. His Lordship then read the sentence, which was, that the panel be executed at Edinburgh, on the 16th of April, between the hours of eight and ten in the morning, and her body thereafter to be given to Dr Alexander Munro for dissection.

The prisoner, after receiving the awful sentence, again fainted, and when the Court dismissed, was lying extended apparently lifeless on the seat.

Counsel for the Crown-the Solicitor-General, Duncan M'Neil, Robert Dundas, and Archibald Alison, Esqrs. Depute-Advocates. Agent, Mr Rolland. Counsel for the prisoner

F. Jeffrey, H. Cockburn, and T. Maitland, Esqrs. Advocates. Agent, James Rutherford, Esq. W. S.

This trial excited an extraordinary degree of interest. The doors of the Court were crowded at a very early hour; and when the doors were opened, the crush to obtain admission was excessive. The Parliament Square was covered with groups of people throughout the day, and towards evening, the crowd extended as far out as the Highstreet, and continued so till the Court broke up. Mrs McKinnon was dressed in black printed sarsnet, with black bonnet and veil; she behaved with the greatest composure at first, but bet came extremely agitated towards the close of the proceedings. At the time the jury were getting some refreshment, the same was offered to her; bushe declined it, and only asked for was ter, of which she drank several glassein the course of the day. The trial lasted from ten o'clock yesterday morning, till half past four this morning.

PRINCE PAUL ESTERHAZY AND DE

BETTERA.

Middlesex Sessions, June 27.

Mr Bolland appeared on behalf of the King in the case of Prince Paul Esterhazy, ambassador extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary from the Court of Vienna, against Vite Marie de Bettera, praying the Court to detain the prisoner in custody until the ensuing sessions. The learned gentleman said it would be necessary for him to state at length his grounds for making this application, which, he admitted, was a very unusual one. The learned counsel said he held in his hand four affidavits, and perhaps, for the present, it would be better to read them one by one to the Court, and he would reserve to himself his reasons, until he heard from his learned friend, Mr Adolphus, his answer to the affidavits, which he would now read.

The first affidavit was that of Sir Richard Birnie, made on the bench, stating, that, on the 20th ult. Mrs Percy, the wife of Mr Humphrey Percy of Charlotte Street, Fitzroy Square, appeared before him at Bow Street, and swore the affidavit, of which the annexed is a copy.

Mrs Percy's affidavit stated, that, a few days ago, she heard Monsieur Vite Marie de Bettera, who lodged in her house, complain much of the ill treatment he had received from his excellency the Prince Paul Esterhazy, in not paying him his just demands; and that, if he were not settled with, he would take his pistols, and first blow out the Prince's brains, and afterwards destroy himself. These threats the prisoner expressed in such passionate language, and many oaths, that the deponent verily believes the Prince Esterhazy's life to be in danger from

him.

The third affidavit was that of Mr Wright, a medical gentleman, made yesterday, stating the indisposition of Mrs Percy; and, from her being now in the last stage of pregnancy, it would endanger her life to come to Court in a coach to give evidence against the prisoner.

The last affidavit read by the learned counsel was that of Prince Paul Esterhazy, which in substance stated, that from the violent manner of the prisoner, his constantly annoying him, and from the statement of Mrs Percy, he verily believed his life to be in danger.

Mr Adolphus commenced his answer to the application, by asking the date of the Prince's affidavit?

Mr Bolland answered, the 7th of March last.

"Yes," said Mr Adolphus," and upon that affidavit my client was taken into custody, and bound over to keep the peace towards the Prince, himself in L.400, and two sureties in L. 200 each; and, although the Prince has received no annoyance from M. de Bettera from that time, my learned friend comes forward, and modestly claims the detention of this gentleman for upwards of two months. As to the affidavit of Mrs Percy, it appears to me to amount to nothing, for how could she understand the blustering of his client in German? And the affidavit of Mr Wright, the surgeon, was worse than nothing in behalf of this puissant Prince. In the whole course of my practice I never read or heard of such a request being put forward upon such affidavits."

The learned gentleman, in strong language, asked, why Prince Esterhazy had allowed a whole term to expire without applying to the Court of King's Bench? Surely Mrs Percy was not so ill, but she might, during the last term, have gone to the Court above, and made the necessary affida

vit. But that would not have answered the purpose intended by the prosecutor of his client.

Mr Bolland attempted to account for articles of the peace not being exhibited against Monsieur de Bettera; but was interrupted by

Mr Adolphus, who requested the production of the commitment; and from it it appeared evident, there was undue influence used somewhere against his client.

The chairman, Mr Bevill, said, that from the whole of the case, as stated by Mr Bolland, no satisfactory answer was given to the prisoner's counsel, for articles of the peace not having been exhibited during last term; and certainly, upon the affidavits exhibited, the bench would not be borne out in

detaining the prisoner in jail till the

next sessions.

Mr Bolland did not require that Monsieur de Bettera should remain in prison for two months, but that he should give new securities upon his commitment of the 20th of May.

Mr Adolphus now took a general view of the whole case, arguing, from the laws and constitution of England, that nothing short of oppression somewhere could have kept the prisoner in jail from the 24th of May till the present time, when he had clearly shewn, that, on the 7th of March, he entered into sureties towards Prince Esterhazy, and that not even the shadow of proof was offered of committing in any way a breach of his recognizances. The prisoner was committed to the sessions. Here he now was ready to take his trial; why did not his prosecutor come forward, like a brave man, and prosecute? Did Prince Esterhazy suppose, that England was filled with bastiles, as other countries which might be mentioned? He would tell that Prince, that not he nor all the princes on earth, -no, not our lord the King,-could keep his client any longer immured in

prison; and the learned gentleman concluded, by requesting the immediate discharge of Monsieur de Bettera.

Here Mr Maule of the Treasury, who sat on the bench, inquired the practice in such cases. He was answered, that it depended on the bench whether he would be discharged now, or at the end of the sessions.

The chairman said, he would, as a matter of course, be discharged at the conclusion of the sessions.

Mr Adolphus here remarked, that if his client had been a common individual, he would have been forthwith discharged.

The prisoner was then removed from the Court in the custody of the turnkeys.

Saturday, June 28.

M. Vite Marie de Bettera appeared this day at the bar, when Mr Const, the chairman, addressed him nearly in the following terms:

"You were yesterday brought to this bar, sir, for the purpose of being farther detained, upon the warrant which I now hold in my hand, until the ensuing sessions; but if you had not then been supported with counsel, as you ably were, the Court had not the power of detaining you upon this warrant. In declaring you to be now at liberty, let me caution you most sincerely from throwing out threats against any person living in this country, but more especially against any foreigner distinguished here as the representative of a foreign potentate. Their persons are particularly sacred amongst us in England; and, more. over, no man can here with impunity be permitted to use threats towards another. A repetition of such conduct on your part, may subject you to be called upon to give so heavy sureties for your future good behaviour, as most likely will again immure you within the walls of a prison."

believe) who was in tears and sobbing

Trial of Andrew riding, for THE loudly; he shook his head, as to up

ATTEMPT TO ASSASSINATE SAMUEL HORROCKS, ESQ. M. P.

Lancaster, Monday, Aug. 18.

At nine o'clock this morning, Andrew Riding was put to the bar, and arraigned for feloniously, wilfully, and maliciously cutting Samuel Horrocks, Esq. with intent to do him some grievous bodily harm, by wounding him with an iron cleaver, on Sunday, the 27th of July last, at Preston, in this county. There were several counts in the indictment, varying the form of description. The prisoner pleaded "not guilty" in a firm voice, and added, in answer to the usual interrogation of how he would be tried, "I suppose by God and my country." He is a slight young man, 23 years of age, with a remarkably shrewd expression of features, pale, and thin; he exhibited a constant elasticity of mental feeling, knitted his brow occasionally at the delivery of parts of the evidence, and was in the frequent action of moving from one side of the dock to the other; at times projecting his body so forward (he was a little deaf) as to be almost entirely out of the dock, and upon the shoulders of the people in front. His gesture, while speaking, was peculiarly animated; indeed, at times violent. His diction was free, and rather above that of the ordinary class of society to which he belonged; his reasoning was mostly consecutive, when he spoke, and parts of his crossexaminations were acute. His manner was throughout not only unembarrassed, but when he first entered Court, marked by extreme levity.

He looked around upon the multitude assembled with a laugh upon his countenance, nodded familiarly at some whom he recognized, particularly one female in the gallery (his mother, we

braid her, but without evincing the smallest sympathy, for his laughter continued, and he employed himself in eating apples voraciously. He was dressed plain and decent, and held in his hand a newspaper, and a bundle of manuscript.

The avenues of the Court were crowded to excess so early as eight o'clock, and a number of persons had improperly obtained private admission before the doors were thrown publicly open. When they were unfolded, the rush was tremendous, and the Court was filled in an instant, in such a manner as to create, during the whole day the most inconvenient pressure.

Soon after nine o'clock, Mr Justice Bayley took his seat on the bench, and Mr Starkie opened the pleadings.

Mr Scarlett stated the case to the jury. He detailed the whole particulars of the attack upon Mr Horrocks by the prisoner, at Preston, on Sunday the 27th of July last. The learned gentleman remarked, that he feared the attack, and the deadly object of it, would be brought too home to the prisoner to admit of either denial or justification. An attempt might perhaps be made to prove him insane; but the jury would look with very great caution at such a mode of shielding a desperate offender from justice; if, however, a case of insanity were clearly made out, the law fortunately provided a mode of protecting the public in future from the attacks of such a man. He was instructed by Mr Horrocks to say, that all he asked was, for a calm investigation of the affair; he deprecated any undue severity, and only wished to have the prisoner's condition fully and properly ascertained, having the fullest confidence that the jury would decide with calmness, patience, and humanity.

The first witness called was Samuel

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »