CHARGE OF ATTEMPTED MURDER
WITH DYNAMITE.
_____

Joseph BELL, 27, coal miner, imperfectly instructed, was charged  with
feloniously and with malice aforethought attempting to kill and murder one  John
BELL and one Martha BELL, by means of an explosive substance, at the parish  of
Dalston, on the 20th June, 1882.

 Mr. PAGE and Mr. LOWTHER appeared for the prosecution, and the  prisoner was
defended by Mr. MATTINSON.

 Mr. PAGE, in opening the case, said the outrage which the prisoner  was
charged with having committed was so well planned and so skillfully executed  but
that for the presence of mind of a witness named John BROWN, the duty of the  
jury would have been of a more serious character than it fortunately was.

 The house into which the explosive substance, which they believed to  have
been tonite, was thrown is situated at Dalston, four miles from Carlisle.  It
was inhabited by some sisters of the name of BROWN, and their nephew, a man  
named John BROWN.

 On first sight on looking at the house it would appear that the  window into
which this explosive substance was thrown did not belong to the  house
occupied by a man named BELL and his wife. The BROWN’s house appeared to  be a house
which in front of it has two windows on the ground floor and three  windows
on the first floor, and that seemed to be the whole of the front of the  house.

 Next door to it there was a shop kept by Mrs. BELL, and above that  shop was
a window, which any person passing by would naturally suppose to be a  window
of a room occupied by the BELLS; but it really was a window of a room  
occupied by the bROWNS. On the night in question, the 21st June, Miss. BROWN and  
her sister had gone early to bed, and she was sleeping in this bedroom which was
 over BELL’s shop. At about two o’clock she was awakened by the sound of  
something falling on the floor and hearing a fizzing. She shouted that the house
 was on fire. Her nephew, who was sleeping in an adjoining room, rushed in
and  saw in the floor what appeared to be about a yard and a half of India
rubber or  gutta percha pipe with a round hard ball at the end of it. This pipe
clearly was  a fuse, which in the natural course of things in a moment or two
would have  communicated its fire to the substance in the hard ball at the end.

 John BROWN, the nephew, with great presence of mind took up this  thing, and
thinking that there might be some difficulty in throwing it out of  the
window, he deliberately threw it out of the room into the passage, and on  falling
down a terrific explosion occurred, the whole house seemed to be shaken,  a
staircase window was blown out, and other very serious damage was done to the  
house.

 A few hours afterwards a piece of gutta-percha tubing was found  amongst the
rubbish, and a small hole was found in one of the panes of the  bedroom
window, and a piece of glass that had evidently been knocked out of the  window on
the dressing table, proving that the missile must have been thrown in  from
the outside of the window. The position of the window was an important  fact,
and one which they must bear in  mind.

 It was known that the BROWN’s had not an enemy in the world, and it  
occurred to those in whose hands the investigation of this case was placed that  the
injury was meant for BELL, who is the prisoner’s brother, or for Mrs. BELL,  
the sister-in-law, or for both. The prisoner as a result was apprehended. He  
would show conclusively how the prisoner was connected with the outrage.

 On the 17th February, this year the prisoner went to live with his  sister,
Mrs. THOMLINSON, at Birkenhead, and while living with her he was  employed in
the tunnel which is being made to connect Birkenhead with Liverpool.  He left
on the 17th June. During the time he was living with his sister at  Birkenhead
he was expecting to receive, from a brother-in-law in America, money  to pay
his passage to that Country. He did not receive this money, and he said  that
the reason of it was that his brother-in-law’s mind had been poisoned  against
him by his sister-in-law, Mrs. BELL, against whom and her husband he  several
times used threats. On the 22nd May, he got his niece, Mrs. THOMLINSON’s  
daughter, to write the following letter to his brother, Mr. BELL, in Dalston:  -

“52, Park-street, Birkenhead, May 22nd, 1882

 “Dear Brother, - I write these few lines to tell you I have received  a
letter from America, but there is no pass, as you have written to him and told  
him I was both lazy and drunken. I want to know what good it has done you for  
telling such lies. What do you think you deserve for it? I mean striking square
 with her for what she has done. It shows you were guilty in not answering
the  letter I sent you before. I think you have a very nice wife to hinder your  
brother from going to America. The faggot! She should be gibbeted. I am not  
working now, nor does not intend to in this world. I have not worked since the
 letter came. This is the last letter I send to you. If you are going to
write  soon and give account of yourself why you have done it it would be the best
job  you ever did for to send me £8 to carry me out to America.

 No more at present from your brother, Jos. BELL.

The prisoner left Birkenhead on the 7th June. On the 18th he  called on his
cousin, named RILEY, at Whitehaven; and on the evening of that day  his cousin
saw the prisoner start for the train to Maryport. On the 19th at one  o’clock
in the afternoon he was seen by Mrs. PIGGE at Crofton Toll Bar, about  four
miles from Dalston, asking the way for the village, and telling her he had  been
wronged and he was going to America.

 At three o’clock the same day he was seen by a working man named  JAKES,
near Cardew Lodge, with whom he entered into conversation, during which  it
appeared that the prisoner, who was not in the habit of smoking, had a box of  
matches. Later he was seen by a man named GRAHAM about a mile from Dalston, and  
afterwards by a girl named JOHNSTON still nearer the village. Had he come to  
Dalston for a proper purpose he would have gone to his brother’s, but he did no
 such thing.

 On the 21st he was found in a stable near Maryport, when he stated he  had
come from Newcastle, and on the 22nd he got employment at the Ardrossan  
Shipping Company at Whitehaven. Here he said he wanted to go to Liverpool, and  some
money was given to him to make up his fare. He told the workmen that he had  
received a wound in his hand. When this wound was afterwards examined by Dr.  
HAIR, that gentleman accidentally let a piece of gutta percha fall on his own  
hand, causing a wound similar to that of the prisoner’s, and it was argued
that  the wound was received from a piece of melted gutta percha from the fuse
on  lighting it at Dalston.

 At Whitehaven, before he was apprehended he pawned a revolver for 5s.  The
fact of his possessing a revolver suggested that he was determined one way  or
another to murder his brother or his brother’s wife. On the 23rd he was  
apprehended at Whitehaven, when he told a story as to how his time had been  
occupied, which certainly was not consistent  with the truth. On being  searched a
match was found in his pocket, and he said he was surprised at that  as he did
not expect that he “had one then.”

 The tonite, it was argued by the prosecution, was got by the prisoner  in
the tunnel at Birkenhead, in which it was in constant use for blasting, as  many
as 300 charges being used every day. The case was one of circumstantial  
evidence, and if they thought all the links in the chain were sound, as he  should
prove they were, it would be their duty to find the prisoner guilty of  the
offense with which he was charged.

 Evidence having been given in support of the opening statement of the  
learned counsel for the prosecution.

 Mr. MATTINSON addressed the jury on behalf of the prisoner.

 His Lordship then summed up, and the jury, after a deliberation of a  few
minutes, and without leaving the box, returned a verdict of guilty upon that  
count in the indictment charging him with the attempted murder of Martha  BELL.

 His Lordship, in passing sentence, said the crime was happily a new  sort of
crime in this country, and it must be suppressed. He sentenced him to  twenty
years penal servitude.

 The Court adjourned at six o'clock.

________________________

SECOND DAY. - WEDNESDAY
_____

 Mr. Justice DAY took his seat on the Bench about twenty-five minutes  after
ten o’clock, and at once proceeded with the trial of the only remaining  case
in the Calendar. Before his Lordship arrived every available seat in the  
Court had been taken up by the public. Mr. HAVERFIELD, at seventeen minutes past  
ten, entered the Court with the prisoner, on whom all eyes were turned with  
curious interest.

THE WORKINGTON MURDER.
____

Hugh GRANT, 21, labourer, imperfectly instructed, was charged with killing  
and murdering one Eleanor GRANT, at the parish of Workington on the 3rd
October,  1882. He was also charged on the coroner’s inquisition with the like  
offence.

 Mr. HENRY and the Hon. A. D. ELLIOT (instructed by Mr. MILBURN,  Workington)
prosecuted, and the prisoner was defended by Mr. SHEE (instructed by  Mr.
PAISLEY, Workington).

 Mr. HENRY in opening the case for the prosecution, said - I appear on  the
part of the prosecution WITH MY LEARNED FRIEND Mr. ELLIOTT, and my learned  
friend Mr. SHEE appears for the defence of this man, who stands charged before  
you with the willful murder of his own daughter on the 3rd October at  
Workington.

 There are two families in Workington, the prisoner’s family called  GRANT
and his wife’s family called M’GOWAN. The prisoner was married to one Mary  M’
GOWAN, daughter of James M’GOWAN on the 19th December last. They seem not to  
have agreed, because they separated in March this year, and the prisoner at
that  time went away and enlisted in the army, and Mary GRANT went back to her  
father’s house, that is M’GOWAN’s house, and there she lived and is living up
to  the present time.

 On the 18th September, this year the prisoner returned home from the  army,
for what purpose I do not know. He went to live in his father’s house at  
Workington, which is situated at Betany-street in the suburbs of the town. About  
half past ten o’clock on the night of the 3rd October, a girl named Kate  
STEPHENSON, a servant of the prisoner’s father, was sent out by his mother to  
bring the prisoner, who was coming down Senhouse-street making some noise, into  
the house.

 The prisoner came in and sat down in the house and took his supper.  Whilst
he was taking his supper, his mother seems to have said something about  his
wife, to the effect that his wife was going to the workhouse. Upon hearing  
this he uttered an oath that he would go down and smash the whole house, meaning  
that he would go down to M’GOWAN’s and smash the whole house. [The learned  
counsel put in a plan of M’GOWAN’s house.] The house is situated in a field.  
There are several houses surrounded by fields; and there are a few houses,
five  or six together. This house consists of two storeys, two rooms on the  
ground floor and two rooms on the first floor. On the ground floor you will  
observe when you come in at the door there is what is called a parlour and at  the
back of this is what is called a kitchen and at the back of the kitchen is  
what is called a scullery or a pantry. Next to this house is one in which a  
family called CASSIDY lived. At the back is an open yard belonging to both  
houses.

 Now, this man after uttering the threat I have mentioned left his own  house
and came down to M’GOWAN’s house, and when he came in he went into the  
kitchen. In the kitchen were his mother-in-law, Mrs. M’GOWAN, and, I understand,  
three of her children - in any case there was Alice M’GOWAN and Hugh M’GOWAN.
 There were also in the kitchen his wife, and on his wife’s knee was this  
daughter, Eleanor, the daughter which was afterwards killed, and also another  
child of his wife’s, because it appears his wife had two children, one before  
marriage and one after. There were Mrs. M’GOWAN and three children and Mrs.  
GRANT and two children. Mrs. GRANT and her mother were taking tea together when
 he came in, and, to use the language of one of the witnesses “jostled”
against  the table. They said they wanted peace and did not want to be disturbed,
and he  said he did not desire it. Upon that he said he would lie down before
the fire,  and asked them to call him about six or half past six o’clock in
the  morning.

 The prisoner lay down and shortly afterwards the prisoner’s mother  and the
girl STEPHENSON who had followed him from his father’s house  came  up to M’
GOWAN’s. The mother uttered a curse or imprecation against the  prisoner’s
wife, who returned the words upon the other. The prisoner jumped up  and struck
his wife, who at the time had the child on her knee. Alice M’GOWAN,  sister of
the prisoner’s wife, took the child away; she went upstairs to rouse  her
father who was there asleep. The prisoner struck his wife and kicked at his  
mother-in-law who went out to get a policeman; and John M’GOWAN came downstairs  in
his night shirt. The prisoner said to him, “Who strikes you, strikes me,” or
 words to that effect, which seem to my mind to indicate that he was on
rather  friendly terms with his father-in-law. But the first act that he does is to
 knock his father-in-law down and to kick him. The prisoner’s wife came to
the  assistance of her father and struck the prisoner with a tea tin.

 Old M’GOWAN went upstairs to put his clothes on to go out for a  policeman,
leaving Mrs. GRANT and her husband in the scullery. The prisoner  abused his
wife in the scullery; she was heard screaming. Eventually she got him  outside
the scullery into the yard and shut the door. Now Alice M’GOWAN had gone  into
the yard with the child after rousing her father, and in this place she was  
accompanied by the girl STEPHENSON who had another child in her arms. On
coming  into the yard the prisoner struck Alice M’GOWAN on the face, and he took
his  child in his hands, swung it three times round his head and shoulders, and
each  time struck its head against some boards that were lying in the yard.
After  doing this he threw the child onto a hen house in the yard. The child  
subsequently got into the hands of the prisoner’s mother, Mrs. GRANT, who took  
it to the house of a person named EGLINTON, but before it got there it was
dead.  The prisoner afterwards went home, and stopped for a short time at home,
and  then afterwards he seems to have come to EGLINTON’s house.

Now, gentlemen, these are the facts upon which the prosecution  rely. What
occurred in the yard appears to me the most important pasrt of the  story. The
question is did he take this child of his and dash its brains out as  we may
say in the yard, if he did I don’t suppose my learned friend or anyone  will say
that can be anything but murder. There is no reason for supposing an  act of
that kind can be anything but murder. But did he commit that wanton act  as I
have described?

 Next to M’GOWAN’s house is the CASSIDY house; and Mrs. CASSIDY by the  
glare of the light of the 19 furnaces in blast in the neighbourhood saw the  whole
of the occurrence, and she says that the prisoner swung the child three  
times over his shoulder and dashed it against the boards in the yard. The girl  
STEPHENSON, who was in the yard, says she did not see the child dashed against  
the boards, but that is no evidence against that of Mrs. CASSIDY, who says she
 did see him do so. What Mrs. CASSIDY says is borne out of the evidence of
Alice  GRANT and by Hugh GRANT, a boy whose evidence was not given in the court
below.  In addition to this there is the medical evidence that the child’s
head was  smashed in by not one blow but by a number of blows, because the
injuries were  in number and variety very considerable.

 There is one other circumstance of which I am reminded. The family  kept the
hens in the yard and fed them on porridge, a fact still further  
corroborative of the child’s head having been dashed against the boards. That  the child’
s head was smashed and she died of injuries there can be no doubt.  After the
occurrence the prisoner went to his father’s housre, and the first  thing he
said was, “God forgive me for what I have done”; he then lighted his  pipe,
saying he could prepare for the rope in the morning. When afterwards  charged
with the crime, on being apprehended, he said, “Yes, that will be about  it; I
wish I had broke my leg before I went down; it was her mother that caused  all
the bother.” Provocation came from the prisoner who began the affair - at  all
events, whether it was established or not, provocation given by one  
individual cannot excuse a man for killing another. However, that is a question  of
law on which his Lordship will direct you.

William MURRAY, civil engineer and surveyor testified to the  accuracy of the
plans laid before the jury. He also stated there was a large  number of blast
furnaces in the neighbourhood of M’GOWAN’s house. On some  occasions the
effect of these would be to light up the place and make things  quite clear.
Botany-street would be about half-a-mile from these furnaces.

 Cross-examined - The nearest furnaces are half-a-mile off - the  others are
about three-quarters of a mile away.

 By Mr. HENRY: I have noticed that the furnaces sometimes light up the  
country for two miles around.

 Margaret M’GOWAN said: I am the wife of John M’GOWAN, and my husband  is a
labourer. We live in a place at Workington called Clay Flatts. Prisoner  
married my daughter on the 19th of December, and he left her sometime in March  of
last year. They did not agree so well, and the prisoner went and enlisted. He  
came back to Workington on the 28th of September. He came to our house on  
Tuesday night, the 3rd of October about 11 o’clock. My daughter (prisoner’s  
wife) and I were sitting at the table in the kitchen, taking a cup of tea. There
 were also in the room my three children, Alice, Hugh and William - and her
two  children - Eleanor and John William. My husband was upstairs in bed. My
daughter  sat on one side of the table, and I sat at the other, and the child
Eleanor was  on the mother’s knee. The mother rose from the table and went and
sat down in  the chair by the fire.

 When the prisoner came in he said, “What are you looking at, three  eyes?”
and I said, “Let us have a cup od tea Hugh, in peace.” He said, “You  don’t
deserve one,” and he lay down on the floor and said no one should put him  out
that night. He asked us to wake him at six or half past six o’clock in the  
morning. With that his mother came in, and she asked if Mary had seen Hugh.
Mary  pointed to him saying, “He’s there.” His mother then ran out, but she came
back  directly and said, “May the curse of Jesus light on you, Mary, for
saying I have  put ill betwixt Hugh and you.” Mary said something, but what the
words were I  don’t know.

Hugh then rose up and struck Mary, his wife, and I think he must have  struck
her, judging by the sound, on the face with his open hand. He struck her  
then on the mouth, and continued to strike her five or six times about the head,  
face and body. Then he kicked at me, but he missed and tumbled down on the  
floor.  I got outside the door, and I heard prisoner’s wife shouting “Will  no
one take the child?” Up to that time the child had been on her knee. I then  
saw my little girl Alice running into the pantry with the child in her arms.
The  pantry is between the parlour and kitchen underneath the stairs. The next
thing  I saw was my husband coming down the stairs, and then I went away to
look for  the police. When I came back I heard something, and then I went to
EGLINTON’s  house, and there I found the child Eleanor, and upon seeing it I went
for the  doctor. When I came back the child was dead.

 Cross-examined - It was me to whom Hugh said “You don’t dserve to  have tea.
” He was not quite drunk when he came to the house. He was sensible of  what
he was doing. I did not say to the magistrate that he came in drunk. I  don’t
know how long my daughter and he had been acquainted before they married.  She
had been in service at GRANT’s father’s house. The eldest child was also  
his. My daughter might have returned the answer to him “May the curse light on  
you.” I could not be sure of this. I had seen a poker at the fireside that  
evening. My daughter did not use the poker in my sight.

 By Mr. HENRY - When I saw the prisoner he walked steady enough across  the
floor.

 John M’GOWAN said - I am the husband of the last witness. I remember  the
3rd of October last. I went to bed a little before ten o’clock. I remember  
someone arousing me. I came downstairs in my nightshirt and went into the  
kitchen. I asked hugh GRANT what was the matter in the house, and he said,  “There’s
nothing in particular.” I said, “It would be more like you if you will  go
home and go to bed peaceably.” He said he thought it would, and turned to go  
away, as I think, but when I turned round he struck me, and knocked me down.  
Before he struck me he said, “Them that will strike you will strike me.” When
he  knocked me down I fell with my head within the pantry door, and while I
lay he  kicked me once or twice. When he kicked me someone interfered, and he
turned to  follow them. I went upstairs and got my clothes on, and came down
again. There  were only two little ones in the kitchen then. I was going off to
look for the  police, when prisoner came up, took me by the arm, and asked me, “
Where I was  going.” I said, “For the police,” and he said, “You had better
not”; but I  jerked his arm loose and went for the police. I then went back
to my own house,  where no one was in, and afterwards went to Mrs. EGLINTON’s.
The child was there  on the bed.

 Cross-examined - Before I came downstairs I had not heard any  disturbance.
When I came downstairs prisoner said he did not want any row. I  could not
understand anything about it, however. Somebody had told me he was  struck with a
tea tin when I was down. I saw no one strike him with a tin.

 Alice M’GOWAN said: - I am the daughter of John M’GOWAN, and I live  with
my father at Clay Flatts, Workington. I am “going” for twelve years old. I  
remember the Tuesday night when Hugh GRANT came into our house. I was in the  
kitchen when he came in, and I went into the parlour for a cup. I came back and  
poured out some tea for myself, and then I saw Hugh lying on the floor before
 the fire. I saw Hugh’s mother come in, but I did not hear what she was
saying.  My sister Mary reached me the baby, and I went upstairs to wake my father,
 because the prisoner was beginning to “fratch” with my sister Mary (his
wife)  and my mother. Hugh began it, but my sister Mary did nothing.

 The learned Judge: - What do you mean by the word “fratch?”

 Witness: - He was beginning to be mad at them. When I awakened my  father I
came downstairs and as I walked through the kitchen I saw Hugh GRANT  strike
his wife one blow. I went straight through the scullery door into the  yard
with the child Eleanor in my arms. I stood at the end of the scullery by  the
sink stone for about ten minutes. I stood within a few inches of the sink,  
between it and CASSIDY’s door.  When  I got to the sink stone I turned  round the
corner to my left. When I was standing in that position the prisoner  came out
and struck me on the side of the head, knocking my head against the  wall of
the scullery. He took the baby out of my hands, and I ran out of the  yard door
to the pump. Hugh GRANT’s mother came out with him. When I got to the  pump
Kate STEPHENSON was standing there, and she and I went straight to his  father’
s house.

 Cross-examined - After I went out with the child I left them  quarrelling
inside. Kate STEPHENSON was also in the house, but she went out  before me. I
remember saying before the magistrates, “I was standing round the  scullery door
cheek.” When I got the blow I nearly scattered the baby.

 Catherine Ann STEPHENSON said: - On the 3rd of October last I was  living at
GRANT’s house as a servant. That night I saw the prisoner GRANT in the  
street between half past ten and eleven. He asked if it was me, and I replied,  “
Yes.” He went home and I went with him. I did not go into the house, but waited  
outside. I heard his mother say something to him like, “Your wife’s going to
the  union.” He said, “By the Holy Jesus, when I get my supper I’ll go down
and smash  everything in the house.” With that he came out and went towards M’
GOWAN’s  house, and his mother and I followed him.

 His mother went in and said, “May the curse of God light upon you  Mary M’
GOWAN, for what you have done to my son.” Mary M’GOWAN replied that she  hoped
she would get the curse upon herself. I followed through into the kitchen,  
and saw Hugh GRANT get up and strike his wife who was sitting at the fireside  
nursing her baby. When she was struck she lifted up the poker from the
fireside  and struck Hughie somewhere about the face. She then handed the child to
Alice  M’GOWAN, who went towards the yard with it. When john M’GOWAN came
downstairs he  said he would not have such work in his house at that time of night.
Hughie  GRANT then said, “Them that will strike you, John, will strike me,”
but when  John M’GOWAN went towards the fireside GRANT struck him and knocked
him into the  pantry. While he was lying on his back GRANT kicked him. GRANT’s
wife then took  a tea tin and hit GRANT on the forehead. His mother and I
went into the yard.  Mary GRANT was following me, but  Hugh GRANT caught her in
the back  scullery, and I heard her screaming. Shortly after Hugh GRANT came
out into the  yard. I saw Alice M’GOWAN out there with the baby. She was
standing by the side  of the scullery wall of the house next door. GRANT struck her
on the face,  clicked the child out of her arms, and swung it three times
around his head,  throwing it from him on to the hen house top. His mother said, “
Oh Hughie,  that’s the wean you’re throwing,” and Hugh replied, “Let the ___
lie there.”  Mrs. GRANT then went and lifted the child up. Hugh GRANT went in
the closet, and  I went towards the pump, and joined Alice M’GOWAN, and we
went away together to  GRANT’s father’s house. Shortly after we got there Hughie
came in and said, “God  forgive me for what I have done,”  and as he was
lighting his pipe he said  he could prepare himself for the rope in the morning.
He then went out.

 Cross-examined - When the wife struck him with the poker they both  fell
together. I remember saying that he fell and his wife got on top of him. It  was
while he was striking John M’GOWAN that his wife struck him with the milk  
tin. I remember saying before the magistrates that when he swung the child three  
times round its head struck against nothing until it fell on the hen house.
When  it got on the hen house its head bounced against it. I am quite sure it
only got  one knock - that is, when he threw it on the hen house. The child
only lay a  minute or so before the prisoner’s mother went for it. She took it to
his wife  and said, “Mary, here’s the baby.” The prisoner had a little sup
of drink about  him, but not much.

 By Mr. HENRY: - When the prisoner flung the child he would be about  three
or four yards from the hen house. He was standing close to the sink when  he
was swinging it.

 By His Lordship: - I had the child John William with me in my arms  all the
time.

 John William M’GOWAN, a lad aged seven years, was put in the box. His  
Lordship asked him if he went to school, if he learnt anything, or knew anything  
of the existence of a God. The little fellow replied, “No” to all of these  
questions, and his Lordship said it was no use calling him as a witness.

 Sarah CASSIDY, wife of James CASSIDY, who lives next door to M’GOWAN,  said,
- My scullery window looks into the same yard as M’GOWAN’s. I heard a  great
disturbance in M’GOWAN’s house on the night in question, and went to my  
scullery window and looked out. I saw nothing at first, but in a short time I  
saw Alice M’GOWAN coming into the yard with the baby, Eleanor GRANT, held to her
 breast. I also saw Catherine STEPHENSON. Alice M’GOWAN was standing about
two  yards from my scullery window, with her back to her mother’s scullery,
about  half a yard from the wall near the corner facing my scullery window. It was
a  nice, clear night, and made light from the furnaces. Kate STEPHENSON had
nothing  in her arms. I then saw Hugh M’GOWAN and a little boy standing behind
Alice. I  next saw Hugh GRANT, the prisoner, who seemed to come from M’GOWAN’
s back door,  and he struck Alice M’GOWAN, either on the side of the face or
the shoulder. He  then caught hold of the baby by the bottom of its dress, gave
it a swing to his  left shoulder, and gave it a blow on the boards three
times, swinging it up and  down three times. Its head struck the boards. The
boards were lying by the wash  house side, and were pump box boards. They had been
lying there some time, and  were about a foot high from the ground. After he
had given the child three  blows, a woman stepped forward and took the child
out of his hand. I don’t know  who the woman was.

 By the learned Judge: - I am on good terms with the M’GOWAN’s. When  he
struck the child against the boards he appeared to do it with great force.  When
I saw him I exclaimed, “Oh, my God!” I did not communicate with the police,  
nor did I go out of the house. My husband went out when the child came back,
but  that was hours later on.

 At this point the court adjourned for half an hour.

 On resuming,

 Mary GRANT, mother of the prisoner, was called. She said that she  
remembered on the 3rd of October the prisoner had come home and had had his  supper. He
was drunk, and when he went out I was afraid that the police would  take him.
Before he went out he said it was very hard to put his wife into the  
workhouse when he had only been at home four days, and was going to Derwent  Works to
work the next morning.

 When he went out I followed him, and found him in M’GOWAN’s house  asleep.
The prisoners wife and I had sharp words about this workhouse, and he  rose up
and asked what the noise was about. He then got in a rage and struck  her,
and she took the poker and struck back. His wife and I put him out at the  door;
he was a perfect demon with rage. When I got into the yard I came forward  
and lifted the bay off of the boards, giving it to Mrs. GRANT. The boards were  
lying near the wash house door, and the child was lying on these boards. I did
 not see that there was anything the matter with it then.

 Cross-examined by Mr. SHEE, witness said that when she came into  M’GOWAN’s
house her son was asleep. If she had not come down to the house this  affair
would not have happened. She never uttered the curse that had been spoken  to.
When she pushed him out she shut the door. When he came down the street  
about half past ten he was singing “Home Sweet Home.”

Eleanor EGLINTON said the child died in about half an hour after  it was
brought into her house.

 Inspector DODD, Workington, said - I received information of the  crime on
the 3rd of October, and I went to Mr. M’GOWAN’s house, where I found  the dead
body of the child. I went into the back yard and examined the premises.  I
saw a heap of boards lying near the wash house about four yards from M’GOWAN’s  
back door. I noticed a trough in the yard, in which there was a quantity of  
liquid porridge.

His Lordship: - The clothes might have been stained with porridge, but I  don’
t think it is material one way or another.

 Witness continuing said - I apprehended the prisoner and charged him  with
willful murder. In reply he said, “Yes that will be about it; I wish I had  
broken my leg before I went down; it was her mother that caused all of the  
bother.”

 Cross examined witness said there was no blood on the boards in the  yard.
There was a little blood on the child’s clothes.

 Mr. ORMEROD, surgeon, Workington said: - On the night of the 3rd  October I
was called to the house of Mrs. EGLINTON about midnight, and I saw  there the
dead body of the child. The child was about a month old. I noticed  slight
bleeding from the right ear. On the 5th October I in conjunction with Dr.  
HIGHET, made a post mortem examination. The result was that I found dried blood  on
the right ear, and a blue mark on the right side of the head, three or four  
inches long. The head was flattened behind and the bones were very movable, and
 on moving the skin extensive fractures were found, and the base of the skull
was  also fractured. The head was completely smashed.

 In my opinion the child died of these injuries; they must have been  
inflicted by great violence. Looking to the number and the character of the  wounds I
do not think they could have been caused by one blow; there must have  been
several blows. The injuries I have seen would be likely to be caused by the  
violence described by Mrs. CASSIDY.

 Cross-examined by Mr. SHEE, witness said he did not think one blow  could
have done the injuries; if one blow did it it must have been a peculiar  blow.

 Dr. HIGHET gave corroborative evidence, stating that in his opinion  the
injuries must have been done by several blows.

 Mr. SHEE said one of the doctors had said the bones of the skull were  
movable. He asked whether the bones of the skull of a child a month old were not  
movable?

 Dr. HIGHET: Yes.

 Mr. SHEE: So movable that the nurses when one is born frequently move  it.

 Dr. HIGHET: They mould them.

Mr. SHEE: Mould them. I wish they would mould them better than  they
sometimes do (laughter).

 Mr. HENRY said he had now called before the jury the whole of the  evidence
for the prosecution, and the question they would have to consider was  who
caused the death of the child. The evidence on this point seemed very clear.  The
medical men said the skull of the child was completely smashed, and had  
given it as their opinion that the injuries could not be caused by one blow but  
by several inflicted with great violence.

 They had heard the story told by Mrs. CASSIDY as to the prisoner  having
struck its head against the board three times. Well, certainly, the  medical
evidence corroborated that statement. Again they had it on the evidence  of the
prisoner’s  mother - who could hardly be expected to say anything  adverse to
the prisoner - that she had lifted the child up from the very boards  referred
to by Mrs. CASSIDY. What occurred in the house was really of no  material
significance. Supposing the question of provocation could possibly be  considered,
who was the aggressor? The question of provocation was beside the  matter. If
provocation were a matter of importance the evidence was that the  prisoner
beat his wife.

 But the real question to consider was did the prisoner go into the  yard and
seize the baby and do what they had evidence of? After he seized the  baby he
did that which, according to all the witnesses, even STEPHENSON, must  have
caused death.  He had endeavoured, to the best of his ability, to  place the
facts before the jury, and the question they had to answer was whether  this man
caused the death of his child on this night by violence or not. If he  did
cause its death by violence he could see no way out of it; no suggestion of  
provocation given, or of any drink taken by the prisoner, could diminish this  
crime from murder to manslaughter.

 Mr. SHEE then addressed the jury for the defence. He said they were  getting
on towards the end of the case, but he sincerely hoped they were not  getting
on towards the end of the prisoner’s life, and in spite of what his  learned
friend had said he thought they would be of the opinion there were good  
reasons for thinking he should not be hanged. It was a very sad story. A child  
only four weeks old, which has never done any wrong to anybody, never raised its  
hand to anybody, but simply clung to its mother’s breast, has met its death,
and  a violent death. That was a very sad story, but the jury had a more
serious  question than that to consider. That was the language of the Clerk of
Assize  whether “this man with malice aforethought did kill and murder Eleanor
GRANT.”  If they said “Yes” the prisoner died; if they said “No” even a life of
long  imprisonment might perhaps be his fate.

 Mistakes of Court of Law were common enough. They were unavoidable,  but in
capital offences were irretrievable. But in this case they were all  agreed
upon one thing, viz., that if this was murder it was not murder of a  
premeditated kind. They were all agreed there was no sordid motive to induce the  man to
do this. Therefore he again asked them to bear in mind that the question  was
not whether this child, three or four weeks old, not fit to speak, scarcely  
breathing, died on such a day, but the question was whether a man, younger
than  any of the jury, younger than himself, a man whose heart throbbed as fast
as any  of them, and that was fast enough, who has as bright hopes as some of
them on  the 3rd of October, was to die and to die a disgraceful death.

 He asked the jury to lay aside what they had heard and read about the  case
out of Court, and decide the matter on the evidence which had been given  
before them. If there had been passion in the house of M’GOWAN on the 3rd  
October, if there had been temper of the wildest or of the maddest kind, if  there
had been keenness anywhere in this prosecution it was not in the jury box  he
hoped. The prisoner might lame a man or woman when excited or enraged, no one  
from any motive of vengence was going to strike him while he was down. Even the
 strict letter of the law had pity for a man when he is on trial for his  
life.

 The first thing that struck him in this case was that in the most  important
of all issues there were actually two distinct, positively  contradictory
stories. How many a petty larceny had been scouted out of the  court because
there were two stories! Yet, his learned friend, who had just read  his brief,
asked the jury to convict the prisoner of murder. A whisper did fall  from a
quarter in the court that there was a totally distinct story told by one  of the
witnesses. He asked whether there was not a third story to be told, was  there
not a fourth story possible; and yet they were asked roughly to say,  because
this child met its death somehow at the hands of the man, therefore he  is
guilty of murder.

The stories were as distinct it seemed to him as the poles  asunder. What was
Mrs. CASSIDY’s story? These were things which counsel dare not  ask
sometimes; these were questions which when a man’s life depended upon their  answer
counsel dare not put to witnesses. He did not like to ask Mrs. CASSIDY  why she
did not run for the police or scream as a woman could scream; he did not  ask
why her husband did not run out and go for the police, because he was afraid  
that the answer would be injurious to the prisoner. But his Lordship put the  
questions which counsel dare not put, and what were the answers?

 Mrs. CASSIDY said she did not say anything except, “Oh, my God!” and  that
was in the house; her husband did not run out; her husband did not arrest  the
man before the third blow was struck; she and he went to bed and they slept  
as soundly as ever. It was not in man nor woman to see that which that woman  
spoke to and yet do not more than she and her husband did.

 He repeated the story told by Mrs. CASSIDY, and he asked did it not  strike
them that the story was to the last degree improbable. If it was true,  the
conduct of Mrs. CASSIDY and her husband was inexplicable. He examined the  
question of the possibility of Mrs. CASSIDY seeing clearly on the night in  
question, throwing doubt upon the suggestion that the light from the blast  furnaces
enabled her to see what took place, as they were a mile and a half off,  and
not only threw light but shadows.

 Look at the story of the girl STEPHENSON, who said distinctly and  
positively that the child did not receive a blow until its head bounced upon the  roof
of the hen house. Again, Mrs. CASSIDY’s story was contradicted by Alice  M’
GOWAN. Notwithstanding those contradictions the prosecution, although they  
professed to say it would be sufficient if the violence was proved to have been  
committed by one blow, did not ask the jury to say that it was done in the  
extraordinary way that Mrs. CASSIDY suggested.

 The doctors were in favour of the prosecution, but doctors did not  give
verdicts and their theories sometimes led themselves as well as others  astray.
However the law might be laid down the jury must find the facts. He was  
satisfied that when there were two stories told for the prosecution in a case of  
murder a jury would take that story which was more favorable to the prisoner,  
and they would say they preferred  to take that because it was the safer to  
ast upon.

 The prisoner came home after a long absence and was singing merrily  in the
street. The song he sung was “Home Sweet Home.” Whatever might be their  
verdict, murder or manslaughter, he had seen that home for the last time. Did  the
prisoner’s actions before the murder look as though he premeditated evil?  
No. When he came into the house he lay down to sleep, asking to be awakened at  
half past six next morning. And yet twenty minutes after this he is said to
have  committed murder. It was in evidence that prisoner’s mother went down to
the  M’GOWAN’s and said, “May the curse of Jesus light upon you for putting
ill  between me and my son,” and prisoner’s wife replied, “May the curse light
on  you.” He submitted to them that prisoner had awakened just as his wife was
 cursing his mother. Look at the great struggle that had gone on in the
house,  and to the fact that his own mother had turned upon the man who had been  
peaceably disposed. In the language of a witness he was mad with rage.

 [At this point one of the jurymen fainted, and had to be assisted out  of
court for a few minutes.]

 Upon resuming, Mr. SHEE expressed his regret that the prisoner could  not
have his case stated connectively in this important trial, and went on to  say
that he thought the prisoner had had great provocation - provocation to make  
even a quite sober man mad with rage. When he was flung out of the house did he
 know what he found, did he know what he took hold of? It was simply an act
of  impulse that a sober man could not have avoided. Did he know it was a child
he  took hold of? He might have had no mind to think; he might have clutched
at it  not knowing what it was. If he had thought for a moment what would he
have  thought? What was the thought of a father when he looked upon his child?
Quick  as lightening the memory of other days would come upon him and he would
know  that one day he was as puny a thing as his child, and he would know
that the  first word he used as he passed from infancy to childhood was “father.”
 Would to  God he had thought!

 He pleaded before them for a fair and for a safe trial. It would be  no use
suggesting to them that life would be happier for this man than death.  The
cup of bitterness was full to overflowing, but in merder trials they must  act
safely. He asked them to bear in mind that no weapon was used, and that the  
prisoner had been peaceable and asleep, and had never raised his hand until his  
mother had been cursed. He urged that their verdict should be no more than  
manslaughter.

His Lordship now summed up to the jury. The question they had to  decide was
whether the prisoner’s guilt was proved to their reasonable  satisfaction. It
was a painful duty for him to discharge, but it was his painful  duty to do it
just as it was their painful duty to obey him, and he told them  upon this
case, upon the evidence which was before them that he could see  nothing
whatever that would reduce the killing of this child from murder to  manslaughter. To
reduce the crime of murder to manslaughter in a case like this  they must
show some such provocation as would set a man, as it were, beside  himself, and
make him for the time, as it were, more or less unconscious of what  he was
about, so as to destroy, so to speak, the inference which the law draws  from
killing - that the killing is intentional, and he was bound to say that  upon the
evidence in this case he could not see anything that would satisfy the  jury
in saying that the killing was anything but willful murder.

 They must remember that willful murder did not require any planning  or
scheming. Any killing in law was willful murder. Looking at what took place  on
this night, what conceivable circumstance was there which could reduce the  
crime from willful murder to manslaughter? He urged that the charge was  
essentially one of willful murder. He saw no grounds whatever for the suggestion  that
the offence could be construed to be a less offence than willful murder. If  
they thought so, and it was done by the prisoner, he saw nothing in the law why
 it did not constitute willful murder.

 The jury retired to consider the verdict about half past four  o’clock.

 The prisoner had been particularly observant of everything in the  court,
until the learned Judge finished his summing up, when he bowed his head  on his
breast and appeared deeply affected. A hum of conversation was meanwhile  kept
up in the court, and all eyes were alternately riveted upon the door  through
which the jury would enter and upon the face of the prisoner, who  appeared
to be weeping, although his features were nearly concealed by the  deepening
twilight.

 The jury returned into the court after an absence of a quarter of an  hour.

THE VERDICT.

THE CLERK OF ARRAIGNS: Gentlemen of the jury, have you agreed upon your  
verdict?

The Foreman: Yes.

THE CLERK OF ARRAIGNS: Do you find the prisoner guilty of willful murder,  or
not guilty?

The Foreman: GUILTY; but we recommend the prisoner to mercy.

His Lordship, assuming the black cap, said: Hugh GRANT, you have been found  
guilty, and most properly found guilty, by the jury, of the offence laid to
your  charge - the crime of willful murder. It would have been impossible for
the jury  in the discharge of their duty to have found any other verdict against
you. They  have been good enough to add to their just verdict a
recommendation for mercy. I  have refrained, in mercy to you, from any inquiry into the
grounds of that  recommendation. That recommendation will be forwarded to the
proper quarter. I  earnestly urge upon you to place no reliance upon the
recommendation to mercy  which has been made on your behalf.

I will not say unnecessarily one word that can add to your present pain, or  
embitter your feelings; I will make no comment upon the crime of which you
have  been found guilty; I will say nothing as to the circumstances. I merely
urge  you, not as your judge, but as your fellow creature, to make good use of
the  short time remaining to you, and earnestly to prepare for the great change
which  is to come upon you. Seek mercy, and seek it earnestly, where alone
mercy is to  be found; seek it at the hands of the all merciful Redeemer.

The sentence I have to pass upon you is not my sentence; it is the sentence  
of the law, and a sentence which it is my duty to pass upon you; and that is,  
that you be taken to the place whence you came, and thence to the place of  
execution, and that you be there hanged by the neck until you die, and that
your  body be buried within the precincts of the gaol in which you have been last
 confined previous to your death, and may the Lord have mercy upon your  soul.

The prisoner, who had been sobbing loudly for some time, was removed from  
the dock in a state bordering upon madness, and for some minutes after he had  
disappeared in charge of the gaoler his cries could be heard in the court.

(The end of this article.)

WIGTON.

At the Wigton Police Court on Friday, John STUBBS, dock labourer,  at
Silloth, but who comes from Longtown, was charged with stealing £4  10s  in gold and
some silver from the person of David PUGH, master of the Amity, of  Carnarvon,
now lying in the dock. Mr. M’KEEVER appeared on behalf of the  prisoner.

 It appeared that the prosecutor and three shipmates had been in the  
Waverley Hotel at different times and had had several glasses of ale, but he was  not
drunk. About six o’clock in the evening he lay down on the sofa and fell  
asleep, and did not awake for about an hour, when he found prisoner’s hand in  
his pocket. Saw him take something out of his pocket, but could not say it was  
his purse, but missed his purse at the time, and told the landlady of his
loss.  He gave information to Police-constable SLEE, who apprehended the  prisoner.

Police-constable SLEE said that when he apprehended the prisoner he denied  
having robbed PUGH, and no money of any kind was found upon him.

The Bench, finding that the prisoner’s lodgings had not been searched,  
remanded him until Saturday, when he was discharged.

__________________

BANKRUPTCY OF
MR. H. K.  SPARK.
_____

A meeting of Mr. SPARKS creditors was held at the Trevelyan  Hotel,
Darlington, on Saturday morning.

 Mr. Charles F. TAYLOR, of Preston, solicitor to the liquidator of the  
Lancashire and Yorkshire Loan and Discount Company, creditors for about £24,000,  
submitted to the meeting a special resolution desiring the court to grant the  
debtor his discharge.

 The majority of the creditors present in person and by proxy being  
unfavorable to this resolution, it was withdrawn. Mr. TAYLOR then proposed a  
resolution to adjourn the meeting to Preston. This was objected to, on the  ground
that Preston was inconvenient  to a majority of the creditors.

 Mr. TAYLOR’s being “an ordinary resolution,” he was able to carry it  by a
majority in value. The meeting stands adjourned to Wednesday, the 15th  
November at Preston.

____________________