Edward W. July 3-7. doubt who was the master and who served the other. And, in fact, if you should arrive at that conclusion, Pritchard. every article that the prisoner's counsel alluded to for High Court. the purpose of showing the guilt of Mary McLeod, 1865. would be an evidence to implicate the prisoner at the Murder bar. But, gentlemen, I do not desire you to take this theory. On the contrary, I think it is quite right that you should consider upon the balance of probabilities, as has been very well said, which of the two is the perpetrator of the crime; and in considering the question, it is necessary for you to advert to this-poisoning, if proved at all, extended over a considerable period of time that the poisoning was administered in dosesin doses, any one of which was quite insufficient to produce death, but which was quite sufficient in the agony which it produced, and by the gradual reduction of the strength of the patient, at length to lead to a fatal termination. Is it conceivable that a girl of seventeen or sixteen years of age, in the position of a servant maid, could have herself conceived and executed such a design, and if she had conceived it, could she have executed such a design like that, within this house, under the eye and subject to the vigilance of the husband of her victim, himself a medical man? Gentlemen, that is very hard to believe indeed. On the other hand, if you can suppose that the prisoner at the bar was the person who conceived and executed this wicked design, it is not so difficult to believe that Mary M'Leod may have been the perfectly unconcious instrument of carrying out his purpose-suspecting nothing, knowing nothing, of what was being done, and seeing nothing but great kindness on the part of the prisoner towards her mistress, and seeing them both dying, not rapidly, as in the case of Mrs. Pritchard, and, though rapidly in the case of Mrs. Taylor, still in a way the prisoner accounted for as a medical man. You may understand easily enough that a girl in the position of Mary M'Leod might be made to be the unconscious means of carrying out these designs, No. 15. Edward W. and perfectly innocent on her part. But there is no Pritchard. difficulty in this question. Somebody did it. If, then, High Court. you are satisfied the murder was committed, somebody 1865. did it. The persons who had access to her only could Murder. have done it. Some of them are plainly innocent, and July 3-7. in the case of others the probability of guilt is reduced to two. Of these two, one or both are guilty of this deed. Gentlemen, there is only one part of the case which I have not touched upon, and that is because there did not occur any fitting opportunity for it before -I mean the way which has been suggested as the true cause of Mrs. Taylor's death. It is contended, on the part of the prisoner, that Mrs. Taylor died of opium, and that that opium was administered by her own hand; and he says that if that were so-if she really died from the effects of opium, and that opium administered by her own hand-it is impossible to say that there was any murder in her case at all. Now, observe exactly how the case stands with regard to her. There is no doubt that when Dr. Paterson saw Mrs. Taylor, he was under the impression that she was dying from the effects of a narcotic poison. He was not then aware of what were the contents of the bottles, by reason of the taking of which she died; but we are now in possession of the contents of that bottle. We know that it consists partly of opium, and partly of two other poisons-antimony and aconite. We have the testimony of a medical man that the quantity of opium taken on the occasion, more or less, must have been accompanied by a certain proportion of aconite and antimony; and if she took any more than her accustomed quantity of opium-of Battley's mixture-say a hundred drops, or something of that kind-she must have inbibed along with it a sufficient quantity of the other poison to cause her death, from the proportion in which they were present. If that be so, and if you are of opinion that, upon the evidence, the poisons of aconite and antimony were put into the bottle by the hands and through the instru Edward W. July 3-7, mentality of the prisoner, who, as he contributed these poisons to the mixture, thus caused her death, Pritchard, there can be no doubt in the world that in law, and High Court, I think I may submit, to any grave common sense, 1865. that she died by his hand from poison. But, gen- Murder. tlemen, on the other hand, if you should think from what has been suggested on the part of the prisoner, regarding Mrs. Taylor's death-if you think there is the slightest room for conjecture that she was done to death by poison administered by her own hand-if you think there is any doubt about it-of course you will give the prisoner the benefit of the doubt, however little it may relieve him of the grave fact-if you are satisfied with the fact that these poisons were introduced into the bottle by him. But even supposing you acquit him of the murder of Mrs. Taylor, you will bear in mind in dealing with the charge of his wife's, Mrs. Pritchard's, murder, you will not throw out the circumstances which you conceive to be pointed out by the evidence connected with the death of Mrs. Taylor. These are the most material parts of the case you have to consider, bearing upon the murders of Mrs. Taylor and Mrs. Pritchard. And now, gentlemen, I have done. I am extremely sorry that it has been necessary for me to occupy you with these details so very long, but you feel and know the inducement I have in doing so. I could not do less than present to you everything that appeared to me to be material in the case. You will now consider your verdict, and I hope it will be a satisfactory one. The Jury then retired to consider their verdict, and after an absence of fifty-five minutes, unanimously found the prisoner guilty on both charges as libelled. Sentence-Death. Present, THE LORD JUSTICE-CLERK, LORDS ARDMILLAN AND JERVISWOODE. JAMES SHARP TAGUE, Suspender.—M'Lean. AGAINST No. 16. Tague v. High Court WALTER SMITH, Respondent.-N. C. Campbell. SUSPENSION-POOR-LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1845 (8th and 9th VICT. c. 83), SECT. 80-COMPLAINT-SUMMARY PROCEDure-Penalty. -The Poor-Law Amendment Act, 1845, provides (sect. 80), that certain persons therein specified may be prosecuted criminally before the Sheriff, and shall, upon conviction, be punishable by fine เ or imprisonment, with or without hard labour, at the discretion of 'the said Sheriff.'—Held (1.) That in a complaint founded on the above enactment, the prosecutor is entitled to conclude for a limited penalty, so as to make the summary procedure of 9th Geo. IV. c. 29, applicable to the case; (2.) that he is not bound to conclude for hard labour,' that being merely an aggravation of the punishment of imprisonment, which it is the discretion of the Sheriff to award or not, as he may think proper. THIS was a suspension of a sentence pronounced in the Sheriff-court of Dunbarton, upon a complaint at the inJune 10. stance of the respondent, the inspector of the poor for the parish of Bonhill, founded on the Act 1759, c. 74, Suspension. and the 80th section of the Poor-Law Amendment Act, 1865. 1845 (8th and 9th Vict. c. 83), which provides— That every husband or father who shall desert or neglect to maintain his wife or children, being able so to do, and every mother and every putative father of an illegitimate child, after the paternity has been admitted or otherwise established, who shall refuse or neglect to maintain such child, being able so to do, whereby such wife or children or child shall become chargeable to any parish or combination, shall be deemed to be a vagabond under the provisions of the aforesaid Act of the Scottish Parliament, passed in the year 1759, and may be prosecuted criminally before the Sheriff of the county in which such parish or combination, or any portion thereof, is situated, at the instance of เ เ the inspector of the poor of such parish or combination, and shall, upon conviction, be punishable by fine or imprisonment, with or without hard labour, at the discretion of the Sheriff. No. 16. High Court. 1865. The complaint, after reciting the above enactments (the 80th section of the Poor-Law Act being set forth Suspension. at length) charged the suspender with having committed a breach of their terms, and prayed the Sheriff To decern and adjudge the said James Sharp Tague as a vagabond in terms of the before recited Statutes, to forfeit and pay such fine, not exceeding £10 sterling, as to your Lordship may seem proper, and, in the event of failure to pay the same, to grant warrant to imprison the said James Sharp Tague for such period, not exceeding sixty days, as your Lordship shall fix, unless paid before the expiration of such period, or to decern or adjudge the said James Sharp Tague to be imprisoned in the common gaol or house of correction of Dumbarton, and for such period, not exceeding sixty days, as to your Lordship may seem proper, and grant warrant to imprison him accordingly. The suspender, having been brought to trial, was convicted, and sentenced to thirty days' imprisonment. The proceedings before the Sheriff were in the summary form authorised by 9th Geo. IV. c. 29, sects. 19 and 20.1 1 Sect. 19 enacts, 'That in the prosecution of criminal offences be'fore Sheriffs of counties in Scotland, where the prosecutor shall in 'his libel conclude for a fine not exceeding £10, together with expenses, or for imprisonment in gaol or bridewell not exceeding sixty days, . . . . it shall and may be lawful to proceed to try such 'offences in the easiest and most expeditious manner, without the 'pleadings or evidence being reduced into writing: Provided always, 'that a record shall be preserved of the charge and of the judgment, 'including the names of the witnesses examined on oath, unless where 'the accused pleads guilty, which shall be made to appear; and the 'said record shall also set forth, if the prosecutor or accused party ' desire it, any offer of proof made by either of those parties, and re'fused to be admitted; and likewise, if so desired, any objections to the admissibility of evidence sustained or repelled by the Court.' Sect 20 enacts, 'That the Sheriff so trying any such offence shall preserve a note of the evidence taken by him on such trial, and 'shall exhibit the same or a certified copy thereof, in case the same should be called for by the Court of Justiciary.' |