Imagini ale paginilor

the woman Koeppel, who saw him from day to day in London and on the evening of the explosion, could not have been mistaken. Before the explosion they saw him with his whiskers on, and on the evening of it the woman Koeppel saw him with them off. When she next saw him in London after his arrest his whiskers were growing. Where were those persons a man would naturally have called to prove he was twelve hours' distance by an express ?

The Lord Chief Justice then proceeded to charge the jury. He said the evidence of the alleged conspiracy to release Burke rested upon the evidence of Mullany, and he must without doubt be looked upon as an accomplice in the act that had been done. It was doubtless competent for juries, if they believed the testimony of an accomplice, to act upon it, even if it were not corroborated; but juries had for a long series of years been recommended by the Judges not to convict upon the evidence of a man who came forward to save his own life at the expense of others, unless his evidence was corroborated. The jury must, however, bear in mind that it was not necessary the evidence of an approver should be confirmed in every particular. If it could be so confirmed, his evidence would not be required at all. Happily for society, men who were engaged in offences of this kind, when danger and detection were impending, were very apt to turn upon one another, and to denounce each other to the police. It might be hoped, from the present and many other examples, that those who were mixed up with them in these treasonable practices would learn that their greatest danger was to be found at the hands of those with whom they had been most intimately associated. After recapitulating the evidence of Mullany on the plan for effecting the liberation of Burke, the Lord Chief Justice examined how far that evidence was corroborated by other testimony. Adverting to the remarkable incident of the letter, his lordship said that when the jury heard Mullany tell the story of that letter they must have received it with doubt and suspicion. It was not every one who knew that secret communications could be carried on by chloride of gold and rendered visible by a solution of copperas; and the incident might have savoured more or less of romance had it not been confirmed by a most marvellous combination of circumstances. When Burke was arrested there was found upon him a small glass bulb, hermetically sealed, containing a certain mineral substance, which when analyzed by a scientific chemist, turned out to be chloride of gold. It was also shown that Mrs. Barry endeavoured to introduce in Burke's stockings a portion of green copperas.

The inference was that this man by means of these substances found the opportunity of carrying on a secret correspondence with these persons outside the prison, and thus one of the statements of Mullany was corroborated. The conduct of Burke within the prison was not likely to mislead the jury. It was quite clear that it was the purpose of the conspirators to blow down the wall of the prison on the 12th of December, and that Burke was aware of the event, and prepared to take advantage of it. It had not been shown how it was arranged that the throwing of a ball over the prison wall should be used as a signal, but a ball was used as a signal on both days. When the ball was thrown over on the 12th Burke fell out of the ring in which he was exercising with the other prisoners, went to the furthest part of the exercise ground, leaned against the wall, and took off his boot as if to take a stone out of it. He did all this with the utmost possible slowness and deliberation, tardily putting on his boot and returning to his place when he could not help doing so. No one could doubt that Burke was aware of what was going on, and that all was done according to the arrangements which he had probably himself suggested. The conduct of Burke was such as strongly to confirm the testimony of Mullany. The attempt to blow up the prison wall on the 12th and the blowing up of the wall on the 13th could not have been effected unless, at least, three or four, or perhaps more, persons had been connected with it. Looking to all these circumstances, the Lord Chief Justice said it would certainly appear that Mullany was truthful in his statement of the design of the conspirators and the means by which it was to be accomplished. That still left the question to be considered whether Mullany was confirmed as to the particular individuals whom he alleged to have taken part in the explosion. His lordship then went over the evidence of witnesses who had seen the attempt of the 12th of December, and the explosion of the 13th. Having gone into the testimony affecting, respectively, William Desmond, Timothy Desmond, and English, the Lord Chief Justice proceeded to say that the alibi set up in the case of Barrett was the most remarkable that he remembered in the whole course of his experience. If they believed the witnesses examined for the defence, there was an end of the case against Barrett, but in that case Mrs. Koeppel, Morris, and the witnesses for the Crown either laboured under the strangest hallucination, or else it was a falsehood the most wicked and basest that was ever offered in a court of justice to destroy the life of this man. There could not be a shadow of doubt that there was a man who played the part that Mullany spoke of, but was there some one to whom all the circumstances deposed by the witnesses in London applied but who was not Barrett? He therefore said that this was one of the most remarkable instances of an alibi he ever remembered, because they were not dealing with the case of a man who was charged with an offence by those who knew and saw him only for the moment and who had no acquaintance with him before, but an alibi set up and dealing with witnesses who had known the man for months, who were in almost daily intercourse with him, and who saw and spoke to him before and after the explosion. The jury would say whether, from the position and demeanour of some, at least, of the witnesses who spoke to the ideutity of Barrett, they were not entitled to credit; while, on the other hand, there were circumstances so remarkable and peculiar in the case of the alibi for the defence, that they required their most vigilant attention before they adopted it. The first and most startling reason was that the jury had heard of this defence during the last three or four days for the first time. What was the natural course of a man who found himself implicated in a charge the very nature of which was calcu lated to excite horror in the mind of any man of common humanity ? Would they not expect such a man to say that his defence was a very simple one, that he had not been in London for months; that he had been in Glasgow all the time, and was known to many people there. Would he not say, “I was at Glasgow long before the explosion and at the time when it happened, and I can produce the people who saw me?” If he had done so, the law would have lent him the assistance he required to bring these witnesses to London. But not one word to that effect had been stated. The Lord Chief Justice then recapitulated the evidence first of the three shoemakers, and then of Burgoyne, M‘Manus, and M‘Corrie, and remarked that, at first sight, it seemed perfectly conclusive and sati sfactory. It was just possible that the statement of the shoemakers was true, and that they did repair the boots, and that the altercations did take place with M-Nulty, but that the whole affair might have taken place a week later. The second branch of the alibi related to the meetings at Glasgow, in which it was alleged Barrett took part. It still required the evidence of those who lodged and lived and were in daily intercourse with them. Barrett must have had a home of some sort. Some one must have known where he slept, and who could have come and said it was a total mistake to suppose he was in London at the time of the explosion. Some one could have said, “He was lodging in my house,” and others, either employers or fellow-workmen, could have spoken for him when it was all-important he should give an account of himself.

The jury then retired to consider their verdict. They remained in deliberation for two hours and a half. When they returned their lordships were sent for, the prisoners were placed at the dock, and amid breathless silence the names of the jury were called over.

Clerk of the Arraigns.—How say you, gentlemen of the jury, is William Desmond guilty or not guilty ?

Foreman.—“Not guilty.”
Clerk of the Arraigns.— Is Timothy Desmond guilty or not guilty ?
Foreman.-“ Not guilty.”
Clerk of the Arraigns.-Is Nicholas English guilty or not guilty ?
Foreman.—"Not guilty.”
Clerk of the Arraigns.—Is Michael Barrett guilty or not guilty ?

Clerk of the Arraigns.—You say that William Desmond, Timothy Desmond, and Nicholas English are “Not guilty," and that Michael Barrett is “Guilty," and that is the verdict of you all ?

Foreman.-It is.

The three prisoners first named were then removed from the dock. Barrett, on being asked, as usual, if he had any thing to say why sentence of death should not be passed, made an able and eloquent speech, and the Lord Chief Justice, after expressing his concurrence in the verdict of the jury, passed sentence of death upon the prisoner.



THIS suit was commenced on the 20th of April before Vice-Chancellor Giffard. It was instituted by a lady named Lyon, the widow of a deceased merchant, against the well-known table-turner, table-rapper, and so-called “spiritualist,” Daniel Douglas Home, who called himself Daniel Home Lyon, and claimed to be a spiritual medium, with power to evoke the spirits of deceased persons, to compel the restoration of moneys and securities for money to the amount of 60,0001., which the plaintiff gave to him and transferred for his benefit, when, as she alleged, she was subject to great influence and ascendancy by him, owing to her belief at the time in his pretended spiritual powers.

Mr. W. M. James, Q.C., opened the case by reading from the bill of complaint the substance of the plaintiff's case, and an affidavit of the plaintiff in substantiation of it. The plaintiff, Mrs. Lyon, was a lady advanced in life, whose husband died in 1859, leaving her the absolute control over a large fortune. She alleged in her affidavit that before dying her husband informed her that he believed a change would come in seven years from his death, and that they would


meet. This she interpreted to mean that she would die in 1866, but in that year her views on the point changed, in consequence of information received by her from a female photographer in Westbourne-Grove, to whom she had gone to have a photograph of her deceased husband copied. The photographer told her that death was unnecessary in order to meet him, and directed her to become a spiritualist. She also lent Mrs. Lyon books on the art of spiritualism, and directed her attention to the reat head medium, Mr. Home, who had just opened an Atheneum at Sloane-street for the encouragement of the belief. Mrs. Lyon was also advised to become a subscriber to the institution. She immediately wrote to the defendant Home for a prospectus and particulars of the Athenæum, and offered to pay a subscription. Mr. Home having sent her no reply, she stated that, on the 3rd of October, 1866, she went to 72, Sloane-street, where the Athenæum was, and where Mr. Home resided. She was shown upstairs into a room where Mr. Home was sitting in company with a table, which, directly after the plaintiff had stated the case, began, with praiseworthy zeal, to rap a message. Home said at once that “this was a call for the alphabet.” Up to that time the plaintiff was ignorant that messages arrived from spirits through medium only, and that an arrangement had been come to between the invisible world and the visible table; that one rap should signify the negative, three raps the affirmative, and five raps a call for the alphabet. The modus operandi by the alphabet was that on each letter being pointed out or uttered the spirit rapped when he had got the letter he wanted, and so somewhat pain. fully the oracle was delivered. Home then, by means of the alphabet applied orally, developed the following message from the spirit of the deceased Mr. Lyon :-“My own beloved Jane, -I am Charles, your beloved husbavd. I live to bless you, my own precious darling, I am with you always. I love, love, love you.” The spirit further added, “I have no power to speak more; but I will never leave you more, my own darling.” The plaintiff, who was greatly cheered and comforted by this precious intelligence, proposed to reward Mr. Home by a handsome subscription, but having no cheque with her she postponed the donation till a second interview, when amongst other things the spirit, interpreted by Home, informed her, “ I love, love, love you. Be very calm. I will touch you." These interviews were worth to Mr. Home or his Athenæum, the sums of 301. and 501. The plaintiff had no child by the deceased spirit, but this omission was rectified at a third interview between Home and the plaintiff at the plaintiff's house. The spirit then, with Home's assistance, communicated the tidings. “I love Daniel,” meaning presumably the modern prophet, “he is to be your son ; he is my son—therefore yours.” The table then ecstatically kicked up its legs, and the spirit continued, “I am happy, happy. In a little time I will make myself visible to you. Oh, do not say that the light of other days is gone. I am with you," or words to that effect. The effect of this intelligence was overwhelming. The defendant, Home, further informed her that it was the will of the spirit that she should adopt him as her son, that a friend of Home's named Hall should be sent for, and that she should produce stock receipts for the sum of about 24,0001. Under the influence, as Mrs. Lyon alleged, of Home's spiritual powers and ascendancy, she went on the 10th of October, 1866, to the Bank of England, and there transferred the sum of 24,0001. stock to Home. Shortly after this Home, at another spiritual interview, assured her that it was the spirit's will that she should destroy her existing will and make another will bequeathing every thing she possessed to Home, and that a Dr. Hawksley and a Mr.




[ocr errors]

Rudall were to be the attesting witnesses. The will to this effect was soon afterwards prepared for the defendant by William Martin Wilkinson, a solicitor of Lincoln’s-inn-fields, and was executed by the plaintiff, and attested by Mr. Wilkinson and Mr. Hall. The plaintiff's property was said to be worth nearly 150,0001. It was not surprising that, on the strength of these spiritual communications, Home enrolled a deed on the 3rd of December, 1866, by which he assumed the name of Lyon. On the 10th of the same December the plaintiff was again induced to go to the Bank and transfer to Home 67001. more stock. On the 12th of December she executed a deed-poll prepared by Wilkinson, and not approved by any solicitor on her behalf. This deed recited her intention to transfer the above sums of stock for the absolute benefit of Home, and she did thereby, in order to “ remove all doubts, suspicions, and controversies, irrevocably declare that such gift was made of her own free will and pleasure, and without any influence or control” by the defendant Home. On the 19th of January, 1867, another deed was executed by her, also prepared by Wilkinson, and also not approved of by any solicitor on her behalf. By this deed, which was made between her and Wilkinson, after a recital that she was entitled to 30,0001. then out on mortgage, and that it was her intention to make further provision for her adopted son, she thereby declared that she had of her free will and pleasure, and without any 'influence, control, or interference by him, determined absolutely and irrevocably to settle the said sum for his benefit, retaining the interest only during her life. The deed then contained a settlement of the money and the securities for the same for Home's benefit, and a proviso and declaration by the plaintiff that such settlement was absolute and irrevocable, and should not be disputed by her or her representatives, and that what was thereby settled should be in addition to previous gifts. On the 21st of February, 1867, she was again induced to go to the Bank and transfer 22901. stock to Home's name. On the 13th of March, 1867, Home or Lyon sold out 20,0001. stock, and advanced it to Wilkinson, or others, on certain mortgage securities. The bill concluded with a charge that the plaintiff discovered she had been imposed upon, and that the gifts had been made under the spiritual influence of the defendant, and submitted that she was entitled to have the gifts set aside. The bill prayed that the gifts might be declared void, and for a retransfer of the funds and a retransfer and assignment of all securities for the same, and for a writ of ne exeat regno.

Mr. Druce, Q.C., put in the evidence in support of the plaintiff's case. Mrs. Lyon, in her affidavit, alleged that she would never have given the defendant any thing beyond a subscription of 51. to the Athenæum, had it not been for the belief in his spiritual manifestations, and that it was the command of her husband's spirit that she should give the money to him. She denied that she had taken from the defendant the articles of jewellery and wearing apparel as alleged by him, remarking that they had been given to her by the defendant, and that she would return them when he returned the property given to him by her. She had never adopted any other person than the defendant, but she had made and revoked several wills since her husband's death. The letters she had written to the defendant were mostly written under his influence, and often in accordance with his instructions, or from drafts prepared by him, which drafts he had always requested her to destroy. She denied that she had any personal affection for the defendant, but had adopted him as her son in consequence of his systematic imposition. She denied the truth of the majority of the allegations contained in the defendant's answer, stating that she certainly would not have


« ÎnapoiContinuă »