Monday, March 30. (Before his Honor Mr. Justice Cheeke.)

Daily Southern Cross, Volume XXIV, Issue 3351, 13 April 1868, Page 4

Monday, March 30. (Before his Honor Mr. Justice Cheeke.)

Henry James O'Farrell, who was arraigned on Thursday last on an indictment which charged him with having, on the 12th March instant, 1868, at Middle Harbour, in this colony, wounded, with intent to murder, Alfred Ernest Albert, Duke of Edinburgh, and to which indictment he bad pleaded not guilty, was to-day brought u|» for trial. The Court wm crowded, and large numbers of the public anxiously sought for, and could not gaio, admittance. Among those present we observed the French Consul, the Miuister for Lands, Viscount Newry, Captain Lyons, 8.N., Adjutant Barker (Queen's Own Regiment), the Hon. Eliot Yorke, Commander Campbell, Dr. Young, R. N., Mr. F^rie (Sheriff of Victoria), Mr. W. U. Brierly, the Hon. Mr. Fitzgeorge, Captain Taylor, R.N., Captain Bertsford, Lieutenant Haier, Dr. Powell, R.N., Lieutenant Romilly, E.N., Mr. Judge Forbes, Mr. Judge Simpson, and several members of Parliament. Mr* Attorney-General Martin and Mr. Solicitor* General Isaacs appeared for the Crown. Prisoner was defended by Mr. Aspinall, of Melbourne, and Mr. Dalley, instructed by Mr. Pavey (the latter also of Melbourne). The prisoner, on being placed in the dock, looked ■omewhat pale 'and nervous. His right eje had not become freed from the discoloration inflicted upon it at the time of his rescue from the indignant people. While the panel was called over, he was allowed to sit, but throughout the examination of the witnesses for the prosecution he stood erect, nerer displaying the slightest emotion, and for the principal part of the time grasping one of the iron apikes firmly with his right hand, resting the left upon the top rail. During tha brief adjournment that was jranted at the request of the gentlemen engaged as counsel for the prisoner, he took his seat, and, only varying the apparent monotony of the proceedings by fingering his mou»tache and slight beard at intervals, seemed to regard the trial with stoical firmness. The Attorney-General opened the case in an able and temperate speech. Aftv narrating the facts j

which he intended to prore in evidence, heoontended that, as to intent, any person doing any act was in Jaw presumed to contemplate the ordinary consequences. If one person fired upon another with a revolver, the preiumption in law was that the ordi nary consequence! were intended to follow. The law, therefore, even although there wai not expression of the intent, inferred that the intent was to take life, if in the ordinary course of things life would be taken by firing in that way. If tha prisoner fired from a distance of a few feet, it would appear that he had but one intent— that was, to take the life of his Royal Highness. The person who fired a deadly weapon under such circumstances,' when the loss of life, except by a miracle, must in the ordinary operation of cause to effect ensue, mutt be presumed to intend to take life. But the prisoner used remarks that indicated what his inteut was. He said he had "made a mess of it." It was not desired to prejudice the prisoner by any statement that would not be borne out by evidence, but this indication by prisoner of his intention to take the life of his Royal Highness would be deposed to in evidence; and the act itself was of such a character as to leave little doubt that there was an intent to take life. The offence of which he was accused was not to be considered as a crime against the Duke of Edinburgh, but as a crime against our laws,' because he had committed a felonious act ; and the jury would have to examine the evidence with the same degree of impartiality as they would exercise in any other case. Happily the life of his Royal Highness had been saved. Under Divine Providence he had recovered from the wound ; and although we might express our indignation at the attempt made upon his life, it would be some consolation to us to let the whole world know that we did not deal summarily with his assailant under any feeling of excitement, but bad examined his case calmly, impartially, and faiily, so that the British Empire and the world might have the example not of our vengeance, but of our justice. The same witnesses who had been examined at the magisterisl inquiry, deposed to the manner in which the attempted assassination took place, but no facts were elicited in addition to those already made public. For the defence, Caroline Halley, a married sister of the prisoner, was examined, who deposed that on one occasion she had been sent for to lee him in Ballarat, and continued : He did not at first recognise me as his sister. He then cried bitterly, tie said he had been poisoned by a doctor. — Witness also deposed to other circumstances which induced her to believe at the time that he was insane. The prisoner had obtained a pistol, and said he would shoot himself. He used to sleep outside, and do other strange things. He had two fits in one uight during the time she staid there — a fortnight, and he was very bad after that. She remembered his losing in mining shares. He never made any political manifestations in his delirium. Had only once heard him speak of Fenianistn ; he then called it "Finnianiem." He was a baby in arms when he left Ireland. He had been in Ireland, since he had left the colouies, but only for a day or two, and could not know much about the country. About the beginning of April last year had received two telegrams from Ballarat, and seen another in the possession of the police. She went up to Ballarat and found him again in a delirium. When theie deliriums were over, he appeared to have lost all recollection of their occurrence. The rest of the witness's statements were to the effect that prisoner had shown symptoms of a disturbed intellect from an early age. Several other witnesses spoke of the prisoner's flightmess and eccentricity of manner, but no medical evidence was called. This closed the case for the defence on the plea of insanity, when the following rebutting witnesses were called for the Crown : — iJr. Colville stated that he was a surgeon of thirty years' standing in the Royal navy, and was staying at the Clarendon Hotel, George-street, Sydney. The prisoner stopped there, and ha saw him every day — three times a day. Had conversed with him on various subjects, and witness's impression was that prisoner was a clever man, with a well-regulated mind. Saw prisoner great y excited upon one occasion when he (witness) had read an extract from the papers stating that a Fenian smuggler had gone out to intercept a vessel bound to South. Australia, and that one of the men-of-war on the Australian station had gone out after the smuggler. Witness said if it were true he hoped the man-of-war would not leave one man alive on board the smuggler to tell the tale, when the prisoner got excited and warm about it, and used language that witness did not approve of. Witness had all along suspected prisoner of being a Fenian, and was rather annoyed at having his suspicions confirmed. Prisoner had also on one occasion used, in witness's hearing, an expression of sympathy with the •' martyrs" who were hung at Manchester, and the persons who committed the outrage at Clerkenwell gaol. Prisoner was very much excited on the morning of the Fancy Dress Ball. He had a ticket ; be showed it to witness, and said he was annoyed he could not get another. Witness never observed that prisoner was noted for any peculiar talk. Mr. Dalley : Supposing a man had been suffering from an attack of delirium tremens, and nothing of the delirium remained, would not a total oblivion of the attack lead to the belief that the brain was affected ? (The' witness fenced considerably at this question, but ultimately admitted, though he repeated total oblivion could scarcely result, that the brain must suffer.) Mr. Dalley : Supposing a man was labouring under delirium tremens, and while so labouring he had a couple of epileptic fits, would not these circumstances affect the brain ?— The fits, the witness stated, might occur, and undoubtedly might affect the brain; but he thought the prisoner was as sane as the learned advocate. Delirium tremens was often, but not always, the forerunner of insanity. Dr. Wright gave evidence to the effect that prisoner was perfectly rational on the 12th March, when he saw him. The trial was at this stage adjourned till the following day.