THE HAMLEY BRIDGE MURDER.

Marlborough Express, Volume XVIII, Issue 15, 18 January 1883, Page 2

THE HAMLEY BRIDGE MURDER.

The somewhat protracted proceedings m connection with the trial of Patrick, Elizabeth (his wife), and Margaret Magree (his daughter, aged 14 years), charged with murdering Christian Renderup at Hamley Bridge on Nov. 12, were brought to a close on Deo. 20. Chief Justice Way's charge conUined

a very complete view of the salient features of the case, and he strongly urged that the younger, prisoner Margaret must be acquitted, as there was no evidence to show that she assisted m any way in_ the commission of the crime. The jury, after an absence of two hours and a-half, returned into Court with a verdict of guilty against husband and wifo, and acquittal for the daughter. The husband, m answer to the usual inquiry as to whether he jtad any reasons to urge why sentence should not be passed upon him, said m a broken voice, almost inaudible, '■"" No, i haven't anything to say." His eyes were deeply sunken and stating fixedly, and lie seemed completely overcome with terror at his awful position. The woman seemed quite as much affected. Her reply to the question was, '* It is the will of God, sir." She had previously alleged that she was encsinte, and, acting upon her counsel's advice, she now reiterated the statement, it being of coursa not lawful to hang a woman when she is m that condition. After argument with the Crown Prosecutor, and a consultation with his learned colleagues , as to whether sentence should be passed before or after her allegation had been tested, his Honor decided to pass sentence at once, and to direct the Sheriff to empanel a jury of matrons to testify as to the female prisoner's condition, she having the benefit also of medical testimony ; the jury to sit on Thursday morning;. The little girl, Margaret Magree, was then discharged from the dock, and she left the Court sobbing piteously. Hia Honor then passed sentence of death with great solemnity upon her father and mother, and as |the last words— -" May God have mercy upon your souls" — echoed through the Court, the female prisoner sank upon the seat of the dock, and a painful scene was witnessed m the body of the Court, where all through the trial her sister and the eldest daughter of both prisoners had been seated, intently watching the progress of the case. The daughter now fell back m a swoon, and her aunt fainted also, and both were crying hysterically m the most affecting way, and had to be removed. The female prisoner had risen, and was watching this touching scene with the keenest anguish depicted on her face. A minute afterwards the unhappy convict, with her condemned husband was taken from the Court by the warders m charge. Next day the jury of matrons found that Mrs Magree was enceinte, and the Judge will make the usual representation to the Executive, Commenting on the case m which for the first time m the annals of English jurisprudence a prisoner charged with a capital offence has been permitted to give evidence on her own behalf, the Adehide " Register" says : — " There can be no doubt that Christian Renderup (the deceased) was killed by other hands than hia own ; but the ' evidence Is not clear as to the origin of the disturbance and the causes which led up to the man's violent death. The position taken by Mrs Magree was a remarkable "one. She elected to be sworn under the Act passed last session, which gives prisoners the opportunity of tendering evidence m their own behalf. She gave her statement of the ghastly affair, and was cross-examined by the Crown. Her evidence differed materially from that which she gave at the coroner's inquest. Then ehe said that the deceased broke into her house at a quarter past three o'clock Sunday morning, Nov. 12, and threatened to kill her, whereupon someone rushed m, dragged Renderup outside and killed him. At the trial at the Supreme Court she gave a different version. She averred that the deceased entered the house and attempted to violate her person ; that she resisted his efforts, whereupon he got into a passion and threatened to kill her ; that a struggle ensued between them ; that she inflicted the blows which caused her assailant's death ; and that her husband r had nothing whatever to do with it.' Sin explanation of this different statement she now confesses that the first version she gave was untrue, and that she told the children to make their evidence correspond with her story. The woman's last statement might, with some qualification, have been accepted as a possible account of what had transpired but for the element of doubt which' her own confession of falsehood introduced into the evidence. It ia not beyond the region of the possible that a female attacked, as she alleges she was, by a rough fellow at an untimely hour m the morning, should avail herself of the first weapons she could; lay her hands upon, and that being roused to a state of ' frenzy, should have inflicted such wounds as to have caused death. The evidence given by a witness, who is not supposed to be on friendly torm3 with ■ the Magree family, to the effect that the deceased was heard to say ' Don't, Mrs Magree, and I'll never touch you again,' would favor the assumption that Renderup had at some time or other attempted to assault her, and but for her first utterly untenable statement, some credence might have been attached to her second allegation, which seems to have been dictated by a generous impulse to shield her husband and daughter from punishment, and which, if accepted, would have saved her also. The jury, however, discredited her statements. They felt that the number and character of the weapons used, and the evident force of the blows inflicted, taken m connection with the evidence of other witnesses, all went to show that both husband and wife participated m the assault that was made upon Renderup, and which ended m his death. But while agreeing with this view of the case, we do not think the verdict of wilful murder will receive the approval of the general public. We hardly see see how, even if the evidence of Mrs Magree is rejected, it can bo held that Renderup offered no provocation. He appears to have broken into the house, and he must therefore be looked upon as the aggressor. Moreover, he does not appear to have borne a good character, and when drunk he was unusually violent. There is nothing to show any malice on the part of Magree and his wife. They did not lure the deceased into their house with a view of taking his life. He went there himself of his own accord, and though nothing can justify the deed that has been committed, the fact that he was the agressor, and that there was nothing to prove the prisoners cherished a feeling of ill-will or revenge towards him, will, we believe, lead people to think that a verdict of manslaughter rather than wilful murder would have best answered the ends of justice.