"JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE," OR MURDER.

Colonist, Issue 88, 24 August 1858, Page 3

"JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE," OR MURDER.

[From the Mount Alexander Mail.) Two cases have been tried at the present sittings of the Supreme Court in Castlemaine, which sorve to illustrate in a curious way, the "glorious uncertainty" of jurors' verdicts. In both cases a diabolical mnrder was committed ; in one the evidence for the prosecution is so direct as appears to us to warrant a verdict of murder : in the other it was purely circumstantial: but the first is found to be "justifiable homicide" and the other, direct and unqualified "murder." One prisoner, who was living in adultery with the wife of the man murdered, being set free upon society, with his idea of the sacredness of human life considerably modified: the other, doomed to die upon the gallows. We are, of course, strong admirers of the old British institution of trial by jury, but we shall never be anxious to quote the two* instances we refer to as proofs of its value.

Marl: Webster was indicted for the mnrder of ltoberfc Williams, at Burnt Creek, on the 13th March. A 'Jastlemaine jury find that the homicide was justifiable—that is, that Mark Webster had a legal and moral right to take the life of Robert Williams in \\\q manner he did, as he would have, under similar circumstances, to take the lives of all the Castlemaine jury by whom the verdict was pronounced. It is important to ascertain the conditions upon which, in the opinion of the jury, human life may be taken.

It appeared from the evidence that the deceased was a married man, but that his wife cohabited with Webster, and that she was indifferently known throughout the neighborhood as Emma Williams and Mrs. Webster. The evidence shewed that on the evening of the 13th March the deceased expressed his intention of having a row with Webstnr, on account of his improper connection with Emma Williams. He is seen going towards Webster's tent, Avhere his wife was living as "housekeeper." This was about 10 o'clock at night, and deceased was very drunk. About 7 o'clock next morning he w?s found dead, about 20 yards from Webster's tent, with several wounds, which were described by the medical witness as follows:—Two bruises on the right side of the chest, a contused wound over the left c.ye, and a portion of the bone chipped off, an incised wound about three inches long between the six and seventh ribs, penetrating the lungs and left auricle of the heart. Below this was a wound which penetrated the peritoneum, and Dr. Quinlan's opinion was that the wounds were given when deceased was on the ground, that the thrust of the knife which penetrated the heart must have been accompanied by a "sawing" motion, as the edges were jagged; and his opinion further was that " the wounds were not given in a struggle while the men were standing up." Webster admits that he inflicted the wounds, and his only defence is, that two men came to his bouse and broke his windows; that he went out; that deceased caught him by the leg; that he then said "life for life," and then the struggle which resulted in deceased' 3 death took place. The learned counsel for the defence urged that the evidence for the prosecution shewed nothing inconsistent with the defence, and urged that a man was justified in defending himself against burglary and robbery. The jury teturned a verdict of justifiable homicide! Now, here we have a clear case made out of the cause of death, and the means whereby it was caused. Let us inquire into the alleged justifying circumstances. It is said that burglary was attempted. It is sworn, too, that deceased said, " Webster, you have got my wife in the familyway," and, " I am going to have a row with Webster." Ten minutes afterwards a row was heard—a dog barked, and glass was smashed, and a woman's voice was heard crying out, " Have you got him, Webster ?" Although not directly deposed to, there is not the least doubt this voice was Mrs. Williams's, and that at that moment the "justifiable homicide" was being committed. Where is the evidence of intended burglary here? Deceased was rolling drunk at the time; the dominant thought in his mind related, not to burglary, but to the injury he bad sustained, and he was " going to have a row with Webster." But, it may be urged in "justification," Webster thought a burglary was being committed.. Did be? Did he act as most men would have 'acted? There were tents within 40 yards. Did he raise any alarm ? Did he call for * assistance ? No ; he picks up the knife and murders the drunken man right off hand. There was no hesitation about it. "I have got you now,'you b r," said Williams, unarmed]* and so intoxicated as to be unable to stand steadily. " Life for life, then," replied the sober _ Webster, plying his deadly knife, and "sawing" the wound to make its effect sure. Webster says two men came to the house. The probability, the almost certainty is, that deceased was alone. The tent he leaves is only 40 yards from Webster's—be is seen going alone—he says, " /have got you,"—and a woman's voice is heard to ask, " Have you got him, Webster ?" Who did she mean by him, ? Why was she not called by the prosecution to say ? If she knew it was her husband, she would know that he did not contemplate burglary. Did they not rather expect his visit? He had declared bis intention of going there at least during the evening. May he not have done so earlier in the day, and the intelligence coming to the ears of Webster, have prepared him for the unfortunate drunkard's appearance ? To our minds there is something horribly suspicious in the dreadful promptitude with which the knife was resorted to. In ten minutes from the time be declared bis intention of having a row with Webster, he staggers 40 yards, falls at Webster's door, probably smashes the two panes o glass in falling, catches Webster by the leg as h? comes out of the tent, exults in catching him, and —is murdered. Had burglary been his intention, would he have said, " You 1) r, I have caught you ?" He went for Webster. So much for' the presumption of a burglarious intention in the visit of the deceased, upon which presumption so much stress was laid.

But it is said also that Webster was justified in defending himself as he did against personal violence. Was he ? We have heard inlaid down by their Honors the Judges, and by counsel learned in the law, that the defence must be proportioned to the attack, and that the use of unlawful weapons is only justifiable in extreme cases, when life is in positive clanger. Was Webster's life threatened ? Was the assailant armed ? Nothing of the sort. The drunken husband falls at the door of his wife's p;tr?imonr, who comes out with a " bowie knife of about six inches long," and the reply ho makes to the drunken threat of " I have caught you," are the words, " Life for life," and takes Williams's as the man lay upon the ground helpless from drink. There are no evidences of a struggle, and Dr. Quinlan gives it as his opinion that the wounds were inflicted on the deceased when he was down.

And yet this is pronounced to be "justifiable homicide !" Why, in the olden clays of the goldfields such a deed would have given a title to a locality; ami the nomenclature of their topography—the Murdering- Flats ' aud Dead Man Gullies—would have been enriched by the addition of another name. We might make such an addition now—let Burnt Creek be henceforth known as " Justifiable Homicide Creek." Curious men may hereafter inquire the meaning of the name, and thus the act itself and the escape of the perpetrator will afford materials for horror and surprise for years to come*