CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.

Wellington Independent, Volume XXII, Issue 2658, 7 April 1868, Page 5

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.

Monday, Makch 30. I (Before his Honor Mr Justice Oheeke.) ! The following account of O'FarreH's trial is abridged from the Sydney Morning Herald. 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 Harbor, in this colony, wounded, with intent to murder Alfred Ernest Albert, Duke of Edinburgh, and to which indictment he had pleaded not guilty, was to-day brought up for trial. The Court was crowded, and large numbers of the public anxiously sought for, but could not gain, admittance. Among those present we observed the French Consul, the Minister for Lands, Viscount Newry, Capt. Lyons, H.N., Adjutant Barker (Queen's Own Regiment), the Hon. Eliot Yorke, Commander Campbell, Dr Young, E.N., Mr Farie (Sheriff of Victoria), Mr W. 0. Brierly, the Hon. Mr Fitzgeorge, Captain Taylor, R.N., Captain Beresford, Lieutenant Haig, Dr Powell, E.N., Lieutenant Eomilly, E.JST., Mr Judge Forbes, Mr Judgo 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), aud Mr Dalley, instructed by Mr Pavey (the latter also of Melbourne). The prisoner, on being placed in the dock, looked somewhat pale and nervous ; his right eye 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, never displaying the slightest emotion, and for the principal part of the time grasping one of the iron spikes firmly with his right hand, resting the left upon the top rail. During the brief adjournment that was granted 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 moustaches and slight beard at intervals, seemed to regard the trial with stoical firmness. The Attorney General opened tho case in an able and temperate speech. After narrating the facts which he intended to prove in evidence, he contended that, as to intent, any person doing any act was in law presumed to contemplate tho ordinary consequences. If one person fired upon another with a revolver, the presumption in law was that the ordinary consequences were intended to follow. The law, therefore, even although there was not expression of the intent, inferred that the intent was to take life, if io the ordinary course of things life would be taken by firing in that way. If the 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 Eoyal Highness. The person who fired a deadly weapon under such cir cumstances, when the loss of life, except by a miracle, must in the ordinary operation of cause to effect ensue, must be presumed to intend to take life. But the prisoner made use of remarks that indicated what his intent 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 tho life of his Eoyal Highnesswouldbedeposedtoinevidencejand the act itself was of such a character astoleave little doubtthafc there wasanintentto take lite. 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 tho life of his Eoyal 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, ifc would bo 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 had examined his case calmly, impartially, and fairly, so that the British Empire and the world might have an example not of our venegeance, but of our justice. The same witnesses who had been examined at tho magisterial enquiry, 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 see him in Ballarat, and continued :— He did not at first recognise me as his eister. He

thencried bitterly. He said he had been poisoned by a doctor. Witness also deposed toother 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. Ho used to sleep outside, and do other strange things. He had two fits in one night during the time she staid there, a fortnight, and he was very bad after them. She remembered his losing in mining shares. He never made any political manifestations in his delirium. Had only once heard him speak of Fenianism, he then called it " Finnianism." He was a baby in arms when he left Ireland. He had been in Ireland since he had left the colonies, 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 1 the possession of the police. She went up to Ballarat and found him again in a delirium. , When these 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 bad shown symptoms of a disturbed intellect ■ i from an early age. Several other witnesses spoke of the prisoner's flightiness 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 : — Dr Colville stated that he was a surgeon of thirty years standing in the Eoyal Navy, and was staying at the Clarendon Hotel, George street, Sydney. The prisoner stopped there, and he saw him overy day, three times a day. Had conversed with him on various subjects, and witness' impression was that prisoner was a clever man with a well regulated mind. Saw prisoner greatly 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 th* smuggler to tell the tale, when 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' hearing, an expression of sympathy with the "martyrs" who were hung at Manchester, and the persons who committed the outrage afc CJerkenvvell gaol. Prisoner was very much excited on the morning of the Fancy Dress Bull. He had a ticket, he showed ifc to me, BDd 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 effected ? (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 laboring under delirium tremens, and while so laboring he had a couple of epidemic fits, would not these circumstances affect the brain ? — The fits, the witness stated, migh occur, and un doubtedly might effect 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 of March when he saw him. The trial was at this stage adjourned till the following day. Tuesday, March 31. The public interest had apparently increased in volume as the trial proceeded, a much larger crowd of persons besieging the door awaiting admission at an early hour. When the doora were opened the rush was terrific, and it was with the utmost difficulty order could be maintained. The prisoner was placed in the dock about two minutes before ten, and sat gazing earnestly at the judgment seat until his Honor took his seat, at 10 precisely. The seats to the right and left of his Honor were very sparsely occupied, but gradually filled, but not to an inconvenient extent. The jury having taken their seats, and answered to their names, several moments of breathless suspense followed, the Court awaiting the arrival of the law officers of the Crown. Mr Aspinall and Mr Dalley were in attendance as counsel for the prisoner. After some further witnesses had been examined, the evidence closed. Mr Aspinall stated that himself and Mr Dalley were there to defend the prisoner, and had to defend him in a way that would not be offensive to any loyal man. It was not their place to justify the crime. They had interfered in no way with the course of justice or to throw doubt on the truthfulness of the witnesses. When the i Prince came out to this colony, he came out with the knowledge that his endeared mother was the wife of a Prince who was universally beloved ; he came out introduced to the ' colonists in a manner which recommended . him to every member of society, whether i democrat or aristocrat; he came out with i such antecedents as no other visitor of rank ' could possibly possess, and was beloved as 1 well for his Eoyal mother's and his lamented ; father's, as for his own sake. The colonists ■ may say that, since he had visited the colony, [ they had seen more of royalty than could I have occurred to them in any other position. > He submitted that the judgment of every , person outside the Supreme Court had been i led to anticipate that the dreadful crime with » which the prisoner had been charged ; was organised under the influence of a i secret association at home ; but he hoped > and prayed such suspicions was unfounded. > But he contended that there was no proof r that such an organisation existed in the coloI nies, and it might be taken that the acts of • prisoner in calling himself a Fenian, or in ; committing such an unparallelled atrocity, - were not the acts of a sane man, but of a b being bereft of reason, responsible to God a only and not to man. He pointed out the 1 singular course which the madness of in--7 dividuals sometimes took, and contended s that O'Farrell had taken to drink and excitet ment to an extent that latent developed itself, c and imperceptibly prompted him to commit r, the horrible offence within a few moments of the time of its actual commission. Eecol--1 lecting with what art lunatics can master c the outward symptoms of their insanity, he a contended that every act of tho prisoner • betrayed insanity. The Government of the country had used every praiseworthy means 1 to discover if the prisoner had any accomi- plices ; and it was clear that political crimes t were never committed without accessories, o Where are the accomplices P Where is the c evidence that there ia really a Fenian organi*

sation at all in any part of this world P "Was it likely if the prisoner was a Fenian that he would have made confidants of a naval doctor or the young man militiaman who burned with such military ardour ? Was it not clear that through the colonies men and women were declaring themselves Fenians for the sake of senseless notoriety ? _ And was not the prisoner's course indicative of lunacy? Call himself a Fenian, indeed! Where are the Fenians ? If it had not been for his sister he would not have been defended now. If he had associates, they had left him alone to get out of the difficulty as well as he could ; but there was no evidence that he had an associate in the crime, and that fact was most indicative that hewas not in his right mind. He put it to the jury, whatever they might think of the sufficiency of the evidence, and he did not think that the veracity of the witnesses would be called into question, to bring those tests to bear^ that migh t enabl e th em to arrive at a correct decision as to the prisoner's state of mind at the time. He submitted confidently that no doctors had been called here to prove that the symptoms exhibited by the prisoner were not indicative of lunacy. The doctor of the gaol ought to have been called, and evidence should have been brought higher than the opinions of laymen to robut the defence that had been set up. The facts already before them show that the prisoner throughout was unnaturally reckless of family ties, reckless of society, and reckless of his own life, and he called upon the jury to pause before they consigned the prisoner to an ignominious death. The law demanded of them that amid the storm of popular indignation they would calmly survey the circumstances of the case ; and he might be permitted, in calling upon them to discharge their duty impartially, to supplicate Almighty God to strengthen and to support them in the discharge of this important and sacred duty. (Applause). $$$SsKgs . The Attorney-General said the jury had had the advantage of hearing the evidence and of hearing an ingenious and eloquent defence ; and he (Mr Martin) repeated the injunction with which he opened the case, and which had been re-echoed by the learned counsel, as to the necessity of the jury considering this question in a cool, calm, and dispassionate manner ; and asserted that this was of the greater importance, as he did not come there to insist upon a verdict being piven against tke prisoner at all hazards. The honorable and learned gentleman pointed out that in opening the case he had carefully abstained from bringing before the jury any consideration in connection with a secret or Fenian organisation, and he assured them that no such question was submitted to their decision. The simple question now at issue was, not whether the prisoner had committed the crime, for that was admitted, but whether at the committing of the crime the prisoner was in a sane state of mind. He delicately analysed the testimony of tho sister, and contended that there was nothing in it that could assist the jury in coming to the conclusion they were invited to arrive &t by the learned counsel for the prisoner. It was unreasonable to suppose that if an individual had labored under delusions arising from delirium tremens one or two years ago, that these circumstances might be taken as proof that the vsarae individual was insane only a fortnight or a month ago. That the prisoner hud only suffered from delirium tremens was clear, from the remedies used ; brandy and water and port wine were not used for affections of the brain. In conclusion, he urged that if the jury, after going through the evidence, could not see that the prisoner was insane at the time he committed the act they would, regnrdless of consequences, do their duty to society and the country. THE JUDGE SUMMING UP. His Honor Judge Cheeke in summing up recapitulated the evidence as to the wounding, and pointed out that any person committing an act such as that of shooting at another person was presumed by the law to intend the ordinary consequences of that act. If a person fired a revolver at a certain distance it was clear that he could only have one intent— taking the life of his victim, and the gravamen of the charge against the prisoner was, founded upon the presumption that, firing as he did within a few yards of his Eoyal Highness, and behind his back, that he intended to take the life of his Eoyal Highness. The evidence adduced with reference to the alleged insanity of the prisoner was certainly very contradictory ; but in considering their verdict the jury must be satisfied whether at the time of the commission of tho act, the prisoner was in a condition to know right from wrong. There were one or two cases which he would lay before them in order to enable them to arrive at a proper decision upon this question. The first which his Honor submitted was a dictum of Lord Hale's in reference to insanity ; the next, was the trial in the House of Peers of Lord Ferrers, for murder. In the case of Lord Ferrers it was held that no man could be considered insane so as to exempt him from the operation of the laws, as long as it could be presumed he could judge of the consequences of his own actions. In Arnold's case, where the person who had committed the offence had formed a regular design^ for its commission, it was clearly put to the jury that, unless the offender could be clearly proved to have no more control over his actions than an infant — no feeling beyond that of a brute or wild beast — he could not be exempted from the operation of law ; and the case of Bowler's corresponds exactly in all forma with the present one. Though his housekeeper proved that he had been seized with epilepsy some time before — though it had been shown thit in certain paroxysms he would cat raw meat — and though the evidence of the keeper of a lunatic asylum went to show that he had taken violent antipathies againat particular individuals whom ho for merly esteemed and respected, the plea of insanity did not hold (Mr Aspinwall respectfully suggested that His Honor would read the following sentence used by Baron Alderson : " Bowler was executed, and a very barbarous act it was." His Honor said several other cases were reported previous to that of manslaughter cited by the AttorneyGeneral, but there was one case in which a plea of insanity was put forth that he would refer to. • The criminal was said to be extremely taciturn, to be very close, he neAer spoke to his mates, and was considered to have a nasty temper; and these were urged as proofs of mental derangement. Baron Eolfe then gave utterance to the opinion, that in order to make it clear that an individual was insane at the time of the commission of an offence, the onus entirely rests upon the person charged, and the de fence of the present prisoner entirely rests upon his counsel being able to prove that plea. It had been urged thab the prisoner had been unfavorably situated in regard to the proof of his plea by the absence of certain witnesses who were at present in Vie toria, and the disadvantage prisoner mighi labor under had been ably set forth in the evidence of Mr Pavey. But the prisoner had had the advantage of being most power

fully and ably defended by a barrister of the Victorian bar, assisted by one of our own barristers here. This assistance had* been afforded through the influence of prisoner's leister— a sister who had behaved nobly to him throughout; who had behaved as only a sister could; and whose position in this court every one present must deeply commiserate. The plea of insanity, indeed, chiefly rested upon her evidence. (Here his Honor laid the major part of her statement's before the jury.) It was attempted to be proved that the presumption of insanity was not warranted by the fact that the prisoner had been attacked by epileptic fits some eighteen months ago ; but it was not shown that the insanity had been continuous until the commission of the crime with which the prisoner is now charged. If the jury were of opinion that insanity, arising from epileptic fits or attacks of delirium tremens, continued up to the time the Prince was shot, they would return a verdict of not guilty on the ground of insanity ; but if they believed that at the time the prisoner committed the offence he knew right from wrong; the Crown was entitled to a verdict. To shorten the case, he concluded by summarising the legal points the jury would have to consider, and left them to return a verdict according to their oaths and their consciences. THE VERDICT. — SENTENCE OF DEATH. The jury retired at twenty- six minutes to three. After an absence of an hour they returned into court with a verdict of guilty. The prisoner in a firm and decided tone said he had nothing to say. His Honor, before passing sentence of death, addressed the prisoner as follows : — "Henry James O'Farrell, the jury have found you guilty under the information which the Crown preferred against you— that is, of wounding the person of his Eoyal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh, with intent to murder him, and happily for you in the position in which you are placed, you have been ably defended by the counsel who have appeared for you. The jury have well considered the evidence which was adduced by the counsel on your behalf, but they have felt themselves bound to return a verdict against you. Except from the evidence adduced, I know nothing, nor can I know anything, of your previous life which might suggest to me any remarks. I can only see before me a man in health, strength, and vigor, who has deliberately attempted to take the life of a fond and youthful son of our beloved and revered Queen. Before I proceed presently to pass the sentence of the Court, let me beseech you by every remembrance of whatever has 1 been virtuous or good in your past life ; let me entreat you by any, the faintest trace of true religion which may now be in your heart, to reflect upon the wide amount of sorrow and suffering which your cruel hand would have caused if your murderous design had been successful. Consider what unutterable horror and shame would have fallen upon this colony if the providential care of Almighty God had not defeated your attempt. Contemplate the awful grief and anguish of the Queen if one of her beloved and innocent children (innocent even of any evil thought against you or any other human being) had been thus torn by your ruthless hand from her widowed heart. Let me implore you to employ the short period of your remaining life in such reflections as i I have suggested, and especially in subduing that callous insensibility of heart which must originally have led you to your crime. Although happily your murderous intent was not accomplished, I hold out to you not the least hope of remission of the sentence of death. For not only am I unable to discover any, even the slightest circumstance upon which I could recommend any such remission ; but it must also be manifest to the whole world that all men like you, whose evil hearts may now be harboring and nurturing similar murderous intentions and similar traitorous designs, should be taught by your sad fate how swift, unerring, and stern is the punishment which all civilised nations must inflict upon such a terrible crime as yours. Let me again exhort you to make the best use of the short time that may remain to you in life, and at once apply to those ministers of religion who may willingly assist you in your sorrowful meditations. It only remains for me now to pronounce the sentence of the law for the crime of which you have been convicted. His Honor then, in the usual form, passed sentence of death upon the prisoner. Whilst his Honor was addressing him, the prisoner appeared but little moved ; the only perceptible change being a tremulousness of the muscles of his face. He observed a calm, quiet, and respectful demeanor throughout the trial. This being a general gaol delivery, the remainder of the cases on the calendar were called on and postponed. The Court then adjourned.