ANOTHER INNOCENT VICTIM.

Globe, Volume XXI, Issue 1691, 22 July 1879, Page 3

ANOTHER INNOCENT VICTIM.

Another case of tho most extraordinary character has just come to light which is far more remarkable than that of Habrcn, who, it will be recollected, was recently set free from being falsely condemned for murder. Tho Lord Chief Justice of England has addressed a long letter to the Home Secretary with reference to the case of Edmund Galley, who, with a man named Oliver, was convicted of murder at the Devon Summer Assizes in tho year 1836. Oliver was hanged ; Galley was, alter further investigation, reprieved and transported as a felon to Australia, for life. Galley still lives, and is anxious before bo dies to have tho stigma of murder removed from him by a pardon from the Crown, in recognition of his innocence, which ho protests. The Lord Chief Justice, who was at the time of tho murder a young barrister on the Western Circuit, and was present at tho trial, warmly seconds the application of Galley, and states his reason for believing in the entire innocence and wrongful conviction of the man. The history of the case, says his Lordship, was this. Oliver, who was a desperate character, having been imprisoned for some offence, related to a fellowprisoner, whom he fancied ho could trust, that among other memorable exploits of his life he, with a man known as “ Dick Turpin,” had murdered and robbed a farmer named May while on his way homo from Morotonhampstead Fair, on tho evening of July 16th, 1833. The confidant revealed this confession to tho authorities, and it happening that Galley, a native of Kent, who attended fairs in tho West of England, boro the name of Turpin, and ho being at that time in ono of the metropolitan prisons on a charge of vagrancy, the police fastened upon him, and he was indicted, with Oliver, for tho murder. At this time there was a man named Avery in tho prison at Exeter, who, with a woman named Harris, with whom he cohabited, was under sentence of transportation. Avery had been an apprentice of tho murdered man, but had adopted loose habits. Ho and Harris had been seen at the Moretonhampstead Fair talking to Oliver, and Avery was said to have been seen pointing to Mr May, whom he knew to be a substantial fai'mer. At the trial tho chief_ witness against Galley was the woman Harris, who, having said that she saw tho murder committed, was granted a pardon in order that she might give evidence, felons then being incapable of giving evidence until pardoned by the Crown. Mho swore that, having quarrelled with Avery, she started along tho Exeter road, intending to overtake the carrier’s cart. It was getting dusk, and having passed Oliver and Galley on tho road, and shortly afterwards tho farmer riding quietly on horseback, she suspected something

■would occur. Accordingly she concealed herself, and saw the murder committed. Both Avery and Harris had themselves been arrested on suspicion of having committed the murder, but in the course of a month were released. Several witnesses deposed to having seen Galley at the fair with Oliver, misled, as the Lord Chief Justice contends, by the statement of Oliver, that a man named Turpin had been his accomplice, and that Galley bore that name. One woman, however, who identified Oliver, positively denied that Galley was the other man, particularly stating that the associate of Oliver had “ good teeth,” which Galley had not. Gulley had no counsel nor friends ; at the trial he appeared thoroughly bewildered, and continually protested his innocence. The summing-up of the Judge—Mr Justice Williams—was, soys the Lord Chief Justice, feeble and incomprehensive, although rather in favour of tho prisoners. After sentence of death had been passed, Oliver, addressing the Court, proclaimed the entire innocence of Galley, adding somewhat between pity and scorn, “ My lord, do you think if I was going out to do a deed like that, I should take a weak little fellow like this for my companion ? ” The Bar and other gentlemen who became acquainted with tho circumstances, interested themselves on behalf of Galley, and deputed Mr Oherer, who attended tho Western Circuit as shorthand writer, to make inquiries. Ho ascertained from tho statements of several independent persons that Galley’s account of his doings and whereabouts ou tho day of tho murder was substantially verified ; Galley had stated that ho was at Dartford Fair in Kent on that day. Tho Home Office, on the representation of Mr Cherer, appointed Sir Frederick Roe, tho then chief magistrate at Bow street, to cause inquiries to bo instituted. Ho, with Mr Montague Smith, now Sir Montague Smith, and then the counsel for Oliver, and who had volunteered to accompany Sir Frederick, so strongly was he convinced of the innocence of Galley, proceeded to Kent. The Lord Chief Justice has the authority of Sir Montague Smith for saying that both he and Sir Frederick Roe were thoroughly satisfied of tho truth of Galley’s statement, and that the alibi was completely established. This was reported to the Home Office, and Galley was reprieved, but sentenced to transportation for life. Oliver was executed, and his last words on tho drop wore, “I say in tho face of the congregation I am guilty, but the other man is innocent.” Before hie death he revealed that his companion in the murder was a man named Longley, who also went by tho name of Turpin. Galley asserts that this man is still living, and is now in tho colony. The Lord Chief Justice’s letter was written on March 16:.h last, and his Lord ship received from the Home Office on the 27th of the same month an answer to tho following effect : “ I am directed by Mr Secretary Cross to acquaint you that he has long ond carefully considered this case, which, from the peculiar circumstances which surround it, and from the weight which attaches to tho recommendations of your Lordship, has required at his hands more than usual anxiety and deliberation. The peculiar difficulty which more especially presents itself in the case appears to Mr Cross to bo that all the facts, which are now before him, and upon which the recommendation of your Lordship is based, were, while they were fresh, and while Galley was under sentence of death, brought under the consideration of Lord John Russell and Lord Denman, tho Secretary of Sla'e and Lord Chief Justice of the day; and, moreover, in Mr Cross’s judgment, the question for him to decide is not so much whether, had he been in Lord John Russell’s place, he would have arrived at the same conclusion as his Lordship as whether, at this period of time, so long after the event, and upon the same facts, he would be justified in overruling tho solemn decision of the then Secretary of State, acting under the direct advice of the then Lord Chief Justice. There is an additional element in tho case which weighs upon Mr Cross’s mind, which is that tho matter has been more than once brought before his predecessors, and that both Lord Aberdaro and Mr Lowe felt compelled to decline to re-open it. Under these circumstances I am directed to inform your Lordship that Mr Cross feels himself constrained to abide by the previous decisions in the case, and cannot take upon himself tho responsibility of overruling them.”