THE Grey River Argus. TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 1867.

Grey River Argus, Volume III, Issue 166, 5 February 1867, Page 2

THE Grey River Argus. TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 1867.

The trial of Wilson on the charge ,of being concerned in the murder of poor Dobson is over, and a jury of his countrymen have pronounced him guiltless of the crime laid to his charge. It is not for us to question the verdict of the jury, further than to express an opinion that had the jury been able to return an open verdict of v " not proven," this was eminently a case for such a verdict being I'ecorded. But the law of English criminal procedure lays down the maxim that a man must be declared guilty or innocent, and that uuless the proofs of his guilt are complete any doubts are to be interpreted to the favor of the accused. There may be an overwhelming amount of probability pointing to a prisoner's guilt ; positive evidence may connect him up to. a certain point with the perpetration of a deed, but if a link be wanting to complete the chain of proof the testimony must be cast aside as practically unreliable and > unsafeAnd undoubtedly so long as English juries have to confine themselves to ■declaring . .the. guilt, or innocence of accused persons, it is • imperative that the pi oofs of guilt should be such as to admit of no reasonable doubt. Iv the case of Wilson the chain of incriminating evidence was weak in a very important point, '■ viz., as to the prisoner's appearance at a particular time of "a particular day, and that day the one on which the murder musthave been committed. With, the exception of this indescreparicy the statement of the approver Sullivan was closely -supported by other evidence ; indeed it was tho only point on which there was conflicting testimony at all. There could be no' doubt whatever of the prisoner's complicity with the. gang — that he was up with them on the track whe.ie Dobson was murderedAnd there is equal certainty that the murder was committed by some of the gang, quo of whom says Sullivan was Wilson. Sullivan's history of the proceedings is an. intelligible and precise one, and bears the stamp of ■ probability upon it. On the other hand, there is the feet that Wilson voluntarily placed himself in the clutches of the police almost immediately after the day on which the deed must have been com. mitted, and although offers of pardon and other inducements were held out to him he did not make, ajiy confession} but on the contrary reiterated his denial of any knowledge of the missing man. But what motive, it will be asked-, opuld Sullivan have in charging, an innocent man with . participation in a crime in which he himself confesses his shared. Nothing that Sullivan could say or do would palliate liis o>vn position, and unless : we admit his evidence there is but one alternative of \ belief left, viz,> that Sullivan has added to his other crimes by attempting deliberateiy to swear away- the life of an iunocent man, And. if he has committed perjury in^ this instance, may he not have committed it in the case of Levy, who. so strongly .protested his 'innocence? These are questions which are sure to arise in the public iniud. and will cause probably sonic disquietude. For ourselves, however, we regard the case of Wilson as an eipinent instance of a man escaping conviction without establishing his innocence, JDetestable as the character of the chief witness is, his evidencg wsis sufficiently coi'fpborated to establish something more than a belief in the prisoner's guilt. And although the jury mercifully :qnd perhaps properly guvc Wilsoii (he bouefit of the single

doubt in his favor, there is left 'behind a large amount of doubt of his iimo. cence, which will remain as long as the murder of poor Dobson is remembered^ But justice has not been altogether unsatisfied ; some of the murderers have suffered their doom, and. t]ie self-con, victed felon Sullivan stands an object of universal detestation, despicable equally in the sight of society and of the basest of his fellow criminals.