THE CASE OF ROBERT KELLY.

Grey River Argus, Volume XII, Issue 1099, 5 February 1872, Page 3

THE CASE OF ROBERT KELLY.

The trial of Eobert Kelly for the murder of a policeman in Dublin presents to the world, both in its procedure and its result, another most striking instance of the difficulties made by Irishmen for the peaceful governance of their country. Tho murdered man was head-constable Talbot. On a morning in July last he was shot in the public street by a man who deliberately presented himself, announcing that he was going to fire. The report of the assassin's pistol, the cry of the wounded man, brought a crowd to the spot where he was staggering, and amongst the crowd were some other constables. The murderer retreated into an archway. Kelly was seen to run away. He was punned and seized by a policeman, but this interruption he disposed of by firing a bullet from a revolver into the constable's thigh. However, he was arrested. Talbot was taken to a hospital, and there, after several days of great suffering, died. Kelly beingarraignedfor the murderer, he was defended by Mrßutt j themainlineof defence being that there was not sufficient identification of the prisoner; and that Talbot's death was really due to the bungling of the surgeon who probed his wounds, or rather that the man's life was sacrificed to the reckless ambition of the doctor, who was resolved to achieve reputation by "a medical coup de main." Little stress was laid upon the point of identification, nor is it necessary to go into the pivs and cons of a question which was all but conceded— abc ut which, at any rate, there can be no reasonable doubt whatever. Mr Butt's main reliance was on the other branch of his defence ; and if the reports in the Times are to be relied on, he urged it with audacity of a somewhat uncommon kind. He pronounced the operations which the sufferer underwent to be " reckless surgery," and declared that "if it had not been for the . mercy of God that preserved Talbot that night, Dr. Strokes ought now to stand in the dock on a charge of manslaughter." There was something else upon which JjkUy's council insisted with equal vigor. TaTSbt was a constable. Talbot was a spy and an informer. He had identified Kelly as the man who shot him, but "respectable witnesses could swear that • from his general character he was not worthy of belief in a court of justice. If evidence on those points was not received, if the prisoner was deprived of the consideration to be attached to the evidence of a man [the dead Talbot himself] of whom it might have been asked had he entrapped men, had he taken bloodmoney, then trial by jury would be a mockery." Whether or no the learned counsel imagined that these were fit arguments for judge and jury, it is certain that they were thoroughly approved by " the people." Kelly was conducted to trial from day to day amidst the cheers of a sympathising crowd. He was held up by the " national" journal as a hero and & patriot, who, if he did shoot the constable, deserved applause rather than ponishment. One of these newspapers said, during the progress of the trial— "The death of Talbot, no matter how or by whom it was brought about, is regretted by none. The people do not regard the killing of Talbot as murder. There is no use in disguising or palliating the matter; Irish people rejoiced at the death of Talbot, and now regard his alleged slayer as a patriot and a martyr." Another paper published acknowledgements of subscriptions for the defence fund, with such signatures as "One who knows where Talbot is," " One who approves of shooting traitors like him, 1 ' and "Do it again." The same journal (the 1 Irishman) said just before the conclusion ; of the trial, that it was " waiting for the -which shall say whether or not twelve Irishmen can be found who believe that Robert Kelly killed Talbot, or whether it is a moral crime or not to rid the earth of an informer." Probably, the writer had full confidence in the fulfilment of his hopes. The Chief Baron, in charging the jury, warned them that the ( plea of murder in the surgery could not ' hold good. A man who inflicts a dangerous wound is responsible for the consequences ; and whether death were caused mediately or immediately by the prisoner he was guilty of murder. "The jury were bound to take this proposition, that, although death is immediately caused by the mistake of the surgeon in the treatment he adopts, or in the unskilf ulness of his act in applying, that treatment, that does not absolve the person who inflicts a dangerous wound of the guilt of wilful murder." The propriety of such a rule is obvious ; but it does not seem to have recommended itself to the jury in this case. They retired with the bullet and the pistol (the remains of the wretched victim's skull had been handed about the court on a plate, but these do notoeem to have been thought necessary aids to . reflection), and presently returned with a verdict cf not guilty. Thereupon a rejoicing crowd marched to the place where the patriotic deed had been done, and so to Mr Butt's house. There was no time to arrange for a serenade, but the people ' cheered the successful advocate enthusiastically ; and he, appearing at the window, told them that they had that day achieved a great constitutional triumph.