THE TRIAL AND SENTENCE OF CHAMBERLAIN.

Grey River Argus, Volume XII, Issue 1290, 17 September 1872, Page 3

THE TRIAL AND SENTENCE OF CHAMBERLAIN.

[west coast times.] After two protracted trials, one of which occupied two days, and the other three, George Henry Chamberlain was convicted last Saturday night of the principal parts of the offences with which he was charged. The sentence of ten years' penal servitude which he received, however severe it may seem, was not more than was due considering the circumstances surrounding the crime and character of the criminal. The man is evidently of , a class too dangerous to society to be permitted to be at large. Possessed of more than ordinary cunning, and while inordinately self-asserting in demeanor and utterauce, he has a plausible way of making himself appear to be an injured honest man, which has afforded him opportunities to commit offences, where to a common-place criminal thoy would not have been offered. It was these

qualities that gained for him the sympathy and support of a well-meaning but much deceived class of persons, on his release from gaol. By that assistance he was enabled to enter into business in the trade which he understood, and to appear to the world as if ho were earning his livelihood honestly by the tweat of his brow, while in fact he was carrying on a well devised scheme of robbery. Be used tho' facilities which his legitimate occupation afforded but to spy tho land in the places where ho got employment, so that he might return to them at a convenient hour for plunder. That he did so in the case upon which he was convicted there cannot bo any doubt, as it is in evidence that ho worked at the store of Messrs Cowlishaw and Plaisted for some days in making some repairs ; and there are other instances which are not so clearly proveablo, where it is known that he robbed the premises in secret which he visited in open day in the way of his trade. Chamberlain v evidently a confirmed criminal, whose presence at large in any community would be attended with an amount of danger only limited to his power of doing mischief ; and it cannot but be a matter of satisfaction that tho Crown succeeded in sheeting home to the accused the offences with which he was charged. The result was, however, not achieved without difficulty. The principal witness, the only man who could speak from positive knowledge of the criminal acts of the prisoner, was himself so tainted with crime that it was needful to corroborate his testimony with an amount of particularity which would not have been required under other circumstances. That corroboration was obtained piece by piece, until at length the story as reiatcd by Rowley stood out plainly as a true account of the proceedings of Chamberlain. In this the prisoner himself contributed in no small degree, both by his elaborate cross-examina-tion of the witnesses and by the admissions in which he involved himself in his address to tho jury. His theory was that Rowley was the thief, that Rowley stole all the articles from the store of Cowlishaw and Plaisted, and brought them to his, Chamberlain's, place ; that he remonstrated with Rowley about bringing those articles, threatened to throw them away if not removed by Rowley, and that he did ultimately throw them away. But he forgot, or wished the Jury to forget, that he retained articles in its own possession which had been taken from the shop of Cowlishaw and Plaisted, and (that he had been proved to have dealt with others. He made no attempt whatever to account for his possession of those articles, though he had ample opportunity for doing so"; nor, in support of his allegation that Rowley was the thief, did he account for the fact that he, Chamberlain, dealt with the goods as his own, and Rowley did not. There were numerous other circumstancial evidences of the truth of the tale told by Rowley, tainted witness though he was. Foremost among them was the underground passage, the existence of which Chamberlain denied, and even called witnesses to prove that it could not have existed without their perceiving tho loose boards covering tlie entrance. The very denial, the very attempt to disprove the existence of that which was so incontes.tibly proved to exist, helped in no vory slight degree to bear out the statements of Rowley, and to convince the jpry that in evory material part he had related that which had occurred.. Indeed,, we cannot but admire the manner in, which a number of minute circumstances weie brought together sp clearly corroborating a testimony which everyone was prepared to receive beforehand with doubt, if not with discredit ;, and we cannot but commend the care and" attention h> this respect, displayed by those who had charge of the prosecution.. Of Chamberlain's demeanor in Court it is unnecessary to speak. The- annoyance which he occasioned was of very small importance in comparison with the object iv view, that o£ arriving at a just conclusion as to his Buflt or innocence, and that the conclusion arrived., at was just and in accordance with the evidence none but the prisoner himself will deny.