THE TRIAL OF O’DONNELL.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1135, 5 February 1884, Page 3

THE TRIAL OF O’DONNELL.

Patrick O’Donnell was put on his trial before Mr Justice Denman at the Old Pulley, London, on November 30, for the murder of James Carey, the informer, on the high seas, on Sunday, July the 29th. The Attorney-General and Mr Poland appeared for the prosecution. Mr C. Russell, Q.C., and Mr A. M. Sullivan (instructed by Mr Guy, solicitor) appeared for the defence. The prisoner, for whom a plea of not guilty was entered, seemed perfectly composed as he was ushered into and stood up in the dock. The Attorney-General, in opening the case for the Crown mentioned the fact that a new witness named Cubit would be called, who had, at Capetown, given the prisoner, in obedience to an urgent request, a rough sketch of Carey, and who would tell the jury that the prisoner remarked on receiving it, “I’ll shoot him.” The details of the actual murder as they have already been described were again recapitulated, and upon a review of them all the Attorney-General pressed the conclusion that the act could not, in any sense, be one of self-defence, but was, undoubtedly, one of wilful and premeditated murder.

At the conclusion of the AttorneyGeneral’s speech the prisoner, who had been a very attentive listener, sat down in the dock, and awaited the evidence which was to be given against him, frequently relieving his feelings by squirting tobacco juice about the dock. James Parish, a servant to three officers on board the Melrose Castle, Thomas Jones, boatswain of the Melrose Castle, Thomas Francis Carey, son of the informer, and Mrs Carey, wife of the informer, were examined. Nothing new transpired in their evidence. Edward Thomas Cubit, of North Walsham, said he had been a passenger on board the Kinfauns Castle, and at Capetown the keeper of a wineshop made a statement to him to the effect that Power, who was sailing in the vessel, was really Carey. Asked if the winetavern keeper had given him anything, witness said “ yes” ; and a portrait of James Carey, which had been given with the Weekly Freeman, was put in in evidence. Examination continued —I recognised the portrait as being that of James Power. I went down to the Melrose and showed the portrait to O’Donnell. He said “ [’ll shoot him,” and asked me to give him the portrait, which I did. In cross-examination by Mr Russell the witness stated that O’Donnell made this statement quite pleasantly, and that he (the witness) attached no importance to it at the time.

Superintendent Mallon of the Dublin police was then called, and proved to having given Carey the revolver which was produced in Court. Ho described Carey as a reckless sort of man, utterly regardless of human life. This closed the case for the Crown, and on Saturday morning the defence was opened. Walter Young, a cab proprietor at Port Elizabeth, was called, and stated that he had driven young Carey and Mrs Carey about in Port Elizabeth a dozen or fifteen times. He deposed that on one occasion he said to young Carey : “ You’re a fine fellow. Why did you not shoot O’Donnell when he shot your father ?” He answered. “ I had not the revolver ; I went to get it in the cabin, but when I went there it was gone, because my father had it.” Mr Charles Russell, QC., M.P., then delivered his speech for the defence. He spoke for nearly three hours and a half, and his speech is admitted on all sides to be a powerful one. The Morning Post, speaking of Mr Russell’s efforts, says : In a speech of nearly three hours and a half every possible point was taken with the most consummate skill, and the defence set up was as marvellous for its ingenuity as for the sustained and earnest eloquence with which it was enforced. The jury were invited to believe that O’Donnell was a peaceful, industrious, harmless man, with no possible motive for deliberately courting the gallows by unprovoked murder on the high seas. The crime, said Mr Russell, had been provoked, and he would give them what would be the prisoner’s own version of the matter if Us mouth were not closed. Ho would tell them that when O’Donnell discovered at Cape Town the passenger Power to be no other than Carey the informer, he shunned his society, and in a rash moment denounced him to his face ; that Carey immediately drew a pistol ; and that O’Donnell, in immediate terror of death, and in selfdefence only, took Carey’s life. To show that this explanation was possible, Mr Russell exhausted every point in the evidence that was consistent with it, and begged th* jury that, if they thought the tale now for the first time told to be consistent with the evidence, they should give the prisoner the benefit of the doubt. The Daily News also pays an eloquent tribute to Mr Russell’s able speech, in which he sought to prove that O’Donnell only shot Carey when the latter had already drawn his revolver. Describing the issue ot the trial, the Daily News says : Mr Russell boldly and ably demanded the acceptance of these conclusion by the jury, and after an impressive peroration resumed his seat amid the applause of those who had for the moment forgotten that this mode of approbation is forbidden in a court of justice. The Attorney-General, while admitting the ability of the speech for the defence, held that the story of the prisoner, however, was inconsistent with that originally given by him, and the whole theory of the evidence, which did not fit in with it, and which was not, in the Attorney General’s opinion, unworthy of credence.

The hands of the dock pointed to twenty-five minutes to five when the judge began his summing up, and his careful review of the whole evidence lasted till five minutes to seven. During the painful interval between the retirement of the jury and the delivery of the verdict Mr Justice Denman wished to relieve the prisoner from the public gaze, and suggested his retirement. Jlut O’Donnell prefeired to bear his suspense in the open court. The bench had been crowded all the afternoon. There were many ladies present, and every seat was occupied. Nearly everybody waited for the verdict. Forty-five minutes elapsed when a message was brought from the jury. They came into the box at the Judge’s request, and there was a painful silence while the judge studied their communication. When he broke silence it was to answer a question which seemed almost to suggest a possibility of acquittal.

Again the jury retired, and the next interval was broken by a little argument between the judge and Mr Sullivan. The prisoner relieved his feelings from time to time by a confidence in bis solicitor, or a recognition of General Pryor. Such a long time elapsed that a disagreement of the jury began to be the subject of speculation. Excitement svas intensified by the receipt of another message from (lie jury, and a second order from the judge that they should be called in. The judge had this time to explain to them the meaning of “malice aforethought.” The judge patiently explained the whole law o f murder and manslaughter, and pointed out in what circumstances they might convict of one or the other, or acquit, or disagree. Tim jury could not have been more than two minutes absent after this before they brought in their verdict, and, amid deadly silence, gave their verdict “guilty” of murder. The prisoner folded his arms and seemed to be preparing a defiant air, but was too agitated to remain in one attitude. Every two or three seconds bis hands sought a new position. The judge assumed the blac'. cap. Wilson, the usher, broke the silence with the dread proclamation that precedes sentence of death. The sheriffs and aldermen stood up in their placer on the bench. The judge solemnly delivered sentence. Though his words when read wtll appear but fitting to the occasion, it seemed almost cruel to the prisoner, whose incessant changes of position betrayed his mental agony, to address him with such deliberation. Pity for the prisoner was the prevailing sentiment as the torturing words of the formal sentence brought the judge’s sentence to a close, Up to this moment he had been dumb, and as he lifted his eyes to the ceiling it seemed as if he were echoing the prayer that God might hive mercy on his soul. But now, after bowing and affecting to smile, he resisted the efforts of the warders to lead him away, tossed his head contemptuously, and’said, “ Hold on ; wait yet,” Permission to speak being refused iJm, he threw his arms in the air, and shouted, “Three cheers for Ireland and the United States ! Goodbye'all ! To hell with the British and the Crown 1” What more he said came indistinctly to the ears of those in the court from the cells to which he was rapidly borne, but the excited and horrified assembly clearly gathered that the man just doomed to death had received that awful sentence with still more defiant words, and with other imprecations even more profane.