THE CARLTON MURDER.

Thames Star, Volume VII, Issue 2029, 6 July 1875, Page 3

THE CARLTON MURDER.

. AFFECTING SCENE IN. COUET. At the Central Criminal Court (reports • the Argus of Saturday) John Pryor Barrett was arraigned for "the wilful murder of 'his wife, at his residence, Ballarat; street, Carlton, on the 21st May last. Hhe circumstances trill still be fresh, in the public mind. The prisoner 'was abailiff, and coming home on the evening' mentioned, he found his wife absent. ,_ A few minutes.afterwards she" came in, and a quarrel" took, place: in which Barrett struck the deceased a blow on the right shoulder with a knife, which penetrated to the lungs, and caused her death. He did not attempt tq deny that he had committed the crime. Thei woman was addicted to drunkenness, and it was sworn that trheri in a state of intoxication she iried to aggravate ' and provoke the prisoner. ; Barrett, in his defence yesterday, said 1 that when he came home on the evening mentioned ;he found the. fire put,: and the;;d^ceased refused to light it. He took a knife :to cut some shavings to.: do so, and while in the act of cutting them, his wife struck him on the; back with-a billet of wood. In the heat of/the moment he turned round and struck her, forgetting that he had a knife in his hand. '■The prisoner appeared to feel his position very deeply, end expressed the greatest affection for ihe deceased. The jury were twenty minutes in considering- their yerdict, and, on. returning' into Court, the Foreman informed the judge that they had found a verdict of murder, with a strong recommendation to mercy*' ..... :■ ■.■;■■• ■ --■• - : .'..■■■. ■;■■."■ His Honor: May I ask, gentlemen, on what ground is your recommendation given. „ -The Foreman: In consideration^ of. the jury failing to discover the object or motive the prisoner had in committing the deed; - The prisoner, on being asked if he had anything to say why sentence of death Bhould not be -passed upon him, said that, he and his wife had passed through many troubles together. He had, after meeting with many reverses, worked himself up into a respectable position, in which he was respected by all who knew him. He could say solemnly before God and jleaven that he had never the slightest malice against this woman, his wife, in any shape or form. It was true, as had been said, that she drank, but he would not now say anything against her. She was gone, and might God rest her soul. He would again say most solemnly that when the blow was 3truck he was not aware that the knife was in his hands. His Honor then proceeded to pass sentence. He said; John Pryor Barrett, prisoner at the bar, you are arraigned on the; charge of murdering your wife, and your case has received most careful inves- ■ tigation at the hands of the jury. The facts connected with this fatal occurrence are few* ~-and the time occupied in the

commission of (lie offence was brief. The narrative, deposed to by the witnesses was clear, and left no possible doubt that the crime must have been committed by yourself. The only question of doubt that could have arisen was as to the degree of guilt which followed on the commission of the crime, and notwithstanding the very clear and powerful mode in which your case was presented by your learned . counsel, the jury arrived at a conclusion in which I must say I thoroughly concur. It is not necessary, I know, that there should b<» an expression of concurrence on the part of the judge in the verdict of the jury, except in such cases as are complicated aud to a certain extent doubtful, and in which the evidence is to a degree uncertain. ■ This, however, is one of those oases in which no such evidence can be traced. I repeat, however, that as the distinction between the greater and lesser, degree of guilt, between murder and manslaughter, was .necessarily involved here, I believe thp jury have doneright in arriving at the conclusion which they have reached. It is not every act of heat or intemperance in which the unwarranted employment of a deadly weapon can be reduced to the degree of manslaughter. It is well juries should discriminate in an intelligent manner on sufh occasions, so as to prevent all possible mistakes or confusion on this point, and the bringing in of verdicts of manslaughter when it really should be murder. In the administration of the criminal law the highest duty of all concerned is the preservation of the lives_ of her Majesty's subjects. I will not review the facts nor allude further to the charge. 3?ou appear to be rery sensible of the extremely awful nature of your position.; It is due to you, however, to tell you that while I shall consider it my duty to convey to the highest authorities of this country the merciful recommendation of the jury, I can hold out no hope of any mitigation; of the sentence which will be passed upon you, the highest sentence of punishment which the law allows. It would be unjust t© buoy you up with a hope which may not be realized. I have now to discharge a painful duty, the most painful duty which is attached to the position I occupy, and which is to pass sentence of death, conveyed in the solemn words of the law." His .Honor then pronounced sentence of death in the usual form. The scene in Court was a very painful one. The two daughters of the prisoner were present, and smothered sobs were audible during the whole time the Judge was speaking. On hearing their father sentenced to be hanged, they became hysterical and had to be removed from Court.