Page 30
REGINA v. LOGAN.
peau evidence, even if entirely unsupported by between that crime and murder. He also showed that of the Chinese, was sufficient to make out where malice was implied, and in this case the case.
The Crown Advocate pointed out that argued that the prisoner evidently had feeling the Chinese witnesses saw the matter before the rankling in his mind against the Chinese, as his European witnesses, and that, be argued, did away house had been broken into and robbed. There with the apparent contradiction between a pistol was probably more trouble in the street than the and a carbine, and Strom also had given evidence Chinese had stated--they would not be likely to to seeing what appeared to be a carbine in the give that much prominence, but the prisoner had first instance. As to what had been said about not fired in the heat of the moment when he was the difference between the evidence given by the attacked, but he followed them up and fired at Chinese and their depositions taken before the them deliberately as they were running away. Consul, he would point out that no counsel were then engaged on either side, and the prisoner, very reasonably, did not cross-examine They had it in evidence that Johnson was struck there were many things they did not then depose to which by a stone, but the prisoner was not, and so there was nothing to show that he was in danger. He submitted that even firing over the heads of the Chinese in the street was not justifiable at all, and firing into a crowd without the intention of killing any particular person was held to be murder. Though Mr. Wise had contended that firing in the air in the street was no offence against law, he submitted that he was in the same position as furious driving, against which there was no law other than municipal regulations; but anyone causing the death of another person by such means was guilty either of murder or manslaughter, according to the circumstances. In this case the prisoner had fired deliberately when the crowd was running away, and to cause death under such circumstances was for revenge, not self-defence; and if he had had time to cool down, that was not manslaughter but murder. The Crown Advocate went over the evidence very fully, commenting on it, and pointing out the bearings of different parts on his contention.
His Lordship then summed up to the jury, observing that the case had been gone into very fully, and the various points in it so well put before them by the counsel on either side that his work in summing up to them had been considerably lightened. They had now to enter upon the consideration of the case, to exert their best faculties in dealing with the evidence in the case, and to do their duty in administering justice. His duty now was to go over the evidence with them, to comment upon it, and to give them every assistance in his power in arriving at a conclusion. The issues for them to try were narrow, although they were most important. The first question for the jury to decide was whether the shot by which the boy was killed was fired by the prisoner or not. It thought the evidence called for the prosecution had not clearly made that out, or that the theory of the defence with regard to it was the more likely, then they would have to find a verdict of acquittal. He now proposed to go over the evidence in sections, commenting upon it as he went, and pointing out the conclusions to be drawn from it.
REGINA v. LOGAN.
1
foreign witnesses, and he would take them in such was the case, whether the act was justifiable homicide or manslaughter or murder.
His Lordship did not think it was necessary to trouble the jury at any length with the question of self-defence as there was no evidence whatever that the prisoner was on his defence. If the prisoner had been defending himself that would be another matter. He did not think the evidence before them showed such to have been the case; and as to provocation, no provocation would justify any man to kill another. If the provocation had been grievous, such as to excite one to anger and indignation and make him forget himself for a moment, that could probably reduce the crime from murder to manslaughter. In considering this point they must look at the weapon with which death was inflicted. In this case there was no doubt that the instrument used was a deadly weapon, and in considering whether there was provocation sufficient to reduce the offence from murder to manslaughter, they must find Johnson's considerable provocation to do so.
His Lordship then went over the whole of the Chinese witnesses; and having done so, he remarked that it appeared consistent on the whole, but, as they had seen, evidence appeared to bear two ways, both for the prosecution and for the defence. His statement that Neilsen was wearing a dark suit told strongly against the theory of the defence--that Neilsen might have been mistaken for the prisoner, and it was also clear from his evidence that a shot had been fired by the prisoner himself, fire, and it was for the jury to consider what weight was to be attached to that. Two of them had also given evidence as to the kind of weapon used. His Lordship went on to read the evidence of the foreign witnesses, and then went briefly over the points which had been raised by the counsel for the prosecution and the defence. Very few questions of law were involved in the matter, and it was for the jury to deal with questions of fact. Still there were presumptions of law which they would have to bear in mind, and these had been correctly laid down by the counsel on both sides. They had first to decide upon the evidence whether the fatal shot was fired by the prisoner or not, and if they decided it was, beyond any reasonable doubt, they would have to bear in mind the presumption of malice unless the contrary was shown. Of course, if they had a doubt they must give the prisoner the benefit of it, but it must be a reasonable doubt, and if the evidence for the prosecution was such as to convince their minds, they must find accordingly. If they decided against the prisoner on that point, they must consider the next, that of justification; though he might first point out to them as to the question of a revolver or a carbine being used, it was immaterial which it was so long as they were satisfied the prisoner caused the death of the boy.
The jury then retired to consider their verdict, and after an absence of just under half an hour they returned to court, when in answer to the usual question from the clerk of the Court
The foreman said--We find the prisoner guilty of manslaughter.
The Clerk--Is this the verdict of you all?
The foreman--Yes.
The prisoner had throughout maintained an unaltered composure, and when asked whether he had anything to say why sentence should not be passed upon him, he said quietly--"I have nothing."
Page 33
His Lordship said--James Henry Logan, you have been found, after a long and patient investigation, guilty of this very serious crime, and you may congratulate yourself upon having escaped being found guilty of a still more serious one.
Page 30