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
PS
30
REGINA v. LOGAN.
peau evidence. even if entirely uusupported by between that crime and murder. He also showed that of the Chinese, was suficient to make out where malice was implied, and iu 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 bad boen 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 Chicose and their depositions taken before the them deliberately as they were running away. Consul, he would point out that no counsel They had it in evidence that Johnson was struck were then engaged on either side, and the pri- by a stone, but the prisoner was not, and sopor, very reasonably, did not cross-examine there was nothing to show that he was in them, so that it was probable there would be danger. He submitted that even firing over many things they did not then depose to which the hoads of the Chinese in the street was not would be elicited at the presaot bearing. Injustifiable at all, and firing into a crowd without England also it was always found that there were the intention of killing any particular person differozees between the evidence of witnesses at was heli to be murder. Though Mr. Wise had a trial and their depositious takes at a prelimin. contended that firing in the air in the street was ary examination, and here those differences would no offence against law, he submitted that he greatly augmented by the difficulties of inter- was in the same position as furioas driving, pretation. This, he thought, was quite sufficient against which there was no law other than mu to acconut for the differences Mr. Wise bod uicipal regulations; but anyone osusing the death pointed cat.
As to the sugestion that a of another person by such means was guilty carbine had been fired by Neilsen, they had either of murder or manslaughter, according to it in evidence that no firearms were found the circumstancos. In this case the prisoner in Neilsen's house, and it was proved to had fired deliberately when the crowd was run- have been brought out of the prisoner's house. aing away, and to cause death under such cir- As to the number of cartridges put in it, the cumstances was for revenge, not self defence; witness who spoke to that told them he was and if he had had time to cool down, that was not unable to see. It was not to be supposed that manslaughter but murder. The Crown Advo the prisoner took away all the cartridges with cats went over the evidence very fully, comment. him, and they had the fact that he had the ing on it, and pointing out the bearings of dif- opportunity of putting them away before the ferent parts ou his contention.
His Lordship then summed up to the jury, weapons in his house were taken possession of by Ewer. They had no evidence either that any observing that the case had been gone into very search was raade in the prisoner's honse. Though fully, and the various points in it so well put before of coarse it would make the case more consistent them by the counsel on either sida that his work if the carbine and cartridges could be traced, yet in summing up to them bad boon considerably it was not in every case that the evidence could lightened. They had now to enter upon the con- be made fully complete. Whether it was the sideration of the case, to exert thoir best faculties carbine or the revolver which was fired, ho in dealing with the evidence in the case, and to submitted either would be sufficient to kill the do their duty in adminis'oring justice. His duty boy. It was probable that the prisoner had no now was to go over the evidence with them, to com stick, but whether he or Neilsen began the mout upon it, and to give them every assistance in disturbance was immaterial. With regard to his power in arriving at a conclusion. The issues the question of justification, the Crown Advocate for them to try were narrow, although they were rand a passage from the 1878 edition of A rohhold, most important. The first question for the jury page 186, and other authorities to show that to decide was whether the shot by which the boy homicide could only be justified by its being was killed was fired by the prisoner or not. It committed in self defence against sorious peril, they thought the evidence called for the prose- This could not be held to be the ones with the ention had not clearly made that out, or that the prisoner, for he not made the slightest attempt theory of the defence with regard to it was the to escape from the crowd, but, on the contrary, more likely, thon they would have to find a verdict he chased them, and fired at them as they were of acquittal. He now proposed to go over the running away. This was quite sufficient to do evidence in soctions, commenting upon it as he away with that plea. The Crown Advocate theu went, and pointing out the conclusions to be In this case there had been proceeded to deal with the question of man-drawn from it. slanghter, and he again defined the difference protuoedore them ten Chinese and nine
REGINA. v. LOGAN.
1
foreign witnesses, and he would take them in such was the case, whether the not was justi. asses. The Crown Advocate had put it before fiable homicide or manslaughter or murder. hem that the case might stand on the evidence His Lordship did not think it was necessary of the foreign witnesses alone, but as it was to trouble the jury at any length with commenced by the Chinese witnesses, he would the question of self defence as there was Do deal with that section first. Before he did evidence whatever that the prisoner was on his so, however, it would be as woll to point out defenos. If the prisoner had been defending that it was for them to find who fired the shot himself that would be another matter. He did which caused the death of the boy; though not think the evidence before them showed such the other sbot which wounded the woman was to have been the case; and as to provocation, no all part of the story which led up to it, it was provocation would justify any man to kill not a matter for them to deal with who fired another. If the provocation had been grievous, that shot, that having nothing to do with the such as to oxcite one to anger and indignation present charge, nor the fact either of the man and make him forget himself for a moment, being wounded. His Lordship proposed to that could probably reduce the crime from go over the evidence rather lightly as so much from murder to manslaughter. In considering of it bad been read to them already and com- this point they must look at the weapon with mented upon. If, however, as he went over it which death was indicted. In this case there some point occurred which the jury desired to was no doubt that the instrument used was a have explained, they must stop him, and he deadly weapon, and in considering whether there would deal with it. His Lordship then went was provocation sufficient to reduce the offence over the whole of the Chinese witnesses; and murder to manslaughter, they must find Johnson's having done so, he remarked that it appeared considerable provocation to do so. consistent on the whole, but, as they had seen, evidence appeared to bear two ways, both for the great discredit had been thrown upon it by the prosecution and for the defence. His statement counsel for the defonce, whilst the Crown that Neilsen was wearing a dark suit toll Advocate had explained to them his views of strongly against the theory of the defence-that the reasons for the difference between it and Neilsen might have been mistaken for the pri that on the depositions taken by the Cousal. sover, and it was also clear from his evidence At least three of them said they saw the prisoner that a shot had been fired by the prisoner himself, fire, and it was for the jury to consider what There was another point also in Johnson's evi- weight was to be attached to that. Two of dence, for he told them that he remonstrated them had also given evidence as to the kind with the prisoner when he was firing, which of weapon used. His Lordship went on to showed he had in his mind the fact that there read the evidence of the foreign witnesses, and was no necessity for it. In many respects they then went briefly over the points which would see that this evidence corresponded with had been raised by the counsel for the proseon- that of the Chinese. His Lordship must confess tion and the defence. Very few questions that on the ground of self defence alone, he could of law were involved in the matter, and it see nothing which would justify the prisoner in was for the jury to deal with questions of fact. firing. As to the question of whether the homi. Still there were presumptions of law which they cide was murder of manslaughter, he would leave would have to bear in mind, and these bad been that to the jury to decide. correctly laid down by the counsel on both sides. They had first to decide upon the evidoneo whether the fatal shot was fired by the prisoner or not, ani if they decided it was, beyond any rea- sonable 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 mast 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 safished the prisoner caused the death of the boy. The jury must cousider, if they were satisüed
The jury then retired to consider their ver. dict, and after an abscence of just under half an hour they returned to court, when in answer to the asual question from the clerk of the Court
The foreman said-Wo find the prisoner guilty of manslaughter.
The Clerk-Is this the verdict of you all ? The foreman-Yos.
The prisoner had throughout maintained an analtered composaro, and when asked whether he bad anything to say why sentence should not be passed upon him, he said quietly"I have nothing."
33
Dis Lordship said-James Henry Logan, you have boen found, after a long and patient in- vestigation, guilty of this very serious crime, sad you may congratulate yourself upon having escaped being found guilty of a still more sori-
30
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.