Hide Article Text (OCR)
The Esher murder case was tried at Guildford on Wednesday. Mary Anne Brough was charged with murdering her six children. She pleaded ‘not guilty,” in a firm tone, and she appeared quite unconcerned throughout the proceedings. The greater part of the evidence for the prosecution was that given at the coroner’s inquest. There was no doubt that the mother killed her children, and then cut her own throat ; and she herself clearly told the whole story to the police. The question for the jury to decide was her moral responsibility at the time of the murders. The witnesses deposed that she had been an affectionate mother. On the other hand, some evidence was ad duced showing that she had deeply resented her hus band’s desertion of her after he discovered her improper conduct with another man. ‘Three days after the slaughter, according to Policeman Collett, “the pri soner said she wished her daughter Mary had come ; and she told me to take a box from under the bed ; and I did so, and found it contained plate and jewellery. On the top of the box there was a piece of paper, and when I took this up the prisoner said, ‘I thought not of doing it until Friday night” The paper was as fol lows:—“ All for my daughter Mary. If her father is only seeking to get money from them as never injured him, or done him any harm; so help me God, Mary Anne Brough.” To Sarah Waller the accused said that her husband had left her without money ; and he was going to take the children from her, and she meant he should not do so. A year and a half ago, she had an epileptic fit; she lost the use of one side, and could not speak distinctly ; she complained of her head; she had been seen to laugh in a silly manner. Mr. James, for the defence, urged that the unhappy mother had killed her children, and attempted to kill herself, while in a state of frenzy. Mr. Izod, a surgeon who attended Mrs. Brough, was called to prove the alteration in her mind after the fit: he observed symp toms of a disordered brain; he had counselled her to avoid excitement, three days before the murders he had so cautioned her. Dr. Forbes Winslow, Dr. Daniel, and Dr. Engledue, all expressed a belief that the murders had been committed while the prisoner was suffering from a temporary insanity—a homicidal and suicidal impulse beyond her control. At the pre sent moment she was suffering from disease of the brain. In summing up, Mr. Justice Erle cautioned the jury, that the plea of ‘uncontrollable impulse” in thar of conviction was a dangerous one, and required to be well weighed, for every crime was committed under some impulse. If the jury should be of opinion that, owing to the unfortunate relation in which she stood with her husband at the time, the prisoner was in duced to meditate the commission of some act of violence either towards herself or others, and that this created an excited condition, which, operating upon her brain in its diseased condition, drove her to a state of temporary insanity, during which she committed the act with which she was charged, he was bound to tell them that this would not excuse her from the con sequences, and it would be their duty to find her guilty of the crime of wilful murder. The jury consulted for two hours, and then returned a verdict of ‘not guilty,” on the ground of insanity, with Lieutenant Shervinton. Perry says that what he did was ‘merely meant as a joke,” ‘an unthinking boyish trick,” for which he had apologized to Lieu tenant Shervirton and Major Fyffe. Colonel Garrett was not satisfied with this—believing the contempt to have been ‘designed, wilful, and premeditated ,” and called for statements other than those of Lieutenant Perry; ‘whose acts,” he added, “were a tissue of opposition to the authority of the commanding officer, and could not be allowed to pass.” Perry wrote to Shervinton, calling upon him to state his belief as to the intention with which the gesture was performed. Shervinton replied— I have to acquaint you, that the opinion I gave, when reporting the circumstance, remains unaltered, namely, that you acted in a thoughtless and inconsiderate manner, without the most distant intention of showing contempt for au thority or committing a breach of discipline.’ Al though unconvinced, Colonel Garrett did not press the court-martial, as Major Fyffe was willing to accept the apology. As an illustration of Lieutenant Perry's impertinent familiarity, Captain Campbell said he had called him ‘ Colin,” his Christian name, and he did not wish to be called so by Perry. But it was shown that this only occurred once. At the re-assembling of the court on Monday, having adjourned from Wednesday, the prisoner called Captain Corcoran and Captain Chambers, and their evidence was favourable to his general character, and indirectly affirmative of the alleged insults received by him from Colonel Gar rett. It is understood that, practically, Lieutenant Perry has been acquitted of the charge brought against him on the first court-martial. It appears that for mally he was found guilty of the charge, and sen tenced to be dismissed from the service, but unani mously recommended to lenient consideration on account of the great provocation he had received. However, the Judge Advocate-General, on perusing the evidence, found that certain questions had been put which ought to have been rejected, and certain evidence refused which ought to have been taken: he therefore recommended the Queen not to confirm the sentence. Both Greer and Perry are now at large on parole.
Newspaper Details
Nonconformist
London, Middlesex, GB
Wed, Aug 16, 1854
Page 24
Full Page
Clipped by
Mallary S.
