It is very hard to understand a genuine British jury.
On ednesday Mr. R. Debenham, the surgeon who shot a ship's penter for stumbling when blind drunk into his premises, was before the Chief Baron on a charge of manslaughter. It was ved that the slain man had no evil design, that Mr. Debenham an assistant standing by his side, that he challenged the poor ..ornkard, that receiving no answer he fired, and that the ball rebounding from the wall killed the intruder. The judge pointed out most distinctly that only danger to life or limb could justify one man.in killing another, and hinted that even had Mr. Debenham only intended to frighten some discretion should have been shown. The jury, however, with that horror of possible burglars which with some classes in London amounts to a mania, insisted that the surgeon only intended to frighten the man, and that he had shown sufficient discretion, and acquitted him. Mr. Debenham was ably defended, his counsel, with a rare knowledge of English nature, bringing out the totally irrelevant fact that deceased had two wives and a mistress all at the same time. A respectable taxpayer on one side, and a dis- reputable debauches on the other, the jury could not hesitate, and accordingly decided that for a man of bad character to be drunk on a stranger's premises deserves a sentence of death. If one of the wives will bring a civil action against Mr. Debenham for damage to her produced by her husband's death, we shall probably hear of a very different verdict.
Previous page
