The Kirwan case : illustrating the danger of conviction on circumstantial evidence, and the necessity of granting new trials in criminal cases.

Date:
1853
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: The Kirwan case : illustrating the danger of conviction on circumstantial evidence, and the necessity of granting new trials in criminal cases. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by The Royal College of Surgeons of England. The original may be consulted at The Royal College of Surgeons of England.

    12/122 (page 12)
    much is disproved, and in some cases the circum- stances almost amount to a positive proof of his innocence. And, first, we would remark generally, that perhaps no more dangerous practice could exist in criminal cases, than instituting a necessary connexion between a man’s general habits of life, however culpable, and any particular act attributed to him.* Judge Crarnpton informed the jury that there was no such connexion between the previous character of the pri- soner, and his liability to the present charge ; nor would we dwell upon the subject, were it not that the admitted profligacy of the accused too evidently formed the basis of the prosecution—the engine by which light and vague suspicion was compressed into a substantial evidence for crime. Connected with this, the prosecution rested mainly [solely] on two facts ; that the connexion with the woman Kenny was known to Mrs. Kirwan only six months previously ; and that she was subject to habitual ill-treatment from her husband. The first, and the most important (as peculiarly furnishing a motive for the deed,) is un- supported by evidence. The second depends on the testimony of the woman Campbell. Contrast this with her sworn informations before Major Brownrigg, “ that she never knew them to differ but on one occasion ; that they then had high words, but she did not Jmow ivhat the quarrel was about, and that on all other occasions they lived as happily as any couple could.” This, per- * In the case of the Queen, versus Andrew Taggarty, tried before Chief Baron Bigot, at the Spring Assizes in Domipatrick, 1851, where the prisoner was arraigned for poisoning his wife, counsel for the prosecution otTcred in evidence the fact of concubinage with another woman ; after a long argument, the Coiu-t did not allow tlic evidence to go to the jury.