[attempted murder – jury, conflicting verdicts - man of colour]

R. v. Samuel

Supreme Court of Van Diemen’s Land

Montagu J., 4 March 1834

Source: Colonial Times, 11 March 1834

            A man of colour, named Samuel, was placed at the bar, charged with stabbing and cutting Mr. Richard Newman, the Chief Constable, at Port Arthur, on the left cheek, with a knife.

            Richard Newman examined. - Is Chief Constable at Port Arthur; the prisoner, on the 12th February last, was taken by witness before the Commandant, for absconding from that settlement. On attempting to convey the prisoner from the Commandant’s office, he, the prisoner, struck witness on the left cheek with a knife; the wound was about three inches long; the knife was immediately wrested from him; witness was taking the prisoner at the time away for punishment, in pursuance of the Magistrate’s sentence.

            Henry Lowe examined. - Is a sergeant in the 21st regiment; saw both the prisoner and the prosecutor on the 12th February last, in the Commandant’s office, at Port Arthur; saw the prisoner strike Mr. Newman, and took the knife from him; the prisoner had been a very short time at Port Arthur; it is contrary to the regulations at that settlement, for prisoners to have in their possession such knives as the one now produced; there was no handle to it.

            This closed the case for the prosecution.

            The prisoner said nothing in his defence.

            His Honor then, in the most impartial manner, summed up the case to the Jury, pointing out to them its peculiarities, inasmuch as the first count of the indictment charged the prisoner with striking the prosecutor with intent to kill him, and of which intention no positive evidence had been adduced. The other counts, His Honor said, must of necessity fail.

            The Jury retired for about a quarter of an hour, and returned a verdict of Guilty on the first count.

            His Honor, after the verdict had been returned, addressed the Jury in the most feeling manner, intimating that he was extremely anxious that they should understand him aright, as to what was necessary to convict the prisoner on the first count of the present indictment. They must, His Honor observed, be perfectly convinced that it was the prisoner’s intention, when he struck the prosecutor, not merely to do him some bodily harm, but actually to kill him. If they, the Jury, were not satisfied that the prisoner intended to go the extreme length of killing the prosecutor, then he was entitled to an acquittal on that count.

            The Jury then retired for a few minutes to re-consider their verdict, and on returning into Court gave a verdict directly opposite to their first - namely, that the prisoner was Not Guilty.

            The prisoner was then remanded, in order to be indicted again for the assault, if such should be the desire of the Attorney General.