Mr. Eames for the prosecution; Mr. Wainewright for the defence.
His Hoxour o: ened the proceedings by reading the orders and notices having reference to the present enquiry. He afterwards called persons to act as Associates in the matter as follows—Messrs. D. C. Jansen, T. B. Langhome, J. C. Chalmers, and S. S. Gilbert.
Mr. Warxewnicnr objected to Mr. Chalmera, on the ground that he was a juror upon the inquest, and might have formed an opinion on the subject.
His Hoxovr allowed the oh Mr. Chalmers was excused, Mr. T. 0. S. Jenkins taking his place.
Mr. Warxzwnicu.—Am T entitled in this Court to ask the Associntes severally whether they have already formed any opinion on the case?
His Hoxcor.—Yes, do you wish to put the question to them on oath Mr. WarxewniGit.—Not on oath, at least not at first.
Mr. Exstes.—The general practice at home is for the Judge to put it.
His Hoxoun had no objection to Mr. Wainewright putting the question.
Mir. Warszwnicnr then asked the Asso-ointes severally if they had formed or expressed any opinion on the case.
The Assoctarss having replied, Mr. Waisewnicur expressed himself perfectly satisfied, and the Associates were sworn.
His Hoxour then read the indictment against the accused, which was as follow: sue Cover or raz Usire> Srarea CossuLare GeNERAt, SEANOHAt.
Tar Usizen StaTes againt Marre REED.
The United States by their Chiat Consular Offcer in gino one pent that the fvotytinth day of Whierdee thea Tying atthe part of Shanghai, and a ping at te porto with the juriadition of the Cotreafoenl. Matthew Rect, aciten of te United Staten, and an ofoer oF ariher on board of ald ship, aid wilfully, eouionsly, Sod with alice sforethongh, Dest, kick, sist Henry Herby come the crow of i abi apri Head, nec showdom, ide and other parts of he body, with foods, foots and with a lange wooden halyard of Tetleblock, inleting upon the beady eck, shoulder, fide, and other parte of Henry Borgh oumerout mortal wounds whereof he said Henry Borgh then an there immediately die), and that the ead Matthew Reed at the me and piaes and ies foe pane fra alt lulyail Pouoaly fod with malice forethought kil and murder the HTeacy Borgh againat the peace ud dlgaily of the people tha United Staten 'Ana the United States aforesaid upon oath as sforesaid de farther proven, shat. on the 29th September lst, ping at the Port of sangha, and' within the juris.
bod of the sip call the ary Witruge the diction of the Court aforesaid the said. Matthew ced Gla. wiltaly, elonioualy, and with malice afore. Thought beat, Kick, and strike. Henry Borgh, one of the crew ofeaid ship upon la head, neck, shoulders, Side, "and other pata of hin ady and did, thereby cause the aid Heary Borgh to fil upon the of the said ship, and. to strike his head with, great Siolence upon the said deck or pon some hard aube tance tothe 'Chiat Consuiat Olicer of the United States in Chioa'uuknown, cxusiog' and infictng-a oral wound spot the lit of the said Teury Borgh, Thereof the said Henry Borgh thea and. there cisely died, and aid Matthew. Reed at the trine and place, and in the manner aforeed did wilfully, Burer th ieury Weryh Senet the pete and lenity ofthe people of the United State.
lat i the 9th October, 1873, Witueas my hand and the seal of the Consulate-General, \Gtonor F, SEWARD, 8, Consut-Generat Acting Judicial, Mr. Watxewnrcnr—I think it my duty to take objection to the first count of the i dietment. Iam at some disadvantage in doing v0, a8 I have not the necessary reports fof cases in the United States Court which would enable me to do so with of But it is laid down, I believe, that an indictme must show in what part of the body the wound was inflicted, and also the evidence must show that death was caused by a pat ticular blow, described and proved. I mit that the first count alleges wound. It alleges a number of wounds ted by a number of blows on various parts of the body, which, it states, caused death. The deceased received blows on the head, neck, shoulder, according to the i all mortal wounds, from the man died. There is no certainty about it at all, and we are left in perfect ignorance of the particular wound causing death, 1 submit that, according to Volume 2, Wharton's American Grinintl Law, Section 1069, it must be shown precisely in' what part of the boily the wound immediately the cause of death was inflicted, and that the first count of the indictment is, therefore, had.
might state, in the first place, that in Eng-Ar. Kanes snid'that upon this point he land at the present time, it was' not necessary to state the method of killing at all. Tt was quite sufficient to state that the accused killed an murdered, having a previous intent, to and murder, and so forth, This was like-the law in some of the States. In the very work to which the learned counsel for the defence had already referred, they would find page 116, section 1058, that it was the law in Pennsylvania, If the charge was killing by beating, it was not necessary to prove the particular kind of beating, or if by poison, the particular kind st poison. In the present indictment, several distinct wounds had been named, There was a time when it was necessary to describe the length and depth of the wound, and give every particular concerning it, but it was not necessary now. Mr. Eames quoted Ruseell on crimes as regarded law in England, and Wharton as regarded American law? urging that, in face of thie authority cited, Mr. Wainewright's objection must fail on the ground.
Mr. Wamvewricur made his objection solely on the law of the. United States, and not on English law, where he knew the' precision was not necessary.
His Hoxour would take a note of the objection, and asked Mr. Wainewright to hand him it in writing, Mr. Watxewnicur did so, citing as his authority a case State v. Jones, 20 Mo.
Mr. Eases met the objection with the
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.