Martinsburg Gazette And Public Advertiser

Witness dying in Court.—A question arose in the case of which we subjoin a brief report below, from a Dublin paper, which is of a novel character. It strikes us that the accused ought not to have been convicted, unless the other testimony was sufficient to establish their guilt, rejecting altogether that of the dying witness.

Kilkenny, March 10—Yesterday, Laurence Doolan was convicted of a burglary and attempt to possess himself, with others of the White Feet Faction, of two pistols, and also with administering unlawful oaths to John Manning, his wife, and daughter, in January last. The witness, John Manning, had been for some time labouring under a fatal disease; his appearance was frightful and death-like: he was brought in on an arm chair, wrapped in flannels; while on the table his feet were warmed by heating irons; he was also supplied with a little wine. This wretched man gave his testimony with some degree of impatience, but distinctly identified the prisoner at the bar as one of those who, on the night laid in the indictment, entered his dwelling in search of two pistols he knew him to possess, dragged him into the fire, which he partly scattered about the house, by which his feet were injured. The prisoner's counsel proceeded to cross examine him, with a view of impeaching the validity of his testimony. He was asked if he had not formerly called himself by another name; he denied it; the questions were pressed; he began to sink, although supplied with wine; he fell back in the chair; his eyes were fixed; medical gentlemen were called; Surgeon Peile and another medical practitioner were sent for.

The wife and daughter of the dying man fully sustained the case of the crown.

On the arrival of the professional gentlemen, they swore that old Manning was literally dying; that he may not live two hours; while on the table the hue of death spread over him. He was removed almost lifeless, and expired in a short time afterwards.

Prisoner's counsel claimed an acquittal, on the ground having been thus, by the interposition of Providence, denied, for the defendant, the advantage of his cross examination.

Mr. Scott, K. C, argued on the other side, citing precedents; particularly a case ruled by Sir Anthony Hart.

The Judge charged the Jury, observing that if a verdict were found, the decision of the twelve Judges may be had on this point.

The Jury immediately found a verdict of Guilty!