A PROBLEM IN THE LAW OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, IN A LETTER York, 15th March 1842. MY DEAR CHRISTOPHER-A trial for murder occurred here a few days ago, during the spring assizes for this county, which, taken altogether, is, in my opinion, the most remarkable that has been witnessed in this country for many years-little less so, indeed, than that of Eugene Aram; to which it bears, in several respects, a striking resemblance. The more I reflect upon it, the more am I struck with its peculiar interest and difficulty; and I consider it so calculated profitably to exercise the understandings of all clear-headed persons, lay or professional, interested in the administration of justice, and so illustrative of the working of our principles of criminal law, that I have determined to devote my leisure evenings at this place to the task of giving you, and through you the public, a pretty full account of it. That there are in it circumstances of mystery and horror is certain; but I shall reveal no more of them than is necessary for my purpose; for both you and I scout the idea of "ministering to minds diseased" by that degrading appetite for the loathsome details of crime, which certain late publications have engendered in persons of inferior capacity and education. They will find little to interest them in this article; but I hope, and believe, that it will be otherwise with those of your readers who are of a higher order-who may live under, or be acquainted with, other systems of criminal jurisprudence, (say in Scotland, and on the Continent, particularly in France,) with which I shall enable them to compare that of England-and to say how such a case as the present would have been dealt with by their own system. Who, indeed, here or elsewhere, can fail to be profoundly interested on behalf of justice when in quest of a great criminal, and endeavouring, spite of a long lapse of time, to frustrate all his devices for secrecy and concealment; and in ascertaining that neither the innocent has been condemned, nor the guilty acquitted? I shall proceed to enable you to form a judgment on this case for yourself, just as if you had sat beside me in court during the trial-observing the demeanour of the different witnesses and listening to their testimony-with your eyes, too, riveted-at moments of intense and thrilling interest-upon the features of the man standing at the bar, to answer the most dreadful charge on which man can be arraigned before man. Q. Q. Q. IN the summer of the year 1830, there lived at a place called Eagle'scliffe, near Yarm, in the North Riding of Yorkshire, a man of the name of William Huntley. He was one of the VOL. LI. NO. CCCXIX. sons of a respectable farmer who had died about ten years before, leaving behind him a widow and several children, and considerable property to be divided between them; but his will 20 was so imperfect and obscure as to have led to a Chancery suit, in order to determine the true distribution of the property according to his intention -which was, to leave his widow the interest of a certain sum for her life, and considerable legacies to each of his children, payable as they became of age. His son William was, in the year 1830, about thirty-four years of age, and married, but lived apart from his wife, with whom he had quarrelled. Owing to his being so long kept out of his little property, he became a weaver in order to support himself— and was, in fact, in very humble circumstances. In point of personal appearance a matter to which I call your particular attention-he was of middling stature; he had a broad, squat face; his head was very large behind; his forehead a retreating one, with rather a deep indentation between the eyebrows; and he was pitted with the smallpox. But there was one peculiarity in his face-a very promi.. nent tooth on the left side of the under-jaw-which caught every one's eye on first looking at him. It occasioned him to have a sort of " twist of the mouth"-for which he had been always known and ridiculed by his companions, even at school. The solicitor who had the management of the affairs in Chancery was a Mr Garbutt, residing at Yarm, and still living. He had occasionally assisted the family, and, amongst them, William Huntley, by small advances during the time of their being kept out of their property. At length, on Thursday, 22d July 1830-I also beg your attention to dates-Mr Garbutt was enabled to pay over to him the money due under the will; and on that day gave him a sum of L.85, 16s. 4d.-the balance due after deducting the abovementioned advances-in seventeen L.5 bank-notes of the bank of Messrs Backhouse and Company, bankers at Stockton-upon-Tees, and the remainder in silver and copper. He was also entitled to receive other money, which Mr Garbutt had received instructions from him to endeavour to obtain; and I believe that he would have been entitled to a still further sum on his mother's death. As I have already mentioned, Huntley at this time resided at Eagle's-cliffe, but was in the constant habit of coming over to a small village at a few miles' distance, called Hutton-Rudby, where his mother lived, and also an intimate friend of his, one Robert Goldsborough, whose house, on such occasions, he was in the habit of making his own-always passing the night there. Goldsborough was about Huntley's age; was a widower, with a couple of children, and in very destitute circumstances, having even been in the receipt of parish relief down to within a very few months of the period at which this narrative commences. On the day of Huntley's receiving his money, viz. Thursday, the 22d July, he went over to Hutton-Rudby, and stayed there one or two days, principally in company with his friend Goldsborough. There is some reason to believe that Huntley was desirous of preventing two or three creditors of his from knowing that he had received so considerable a sum of money; and also that he had, about the time in question, intimated to one or two persons a wish to go to America. He appears to have gone very frequently to and fro, between Hutton-Rudby and Eagle's-cliffe, during the ensuing week. At an early hour, five o'clock, on the morning of Friday, the 30th July, he was seen coming to Goldsborough's house; again, about three o'clock in the afternoon of that day, walking on the high-road, in company with Goldsborough, and a man named Garbutt; a third time, at eight o'clock in the evening of the same day, sitting in Goldsborough's house; and about ten o'clock that night, he, Goldsborough, and Garbutt, were observed walking together in a cheerful and friendly manner-Goldsborough with a gun in his hand all apparently bending their steps towards Crathorne Wood, which was close by, on a poaching errand. From that moment to the present, Huntley has never once been seen or heard of. The circumstance of his disappearance was noticed as soon as six on the ensuing day, Saturday- and his continued absence rapidly increased the suspicion and alarm of the neighbourhood. A quantity of stale-looking blood being seen on the side of the high-road, on the ensuing Monday morning, very near the spot where he had been last seen walking with Goldsborough and Garbutt-and also a man's recollecting that, between eleven and twelve o'clock on Friday night, he had heard the report of a gun in Crathorne my house, nor at Whitby, nor no- He Some weeks afterwards he went away, and returned in company with a woman, whom he said he had married-and that she had brought him a sum of L.80 for her fortune. On being asked whence he had come, he replied, "from Darlington "—and passed under the name of Robert Towers. This mysterious disappearance of Huntley, connected as it was with the circumstances above related with reference to Goldsborough, gradually ceased to be the subject of gossip and speculation. But it may be askedWhy were not the startling facts of the case made the subject of a formal judicial enquiry? Let me ask another question, however-What proof was there that Huntley had been murdered at all, or that he was even dead? Was it impossible or very improbable-that Goldsborough's account of the matter might be a true one-viz. that Huntley had gone to America, and that Goldsborough was purposely giving contradictory accounts of Huntley's movements, to enable him to elude discovery? There was, in fact, no corpus delicti-the very first step failed. No lawyer, on the above facts only, would feel himself warranted in recommending the prosecution of Goldsborough for murder, with so serious a chance of an acquittal: in which case, he could never have been again tried as the murderer, however conclusive might be evidence subsequently discovered. "However strong and luminous may be the circumstances, the coincidence of which tends to indicate guilt," observes a distinguished writer on the law of evidence, Mr Starkie, "they avail nothing, unless the corpus delicti-the fact that the crime has been actually perpetrated-shall have been first establish ed. So long as the least doubt exists as to the act, there can be no certainty as to the criminal agent." Thus, then, matters rested for a period of eleven years-that is, till the 21st June 1841-when a number of workmen were employed by a respect able farmer, a quaker, named Nellist, in making some alteration in the sides of a stell, i.e. a brook or rivulet, dividing a place called Stokesley from another called Seymour. While one of the labouring men, named Robinson, was engaged in cutting into one of the sides of the stell, at a spot where there was a curve or bend in the stream, called Stokesley Beck, and which was about five miles distant from the spot where Huntley, Garbutt, and Goldsborough had been last seen walking together, after turning up two cattle bones, he discovered one belonging to a human body-a shin bone; and presently, within a space of about a yard and a quarter, "the bones of a Christian," as he expressed it; in fact, a complete skeleton, with the exception of the feet. The head lay at a distance of a yard from the shin bone. Deeming this rather a curious circumstance, he took out the bones very carefully, and laid them out at length on the side of the stell. They had lain at a depth of about three feet from the surface; and had evidently not been deposited there by digging a hole down from the surface, like a grave, but by hollowing out, or digging a hole in the stell-side, and then thrusting in the body, " backside first, and doubled up," to use the words of the witness. The soil was tough and clayey; and the spot lay at a distance of about a hundred yards from the high-road. This stell was, in fact, not an inconsiderable stream, sometimes subject to overflows; and there was a wooden foot-bridge over it, a good way higher up the stream. The skull was removed from the earth very carefully by hand. It was filled with earth, and the lower back part of it appeared to have been broken off. The bones having been thus carefully laid out, on Robinson's master, Mr Nellist, arriving at the spot in the evening, he saw them with not a little surprise; and on looking at the skull and jaw-bone, particularly noticed a long projecting tooth on the left side of the lower jaw. With the exception of two or three, all the teeth were in their sockets, and remained in them till the bones, which had been very damp when first discovered, began to dry, when some of the teeth fell out, and, amongst others, the remarkable and all-important tooth in question. Before this had occurred, however, Mr Nellist took home with him, on the same evening, the skull and jaw-bone, and kept them, together with the loose teeth, in a pail. They were shortly afterwards, but before the prominent tooth in question had dropped out, seen by various persons; several of whom, on noticing the tooth, at once said that the skull was Huntley's, whom they had known. Mr Nellist committed the skull and teeth, a day or two afterwards, to the care of one Gernon, a constable, who put them into a basket; and having heard of the former suspicions against Goldsborough, whom he also ascertained to be then living under another name at Barnsley, set off of his own accord, carrying with him the bones, to take Goldsborough into custody. On the evening of the 23d June, he found Goldsborough sitting in his house alone, without his coat, which hung over a chair back. "I have come," said the constable abruptly, "to take you into custody for the murder of William Huntley, eleven years ago," on which Goldsborough appeared dreadfully agitated. "Look at this," continued the officer, taking ⚫out the shattered skull, and showing it to Goldsborough," and tell me if it isn't the remains of Huntley?" Goldsborough could not look at it, but his eyes wandered round the room; and with increasing trepidation, and bursting. into tears, he exclaimed, "I'm innocent! They may swear my life away if they please, but I never had any clothes, or a watch, [the constable had asked him if he had not a watch belonging to Huntley,] or any thing belonging to Huntley! The last time I ever saw him was on Thursday !" The constable then took him into custody, but released him the next morning, considering the evidence against him not sufficient to warrant his detention, especially as he had arrested Goldsborough on his own responsibility only. The whole matter was soon, however, brought under the notice of the magistrates, and steps were taken at once to obtain any evidence that might throw light on this longhidden transaction:-a reward of one hundred pounds being offered, in the usual terms, to any one who should give such evidence as would lead to the discovery and conviction of the murderer of William Huntley. Shortly afterwards a man of the name of Thomas Groundy was heard making such observations as led to his being taken into custody, and on the 10th of August Goldsborough also was again arrested-having continued ever since in the same house in which he had formerly been seized, at Barnsley—on the charge of having murdered William Huntley; Thomas Groundy being charged as an accessary after the fact. The magistrates having heard all the evidence which had been collected, were of opinion that it was expedient for the ends of justice to permit Groun dy to turn king's evidence, as it is called-i. e. to be relieved from the charge against himself, in order to give evidence impeaching his fellowprisoner. That was done; and the following is a verbatim copy of his deposition-every syllable of which is worthy of notice, in consequence of an extraordinary circumstance which occurred shortly after it had been taken : "Thomas Groundy, being charged before us as an accessary after the fact to the murder by Robert Goldsborough of William Huntley, and being, after the hearing of all the evidence on the part of the prosecution, in the exercise of our discretion, admitted by us at this stage of the proceedings to give evidence against the said Robert Goldsborough, on his oath, saith "On the Wednesday after William Huntley was missing, Robert Goldsborough came to me, and asked me if I would help him with a bag to Stokesley- he was going to America; and I told him I would go, and we went by Neville's hind-house, and then we kept no road, and we went down to yon wood beside the stone bridge. He took me to a bag which was laid upon the ground in the wood, and I laid hold of it, and I found like a man's head, and I asked him what it was- -and he stopped about five minutes before he spoke, and he then said— It is a bad job, it is Huntleyas he was waiving (qu. walking) by me, I shot him.' Then I fell frightened, and wanted to go home, and Goldsborough said- If you mention it, I'll give you as much.' And I said I would not mention it, and I wanted to make off, and I made off. the body was in the wood, within two or three hundred yards from the bridge. It is quite a lonely place. It was a rough place in the wood. Goldsborough never said any thing more to me about it, and I was frightened, and durst not mention it to him. It was about hay-time. knew William Huntley. He had a long tooth, and used to twist his mouth."-Sworn, &c., 14th August 1841. That "The mark of "THOMAS +GROUNDY." I Two or three hours afterwards, Groundy hanged himself!-He had been placed in a room in York Castle, only to await the arrival of his sureties, who were to be bound with him for his appearance to give evidence at the trial, and had not been left above half an hour before he was found suspended by his neckerchief and |