HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.slavery/ssactsengr0529 and id is 1 raw text is: 388
THE KING V. EDWARD OWEN
2 LEACH 57L
the said Samuel Burne Cowie from and out of the said sloop called the ' Eolus,' into
the high seas there, by means of which said casting and throwing of him the said
Samuel Burne Cowie from and out of the said sloop into the high seas aforesaid, he
the said Samuel Burne Cowie in and with the waters thereof, upon the high seas
aforesaid, within, &c. was suffocated and drowned, of which said suffocation and
drowning he the said Samuel Burne Cowie did then and there instantly die ; and
so the Jurors aforesaid, &c. say that the said George Hindmarsh, him the said Samuel
Burne Cowie, in manner and by the means aforesaid, then and there, upon the high
seas, &c. feloniously, wilfully, and of his malice aforethought, did kill and murder,
against the peace, &c.
It appeared in evidence that Samuel Burne Cowie, the deceased, was commander
of the Eolus, a small vessel, employed in the Slave Trade, and on board which
Hindmarsh, the prisoner, and Andrew Spears, Giles Creed, and Henry Atkins, the
witnesses, were mariners ; that the prisoner proposed to Henry Atkins to kill the
captain ; that the witness, Spears, was alarmed in his sleep during the dead of the
night of the 28th October 1791, by a violent noise ; and on getting out of his hammock
and going upon the deck, he observed the prisoner take the captain up and throw him
overboard into the sea, and that he was not seen or heard of afterwards ; [571] but
that near the place, on the deck where the captain was seen, Giles Creed, the other
witness, found a billet of wood ; and that the deck, and part of the prisoner's dress
were stained with blood.
Garrow, for the prisoner, contended, that on this evidence the prisoner was
entitled to be acquitted ; for it was not proved that the Captain was dead, and as
there were many ships and vessels near the place where the transaction was alleged
to have taken place, the probability was that he was taken up by some of them, and
was then alive. He cited the passage in 2 Hale, P. C. 290, where his Lordship says,
I would never convict any person of murder or manslaughter, unless the fact were
proved to be done, or at least the body found dead, and he mentioned a remark-
able case which had happened before Mr. Justice Gould. The case was this. The
mother and reputed father of a bastard child were observed to take the child to the
margin of the dock at Liverpool, and, after stripping it, cast it into the dock. The
body of the infant was not afterwards seen ; and as the tide of the sea flowed and re-
flowed into and out of the dock, the learned Judge who tried the father and mother
for the murder of their child, observed, that it was possible that the tide might have
carried out the living infant ; and on this ground the Jury, by his direction, acquitted
the prisoners.
The Court, which consisted of Sir James Marriott, Judge of the Admiralty, Mr.
Justice Ashhurst, Mr. Baron Hotham, and several Doctors of Civil Law, admitted the
general rule of law.
Mr. Justice Ashhurst, who tried the prisoner, left it to the Jury upon the evidence
to say, whether the deceased was not killed before his body was cast into the sea.
The Jury found the prisoner Guilty, declaring that they were of opinion that the
deceased was killed by a beating before he was cast into the sea.
The Court passed sentence of death, pursuant to the statute 25 Geo. Ii. c. 37,
but ordered execution to be res-[572]-pited; and the case was mentioned to all
the Judges at Serjeants'-Inn-Hall, on the first day of the ensuing Term, and they
unanimously approved of the conviction.
The prisoner was executed at Execution Dock.
CASE CCLVI.
THE KINcG v. EDWARD OWEN.
(Money feloniously obtaincd from a person by the practice of ring-dropping, although
it is so obtained in the dwelling-house of another, is not a capital offence within
the statute 12 Ann. c. 7. S. C. 2 East, P. C. 645. See Rex v. Campbell, ante,
p. 564, case 253.)
At the Old Bailey in July Session 1792, Edward Owen was tried before Mr. Justice
Buller, present Mr. Justice Wilson, on an indictment which charged, That he,
together with one John James, on the 28th June, in the 32d year of George the Third,
one hundred and five pieces of gold coin called guineas, of the value of £110, 5s. of
the proper monies of John Pratt, John Watts, and Matthew Lowdoun, in the dwelling-](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0529&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)