CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURTDec. 13, 14, and 15,1887. (Before STEPHEN, J.) REG. v. SERNé AND ANOTHER * |
|
Murder-Death caused by art known to be dangerous to life Qualification of rule as to death caused by act done in committing a felony-Arson resulting loss of life. |
|
THE prisoners Leon Serné and John Henry Goldfinch were indicted for the murder of a boy, Sjaak Serné the son of the prisoner Leon Serné, it being alleged that they wilfully set on fire a house and shop, No. 274, Strand, London, by which act the death of the boy had been caused.
It appeared that the prisoner Serné with his wife, two daughters and two sons, were living at the house in question; and that Serné at the time he was living there, in Midsummer, 1887, was in a state of pecuniary embarrassment, and had put into the premises furniture and other goods of but very little value, which at the time of the fire were not of greater value than 301. It also appeared that previously to the fire the prisoner Serné had insured the life of the boy Sjaak Serné who was imbecile, and on the 1st day of September, 1887, had insured his stock at 274, Strand, for 5001., his furniture for 1001., and his rent for another 1001. ; and that on the 17th of the same month the premises were burnt down.
Evidence was given on behalf of the prosecution that fires were seen breaking out in several parts of the premises at the same time, soon after the prisoners had been seen in the shop together; two fires being in the lower part of the house and two above, on the floor whence escape could be made on to the roof of the adjoining house, and in which part were the prisoners and the wife and two daughters of Serné who escaped. That on the premises were a quantity of tissue transparencies for advertising purposes, which were of a moat inflammable character; and that on the site of one of the fires was found a great quantity of these transparencies close to other inflammable materials. That
the prisoner Serné his wife and daughters, were rescued from
the roof of the adjoining house, the other prisoner being rescued
from a window in the front of the house, but that the boys were
burnt to death, the body of the one being found on the floor
near the window from which the prisoner Serné his wife and
Death caused daughters, had escaped, the body of the other being found at the
to be dangerous basement of the premises. Poland (with him C. Mathews) for the prosecution. Geoghegan (with him Lawless) for the prisoner Serné. Forest Fulton (with him Hutton and Bodkin) for the prisoner Goldfinch. STEPHEN J.-Gentlemen; it is now my duty to direct your attention to the law and the facts into which you have to inquire. The two prisoners are indicted for the wilful murder of the boy Sjaak Serné, a lad of about fourteen years of age; and it is necessary that I should explain to you, to a certain extent, the law of England with regard to the crime of wilful murder inasmuch as you have heard something said about constructive murder. Now that phrase, gentlemen, has no legal meaning whatever. There was wilful murder according to the plain meaning of the term, or there was no murder at all in the present case. The definition of murder is unlawful homicide with malice aforethought; and the words malice aforethought are technical. You must not, therefore, construe them or suppose that they can be construed by ordinary rules of language. The words have to be construed according to a long series of decided cases, which have given them meanings different from those which might be supposed. One of those meanings is, the killing of another person by an act done with an intent to commit a felony. Another meaning is, an act done with the knowledge that the act will probably cause the death of some person. Now it is such an act as the last which is alleged to have been done in this case; and if you think that either or both of these men in the dock killed this boy, either by an act done with intent to commit a felony, that is to say, the setting of the house on fire in order to cheat the insurance company, or by conduct which; to their knowledge, was likely to cause death, and was therefore eminently dangerous in itself in either of these cases the prisoners are guilty of wilful murder in the plain meaning of the word. I will say a word or two upon one part of this definition, because it is capable of being applied very harshly in certain cases, and also because, though I take the law as I find it, I very much doubt whether the definition which I have given, although it is the common definition, is not somewhat too wide. Now when it is said that murder means killing a man by an act done in the commission of a felony, the mere words cover a case like this, that is to say, a case where a man gives another a push with an intention of stealing his watch, and the person so pushed, having a weak heart, or some other internal disorder, dies. To take another very old illustration, it was said that if a man shot at a fowl with intent to steal it, and accidentally killed a man, he was to be accounted guilty of murder, because the act was done in the commission of a felony. I very much doubt, however, whether that is really the law, or whether the court for the Consideration of Crown Cases Reserved would hold it to be so. The present however, is not such as I have cited, nor anything like them. In my opinion the definition of the law which makes it murder to kill by an act done in the commission of a felony might and ought be narrowed, whilst that part of the law under which the fication Crown in this case claim to have proved a case of murder is maintained. I think that instead of saving that any act done with intent to commit a felony and which causes death amounts to murder, it would be reasonable to say that any act known to be dangerous to life, and likely in itself to cause death done for the purpose of committing a felony which caused death, should be murder. As an illustration of this, suppose that a man, intending to commit a rape upon a woman, but without the least wish to kill her, squeezed her by the throat to overpower her, and in so doing killed her, that would be murder. I think that everyone would say in a case like that, that when a person began doing wicked acts for his own base purposes, he risked his own life as well as that of others. That kind of crime does not differ in any serious degree from one committed by using a deadly weapon, such as a bludgeon, a pistol, or a knife. If a man once begins attacking the human body in such a way, he must take the consequences if he goes further than he intended when he began. That I take to be the true meaning of the law on the subject. In the present case, gentlemen, you have a man sleeping in a house with his wife, his two daughters, his two sons, and a servant, and you are asked to believe that this man, with all these people under his protection, deliberately set fire to the house in three or four different places, and thereby burnt two of them to death. It is alleged that he arranged matters in such a way that any person of the most common intelligence must have known perfectly well that be was placing all those people in deadly risk. It appears to me that it' that were really done, it matters very little indeed whether the prisoners hoped the people would escape or whether they did not. It' a person chose, for some wicked purpose of his own to sink a boat at sea, and thereby caused the deaths of the occupants, it matters nothing whether at the time of committing the act he hoped that the people would be picked up by a passing vessel. He is as much guilty of murder, if the people are drowned, as if he had flung every person into the water with his own hand. Therefore, gentlemen, if Serné and Goldfinch set fire to this house when the family were in it, and if the boys were by that act stifled or burnt to death, then the prisoners are as much guilty of murder as if they had stabbed the children. I will also add, for my own part, that 1 think in so saying the law of England lays down a rule of broad, plain, common sense. Treat a murderer how you will, award him what punishment you choose, it is your duty, gentlemen, if you think him really guilty of murder, to say so. That is the law of the land, and I have no doubt in my mind with regard to it. There was a case tried in this court which you will no doubt remember, and which will illustrate my meaning. It was the Clerkenwell explosion case in 1868, when a man named Barrett was charged with causing the death of several persons by au explosion which was intended to release one or two men from custody; and I am sure that no one can say truly that Barrett was not justly hanged. 
The Strand, London (UK) early 20th century Verdict, Not guilty. * Reported by R. CUNNINGHAM GLEN, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. |
|
Naar aanleiding van een aantal juridische pagina's op het internet
over 'de zaak Serné' ben ik eens gaan zoeken naar de letterlijke tekst van
deze uitspraak. Gelukkig is er een jurist in de familie: Ken Serné uit Canada. Hij
heeft uiteindelijk deze informatie opgezocht.
>> Handel en wandel van Leon Serné in Nederland |
|
|