§ Viscount Melbournewas desirous of taking an early opportunity of making a statement to the House, with respect to a petition which had been presented by the noble and learned Lord (Brougham) on a former evening, and in which the petitioners stated their great surprise that a convict named Dale William Thompson, who had been committed to prison some time previously for a very serious burglary, should have been released from prison without any apparent reason, while three other persons convicted for the same offence were suffering under the severe sentence of transportation. The circumstances of the case, which were somewhat singular, were as follow:—The burglary was committed in the month of April, 1837. The first two persons apprehended for the burglary were tried at the summer assizes, and convicted upon the clearest evidence. The third person, who was supposed to be the most active accomplice, 839 was not arrested for some months after, and was tried at the spring assizes, and convicted. Dale William Thompson was also convicted, but upon his trial very strong evidence of an alibi was adduced in testimony of his having been at Wands-worth, twenty-nine miles from the place where the burglary was committed, upon the night in question. But the evidence for the prosecution appeared so clear that he was convicted; and the Lord Chief Justice was completely satisfied with the verdict. After the trial, however, still stronger evidence of the alibi was produced, and this had the effect of shaking the opinion of the Lord Chief Justice. That functionary took the precaution of inspecting the depositions at the trials of the men who had been convicted at the previous summer assizes. From these depositions he found to his surprise, that although in them the whole of the witnesses fixed the night of the burglary between Saturday, the 8th, and Sunday, the 9th of April, the witnesses who deposed in Thompson's case in the August following fixed it upon Saturday, the 1st of April. This was no uncommon species of forgetfulness among witnesses of that class of life. Such being the case, Thompson was to be considered, for the purposes of the present discussion, as not having been guilty at all of the alleged burglary. He certainly was not guilty of the burglary on the night of the 1st of April; and the alibi might have been, therefore, fairly made out. Had the fact been made known to the jury, they would have probably found a different verdict. Their Lordships would feel the force of the opinion thus advanced by that learned judge. The circumstance was altogether an unfortunate one, and there was every reason to believe that a great criminal had escaped from justice by means of this error; but the circumstances were, he trusted, fully sufficient to authorize the Lord Chief Justice to order the prisoner's release.
Lord Broughamsaid, that nothing could be more satisfactory than the statement of the noble Viscount; but it was not correct in the Chief Justice to say, that Thompson was not really tried for the offence committed on the night of the 8th of April. If he were put upon his trial again, he could undoubtedly plead autrefois convicte. In an English indictment the day was perfectly immaterial. He quite agreed with the Lord Chief Justice that in the circum- 840 stances of this case no man could tell what effect a disclosure of the mistake committed by the witnesses might have had upon the minds of the jury.
§ Subject dropped.