Scene 4 - fifteen minutes later. the errant juror has been found and brought back into court.

Judge: Well, Mr. Gosling. Where have you been? Do you not realise the responsibility that is upon you?

Mr. Gosling: I’m sorry, my Lord. I misunderstood your directions and thought we were done for the day so I took my hat and went back to my inn.

Judge: You have very much inconvenienced this court, but as you seem to have made an honest mistake, I will not fine you, as I had intended to do.

Mr. Gosling: Thank you, my Lord. Very sorry, My Lord.

Judge: Gentlemen of the jury, we have now arrived at the close of this case, which has necessarily occupied a great length of time. It is one of the utmost importance to the interest of the two men at the bar, and of the deepest importance also to the country at large, whose interest it is that every great crime should not go unpunished, but should meet with a fitting penalty. But though that interest is great, it must not be allowed to bias your decision; you must conduct your inquiry in this case with as great impartiality as if the case were of less consequence. The importance of it I only urge in order to bespeak your very grave consideration to the evidence now presented to you.

Both prisoners are charged jointly with this murder. Both were alleged in the indictment, to have fired the pistol loaded with ball; but in order to convict both, it is not necessary for you to be satisfied that both fired. If both were present, going on a joint enterprise, intending to support each others, and one of them fired a deadly weapon, that would make the act of one the act of both. It is also wholly immaterial under the indictment whether the pistol were loaded with ball or with two slugs.

The charge was supported by evidence of a different nature to that by which such offences are usually made out. Murder is not usually proved by an eye-witness, but by those circumstances by which it pleases Providence to cause to follow and lead to the detection of great crimes by circumstantial evidence. That was not so in this case. There was no circumstantial evidence in it likely to lead to the conviction of either of the accused persons.

The case was made out against both by the direct testimony of an accomplice and it was futher made out against one of the prisoners by his own confession. In point of law, every accomplice is a competent witness. There is no objection in point of law to an accomplice being examined as a witness; and the credit due to the testimony of a competent witness is the matter for the consideration of the jury.

Strictly speaking, parties are never convicted on the unsupported testimony of an accomplice; in fact, judges are always in the habit of advising juries, and juries of acting upon that advise that they should not place too much reliance on the unsupported evidence of a man who lent himself to the perpetration of such an atrocious crime as murder, unless there were other  circumstances confirming his testimony, and inducing them to believe that testimony true. 

Not that he has to be confirmed in all particulars, because then his evidence would be of no use; but in such circumstances as would induce the jury to put faith in his evidence.

There had been a difference of opinion amongst some learned judges, as to whether confirmation of a general nature as to circumstances were itself enough, or whether is was not also requisite that there should be comes confirmation in point of practice, with regard to the identity of the person. It appeares to me a reasonable rule to say, “You ought not to give your credit to an accomplice, unless he is confirmed not only with respect to the general circumstances of the case, but also with respect to the persons of the accused.”

The question is whether he told the truth with respect to the individuals charged; and you, in my judgement would be hardly safe in relying on the accomplice doing so, unless he were confirmed with regard to the persons of the accused.

As to Joseph Mosley, the case depended entirely upon the credit you, the jury give to William  Mosley, his brother. William told a story which implicated his brother Joseph as well as Garside, but he also admitted himself to be one of the person concerned in this atrocious murder; and therefore, under the circumstances, there was little to induce anyone to credit him, unless his testimony were supported by that of others.

You will have to take into consideration various circumstances which will  point out to you,  tending to confirm the evidence of William Mosley in respect to his brother; and you would then say you were satisfied in your own consciences that the story told by him was true. If you are, it would be your duty to convict Joseph Mosley; if thou entertained any reasonable doubt as to the truth of this story, of it you disbelieve it - it is your duty to acquit that prisoner.

With respect to James Garside, the case does not depend upon the testimony of the accomplice merely. Independent of his testimony there is a sufficient case for your consideration. Against him there is the evidence of his own confession, made after much deliberation, after much care taken by the very respectable and intelligent magistrate who has been examined in order to put him up on his guard, and prevent him from making a statement under delusive hopes.

After all, he had made statement very much at variance with the leading facts of the story told by the witness William Mosley in the count; but still admitting himself to be a party concurring in the murder.
 
That in point of law, made him a second in point of degree, and as guilty in law as if his hand committed the murder. Therefore this is not the same degree of doubt as to him, as there is to Joseph Mosley. 

You however have to attend to Garside’s account driven upon his confession as contrasted with the evidence of the accomplice. I will point out to you several material points in which the two accounts differed, and you will have to consider whether that circumstances should induce you to disbelieve the accomplice.

And I would hope you would have the goodness to tell me whether in your opinion whether James or Joseph was the person who actually committed the murder.

William Mosley represented the plan of the murder to have been devised by the two prisoners, and that he was let in subsequently and unwillingly. Garside on the contrary in his confession declared that he knew nothing of it till the 3rd of January, and that he was induced to enter into it by the two Mosleys.

Then Garside represented the time at which they were on Marple Bridge as about 4 o’clock in the afternoon while William Mosley represented it as twelve o’clock. In this Mosley was contradicted by another witness, who said it  was about four o’clock. Undoubted on his own evidence, William Mosley is a very atrocious character, and there was little doubt that a man who would commit murder would not hesitate at perjury if he though it for his interest.

Then Mosley said that Garside had the large pistol; Garside on the other hand said that Joseph Mosley produced the large pistol, which Garside described minutely , said it was deeply loaded, and thus endeavored to exonerate himself of the guilt of being the actual hand that fired.

Then again William Mosley said that he changed shoes and cap with Garside at the gravel pit; Garside declared that was no exchange till they got to the plantation, and that then the change of shoes was not with him, but between the two Mosleys.

Then Mosley was confirmed as to the fact of there being three persons together by the evidence of the man, the little girl, and the boy with the lanthorn, whom they met on the road.

William Mossley again stated that his brother and Garside were together when the shot was fired, and he was at a little distance; while Garside said that it was he who was alone, and the two Mosleys who were together.

Mosley has sworn that it as Garside who fired, while Garside declared that it was Joseph Mosley.

The oath Garside represented as having been taken immediately after the murder; and William Mosley stated that it was taken two days after the murder, when the money was paid by Schofield on the bridge at Marple.

After in this way contrasting and collating the evidence, you are to take the confession of Garside only as affecting himself. In this voluntary confession. Garside admitted having participated in the offence, but denied that he was the actual perpetrator. Upon that confession alone, there is enough to convict Garside.  However I will ask you, the jury whether you believe the confession to its full extend or whether or not you are of the opinion that Garside was the hand that actually inflected the mortal wound.

It must also be taken into condsideration that William Mosley did not come forward until he was in jeopardy himself; therefore that made his testimony so far less favorable than the account given by Garside.

All the witnesses had been cross-examined in order to show that they had made the statement which they had given in evidence on the trial, both at the inquest and also before the magistrates at Stockport in the presence of William Mosley, and before he made any statement; so that he might have so shaped his statement as to agree with their evidence.

Considering these things, I expect you to say whether you relied upon Mosley’s testimony. If you did, then both the prisoners must be convicted; because he had sworn against both of them.

Remember that Garside was seen on Sunday at the bridge by the witness Middleton. He was also proved to have met the Mosleys on the Monday at the Bull’s Head. There was the confirmation furnished by his own confession, so far as that he was one of the parties concerned in the murder.

As to Joseph Mosley, he was seen on the Sunday on Marple Bridge; he was seen also by Mary Derbyshire on the Monday evening, going in the direction of the place where the murder was committed; it was in evidence that he met the others the following morning at the Bull’s Head.

Then there are the account Garside gave to Barrett, to Mr. Chorlton and to Captain Clarke of his having been at Chester and Liverpool at the time of the murder; an untrue account, because, according to two witnesses, he was at Marple the day before, the day of and the day after the murder. 

Gentlemen, you will take into your consideration the whole of these facts, and then say whether in your consciences, you believe the story told by the witness, William Mosley. If you believe him, then it will be your painful duty (which however, I am sure you will perform if required) to find both the prisoners guilty.

If you entertain any reasonable doubt as to its truth, in that case you will acquit the prisoner Mosley and find the other prisoner guilty. And you will also have the goodness to say whether you believe that Garside was the hand that committed the murder. 

You will retire now to consider your verdict.