HARBOR GRACE, 5th May, 1873.
A sad occurrence has taken place at a village by Round Pond, near Spaniards Bay.
A man named Coffee went to his home tipsy on Saturday night, and a quarrel ensued between him and his father-in-law, named Singleton, In which the family of the latter took part.
During the quarrel Coffee stabbed Singleton in the ribs, and then ran out of the house followed by Singleton, who gave him a heavy blow on the bead with a stick, and felled him.
Singleton’s two sons then kicked Coffee on the body till he became speechless, tied him with rope and left him exposed to the cold all night. He was found by the Police on Sunday morning and removed to the station house, where he died last evening. Singleton’s wounds are said to be dangerous. The parties concerned are in custody.
Opening of the Supreme Court yesterday (Tuesday) being the 20th instant, the Spring Term of the Supreme Court was opened by the Chief Justice (Sir H. W. Hoyles) and Assistant Justices Robinson and Hayward. Their lordships took their seats on the Bench at noon, when the Grand Jury panel was called to order, and a Jury empanelled for the present term, of which Thomas Clift, Esq., was chosen foreman. Being duly sworn, the Jury were then addressed by the Chief Justice to the following effect:
There were as yet but two cases to be brought under their consideration during the present term, in both of which however, the charges were of a serious character. One was against various parties belonging to the district of Placentia, who as were charged with robbing and plundering a vessel in that district during the month of February last. In this case the Attorney General was not at present prepared to send a Bill before them owing to the absence of material witnesses. This case would come under their consideration during the present term, when it, would be quite time enough for him to make further reference to the subject.
The next was a case of Homicide, in which a father and two sons named Singleton, and living in the vicinity of Spaniard’s Bay were charged with having caused the death of a man named Coffee. The causes out of which this unfortunate occurrence arose, appeared to have been of a most lamentable character. It appeared, that the Singleton family which consisted, of the father, two sons and two daughters, lived in the vicinity of Spaniard’s Bay. and that the deceased Coffee, although not married, also lived in the family, upon is terms of peculiar intimacy with one of the daughters. On the Saturday evening in question the deceased was seen by some of the neighbors passing their houses on his way to Singleton’s. He was noticed at the time to be in a state of drunkeness, call in which condition he had been always. of known to have been violent, and was heard by them to make use of threats against those with whom he lived.
It appeared that he arrived at the house, and he upon entering, sat down upon a bench in rather a surly mood, and upon being questioned by the girl with whom he lived, as to what was the matter with him, struck her. A quarrel subsequently arose between him, the old man and the sons. As to where the fault lay, a difference of opinion existed, some attributing the cause of the dispute to Coffee, others to the Singletons. A scuffle however ensued, in which be the old Singleton was stabbed, the fight which commenced in the house was continued outside, and ended by the elder Singleton knocking down Coffee by striking him one or more blows on the head. It appeared from the depositions that the brothers Singleton tied Coffee hand and foot where he lay, and left him exposed to the cold and frost of a winter’s night. He was subsequently covered it was true, by be the women, but he did not appear to have he stirred afterwards. In the morning the family sent for the police who arrived, and removed Coffee who however died during the day. Such was the miserable narrative of a crime, which had resulted from a quarrel, arising from excessive indulgence in intoxicating liquors, unfortunately the too fruitful cause of so many evils.
Looking also at the great moral depravity existing in the family, it was not to be wondered at, that such awful results had followed in its train; but at the same time. it was to be regretted that such families were to be found amongst us. The indictment which was to be submitted for their consideration charged the parties with manslaughter, in taking the life of the deceased. There could be no question that under the circumstances, which would be brought before them, the charge of manslaughter at least, could be sustained.. The fact for their determination therefore was as to whether the parties accused, had been the cause of the death of the deceased and in that event it would be the duty of the Jury to find a True Bill against them.
They would also have to investigate and determine, as to whether death had been caused by the violence of one or two of the parties, The medical evidence went to show that death had resulted from injuries to the head and neck, and in the attack in which those injuries had resulted, each individual was not alone accountable for his own acts, but also for those of others engaged with him in the one common object. If, however as was stated, one of the parties came up subsequently and struck and kicked the deceased he was only responsible for the after consequences, but was not responsible for those of the original affray, and which were the causes of death.
In the examination of the various witnesses a different state of facts might be elicited as he at present only spoke from the depositions which had been laid before him. The question for them to decide was, if death had resulted from the action of one, or of any, of the parties accused, and to find a True Bill in accordance with the evidence elicited.
The Jury then about half past twelve retired, the various witnesses for the Crown were called and sworn, and the Jury having proceeded with their exmanination returned into Court with a true Bill against the parties whose names appeared in the indictment.
During the examination of witnesses by the Grand Jury, the Court proceeded with business, the Petty Jury panel was called over, days were fixed for the trial of several cases, various motions were disposed of and the Court adjourned until Friday next, at eleven o’clock.- Courier, May 21.
The case of the Queen vs. John, Albert and Richard Singleton, charged with the manslaughter of James Coffee at Spaniards Bay in the early part of the present month, was next called. The prisoners in this case, having been placed at the bar, and having severally pleaded “not guilty” were remanded until yesterday. The Court then shortly after ad- Journed until 11 a.m. yesterday, when it again met, and the case of the Queen vs. John, Albert and Richard Singleton was called, and a Jury being empanelled and sworn, the Attorney General opened the case for the Crown; several witnesses were examined on the part of the Crown, and the Court again adjourned about half-past six until eleven to-day.
THE case of the Queen against John, Albert and Richard Singleton, for the manslaughter of James Coffee at Spaniards Bay, in the early part of the present month, terminated on Wednesday last. The witnesses for the Crown, and for the prisoners having been examined, and the Jury. having been addressed by the learned Counsel on both sides, and finally by the Bench, retired about 6 p. m., for the purpose of considering their verdict, and returned into Court, in about three quarters of an hour with a verdict in the eases of John and Albert, of “not guilty” and of “guilty” against Richard Singleton. The prisoner Albert was then ordered to be dischar- ged, John having previously, through want of proof, been liberated, and Richard was remanded for sentence at a future day of the term.