On this page

• Text (1)

  Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.

  • 

    Untitled Article

• Transcript

  • Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.

    Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.

    Untitled Article

    as well die to-day as tomorrow " After that toim * Amt gcuffle heard , and Tenaxzio suddenly cried out , as -if m pain , My God 1 my God ! " The mother and daughter screame ^ d for help , but by the time the neighbours had arrived with a hgjt , Iaji ^ i run off . Vsnanziq-: w found reeling to and iro , with blood pouring from several wounds , and in spite of . medical aid he dieiTin the course of a few hours . Almost immediately after the commission of the crime Lttigi was found by the gendarmes m the cottage of an uncle , and arrested on the spot . . , . , m ., These as far as I can learn from the very confused documents before me , are all the facts admitted without question , or , more strictly speaking-, which the Government states Jo have been unquestioned . Luigi was arrested on the night ot the murder . The evidence , such as it was , could be ascertained m twenty-four Hours , and yet the prisoner was never brought . to trial toll the 3 rd of May , 1858—that is , eighteen months afterwards . Onthat day Luigi Bonci was arraigned before the Civil and Criminal Court of Perugia , on tlie two counts of parricide , and of having- illegal weapons in his possession . The court was composed of the president , judge , assistant judge , and deputy judge of the district . These gentlemen ( all , I should state , lay officials ) were assisted by the public prosecutor / and the Government counsel for the defence . The course of proceedings is stated to have been as follows : Prayers were first offered up for the Divine guidance . The prisoner was introduced and identified ; the written depositions were read over ; a narrative of the facts was given by the president j the prisoner was called upon to reply to the chai'ges alleged against him ; the witnesses for the crown , and the prisoner were heard respectively ; the counsel for the prosecution called upon the court to condemn the prisoner , and was replied to by the counsel for the defence . The discussion was then declared closed , and after the judges had retired to delibera £ e their sentence was given . ' All the facts I have . been able to put together about the case are gathered from this sentence , and those of the courts of appeal . These sentences , however , are extremely lengthy , very indistinct , : uid encumbered , with a good deal of legal phraseology . ; As they are all ' -alike-, I propose to give an abstract of this present one as a specimen of all . The sentence begins with the following- moral remarks : ?' _ Frequent paternal admonitions , alleged scarcity of daily food ,, and the evil counsels of others , had alienated the heaifc of the prisoner to such aii extent , that feelings of affection and reverence towards his own father Venanzio had given place to contempt , ( lisobedienqe , ill-will , and even worse . No one , however , would have shppQsed that he was capable of becoming a parricide , as was too clearly proved on the fatal night in question . " After these . remarks , comes a narration of the facts , much in the words iii which I have given them . This is followed by a statement of the arguments for the prosecution and the defence , consisting of a number of verbose paragraphs , each beginning " Considering that etc . etc . " The case for the prosecution was clear enough . The medical evidence proved that the father died of the wounds received on the above-named night . The fact that the wounds were isiflicted by the prisoner was established by the evidence of his mother and sister , who overheard the quarrel between him and his father ; by his flight after commission of the crime ; by the discovery of a blood-stained knife dropped on the threshold ; by the deposition of the father before his death ; and lastly , by the confession of the prisoner himself , who admitted the crime , though under extenuating- circumstances . The fact that the sister never heard the knife open , although it had three clasps , was asserted to be evidence that the prisoner entered the room with his lcnife open , intending to commit the crime . This charge of inalice jpreperise was corroborated by the son ' s refusal to answer his father , by the insolence of his language , and by the number and vehemence of the stabs he inflicted . , . The prisoner ' s defence was also very simple . According- to his own story , he was half drunk at his return home . His father not only taunted and threatened him , but at last seijzed the door bar , and began knocking him about the head ; and then , maddened with pain and passion , -lie drew out a knife he had picked up on the road , und stabbed his father , hardly knowing what he did . On -tlio bare statement of tljp facts I should think this story riot im probable , jbut i » s no detail ' s whatever are given of the evidence on either Bide it is impossible to judge The court , at any rate , decided that there was no proof of the prisoner being drunk , and that the evidence of his father having struck him was of a suspicious character , " while , " they add , "it would be absurd and immoral to maintain that a "lather , whose rig-lit and duty it is to correct his children ( nnd indeed on this occasion correction was abundantly deserved by the insolent demeanour of Irciai ) could bo considered to provoke life son by a slight personal chastisement . " The son , however , was over oncanq-twenty ., a fnct to which no allusion is made . As ft forlorn hope , according tothestatomont of the sentpneo , the counsol for the defence asserted , that whatever the crime of the prisoner might bo it was not parricide , ftoin the simple fact that Luigi was not VEtfAWHio ' s son . The facts of the case appear to have been , that Mama Kosa . Rattistoni , being then unmarried , gave birth , in July , 1835 , to a son ,. who was the ' prisoner Luigu ; that shortly afterwards the Vicar of Gannara gave information to the Episcopal Court of Asuisi , that Mawa . Rosa hnd been seduced by VenXnjjio JBonci , and had h . ad an illegitimate child by him ; that , in consequence , a formal demand was addressed by the Court to Venankio , and that he acknowledged the paternity of the child , and expressed his readiness to pnayry the mother . The marriage was therefore solemnized , and the child entered in the church books as the legitimised son of " VjswanSjio " nnd " Mama BoKdi , " in Juno , 1830 . Against this strong

    presumptive evidence of paternity , and the inference to be drawn from the child having been brought up and educated as Venanzio ' s son , there were only to be set alleged expressions of doubt on the father ' s part , as to his being really tlie father * and also certain confessions of the mother , to different patties , that Iahgi was not the child of her husband . All these confessions , however , it is asserted , Were proved to be subsequent in date to the son ' s arrest , and therefore probably made with a view to save his life . This plea is in consequence rejected . No defence was attempted to the second count . Both charges are ^ therefore , declared fully proved ; and as the punishment for parricide is public execution , and the penalty for having in one ' s possession ( a lighter offence by the way than using ) any forbidden weapon , consists of imprisonment from two to twelvemonths , and of a fine of from five to sixty scudi ; therefore the Court " condemns Ltjigi Bonci , for the first count , to Be publicly executed in Cannara , and to make compensation to the heirs of the murdered man , according to the valuation of the Civil Courts , and to . pay the costs of the trial ; and , on the second count , the Court considers the first three months of the incarceration the prisoner has already under gone to be sufficient punishment , coupled with afine of fivescudi and the loss of the weapon . " . , This summary will , I fear , give the reader too favourable an impression of the original sentence . In order to make the story at all intelligible , I have had to pick out my facts from a perfect labyrinth of sentences and parentheses . All I , or any one else , can . state , is that these seem to be the facts which seem to have been proved by the witnesses . What the character of the evidence was , or what was the respective credibility of the witnesses , or how far their assertions were borne out ' or contradicted by circumstantial proofs , are all matters on which ( though the whole character of the crime depends on them ) I can form no judgment . . This trial was concluded on the 3 rd of May , 1858 , and yet the above sentence , it appears , was not communicated to the prisoner tilt the 15 th of October in that year . When the formal announcement of the sentence was made , the prisoner declared his intention of appealing against its justice . By the Papal law every person condemned for a criminal offence has the right of appealing to the Supreme Pontifical Court . It is , therefore , needless to say that m . all cases where the prisoner is sentenced to death , an appeal is made on any ground , however trivial , as the condemned culprit cannot lose and may gain by this step . The practical and obvious objection to this unqualified power of appeal , is that the supreme clerical court is the real judge , r iot , the nominal lay court , which does little more than register the fact that the crime is proved primd facie . ,, ' On the 15 th February , 185 $ , after a delay of four months from the appeal , the Lower Court of the Supreme Tribunal of the Sacred College assembled in Rome to try the case of " Ltriei Bonoi . " The Court was composed of six " most illustrious arid reverend judges , all monsignori and all dignitaries Of the Church , assisted by a public prosecutor and counsel for the defence , attached to the Papal Exchequer . The course of proceedings appears to be much the same as in the inferior court , except that no witnesses save the prisoner were examined orally , and the whole evidence was given by written depositions . At last , haying first invoked the most sacred name of Goi ) , the Court pronounced their sentence . Ihis sentence is in great measure a recapitulation of the preceding one . There were either no new facts adduced , or none are alluded to . The grounds for the defence are the same as on the former occasion , namely , the provocation given by the father , and doubt as to the son ' s paternity . There were , in fact , two questions before the court . First , whether . the crime committed was murder or manslaughter ; and if it was murder , whether the murderer was or was not the son of the murdered man . Instead , however , ot facing either of these questions , the Court seems to enter upon considerations which , to . our notions , are entirely irrelevant . Iho degree to which paternal corrections can be carried without abuse , and the problem whether a man who kills a person whom ho believes and has reason to believe to be his father , but who is not so in fact , is guilty or not of the sin of parricide , seem rathev questions ^ for clerical casuistry than considerations which bear upon facts . The final conclusion drawn from all these reflections , is that the Court confirms the judgment of the Perugian tribunal in every respect . This decision of the Court with respect to the appeal is not communicated for two months more—that is , not till the 22 nd of April- ^ -to the prisoner , who at once appeals against the execution of the verdict to the upper court of the supremo tribunal . On the 13 th of May the case comes on for its third and last hearing . The court is again composed of sjx high clerical dignitaries , assisted by the same qmcwf counsel for the defence and prosecution as before . The same course of proceedings is adopted , except that the prisoner is not introduced into court or examined . Again , after invoking , the most hojy name of God , the tribunal pronounces , not its sentence , put its decision . This verdict alludes only to the two grounds on which the appeal is based . The first is the question of paternity , winch is . at once dismissed as being a matter of evidence which has been already decided . Tho second ground of appeal is a legal and technical one . Ahe do * fence appears to have pleadod that the whole trial was vitiated by the fact that the arrest was on illegal one . On both sides xt was ndmitted that the prisoner wns . arrested without a warrant , and not "inUagvante doliotu , " and that therefore the arrest was , s riot y speaking , illegal . Tho Court , however , decides that , though the prisoner was not taken in the act , yet his . giult was so manifest tliat the police wore justified in noting as if they had caughti I m per- , potrnting the crime ; while in offences of great ritrocity the

    Untitled Article

    Feb . 11 / i 860 . ] The Leaderand Saturday ' Analyst . 143

• Citation
  • Leader (1850-1860), Feb. 11, 1860, page 143, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/l/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2333/page/19/