THE
SIFTON MURDER
AN interesting murder case was tried last month at the assizes held at London, Ontario, Canada. The jury disagreed on their verdict, nine being for a conviction against three. The facts were these: One morning at the end of June last year, the deceased, Joseph Sifton, left his home in good health, to go to a barn on his farm; half an hour afterwards he was lying outside the barn, dying, from the effects of wounds on the head, a blood-stained axe lying near him. The deceased man never regained consciousness, and died a few hours after wards. The only persons with him at the time of the accident, or crime, as the case may be, were his son Gerald Sifton, and a young man named Herbert. The story of both of them then was that the deceased had fallen from a beam in front of the barn, and in so doing had injured his head by falling on an axe which he had been using just before the fall. The medical man, who was at once called in, certified that the cause of death was accident, and no inquest was then held, and the old man was buried. A few days afterwards rumors spread that there had been foul play; a man named Martin stated that Gerald Sifton had tried to bribe him to help to murder the deceased, and to aid him, the son, in passing off the death as an accident. The old man was to have been married that morning to a young woman who had previously been engaged to be married to Martin. An inquest was held, the body was exhumed, and Gerald and Herbert charged with murder, and com mitted for trial. Meanwhile, Herbert made a confession that he had joined with the son Gerald in murdering the deceased, by striking him on the head with the axe in the barn, and throwing him down, and that after the fall, further blows on the head were inflicted with the axe; and that he had been
CASE.
bribed by Gerald to assist in the crime, and to swear that the death was accidental. Both Gerald and Herbert were indicted for murder at the last spring assizes, and tried separately, . when Herbert pleaded guilty, and his sentence was postponed. The trial of Gerald was then postponed on the ground of the absence of a witness whose evidence was thought to be material. In the meantime civil proceedings were taken to test the validity of a will put forward by another man, a relative of Martin, which will was found to be a forgery. At the trial the principal witness for the Crown was Herbert, who repeated the story of his confession; and he was the only wit ness, indeed, the only possible witness of the fact. The doctor who attended the deceased up to his death could not swear that the death might not have been caused by accident. Other medical men called by the Crown were positive, from the appearances sworn to by those who performed the post-mortem examination, that the death could not have been the result of accident. Other circum stantial evidence was put in by the Crown tending to corroborate Herbert's confession. The motive assigned by the Crown for the murder was that the old man's marriage would have materially altered Gerald's position as expectant heir, and presumptive sole legatee, he being the only child. The evidence on behalf of the prisoner consisted mainly of medical witnesses, who testified that the appearance presented by the skull of the deceased, as deposed to by the medical men who made the autopsy, were inconsistent with Herbert's story of repeated violent blows, but were not inconsistent with an accidental fall from the barn. When a final verdict comes to be giver. we shall hope to give our readers a full account of this most remarkable case.
