the house, and on the 15th June, 1773, the family of Mr. Brailsford
having all gone out in search of the means of getting rid of their
unwelcome visitants, she was left alone in the house with the three
officers. She was at work in her own room, when, about mid-day, Leonard
opened the door, and began in a familiar manner to speak to her. Terror
for a while deprived her of utterance; but finding him proceed to take
those liberties which female virtue can never suffer, she resisted,
screamed out, seized the villain by the throat, struggled until she was
exhausted, and then sank down, deprived of reason. In this situation her
assailant used her in the way that constituted the offence for which he
was justly executed.
A neighbour hearing the cries of the distressed female, and suspecting
some foul deed, knocked at the street-door, and inquired the cause of
the noise; to which Leonard, opening the window, replied that it was
only a drunken woman: and the inquirer retired.
The three villains, Leonard, Graves, and Gay, were afterwards indicted
for this cruel outrage: Leonard as the principal, and the others as
accessories to the fact; and upon their trial they were all found
guilty. Graves and Gay were burned in the hand and imprisoned; but
sentence of death was immediately passed upon Leonard.
Although convicted upon the clearest evidence, this obdurate man denied
that he was guilty; and on the Sunday before he suffered, he received
the sacrament from the hands of the Rev. Mr. Temple, and then, in the
most solemn manner, declared to that gentleman that he was entirely
innocent of the fact for which he was to die; that he had been
repeatedly intimate with Miss Boss, with her own consent; and that all
the reason he could conjecture for her prosecuting him was, that he had
communicated this matter to Graves, one of the other followers, who
availed himself of the secret, and found means to get into the young
lady's room, and who really perpetrated the fact with which she had
falsely accused him.
In this story he persisted all the time he remained in Newgate; but Mr.
Temple, suspecting his veracity, delivered a paper to Mr. Toll, another
gentleman who usually administered spiritual comfort to the malefactors
in their last moments, in which he requested him to ask Leonard about
those two assertions before he was turned off.
This request Mr. Toll and his colleague punctually complied with, and
the unhappy man then acknowledged that he had taken the sacrament to an
absolute falsehood; that there was not a word of truth in his impeaching
Miss Boss, but that he alone abused her; that he was taught in Newgate
to believe that the falsehood might do him service; that he found his
mistake too late, and all the atonement he could make was to acknowledge
the truth before he left the world, and to beg pardon of God for having
acted in so atrocious a manner.
He was executed on the 11th August, 1773, at Tyburn.
SAMUEL MALE.
EXECUTED FOR ROBBERY.
The short life of this culprit was remarkable for producing two
surprising instances of the uncertainty of identity.
On the 4th of September, 1772, he was arraigned at the bar of the Old
Bailey for a robbery upon a Mrs. Ryan.
The prosecutrix and other witnesses swore positively that the prisoner
committed the robbery on the 17th of June then last past.
The court consequently supposed conviction would follow; but being
called on for his defence, he said he was innocent, and that the books
of the court would prove where he was on the day of the robbery.
Reference was immediately made to the records; and strange yet true to
relate, that, on the very day and hour sworn to, Male was actually on
his trial at the bar where he then stood, for another robbery, when he
was unfortunate enough to have been mistaken for another person. He was
consequently acquitted; but the force of example did not deter him from
the commission of crime, and although he was discharged from prison
without reproach, he came out a determined thief.
His career of villany was soon ended; for in six months afterwards we
find him expiating his crimes at the gallows. He was charged with a real
robbery, committed by him on the person of Mrs. Grignion, and being
unable again to prove an _alibi_, as he had hitherto done, he was found
guilty, and was executed at Tyburn on the 25th of March, 1773.
WILLIAM FARMERY.
EXECUTED FOR THE MURDER OF HIS MOTHER.
While we sketch the shocking crime of this monster, we have some
consolation in observing that, in our long researches into the baseness
of mankind, he is the first we have met with, who, with long-lurking
malice, shed the blood of his mother.
A subject so strangely horrid and unnatural we shall dismiss by a bare
recital of the shocking circumstance.
It appears that among other undutiful acts, he had one morning given
offence to his parent, for which he was justly reproached, whereupon he
went out of her house, took the knife from his pocket, and deliberately
whetted it till quite sharp. Then returning with the murderous
instrument in his hand, he found his unfortunate mother in the act of
making his own bed.
Without uttering a word, he threw her down, and as a butcher kills a
sheep, he stuck her in the throat, and left her weltering in her blood,
of which wound she died.
On his examination he confessed the fact, and said that he had
determined upon his mother's death three years before; for that he had
treasured up malice against her since she had corrected him for some
trifling fault when a little boy.
He was executed at Lincoln, where his offence was committed, on the 5th
of August, 1775.
AMOS MERRITT.
EXECUTED FOR BURGLARY.
The case of this prisoner is a fit successor to that of Samuel Male,
which has been just related. His execution arose out of the following
circumstances. On the 19th August, 1774, Patrick Maden, convicted of a
foot-robbery on the highway, and William Waine and Levi Barnet for
burglary, were carried to Tyburn for execution, pursuant to their
sentence. When the cart was drawn under the gallows, a man among the
crowd of spectators called out for the others to make way for him, as he
had something to communicate to the sheriff respecting one of the
prisoners. This being effected, the man, who proved to be Amos Merritt,
addressed Mr. Reynolds, the under-sheriff, and declared that Patrick
Maden was innocent of the crime for which he was about to suffer. Mr.
Reynolds desired he would look upon the prisoner, and speak aloud what
he had represented to him. He did so, and declared that he was not
guilty; but declined accusing himself. The sheriffs, on hearing this
declaration, despatched Mr. Reynolds with the information to the
secretary of state, and to request his further orders; and a respite
being obtained for Maden, he was carried back to Newgate, amid the
acclamations of the people.
Merritt was then taken into custody, and at the public office in
Bow-street, before Mr. Justice Addington, confessed that he himself was
the person who had committed the robbery of which Maden had been
convicted, and the last-named prisoner was then pardoned.
Though no doubt remained of Merritt's guilt, yet, as no proof could be
adduced to that effect, he for a while escaped justice.
He had been guilty of many robberies, the particulars of which are not
interesting, and we shall therefore come to that for which he suffered.
At the sessions held at the Old Bailey in the month of December 1774,
Amos Merritt was indicted for feloniously breaking and entering the
dwelling-house of Edward Ellicott, early in the morning of the 26th of
October, and stealing from it a quantity of plate, a gold watch, and
other valuable articles, to a large amount.
Mr. Ellicott deposed that he lived in Hornsey-lane, near Highgate, that
he was awakened by his wife, who inquired what noise was in the house;
and ringing the bell, both of them jumped out of bed. The first words
they then heard were, "Come up directly;" and then some person said,
"D--n your bloods, we will murder every soul in the house!" Mrs.
Ellicott said, "Lord bless me, the door is open!" and running to the
door, pushed it close. Mr. Ellicott gave immediate assistance; and a
person who was without, who he believed from his voice was the prisoner,
said, "D--n you, if you do not open the door, I will murder every one of
you!"
The rest of the evidence was to the following effect:--The villains
attempted to force open the door, putting a hanger with a scabbard
between that and the post; but Mr. Ellicott, who was a powerful man,
kept them out by mere strength, and having fastened the door with a drop
bolt, which went into the flooring, he ran to the window, and called out
"Thieves!" In the mean time Mrs. Ellicott, by perpetual ringing of the
bell, hail alarmed the servants, who ran into the road after the
thieves, who had by this time got off with the property.
Notice having been given at Sir John Fielding's, Merritt and his
accomplices were taken into custody on suspicion, and after an
examination at Bow-street were committed to Newgate.
At the trial the evidence was deemed so satisfactory that the jury did
not hesitate to find Merritt guilty; in consequence of which he received
sentence of death, and was executed at Tyburn on the 18th of January,
1775, within six months of the period of his saving the unfortunate
Maden from an untimely and ignominious fate.
Connected with the two cases just detailed, we may relate an anecdote of
a very remarkable instance of personal similitude which happened at New
York, in North America, in the year 1804.
A man was indicted for bigamy under the name of James Hoag. He was met
in a distant part of the country by some friends of his supposed first
wife, and apprehended. The prisoner denied the charge, and said his name
was Thomas Parker. On the trial, Mrs. Hoag, her relations, and many
other credible witnesses, swore that he was James Hoag, and the former
swore positively that he was her husband. On the other side, an equal
number of witnesses, equally respectable, swore that the prisoner was
Thomas Parker; and Mrs. Parker appeared, and claimed him as her husband.
The first witnesses were again called by the Court, and they not only
again deposed to him, but swore that by stature, shape, gesture,
complexion, looks, voice, and speech, he was James Hoag. They even
described a particular scar on his forehead, by which he could be known.
On turning back the hair, the scar appeared. The others, in return,
swore that he had lived among them, worked with them, and was in their
company on the very day of his alleged marriage with Mrs. Hoag. Here the
scales of testimony were balanced, for the jury knew not to which party
to give credit. Mrs. Hoag, anxious to gain back her husband, declared he
had a certain more particular mark on the sole of his foot. Mrs. Parker
avowed that her husband had no such mark; and the man was ordered to
pull off his shoes and stockings. His feet were examined, and no mark
appeared.
The ladies now contended for the man, and Mrs. Hoag vowed that she had
lost her husband, and she would have him; but during this strife, a
justice of the peace from the place where the prisoner was apprehended
entered the Court, and turned the scale in his favour. His worship swore
him to be Thomas Parker; that he had known, and occasionally employed
him, from his infancy; whereupon Mrs. Parker embraced and carried off
her husband in triumph, by the verdict of the jury.
The following anecdote was related by Mr. Baron Garrow upon the trial of
a prisoner, whose identity was questionable, on the Oxford Circuit. The
learned judge was in the course of summing up the case to the jury, when
he stated that a few years before, a prisoner was on his trial before
him, upon a charge of highway robbery. His person was identified
positively by the prosecutor, who even went so far as to say that he now
wore the same clothes in which he had been attired on the occasion on
which the robbery was committed; and the jury were on the point of being
dismissed to the consideration of their verdict, when suddenly shouts
were heard in the yard attached to the Court-house;--cries of "Make
way--make way," were distinguished;--and a man on horseback, whose
appearance denoted the rapidity with which he had ridden, rushed in
among the people congregated to await the result of the trial, and,
throwing himself from his horse, which was covered with foam, made his
way with the greatest expedition to the entrance of the Court. The
outcry which was raised had stopped the learned judge in his concluding
observations, and before he could resume his address to the jury, the
man, booted and spurred, and covered with mud, called upon him to "stop
the case, for that he had ridden fifty miles to save the life of a
fellow-creature--the prisoner at the bar." His lordship and the Court
were astonished at the interruption, and called upon the stranger to
explain his conduct. His answer was that he knew that the prisoner could
not be guilty of the offence imputed to him; and he called upon the
prosecutor of the indictment to say whether, after having seen _him_, he
could still swear that the prisoner was the offender. The prosecutor
again entered the witness-box, and surveyed the stranger from head to
foot. He was dressed in a manner precisely similar to that in which the
prisoner was attired--a green coat with brass buttons, drab breeches,
and top-boots;--their countenances were so nearly alike in style, that
from the transient view he had had of the robber, he was unable to
distinguish which was the real thief. The Court were unwilling to suffer
a person who was really innocent to be convicted, and proceeded to make
inquiries of the stranger as to his reasons for interrupting the trial,
and as to his knowledge of the circumstances of the robbery. Upon the
former point, the only explanation which could be obtained from him was,
that he was perfectly satisfied that the prisoner was innocent; upon the
latter he declined to answer any queries, insinuating that, situated as
he was, the Court would not compel him to criminate himself. The
prisoner now reiterated the protestations of innocence which he had
before made; and the prosecutor, being strictly examined by the Court,
declared that he was so confused by the similarity which existed between
the prisoner and the stranger, that he was unable to swear that the
former was actually the thief; and that his impression now was, that the
latter was the real offender. Under these circumstances, it was left to
the jury to say, whether they could with safety declare the prisoner to
be guilty; and a verdict of acquittal was in consequence returned, to
the apparent satisfaction of the Court. It now became the duty of the
judge to determine what further proceedings should be taken. A robbery,
there was no doubt, had been committed, and its commission lay between
the person who had just been acquitted and the stranger. The former must
be presumed to be not guilty, because the jury had declared him to be
so; and a bill of indictment was therefore directed to be preferred
against the latter, who was taken into custody. The same evidence which
had before been given was now repeated, and a true bill was returned.
The trial came on in the course of the ensuing day, and a fresh jury
being impanelled, the new prisoner was put upon his defence. It was a
simple and plain one; "he was not guilty. The prosecutor had sworn
positively to the person of the prisoner, who had been tried on the
previous day, and could he now be permitted so to alter his testimony,
as to procure the conviction of another? He had before declared that he
could not distinguish the real offender, and what better opportunity had
been since afforded him? Besides, his evidence now went only to his
'belief' as to the identity of the person charged: and surely if the
jury had before acquitted a prisoner to whom he had sworn positively,
they would not now convict, when his testimony was qualified." This
reasoning was too much for the jury; the prisoner had made no
confession of his own guilt, and he was declared not guilty. The sequel
was soon discovered; the two men were brothers: the first prisoner was
the guilty party, and the whole "scene" got up by the stranger was a
mere fabrication, invented for the purpose of gulling the Court and
jury. No proceedings could be taken against either party; for although
the Court had been imposed upon, the imposition was backed by no
perjury, and the two thieves--for so they turned out--escaped
unpunished.
Another instance of remarkable imposition being practised upon the
Court, occurred subsequently at York. The case of a person who was
charged with an extensive robbery on the highway, had attracted
considerable attention. The prisoner, when apprehended, was attired in
the habit of a working man; but the prosecutor, whose evidence as to his
identity was positive, swore that when the robbery was committed he was
well dressed, and mounted. The trial came on at the York assizes, and
the Court was crowded with persons. Upon the evening preceding the day
on which the case was fixed for trial, a gentleman drove up to one of
the principal inns of the city in a travelling chariot, and requested to
be accommodated with a bed. A handsome supper was ordered, and the
stranger retired to rest. In the morning breakfast was served, and the
landlord was sent for. The gentleman said that he was unacquainted with
the town, and found that he was a day too early for the business upon
which he had come to York: and he therefore desired to know whether
there were any amusements going on, with which he could entertain
himself until dinner-time. The castle, the minster, and various other
curiosities were alluded to, in which he appeared to take no interest;
and the landlord at length mentioned that the assizes were on, and
suggested that he might probably derive some entertainment from
listening to the trials; and he stated that a remarkable case of highway
robbery was fixed for trial on that morning, and had by that time
probably commenced. Some curiosity on this point was expressed; and the
landlord, conducting his guest to the Court-house, obtained for him a
seat upon the bench, upon assuring the high sheriff of his being a
person of great apparent respectability, which the landlord had good
reason to believe, from his having seen him with a bundle of notes in
his possession of no inconsiderable size, which he observed that he had
placed in his trunk with his pocket-book on his quitting the inn. The
case of highway robbery, as the landlord suggested, had already
commenced; the prisoner appeared to be a poor man, and was standing at
the bar, with his face buried in his handkerchief, apparently deeply
affected by the situation in which he was placed, and almost unconscious
of what was passing around him. The trial now approached its
termination; the evidence for the prosecution was completed, and the
learned judge called on the prisoner for his defence. He raised himself
languidly from the place where he had been resting, and assured the jury
that he was innocent, when, suddenly starting, he exclaimed
passionately. "There, there, my lord, there is a gentleman seated on
your lordship's bench who can prove that I am not guilty!" All eyes were
turned to the person to whom the prisoner's finger, in support of his
declaration, was pointed; and the stranger was found to be the object of
the remark. He expressed great surprise at being thus called upon, and
declared that he was at a loss to know how the prisoner could appeal to
him, for that he had no immediate recollection that he had ever seen him
before. The learned judge demanded that the prisoner should explain
himself; and he then stated that on the very day named in the
indictment, and by the witnesses, as that on which the robbery had been
committed, he was at Dover, and had conveyed the gentleman's luggage in
a wheelbarrow from the Ship Inn to the steam-packet, in which he was
about to start for Calais. The gentleman, in answer to the questions put
to him, said that he certainly had been at Dover about the time
mentioned, and that he had lodged at the Ship Inn, and had gone from
thence by steam to Calais. He remembered too that a man had carried his
trunks as the prisoner had described; but that although he now had some
distant recollection of the features of the man at the bar, he was
unable to recognize him as the person he had employed; and he could not
besides swear to the date of the transaction. The court inquired whether
he was in the habit of making memoranda of his proceedings, and whether,
by referring to any documents, he should be able to give any more
decided information upon the subject? He answered, that being engaged in
a large mercantile business it was certainly his custom to make notes in
his pocket-book, but that the book was at his inn, locked in his trunk.
The court said that in such a case it was desirable that the most minute
inspection should take place, and desired that the gentleman should go
for his book. The latter was unwilling to take this trouble, but would
give his keys to the officer of the court, who might, in the presence of
his landlord, open his trunk and bring the book to the court. Messengers
were in consequence despatched, with directions to make further
inquiries of the landlord as to the stranger; and in the meantime the
prisoner proceeded to ask him questions, reminding him of certain
occurrences which had taken place on the day in question on their way
from the inn to the quay, and more especially that the packet was late
in starting. To most of these the gentleman assented, and the
pocket-book being now arrived he referred to it, and declared that the
date mentioned was the very day on which he had quitted Dover as
described; and from all the circumstances which the prisoner had
detailed, he was decidedly of opinion that he was the person whom he had
employed. The circumstances attending the arrival and sojourn of the
stranger at the inn, as detailed by the landlord, who had come into
court, were now whispered to the judge; and the gentleman having given
his name, and stated himself to be connected with a most respectable
banking firm in the city of London, the learned judge summed up the
case, commenting upon the very remarkable coincidence which had
occurred; and the jury, giving full credit to the testimony of the
stranger, at once returned a verdict of not guilty in favour of the
prisoner. This decision appeared to give perfect satisfaction to the
court, and the prisoner was ordered to be immediately discharged. The
stranger was complimented by the judge upon the essential service which
he had been the means of rendering to a fellow creature, and left the
court, declaring his happiness at his having been able to give such
testimony. Within a fortnight afterwards, the late prisoner and his
friend, the London merchant, were lodged in York Castle, charged with a
most daring act of housebreaking, in which they had been concerned. The
notes which the latter had sported at the inn were found to be drawn
upon the "Bank of Fashion" instead of upon the "Bank of England;" and
upon the prisoners being tried at the ensuing assizes, they were found
guilty, and their lives were justly forfeited to the laws of their
country.
JOHN RANN, _alias_ SIXTEEN STRINGED JACK.
EXECUTED FOR HIGHWAY ROBBERY.
The name of this criminal will be immediately recollected as one which
has attained no small share of notoriety. He was born at a village a few
miles from Bath, of poor parents; and during the greater part of his
youth he obtained a living by pursuing the business of a costermonger.
At the age of twelve years he was hired by a lady of distinction, whom
he accompanied to London; and subsequently being employed in her
stables, he obtained some knowledge of horses, and having served in the
more humble capacity of post-boy at an inn, he was at length taken into
the service of a gentleman of fortune, in Portman-square, as coachman.
It was at this period that he dressed in the manner which gave rise to
his appellation of Sixteen-stringed Jack, by wearing breeches with eight
strings on each knee; but after having been employed by several noblemen
he lost his character, and turned pickpocket, in company with three
fellows named Jones, Clayton, and College, the latter of whom, a mere
boy, obtained the name of Eight-stringed Jack.
The first appearance which our hero appears to have made at the bar of
any Court of Justice was at the sessions held at the Old Bailey in
April, 1774, when, with Clayton and one Shepherd, he was tried for
robbing Mr. William Somers on the highway, and acquitted for want of
evidence. They were again tried for robbing Mr. Langford, but acquitted
for the same reason.