attempts to assist Mrs. Warner and Mrs. Hummerstone would be useless, as
they were already dead; and they directly turned their attention to Mrs.
Boreham and the servant. Mr. Boreham was found lying on the ground with
a poker by his side; but being afflicted with the palsy, and being
besides very aged, he had been unable to use it in opposition to his
assailant.
A coroner's inquest was subsequently held upon the bodies of the
deceased persons, and a verdict of "Wilful Murder" was returned against
the prisoner, upon which he was committed to Hertford Jail to await his
trial. Mr. Boreham being a Quaker, he refused to prosecute in the case
of Mrs. Warner; but an indictment was preferred in the case of Mrs.
Hummerstone, upon which the prisoner was arraigned at the Hertford
Assizes on the 4th of March, 1808. The above facts having been proved in
evidence, as well as the additional circumstance of the prisoner having
confessed his guilt when before the coroner, and of his having declared
that his intention was to murder Mrs. Boreham, Mrs. Warner, and
Elizabeth Harris the servant, a verdict of Guilty was returned.
The awful sentence of death was then pronounced upon him, and he was
hanged on the 7th of March, 1808, having exhibited throughout the whole
transaction the utmost coolness and indifference.
ALEXANDER CAMPBELL, ESQ.
EXECUTED FOR A MURDER COMMITTED IN A DUEL.
This is a case arising out of an absurd deference being paid to the laws
of honour.
Alexander Campbell was tried at the Armagh Assizes, in Ireland, August
13, 1808, for the wilful murder of Alexander Boyd, captain in the 21st
regiment, by shooting him with a pistol-bullet, on the 23rd day of June,
1807. The evidence was, that the prisoner was major, and the deceased
captain of the 21st regiment of Foot; and that on the 22nd of June,
after the mess-dinner, a dispute arose between them, which was
terminated by the prisoner inquiring, "Do you say I am wrong?" and the
deceased answering, "Yes, I do." Major Campbell then retired, and went
and took tea with his family; and he afterwards sent a message to
Captain Boyd upon the provocation given, in consequence of which they
met. Being unattended by friends, the immediate circumstances which
attended the duel were not proved in evidence; but it appears that
Captain Boyd being wounded, Lieutenant Macpherson, Surgeon Price, and
others were called to his assistance, in whose presence he said to the
prisoner, "You have hurried me----I wanted you to wait and have
friends----Campbell, you are a bad man!" He afterwards died, and upon
his body being examined, it was found that he had received a
pistol-shot, and that the bullet had penetrated the extremity of the
four false ribs, and lodged in the cavity of the belly, which was the
cause of his death. These facts having been proved, the learned judge
summed up, and the prisoner was found guilty of the capital offence, but
recommended to mercy by the jury, on the score of good character alone;
several persons of distinction in the army having attended, and declared
that he was generally of a humane, peaceable disposition.
Sentence of death was, however, immediately passed on the unfortunate
gentleman, and he was ordered for execution on the Monday; but, in
consequence of the recommendation of the jury, was respited till the
Wednesday se'nnight.
In the mean time, every effort was made by the friends of the
unfortunate man to procure the royal mercy. Mrs. Campbell, his lady,
departed immediately for England to solicit in person the royal
clemency; and the grand jury of the county, and the jury who had found
him guilty, presented petitions to the lord-lieutenant of Dublin. Mrs.
Campbell, after the most incredible fatigue and exertion, reached
England, and procured her petition to be delivered into the hands of his
majesty. The respite, however, expired on the 23rd of August, and an
order was sent from Dublin Castle to Armagh, for the execution to take
place on the 24th. The prisoner's deportment during the whole of the
melancholy interval between his condemnation and the day of his
execution, was manly, but penitent--such as became a Christian towards
his approaching dissolution. When he was informed that all efforts to
procure a pardon had failed, he was only anxious for the immediate
execution of the sentence. He had repeatedly implored that he might be
shot; but as this was not suitable to the forms of the common law his
entreaties were of course without success.
[Illustration]
He was led out for execution on Wednesday, the 24th of August, 1808,
just as the clock struck twelve. He was attended by Dr. Bowie, and in
the whole of his deportment was manifest a pious resignation and a
penitent mind. A vast crowd had collected around the scene of the
catastrophe: he surveyed them a moment, then turned his head towards
Heaven with a look of prayer. As soon as he appeared, the whole of the
attending guards, and such of the soldiery as were spectators, took off
their caps; upon which the major saluted them in turn. The spectacle was
truly distressing, and tears and shrieks burst from several parts of the
crowd. When the executioner approached to fix the cord, Major Campbell
again looked up to Heaven. There was now the most profound silence. The
executioner seemed paralysed whilst performing this last act of his
duty, and there was scarcely a dry eye out of so many thousands
assembled: every aspect wore the trace of grief.
After hanging the usual time, the body was put into a hearse in waiting,
which left the town immediately, to convey the last remains of the
unfortunate gentleman to the family depository at Ayr, in Scotland. The
catastrophe is rendered still more melancholy by the unhappy
circumstance that Mrs. Campbell had indulged her hopes to the last, and
left London exactly at such a period of time as to arrive at Ayr on the
day on which her husband's corpse would necessarily have reached that
place.
JOHN RYAN AND MATTHEW KEARINGE.
EXECUTED FOR ARSON AND MURDER.
The scene described by the witnesses in this case well depicts some of
the horrors to which the inhabitants of the Sister Kingdom are
occasionally subject.
At the Lent Clonmel Assizes for the year 1808, John Ryan and Matthew
Kearinge were indicted for the murder of David Bourke; in a second
count, with the murder of John Dougherty; in a third, with setting fire
to the house of Laurence Bourke; and in a fourth, with maliciously
firing at Laurence Bourke, with intent to kill him.
After the solicitor-general had opened the case, he called Laurence
Bourke, the prosecutor, who stated that on the night of the 11th of
October, between the hours of ten and eleven o'clock, he was informed by
his servant that there were a number of men in arms advancing towards
his house. In consequence of this information he went to the window, and
saw the prisoners, with several others, all armed, surrounding his
house: they desired him to open the door, but he refused; and they then
fired several shots in through the different windows. There were in the
house, Dougherty, the deceased, a man who was servant to the witness,
and witness's wife and child; they were armed, but had no ammunition but
what the guns were loaded with. The prisoners and the party finding they
could not get into the house, set it on fire; and the witness heard the
prisoner Ryan say, "Take it easy, boys; you will see what botlings we
shall have by-and-by."--The witness's wife and child then went to the
window, and called out to Ryan (who was her relation) not to burn the
house; but he replied, with an oath, that he would; and a shot was
fired at her, which though it did not take effect, frightened her so
much, that she and her child fell out of the window. They were seized by
the prisoner Kearinge; but they afterwards fortunately made their
escape. The house was now falling in flames about the witness's head,
and he therefore opened the door and ran out: several shots were fired
at him, but he escaped them, and made his way to David Bourke's, his
father's house. In his flight he fired his piece, and killed one of
Ryan's party. When witness arrived at his father's house, he found that
he had gone to the assistance of the witness; and on returning to the
place where his house stood, in search of his father, he found that Ryan
and his party were gone, and his father's corpse was lying about twelve
yards from the smoking ruins of his dwelling.
Winnifred Kennedy and other witnesses were examined, who corroborated
the testimony of Bourke, and proved that the deceased, John Dougherty,
was burned in Bourke's house. It was also proved that the whole of
Ryan's party were entertained by him at dinner that day, and they all
left his house armed, for the purpose of attacking Bourke.
On the part of the prisoner Ryan, an _alibi_ was attempted to be proved
by a woman who lived with him, which entirely failed; and, after a very
minute charge from the learned judge, the jury brought in a verdict of
Guilty against both the prisoners. They were executed accordingly.
JAMES COOPER.
EXECUTED FOR MURDER.
At the Summer Assizes at Croydon, in the year 1809, James Cooper and
Mary Cooper, his mother, aged seventy-one years, were indicted for the
wilful murder of Joseph Hollis, at Compton, in the county of Surrey, on
the 4th May preceding. The first count in the indictment alleged the
murder to have been committed by fracturing the skull of the deceased,
and the second count stated the cause of death to have been a wound in
the throat.
This case was of a rather singular nature, and depended on
circumstances, which were proved by a number of different witnesses; and
the investigation lasted nearly the whole day. The deceased was a man
possessing more property than is usual with persons in his class of
life. He lived in a small cottage adjoining that occupied by the
prisoners, and which, with the prisoners', had been formerly but one
house. It had lately been divided into two tenements, the one being
occupied by the deceased, and the other by the two prisoners. There was
no door of communication between the two tenements; but it was proved,
that whatever passed in one could be distinctly heard in the other; and,
as one of the witnesses stated, the clock could be heard to _tick_.
The deceased, Hollis, was an old man of near seventy, but was hale and
hearty; he was of very penurious habits, and had saved money, which he
was fond of displaying. One of the witnesses described him as always
carrying three canvas bags, in one of which he kept notes, in another
gold and silver, and in a third copper money; and if he wanted to pay
only a sixpence, he would _tip_ all the gold and silver into his hand;
and the witness added, that he had seen him with 100_l._ in his
possession. The whole cottage in which he lived was his property, and
the prisoner, Cooper, was his tenant for the part which he occupied.
Nobody lived in Cooper's part but himself and his mother: and Hollis,
the deceased, lived alone; a woman of the name of Wisdom going to him
daily to complete his little household arrangements.
On Wednesday, the 3rd of May, the day preceding Guildford fair, he had
desired a person of the name of Goddard to go with him to the fair, as
he wanted to buy some sheep; Goddard told him he could not go with him,
but advised him to be early. On this he declared his intention of
breakfasting and setting off the next morning by four o'clock; and
having stated this to Mary Wisdom, he told her that she need not come to
him on the next day. She, therefore, did not on the Thursday make her
daily visit; but on the Friday, about ten, she sent her daughter, a girl
about thirteen years of age. The child found the door unfastened; and,
on opening it, she saw Hollis lying dead on the floor, with a great deal
of blood about him. She ran out, and saw Moor, the constable, crossing
the common, and he immediately returned with her. A surgeon was sent
for, and several people soon came. The body was lying on the floor with
the legs crossed, and the head lying on the arm, evidently composed to
that attitude by the murderer after the deed. A cup of coffee, half
drunk, was on the table, a piece of toast before the fire, another
piece, partly eaten, lay on the hearth, the butter bason was broken, and
the pat of butter was on the floor near the feet of the deceased. The
chair in which he had been sitting was overturned, and his hat was lying
near, so that it appeared that he had been attacked while he was sitting
at his breakfast. The body was most shockingly mangled, the skull was
fractured in two places, the jaw broken, a finger broken, the arms
bruised, and the throat cut so as almost to sever the head from the
body. Under, the body was found a clasp-knife, almost covered with
blood, and a poker in a similar condition. From these circumstances it
appeared that some struggle must have taken place, which the prisoners
must have heard in their cottage, if the murder had been committed by
any stranger.
The prisoners were, therefore, apprehended on the Friday evening, and
their part of the cottage searched; but no evidence of their guilt was
found. The trunk of the deceased had been rummaged; and, as only two
shillings were found on his person, it was presumed that the murderer
had carried off his money.
The magistrates, on examination, finding nothing but suspicion against
the prisoners, discharged them; but on subsequent inquiries, they were
again apprehended, and the following circumstances were given in
evidence. The night before the murder the deceased and the prisoner,
James Cooper, had been quarrelling; upon which the deceased declared, as
Cooper had not paid his rent, he would have him out of the cottage; and
he actually applied to a person to distrain upon him. In this quarrel,
Cooper was heard to vow vengeance against the old man, swearing that he
would be "up side" with him before a fortnight was over. Mrs. Cooper
exclaimed "God forbid!" but presently she said, that it would not much
matter, for that nobody liked the old man. Since the former examination
of the prisoners, a more minute survey of their cottage had been taken,
and concealed in the roof were found various articles of apparel,
belonging to the male prisoner, which were smeared with blood. Upon
subsequent inquiry, the knife and poker found in old Hollis' house were
also discovered to have belonged to the Coopers, and little doubt
remained therefore of their being parties to the murder.
The prisoners were eventually committed to take their trials, and while
in custody Mrs. Cooper confessed that she knew of the murder, after its
commission by her son, but she denied that she was in any way a party to
the foul deed. She stated that her son had gone out in the evening in
question, carrying the knife and poker with him, and that soon
afterwards she heard a noise in old Hollis' house, followed by cries for
help, and presently a heavy fall against the wainscot, but beyond this
she knew nothing.
Upon this evidence the male prisoner was found guilty, but his mother
was acquitted.
The unhappy young man immediately received sentence of death, and was
executed on the following Monday, confessing the justice of his sentence
and punishment.
JOSEPH BROWN.
EXECUTED FOR MURDER.
This case affords a striking instance of the wonderful effect of the
workings of the conscience of a guilty man.
Joseph Brown was indicted at the York Assizes in the month of March
1809, for the wilful murder of Elizabeth Fletcher at Hensal, near Ferry
bridge, in the month of October, in the year 1804.
The offence was alleged to have been committed by the administration of
poison to the deceased woman by the prisoner, and a companion named
Hazlegrove, both of whom, at the time of the occurrence, lodged in her
house. The evidence with regard to the transaction was, that on the
Sunday, the 21st October 1804, the prisoner, Hazlegrove, Elizabeth
Fletcher, the deceased, and her sister Sarah, were all sitting together
at supper, between eight and nine o'clock at night, and that Hazlegrove
went to fetch some ale. On his return Brown put some sugar into it, and
gave it to the deceased, and she and her sister drank the whole of it,
while Brown and Hazlegrove refused to partake of it, but drank some out
of another mug. In the course of the night the prisoner and his
companion absconded, and nothing more was heard of them until the
apprehension of the prisoner in the Isle of Wight, on the 3rd of August
1808; and in the morning Mrs. Fletcher was found to be dead, and her
sister suffering severely from the effects of laudanum. It was proved
that Mrs. Fletcher was known to be in the possession of a considerable
sum of money, and that the prisoner had expressed a wish that he had it;
and that on the Saturday the 20th of October, he had purchased
six-pennyworth of laudanum of Mr. Perkins, a surgeon at Snaith, to whom
he represented, that it was for the use of his father, who was unable to
get any sleep. The death of the deceased it could not be doubted had
been produced by laudanum.
The additional evidence, by which it was proposed to bring home the
offence to the prisoner, was a confession, which he had made at the Isle
of Wight, in the month of August preceding his trial, when he
surrendered himself into custody, as he said at the time, on account of
the anguish produced in his mind, on his reflecting upon the dreadful
crime of which he had been guilty. In his confession, he stated that he
had been acquainted with Joseph Hazlegrove upwards of six years; that in
the month of October 1804, he and Joseph Hazlegrove lodged with Mrs.
Fletcher of Hensal, near Ferrybridge, and there formed the design of
poisoning her, in order to possess themselves of some property they
supposed her to possess; that for this purpose, he procured
six-pennyworth of laudanum of a Mr. Perkins, of Snaith, which he gave to
Hazlegrove, who mixed it with some beer, along with some sugar, and gave
it to Elizabeth Fletcher and her sister; the former died in consequence
of it, and early the following morning they broke open her box, and took
out one guinea and a half, with which they absconded. The prisoner, it
appeared, had been since subjected to prosecution, on account of some
offence of which he had been guilty, but had been permitted to enter a
foot regiment, in which he was still a soldier at the time of his trial.
On his being called on for his defence, he declared, with the most
consummate impudence, that his confession was untrue; and that his only
object in making that statement was, by putting himself upon his trial,
to clear up the suspicions which were entertained against him. He then
went on to say, that his acquaintance with Hazlegrove had subsisted from
an earlier period than he had represented, down to the time of his
trial; and that they had always lived upon terms of the closest
intimacy. That in the early part of their friendship, a lady of high
rank and fortune had become enamoured of his friend, and that many
interesting meetings had taken place between them. He was generally
employed as the go-between; and the secrecy which they were compelled to
observe upon this subject gave an air of mystery to their conduct, which
caused them to be spoken of with suspicion; and at length so far had the
malignity of their enemies been excited against them, that they were
accused of every offence which happened to be committed within a circuit
of several miles. He concluded by repeating his declaration as to the
object which he had in view, in surrendering himself into custody,
suggesting that the death of Mrs. Fletcher might have been occasioned by
a fit, and protesting his entire innocence of the crime imputed to him.
He declined calling any witnesses to substantiate the allegations which
he made, however, and a verdict of guilty was returned.
The learned Judge then proceeded to pass sentence of death upon the
prisoner, whom he addressed in the following terms:--
"Joseph Brown, I am called upon, in the painful exercise of my duty, to
pass sentence upon a person found guilty of one of the greatest offences
against society--the crime of deliberate murder. You stand an awful and
striking example of the justice of Providence--of that punishment,
which, sooner or later, never fails to overtake the guilty. You have
been compelled by the agonies of remorse, and the upbraidings and
tortures of a guilty mind, to furnish that evidence against yourself,
which was wanting to establish the proof of your guilt, and to supply
that link in the chain of evidence which appeared to be imperfect. I
trust, that every one who hears of your fate will bear in mind, that a
time will arrive, probably in this world, most certainly in another,
when guilt will meet with its due punishment. In your unhappy case, that
period is already come, when you must receive the reward of your
crimes. Impelled by the hope of possessing the treasure which you
supposed your unfortunate victim had saved from her hard earnings, you
deliberately formed the design of destroying her; for this purpose you
purchased a deadly drug, which you procured to be mingled in the cup
which you offered to her under the guise of friendship. When the potion
had taken effect, you plundered her of her property, though it was much
less than your guilty cupidity had suggested. Your crime appeared likely
to be perpetrated, as to this world, with impunity; more than four years
had elapsed since its perpetration, and the remembrance of it began to
fade from the recollection of every one but the guilty author of the
deed, and it seemed probable, that nothing more would have been heard of
it, if the consciousness of your crime, more poignant and destructive
than the poisoned bowl, had not compelled you to disclose the horrid
secret.--Chequered as your life has been with crimes, I cannot indulge
the hope, that anything that I can say will have any lasting effect upon
you; but I conjure you to spend the few remaining hours you have to
live, in earnest prayer and supplication to Heaven for mercy; and may
your unhappy fate convince others, that though their crimes may be
committed in the darkness of the night, they will hereafter be
proclaimed at noon-day."
Sentence was then passed in the usual terms, and the prisoner was
executed on the 20th of March 1809.
We have no record of the manner in which he met his death.
MARY BATEMAN,
_Commonly called the Yorkshire Witch._
EXECUTED FOR MURDER.
The insidious arts practised by this woman rendered her a pest to the
neighbourhood in which she resided, and she richly deserved that fate
which eventually befel her.
She was indicted at York on the 18th of March 1809, for the wilful
murder of Rebecca Perigo, of Bramley, in the same county, in the month
of May in the previous year.