“On the morrow morning after the parson was shot (I mean the Rev. Mr.
Parker, Rector of Oddingley), it was on Bromsgrove fair day—I cannot
recollect exactly the year—about seven o’clock, George Bankes came
down to me, and says, ‘We have got Hemming, who shot the parson, at
our house (meaning Captain Evans’s) this morning, and I do not know
what to do with him—will you let him come down here?’ I said, ‘I
will not have him here, nor have nothing to do with him.’ Bankes
then went off. Bankes said, ‘he is lurking down in the meadows.’ I
went up to Oddingley about eleven o’clock in the day to Mr. Jones’s;
Mr. Jones is dead, and Mr. Nash lives in the farm now. As I went up
the road side, I suppose he (meaning Captain Evans) kept sight of me
all the way. The Captain called to me; he was in his garden, close
by the road side; he followed me out of the garden into the field,
and said he wanted to speak with me. He said, ‘I’ve had Hemming at
our house this morning, and something must be done by him; he is
lurking down towards your house now; I ordered him to get into your
buildings by day-time, if possible, or at the edge of night, that you
(meaning witness) might not see him, or any of your family, and
somewhat must be done by him. I shall come down to your house at
night, and bring somebody with me, and we must give the poor devil
some money, or do something with him, and send him off; will you get
up and come to the barn? it won’t detain you a minute.’ I refused
coming, and said, ‘I did not like to come.’ The Captain said, ‘it
can make no odds to you—you need not be afraid to come at eleven
o’clock; just come out, it will make no difference to you at all; if
you don’t come I shall be afraid of your dogs.’ I went out at the
back door and down to the barn door, as the clock struck eleven.
There was the Captain and James Taylor, and a third, whom I thought
and believed to be George Bankes. They went into the barn (I mean
the Captain, Taylor, and George Bankes), and I with them; I believed
it to be Bankes; he had on a smock-frock; as soon as the Captain came
into the barn, he calls, ‘Holloa, Hemming, where be’est?’ not very
loud; Hemming spoke, and said ‘Yes, Sir;’ Taylor and the Captain then
stepped on the mow, where Hemming was lying, which was not higher
than my knee; the Captain pulled a lantern from under his coat, or
out of his pocket; myself and George Bankes were then on the
thrashing-floor; the Captain said, ‘Get up, Hemming, I have got
something for thee;’ Hemming was at the time covered up with straw;
he was rising up on end, as if he had been lying on his back; as he
rose up, Taylor up with a blood-stick, and hit him on the head two or
three blows; I (witness) said, ‘This is bad work—if I had known you
should not have had me here;’ the Captain said, ‘He has got enough;’
Taylor and the Captain came down off the mow directly; Taylor said,
‘What is to be done with him now?’ the Captain said, ‘D—n his body,
we must not take him out of doors, somebody will see us, mayhap.’ It
was not very dark. Taylor went out of doors, and fetched a spade
from somewhere; it was no spade of mine; and Taylor and the Captain
said, ‘We will soon put him safe.’ Taylor then searched round the
bay of the barn on the contrary side where it was done, and found
holes which dogs and rats had scratched; he threw out a spadeful or
two, and cleared away from the foundation side of the wall. ‘This
will do for him,’ Taylor said to the Captain, who stood by and
lighted him the while. Bankes and myself were still on the floor of
the barn. Then the Captain and Taylor got upon the mow, and pulled
Hemming down to the front of the mow. The Captain said to Taylor,
‘Catch hold of him,’ and they dragged him across the floor, and into
the hole they had dug for him in the opposite bay, and Taylor soon
covered it up. I cannot tell whether he was put in on his back or
not; I never stepped into the bay from the floor; I thought I should
have died where I was; the Captain said to Taylor, ‘Well done, boy,
I’ll give thee another glass or two of brandy.’ The Captain said to
me on the floor when we went out, ‘I’ll give you anything; d—n your
body, don’t ever split.’ All four were present at this; we then
parted; the Captain darkened his lantern; the Captain, Bankes, and
Taylor, went away towards Oddingley; I went to bed; the whole did not
occupy half an hour; Hemming had his clothes on; Hemming never moaned
nor groaned after he was first struck; there was no blood—not a spot
on the floor; nothing else was done that night. On the 26th of June
I was at Pershore fair; George Bankes came to me in the afternoon,
between four and five; he called me up an entry at the Plough, and
said, ‘Here is some money for you that Hemming was to have had.’ Mr.
John Barnett was with Bankes then, Bankes and Barnett each of them
gave me money, but I do not recollect how much I had from each; I did
not count it until I got home. They said when they gave it me, ‘Be
sure you don’t split.’ There was no more said about it that night.
It was in two parcels, in all between £26 and £27, and all in bills;
there was no silver. I put it all in one pocket. This was to have
taken Hemming off, as Bankes and Barnett informed me. A few days
after, I was at the Captain’s; he sent for me by my own son, John
Clewes, then about seven years old. When I got to the Captain’s, I
found him alone; he said to me, if I kept my peace, and did not
split, I should never want for £5. I never received any money from
him afterwards. On the same day, in the parlour of the Captain’s
house, Catherine Bankes came to me, and went down on her knees, in
great distress, and begged and prayed of me not to say anything, as
she feared the Captain had done a bad job, and that they would all
come to be hanged if I spoke. I promised her I never would say
anything.”
[Bankes was a farm bailiff; Taylor died about 1816, having lived some
time in infamous notoriety at Droitwich. Barnett, at the time of the
murder, was only bailiff for his mother, but had since become an opulent
farmer. Clewes himself failed three or four years after the murder, and
had since been engaged as a labourer or woodman.]
A great many witnesses were examined at the inquest, who spoke to
expressions of hatred and malice used by Captain Evans, Barnett, Bankes,
and Clewes, with regard to Mr. Parker, and many trifling circumstances
which tended to implicate them in the disappearance of Hemming, and
corroborate Clewes’s confession. The jury, after five days of most
elaborate investigation, returned a verdict of wilful murder against
Thomas Clewes and George Bankes; and further found that John Barnett,
late of the parish of Oddingley, farmer, was an accessary to such murder
before the fact.
These three persons were accordingly put upon their trial at the ensuing
March Assizes, before Mr. Justice Littledale. A true bill was found
against Clewes as principal in the second degree, and against Barnett and
Bankes as accessaries before the fact to the murder of the Rev. George
Parker, by Richard Hemming. Mr. Curwood was the leading counsel for the
prosecution, Mr. Sergeant Ludlow for Clewes, Mr. Campbell, K.C., for
Bankes, and Mr. Taunton, K.C., for Barnett. An objection was taken to
the prisoners pleading as accessaries to a murder, the principal in which
had not been found guilty; and this objection being allowed, Clewes and
Bankes were arraigned as principals, and Barnett as accessary before the
fact to the murder of Richard Hemming. Clewes was first put upon his
trial alone. The evidence of the finding of the body of Hemming having
been given, and its identification completed, many witnesses were
examined to speak to expressions of the prisoner, tending to show that he
had been anxious to procure the death of Mr. Parker; and expressions used
by Hemming, showing that he had been employed to do some foul deed at
Oddingley. It was proved, too, that Clewes and Hemming had been
frequently in one another’s company prior to the murder. Last of all,
after a sharp struggle on the part of the prisoner’s counsel to prevent
it, Clewes’s confession was put in and read. Sergeant Ludlow briefly
addressed the learned judge, urging that Clewes was entitled to his
acquittal, as his confession stood uncontradicted, and that did not prove
him to have been a principal in the crime. The court decided that the
matter must be left to the jury, and to them the prisoner declined saying
anything; nor did the law then admit of counsel addressing the jury in
defence. The jury, after a short summing up, returned a verdict of
“Guilty as an accessary after the fact;” but Mr. Justice Littledale
observing that they had only to inquire whether he was guilty of aiding
and abetting in the murder, they returned a general verdict of “Not
guilty.” The crown refused to call any evidence on the coroner’s
inquisition, or against Barnett and Bankes, so they were all discharged.
The expenses attending the prosecution amounted to between £700 and £800.
1830—At the Lent Assizes, before Mr. Baron Bolland, was tried the cause
of THE KING _v._ DINELEY, in which Mr. Francis Dineley, solicitor,
practising at Pershore, was found guilty of conspiring with one William
Loxley, deceased, to defraud Nicholas Marshall of £2,000. The
transaction took place so far back as 1804, when Loxley and Dineley
induced Mr. Nicholas Marshall to advance the sum of £2,000 on what it was
alleged they _knew_ to be defective security, and he lost the whole of
it. Mr. Campbell made a long speech in defence, alleging that the defect
in the security might not have been known to his client, and remarking
strongly on the long time which had elapsed. The case for the
prosecution rested mainly on letters written by Dineley to Loxley.
1830—MAY 21—In the Arches Court, judgment was delivered in the suit of
BARNETT _v._ REV. WILLIAM BALDWIN BONAKER, being a complaint on the part
of some of the inhabitants of Church Honeybourne against their clergyman
for neglect of duty, such as continued absence from the parish. Sir J.
Nicholl, the judge, declared the evidence insufficient, and condemned the
promoters of the suit in full costs.
1830—OCTOBER 20—At the Michaelmas Sessions were tried the Kidderminster
rioters. True bills were found for riot and assault against ten carpet
weavers, and the case for the prosecution was conducted by Mr. Evans and
Mr. Lea; Mr. Godson and Mr. Lumley appearing for the prisoners. Three of
them, named Lamsdale, Green, and Stephens, were first tried for being
concerned in an attack on the prison, on the second day of the
disturbances, and with assaulting William Hopkins, a constable; but they
were acquitted, to the great surprise of the court. Six men were next
tried for the attack on Mr. Cooper’s factory, and for very ill-treatment
of a man named Edwards, working there at low prices. He was left by the
mob, thrust into the ashpit of one of the furnaces, more than half dead.
Phaizy and Hopkins, the men principally concerned in this assault, were
sentenced to six months’ imprisonment—Lamsdale to three months, and Price
to two months’ imprisonment; and all to enter into sureties to keep the
peace. Other two were acquitted. In three other cases verdicts were
taken by consent, and almost nominal punishments inflicted. Mr. Godson’s
strenuous exertions in these cases laid the foundation for his subsequent
popularity in the borough of Kidderminster.
1830—OCTOBER 18—At the trial of one of the prisoners at the City
Michaelmas Sessions, Mr. Curwood, his barrister, handed in a protest
against the jurisdiction of the court, because it was not constituted
according to the charter of James I, which required that the
recorder—“one learned and discreet man, learned in the laws”—should
always preside at gaol deliveries. Earl Coventry and his ancestors had
long been recorders of Worcester, and seldom (or never) present at
Quarter Sessions. The magistrates refused to receive the protest.
1831—The cause list at the Midsummer Assizes this year contained
thirty-one cases for trial, and two of them excited much interest. The
first was an action brought by the Rev. Edward Herbert against a Mr.
Heath, for an assault, in which Mr. Campbell and Mr. Whateley were for
plaintiff, and Mr. Charles Phillips for defendant. For the prosecution
it was merely proved that Heath struck Herbert some dozen blows with a
horsewhip in Broad Street, Worcester, on the 23rd of the previous
February. One witness heard Heath say the words, “that — my father, and
you consider yourself well horsewhipped for it.” Mr. Charles Phillips
made a very long and powerful speech for the defence, stating to the jury
that if the prosecutor had dared himself to come into the box, he would
have forced him to confess that he had not only broken his pledge to Mr.
Heath’s sister, but had slandered his buried father in the most
outrageous and unbearable manner. Mr. Justice Patteson told the jury
that all they had to do was to say whether Heath had committed the
assault, and so they returned a verdict of “Guilty;” but no sentence was
passed, though the affidavits of defendant were ready, and Mr. Justice
Patteson himself pointed out to Mr. Phillips an error in the record, no
doubt with a view of getting rid of the case.
The other case was a charge against Mr. Francis Hill, of Stourbridge, of
having committed wilful perjury, by swearing that he had not adopted
certain royalty mines, while he had, in fact, signed a document to do so.
Mr. Campbell, for the defence, urged that many a man signed deeds which
he did not understand; and a host of witnesses appeared to give Mr. Hill
the best of characters. He was honourably acquitted.
1831—At the County Epiphany Sessions six men were tried for destroying a
thrashing machine, the property of Joseph Fretwell, of Blockley, and were
indicted for a riot and assault. Mr. Godson and Mr. Lea were for the
prosecution, and Mr. Strutt and Mr. Evans for the defence. There was no
attempt to deny that the men did come into Mr. Fretwell’s barn, and take
the machine to pieces; but on cross-examination of the prosecutor it was
shown that he was just about to quit the farm, which he held under Lord
Northwick, and that these men had come to take the machine down by his
lordship’s orders, in order to prevent the destruction of the premises by
the lawless mob who were going about the neighbourhood. Fretwell was
evidently regarding his landlord with feelings of exasperation, because
he had let the farm over his head. One of the men was found guilty of
riot and assault, the other five of riot only. Two of them were ordered
to pay a fine of £30 each, and the others of £20 each, and to be
imprisoned till those fines were paid. But the money was immediately
handed to them, and they were discharged from the dock.
Six men were charged with being concerned in the destruction of Mr.
Baylis’s needle presses and stamps, at Tardebigg, and were sentenced to
twelve months’ imprisonment each.
Six other men were arraigned for going about the villages of Defford,
Pinvin, &c., in a riotous manner, and obtaining victuals and drink by
threats and intimidation; but the evidence only showed that they had
importunately asked for relief at two or three places, and inquired of a
labourer in the road whether his wheelbarrow was a “machine,” because, if
it were, they would smash it! They were all acquitted.
1832—Lent Assizes—The Rev. John Lynes, Rector of Elmley Lovett, was sued
for a penalty of £270 for non-residence in his parish for three months,
under an act passed in the year 1817, which provided that a clergyman
absenting himself for a quarter of a year should forfeit a third of the
annual value of his living, and the living of Elmley Lovett was set down
at about £800 a year. Mr. Jervis, with Mr. Richards and Mr. Alexander,
were for the prosecution, and Mr. Campbell for defendant. A great number
of witnesses were called to prove the defendant’s absence; some of them
his own servants; but in the opinion of the learned judge (Mr. Justice
Taunton) the absence for the entire time was not made out, and the jury
returned a verdict for defendant.
At the same Assizes was tried the action of SHELTON _v._ STEWARD, rival
surgeons at Bromyard, and brought by the former against the latter for a
libel, said to be contained in a letter published in the _Hereford Times_
and _Worcester Journal_, and which was supposed to insinuate that Mr.
Shelton was ignorant in his profession, and guilty of improper conduct.
Verdict for plaintiff: damages, £10.
1832—At the County Epiphany Sessions, ten of the Dudley colliers were
indicted for a riot, to obtain a rise in wages, in the previous December.
Several parties, working in the Broad Pit Collieries (Earl Dudley’s) were
ill-used by the mob for working at the ordinary wages; but Mr. Godson,
who was for the prisoners, contended that their identity had not been
sufficiently made out. After four hours’ consultation the jury acquitted
all the prisoners. Seven of the same men were charged with an assault on
one of their butties at this time, and five pleaded guilty by
arrangement, and were liberated on their own recognizances. The other
two were acquitted in the teeth of the evidence. Several other parties
were indicted for assaults arising out of these riots, but only two,
named Hill and Smart, were found guilty. Hill was sentenced to six
months’ and Smart to one month’s imprisonment.
1834—At the Lent Assizes, seven men were tried before Mr. Justice Allan
Park for being concerned in election riots at Dudley, breaking windows,
&c., and were all found guilty. They were sentenced to trifling terms of
imprisonment, excepting one man named Griffin, who had committed a
serious assault on Jewkes the constable, and, therefore, was ordered to
be imprisoned for twelve months.
Robert Osbaldeston was tried at these Assizes of shooting at Mr. Wood,
gunsmith, Broad Street, Worcester, and was acquitted only on the ground
of insanity.
Edmund Campbell Brewer, a confidential clerk in the employ of the
Stourbridge Canal Company, was found guilty of forging a bill of exchange
for some £13 odd. He absconded to America, and then it was found that he
had embezzled £1,000 and more, belonging to the Company. Yet, upon the
trial, many witnesses gave him the best of characters; and the
prosecutors themselves said that his conduct had been most exemplary till
this time. Mr. Eberhardt followed him to America, and apprehended him in
Utica. He was sentenced to be transported for life. Great exertions
were made to obtain a commutation of his punishment.
1835—At the Lent Assizes, before Mr. Justice Patteson, was tried HILL
_v._ HICKES, an action brought by Mr. George Price Hill, a solicitor in
Worcester, against Mr. Hickes, for having slandered him to his uncle at
Dudley, by intimating that he was a rogue, &c. Verdict for plaintiff
40s. damages. Mr. Sergeant Talfourd was for plaintiff, and Mr. Sergeant
Ludlow for defendant.
At these Assizes also was tried ANDERTON _v._ GIBBS AND FERNEY, the
latter being executors of Mr. John Moor, a manufacturer of Dudley, and
whose daughter Mrs. Anderton claimed to be. The question was one of
legitimacy, Mr. Moor’s wife having left him and formed a criminal
intimacy with a Mr. Corfield at the time of Mrs. Anderton’s birth. The
jury found a verdict for plaintiff, and property, to the amount of
£6,000, thus passed into Mr. Anderton’s possession.
1835—At Warwick Lent Assizes was tried DAVIES _v._ BADGER, an action
brought by a journeyman whitesmith of Dudley, against Mr. Badger a
magistrate of Dudley, for striking him with a stick at the Dudley booth,
at the previous East Worcester election. Mr. Balguy, K.C., was for
plaintiff, and Mr. Sergeant Goulburn for defendant. It was of course
made a political affair, and excited great interest. Mr. Badger, through
his counsel and his witnesses, denied ever striking the man at all. The
jury returned a verdict for plaintiff: damages £30, costs 40s.
1835—At the Midsummer Assizes was tried PARKER AND SON _v._ ROBINSON,
M.P., a case which excited much attention at the time, and was
particularly interesting to those of the legal profession who looked to
reap rich harvests at elections. The plaintiffs sued Mr. Robinson for
assistance said to have been given him in the way of canvass, &c., at the
election of 1832, when the sitting members were threatened with an
opposition by the Hon. Mr. Dundas. Mr. Robinson had paid £75, and paid
£13 into court, but the amount of the bill was £186. Mr. Robinson
pleaded that he had not given authority for such expenses to be incurred
by plaintiffs, who, at this election, were only subsidiary agents, Mr.
Cameron being his chief attorney. Various solicitors were examined pro
and con to show that the charges were reasonable or otherwise; and the
Jury, eventually, returned a verdict for plaintiffs, damages £38; thus
Mr. Robinson paid £126 instead of £186. Mr. Sergeant Ludlow was for
plaintiffs, and Mr. Sergeant Talfourd, M.P., for defendant; and both made
amusing speeches about the affair.
1836—At the Lent Assizes, before Mr. Justice Williams, was tried BADGER
_v._ COOKE, an action brought by Mr. Badger, the Dudley magistrate,
against Mr. Samuel Cooke, the celebrated Radical mercer, for a libel.
After Mr. Badger had been found guilty of the assault on Davis at the
Stourbridge election, Cooke issued a placard triumphing in the result of
that trial, and saying that “every honest man must ever afterwards look
with most indignant contempt on his (Mr. Badger’s) actions, since he had
already disgraced the dignified functions of his station,” &c. &c. The
defendant addressed the jury in his own defence, quoting papers to show
that Mr. Badger often made use of as strong expressions towards his
political opponents, and declaring that it was nothing more than a
question of Tory and Radical. He was found guilty, Mr. Justice Williams
declaring that the paper had a palpable tendency to defame and degrade
Mr. Badger in his character as a magistrate. He was only required to
enter into a recognizance of £50 to appear when called upon.
1838—At the Summer Assizes this year a very painful and remarkable case
of circumstantial evidence took place, being no other than the trial of a
wife and daughter for the murder of one who had stood to them in the
relation of husband and father. On the evening of the 3rd of August,
1837, Mr. John Orchard, the landlord of the Woolstaplers’ Arms Inn, in
Stourbridge, a man in the prime of life and in good health, was seen to
go up the yard attached to his house, and his wife and eldest daughter,
with a man named Smith, were seen to follow him. He never returned
alive. Smith came down the yard again shortly, but the wife and daughter
remained there some time. Two or three hours afterwards the daughter
told some of the people in the house that her father was very ill, and
she was afraid he would die; but no one saw him until he was actually
dead. When a surgeon arrived the body was on a chair in the kitchen, and
Mrs. Orchard was supporting the head in her hands. She pointed the
surgeon’s attention to a small hole between the third and fourth ribs,
immediately over the heart, and said she supposed it was done by a nail
in tumbling over some tubs in the yard. He had a shirt on, but there was
no hole in that. The brewhouse, tubs, and yard appeared to have been
just washed, and the opinion of the medical man was, that Orchard must
have been dead an hour at least when he saw him. On a post mortem
examination, the wound in question was found to be four inches and a half
deep, and went right through the pericardium and right ventricle, so that
it must have caused almost instant death. Of course grave suspicion
under these circumstances could not but attach to the mother and
daughter, especially as there had been repeated quarrels between them and
the deceased, and the wife was also suspected to have been improperly
familiar with the man Smith. The coroner’s jury, however, returned a
verdict of “wilful murder against some parties unknown,” and months
passed without any further discovery. At last a woman, who had assisted
in laying out the corpse, told some party that the man was murdered with
a skewer, which was afterwards thrown into the Stour. The woman, when
interrogated by the police, denied having said anything of the sort; but
a skewer—just such an instrument as would have produced the wound—was
found in the Stour, nevertheless. The wife and daughter were then
apprehended and put on their trial. Mr. Whateley conducted the
prosecution, and Mr. Godson the defence. The judge, Lord Abinger, told
the jury that they must not convict the prisoners on suspicion, and they
were both acquitted.
1838—At the County Epiphany Sessions, William Baylis, the crier of
Evesham, appealed against the commitment of three justices, who had
ordered him to be sent to prison, under the 60th and 65th sections of the
Municipal Act, for refusing to deliver up the bell. It was denied that
the court had a right to entertain the appeal, but the court chose to do
so, and quashed the conviction, subject to a case to the Queen’s Bench on
the points argued. A similar appeal was heard from Robert Knight, one of
the sergeants-at-mace under the old corporation, who refused to deliver
up his mantle. The magistrates were—Mr. Strickland, Mr. Cheek, and Mr.
Ashwin.
1839—At the Midsummer Assizes the Rev. T. B. G. Moore, curate of
Bromsgrove, prosecuted Mr. J. B. Crane, carrier, Mr. Nicholas Hill,
publican, Mr. W. Whitehouse, farmer, Samuel Taylor, John Pinfield, jun.,
William Sansome, George Wakeman, labourers, and Henry Hill, baker, for a
riot alleged to have taken place at a church rate meeting at Bromsgrove;
and Nicholas Hill and Taylor were also charged with an assault on the
Rev. prosecutor. The meeting in question was held on the 14th of the
previous February, and the parties who had got first to the vestry had
voted Mr. Greening to the chair and then declared the meeting adjourned
to the Town Hall; Mr. Moore, the curate, however, declared that he was
the only lawful chairman and adjourned the meeting to the school-room.
Here there was a scene of great excitement, and after the meeting had
decided by a very large majority that there should be no rate, a poll was
demanded by the pro-rate party. Immediately upon this there was a
general rush to the platform—a violent struggle for the vestry book—and
all sorts of people—Mr. Moore amongst the number—were tumbled about,
struck, and ill-treated. It was said that the riot had been instigated
by Mr. Nicholas Hill and Mr. Crane, and that Mr. Hill, in getting the
book out of the curate’s possession, had forced his head against the desk
so as to cause great pain. Mr. Sergeant Ludlow, in his speech for the
defence, made much of this being a case got up by subscription—to crush
the Bromsgrove opponents of church rates, and to put money into the purse
of Mr. Annesley, an attorney, living twenty-five miles away from
Bromsgrove. Whitehouse and Sansome were acquitted; Mr. Nicholas Hill
found guilty of assault and riot, and the rest of the defendants of a
riot only. Counsel for plaintiff, Mr. Sergeant Talfourd and Mr. Lea;
attorney, Mr. Annesley of Pershore; for defendants, Mr. Sergeant Ludlow
and Mr. Godson; attorney, Mr. F. T. Elgie, Worcester. In the following
November defendants were called up for judgment (after an unsuccessful
effort to get a new trial), when Nicholas Hill was sentenced to six
weeks’ imprisonment, and the other three to four weeks’ imprisonment
each.
At the same Assizes, Mr. Meredith, woolstapler, of Pershore, was
convicted of striking Lieutenant Amherst three times, one day in the open
street. There had been considerable excitement in the town about the
election of Guardians of the Poor for the parish of St. Andrew, in the
preceding March, and the plaintiff and defendant were active men on
opposite sides. The first time they met in the street, Meredith put a
paper into plaintiff’s face, saying, “Look at that;” and when he put up
his clenched fist to defend himself, Meredith knocked his hat on one
side. The second time Lieutenant Amherst admitted that he had called
Meredith a d— blackguard, before any blow was struck, but Meredith
afterwards hit him several times. Meredith, having been found guilty,
was fined £20, and bound over himself in £300, and two sureties of £100
each, to keep the peace for three years.
1839—At the Michaelmas Sessions Samuel Cooke, the celebrated Chartist
draper at Dudley, was prosecuted for attending and assisting at a riotous
and illegal meeting at Dudley, on the 16th of July. It was proved that a
placard, calling the meeting, had been seen in Cooke’s window, and that
he himself addressed the assembly; but it did not appear that he had said
anything very outrageous. The meeting was tumultuous, but no actual
mischief had been done. Cooke defended himself with a good deal of
shrewdness, and complained that he was a persecuted man. The jury
returned a verdict of guilty, and he was sentenced to six months’
imprisonment, which was generally considered to be a very sharp political
visitation of his offence. William Smith Lindon and James Hollis, for
using seditious language at the same meeting, were sentenced, the first
to three months’, and the second to six weeks’ imprisonment.
1841—In November this year, in the Queen’s Bench, a rule _nisi_ for a
criminal information, was granted against the _Worcestershire Chronicle_,
on the application of W. H. Ricketts, Esq., for a libel in that paper
imputing to him jobbing and interested motives in disposing of the public
money to be laid out in building the Droitwich Police Station. Upon the
proprietors of the _Chronicle_ admitting that they had been misled and
offering an apology, Mr. Ricketts consented to the discharge of the rule.
The information on which the article complained of by Mr. Ricketts was
written, was supplied by Mr. George Ellins, a brother magistrate; and as
he refused to pay any of the costs which the proprietors of the
_Chronicle_ had incurred, they inserted another article, charging Mr.
Ellins with having misled them in the matter. This brought another rule
_nisi_ upon them from Mr. Ellins, who affirmed that he did not volunteer
the statement to Mr. Arrowsmith, and had especially told him that what he
did say was not for publication. The argument against the rule did not
come on till November, when Mr. Sergeant Talfourd showed cause for the
_Chronicle_, and the Solicitor General supported the rule on behalf of
Mr. Ellins. Lord Denman said it was absurd to suppose that Mr. Ellins
gave the information to Mr. Arrowsmith for any other purpose than that of
publication; and the rule was discharged with costs.
1842—At the Lent Assizes was tried THE MARQUIS OF ANGLESEA _v._ LORD
HATHERTON, a cause more interesting from the rank of the parties
interested, and the right at stake, than from any attractiveness in the
subject or the evidence. It was an action to stop the noble defendant
from working coal mines on certain copyhold property belonging to the
latter at Cannock, in Staffordshire; and turned upon the question whether
Lord Anglesea, as lord of the manor of Cannock, had right to the
minerals. Sir Thomas Wilde, Sergeant Ludlow, Mr. Alexander, and the
Honourable Mr. Talbot, were retained for the defendant; and the
Solicitor-General (Sir William Follett), Mr. Richards, Q.C., Mr.
Whateley, Q.C., and Mr. Whitmore, for the plaintiff. A great number of
witnesses were called on either side, to prove rights and customs, and to
perplex the jury; and ultimately, after a trial of two days, a verdict
was found for the plaintiff, with nominal damages. The verdict created
much surprise.
1842—JULY 20—A Court of Inquiry holden by Mr. Under Sheriff Gillam and a
special jury, to assess damages in the case POWELL _v._ PERRINS. This
was an action to recover damages for the seduction of plaintiff’s
daughter, plaintiff being a land surveyor at Hagley, and defendant a
chain maker, living near Stourbridge. £500 damages given for the
plaintiff.
1842—At the Midsummer Assizes a horrible case of depravity was disclosed
in the trial of Richard Taylor, a blacksmith of Stourbridge, charged with
shooting at his wife, Hannah Taylor, with intent to murder her. Though
she had been the subject of a course of the most sickening brutality, she
refused to give evidence against him, and the witnesses, therefore, were
the neighbours and the prisoner’s own grown-up daughter, who stood in the
witness box with a child in her arms, which was the offspring of an
incestuous intercourse with her own father! The prisoner, on the
particular occasion for which he was tried, had shot at his wife, and
beaten her till she was well nigh killed. He then turned all his
children out of doors stark naked. He was only found guilty of an
assault, because nothing more could be proved without the wife’s
evidence, and he was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment only.
1843—At the Lent Assizes, Edwin Archer, a young labourer from Rouse
Lench, was tried for the wilful murder of George Green, in the previous
December. He pleaded guilty to the crime of manslaughter, and was
sentenced to fifteen years’ transportation. The prisoner and deceased
had been quarrelling, and set about to wrestle; in the course of the
struggle, Archer drew a knife and stabbed Green in four distinct
places—one of the wounds penetrating the heart—and death immediately
ensued. As soon as the fatal deed was done, Archer was aghast with
horror, and wept like a child over the body of his passion’s victim.
Samuel Bridgwater was tried at these Assizes, at the instance of some
very indefatigable Radicals, for bribery at the election of 1841. The
bill had repeatedly been thrown out by the grand juries, as was supposed,
on political grounds, until at last a sufficient number of the right
party were found to return it as “a true bill.” The case, however, now
broke down at its very commencement, because a tailor had been sent to
the Crown Office for copies of the return to the writ for the Worcester
election, and he had not had them compared with the originals.
1843—JUNE 1—The Rev. William Smith, vicar of Overbury, obtained a rule
_nisi_ for a criminal information against the _Worcestershire Chronicle_.
The parish had long been in a state of most unseemly dissension, and the
_Chronicle_, in giving a long and very detailed statement of meetings and
matters there, was said to have libelled Mr. Smith in attributing conduct
to him which he disclaimed, and generally in reflecting on his character
and conduct. The rule was, however, afterwards discharged by
arrangement, and no further proceedings were taken.
1843—At the Midsummer Sessions, Sir Thomas Phillips, Bart., and two of
his labourers, were tried at these Sessions, for assaulting George
Cooper, a shoemaker of Broadway. Cooper was collector of taxes, and went
to Middle Hill to get a balance of taxes from the honourable baronet. He
had had repeated disputes with Sir Thomas Phillips, and this was also a
disputed affair, so Sir Thomas ordered him off the premises; and when he
talked of levying a distress, Sir Thomas pushed him out of the hall, and
struck him with a garden paddle once or twice. The two labourers were
discharged, and Sir Thomas Phillips fined £10.
1843—At the Midsummer Assizes, before Mr. Justice Maule, was tried
LAVENDER AND ANOTHER _v._ BUCKLEE, being an action to recover £3,500,
which had been secured on a bond given by Messrs. Thomas and William
Bucklee to William Shaw, Esq., of Britannia House, Worcester. It was
said that Mr. Shaw, shortly before his death, had cancelled the bond by
cutting it off. It was said by the executors that Mr. Shaw was not in a
state of mind to cancel the bond; and that his housekeeper, who was a
relation of the Bucklees, appeared to have great influence with Mr. Shaw.
A great deal of evidence was given as to the transaction itself, at which
interested parties were present and took much part, and as to Mr. Shaw’s
state of health at the time. The jury, after an hour’s deliberation,
found a verdict for the defendant.
A case which excited great interest in the city of Worcester, was the
trial of Charles Samuel Atkins, a young man respectably connected, who
was in the employ of Messrs. Griffiths and Clarke, linen drapers, as a
shopman. He was charged with embezzling £4, the property of his
employers, on the 27th of September, 1842. Atkins had been sent to Mrs.
Jeremy with a shawl and some satinette, and on his return said Mrs.
Jeremy had kept the shawl and not paid for it, and had retained the
satinette for approval. Mrs. Jeremy declared that she paid the person
who brought the shawl four sovereigns on the spot. It was shown that in
the very next week Mrs. Jeremy had had some satinette sent her from Hill
and Turley’s, by a young man remarkably like the prisoner, and that came
to very nearly the same sum as the shawl; and it was suggested that Mrs.
Jeremy might have confounded the two transactions. The jury returned a
verdict of “Not guilty,” and the court immediately echoed with deafening
cheers, while Atkins fainted away. Mr. Sergeant Talfourd conducted the
prosecution, while Mr. Bodkin, of the Old Bailey, was specially retained
for the defence. The linen drapers’ assistants of the city afterwards
presented Mr. Atkins with a silver snuff box.
Mary Francis, 24, single woman, was charged with attempting to poison
Mary Jeffs, an elderly woman, living at Alderminster. The prisoner
brought the old woman a cake, pretending that some one had given it her
to make a present of it to the prosecutrix, but the strangeness of her
manner in delivering it, and her continually saying that she was only to
eat of it herself, excited the old woman’s suspicions. The cake was
analysed, and was found to contain a large quantity of arsenic. The
prisoner was courted by the old woman’s son; but not the slightest motive
could be assigned for her wish to deprive the mother of life. She was
found guilty, and sentenced to fifteen years’ transportation.
1844—At the Lent Assizes was tried the QUEEN _v._ SMITH, being an action
brought by William Harris, the parish clerk of Overbury, against the Rev.
William Smith, the vicar, for dismissing him from his situation. Mr.
Smith alleged that the clerk had been guilty of drunkenness, had read the
responses irreverently, and had interrupted the celebration of the
sacrament on a particular occasion. Harris denied the whole of these
charges, and the present trial was on a return to a mandamus in the Court
of Queen’s Bench to ascertain their truth. Various witnesses were
examined on both sides: those for Harris asserting that it was Mr.
Smith’s eccentricities that alone caused the clerk to err. The jury
found that the charges of drunkenness were proved, and that Harris had
spoken the responses loudly to annoy Mr. Smith, but that the charge of
interrupting the sacrament was not true. The court, thereupon, ordered
the verdict to be entered for defendant.
1844—MARCH 23—At Hereford Assizes was tried BELLERS _v._ CHALK AND HOLL,
being an action for libel, said to be contained in a paragraph in the
_Worcester Herald_ of the 2nd of December, 1843. Colonel Bund, of
Malvern, gave some information to the proprietors of the _Herald_, on the
strength of which they inserted a paragraph charging Mr. Bellers, of
Barnard’s Green, with cruelty to his mare, by shutting her up for years
in solitary confinement in such a position that she could not lie down.
Several statements afterwards appeared in the _Herald_ to the effect that
the cruelty to the mare had been abated after the publication of the
paragraph, and reporting the proceedings of a meeting, held at
Gloucester, for establishing a society for the prevention of cruelty to
animals. The Lord Bishop of the Diocese presided at that meeting; and
Mr. Thomas, the secretary of the Society in London for Preventing Cruelty
to Animals, attended, and stated that he had personally inquired into the
alleged case of cruelty, and had found the statement in the _Herald_ to
be correct. On the trial, Mr. Whateley, Mr. Gray, and Mr. Godson were
counsel for plaintiff; Mr. Sergeant Talfourd and Mr. Valentine Lee for
the defendants. Acting on the advice of counsel, defendants had not
pleaded a justification. The publication of the libel was admitted; of
course, no evidence could be offered in justification, and the jury found
a verdict for plaintiff, as they were bound to do under the
circumstances: damages, £150.
1844—At the Midsummer Assizes, John Bowen, a man of about fifty years,
formerly an officer in the navy, was tried on the charge of defacing the
parish registers of Croome D’Abitot, and sentenced to seven years’
transportation. It was shown that Bowen was engaged in making out a
pedigree for a John Wood, who wanted to establish himself as a relation
to the celebrated James Wood, of Gloucester, and had visited the Croome
D’Abitot rectory several times for that purpose. While the curate was
looking in another direction he tore a leaf out of the register. Mr.
Sergeant Talfourd was for the prosecution, and Mr. F. V. Lee for the
defence.
THE QUEEN _v._ NEWTON, also tried at the Assizes, was a charge against
the eccentric barrister of that name, who used to come the Oxford
circuit, of having committed perjury, said to have been committed in some
affidavits. The presiding judge, Mr. Sergeant Atcherley, stopped the
case, as insufficiently supported in the evidence.
1844—At the Michaelmas Quarter Sessions a singular trial took place of
two farmers, named Swan and Patrick, who were charged with killing deer
belonging to W. L. Childe, Esq., in Kyre Parva park. The witness against
them was a boy named Passey, who said he saw the parties accused chase a
fine buck into one corner of the inclosure and then shoot it; but there
were some discrepancies in his testimony. Both these farmers lived close
to Mr. Child, and as the fences were not in the best possible condition,
the deer used frequently to get on their land and eat their corn. Mr.
Lee made an ingenious speech for the defence, and called many witnesses
to character; after which the jury returned a verdict of not guilty, amid
the applause of the court.
1845—At the Lent Assizes, eleven poachers were put on their trial for the
murder of Thomas Staite, one of the Earl of Coventry’s watchers, who was
killed in a very desperate affray which took place between the keepers
and the prisoners on the 19th of the previous December. One of them,
however, named George Lippett, was admitted as Queen’s evidence; and
another, Francis Dingley, while in prison made a full confession of the
whole transaction. The keepers and watchers were nine in number, and
they encountered the party of poachers at the gate leading into Park
Farm, Pirton. A fight with bludgeons took place, in which the keepers
were altogether worsted, and one or two of them left for dead. The
poachers also fired off two guns, but the shots did not take effect. The
unfortunate man, Staite, was found by his comrades, after the affray was
over, in a ditch close by the Park Farm house, so badly used that he
could not speak; and, indeed, he never uttered a word from that hour. He
was taken first to a neighbouring cottage, and then to the Worcester
Infirmary, where he died in six days. The identity of all the prisoners,
and the part they had each taken in the affray, was very clearly made out
by the evidence of four of the watchers and the statement of the approver
Lippett. Mr. Godson, in a very able speech for the prisoners, contended
that the case was not made out by the evidence of the keepers, and that
Lippett was not to be believed; ending with a protest against the game
laws generally, as the cause of much injustice and innumerable crimes.
The Lord Chief Baron Pollock, before whom the case was tried, told the
jury that they might find the prisoners guilty of manslaughter; and,
acting upon this hint, the jury returned a general verdict against all
the prisoners of “Guilty of manslaughter.” Witnesses to character were
then called on behalf of some of the prisoners, and his lordship
sentenced them to different terms of transportation as they seemed to
have taken an active part or otherwise in the attack upon the keepers.
Francis Dingley, Samuel Turvey, Joseph Turvey, and Joseph Tandy were
transported for life; Thomas Hooper, William Broomfield, and John Cook
transported for ten years; George Brant for seven years; and Thomas
Cosnett and William Collins were sentenced to two years’ imprisonment.
The prisoners were all Pershore men, but the case excited the most
intense interest in that part of the county.
1846—At the Midsummer Assizes, Richard Farley, cabinet maker, fifty-three
years of age, and Ann Jones, a married woman, were tried for forging the
will of William Welch, of Llandilion, near Abergavenny. The will was
first produced and attempted to be used in Worcester—hence the trial took
place here. Farley was Welch’s son-in-law, and the will conveyed some
property at Aston Ingham to him instead of to his own son, William Welch.
A number of witnesses declared that the will was not in the handwriting
of the deceased, and that one at least of the signatures was written by
the prisoner himself. Ann Jones was an attesting witness, and repeatedly
asserted the genuineness of the will. Farley was sentenced to fifteen
years’ transportation, and Jones to twelve months’ imprisonment.
1847—At the Lent Assizes this year, a trial took place which excited
considerable interest—that of HARRIS _v._ GRISSELL, being an action
brought by Mr. George Harris, carpet manufacturer, of Stourport, against
(really) the Severn Navigation Commissioners, though the ostensible
defendants were the contractors of the works—Messrs. Grissell and Peto.
Mr. Harris had a mill on the Stour, and he said that owing to the
erection of the weir at Lincombe, the water in the Stour had been so
pounded up as frequently to stop his undershot wheels, and to render his
mill useless. A great number of witnesses were examined on both sides,
and the learned judge (Mr. Sergeant Gazelee) having told the jury that
there was no defence to the action, they returned a verdict for the
plaintiff, with £500 damages; but this extraordinary summing up of the
judge’s enabled the defendants to get a rule for a new trial, and the
matter never proceeded further.
1847—At the Midsummer Assizes, Harklas Lovell Blewitt, a travelling
tinker, was tried for the murder of his wife at Dudley, on the 3rd of
June. They were staying at a lodging house, and the wife, to escape the
ill-treatment of her brutal spouse, hid herself in the coalhole; he
followed her there with a kettle of hot water, and, holding her down with
one hand, poured it over her head and shoulders. She was so dreadfully
scalded that she died in ten days; but though there was no pretence for
saying that it was unintentionally done, the jury, to the amazement of
the court, returned a verdict of “Guilty of manslaughter” only, and the
fellow was sentenced to transportation for twenty years.
1848—At the Lent Assizes, four men, named Cartwright, Sweatman, Payne,
and Turberfield, were charged with breaking into the toll house at
Knighton-on-Teme, kept by an old man named John Mound, and his wife, and
stealing £115. The burglars used very violent threats towards the poor
old people, who most distinctly swore to all four of the men as the
parties who robbed and assailed them. They were consequently found
guilty, and sentenced to fifteen years’ transportation each. Yet it was
afterwards distinctly proved that Turberfield was not engaged in the
robbery, and he received a free pardon. Two other men, convicted of
burglary at these assizes, on what appeared to be the clearest evidence,
were discharged by the Secretary of State, because it was afterwards
proved, beyond contradiction, that the crime had been committed by other
men.