marks of the man's shoes in the running corresponded exactly to his. By
his own admission, also, he was intimate with her; and this admission
was made not before the magistrate, nor till the evident proofs were
discovered on his clothes: her clothes, too, afforded most powerful
evidence. At four in the morning she called at a friend's, Hannah Cox,
and changed her dancing-dress for that in which she had gone from
Birmingham.
The clothes she put on there, and which she had on at the time of her
death, were all over blood and dirt.
The case, therefore, appeared to be, that Thornton had paid attention to
her during the night; shown, perhaps, those attentions which she might
naturally have been pleased with; and afterwards waited for her on her
return from Erdington, and after forcibly violating her, threw her body
into the pit.
The prisoner declined saying anything in his defence, stating that he
would leave everything to his counsel, who called several witnesses to
the fact of his having returned home at an hour which rendered it very
improbable, if not impossible, that he could have committed the murder,
and have traversed the distance from the fatal spot to the places in
which he was seen, in the very short time that appeared to have elapsed:
but it was acknowledged that there was considerable variation in the
different village-clocks; and the case was involved in so much
difficulty, from the nature of the defence, although the case for the
prosecution appeared unanswerable, that the judge's charge to the jury
occupied no less than two hours. "It were better," he said in
conclusion, "that the murderer, with all the weight of his crime upon
his head, should escape punishment, than that another person should
suffer death without being guilty;" and this consideration weighed so
powerfully with the jury, that, to the surprise of all who had taken an
interest in this awful case, they returned a verdict of Not Guilty,
which the prisoner received with a smile of silent approbation, and an
unsuccessful attempt at concealment of the violent apprehensions as to
his fate by which he had been inwardly agitated.
He was then arraigned _pro forma_, for the rape; but the counsel for the
prosecution declined offering evidence on this indictment, and he was
accordingly discharged.
Thus ended, for the present, the proceedings on this most brutal and
ferocious violation and murder; but the public at large, and more
particularly the inhabitants of the neighbourhood in which it had been
committed, were far from considering Thornton innocent, and
subscriptions to defray the expense of a new prosecution were entered
into.
The circumstances of the case having been investigated by the secretary
of state, he granted his warrant to the sheriff of Warwick to take the
defendant into custody on an appeal of murder, to be prosecuted by
William Ashford, the brother and heir-at-law of the deceased. He was in
consequence lodged in Warwick jail, and from thence he was subsequently
removed by a writ of _habeas corpus_ to London, the proceedings on the
appeal being had in the Court of King's Bench, in Westminster Hall. On
the 6th of November, the appellant, attended by four counsel, appeared
in court, when the proceedings were adjourned to the 17th, by the desire
of the prisoner's counsel; and on that day the prisoner demanded trial
by _wager of battle_. The revival of this obsolete law gave rise to much
argument on both sides; and it was not until the 16th of April 1818,
that the decision of the Court was given upon the question. The learned
judges gave their opinions seriatim, and the substance of the judgment
was, that the law must be administered as it stood, and that therefore
the prisoner was entitled to claim trial by battle; but the Court added
that the trial should be granted only "in case the appellant should show
cause why the defendant should not depart without day." On the 20th the
arguments were resumed by the appellant's counsel; but the defendant was
ordered to "be discharged from the appeal, and to be allowed to go forth
without bail."
Though the rigid application of the letter of the law thus, a second
time, saved this unfortunate man from punishment, nothing could remove
the conviction of his guilt from the public mind. Shunned by all who
knew him, his very name became an object of terror, and he soon
afterwards attempted to proceed to America; but the sailors of the
vessel in which he was about to embark refused to go to sea with a
character on board who, according to their fancy, was likely to produce
so much ill-luck to the voyage; and he was compelled to conceal himself
until another opportunity was afforded him to make good his escape.
The "trial by battle," which in this case was so remarkably claimed, may
be thus described:--
When the privilege of _trial by battle_ was claimed by the appellee, the
judges had to consider whether, under the circumstances, he was entitled
to the exercise of such privilege; and his claim thereto having been
admitted, they fixed a day and place for the combat, which was conducted
with the following solemnities:--
A piece of ground was set out, of sixty feet square, enclosed with
lists, and on one side was a court erected for the judges of the Court
of Common Pleas, who attended there in their scarlet robes; and also a
bar for the learned serjeants at law. When the court was assembled,
proclamation was made for the parties, who were accordingly introduced
in the area by the proper officers, each armed with a _baton_, or staff
of an ell long, tipped with horn, and bearing a four-cornered leather
target for defence. The combatants were bare-headed and bare-footed, the
appellee with his head shaved, the appellant as usual, but both dressed
alike. The appellee pleaded Not Guilty, and threw down his glove, and
declared he would defend the same by his body; the appellant took up the
glove, and replied that he was ready to make good the appeal body for
body. And thereupon the appellee, taking the Bible in his right hand,
and in his left the right hand of his antagonist, swore to this
effect:--
"Hear this, O man, whom I hold by the hand, who callest thyself [John],
by the name of baptism, that I, who call myself [Thomas], by the name of
baptism, did not feloniously murder thy father [William], by name, nor
am anyway guilty of the said felony. So help me God, and the saints;
and this I will defend against thee by my body, as this court shall
award."
To which the appellant replied, holding the Bible and his antagonist's
hand, in the same manner as the other:--
"Hear this, O man, whom I hold by the hand, who callest thyself
[Thomas], by the name of baptism, that thou art perjured, because that
thou feloniously didst murder my father [William], by name. So help me
God, and the saints; and this I will prove against thee by my body, as
this Court shall award."
Next, an oath against sorcery and enchantment was taken by both the
combatants in this or a similar form. "Hear this, ye justices, that I
have this day neither ate, drank, nor have upon me either bone, stone,
or grass; nor any enchantment, sorcery, or witchcraft, whereby the law
of God may be abased, or the law of the devil exalted. So help me God
and his saints."
The battle was thus begun, and the combatants were bound to fight till
the stars appeared in the evening.
If the appellee were so far vanquished that he could not or would not
fight any longer, he was adjudged to be hanged immediately: and then, as
well as if he were killed in battle, Providence was deemed to have
determined in favour of the truth, and his blood was declared attainted.
But if he killed the appellant, or could maintain the fight from
sun-rising till the stars appeared in the evening, he was acquitted. So
also, if the appellant became recreant, and pronounced the word
_craven_, he lost his _liberam legem_, and became infamous; and the
appellee recovered his damages and was for ever quit, not only of the
appeal, but of all indictments likewise of the same offence. There were
cases where the appellant might counterplead, and oust the appellee from
his trial by battle: these were vehement presumption or sufficient proof
that the appeal was true: or where the appellant was under fourteen, or
above sixty years of age, or was a woman or a priest, or a peer, or,
lastly, a citizen of London, because the peaceful habits of the citizens
were supposed to unfit them for battle.
It is almost needless to add, that this remnant of barbarity has now
ceased to exist, an act of parliament, the introduction of which was
attributable to the above case, having removed it from the pages of the
lawbooks by which our courts are governed.
CHARLES HUSSEY.
EXECUTED FOR MURDER.
The murders of the Marrs and the Williamsons were not yet forgotten,
when others of a nature equally atrocious and mysterious were committed
upon the persons of Mr. Bird, a retired tallow-chandler, who lived at
Greenwich, and who was eighty-three years of age, and his housekeeper
Mary Simmons, aged forty-four, on the 8th February 1818.
Mr. Bird, it appears, had amassed a considerable fortune by his
exertions in trade, and had retired to live on the competency which he
had secured for himself at a house at Greenwich, where, his wife having
died about two years before, a poor woman named Simmons lived with him
in the capacity of housekeeper. The fact of the murder was discovered
under circumstances of a curious nature. Mr. Bird and his housekeeper,
it appears, had been in the habit of attending Greenwich church
regularly, always making it a point to be in their pew before the
commencement of the service. On Sunday morning the 9th February, it was
remarked that they were not in the church as usual; and at the
conclusion of the service, the alarm which had been by this time excited
was increased by the discovery of the fact that the house in which they
lived had not yet been opened. The beadle of the parish, in consequence,
conceived that he was bound to make some inquiries; and having knocked
at the door without receiving any answer, he forced an entrance at the
back of the premises. On his entering the house, a most shocking
spectacle presented itself to his eyes. The body of the housekeeper was
found lying in the passage, presenting a most fearful appearance, the
skull being frightfully fractured, apparently with a blunt instrument.
In a parlour adjoining the passage was found the body of the unfortunate
Mr. Bird, lying on the ground, with his arms stretched out, and his
skull also fractured in the same manner as that of his housekeeper, and
with the same weapon. On the other rooms of the house being examined, it
became obvious that plunder was the object of the murderer; and it was
found that the pockets of the deceased had been rifled of the keys of
the various drawers and boxes, which were found above-stairs marked with
blood. Some silver spoons, &c. had been stolen, for it was known that
such articles were in the possession of the deceased, but it was unknown
what other property had been carried off; although the only money found
in the house was 3_l._, which were in a secret drawer, and which had
apparently escaped the attention of the murderer. On more minute inquiry
being made into the probabilities of the case, it was ascertained that
Mr. Bird and his housekeeper were in the habit of retiring to rest at
about ten o'clock on every night; but from both of them being dressed,
it was obvious that the murders had been effected before that time. Mr.
Bird, it appeared, had been reading, as a book was found open on the
table, and a pair of spectacles was clenched in his hand as he lay. The
murderer, it was supposed, must have obtained admission by the backdoor,
as it was known that the front-door was always kept chained, and was
found to be still in the same condition.
The horrid discovery created a very great degree of alarm; and Mr.
Bicknell, a respectable solicitor of the place, having despatched
messengers to Bow-street to communicate the dreadful intelligence, some
officers were immediately sent down to the spot to make the necessary
inquiries. An inquest was held upon the bodies in the course of the
week, but no circumstances were elicited which could lead to the
discovery of the perpetrators of the deed; and on the following Sunday
the remains of the unfortunate deceased were interred in Greenwich
churchyard, in the presence of an immense concourse of spectators.
During the three succeeding weeks several persons were apprehended on
suspicion, but nothing material could be alleged against them; but at
length a complete discovery took place, and the murderer was pointed out
by his own sister. This woman was married to a man named Godwin, and
resided with her husband at Peckham. About a week after the murders had
been committed, her brother, Charles Hussey, came to her house, and said
he was going to see his brother, who resided at Basingstoke. He went to
a box of his under a bed and took something out; she supposed it was
money, for he had sixty-seven pounds left him four days after the
murders were committed, by a sister, who cut her throat, in
Queen-street, Cheapside, where she had lived. Hussey told his sister he
should return in a week, but he did not do so for nearly a fortnight.
She then said to him, "Oh, Charles! I have been so uneasy during your
absence! I have had such frightful dreams, and could not think what
detained you." He replied, "Why, what could cause you to dream?" and
appeared greatly agitated. After he had gone away, Mrs. Godwin said to
her husband, "I think there is something in Charles's box there should
not be;" his behaviour caused her to say so; and with one of her own
keys she opened the box, when the first things that met her eye were a
pair of watches, which she and her husband suspected to have belonged to
the late Mr. Bird. Their suspicion was confirmed by Hussey not returning
according to promise, and, with a detestation of so black a crime which
did them infinite honour, they repaired to Greenwich and gave
information of the circumstance.
Another box of Hussey's was brought, soon after the murders, to a Mrs.
Goddard, who resided at Deptford; and as this woman's suspicions were
excited by some inquiries made after Hussey, she opened the box, and
found in it property she supposed to have belonged to the late Mr. Bird.
Officers were sent for, and on searching the trunk, they found a silver
wine-strainer, a soup-spoon, two shirts, three pair of sheets; a white
jean jacket, stained with blood in several places, especially about the
right-hand pocket; a pair of gaiters made of drab cloth, with blood upon
the buttons of them; a piece of new shirting, which was very bloody, and
a glazed hat. In the same trunk were found several articles of silver
plate, which proved to have been Mr. Bird's property. It was remarkable
that this trunk was only corded, not locked, and that Hussey never
called to inquire after it from the time it had been deposited with Mrs.
Goddard.
From Deptford the officers proceeded to Mrs. Godwin's house, at Peckham,
where, in addition to the watches, they found in the box five one-pound
Bank of England notes, and two two-pound notes, all marked with Mr.
Bird's initials. In the same box they found Hussey's discharge from the
East India Company's Service, which contained a description of his
person.
In consequence of these discoveries, no doubt remained but that Hussey
had been the principal, if not the only, perpetrator of the foul
murders. Diligent inquiry was accordingly made after him; but it was
found that he had absconded. More than twenty of the most active
metropolitan officers were despatched in every direction to look for
him, and large rewards were offered for his apprehension; but it was not
until after a considerable time had elapsed that he was taken into
custody at Deddington, in Oxfordshire, by a publican named Poulton, who
had read the advertisement, and on seeing him recognised him as
resembling the person described as the murderer. It appears that Poulton
had read the advertisement, and his attention was arrested by his seeing
the prisoner walk past his house one evening at about nine o'clock, and
suspecting that he was the murderer, he called a neighbour, and they
followed him. Having walked after him for some distance, they became
assured of the truth of their suspicions, and Poulton went up to him,
and said he must go with him, as he had strong suspicion he was the man
advertised. The prisoner after some hesitation, confessed his name was
Charles Hussey; and on his being searched, a watch and a pocket-book,
with a ring in it, part of the property stolen from the late Mr. Bird's
house, were found. The prisoner denied any knowledge of the murders or
robbery, but admitted that the articles found belonged to him.
The magistrate told the prisoner it would be necessary for him to
account for being possessed of the things which had been stolen; and the
prisoner said, that between four and five o'clock on the Sunday
afternoon after the murders, he saw a man get over a wall into Mr.
Smith's grounds, at Greenwich, and run. He followed him, and saw him put
down a bundle against a large tree, and leave it there, and then run
again. Curiosity induced him to go to the spot, and on his opening the
bundle he saw two watches, and a silver soup-ladle. He, however, left
the bundle and walked away, but on the following Saturday, happening to
go past the same spot, he found the bundle in the same position, and
then on examining its contents, he found them to consist of three
watches, a silver soup-ladle, a wine-strainer, four sheets, six or eight
shirts, six rings, some old coins, two two-pound bank-notes, and three
one-pound notes. He took them away with him, and he subsequently
absconded because he was ashamed of coming forward, having such things
in his possession. He declined saying any thing in reference to the
specific charges made against him, and he was committed to Maidstone
jail to await his trial.
On the 31st of July 1818, Hussey was indicted at the Maidstone assizes
for the wilful murder of Mr. Bird and his housekeeper. The dreadful deed
was fully brought home by evidence the most satisfactory and conclusive.
It was proved that the hammer with which the murders were committed had
been taken from a cooper several days before, and that it was afterwards
found in a pond, into which the assassin had thrown it. With this cooper
Hussey had been intimate, and was almost daily at the house, where he
kept his trunk until subsequent to the murders, when he had it removed
to his cousin's, Mrs. Goddard, at Deptford. It was also proved that
Hussey belonged to a "Society of Odd Fellows," and that he did not join
them on the night of the murders until near ten o'clock. The proprietor
of the house where the Odd Fellows met, being asked whether Hussey
appeared any way agitated when he saw him, replied, "He might, but I did
not observe him, for he is the last man in the world, from his general
character and habits, whom I should suspect of either dishonesty or
murder."
It was further proved that the prisoner had been originally a sailor in
the East India Company's service, from which he was discharged, and that
he then became a servant, and lived in that capacity with a Mr. Stevens
at Greenwich, not far from the house of Mr. Bird. Previous, however, to
the murders, he had been discharged, and he was, at that time, out of
place. The remainder of the evidence only confirmed the facts we have
already narrated, and the case for the prosecution having closed, Hussey
was called on for his defence.
He declared his innocence, and gave a confused account of the manner in
which he was employed on the night of the murder; but his criminality
was too plain to be doubted, and he was found guilty.
He suffered August 3, 1818, on Pennenden Heath, near Maidstone, the
usual place of execution for the county of Kent. He made no confession
except that when asked by the Rev. Mr. Argles if he knew who did the
deed, he replied with eagerness, "I do, I do."
In person, the unfortunate prisoner was tall, his hands and feet
remarkably large, and his countenance pallid, mild, and humane. His
appearance was apparently that of a person above his rank in life.
SAMUEL DICK.
CONVICTED OF ABDUCTION AND RAPE.
This was a case of revolting indelicacy and deep-laid villany. We shall
give it in the words of the counsel retained to prosecute the accused at
the Carrickfergus assizes, March the 21st, 1818.
"The prisoner, Samuel Dick (said he) stands indicted for the forcible
abduction and subsequent defilement of Elizabeth Crockatt, the
prosecutrix. She is a young woman of respectable family in Derry; and
upon the death of her father she became possessed of about two thousand
six hundred pounds: this property, her youth, being scarcely seventeen,
and her personal attractions, have been the causes of two different
atrocious outrages, for the purpose of obtaining possession of them. In
August last, upon the Sabbath day, while returning from the meeting, she
was forcibly carried off, and taken to Ballymena, where she was rescued
by her brother and her uncle. On their return home, her mother, alarmed
for her safety, sent her for some time to reside within a few miles of
Stewartstown, with a Mr. Matthew Fairservice. On the night of the 3rd of
November, Mr. Fairservice's family were invited to spend the evening at
Mr. Henry's, where the prosecutrix met Miss Jane Dick, sister to the
prisoner, and who is related to the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix, with
Mr. Robert Fairservice, his sister, and Miss Dick, then went from Mr.
Henry's upon the car to a ball at a Mr. Park's, where she danced the
greater part of the night. While at Mr. Park's, Miss Dick invited
prosecutrix to Stewartstown, which she declined. When they had got on
the car, Robert Fairservice drove rapidly towards Stewartstown, without
paying any attention to the remonstrances of the prosecutrix; when in
Stewartstown they drove to the prisoner's house, where she saw the
prisoner: after breakfast Miss Dick asked Miss Fairservice and the
prosecutrix to go to Dungannon with her, as she wished to make some
purchases. She was prevailed upon, and did go into Dungannon; remained
shopping there until the evening; returned to Stewartstown, dined in the
prisoner's house; and about nine or ten o'clock the prosecutrix was
asked by Miss Dick to go out to the next door to assist her in
purchasing some thread; and the distance being so trifling, she did not
think even of putting on her bonnet. When out of the halldoor, she was
forcibly seized by some person, and put into a chaise in which was the
prisoner, who caught her by the arm; when in the carriage she found her
cloak and bonnet had been previously placed there, which was sufficient
proof of the pre-concerted plan. The prosecutrix, the prisoner, with
Miss Dick, and the other person, were driven to Lurgan, a distance of
twenty miles, before day-light in the morning, the prisoner Dick
guarding the prosecutrix with a pistol! After some time she was again
put into the chaise, and driven to the house of a person named Swayne,
where, after having wept and fasted the whole day, she was prevailed
upon to go to bed with Miss Dick. From the fatigue she had suffered the
two preceding nights, joined to the anxiety of mind she had undergone,
she fell asleep; and found on awaking, that in place of Miss Dick being
her bedfellow, the prisoner at the bar was. The next morning the
prisoner attempted to soothe the prosecutrix by promises of marriage,
and went to Dr. Cupples, of Lisburn, to procure a licence, leaving his
sister and the other person to watch over her till his return; in spite
of them, she contrived to escape to the house of a Mr. English, where
she was protected until delivered into the hands of her uncle."
This statement being supported by the evidence, the jury without
hesitation found the prisoner Guilty--and he was sentenced to death.
ROBERT JOHNSTON.
EXECUTED FOR ROBBERY.
The extraordinary circumstances attending the execution of this
unfortunate man give his case a melancholy interest. Our readers,
doubtless, recollect the singular conduct of the Edinburgh mob, at the
execution of Porteous. A scene, if possible more disgraceful, occurred
on the present occasion.