the proper officers to hold communications with them upon the subject of
the offence of which they had been convicted. Both admitted their
participation in the murder, but denied that Scholfield was at all
implicated in the affair. Garside declared that if an offer which he had
made to become a witness had been accepted, the whole truth would have
been arrived at; but, as it was, they had got nothing but a parcel of
lies, and he should say "note" (nothing).
On the day after the trial, William Moseley was carried to Stockport,
and there, upon the information which he had given, Scholfield was taken
into custody. He, however, denied the truth of the assertions which had
been made of his guilt, but he was detained in custody.
On Saturday the 16th of August, the prisoners were further respited
until the 18th of September; and from that date they were again respited
until the commencement of Michaelmas Term, in the following November,
should enable the Court of King's Bench to determine the question in
dispute between the sheriffs.
On Thursday the 6th of November, the Attorney-General moved for a
_certiorari_, to bring the conviction into that court, and also for
writs of habeas corpus, to bring up the persons of the prisoners, with a
view to the question being discussed. The learned gentleman explained
the objections made by the two sheriffs. Previously to the passing of
the Statute 11 Geo. IV., all complaints in the County Palatine of
Chester were tried by the Chief Justice of Chester, and rules of court
were made for the execution of such prisoners as were condemned to
death, which orders were carried into effect by the sheriff of the city
of Chester. By the act in question, the court by which this authority
was exercised, was abolished, and in its stead assizes, under
commissions of oyer and terminer, were ordered to be held in Chester,
as in other counties. By the sixteenth section, however, it was
provided, "that nothing therein contained should affect the duties or
obligations to be performed by the magistrates and citizens of Chester."
In the present case, the sheriff of the city of Chester refused to
execute the sentence on the prisoners, alleging that his jurisdiction in
such respects extended only to the Palatine Court, which had been
abolished, and that if there was any such obligation, it rested on the
mayor and citizens, and not upon the sheriff. Under these circumstances,
the learned judge had felt it to be his duty to respite the prisoners
from time to time, and indictments had been preferred against both
sheriffs, which, however, had been ignored. _Ex officio_ informations
would be filed against them by him (the Attorney-General) for their
neglect of their duty; but as much time must elapse before the questions
involved in those informations could be legally discussed, he was
compelled to come to the court, with a view to the carrying into effect
the sentence of the law upon the prisoners, an object which was of the
highest importance. It would be in the power of the court to order the
prisoners to be executed by either of the disputing sheriffs; by the
sheriffs of Middlesex, or Surrey; or by their own marshal. Several cases
were then cited, in which the court had interfered with regard to the
execution of offenders, and the writs were granted.
On Tuesday the 11th of November, and Thursday the 13th, the prisoners
were brought before the Court of King's Bench. Mr. Dunn, on behalf of
Garside, contended that the court could not award sentence against that
prisoner, because he had made a statement to the authorities of Cheshire
with regard to the circumstances of the murder, which, by the
proclamation which had been issued, offering a reward of 2000_l._ and a
pardon, to any accomplice of the actual murderer, entitled him to be
liberated. This fact having been pleaded by the learned gentleman, on
behalf of his client, in obedience to the direction of the court, the
Attorney-General was heard on the other side. He contended that the jury
had distinctly found that Garside had fired the fatal shot; and that
even taking the statement of the prisoner to be correct, he was not
therefore entitled to his pardon.
Lord Denman held this good ground of demurrer to the plea, and execution
having been prayed, the court awarded that it should be done by the
marshal, assisted by the sheriff of Surrey.
The prisoners were then conveyed to the King's Bench prison, to await
their death. A petition was prepared by Mr. Dunn, on behalf of Garside,
setting forth the same facts which were urged by the learned gentleman
in court, but it was declared to be of no avail; and on Tuesday the 25th
of November, the wretched convicts expiated their foul offence on the
top of Horsemonger-lane jail.
Garside had, during the latter portion of his imprisonment, striven to
shift the guilt of firing the pistol upon the witness, Joseph Moseley,
and it was not until the very moment of his being turned off, that he
retracted this allegation. His conduct, as well as that of his fellow
prisoner, during the whole period of their confinement, had been
remarkable for its extreme coolness; and on the morning of their
execution, their demeanor was in no way altered.
At nine o'clock in the morning the prisoners mounted the scaffold,
Garside being first, and they were immediately turned off; Garside's
last words being, "All the statements that I have made at different
times since my conviction are false."
At the Assizes for the County of Chester, held in the month of April,
1835, a bill of indictment was preferred against Scholfield, but it was
ignored; and he was, in consequence, set at liberty.
EDWARD CHALKER AND JEREMY KEYS.
TRIED FOR MURDER.
At the Bury Assizes, on Thursday the 26th of March, 1835, Edward Chalker
and Jeremy Keys, were indicted for the murder of Bryan Green, on the
22nd of November.--The unfortunate man, whose fatal end led to the
inquiry, was one of the under-gamekeepers of Miss Lloyd, the lady of the
manor of Hintlesham; and on the night of the 22nd of November, he and a
fellow-servant named Masterman, were on the watch in the great wood upon
the manor, which was well stocked with pheasants; and which was
separated from a smaller wood by a glade. Nothing particular occurred
till half-past three in the morning, when they heard the whiz of an
air-gun very near the place where they had posted themselves. The sound
proceeded from the little wood, to which they immediately made their
way, and on crossing the glade they saw a spotted spaniel dog and a man
passing from one wood to the other. The man instantly ran into the
little wood, and the keepers pursued and overtook him. He suffered
himself to be taken without any struggle, but he was no sooner in hold
than he gave a "signal whistle," and two other men ran to his
assistance, one of them having in his hand an air-gun. The three men
then assailed the two keepers, who were instantly struck to the earth,
and Masterman was beaten with a club as he lay on the ground, until he
became quite insensible. Green had at first threatened to shoot the men,
unless they let him go unharmed; but they swore he should not escape
himself, nor harm them, and presently he too was left in a state of
insensibility. Upon Masterman's coming to himself, he heard Green
groaning most piteously, and upon his crawling to him, he found his head
in a pool of blood, which was still flowing profusely. After some time
Masterman contrived to get as far as the head-keeper's house, and upon
their returning to the scene of the outrage, they took the wounded man
on a litter to the keeper's lodge, and sent for a surgeon. It was found,
upon examining his head, that there was a wound on one side, through
which the brain was escaping, and the skull was extensively fractured. A
portion of the bone was pressed into the brain; upon removing this, the
patient experienced some relief, and in a few hours could utter a few
monosyllables; but he soon afterwards relapsed, and after fluctuating
between life and death for a few days, he ceased to suffer. He had, on
the night in question, a pistol and a gun with him, and upon searching
on the spot on the following morning, they were found lying upon the
ground. The cock of the pistol was struck down, but the pan had not
risen, and the pistol, consequently, had not gone off. His gun was found
with the barrel broken from the stock, and on the breech a piece of skin
and hair and some blood were observed, and a recently killed pheasant
and a bludgeon were lying close by.
It appeared that the prisoners were in the habit of frequenting a
beer-house, called the "Fox and Grapes," at Ipswich, which was six or
seven miles from Hintlesham; and a day or two before the evening in
question, Chalker told a Mr. Frost, who was drinking there, that he
would give him a pheasant for his Sunday's dinner. In the afternoon of
the 22nd, one Upson, the village smith, went to the Fox and Grapes to
repair the lock of the cellar door, and whilst he was in the cellar the
landlady heard the peculiar sound which is made by discharging an
air-gun; and it appeared that the prisoner, Chalker, kept his in the
cellar. It was further proved that the prisoners and two other men left
the house on that evening, and returned early the next morning, when
some mysterious conversation was heard between them, respecting
Hintlesham wood. Other corroborative facts were given in evidence, which
clearly proved that Chalker had been concerned in the dreadful
transaction. The evidence respecting Keys was not so conclusive. Chalker
was found guilty, but Keys was acquitted.
The former received sentence of death, and was executed on the following
Monday, the 30th of March.
MARY ANNE BURDOCK.
EXECUTED FOR MURDER.
Great excitement and extraordinary interest was created at the Bristol
Assizes, held in the month of April, 1835, before the Recorder (Sir
Charles Wetherell), by the trial of a woman named Mary Anne Burdock, who
stood indicted for the wilful murder of an old lady named Clara Anne
Smith, who had been her lodger, and whom, it was alleged, she had
poisoned with yellow arsenic, to obtain possession of her property. The
trial commenced on Friday the 10th of April, and was continued through
the whole of that day and Saturday, and the Recorder did not proceed to
sum up till Monday, the jury having been kept under the care of the
proper officers during the whole of the time.
The evidence was circumstantial, but perfectly conclusive. It appeared
that the deceased, a widow aged sixty, went to lodge with the prisoner
at Bristol, in the year 1833, and was known to be possessed of
considerable property, in sovereigns and bank-notes. She had a
brother-in-law residing at Oporto, and a nephew in this country. She
died on the 23rd of October. Shortly afterwards an undertaker, named
Thompson, was sent for by the prisoner, who told him she had an old lady
dead in her house, who died very poor, and had no friends, and who must
therefore be buried at as little expense as possible. A coffin and
coffin-plate, on which were the deceased's name and age, were in
consequence provided, and the lady was interred in St. Augustine's
church-yard, at eight in the morning, of the 30th of October. The
prisoner, previous to this, was very poor, and lived with a man named
Wade. Subsequent to the funeral of the deceased, she suddenly became
possessed of wealth, and said she had been left a large property by her
uncle. Wade went into business, but died in the April following, and
made a will, by which he settled considerable property on the prisoner,
including stock in trade, valued at 700_l._ She was also proved to have
600_l._ in cash. She told one of the witnesses that a rich old lady had
died in her house, and left her property to Wade.
Matters went on thus till December 1834, when the relatives of the
deceased, hearing of her death, went to make further inquiries
respecting her fate and property. This led to investigations which
created suspicions of foul play, and it was determined that the case
should undergo a searching scrutiny. Inquiries had previously been made
of the prisoner, who gave up some papers of the deceased, but denied
that she had left any property. The body was exhumed, the place of
interment and the coffin being distinctly sworn to by the undertaker,
who also swore to the shroud and other articles on the person of the
deceased. The body was then opened by Dr. Riley, the physician of the
Bristol infirmary, assisted by Mr. J. J. Kelson, surgeon, Dr. Symonds,
and Mr. Herapath, a lecturer on chemistry, and was found in an
extraordinary state of preservation, notwithstanding the time which had
elapsed since its interment. There was a quantity of water in the
coffin, which covered part of the body and legs. The stomach and abdomen
were laid open at once, and it was discovered that the integuments had
been converted into adipocire, which is a hardening of the fat, or
animal soap. The stomach was carefully taken out, and found to contain a
quantity of yellow arsenic. The contents of the stomach were submitted
to various chemical tests, all confirming the belief that yellow arsenic
had been administered, and was, in fact, the cause of death--in all
other respects the subject was healthy. A beautiful preparation of the
stomach was produced in court.
This fact established, other witnesses were called to bring the crime
home to the prisoner. A seaman, named Evans, proved that he lodged with
the prisoner when she passed as Mrs. Wade; this was in October 1833. She
asked him to purchase two-pennyworth of arsenic for her about six days
before Mrs. Smith died, saying there were rats in the house (this was
proved not to have been the case). He accordingly purchased the arsenic
from a druggist named Hobbs, in the presence of two witnesses, all of
whom confirmed his statement. He gave the arsenic to the prisoner, and
she put it in her pocket. He was in the house when Mrs. Smith died, and
heard Wade and the prisoner laughing during the night. The prisoner said
the deceased died poor, and she should sell some plate she left to pay
the funeral expenses. He had seen the deceased with a gold watch and
chain about a month before.
The actual administration of a yellow powder (the arsenic no doubt) was
proved by a girl named Mary Ann Allen, who had been engaged to wait on
the deceased, and who saw the prisoner put some yellow powder out of a
paper, which she took from her pocket, into a basin of gruel, which she
subsequently gave to the deceased--shortly after which the poor creature
was seized with dreadful convulsions and died. After her death the
prisoner opened a cupboard and drawers, and applied abusive epithets to
the deceased, and conducted herself in the most unfeeling manner,
exclaiming, "Only think of the drunken old b---- having this," &c. She
told witness never to tell anything of Mrs. Smith, or who she was, or
what she was, nor that she had ever lived with her; and, if any one
asked, to say she was a stranger and a foreigner, from far away in the
East Indies; "Nor don't you ever tell any one," said she, "you saw me
put anything into the gruel, for people might think it was curious."
These details were confirmed by other witnesses, including the mother of
the girl, and a servant who at the time lived with the prisoner. Mr.
Charles Read, a wine-merchant, who knew the deceased's brother-in-law in
Oporto, then proved that in November after her death, he went to the
prisoner's house and saw her and Wade. He made inquiries as to Mrs.
Smith's property. The prisoner said she died very poor, and that her
clothes were in so bad a state that she was compelled to burn them, and
that she would not produce anything belonging to her till he paid the
funeral expenses, which amounted to 15_l._; he went again the next
morning, when Wade said there was a box which contained some papers
belonging to the deceased; she ultimately agreed that they should each
get a professional man to meet. They went again the next morning, and
the box was at length produced and opened, and the papers were examined,
and there was an old will of Mr. Smith's in favour of his wife. There
were no deeds. Mrs. Smith had dressed very respectably since the death
of her husband, five years ago. He knew she had possessed property. He
had paid her 700_l._ in 1829. He paid her an annuity of 15_l._
The case having been brought to a conclusion, some witnesses were
examined to the character of the prisoner, who strongly protested her
innocence.
On Monday the recorder summed up the evidence with great perspicuity,
going through the whole of the testimony of the witnesses, and finally
remarking on such parts as required explanation. He observed in his
address to the jury--"The issues of life and death were, by the
constitution of the realm, committed to them, and not to him. The
prisoner was charged with having murdered, by means of poison, a lady of
the name of Clara Ann Smith, the poison being yellow arsenic mixed in
water gruel. They would have to make up their minds upon the three
following points:--First, whether Mrs. Smith's death was occasioned by
poison; secondly, whether that poisoning was carried into effect by the
prisoner; and, thirdly, whether the prisoner knew that she was poisoning
Mrs. Smith. If they were of opinion that she did administer the poison
knowing it was poison--if their consciences were made up on these
points, however fatal and tremendous the consequences might be to the
prisoner, they were bound to make a true deliverance between the king
and the king's subjects, and they were bound to pronounce her guilty.
They would have to exercise their judgment. The verdict was theirs, and
not that of the court. They were charged with the duty of pronouncing
the question of guilty or not guilty."
The jury retired for rather more than a quarter of an hour, during which
time great and more than ordinary excitement was manifest in the court.
The prisoner apparently retained the most perfect composure, her
solicitors and other persons were crowded round her, with whom she
appeared in most anxious communication; but her eyes were constantly
wandering towards the door, in expectation for the jury's return, upon
the countenance of each of whom she was observed, upon their leaving the
court, to have looked with a steadfast wish to discriminate the opinion
each had formed of her case.--Upon an intimation that the jury were
about to return, there was a general anxiety to obtain a sight of the
prisoner throughout the Court, which occasioned so much noise, and cries
of so various a nature, that some time elapsed before order could be
obtained, or the judge had any power to proceed. The noise having
somewhat subsided, the names of the jury were called over, and they were
then in the usual manner asked what verdict they had to return, when the
foreman, in a most solemn manner, and evidently with a great degree of
feeling, returned the verdict of "Guilty."
The prisoner's countenance at this interesting and awful moment was
slightly changed, but she addressed the judge in an audible voice,
although rather faltering, saying, "My lord, I am innocent, I am
innocent. Standing at this bar, I call upon the Almighty to put his
judgment upon me if what I am now saying is not true. I know nothing of
it; I am innocent; and the Almighty, I hope, will put his judgment upon
me at this moment if I am not innocent."--The learned judge then passed
upon her the awful sentence of the law, directing her to be executed on
Wednesday, and her body to be buried within the precincts of the jail.
The prisoner said, in an audible voice, "May the Lord have mercy upon my
soul." She was perfectly unmoved during the passing of the sentence. She
was then removed, and immediately partook of refreshment under the dock.
An immense crowd of persons was waiting in every avenue leading from the
court; and, upon her departure from the Guildhall, on her way to the
jail, she was assailed with the most frightful and discordant yells, the
carriage in which she was conveyed being followed by a great concourse
of people.
On Wednesday, the 15th of April, the unhappy wretch was hanged. During
the religious service before execution she sat sullenly silent, never
once rising or kneeling. At the conclusion of the sermon she got up
without betraying any emotion, and left the chapel with firmness. But
afterwards, when in the room under the platform, having her dress
arranged, when the fatal cap was placed on her head, and the rope round
her neck, she certainly joined in the prayers which the chaplain
continued, with something like feeling--repeating the responses of "Lord
have mercy on my soul!" "Christ have mercy on my soul!" with
earnestness. In this room she lingered long, and appeared to lengthen
the time, and it was here generally expected that she would have
confessed the justice of her sentence--but, alas! she made no statement
whatever. She ascended to the fatal drop with comparative firmness, but
looked pale and ghastly, and evidently now felt intensely. She quickly
dropped the handkerchief, and the fatal bolt was drawn at exactly twenty
minutes before two o'clock in the afternoon. Her weight evidently caused
instant death.
The wretched woman, it appears, was a native of Bristol, in which city
she passed her life. She was forty years of age at the time of her
execution.
PATRICK CARROLL.
EXECUTED FOR MURDER.
The circumstances attending the murder of which Carroll was guilty may
be related in a very short space.
Carroll, it appears, was a native of Ballihoy in Ireland, and at the age
of twenty-two years enlisted in the 7th regiment of Fusileers. He
remained in this corps during a period of seven years, at the expiration
of which time he received his discharge. He, however, almost
immediately rejoined the army by enlisting in the Marines; and for the
good conduct which he displayed, he was speedily raised to the rank of
corporal. He had been in the marine service during three years only,
when the melancholy event occurred which consigned him to the gallows.
The company of marines to which he belonged was stationed at Woolwich;
and the public-house which was commonly frequented by Carroll was the
Britannia, which was kept by a Mrs. Browning, a widow. Carroll formed an
idea that his attentions were not disagreeable to Mrs. Browning; and he
repeatedly pressed her to marry him. It does not appear that she was
altogether regardless of his suit; but Carroll having upon more than one
occasion while in a fit of intoxication, conducted himself in such a
manner towards her as to call for her displeasure, she refused any
longer to listen to his addresses. On Sunday, the 26th of April 1835,
Carroll went to the Britannia, and found that Mrs. Browning had invited
some friends to tea amongst whom he was not numbered. Some angry words
ensued between them; and with difficulty Carroll was ejected from the
house. On the next morning he returned, and demanded that he might be
permitted to address a few words to Mrs. Browning in private. This was
declined, upon which he entered the bar where she was; and after having
repeatedly struck her with his hand, at length drew his bayonet, with
which he stabbed her in no fewer than eighteen places in the breast and
body. The screams of the unfortunate woman soon attracted many persons
to the spot, and the murderer was secured with all the evidence of his
guilt upon his person; not, however, until the victim of his crime had
died under the wounds which he had inflicted.
Carroll made no effort to escape or to deny his guilt; and a verdict of
"Wilful Murder" having been returned against him by a coroner's jury he
was committed to Newgate for trial.
On Friday the 15th of May, the prisoner was tried at the Central
Criminal Court, held at the Old Bailey, for the murder, when a verdict
of "Guilty" was returned. Sentence of death was immediately passed, and
the prisoner was ordered for execution on the following Monday.