extraordinary transaction have been referred to in the course of the
details which we have laid before our readers, with the exception of
Emanuel Moses. There were few persons well acquainted with the vicinity
of Covent-garden to whom the person of this man was not familiar,
although his particular character and practices may not have been so
well known. He was, as we have already intimated, of the Jewish
persuasion, and he resided in the midst of a neighbourhood in which the
fullest opportunities were afforded for his carrying on a system, the
nature of which may be pretty well guessed from the circumstances
disclosed in the case which we have just related. The landlord of "The
Black Lion" public-house, in Vinegar-yard, Drury-lane--it was pretty
generally known that he was one of the most daring and successful
"fences," or receivers of stolen goods in the metropolis. The
ramifications of his business were well ascertained to extend to every
species of roguery which existed in London, and it cannot but be matter
of surprise, that a person whose reputation was so universally known
should have so long continued, in the very teeth of the authorities, to
pursue his trade of plunder. Such an event as the conviction of "Money
Moses," almost the father of his particular line of trade, produced an
amazing consternation among his fellows; but the metropolis is to be
congratulated, that a person whose character was so notoriously
mischievous, should have been thus removed from the scene of his
operations. During the period of Moses's imprisonment in Newgate, a
striking change took place in his appearance. Originally exhibiting upon
his person all the signs of indulgent living, his confinement reduced
him to the shadow only of his former self; and there were to be heard
amongst his friends, at the time of his receiving sentence, regrets at
his faded aspect, and apprehensions that the voyage to Australia would
complete the work which the air of a prison had commenced.
It will have been observed, that the manner in which the whole of the
lost property was discovered has been disclosed in the course of our
recital of the extraordinary circumstances of this inquiry. Messrs.
Hartley and Co., upon whom the loss would have fallen in case of the
non-recovery of the gold, suffered comparatively small damage. A very
considerable portion of the gold itself was produced; and, for that
which was not actually forthcoming, we believe there is good reason to
suppose that an equivalent was eventually paid.
JACOB FREDERICK EHLERT.
EXECUTED FOR MURDER.
This diabolical murder was committed by Ehlert, the mate of the
Norwegian brigantine Phoenix, upon John Frederick Berkhalt, captain of
the vessel, while she lay in the river at Sunderland. The atrocious
transaction was first brought to light by the discovery of the murdered
remains of Berkhalt in the river at Sunderland, on Friday the 14th of
June 1839, with such appearances upon his body as left no doubt that his
life had been taken away by violent means; and suspicion at once
attached to the crew of his vessel. They were all secured, protesting
their ignorance of the murder, and alleging that the captain had gone
ashore on the night of the previous Tuesday, since which they had seen
nothing of him; but the discovery of marks of blood in his cabin left
little doubt of his having been murdered on board the Phoenix, and
then thrown into the river, in order that his death might be concealed.
This belief was speedily confirmed by the confession of a boy named
Daniel Frederick Muller, aged nineteen, who was employed in the ship,
and who now voluntarily disclosed the whole of the circumstances of the
horrible crime, implicating Ehlert the mate.
His statement was to the following effect:--On the night of Tuesday the
11th of June, he had the twelve-o'clock watch, and at about half-past
one Ehlert came on deck and called him below. He asked what he was
wanted for, but he was desired to ask no questions, but to follow
whither he was led. The mate had a hammer and a lantern in his hand, and
he went into the captain's cabin. When there he gave the lantern to
Muller and desired him to hold it, and then he directly raised his
hammer and dealt three tremendous blows on the head of Berkhalt as he
lay asleep. The unfortunate man scarcely moved; but Muller, terrified
beyond measure, exclaimed, "Mate, what are you doing?" and tried to run
away. In this, however, the mate prevented his succeeding, and seizing
him by his arm, he said that he must remain. The mate then took the body
from the bed and slung a rope round the neck, and he partially clothed
it in a pair of stockings and trousers, and then drew a canvas bag over
it. The boy now again attempted to escape, but the mate threatened to
murder him if he went away, and drew a clasp-knife from his pocket, as
if to put his threat into execution; but he told him that if he remained
he would give him 300_l._, for that there was plenty of money in the
captain's cabin. The boy soon after went on deck and wept bitterly, and
while he was there the mate came to him and took the skylight off the
captain's cabin. He then cut a long cord off the gear, and going below
again he tied it round the body, so that he could raise it by that means
through the skylight. On his again reaching the deck, he ordered Muller
to bring the boat round to the side, and while he was doing so, the boy
saw him throw the body over the stern. Both then entered the boat, the
mate holding the rope which was attached to the body of the deceased,
and they rowed away to the opposite side of the river. The mate there
picked up a large stone, and they pulled some distance up against the
tide. As they went along the trousers and bag slipped from the body. At
length they stopped, and then the mate fixing the stone upon the body
let it go, and it sank to the bottom. They now returned to the ship, and
Ehlert having called the next watch retired to rest, telling the boy
that at four o'clock, the conclusion of the present watch, he would call
him up as if to take the captain ashore, so that the crew might suppose
that he did so. This was done, and he rowed away the boat as if he had
the captain in her. The night of the murder was dark and rainy. The boy
added, that he had done nothing himself in the way of assisting in the
murder, but that he had tried very much to get away. The mate had,
however, threatened him a great deal so as to prevent his escape, and
having compelled him to aid him in the transaction, had given him
instructions what to say in the event of his being questioned.
Upon this statement, Ehlert was committed to take his trial; and the boy
was also detained in jail to ensure his attendance as a witness.
On Saturday the 27th of July, the prisoner Ehlert was put upon his trial
at the assizes. The evidence of the boy was corroborated by that of
other witnesses in many material particulars, and a verdict of "Guilty"
was returned by the jury.
Sentence of death was instantly passed, amidst the unavailing
protestations of the wretched convict of his innocence. Between this
period and the day of his execution, Ehlert continued firm in his denial
of his participation in the murder, and imputed the whole guilt of the
transaction to Muller, who he said had destroyed the captain under the
very circumstances which he had detailed, as having been those under
which he had committed the foul crime. He said he had discovered the
completion of the deed, and out of compassion for the boy had omitted to
give him up to justice. Muller, however, persisted in the truth of his
tale, and on the 16th of August the miserable convict was executed.
GEORGE CANT.
CONVICTED OF RAPE.
The case of this individual presents circumstances of so remarkable a
character to our notice, that we should be guilty of a neglect of our
duty if we omitted their recital.
At the Central Criminal Court on Thursday the 31st of October 1839,
George Cant, a publican, aged forty years, was indicted for a rape upon
Jane Bolland; and in order that the course which the case took may be
understood, we shall repeat the evidence which was given by the
witnesses at the trial, in preference to a general narrative of the
proceedings.
Jane Bolland deposed that she resided with her brother in
Solomon-terrace, St. George's-in-the-East. On the 30th of September she
went to live as bar-maid at the Windsor-castle, public-house, Holborn,
kept by the prisoner. She slept in one of the attics, and the prisoner
and his wife slept in the room underneath. The prisoner called her on
the morning of Thursday, the 3d of October; when she came down to the
bar the prisoner patted her on the cheek with something; he laid his
hand upon her breast, and insisted upon kissing her. She threatened to
inform Mrs. Cant of his conduct, and he said, "What the eye did not see
the heart would not believe." He then wished her to leave the door of
her room open that he might come in when he came to call her in the
morning; but she told him that she was not the sort of person he
imagined her to be, and left the parlour. In the course of the day her
brother and a person named Balfour called upon her, and she communicated
to them what the prisoner had said and done to her. Mr. Balfour said,
that after what had passed he did not think the prisoner would again
attempt to use indecent liberties with her, and her brother, at the
suggestion of Mr. Balfour, advised her not to leave her situation.
Subsequently on that day she became unwell, and about eight o'clock in
the evening she was conveyed up stairs to bed, but she was then so ill
that she could not recollect who went up to her room with her. She was
insensible when she reached her bed, but during the night she partially
recovered, and then she found the prisoner at the bedside. He placed one
of his hands upon her mouth to prevent her calling out, and a struggle
took place and she fainted. There was a candle on the table in the room.
About six o'clock in the morning she recovered her senses, and found her
clothes, which had not been taken off, in disorder, and the bone of her
stays broken. The offence charged in the indictment had been committed
when she was in a state of insensibility. The prisoner was then standing
at the door of her room, and she cried out to him, "You villain, you
shall not come in." He answered, that she was a drunkard and should not
again enter his bar. She went down stairs to inform Mrs. Cant of what
the prisoner had done; but when she told that person that her husband
had used indecent liberties with her, Mrs. Cant said, "I will not hear
you, you drunken hussy." She immediately left the house, and went to her
brother's, where she told what had happened to her. On the Saturday
following she was examined by a medical gentleman.
On her cross-examination by Mr. C. Phillips, who appeared for the
prisoner, she stated that a young man named Joseph Edwards had slept at
her master's house on the night of the 3d of October, and that he
accompanied her home on the next day. He was a friend of Mr. Cant's, and
she had observed him in attendance at the Court. She was subject to a
swimming in the head, and was suffering from this complaint when she
went to bed on the evening in question. She was not intoxicated, and had
taken nothing during the whole day, with the exception of one glass of
half-and-half.
The brother of the prosecutrix and Mr. Balfour, a wine-merchant's clerk,
corroborated that part of the evidence of the witness, which referred to
her conversation with them; and Bolland further deposed, that his sister
had some years previously suffered from a severe attack of erisypelas in
her head, from the effects of which she had been for some time insane.
She was still occasionally subject to determination of blood to the
head.
The wife of Bolland, and the medical man referred to, both gave evidence
which left no doubt that the offence which was complained of by the
prosecutrix had been committed upon her person; and Mrs. Bolland
declared that her sister-in-law, when she saw her on the Friday,
exhibited all the agitation which might be supposed to be incident to
such an occurrence.
The prisoner was proved to have been taken into custody by a constable
named Wells, when he said that he had "only kissed the girl;" and this
closed the case for the prosecution.
Mr. Phillips then addressed the jury for the prisoner, and disclosed a
most extraordinary defence on his behalf. He disclaimed all intention of
impeaching the young woman's character, and was happy that he had no
reason for making even an insinuation against her in regard to her
conduct previous to this occasion. That she was deeply to be
commiserated he owned; and that she had come here to tell what she
believed to be the truth, he had not the least doubt. He was sure,
however, that both reason and a sense of justice would compel the jury
(if the witnesses he intended to call for the prisoner should speak the
truth) to say that they could not see their way through the case, and
that such doubt was created in their minds, as would warrant them in
acquitting the man at the bar. He approached the defence of the prisoner
with the greatest anxiety of mind, because, if the evidence he intended
to adduce should be discredited, the consequences to the prisoner would
be truly awful. The giddiness in the head had induced those who had only
been acquainted with the girl for four or five days to believe that she
was intoxicated; and it was most natural, for the swimming in the head
would produce all the appearances of intoxication. She was taken up
stairs by a servant of the prisoner, who would describe her appearance
at the time, and she would also state, that the young man Edwards came
to the door with her. That she had been violated there was not the least
doubt, but that the prisoner had committed the offence was by no means
clear; and it would be his duty to call the young man, Edwards, who, if
he (Mr. Phillips) was rightly informed, would state that he was the
guilty party. The young woman had given her evidence very fairly,
however, and had doubtless stated only what she considered to be truth.
After Mr. Cant had been committed, Edwards had called at the office of
Mr. Williams, the solicitor for the prisoner, and made a disclosure
which left no doubt of the innocence of the man at the bar. He did not
mean for an instant to justify the conduct of Edwards, and it was a pity
that he did not make all the amends in his power to the young woman. He
was a young unmarried man, and might have done so. It was unlikely the
prisoner committed the offence, for, if he had been guilty, it was not
probable that he would have conducted himself towards the young woman as
she had stated he had done in the morning after she had recovered from
her illness. He (Mr. Phillips) believed he had been a foolish man in
using even the liberty he himself confessed he had done with the girl;
and it would be a warning to others to beware of the consequences of the
smallest deviation from a virtuous line of conduct. The liberty he had
used in the morning had induced the girl to suppose that he had
committed the capital offence upon her during the night. Unfortunately
there were many cases in which the innocent suffered for the guilty, but
there was no instance in which the innocent had actually come forward to
place himself in the situation of the guilty. It was very unlikely that
an individual, entirely innocent of a capital charge like the present,
would come forward and put a rope about his neck, in order to free the
man who had actually committed the crime. He could not, therefore, see
any reason to throw doubt on the testimony of Edwards.
Jane Hollier was then called, and on being sworn stated, that she was at
the Windsor Castle public-house, when this transaction was stated to
have occurred; and at about eight o'clock she assisted the prosecutrix
to bed. Witness thought she was in a state of intoxication at the time.
About twelve o'clock witness again went up to the bed-room of the
prosecutrix, accompanied by Joseph Edwards. Edwards remained at the door
while she went in. She asked him to come up with her, as there was only
one candle. The poor girl was lying on the bed, with her clothes on,
asleep; witness covered her with blankets. Witness was in the room about
five minutes, and the door was closed during that time. When she came
out she found Edwards at the door, and she gave him the light, and he
went towards his bed-room. She neither saw the prosecutrix nor Edwards
again that night.
Cross-examined by Mr. Adolphus: The prosecutrix was not able to speak on
her way up stairs. She heard the prosecutrix say to the prisoner, "You
took liberties with me, you villain."
Mr. George Williams, the attorney for the prisoner, stated that he knew
Joseph Edwards; that person came to his office after Cant was committed,
and made a communication to him. The communication was made after the
prisoner had been admitted to bail.
Thomas Shipton, pot-boy at the Windsor Castle, stated that the
prosecutrix appeared to be intoxicated on the day in question. He saw
her before she went up stairs, and she then presented the appearance of
a person who had taken liquor.
Mrs. Sarah Goodchild, a washerwoman, stated that she was employed by Mr.
Cant. She went up to the bed-room of the prosecutrix about nine o'clock
on the night in question, accompanied by the prisoner and his wife. The
girl was then lying across the bed, and witness, assisted by Mr. Cant,
placed her straight upon the bed. They all left the room together. No
light was left in the room.
Joseph Edwards was called and examined by Mr. Phillips: He was a
boot-maker, and formerly slept at the house of the prisoner. He now
resided at No. 2, Fenton's-buildings. He was in the habit of visiting
the prisoner's family occasionally, and he slept there on the 3rd of
October, when the girl Bolland was there. She went up stairs, he
believed, between nine and ten o'clock. She appeared then to be
intoxicated. He saw her the next morning about half-past six o'clock,
and went to her brother's house with her. They went down Chancery-lane,
along Fleet-street, and over Blackfriars Bridge. He told her that was
the way to the Commercial-road, believing that she lived near the
Commercial-road Lambeth; but it appeared that it was Commercial-road
East, she wished to go to. After the prisoner was committed, he called
at the office of Mr. Williams, and made a communication to that
gentleman, which was true. He made a similar communication to a friend
of the name of Murphy. He went into prosecutor's room about eleven
o'clock on the night of the 23rd of October. He had no light with him.
She was in bed. Edwards proceeded to state that he had criminal
intercourse with the girl, and he felt it his duty, when the prisoner
was committed, to inform Mr. Williams of what he had done.
Cross-examined by Mr. Adolphus: Witness was out of employment at the
time of this transaction. He knew Mr. Cant, and the first time he slept
at the Windsor Castle was on the 3rd of October. He had known Cant for
four or five years. He had lodgings at Bartholomew-close on the 3rd of
October. When he staid at the Windsor Castle late, he was asked to sleep
there. The girl did not appear at all unwilling to submit to the
intercourse; but on the contrary, appeared quite willing. He had not
gone to bed before. She was not covered with blankets. He heard all that
had been stated that day, when the prisoner was examined before the
justices, but he did not then mention a word of what he had now said. On
the way home on Friday, the prosecutrix said that Mr. Cant had called
her a drunkard, and she would fix him for it. She then seemed happy
enough.
Murphy corroborated this statement by declaring that the witness had
told him of what he had done, after the time at which the communication
had been made to Mr. Williams.
A number of witnesses were then called, who gave the prisoner an
excellent character, and
Mr. Adolphus proceeded to reply. He rejoiced that Mr. Phillips had not
attempted to cast any aspersion upon the character of the prosecutrix,
and declared his belief that no attempt could be successfully made to
show that she was unworthy of belief. The case depended entirely now
upon the testimony of Edwards, and the simple question was, whether the
jury would credit his statement in preference to that of the girl
Bolland. No attempt was made to deny the advances which Cant had made to
the girl on the morning of the 23rd of October; and he asked the jury
first, whether having made those advances, it was improbable that he
should have followed them up; and secondly, whether they could believe a
person who came forward and told such an improbable tale as Edwards. The
testimony of the prosecutrix was materially sustained in many
particulars--that of Edwards received no important confirmation. True,
he had gone to two persons to relate his story before he told it here,
but at that time the prisoner was at large on bail; and it was to be
observed that he might have done so for the express purpose of propping
up an improbable story. He had said nothing about it at the
police-office, although he had heard the prosecutrix examined there; and
the whole relation bore so much of the impress of fiction, that the
jury, he was sure, would attach no credit to his declaration.
The learned judge (Mr. Baron Gurney) in summing up contrasted the
statements of the prosecutrix and Edwards with great force, and having
instructed the jury upon the law affecting the case, informing them that
the offence of rape might have been committed upon the prosecutrix while
she was in a state of insensibility, although no resistance had been
made by her, left the whole case to them for decision.
After about two hours' consideration, a verdict of "Guilty" was
returned. The prisoner appeared somewhat astonished at this conclusion
of the case, and loudly declared his innocence. Judgment of death was,
however, recorded against him, and he was removed from the bar.
The very peculiar circumstances of this case attracted a large share of
public attention; and a feeling was commonly entertained that the
verdict was founded upon an erroneous view of the facts of the case. The
persons who adopted this impression lost no time in conveying their
opinion to the Secretary of State for the Home Department; but in spite
of their most strenuous exertions in favour of Mr. Cant, the Government
declined to give a decision in opposition to that which had been arrived
at by the jury, although it was resolved that the sentence of death
should be changed for a punishment of transportation for life.
In obedience to this determination Mr. Cant was subsequently sent out of
the country.
WILLIAM LEES.
EXECUTED FOR THE MURDER OF HIS WIFE.
This melancholy affair was the result of an unfortunate excessive
indulgence on the part of the convict in intoxicating liquors. William
Lees was a hair-dresser, living at No. 1, Lower Chapman-street, St.
George's-in-the-East, where, with his wife, he occupied a small house,
the lower part of which he used in the way of his trade. Lees at the
time of the dreadful occurrence was thirty-five years of age, and his
wife was five years younger. They had been married a period of five
years, but they had been known to quarrel frequently.
On Tuesday the 19th of November 1839, between two and three o'clock in
the afternoon, Lees was observed to close his shop, and quit his house.
He went directly to the residence of some relatives at Islington,
apparently in a state of great perturbation; and after a few minutes'
conversation, he disclosed to them the appalling fact, that he had
murdered his wife on that afternoon, by cutting her throat with a razor.
This was found upon investigation to be unhappily true. The body of the
wretched woman was discovered extended at full length on the floor of
her husband's shop; her throat being so dreadfully cut, as that her head
was nearly off; her face being fearfully gashed and wounded, as if in
the efforts of the murderer before he could effectually complete his
design.