1839, the deceased John Charles went, about ten o'clock in the forenoon,
to the "Boot," on Buckland Common, where he had some beer; and while
there, the prisoner came in to take lunch, about twelve o'clock. They
remained talking and drinking together until about five o'clock in the
evening, when the landlord, John Edwards, came in, with whom they had
some more drink. About half-past ten o'clock at night they rose to go
away, their road being the same to pretty near their respective homes.
Before they went, however, Charles said, "I think I am the best man now,
let us walk the chalk;" meaning that he was the less intoxicated of the
two. "Walking the chalk" is, in this part of the country, the test of
drunkenness, and the experiment is performed by the attempt to walk
straight upon a chalked line drawn across the floor, or by walking along
the straight line between two layers of bricks where the floor is of
that material. The experiment was tried in this case, and the result
proved that Charles, the deceased, was the less affected by drink of the
two; and he therefore undertook, as is usual between two companions on
such occasions, to see the other safe home. Neither of them ever reached
his home, for the deceased perished on the way, and the prisoner having
been taken into custody the same night, remained in Aylesbury jail up to
the day of the trial. The first person who made known the dreadful
catastrophe was the prisoner himself, who, about half-past twelve
o'clock on the same night, in a very wild and still intoxicated state,
went to Johnson, the policeman, in the town of Tring, about two miles
from the place where the death took place, and told him "he had killed a
man." At first the policeman did not believe him, thinking it the mere
folly of drink; but he persisted, and said he would take him to the
place where the body lay. The policeman then went with him, and in a
lane leading to the homes of both parties, the body of the deceased was
found lying on its back on the grass, in a place not exactly on the
road, but where a gap in the field, which was the termination of a
footpath running parallel with the lane inside of the hedge, led into
the road. That path was one which had been made by people going through
the adjoining land to avoid a bad part of the road; and having passed
that portion of the road, they came into the road again. The prisoner,
before the body was found, had told the policeman that he was sure the
person he had killed was "Joe Kibble, the sweep of Tring, who had been
sent by Humphrey Bull to kill him." Humphrey Bull was the relieving
officer of the union, of which both the prisoner and the deceased were
guardians, and was of different politics from the prisoner, the latter
being a liberal, and Bull a conservative; but they were on good terms;
and nothing could show more strongly the strange state of delusion which
the effects of intemperate drinking had wrought upon the prisoner's mind
on that fatal night, than that he should give as a reason for killing
one of his friends, that he believed him to be an assassin sent by
another friend for the purpose of murdering him! On examining the body
of the deceased, it was found to bear marks of dreadful beating on the
head and face, which had produced great effusion of blood. The bones of
the nose were completely broken, and a surgeon deposed to a concussion
of the brain, as one of the effects of the violence which caused death.
In the pockets of the deceased were found a ten-pound note, a five-pound
note, and some sovereigns. On the notes being taken out of the pocket,
the prisoner immediately exclaimed, "These are the two bank-notes which
Bull gave Joe Kibble to murder me!" At that time nobody present was
aware that the body was that of farmer Charles. So far from that, the
policeman actually sent a person to the house of Charles, to ask him to
come to see the body. The prisoner had previously told the police that
he had been going home from the Buckland Inn, with his friend Charles,
but the latter parted from him somewhere on the road, he could not tell
where. The probable solution of the mystery is, that the deceased, who
was proved to be, when in his cups, of a jocose disposition, and rather
addicted to the too-often dangerous practice of practical joking, or
what is vulgarly called, "larking," had, in going home that night,
resolved to frighten Patteson, who, though a man of prodigious bodily
strength, was known to be rather deficient in courage, and had before
expressed fears of going home by that lonely road. With this view, it is
supposed that Charles, taking advantage of the very drunken state in
which Patteson was, slipped away from him among some trees which stood
at the entrance of the footpath which we have before described, and
which ran parallel with the road along which Patteson had to proceed to
his home. A high bank and hedge would screen any person going along this
pathway from the view of another on the road. At the place where the
pathway led again into the road, at the gap, there was a mound of earth
with an open space between that and the hedge, so that a person coming
from the gap might, by going partly behind that mound, be concealed
until he came suddenly in view, and this is probably what the deceased
did in order to frighten his companion; and the position of the body
near the gap when found seemed to strengthen that supposition. Whether
the deceased laid hold of the prisoner before the latter saw him or not
must remain for ever involved in obscurity, as the panic-terror into
which Patteson was suddenly thrown, operating upon the drunkenness,
caused him to destroy the unfortunate man immediately; and it is
probable that from his strength, his first blow knocked him senseless.
The prisoner said, that, while he was beating the supposed murderer on
the ground, he asked him "who sent him to kill him," and that he
pronounced the name of "Bull" three times. This of course was the mere
hallucination of the temporary frenzy produced by drunkenness and
terror. When the prisoner and deceased left the inn together, the latter
had a knobbed walking-stick in his hand, the other had none. The stick
was found under the body of the deceased, but not marked with blood, or
presenting any appearance that could show that it had been used in
inflicting the wounds by the prisoner. Those wounds the surgeon was of
opinion were inflicted by the fist only. The prisoner was in an agony of
grief as soon as he was made aware that it was his friend and companion
Charles that he had so unwittingly slain, and continued in a state of
deep affliction, even up to the time of his trial.
On behalf of the accused, evidence was adduced which showed that he was
a most amiable and respectable man.
Mr. Baron Parke, in summing up the evidence, told the jury that if they
were of opinion that the delusion which operated on the mind of the
prisoner, and led to the perpetration of the fatal act, was caused by
such an alarm of personal danger as would not have produced a similar
effect upon the reasonable mind of a sober man, they must find him
guilty of manslaughter, otherwise the act would be excusable homicide.
The jury returned a verdict of "Guilty of manslaughter," accompanied by
a recommendation to mercy.
Mr. Baron Parke, in pronouncing judgment, observed, that from the time
he had read the depositions he believed the fatal act of the prisoner to
have been the result of a delusion produced upon a mind which
intoxication had deprived of the control of reason; that the prisoner
never had the slightest intention of killing his friend, with whom it
was proved he never had any quarrel, was clear beyond all doubt. It was
not right that he should, however, go altogether unpunished, but in
consideration of his having already suffered five months' imprisonment,
he should sentence him to be imprisoned for two months only, hoping that
this case would be a warning to all who heard it of the danger of
indulging in intemperate habits.
JOHN TURNER FLYNN.
CONVICTED OF FORGERY.
This person was convicted of an offence of a most mischievous
description.
He was indicted at the Old Bailey sessions, on Saturday the 11th of
April, 1840, for feloniously uttering and putting off a forged order for
the payment of money, and a forged certificate, knowing the same to be
forged, with intent to defraud the Commissioners of Chelsea Hospital.
The evidence which was adduced in the progress of the case, showed that
the prisoner was a person of extremely respectable connexions, and was
at the time of his trial in the fiftieth year of his age. At an early
period of his life he entered the navy, and in the course of a long
service was present at many actions, in which he is reported to have
behaved with much gallantry. Having obtained the rank of lieutenant, he
was engaged by her late majesty, Queen Caroline, the unfortunate consort
of George the Fourth, as commander of a yacht, in which her majesty took
frequent excursions, during her residence on the Continent. In this
capacity he gained the confidence of his royal mistress, and she was
known to place much reliance on his ability and zeal in her service. On
her majesty's return to England, Lieutenant Flynn accompanied her, and
he was subsequently examined as a witness before the House of Lords, in
the course of the inquiry, which took place into the conduct of her
majesty. Subsequently to this period, Lieutenant Flynn was supposed by
many of his friends to have had the honour of knighthood conferred upon
for his exertions in favour of the government, and he was generally
known as Sir John Flynn. He was shortly afterwards married to a person
of respectable connexions, by whom he had several children. In the year
1831, Lieutenant Flynn, with a view to increasing the means which he
possessed of supporting his family, at that time resident at St. Malo,
procured for himself a licence to act as a prize agent, an occupation
frequently followed by persons in his situation, and considered by them
as in no degree derogatory to their rank. In the course of his
professional engagements he was compelled to make frequent trips from
France to England, and he became acquainted with Mr. Beresford Ayton, a
Navy-agent, who proposed to put him in the way of increasing his
business. With this view he introduced him to Mr. Holgate, a clerk in
the Prize Office at Chelsea Hospital, and an agreement was entered into,
that the latter should furnish the names of soldiers who were entitled
to prize money, together with the amount standing opposite to their
names, and the transactions in which they had been engaged, and by which
their claims were authorised, (although such a course was opposed to the
duties of his office,) while Lieutenant Flynn should allow him two and a
half per cent. upon all sums recovered from the prize commissioners, by
reason of such information,--the presumed object being, that Flynn
should find out the soldiers, and by informing them of the fact of their
being entitled to put forward their claims, procure them to make
application for such sums as properly fell to their share.
Flynn, however, determined to apply this information to a purpose the
same in effect as that which Holgate supposed him to possess, although
his object was to apply to his own use all the money which he obtained.
With this view he applied, in 1835, to Mr. E. A. Théleur, a friend,
residing in Great Marlborough-street, to receive any letters which might
arrive at his house, addressed for him, and to receive such moneys as
should become payable to him, and retain them for his use. Mr. Théleur
at once consented to this course, and on the 20th of August (in that
year) he received a letter from Nantes.
Among the names handed to Flynn by Holgate, was that of George Langley;
who had been a serjeant of the St. Helena regiment of artillery at the
time of the capture of Buenos Ayres, in 1806, and who was entitled to a
sum of 177_l._ for prize money. In the course of 1835 an application was
received at the Prize Money Office, at Chelsea Hospital, purporting to
be that of Langley, and dated from Nantes, in which the applicant
requested that an order might be sent to him, for the amount standing
against his name. An answer was returned, acquainting Langley, that by
lapse of time his claim had fallen to the ground, for that no such
applications were listened to, if not made within six years of the time
of the money becoming due, but informing him that if he gave a
satisfactory excuse for his neglect, the prize-money commissioners might
grant the prayer of his petition. In reply to this communication,
another letter from Langley was received, and upon the statement
contained in it, an order was transmitted to him, with directions that
it should be filled up in a certain manner, and that a certificate,
signed by certain persons as to his identity, should be sent back, upon
the return of which the money would be paid.
The order and certificate required were received by Mr. Théleur, in the
letter which reached him, which purported to be signed by George
Langley, and which, besides, requested that he would procure money for
the order enclosed. While Mr. Théleur was reading the letter Lieutenant
Flynn called upon him, and when the letter and its contents were shown
to him, he declared that it was quite correct, and expressed a wish that
that gentleman would procure payment to be made to him, as the order was
drawn up in his name. Mr. Théleur, in consequence, proceeded to Chelsea
Hospital, and on the 24th of the same month, a check for the amount was
handed to him, for which he gave a receipt. On the following day he
obtained cash for the check, in obedience to the expressed wish of
Flynn, and he then paid over the amount to him, on his giving him an
acknowledgment for it.
Subsequently some suspicion arose, and Holgate being questioned, he
disclosed what he had done to Mr. Bicknell, the solicitor to the
commissioners of Chelsea Hospital. Inquiries were in consequence
instituted, and it eventually proved that Serjeant Langley had died
within six months of the taking of Buenos Ayres, on board the Woolwich
man-of-war, on his way back to St. Helena; and that, therefore, the
application made in his name must have been fictitious, and that the
certificate as to his identity, which purported to be signed by certain
individuals resident at Nantes, was false, inasmuch as that no such
persons were in existence.
Mr. Théleur, who had now removed to St. Germain, in France, was in
consequence written to, and the explanation which he gave of his
participation in the affair at once cast suspicion on Flynn, who was
eventually apprehended and brought to trial. On the night before the
investigation, which took place before the jury at the Old Bailey, it
was ascertained that the order and certificate, as well as the letters
of application to the prize-money commissioners, were written by a young
woman who had been a member of Flynn's family, but who had been since
married; but in consequence of her absence from London, it was
impossible to obtain her testimony to account for the circumstances
under which she had been induced to draw out those documents.
These circumstances constituted the evidence laid before the jury upon
the indictment preferred against the prisoner. For the defence, it was
suggested, that some person more designing than the prisoner had imposed
upon him; but the jury returned a verdict of Guilty, accompanied by a
recommendation to mercy.
It was stated, that there were other prosecutions against the prisoner
of a similar character, and that frauds to a very great extent had been
committed upon Chelsea Hospital.
Mr. Baron Alderson in passing sentence upon the prisoner declared, that
he felt the deepest regret at finding a person of his rank in life
placed in such a situation. He had hitherto borne a good reputation, but
the crime of which he had been found guilty was of a most aggravated
character:--it was one which might have robbed the soldier of the
hard-earned fruits of his valour, of his meritorious sacrifices for the
safety and honour of his country. A short time before, for such an
offence he would undoubtedly have been consigned to an ignominious
death, and he feared that the laxity with which the existing law was
carried out, would compel the legislature to re-enact that dreadful
punishment for such crimes as his. He would take care that the blood of
no man should rest upon his head; and although it was his intention, as
it was his duty, to present the recommendation of the jury in the proper
quarter, and he should not stand in the way of the mercy of the Crown,
he considered it to be his imperative duty to pass a sentence of
transportation for life.
ALEXANDER M'LAGHLIN SMITH.
TRIED FOR MURDER.
The brutal and sanguinary murder for which this unhappy man was tried,
was that of Mr. William Duke, the chief police-officer of Huddersfield,
in Yorkshire. Surrounded as it is by circumstances of the very greatest
barbarity and atrocity, it is no small relief to find that the person by
whom the dreadful deed was committed was insane, and therefore legally
irresponsible for his acts.
The scene of this dreadful transaction was thus described by an
eye-witness. He says, "On Tuesday the 28th of April, after tea, I paid
one of my usual visits to our beautiful public exhibition, and while in
conversation with a friend, I heard the cry of 'murder,' and rushed out
of the back door, close to which stands our prison and the prison-house.
The crowd around soon told me in what course to direct my steps, and I
immediately entered the prison-house. The first object that struck my
attention was Dawson, one of our police-officers, seated in a chair,
literally stifled with the blood which he was stroking from his head
and neck, and which was streaming from other parts of his body. All was
consternation and horror. The cries of Mrs. Duke, and other females,
that her husband was murdered, induced me to hasten to the prison-yard,
there to witness a scene that beggars description. Blood was so largely
scattered in every direction that the place resembled a slaughter-house.
There I found Duke, our head police-officer, weltering in his blood,
pale with exhaustion, and Mr. Wrigley, surgeon, on his knees, vainly
attempting to stop the bleeding. I rushed back to the front door--sent
for all the surgical assistance to be found, and then returned to the
scene of horror to hear the piteous request of the dying officer, "Don't
remove me, doctor, don't be so cruel--let me die here!"--nearly his last
words.
"On my first entrance into the prison-yard the door of one of the cells
had just been locked, and the horrid imprecations of a wretch were heard
amidst a scene that was calculated to appal the stoutest heart. I soon
learnt the melancholy tale, that this cell contained the author of deeds
that will long live in the memory of the inhabitants of Huddersfield,
and for which there is no parallel in this town since the murder of Mr.
Horsfall, in the days of Luddism, that very day twenty-eight years ago,
and about the same hour, and in a similar beautiful season. I shall
briefly state what I learnt, and which was corroborated at the coroner's
inquest. A Scotch gardener named Alexander MacLaughlin Smith, who for
the last twelve months has been located about Elland and Halifax, where
he is well known, and has been an object of dread from his violence, was
in the act of bargaining for a plant, and wishing to take advantage, he
was given in charge to Dawson, a police-officer, about four o'clock in
the afternoon. Being slightly affected with liquor he resisted, and
became very rough, especially when taken into the prison yard, where he
made an attempt to injure Duke with a pruning-knife. This, however, was
taken from him, and a leg and a wrist chain were put on him, and he was
locked up. He then became outrageous, and continued so until about six
o'clock, when Duke, Dawson, and Dalton, the three police-officers,
agreed to meet and secure him more closely. Duke opened the door of his
cell, and asked what he meant by his conduct; when the prisoner (who,
although chained, was not fastened to the wall) answered that he would
let him know, and with an open pruning-knife in his hand, rushed out and
instantly stabbed Duke, who ran, followed by the prisoner and Dawson.
Dalton ran in a contrary direction, and met the three half-way round the
prison. Duke was laid prostrate, and Dawson in close contact with the
prisoner, bleeding, when Dalton, fortunately having a staff, knocked the
knife out of the hand of the prisoner, and with assistance secured him.
"It was in this position that I found the parties, and shortly after
poor Duke was removed into his house, his wounds washed, and all medical
aid afforded, but he breathed his last about ten minutes after he was
removed, and in about twenty minutes after his deadly encounter. Dawson
was removed to the infirmary, where he now lies with hopes of recovery,
notwithstanding he has received ten or twelve wounds, some very severe,
one of which is nine inches long and deep to the bone. Duke's wounds are
horrid to describe, some six inches long by two and a half deep; but the
one that was the immediate cause of death, was in the inner-side of the
thigh, four inches long and two and a half deep, which cut through
two-thirds of the femoral artery.
"The dreadful news of the murder spread rapidly, and crowds assembled
around the prison. The wretched prisoner in his frenzy rejoiced in his
success, and regretted he had not killed more. I remonstrated with him,
but was only threatened with the same fate, could he reach me. The
wretch was shortly after doubly pinioned, and left for the night. The
morning came; I was kindly permitted to see the prisoner, whose mind
still remained callous, without a symptom of remorse, or the slightest
regret, save that he had hurt his own fingers!
"To-day (Wednesday) an inquest was held at the George Inn, before Thomas
Dyson, Esq., and a highly respectable jury. The whole town was in a
ferment, and when the prisoner was brought in an open carriage, in his
blood-stained clothes, and with his unwashed hands, with an air of
savage indifference, nay even a smile on his countenance, the expression
of indignation was fearful! Before the jury gave their verdict, the
coroner asked the prisoner if he had any questions to ask, when, with
fiendish look and sarcastic sneer, he replied, 'Me ask any question? Are
you satisfied with what you have got? Then be doing!' The jury then,
without removing from their seats, unanimously agreed to a verdict of
'Wilful Murder.' Shortly after the prisoner was committed and driven off
to York Castle, to take his trial at the next summer assizes, amidst a
dense crowd, whose suppressed indignation under the horrid exciting
circumstances of this tragic scene does them great credit.
"The prisoner is about thirty-four or thirty-five years of age, with
sandy hair: he stands about five feet seven inches high, is strongly
built, and very broad in the chest: he has a peculiarly savage aspect.
He is a native of Scotland, and has a wife and two children at Stirling,
in indifferent circumstances, from whom he has long been absent. During
the whole of this tragic exhibition he manifested the utmost callousness
and indifference, even approaching to scorn. Not even the bloody knife
or the bloody soaked clothes, when produced in court, had any apparent
effect on him; and to all appearance the probability of a violent death
has no terrors to him. From first to last he remained unmoved! On his
road to York he was the same, and unreservedly stated, that he thought
no more of killing men that acted to him as the police had done than of
killing bullocks."
The wretched man during his confinement in York Castle exhibited such
symptoms as could leave no doubt of his insanity, and the necessary
precautions against his doing any further mischief were taken.
Dawson, the second object of his attack, after remaining in the police
infirmary during upwards of a month, was sufficiently recovered to
resume his duty, but he was still in a state of considerable weakness,
from the great loss of blood which he had experienced.
The trial of the prisoner took place at York on the 21st of July 1840,
before Mr. Baron Rolfe, when the facts which have been already detailed
having been proved by various witnesses, evidence of the insanity of the
prisoner was given.
The jury, in consequence, acquitted the prisoner, and he was ordered to
be detained during Her Majesty's pleasure.
THE EARL OF CARDIGAN
TRIED AT THE BAR OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS, FOR AN ASSAULT WITH INTENT TO
MURDER.
On Tuesday, February the 16th, 1841, the Right Hon. the Earl of Cardigan
was tried by his Peers at the bar of the House of Lords, for an assault
with intent to murder, alleged to have been committed by him in fighting
a duel with Mr. Harvey Garnett Phipps Tuckett.
In introducing this case to our readers we do not deem it to be
necessary to enter into any minute or extended discussion in reference
to the circumstances which preceded this trial, but it will be
sufficient to point out the general facts by which the duel which was
the subject-matter of the investigation was brought about.