The Chronicles of Crime or The New Newgate Calendar. v. 2/2 / being a series of memoirs and anecdotes of notorious characters who have outraged the laws of Great Britain from the earliest period to 1841

It appears from his letters, that he had moved with extraordinary rapidity from place to place. A variety of blank bills of exchange, ready for use, together with some bills partly filled up, and others with indorsements, were found upon the person of the unfortunate man at the time of his apprehension.

WILLIAM SHEEN.

TRIED FOR THE MURDER OF HIS CHILD.

The facts of the dreadful affair which we have been enabled to obtain, are as follows:—The alleged perpetrator of the horrid act is a native of Radnorshire, South Wales, and was born about the year 1803. He obtained his livelihood by chopping wood, and selling it in bundles about the streets of the metropolis, as also did his father and youngest brother, who lived in White’s-yard, Rosemary-lane, near Tower-hill. The wretched man himself lived, with his wife and infant, at the house of John Pomeroy, No. 2, Caroline-court, Lambeth-street. About February 1827, he was married to the mother of the unfortunate child, previously to which she had given it birth, which reaching the ears of the parish officers of St. Katherine, the parochial officers, upon condition that he would marry her, presented him with 5l. From the moment the little creature was born the wretched father seemed to have the greatest hatred towards it, and frequently he would wantonly, whilst it lay in its mother’s lap, strike it on its head with his fist, or anything that first came to hand; and whenever the mother offered the child to him to kiss, he always turned his head away in great anger. Yet not the slightest thought ever entered the mind of any person that he premeditated its destruction. On the Sunday before the murder, while the mother was dressing the little creature, he took up a piece of wood that lay on the table, and struck it over the head with such force, that a large bump was raised. About half-past seven o’clock on a Thursday evening in the month of May he came home, and the child was then asleep at the breast in its mother’s lap. He gave her money to procure the necessaries for tea, and desired her to leave the child on the bed, as it was in a sound sleep. She did so, and the wretch lay down by the side of it. She left the room, and was gone about a quarter of an hour, but, on her return, and opening the room-door, her feelings of horror can be more easily conceived than described, when she beheld the head of her offspring weltering in blood on the table, with its eyes fixed towards the door. The poor creature, half mad, ran down stairs and called out, “Murder, murder!” and meeting Mrs. Pomeroy, she exclaimed, “Oh, my God! Mrs. Pomeroy, come up stairs, and see what my Bill has done; he has cut my poor child’s head off!” The woman and several of the neighbours ran up stairs and found proof of the horrid deed. The head of the child was lying as above described, and the bleeding body was placed on the bed. Information was directly given at the Police-office, and Dalton and Davis, the officers, proceeded to the room, which they searched, but the weapon with which the murderer committed the deed could not be found; but in one corner of the room they found his fustian coat and hat, both of them covered with blood. Several persons went in pursuit of the wretched man; but the only trace they could obtain of him was, that directly the murder was committed, he was observed running, in his shirt-sleeves, towards his father’s house, in White’s-yard, Rosemary-lane, where he was seen to beckon his father out, who was also in his shirt-sleeves, and they both went away together.

From subsequent inquiries it was discovered that Sheen had borrowed a coat and 10s. from a man named Pugh, who lived in Carnaby Market, pretending that he had had a fight with an Irishman, and was obliged in consequence to abscond; and it was further found, that he had made off, in order to avoid being taken into custody.

Davis, the officer of Lambeth-street, was in consequence directed by the magistrates to endeavour to procure the apprehension of the supposed offender; and we shall give his statement of the means which he employed to secure this object, exhibiting as they do the most praiseworthy ingenuity and perseverance, on his part, in securing the object which he had in view. The officer was examined at Worship-street Police-office, and his evidence was as follows:—

“I left town last Friday night, (May the 18th,) by the Birmingham coach, understanding that the prisoner had gone in that direction. While on my way thither, at about a mile beyond Stratford-on-Avon, a person got on the coach, having the appearance of a discharged soldier, who, in the course of conversation, told me he had exchanged a hat on that morning with a man who said he was going to Birmingham, whom, from the description he gave me of his clothing, I believed to be Sheen. On my arrival at Birmingham, on Saturday, about four o’clock, I without delay commenced a most diligent search, which I continued, but without success, until half-past twelve at night. I resumed it on Sunday, and found the person spoken of, about two o’clock, in the Lamb public-house, in Edgeston-street: he, however, proved not to be the man I wanted. On Monday morning I proceeded through Worcester to Kington, Herefordshire, having reason, from the information I had received, to believe that the prisoner had taken that direction. From circumstances that occurred it struck me that I was in advance of him, and, under this impression, I waited on the bridge, at the entrance of the town, for five hours. While there, considering the best plan I should adopt, I came to the conclusion of going to the remotest inn in the town, to evade publicity, and conceal the object of my journey. While remaining in the town, I deemed it prudent to communicate with one of the county magistrates, and inform him who I was, and what I came down about. I in consequence called on Edward Cheese, Esq., a magistrate and banker, residing in Kington, and from him received every assistance. From the number of Sheen’s relatives living in the neighbourhood, and for twenty miles round Kington, I was kept constantly on the move, and traversed and searched a number of places and houses where I thought it likely he might be concealed.

“While traversing the country, I, from the fear of being recognised, assumed the dress of a countryman, and, with a smock-frock on, I casually went into a public-house, where there were a number of Cardigan drovers, and here I thought my labours would be unsuccessful, for one of them having read from a London paper an account of the murder, and a description of the murderer, who was at once known, I concluded that such warning would be conveyed to him as would defeat my object, particularly as they were going among all his friends. I returned on the same night to Kington; and on the following day a circumstance occurred which enabled me to secure Sheen. On the morning of that day, while cleaning myself, I left my coat (in the side-pocket of which I generally carry my handcuffs and pistols) in the kitchen, and on my return was surprised at finding that the handcuffs had been removed, and were lying on the seat. This was accounted for afterwards by its being told me that they had dropped out, a circumstance that alarmed me a good deal, as they had my name on them, and would lead, as I supposed, to the discovery of who I was and what was my business. I was not much mistaken, for while in my bedroom the person called on me who picked up the handcuffs, and said, “I know who you are, and guess what your business here is—I can give you some information which I think will be of service.” I then collected from him such facts, and so distinct a trace of Sheen, as induced me to go to Penny Bont, taking with me an active constable, of Kington, named Yates. On my arrival there I stopped at the Severn Arms Inn, and in the after part of the evening a man came in and asked for the London paper; this he read carefully, and when he had concluded, first looking inquisitively round the room, he hastily departed in a very agitated manner. His appearance and conduct excited my suspicions, and I inquired from the landlady who he was, and where he lived. I heard that his name was James—that he was married to Sheen’s aunt, and that he lived at about two miles’ distance from the village. I at once followed him, and saw him enter a house, called the Lane House, in Llanbadenwaur, in Radnorshire; and having ascertained where he resided, I returned to the inn, and accompanied by Yates, went back with the intention of searching the house, but thought it prudent not then to do so, as in the event of his not being there, he would be put on his guard. On second consideration I went back again to the Lane House, and having placed Yates at the rear of the premises, I burst in the door, first giving Yates directions, should he see any one coming out answering the description of Sheen, to secure him, and should he attempt to make his escape, to fire at him without hesitation. On going in I found several people in the house, but not the person I wanted, and a third time I returned to my lodgings. In about three hours afterwards, accompanied as before, and making similar arrangements, having received further information, I returned to the same house, and there secured Sheen; he was sitting at breakfast in the chimney corner, and on examining his person, I found on him a shirt spotted with blood, particularly on the neck and right wristband. He came with me very quietly and when I apprehended him, said, ‘Oh, Mr. Davis, is it you?—I shall go with you without any resistance.’ ” Thus terminated Davis’s account, and to some questions from the magistrate, Mr. Wyatt, he said, that Sheen had made no confession to him directly, but that he heard him make one indirectly to the landlady of a public-house in Radnor, to whom he was known, and who asked him, ‘How, in the name of God, came you to do such a cruel thing?’ and he replied, ‘It was not God, but the devil.’ ”

During the time occupied in this search by Davis, a coroner’s inquest had been held upon the body of the deceased child, and circumstances having been proved implicating the father of the infant, a verdict of Wilful Murder was returned against him.

On Friday the 1st of June following, the prisoner was put upon his trial at the Old Bailey, charged upon the indictment with the wilful murder of “William Sheen.”

The circumstances which we have detailed were then proved in evidence, but an objection being taken by the prisoner’s counsel as to the sufficiency of the description of the deceased, who had been baptised “William Charles Beadle Sheen,” it was held to be fatal to the indictment, and a verdict of Not Guilty was, in consequence, returned.

Application was, however, made to the court that the prisoner should be kept in custody, with a view to the presentment of a new indictment to the grand jury.

At the ensuing sessions a second bill of indictment, in which the formal error which we have pointed out was corrected, was presented, and the prisoner was put on his trial on the 13th July. A plea of autre fois acquit was then pleaded in bar, and evidence having been given that the real name of the deceased was sufficiently well known to have enabled the prosecutors to have stated it properly in the first indictment, Mr. Justice Burrough declared that the prisoner could not be again put upon his trial.

Sheen was then discharged, but not until he had received a proper and most affecting admonition from the learned judge as to his past life, and a warning to let his future conduct wipe off the stain, which his position had cast upon his character.

The wretched man is, we believe, still alive, and residing in the vicinity of the spot which was the scene of his unhappy child’s death; and we regret to add that he has not unfrequently been the subject of charges before the police magistrates of the district, upon allegations of riot and intoxication.

RICHARD BOWERS.

TRANSPORTED FOR “DUFFING.”

“Dick Bowers, who has been several times in custody for duffing, was charged with having robbed Mr. Philips, of Bryanstone-street. The complainant said, that on the 6th July, (1827,) he was accosted, in Duke-street, by a person who said he had a quantity of kid gloves, shawls, &c., which he could afford to sell cheap. He accompanied the person to a public-house in Robert-street, Oxford-street, and on entering the room he was introduced to another person, and they produced from a bag a pair of gloves as a sample; and it was agreed upon that he should have two dozen pairs for a sovereign, the price demanded being ten pence a pair. One of the men wrapped up the pair of gloves, and produced a small silk shawl and a piece of cloth, and delivered them into his hands, saying, that he was only an agent, and, therefore, could not let him have the two dozen pairs at that time, but he might take the piece of cloth as a security; and on furnishing him with his address, he (Mr. Philips) might rely on receiving the gloves in a few days. He, accordingly, gave the man a sovereign and took up the parcel. Both the men then left the room, and the prisoner entered, who pushed rudely against him and seized the parcel out of his hands. He told the prisoner that the parcel was his property, having just paid a sovereign for it; but the prisoner insisted on retaining it unless he consented to give him more money. He of course refused to pay anything more, and attempted to take it away by force, but not succeeding, he quitted the house.”

It subsequently turned out that Bowers was a member of the gang of “duffers,” by whom Mr. Philips had been accosted, and that his violent effort to procure the return of the property to himself was only a part of the scheme intended to be put in operation.

At the ensuing Old Bailey sessions, Bowers was convicted of the offence imputed to him, and on Tuesday, 17th July 1827, he received sentence of transportation for fourteen years.

EDWARD GIBBON WAKEFIELD, WILLIAM WAKEFIELD, AND FRANCES WAKEFIELD.

CONVICTED OF THE ABDUCTION OF MISS TURNER.

It would appear that Miss Turner, at the time of this affair, had just entered her fifteenth year. Her father was a man of large property, and was high sheriff of Cheshire; and with a view to the proper education of his daughter, who was a young lady of lively disposition, of quick perception, and besides of great personal beauty, he placed her at the school of a Mrs. Daulby, at Liverpool. She had continued there during a considerable time, when in the month of February 1827, Mr. E. G. Wakefield and his brother William went to Macclesfield on a visit, where they learned the situation, the wealth, and the beauty of Miss Turner. A design was soon formed, by means of which they proposed to secure possession of the person of Miss Turner, and it was but too successfully carried out. With this view they quitted Macclesfield on the evening of the 5th March, with the professed object of proceeding to the metropolis on their route to Paris; but instead of taking the road to London, at seven o’clock on the morning of the 6th of the same month they presented themselves at the Albion Hotel, Manchester, in a Wilmslow post chaise. Having purchased a carriage in this place, they went on towards Liverpool; and at eight o’clock on the morning of Tuesday the 7th March, the newly bought carriage was driven up to the house of Mrs. Daulby, and a servant alighting from it presented a letter, which was in the following terms, and which he professed to have brought with him from Shrigley. It was addressed to Miss Daulby, and was as follows:—

The allusion to the indisposition of the young lady to ride quickly, gave the letter an air of authenticity, and its contents were immediately communicated to Miss Turner. On her seeing the servant, however, she expressed her surprise at his being strange to her, but the fellow, whose name was Thevenot, and who was in the service of Wakefield, answered, with great readiness, that in consequence of Mr. Turner’s having taken a new mansion, he had made some alteration in his establishment, and that he had engaged him as butler, in lieu of the person who had before filled that situation. He added, that the carriage would return by way of Manchester, where it would take up Dr. Hull, who, it was known, had previously attended Mrs. Turner, and that then it would immediately proceed to Shrigley. The extreme plausibility of the man’s manner and story left no room for suspicion, and the young lady was in a few minutes handed into the carriage, and was driven off. The vehicle reached Manchester in due course; but instead of going to Dr. Hull’s residence, it stopped at the door of the Albion Hotel, and there the young lady was directed to alight. She was shown into a private room, but she had scarcely been there five minutes when Mr. E. G. Wakefield presented himself. Miss Turner was at this time completely unacquainted with him, and she was about to leave the room; but on his stating to her that he came from her papa, she remained. She proceeded immediately to make inquiries of him as to the state of her mother’s health; but the necessity of some reason being given why she was not taken to Shrigley having arisen, Mr. Wakefield told her, that the fact was that the real cause of her removal from the school was the state of her father’s affairs, and that the only reason why this was not at once communicated to her was a desire on the part of her parents to keep the circumstance secret from her schoolmistress and companions. He then introduced his brother William to her, and telling her that they were directed immediately to conduct her to Mr. Turner, they ordered post-horses to be instantly got ready. They then proceeded on the road to Huddersfield, and Miss Turner, buoyed up with the assurance of seeing her father at almost every stage, travelled all night until they arrived at Kendal, where she was assured that her parent would be in waiting for them. Here, however, a fresh disappointment awaited the unhappy young lady; and Wakefield, perceiving that she began to exhibit great anxiety, now found it necessary to become “more explicit” upon the subject of the state of her father’s affairs. He stated to her that the bank of Messrs. Daintry and Kyle at Macclesfield had failed, and that an uncle of his, who was a banker at Kendal, had lent her father 60,000l. That this had partially relieved him; but that the Blackburn bank having also failed, everything was now worse and worse. That her father was completely ruined, but that he (Wakefield) was his greatest friend; that his uncle could turn Mr. Turner out of doors, but that Mr. Grimsditch, the legal adviser of the latter, had hit upon a plan which, if it were followed out, would make all right. That some settlements were to be drawn up and made, and some property transferred to her, so that her estate would belong to her husband, whoever he might be; that Mr. Grimsditch had proposed that he (Mr. Wakefield) should marry her, but that as he had never seen her, he had laughed at the proposition; but that his uncle, the Kendal banker, had insisted upon his seeing her, and that it now remained for her to determine whether she would accede to this proposition, or whether her father should be turned out of doors. He added, that she might come to a determination when she saw her father, who was then on his way to Scotland pursued by sheriffs’ officers. Imposed upon by these representations, Miss Turner permitted herself to be carried to Carlisle on the way to Gretna Green; and on their arrival in that city, the younger Wakefield quitted the party for a short time. On his return, he said that he had seen Mr. Turner and Mr. Grimsditch at an inn close by; but that in consequence of their dread of sheriffs’ officers, the former was afraid to show himself: that Mr. Grimsditch, in his fear, had thrust him from the house, declaring his anxious desire that the marriage should take place immediately, for that as soon as the certificate arrived at Carlisle, Mr. Turner would be released. He also added, that Mr. Turner had desired him to inform his daughter, that he entreated that she would not hesitate; for that if she did, there would be an execution at Shrigley, and they would all be ruined.

With such an injunction, Miss Turner, with a degree of filial solicitude which did her honour, hesitated no longer, but at once proceeded to Gretna with Mr. Wakefield, where the ceremony of marriage was performed by the far-famed blacksmith in the customary manner. This done, she returned with Mr. Wakefield to Carlisle, and there expressed her anxious solicitude with regard to her father’s situation, desiring at once to see him, in order that she might be assured of his safety. A new subterfuge was adopted, however, and she was informed that her father, having now secured his liberty, and intelligence of her marriage having already reached him, had gone on to Shrigley, whither they were to follow him. Leeds was the point to which they next proceeded; and on their arrival there, Wakefield recollected that he had an appointment at Paris, which he must keep in the ensuing week. He declared it impossible therefore that they could then go to Shrigley, and he pretended to despatch his brother to Cheshire, with directions to conduct Mr. Turner to London, where they would all meet. Wakefield and Miss Turner arrived at Blake’s Hotel, in Prince’s-street, Hanover-square, at half-past eleven o’clock, on the night of Friday the 19th of March; but there a person who was in waiting having declared that Mr. Turner and Mr. W. Wakefield had proceeded to France, a chaise was directly ordered, and they started for Dover, and from thence by the first packet to Calais.

For several days the circumstance of the abduction remained totally unknown to the friends of the young lady; but the fact of her not having arrived at Shrigley having been discovered by Mrs. Daulby, some members of the family were despatched in pursuit of her, and she was traced to Manchester, and thence to Huddersfield; but there all trace of her and her companion was lost. The dreadful anxiety entertained by the unhappy parents of the young lady was soon still further excited by the receipt of a letter from Mr. Wakefield, dated Carlisle, begging that Mr. and Mrs. Turner would render themselves quite easy, for that the writer had married their daughter. In a state of mind bordering on distraction, Mr. Turner instantly proceeded to London, for the purpose of procuring such aid as could be afforded by the police of the metropolis. His inquiries soon taught him that Mr. Wakefield had carried his daughter to the Continent, and thither he despatched the paternal uncle of the young lady, accompanied by his solicitor and Ellis, an active and prudent officer, attached to Bow-street, and armed with a letter from Mr. Canning to the British Ambassador in France. In the mean time, a letter was received by Mrs. Turner from Mr. Wakefield, dated Calais, in which the writer repeated the declaration that he had married Miss Turner, and taking all the blame of the transaction on himself, as far as “over-persuasion” went, he added, “Miss Turner is fondly attached to me, and I do assure you, my dear madam, that it shall be the anxious endeavour of my life to promote her happiness by every means in my power.”

Upon the landing of Mr. Turner and his companions at Calais, the first persons whom they saw were the young lady whom they sought, and Mr. Wakefield, who were walking on the pier. The exclamation of Miss Turner afforded a convincing proof that she remained with Mr. Wakefield unwillingly; for crying out “Good God! here’s my uncle,” she rushed from her companion, and was soon locked in the embrace of her relation, declaring how rejoiced she was that he had come to convey her home. Mr. Wakefield, on finding matters take this turn, declared that the young lady could not be taken from him by force, and appealed to the civil authorities of the town, whether any person could be hurried from the country against her consent? The mayor immediately interfered; but upon his applying to the young lady to ascertain her feeling upon the subject, she clung to the protecting arm of her uncle, exclaiming that “she would freely go with him, to avoid the sight of that man” (Mr. Wakefield). Mr. Wakefield still urged his right to the possession of the young lady, as she was his wife; but Miss Turner cried out, “No, no, I am not his wife: he carried me away by fraud and stratagem; forced me to accompany him to Gretna Green; and there, in the presence of a third person, I was compelled to acknowledge him as my husband, and to be called his wife. By the same forcible means I was compelled to quit England, and to trust myself to the protection of this person, whom I never saw until I was taken from Liverpool, and now never wish to see again.” Wakefield finding his plans completely frustrated, on this said to the uncle, “Then, sir, you may dispose of your niece as you think proper, but you receive her at my hands as a pure and spotless virgin.” Mr. Wakefield also drew up an acknowledgment, declaring that no familiarities whatever had passed between him and the young lady, and having signed it, he put it into the hands of Mr. Turner.

Mr. Turner and his niece then forthwith returned to England; while Mr. Wakefield proceeded to his hotel, and, having packed up his luggage, started directly for Paris.

A question now arose as to the proper mode of proceeding in the courts of law against the offending parties in this extraordinary transaction. Warrants were, however, issued against the Wakefields, upon one of which Mr. William Wakefield was apprehended at Dover within a few days after his brother’s flight to Paris. He was instantly conveyed before the magistrates of Cheshire, where an examination of great length took place; and after a long argument upon the nature of the offence, he was committed to Lancaster Castle to await his trial, the magistrates refusing to take bail for his appearance at the assizes. Under a writ of habeas corpus, Mr. Wakefield was brought before the Court of King’s Bench on the first day of the following Easter Term; and the depositions in the case being produced on the succeeding day, Mr. Wakefield was admitted to bail, in a personal recognizance of 2000l., and with two sureties in the amount of 1000l. each.

At the following assizes for the county of Lancaster, indictments were preferred against Mr. E. G. Wakefield and Mr. W. Wakefield, for “having at Liverpool feloniously carried away one Ellen Turner, spinster, then a maid and heir-apparent unto her father, William Turner Esq., for the sake of the lucre of her substance; and for having afterwards unlawfully and against her will married the said Ellen Turner.” An indictment was also preferred against the same parties, together with Edward Thévenot, their servant, and Frances Wakefield, their stepmother, who was alleged to be concerned in the transaction, for a conspiracy; and the grand jury returned true bills in both cases, in the former, however, reducing the offence to a misdemeanour only. All the parties, with the exception of Thévenot who was in France, appeared and pleaded Not Guilty to the indictments; and Mr. Justice Park, upon an application by the defendants, refused to postpone the trial. Mr. E. G. Wakefield then claimed a right to traverse, and after some argument it was allowed him. Upon the 21st of August, public curiosity was excited to the highest degree, in consequence of its being anticipated that the trial of Mr. William Wakefield would then come on. The court was crowded to excess, and the ladies formed, as usual on such occasions, the principal part of the audience; but on Mr. Wakefield being called, it was found that he was not in attendance. Great disappointment was felt by the public in consequence, and an order was made by the learned judge that the recognizances of the bail and of the defendant should be estreated. The interest which the public took in this case from its commencement was now doomed to be suspended for a considerable time; for it was not until Friday, March the 23rd, 1827, that the general curiosity which was entertained with regard to the termination of the case was satisfied. The three defendants were then put upon their trial at Lancaster, Mr. Brougham appearing with others for the prosecution, and Mr. Scarlett for the defence. After a trial which occupied the whole day, and in the course of which the circumstances which we have already detailed were proved in evidence, the jury returned a verdict of Guilty against all three defendants. The most remarkable part of the case was the examination of David Laing, the blacksmith at Gretna. His evidence simply amounted to proof, that the Messrs. Wakefield and Miss Turner had come to Gretna, being apparently agreeable to the match, and that he joined their hands, and heard their acknowledgment in the usual form. The young lady, he said, presented him with a twenty-shilling note, and afterwards “embraced her husband very agreeably.” The fellow, in his examination, declared that he had formerly been a merchant (that is, a Scotch pedlar), and that he had been forty-five years employed in joining hands at Gretna Green. He had 30l. or 40l. for this job. In appearance the old man had been made to assume an air of respectability. Some one had dressed him in a black coat, and a velvet waistcoat and breeches of the same colour; the shape of his hat being that commonly known as the “clerical cock.” He seemed a vulgar fellow, though not without shrewdness, and that air of familiarity which he might be supposed to have acquired by the freedom necessarily permitted by persons of a superior rank in life, to one who was conscious that he had the power of performing for them clandestinely a most important ceremony. On his entering the witness-box, he leaned forward towards the counsel with a ludicrous expression of gravity on his face, accompanying every answer with a knitting of his wrinkled brow, and a significant nodding of his head, which gave peculiar force to the quaintness of phraseology which he assumed, and occasionally convulsed the court with laughter.

On the following day, Messrs. E. G. and W. Wakefield submitted to a verdict of Guilty on the second indictment; and upon the two findings the male defendants were committed to Lancaster Castle, there to remain until the ensuing term, when they were to be brought up for judgment in the Court of King’s Bench.

On Monday the 14th of May, Messrs. E. G. and W. Wakefield were carried to the Court of King’s Bench at Westminster, to receive judgment, when affidavits were put in on their behalf, declaring that the latter had acted entirely under the guidance and direction of his elder brother. Mr. E. G. Wakefield also swore, that the expenses of his trial to him had exceeded 3000l. The counsel on behalf of the prosecution having addressed the court in aggravation, pressing for the severest penalty allowed by the law, Mr. Justice Bayley addressed the prisoners. He dwelt in impressive terms upon the falsehood and art used by them to entrap the young lady into the marriage, and the gross delusions resorted to for the purpose of lulling her suspicions, and inducing her to yield to the design in carrying her off. Having then referred separately to the conduct of the defendants, the learned Judge passed sentence, that Edward Gibbon Wakefield should be imprisoned in Newgate for the space of three years and that W. Wakefield should be imprisoned in Lancaster Castle for the like term of three years. Mrs. Frances Wakefield, against whom a verdict of Guilty had also been returned, was not brought up for judgment; the generous feelings of Mr. Turner, much injured as his family had been, preventing him from proceeding with harshness against a female.

On the next day, a motion was made in the House of Lords by Lord Redesdale, for leave to bring in a bill to annul the marriage between Miss Turner and Mr. Wakefield, when, after some discussion, the bill was granted in the usual way, Mr. Wakefield, upon his petition, was subsequently brought from Newgate to oppose the second reading of the bill; but the opposition was fruitless, and it eventually passed both houses of parliament. Messrs. Wakefield afterwards completed the term of their imprisonment; at the conclusion of which they were liberated from the jails in which they were respectively confined.

We are unable to present the reader with any distinct or positive history of the Messrs. Wakefield. At the time of the commission of the offence for the participation in which they suffered so severe a punishment, Mr. E. G. Wakefield was a barrister, and although he was not known as possessing any practice in the profession of the law, he was understood to be in the receipt of an income of about 1000l. a year. He was at this time a widower with two children, having eloped with his first wife from a school. His children were in Paris; but upon his committal to Lancaster Castle, they followed him to that place with their governess. Mr. Wakefield was at that time about thirty years of age, and in a letter which was addressed by a person named Collier on his behalf to the newspapers, he denied the allegation that he was unacquainted with Miss Turner before the elopement, declaring that he had previously met her at a public ball. In the course of the time occupied by the public in the discussion of the case, he put forth a statement of facts, denying that any force or fraud had been used towards Miss Turner; and subsequently, while in Newgate, he published a pamphlet, the object of which was to show that Miss Turner was really his wife, that she was a consenting party to the marriage, and that no ground therefore existed for the divorce. Mr. Wakefield has since become well known in the mercantile world from his connexion with several public companies.

Mr. W. Wakefield at the time of this offence was much younger than his brother, and appears to have acted almost entirely under the directions of the latter. He was married only a few days before his apprehension to a lady entitled to move in the most respectable ranks of society. He has since, we believe, served with honour and credit to himself in the army of one of our European allies, in which he obtained the rank of colonel, and at this time he holds an important trust in a colony newly formed at New Zealand.

The following case, which is mentioned in the Continuation of Rapin, will no doubt prove interesting as illustrative of the circumstances which we have just detailed:—“During this session of parliament (1690, 3rd William and Mary) happened an incident which made a great noise. Captain James Campbell, brother to the Earl of Argyle, on the 14th of November, forcibly seized on Miss Mary Wharton, daughter and heiress of Sir George Wharton, a fortune, as it was said, of 50,000l., and about thirteen years of age. She was carried away from her relations in Great Queen-street, and married against her will. The next day his majesty issued his royal proclamation for apprehending Mr. Campbell and the abettors of this unwarrantable action, and Sir John Johnston being apprehended, was tried, condemned, and executed at Tyburn, notwithstanding great application was made to the king and the relations of the bride to save his life; which was thought the harder, as it appeared upon his trial that Miss Wharton had given evident proofs that the violence Captain Campbell used was not so much against her will as her lawyers endeavoured to make it. Not long before, there was a bill brought into the House of Commons to prevent clandestine marriages, which it was thought this incident would have accelerated, but it dropped. However, another bill was brought into the House of Commons the 4th December, to render void the marriage between Miss Wharton and Mr. Campbell, which, notwithstanding the Earl of Argyle petitioned against it on behalf of his brother, passed both houses by the 13th of December.”

It may be well to state that considerable doubt was at first entertained as to the nature of the offence committed by the defendants in this case. By an act of 3 Henry 7, c. 2, it was made a capital felony to carry off and marry women, being of substance or heirs apparent, forcibly. There was another statute, 4 & 5 Philip and Mary, which referred to the abduction and marriage of such women without force; but there were subsequent statutes by which those provisions which rendered the offence capital were repealed. The proceedings against the defendants therefore assumed the more lenient form which we have described.

It is only necessary for us further to state, that Miss Turner was subsequently married to Mr. Legh, a gentleman of wealth and consideration in the north of England, but that she unfortunately died in giving birth to her first child.

JOSHUA SLADE.

EXECUTED FOR THE MURDER OF THE REV. J. WATERHOUSE.

It would appear that the unfortunate gentleman who was the victim of his crime was a person of most eccentric habits. He was possessed of a rectory, at Stukeley, near Huntingdon, of the value of about 400l. a year; and attached to the land which he held was an elegant rectory-house. His habits of parsimony had induced him to give up the occupation of the greater portion of this dwelling as a residence; and he had stored many of the best rooms, furnished as they were, with grain, the produce of his farm. A like feeling had excited in his mind an indisposition to pay taxes for more windows than were absolutely necessary to give light to the apartment which he used; and out of about forty windows in his house, two only were suffered to remain. He lived constantly in the kitchen, without any regular female domestic, and performed the office of cook for himself and his workmen. Every Saturday the reverend gentleman walked to Huntingdon market, a distance of between three and four miles, frequently driving his pigs before him; and after having transacted his farming business, he used to carry home his tea and sugar, and other necessaries for the week, in a basket. His known parsimony appears to have induced the criminal to commit the foul crime of which he was guilty.

It seems that Mr. Waterhouse was about fifty-five years of age; and the house which he occupied was situated nearly in the centre of the village of Stukeley, but stood alone in the farm-yard about fifty yards from the street. On the morning of Tuesday, 3rd July, 1827, the reverend gentleman arose at about five o’clock, and was occupied until about ten with his farming business. He then gave some instructions to one of his workmen, and retired to his own house; and between this hour and eleven o’clock the murder was accomplished. The body was first discovered by two farmboys, who found it lying in a mash-tub; but in consequence of the eccentricity of the deceased, they were induced to suppose that he was only joking, and they took no notice of the circumstance. The truth, however, was eventually discovered, and it was found that the unfortunate man had been murdered in a most barbarous manner. Suspicion at once attached to Slade, who eventually confessed himself to have been guilty of this most atrocious crime, and he was taken into custody. Circumstances were then discovered which left little doubt of his being the guilty person, and upon his trial the jury returned a verdict to that effect. Considerable anxiety was entertained in reference to the case by the learned Judge, who deemed the evidence inconclusive; and the trial having taken place on the 1st of August, he respited the unhappy prisoner until the 1st of September, in order that further inquiries might be made. On the 2nd of August, however, the convict confessed the crime in the following terms:—

“On the morning of the 3rd of July, 1827, I went direct from the Swan public-house at a quarter past two, and got over the garden-wall. I was then fresh. I saw Peter Soby at his door. I went to a straw wall near the dove-house, and laid there till five in the morning. I had a sword hid in the straw wall about five weeks, which I had stolen from the Horse and Jockey public-house, Huntingdon. I drew the sword out, and left the scabbard in the wall, and I put the sword down my trousers by my thigh. On my going out, I saw Mr. Waterhouse in the yard; but he did not see me. The garden-door of the house was not fastened, and I went to it and opened it; and I went up stairs and hid myself in the wool chamber from five until ten o’clock, intending to rob the house at night. While lying there, I went to sleep, and I dare say I snored. Mr. Waterhouse happening to come up stairs, heard me breathe; and coming into the room, he exclaimed, ‘Hollo! who are you? what do you do here?’ I then got up, drew the sword and laid hold of him. He wanted to go into the room where his blunderbuss was, but I would not let him. I led him down stairs, but nothing was said. He attempted to get away, but I would not let him; and when we got to the ground floor, I said, ‘Now, Mr. Waterhouse, if you’ll forgive me, I’ll forgive you; and if not, this is your death-warrant’ (holding up the sword.) He said, ‘No, I will suffer any thing first.’ I then let him go, and he went to run by to the kitchen-door to call somebody; but just as he turned into the kitchen I caught him a backhanded blow across the jaw, and he reeled back, caught himself against the tub, and fell backwards into it. While in this situation, I struck him several times; and he guarded the blows off with his arm. He laid hold of the sword twice; upon which I drew it out of his hands and cut his fingers. I also stabbed him in the throat, which was the last blow; and he then said, ‘I’m done,’ and died immediately. There was no blood on me except on my finger, and one spot on my waistcoat, and that I wiped out directly. I didn’t hear the dog bark all the time; and he wouldn’t bark at me, for he knew me. The kitchen-door leading to the yard was wide open all the time, but no person came near the house. Having committed the murder, which was all finished by ten minutes past ten o’clock, I immediately ran out of the house, and I turned to the right and threw the bloody sword among some young trees. I ran away, and continued at work until seven at night; and then I went home, had my supper, and went to bed.”

A search was made immediately after the confession for the sword, and it was discovered in the place pointed out. It was lying within a few paces of the scene of the murder, and it is strange that it should have remained so long undiscovered.

The wretched man after this confession applied himself zealously to the performance of his religious exercises, and underwent the dreadful sentence of the law at Huntingdon on the 1st of September 1827.

WILLIAM MILLER.

EXECUTED FOR THE VIOLATION AND MURDER OF MARY ANNE LANE.

THIS extraordinary and most horrid case, which for a considerable time excited a very great degree of interest in the county of Warwick, where it occurred, and which in many respects much resembles that of Abraham Thornton and Mary Ashford, occurred at a place named Bishop’s Itchington, near Harbury-field. The trial came on at Warwick on Friday, August 24th, 1827, when the prisoner William Miller, who was a man thirty-five years of age, was indicted for the wilful murder of Mary Ann Lane, on the night of the 26th of May, by casting her into a pond at Harbury. The material facts which were proved in evidence, were that the prisoner was a labourer, in the service of Mr. Heath, a farmer, at Harbury; and that the deceased had been formerly a wet-nurse in that gentleman’s family, being married to a labourer in the same employment. On the 26th of May, Mr. Heath gave an entertainment to all the servants, labourers, and other persons, who were then, or who had been previously employed by him. The prisoner, the deceased, and the husband of the latter were at the entertainment, and some conversation took place between the two former persons with regard to the return home of the female. At about a quarter before eight, the deceased started on her way home, taking the accustomed path into the high-road leading towards Bishop’s Itchington, which was situated at a distance of about two miles. The prisoner was then talking with a man named Bentley, and remarking the departure of the woman, he said “he’d be d—d if he didn’t go home with her;” and going away, he took a short cut across the fields, so as to intercept her in the high road. From this time nothing was seen of him until ten o’clock at night; and then he was near his own residence at Harbury, which was about a mile nearer to Mr. Heath’s than Bishop’s Itchington, but lay a considerable distance to the left of the road leading to that place. Mrs. Lane did not return home that night; but the murder was not discovered until the following day, when Mr. Abraham Pratt was passing over Harbury-heath, in company with his brother, and he saw something black in a pond there, and an umbrella sticking up above the surface. His brother also picked up a pair of pattens; and then, upon their raking out the black substance which they had seen, they found it to be the clothes, covering the murdered body of Mary-Anne Lane. Upon their examining the spot, they observed appearances, as if some struggling had taken place, and they also saw marks in the clay of a man’s boots, and of what seemed to be knees, covered by corduroy trousers. The body of the deceased was removed from the pond, and upon an examination taking place, little doubt was left, that the unhappy woman had been violated, and then barbarously murdered. In the course of the day, the prisoner was taken into custody by direction of Mr. Heath, when he admitted having accompanied the deceased as far as the gate leading to the heath; but declared that he had there quitted her, and had returned home by the foot-path. His house was afterwards searched, and a pair of corduroy trousers was found steeped in a tub of water. Upon the shoes, which he wore on the previous day, being demanded, he took them from his feet, and their soles were found to correspond exactly with the footmarks in the neighbourhood of the pond. The prisoner was then conveyed in custody to the New Inn, and there a long conversation took place with regard to his family. He repeatedly admitted that he had “done it,” and expressed some anxiety to know whether, if he pleaded guilty, he should escape transportation. On his being conveyed to Warwick jail, he declared, that it was drink that had instigated him to the deed. He said that on his going from Mr. Heath’s house, he met the deceased and accompanied her as far as Harbury’s Poor Piece, that he there offered some familiarities to her, but that she was very awkward, and would not consent, on account of his being so drunk; with that he caught hold of her, and threw her down, and she began to make a noise. He put his hand upon her neck to prevent her from hooting, and scratched it, and she fainted away. He was frightened and carried her down to the pit, and threw her in. She revived and came to the edge of the pit, but he caught hold of her and threw her in again, falling in with her. He was up to his middle in water, and he held her head down till she was dead, and then he came out of the pit very much frightened. Upon this the prisoner was fully committed for trial.

The circumstances already detailed having been proved in evidence before the jury, a verdict of Guilty was immediately returned, and the wretched man received sentence of death.

He was executed in pursuance of his sentence on the 27th of August, 1827, professing sincere repentance of the crime of which he had been guilty.

WILLIAM JONES.

TRIED FOR THE MURDER OF ELIZABETH JEFFE.

It appears that Mr. Lett resided at Dulwich, and the house in Montague-place, which he had formerly occupied, being to let, he had placed the unfortunate Mrs. Jeffe in it to take care of it, and to exhibit its rooms to any person who might be desirous of renting it. On the evening of Monday, the 1st January, she was last seen alive by Gardner, the pot-boy of the Gower Arms public-house, Gower-street, who delivered a pint of beer to her, and then she was in conversation at the door with a young man, dressed in a blue coat, and wearing a white apron. On the following day the house remained closed contrary to custom, and some suspicion being entertained that something serious had occurred to cause this unusual circumstance, information was conveyed to Mr. Justice Holroyd, who resided in the same street, whose butler, with the porter of Mr. Robinson, an upholsterer, proceeded to the house. Some difficulty was at first experienced in obtaining admittance; but the back area door having been forced, the unfortunate woman was found lying in a front room on the basement story, with her throat dreadfully cut and quite dead. Mr. Plum, a surgeon of Great Russell-street, was immediately sent for, and on his arrival, he proceeded to an examination of the person of the deceased. He found that she had been dead during several hours, and that her death had obviously been caused by the loss of blood occasioned by the wound in her throat, which extended through the windpipe and gullet, and the large vessels on the right side of the neck. The handkerchief of the deceased had been thrust into the wound, but from the appearances which presented themselves, it became obvious that the foot and not the hand had been employed to place it in the position in which it was found. On the left collar-bone there were some bruises, as if produced by some person’s knuckles, and upon the thighs there were similar marks, as well as some drops of blood, but no wound was discovered besides that in the throat, to which death could be attributable. Upon a further inspection of the deceased’s clothes, it was discovered that her pockets had been rifled; but although the kitchen drawers were open, and bore the bloody impress of fingers, and a work-basket was similarly stained, there was nothing further to show that the object of the murderer, which was evidently plunder, had been attained. The neck-handkerchief and cap-ribbon of the wretched woman were cut through, apparently in the effort to inflict the wound, and independently of the opinion of Mr. Plum, that the deceased could not have cut herself to such an extent, the fact of her death being caused by the hand of another was clearly shown, by the absence of any instrument with which the wound could have been inflicted, although part of a razor-case was found lying on the floor. Upon an examination of the house being made, it was found that the hall door was merely on the latch, and the furniture in the parlour presented an appearance which showed that the murderer had gone into that apartment after the death of his victim. A publication headed “The State of the Nation” was found there smeared with blood, and a doe-skin glove for the right-hand, on which marks of blood were also visible, was discovered lying on the floor.

From circumstances which came to light, the officers who were employed to endeavour to trace out the perpetrators of this atrocious murder, were induced to suspect that Charles Knight, the son of the deceased, was in some measure implicated in its commission. By direction of Mr. Halls, the magistrate of Bow-street, who throughout the whole case exhibited the most unremitting desire to secure the ends of justice, therefore, he was apprehended at his lodgings in Cursitor-street; but upon his being questioned, he gave a clear and unembarrassed statement of the manner in which he had been engaged during the night of the murder, and inquiry having proved this to be true, he was ordered to be discharged.

The police were now completely at a loss to fix upon any person as being open to suspicion. The man who had been seen in conversation with the deceased at the door of her house, however, appeared to be pointed at by common consent, and an accident soon pointed out a person named William Jones as the individual suspected. It was learned that he had been in the habit of calling upon the deceased at her master’s residence, and that he was a seafaring man; but beyond these circumstances, and that he had been living in Mitre-street, Lambeth, nothing could be learned of him or his pursuits. On inquiry being made at his lodgings, it was discovered that he had absconded, and the suspicion of his guilt, which was already entertained, was greatly strengthened by this circumstance. A reward of 10l. was offered for his apprehension, and by a remarkable accident on Monday the 13th January he was taken into custody by a city officer, on a charge of stealing a coat. He was then taken to Guildhall office, but Salmon, the Bow-street officer, having claimed him on this charge, he was delivered over to his custody, and by him conveyed to Bow-street. He there most strenuously denied that he was at all implicated in the murder, although he admitted that “he had done other things,” but he was remanded for the production of further evidence. From subsequent inquiries, it was learned that he was the son of Mr. Stephen Jones, a gentleman well known in the literary world as the author of a dictionary called “Jones’ Sheridan Improved,” and as the editor of a journal published in London. This gentleman, who died only a short time before the Christmas preceding the murder, left two sons, who possessed considerable talents, but who were too much inclined to habits of dissipation. William Jones had gone to sea, but latterly, on his return, being so much straitened in his circumstances as to be sometimes in actual want, he had occasionally visited Mrs. Jeffe, who was a kind-hearted woman, and who, from the respect which she bore his family, had often relieved his necessities. At the time of his apprehension he was twenty-five years of age, and was dressed in a blue coat, as described by Gardner, the pot-boy, by whom he was seen talking to the deceased. Upon his subsequent examinations, the material facts which were proved against him were, that he had been living with a young woman, named Mary Parker, who generally went by the name of Edwards, in Wootton-street, Lambeth; but that on the 27th of December, he suddenly removed with her to Mitre-street. During the latter part of his residence in Wootton-street, he was in extremely bad circumstances, and on the 31st of December, he and his paramour were entirely without food or money. On that night he quitted Parker in Fleet-street, and appointed to meet her at the same place at half-past twelve o’clock, and at that hour he came to her, as she was standing near Serjeants’ Inn, in a direction from Shoe-lane. He then had money and treated her to something to drink; and on the following morning he went out for an hour, but returned, and now produced a considerable quantity of silver money, with which they were enabled to redeem some clothes, which had been pawned, and afterwards to go to the Olympic Theatre. In the course of the ensuing week, the prisoner was observed to be anxiously endeavouring to prevent the discovery of his new residence, by going home by circuitous routes, and other means, and was heard to declare his apprehension that some officers were in search of him; but the most important circumstances proved were, first, that of the prisoner having a severe cut on his left thumb, when he was taken into custody, which appeared to have been recently inflicted; and secondly, that the razor-case, which was found lying near the body of the deceased woman, had been lent to the prisoner, on the Sunday before the murder, with a razor, by Mrs. Williams, with whom he had formerly lodged. Upon proof of these facts, the prisoner was fully committed for trial; but strong as the suspicion was against him, it proved to be insufficient in the minds of the jury, before whom the case was tried, to warrant them in returning a verdict of guilty.

The case came on at the Old Bailey sessions, on Friday the 22nd of February, when considerable curiosity was exhibited by the public. The court was crowded to excess at an early hour, and its avenues were thronged until the conclusion of the proceedings. The prisoner was put to the bar at ten o’clock, and pleaded Not guilty, to the two indictments preferred against him; the first for the murder, and the second for stealing a coat, the property of George Holding. Having been given in charge to the jury in the first case, the evidence which we have given in substance, was detailed by the various witnesses. The prisoner on being called on for his defence read a paper, in which he complained of the prejudices which had been excited against him, and solemnly asserted his innocence of the crime imputed to him. He entered into a long argumentative statement, contending that no grounds whatever existed for believing him guilty of the murder; and witnesses having been called on his behalf, who swore that his disposition was both mild and humane, the trial terminated at twelve o’clock at night, when the jury returned a verdict of Not guilty.

The prisoner was arraigned on the next day upon the second indictment, when he withdrew the plea which he had put on the record, and confessed himself guilty. At the following sessions, held in the month of April, he was sentenced to be transported for seven years; in pursuance of which, he was sent to Van Diemen’s Land. Some surprise was excited at his having escaped thus easily from the hands of justice, as it was known that there were charges of forgery to a considerable extent pending against him; and it was suggested that some persons of respectability and good standing had interested themselves in his behalf.

Howard assaulting Mr. Mullay.
P. 141. Vol. 2.

It has been reported, that he has been executed in Hobart Town, for bush-ranging, and that before his death he confessed himself guilty of the murder for which he was tried; but although the idea gained currency at the time of its being thrown out, we have no means of ascertaining the degree of credit to which the story is entitled.

WILLIAM HOWARD.

CONVICTED OF AN ASSAULT WITH INTENT TO ROB.

The prosecutor on the indictment preferred against the prisoner, was a Mr. Mullay, an Irishman, and it appears that, being desirous to obtain some mercantile employment, he advertised in the newspapers, offering a loan of 800l. or 1000l. to any person who should be able to introduce him to such a situation as he desired. On the 6th of February 1828, he received an answer in the following terms:—“If J. L. will have the goodness to call upon Mr. Howard, No. 36, Red Lion-square, Holborn, to-morrow or the next day, between the hours of twelve and four o’clock, he will no doubt hear of something that will suit him.” For some time Mr. Mullay paid no attention to this note, but at length on Friday the 15th of February, he called at the house to which he was directed. It was a house in which a society, called the “London Co-operative Society,” held their meetings; and upon his making known his errand, he was introduced to Howard. Having mentioned the object of his call, the latter immediately became very communicative upon the subject of the advertisement. After a short conversation, in which he stated that he was a relative of a gentleman who had great interest in procuring lucrative situations, Mr. Mullay explained that his object was not to purchase a place, but only to advance money, in consideration of his receiving an appointment, upon proper security, but without interest. “Step up stairs then,” said Mr. Howard, and they immediately proceeded to an attic at the back of the house, peculiarly adapted for the commission and concealment of the sanguinary attack, which was eventually made. The conversation on the subject of the required loan was here renewed; and it was at length agreed that Mr. Mullay should be at the same place at one o’clock on the next day, prepared to produce the cash, and that Mr. Owen, who was represented as the party whose interest was to be employed, should then also be in attendance. On the following day, Mr. Mullay and Mr. Howard were punctual to their appointment, and again proceeded to the room which we have already described, but Mr. Owen did not make his appearance, and two hours were spent in awaiting his arrival. In the course of this time some conversation took place between Howard and his intended victim, in which the former managed to discover that Mr. Mullay had provided himself with 500l. to meet the anticipated demand. The manner of Howard during the whole of this conference was such as to excite some degree of suspicion on the part of Mr. Mullay. He observed that he frequently eyed him, as if to ascertain their comparative strength, and the presence of a large clasp knife, and of a heavy trap-ball bat in the room, for which their owner gave no very satisfactory reason, did not serve to alleviate the apprehension which he entertained. Although he was considerably alarmed at these circumstances, he felt indisposed to give credit to the suspicions which flashed across his mind; and at length he quitted the house, promising to call again on the following Monday, in the anticipation of then seeing Mr. Owen. On that day that gentlemen was still not forthcoming, and another appointment for Tuesday at twelve o’clock was made, Howard cautioning him “to be sure not to forget the money.” At twelve o’clock on Tuesday Mr. Mullay called, and he was immediately introduced to the same little room at the back of the house. Howard was there, and appeared to be labouring under an extraordinary degree of excitement and agitation. A conversation was commenced, but was sustained with great inequality; and at length Howard directed Mr. Mullay to write Mr. Owen a note from a copy which he handed to him. Mr. Mullay acquiesced, and taking off his great-coat, hung it up in the room; but he had scarcely commenced writing, when he observed his companion thrust the poker violently into the fire. Mr. Mullay did not relish this extraordinary proceeding, and removed the poker; but he had scarcely resumed his seat, when Howard, as if driven on by some feeling which he could not control, suddenly locked the door, and seizing the bat and knife, already referred to, commenced a violent attack upon him. Mr. Mullay at once perceived that robbery and murder were intended, and rushing at his antagonist, he determined to make a desperate resistance. Blow followed blow from the bat upon his head; and he would, doubtless, have been severely injured with the knife, which his assailant retained in his left hand, had he not by a violent wrench succeeded in breaking it in two—an effort, however, which he did not make without receiving some severe cuts upon his hands. The struggle meanwhile continued for life or death, the blood flowing copiously from the wounds which Mr. Mullay had received from the bat, by which his vision was almost obscured. Cries of “Murder” were repeated by the unfortunate gentleman, but his assailant, who seemed determined upon finishing him, declared that it was of no use, for that he had assistants at hand, who would aid him in “doing for him.” Desperate with the idea that his life would be violently taken from him, Mr. Mullay redoubled his cries, and rushing from his assailant, he thrust his hands through the windows to render his voice audible to the neighbourhood. Seizing the poker, he resolved to make one final effort, and dashing his assassin antagonist to the ground, he fell upon him, and a frightful struggle ensued. Mr. Mullay being the stronger man, however, he got his knee upon the other’s chest, when the approach of footsteps outside the door was heard. He now gave himself up for lost, supposing that new enemies were come to attack him, but he had resolved to sell his life as dearly as he could, when, to his surprise, Howard begged for quarter. Imagining that this might be only a subterfuge, he determined not to give up the advantage which he had obtained; but Howard, repeating his anxiety to be allowed to rise, and declaring that he had no intention of doing him any harm, he at length permitted him to get up from the floor. The door being then immediately opened, the people of the house entered the room, and the street keeper of Red Lion-square being called in, the culprit was secured. The room, as well as the persons of the prisoner and Mr. Mullay, were found to be deluged with blood; and the latter gentleman having been attended by a surgeon, was discovered to have received wounds of a dangerous character.

The prisoner was immediately conveyed to Hatton Garden police-office, where he made a vehement appeal to the magistrates, and positively denied any intention to assassinate the prosecutor. He declared that he was labouring under extreme ill-health; and that unless he was immediately supplied with an ounce of opium, his death would be the consequence. He was committed to Newgate to take his trial, and upon inquiry being made it was learned that he was in a state of extreme want.

On Tuesday the 26th of February, the prisoner took his trial at the Old Bailey. Mr. Mullay having been examined as to the circumstances already detailed, the prisoner read the following account of the transaction. He said that he had resided in Red Lion-square for about three weeks, at the time of his being taken into custody. His circumstances during that time were certainly bad; and having consulted with an acquaintance, who passed by the name of Owen, and who was equally badly off, as to the best mode of relieving their pecuniary wants, they adopted the following plan. Perceiving the prosecutor’s advertisement, they determined, if possible, to induce the advertiser to lodge his money in some banking-house in the joint names of himself and Owen. They imagined that this deposit would enable them to refer to the banking-house, as to their respectability, and by that means obtain credit to a considerable amount. Having answered the advertisement, Mr. Mullay called upon him, and he intimated to him, that there was a situation under Government, which was vacant, the value of which was about 350l. per annum; and that Mr. Owen would be able to procure it for him, provided he consented to pass as his relative; and that the return which they expected was the deposit of three years’ salary in the hands of a banker, to be paid over at the end of three months as a premium. Mr. Mullay appeared to consent to this proposition, and several appointments were made to carry out the agreement, at which Owen, it was expected, would attend. On the Tuesday, Mr. Mullay waited for a considerable time, and having already experienced great disappointment in not seeing Mr. Owen, in order that the affair might be finally settled, he expressed himself in no measured terms of the neglect which had been exhibited towards him. Being in bad health and of an irritable disposition, he (the prisoner) became enraged at an offensive epithet which was applied to him, and struck the prosecutor a blow in the face. A violent scuffle took place, in the course of which, finding that the prosecutor was superior to him in size and strength, he admitted having exerted himself to the utmost in his own defence.

The jury, however, notwithstanding this ingenious version of the case, found the prisoner guilty of an assault with intent to rob, and he was sentenced to be transported for life.