1814: Crime and Capital Punishment:

Chapter 1. The evolution of the early 19th C Criminal Justice System.

We remember the outbreak of the First World War one hundred years ago. This ended a century of relative peace in Europe, a century of great technological progress in which the modern world was born and a century of huge social change in England. But two hundred years ago, 1814 was also a cusp year. Napoleon surrendered, a page was turning and a better future beckoned. However, in 1814, in many ways the social institutions of England remained medieval, none more so than the criminal justice system.

The struggle between Britain and France for ascendancy in seaborne commerce, which had lasted over a hundred years came to a climax when Napoleon was defeated and despatched to Elba, and apart from his brief Last-Hurrah, which ended at Waterloo, the foundations for a century of comparative peace in Europe – the Pax Brittanica – was laid. The end of the war also brought a slump in the price of imported corn, resulting in the first protectionist Corn Laws in the following year.

Simultaneously, the Industrial Revolution was getting into its stride. High-pressure steam, which powered the locomotive revolution, was passing from development into deployment. The first prototype land locomotive, constructed by William Murdoch, a steam engineer, had appeared on the streets of Cambourne twenty years earlier. In 1801, his next door neighbour, Richard Trevithick, demonstrated The Puffing Devil, an untracked, high-pressure steam locomotive capable of carrying passengers. In 1808, in London, he demonstrated passenger carriage on a demonstration track (The Steam Circus). Unfortunately, nobody could see a use for such machines. In 1814, the first commercial land locomotives came into service hauling coal, Hadley’s Puffing Billy, and Stevenson’s Blucher. Within sixteen years the first passenger line, from Manchester to Liverpool, opened. Land locomotives provided the inland transport infrastructure so necessary to ignite the industrial revolution. Land, sea and air locomotives are now indispensable to modern life.

In parallel with the imperial commercial rivalry between European nations, new vehicles for the promotion of commerce had grown up involving the trade in stocks and shares. The Stock Exchange had come into existence, and in 1812 it issued its first codified rule book. With the war against France reaching its climax, well placed individuals saw an opportunity to manipulate the market. 1814 was the year of the Great Stock Exchange Fraud, an attempt to manipulate the markets and make a big profit.

This was also a great age of scientific advances. The long wars between France and Britain were not permitted to impair the progress of science, and Sir Humphrey Davy, the famous chemist who had isolated several elements using electrolysis, went to Paris in 1813 to receive a medal conferred on him by Napoleon in recognition of his work. He continued on a continental tour, meeting many eminent men of science. In 1814 he headed to Italy to meet Allesandro Volta, who had discovered the electrochemical series, the electromotive force, and invented the electrical battery. Clinging to the back of his coach, and travelling as his valet, was Michael Faraday, who would go on to discover electromagnetic induction and invent the electric motor and generator.

In Plymouth, Connecticut, Eli Terry produced, by mass production using interchangeable parts, the first complex machine - his wooden clock, intended to be placed on a mantelpiece. This affordable clock enabled a householder to accurately keep time within his own home, and became the first mass consumer product.

Even the climate was on the turn. 1814 saw the last Ice Fair on the Thames which has never since frozen over. The Little Ice Age was drawing to an end and the climate would warm, bringing with it the greater agricultural productivity necessary to support an expanding population.

The War of 1812, launched by the USA, partly in an attempt to annexe Canada, also came to a climax with the burning of the public buildings in Washington and was now petering out with neither side having achieved any advantage.

One indirect consequence of the struggle with France was the loss, in 1776, of many of the North American Colonies. The colonies had been a destination for transported criminals, and transportation had been suspended for a time. Prisoners were held in hulk-ships moored in the Thames instead, and put to work, but another consequence was that a lot fewer death sentences were commuted and the number of people actually executed increased. A new destination had been sought and from 1788 a penal colony in New Holland (Australia) was established.

Commercially, scientifically, technically and politically Britain and the world were entering a new era of peace, progress and prosperity.

Yet, our system for the prevention of crime, detection of criminals, their trial and punishment, remained those established in medieval times. Over the preceding five centuries, the answer to crime had been the prescription of ever more severe punishments. After the Norman Conquest, King William 1 had abolished capital punishment, except in the case of murder. However, that proscription did not last long and by 1814 there were two-hundred-and–twenty-two offences which carried the death penalty, most of them, offences against property.

The first constitutional documents we see relating to criminal procedure appear in the 13th Century. At this time, England was a feudal society, land being held in return for military service at the higher levels and mutual service and obligations at the lower. The open field system was in use in the manors, the basic unit of feudal tenure, every man being entitled to a share. Those who were obliged to carry out manorial services in a specific manor were villeins, not free men.

The constitution of England was the Common Law (the common customs of the land) and these were unwritten, but had been established from time immemorial. Notably, there was no legislature. It seems odd to us today that there should be no law making body, but there wasn’t, the law was the law, and could not be changed. Indeed, if the law could be changed, it could be changed to ones disadvantage, and the Barons and populace generally were more concerned about preserving their rights from encroachment by the King than by law reform. The Common Law parcelled out our rights and duties. Land was the engine of wealth. Every man was entitled to a share in the land. Each land magnate from the Lord of the Manor up was entitled to hold a court and sit as judge. The courts dealt with administrative matters, such as the redistribution of land in open fields, and also disputes between individuals. Rights were collective, but so were responsibilities. Every man had to belong to a tything, a group of ten men who were sureties for each others good behaviour. If they failed to turn in a malefactor, the whole tything could be punished. Communities could be punished for allowing untythed men to stay (exception in relation to travelling merchants etc)

The King was the highest magnate, and he had his court also. From this the judicial function of the Crown was derived.

The primary feudal duties of the Crown were to protect from foreign invasion, maintain internal law and order, and secure the subject in his person and goods. Provision of what we now call social services, were the obligation of the second power in the land, the Catholic Church, which was endowed with land on the understanding that the profits it generated would be used to carry out the Seven Corporeal Works of Mercy. So, besides caring for souls, christening, marrying and burying the faithful, the Church was responsible for relieving the poor, caring for the sick and elderly and even for indigent prisoners.

To enable the King to carry out his martial duties the Common Law gave to the Crown the necessary prerogatives – rights to receive customary duties (money) to finance his governance and discretion to make directions to carry out these tasks, an organisational discretion. In exercising this discretion the King would take advice from his council, which consisted initially of his barons, though early on, the practice of consultation with all who were likely to be affected was considered politic. There was always the temptation for magnates, including the King, to over-reach themselves, and take more than they were entitled to. This led the barons to compel the King to reaffirm the Common Law in writing.

The first document was the Magna Carta, the great charter of 1215. In this same year that Lateran Council withdrew the Catholic Church from participation in Trial by Ordeal or Compurgation, and this coincidence had a profound effect on the development of jury trial. At the time of need, new methods of judicial proceeding were being developed for completely unrelated reasons. The Magna Carta was affirmed thirty or forty times over the coming centuries, the wording evolving slowly as it was reaffirmed, establishing that at Common Law:

No man, of whatever estate or condition he may be shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, nor will we proceed with force against him except by the lawful judgement of his equals or due process of law.

This principle has defined the limits of executive power over the individual subject. Furthermore, as a corollary of this, arising from King’s duty to maintain internal peace, was His prerogative to enquire into the reason of any man’s detention, and ensure that it was lawful – enforced by the prerogative writ of Habeas Corpus.

The Magna Carta, and the closely related Charter of the Forests, were formal acknowledgements by the King of the limits of his prerogatives at Common Law.

Exercise of that prerogative, after consultation with his council, is evidenced in other ‘statutes’, notably the Assizes of Arms, which relate to organisation for the military defence of the realm and the maintenance of law and order. ‘Ássize’ is simply an Anglo-French word meaning ‘sitting’, and it relates to a sitting of the King’s Council in relation to ordinances regarding the exercise of the Royal Prerogative, or a sitting of the King’s Justices in relation to judicial proceedings. The Ordnance of 1233 required the appointment of watchmen in vills, to arrest those who entered vills at night and went about armed. The Assize of Arms of 1252 required the appointment of Constables. These performed both military and police functions, the later being to quell breaches of the King’s Peace and deliver offenders to the Shire Reeve (Sheriff), a King’s officer. Service as watchmen and Constables was compulsory, and men were elected and appointment confirmed in rotation, to serve for a given period.

The Statute of Winchester 1285 required any witness to a crime to raise the Hue-and-Cry, and any person hearing to join them and pursue the malefactor until he was caught. To encourage citizens to join in, there was a punishment for the hundred (local administrative area having its own court) if they failed to catch the criminal.

The watchman, the constable and the hue-and-cry remained the basic crime prevention and detection mechanism in 1814.

Having caught a criminal, the next step was to detain him and deliver him, in due course, to a court for trial. But the system of justice often failed at the first step, and many notorious criminals, by intimidation or bribery remained at large. Frequently sheriffs would accept bribes to let criminals go.

To the medieval mind, God decided the outcome of wars and trials. In 1166, at a time when trials were conducted, predominantly, by the Church, through ordeal and compurgation, though trail by battle was available, various ordinances (Assizes) introduced the jury as a means of bringing criminals to the notice of the court, and also as a means of deciding an important civil issue. When the King’s Justice came to town, twelve men (knights or freemen), the Jury-of-Presentment, would be sworn, and required to give intelligence of certain types of serious crimes – what would later be called felonies. The malefactors would be arrested and tried by ordeal. If they failed the ordeal, they were executed or mutilated, if they were successful, they were banished. It seems, from the outset, the decision of the jury to accuse an individual determined that there would be punishment of some sort.

Separately, in civil proceedings, it was provided that twelve men should be sworn before a King's Justice to hear evidence and determine who was entitled to occupation of land which had been left unoccupied when a person went abroad to fight for the King ( the writ of Novel Disseisin). This issue had become acute because knights who went on Crusade often returned many years later to find someone else had taken possession of some part of their land.

The Jury-of-Presentment in criminal matters would evolve into the Grand Jury, which determined whether there was cause to put persons on trial; the civil jury would develop into the Petite Jury, which would hear the evidence and decide guilt or innocence. The Grand (Big) Jury would consist of twenty-four men, and the Petite (Small) Jury of twelve.

In order that the accused be tried, travelling Justices were appointed to travel from county to county. They were sent with a commission from the King. These commissions came to be known as commissions of Oyer and Terminer (to hear and determine) and Goal Delivery (Clear the Jails). In 1814, the Justices at the Old Bailey, picked from the judges of the Royal Courts, being King’s Bench, Common Pleas and Exchequer, in 1814 sat under such commissions. There were also some judges who sat only at the Old Bailey.

The Jury-of-Presentment and civil jury had been in place for forty years, when in 1215, the Church withdrew from participation in trials. Within a few years, the travelling Justices established a procedure whereby the Jury-of-Presentment would determine that the accused should stand trial, and the trial was by the Petite Jury if the accused consented, otherwise he would have trial by battle (introduced by William1). Trial by battle fell into disuse, though it was not formally abolished until 1819. If convicted, punishment was in the discretion of the Justice - death, mutilation, imprisonment, exile, fine, or no punishment.

In 1814, the Grand Jury of twenty-four would sit at the beginning of the session and consider whether there was evidence for each accused to go to trial for felony before the Petite Jury of twelve. Although only the prosecution was heard by the Grand Jury, it was surprisingly effective at weeding out weak cases.

In 1195 certain knights had been appointed to keep the King’s Peace in the counties. By 1361, in legislation they are referred to Justices-of-the-Peace. The relatively vague language of early statutes makes it difficult to distinguish their function from that of Constables, but it becomes clear that the Justices-of-the-Peace have a judicial function, whereas the Constables have an executive function. In due course, Justices-of-the-Peace came to try all summary matters, those less serious offences not required to be tried as felonies, and also carry out many administrative tasks.

Murder, robbery, treason, forgery, and counterfeiting were the main felonies. Felonies were punishable by death, and originally a convicted felon’s land and goods were forfeited to the Crown. Less serious offences could be dealt with by fines, imprisonment, corporal punishment and by ritual humiliation in the stocks or pillory. Most offences were dealt with summarily. Where a person accused of felony was brought before a Justice-of-the-Peace, his duty was to commit him to jail or bind him over to stand trial on indictment before a court on commission of Oyer and Terminer or Goal Delivery. In time, the practice grew up of hearing evidence from the prosecutor to determine if such committal was warranted, an approach pioneered by John Fielding in the 1770s. This filtering jurisdiction overlapped with that of the Grand Jury. In 1785 this procedure was judicially adopted when the Common Pleas ruled that a person accused of felony could not be committed to prison for trial without a preliminary hearing before a Justice of the Peace. From this the difference between committal procedures in the UK, and the newly independent USA grew up.

Feilding’s brother, John, in the 1750s had pioneered a new and efficient partnership between Constables and Justices-of-the-Peace (JP). To that time, an arrested person would be detained in the watch-house, but the attendance of the Justice-of-the-Peace would be intermittent. Often the accused would be brought to the JP’s house from which he would be committed for trial, or where he might be summarily tried.

Henry Fielding set up a dedicated public office in Bow Street where JP’s would attend at advertised times and detained persons would be questioned or tried summarily. He also recruited constables who had served their term to carry out policing duties. The office would also be used as a venue to collect and distribute criminal intelligence. These were the Bow Street Runners. They were salaried peace officers engaged full time in the detection of crime.

In 1792 the Middlesex Justices Act was passed. It created seven public offices for the Metropolis (in addition to Bow Street) to which three salaried JP’s and six constables were attached. These served the County of Middlesex, except the City of London, which had its own system which it wished to retain. In 1800 the Thames River Police Office was added. The officers were known as police.

This was the mixture of Watchmen, Constables, and Justices-of-the-Peace existing within the jurisdiction of the Old Bailey in 1814. The establishment of a police force on continental lines had been proposed, but it smacked too much of a military force available to government or a corps of paid government spies and informants for the public to be receptive to the suggestion.

While all Englishmen enjoyed the Liberties of an Englishmen, (which may be seen as equivalent to the modern concept of being endowed with human rights), as established under Common Law by such documents as Magna Carta, not all were equal in respect of Civil Rights, nor of wealth and privilege.

Ownership of a certain value of land was a qualification for the right to vote, and only voters could serve as jurors. The medieval division between villeins and freemen had given way to a distinction between the franchised and un-franchised. Those who could vote, serve on juries, serve as Justices-of-the-Peace, stand for Parliament etc, and those who could not. Most of the population fell into the latter group. This rule of the landed-gentry over the rest is known as the rule of the Squirearchy. The Squirearchy administered local government and meted out justice to the un-franchised majority.

In 1814, three Juries sat at the Old Bailey. Two Middlesex Juries tried accused from Middlesex and a London Jury tried accused from the City of London.

There were various prisons, for various courts and various purposes, but they were all privately run. The owners of the prisons provided detention services, and also services to the inmates who could pay for better accommodation etc. The prisoners were expected to feed themselves at their own expense. Indigent prisoners would depend on friends or charity. Newgate Prison was the prison to which alleged felons were committed pending trial by the Middlesex Sessions, which covered most of London outside the City.

There were other criminal courts in London, notably the King's Bench. This court was not limited geographically in it's jurisdiction, and prosecutors could bring proceedings before the court of King's Bench instead of the Middlesex Sessions, but the procedure was different, and generally, a different class of person was tried at King's Bench.

At this time, and until relatively recently, prosecutions were private. The Crown would only prosecute in cases which involved it directly, such as treason, and a few other serious types of case, murder and rape. The Crown would appear by the Attorney-General in these cases. Otherwise, it was the complainant who prosecuted. In the case of theft, that would be the person from whom property had been stolen. It was also unusual for defendants to be represented. They would defend themselves. The complainant and his witnesses would give evidence under oath and could be asked questions by the accused. The accused’s witnesses would give evidence on oath and could be asked questions. The accused could not give evidence under oath, he could make an un-sworn statement from the dock on which he could not be cross-examined. The reason for this was to avoid placing the prisoner in the invidious position of feeling compelled to lie under oath, and put his soul in peril so shortly before he might be executed. In most cases, though the defendant was on trial for his life, few questions were asked of the complainant or his witnesses; the defendant rarely called witnesses other than character witnesses, and the statement from the dock was often a simple assertion of innocence. In 1814 the Attorney-General was William Garrow. He had established his reputation as barrister for Defendants at the Old Bailey when it was very unusual for Defendants to be represented, and it remained the case that most Defendants would be unable to afford defence counsel. The articulation of the presumption of innocence and its establishment as a key concept in criminal trials is attributed to Garrow.

A trial at this time was a brief affair. There are records of a jury hearing and determining twenty or thirty cases in a day. A two hour trial would be a long one. Often, at the close of evidence, the jury would not retire to discuss a verdict, but took a minute or two to discuss it in the jury box then brought back a verdict almost immediately. Since a conviction almost always meant a death sentence, the jury might also make a recommendation for mercy. This related to mercy, not in the sentence, which was usually a mandatory sentence of death, but in considering whether the death sentence should be commuted, as most were. Prosecutors often undervalued their loss in an attempt to make the offence one where death was discretionary, not mandatory, in the hope that the accused would be given some lesser sentence.

There was no Court of Appeal, and no proper appeals procedure, so after conviction there was only one opportunity to avoid the death sentence. Before passing sentence the judge would ask Is there any reason why I should not pass judgement upon you. This was an opportunity for the Defendant to object to the indictment, to argue for some defect which made the conviction void. This rarely happened. In former times it had been an opportunity to plead Benefit-of-Clergy. This had once been a privilege of clerics, persons ordained in the church, who could read and write, to read a passage from the bible and prove they were a cleric, and subject to Ecclesiastical Courts, not Common Law courts. In practice, it became a way for the educated, the members of the Squirearchy, to escape the death sentence for their first conviction for felony, and after 1706, anyone literate of not, male or female. But the rule had been abolished in respect of so many crimes by 1814 that it availed very few. Benefit-of-Clergy was formally abolished entirely in 1823.

After sentence of death, the accused would be re-confined in Newgate. By some mysterious process there would be consultation on whether or not to commute the sentences. In most cases the sentence was commuted, usually to transportation. In some cases the decision would be easy, minor offences involving small thefts, children and youths, those apparently mentally disturbed, but about ten-per-cent would have the sentenced affirmed and a warrant for execution was issued. They would be hanged together within a few weeks. The key personnel they would meet before execution would be the Ordinary, a priest who would seek to reconcile them with God before their execution, and the Executioner himself.

The Ordinary would see the condemned in the condemned cells, where those to be hung were held in solitary confinement to give them an opportunity to quietly reconcile themselves with God. He would then accompany them to the scaffold. Usually, the Ordinary would publish an account of the condemneds’ confessions and admonitions to others to avoid the same errors.

The Rev. Horace Salusbury Cotton became Ordinary in August 1814.

The executioner was William Brunskill, one of England's longest serving and most prolific hangmen, until he retired following a stroke, in June 1814. Exceptionally, he was awarded a government pension because of his long and proficient service. He had carried out the last execution by burning in 1789, and had executed traitors, who were ceremonially drawn around on hurdles and decapitated after they were hung. In 1783 during his stewardship, the place of execution was moved from Tyburn to Newgate, at which time the short-drop method of execution was introduced. At Tyburn, the condemned were stood on a cart and the noose attached, the cart was then moved away leaving the condemned suspended, to die of slow strangulation. At Newgate, a portable scaffold was introduced. Ten condemned could be executed at a time. The new scaffold had a trap-door which would drop open on removal of a pin. The rope was given twelve to eighteen inches of slack so the condemned would drop a short distance before the noose jerked tight. This resulted in a much quicker death. In the second half of 1814 executions were carried out by John Langley, who had been Brunskill's assistant for twenty-five years.

This is an account from the Newgate Calendar of the hangings carried out by John Langley, at which the Rev. Cotton first officiated,.

He was apprehended for a highway robbery, and convicted at the Old Bailey, when he received sentence of death. From the time of his conviction, he either affected, or suffered, complete insanity; but this did not release him from the consequence of his sentence; and, on Monday, August 22d, 1814, he was executed in front of Newgate, along with William Henry Lye, for burglary; John Mitchell, for forgery; Francis Sturgess, and Michael Mahoney, for highway robbery; and John Field, alias Jonathan Wild, for burglary. By half past six o’clock the Old Bailey, and houses adjacent, were crowded to great excess. At half past seven Mahoney was brought forward, for the purpose of being disencumbered of his irons. While his irons were knocking off, it was found necessary to search for a knife to cut some part of the cordage, which confined the irons. Mahoney, seeing this, stooped, and, with an Herculean effort, tore it asunder. This being the only Catholic, the Rev. Mr. Devereux attended him in constant prayer, in which he joined most fervently. Sturgess, Field, and Mitchell, conducted themselves with great propriety. The unfortunate Ashton had been in a state of insanity since the receipt of the awful warrant for his execution. In the Press Yard he distorted his countenance horribly. He was the fifth who mounted the scaffold, and ran up the steps with great rapidity; and, having gained the summit of the platform, began to kick and dance, and often exclaimed, ‘I’m Lord Wellington' The Rev. Mr. Cotton, who officiated for the first time as Ordinary, enjoined him to prayer, to which he paid little attention, and continued to clap his hands as far as he was permitted by the extent of the cord. Mitchell often invited him to prayer. All that could be done was ineffectual, and it was necessary to have two men to hold him during the awful ceremony. When they released him for the purpose of the Lord’s Prayer being said, he turned round, and began to dance, and vociferated, Look at me; ‘I am Lord Wellington!’ At twenty minutes past eight o’clock the signal was given, and the platform fell. Scarcely, however, had the sufferers dropped, before, to the awe and astonishment of every beholder, Ashton rebounded from the rope, and was instantaneously seen dancing near the Ordinary, and crying out very loudly, and apparently unhurt, ‘What do ye think of me? Am I not Lord Wellington now?’ then danced, clapped his hands, and huzzaed. At length the executioner was compelled to get up the scaffold, and to push him forcibly from the place which he stood.

Case 48 relates to the trial of Ashton and Mahoney. It is one of the longer trials. They were soldiers who committed a robbery on 12th June. They were tried in the session commencing 6th July and hanged on 22nd August. Swift justice.

Case 53 relates to John Mitchell, offence 23rd June, Case 45 to Henry Lye, offence 17th March, he was arrested a few days later, there is no account of why it took so long to bring him to trial. Case 47 to Francis Sturgess offence 19th May, Case 39, John Field and Jonathan Wild, offence 9th April.

Justice was not like this for everyone. The pending defeat of Napoleon presented an opportunity to manipulate the Stock Exchange. Some fake officers arrived from France to announce that Napoleon was dead and the Bourbons restored. This led to a rise in the trading value of some government stocks. A large amount of stock that had been recently bought, was sold at a large profit. The Hon. Andrew Cochrane-Johnstone was implicated. He had a shady past as Governor of Dominica and had stood trial for embezzlement and other offences. Although acquitted on that charge, he had to resign from the army. He fled the country after the his conviction for the stock exchange fraud, but his nephew, Admiral Thomas Cochrane was convicted and served a sentence of two years in the King's Bench prison. This trial did not take place at the Old Bailey, but before the King's Bench, Lord Ellenborough presiding. The sum involved was many thousands of pounds, but the sentence lenient. At the Old Bailey Lord Ellenborough was sentencing people to death for small sums, some for as little a three pence worth of cheese. This is an early example of different approaches to white collar and blue collar crime

Chapter 2. Statistics.

The statistics for death sentences and executions at the Old Bailey for 1814 are as follows:

150 Sentenced to Death.

120 Males, 30 Females. 39 under 21 (11 under 14).

Only 13 executed. (8.7%) No females executed. No one under 21 executed.

Executions carried out.

Highway Robbery 5, Forgery 3, Burglary 2, Murder 1, Arson 1, Sodomy 1.

150 sentenced to death, counted by age (NB: 6 persons were sentenced to death for two offences.)

Ages ranged form 8 to 70.

70 – 1, 68 – 1, 60 – 1, 57 – 2, 53 – 1, 51 – 1, 50 – 1, 49 – 1, 48 – 1, 47 – 1, 46 – 2, 45 – 1, 44 – 1, 43 – 1, 42 – 3, 41 – 0, 40 – 7, 39 – 3, 38 – 1, 37 – 5, 36 – 2, 35 – 1, 34 – 4, 33 – 5, 32 – 4, 31 – 3, 30 – 5, 29 – 2, 28 – 7, 27 – 3, 26 – 5, 25 – 6, 24 – 8, 23 – 11, 22 - 5

21 – 5, 20 – 5, 19 – 6, 18 – 8, 17 – 3, 16 – 3, 15 – 1, 14 – 2, 13 – 3, 12 – 4, 11 – 1, 9 – 2, 8 – 1.

Chapter 3. Case 1. John Moore, Robert Moore - THEFT

( 2 Horses. 2 Condemned 1, John Moore Hanged 25 April 1814)

JOHN MOORE , alias LOAKES , and ROBERT MOORE , alias LOAKES , were indicted for feloniously stealing, on the 17th of November , two geldings, value 70 l. the property of Edward Wilkinson .

PROSECUTION.

EDWARD WILKINSON .

I am an hackneyman .

Q. In the month of November last, had you any horses grazing at Mr. Froggett's, near Hendon ?

A. Yes, I had twelve.

Q. On Wednesday, the 10th of November, did you see them all safe ?

A. It was on the Friday preceding the Wednesday, they were all safe then. I sent for them home on the 17th, only ten were brought home; two bay geldings were missing.

Q. What were the value of them?

A. Seventy pounds both. On the 17th I learned two were missing; on the Tuesday following, I received some information from Cambridge of the two bay horses; on the Wednesday, I went to Cambridge; I found my horses; they were brought and delivered back to me.

Q. Were these two geldings that were delivered to you at Cambridge the two geldings you missed?

A. They were.

CHARLES ELLIS .

I am a servant to Mr. Froggett. I had the care of Mr. Wilkinson's horses in my master's field. On Tuesday I was in the field

.

Q. Were the horses all safe then?

A. I did not tell them then. I told them on Monday; they were safe then.

Q. On Tuesday did any thing strike you as wrong .

A. No. The gate was shut, a lashing stick was drawed through the staple, and nailed each side of the stick, the gate was fast; on Tuesday morning the horses appeared to be there; I did not count them. On Wednesday, first of all, I looked round the field to see whether the horses were there or not; the horses were all gone, and the gate was open.

Q. How did it appear to you that the gate had been opened?

A. The gate could not have been opened without the stick had been broken out; the stick had been fastened with a nail each side. I went all round the field; I could not trace how they got out any where, but at the gateway; it being wet and dirty, there were the marks of their feet at the gateway. I found ten horses in the Edgware-road, in a field about half a mile off; the two geldings I could not find; they were two of the twelve.

WILLIAM NUNN.

I am a horse-dealer; I reside at Cambridge.

Q. Were you at Cambridge fair on Saturday the 20th of November last?

A. I was not at the fair, it was Cambridge market day; on the market day I saw John Moore , he came to me and asked me if I had a horse to exchange with him for a bay gelding; he went down to my stables, and looked at a horse that I had there; in the mean time before we went to my stable, he tied up that gelding with my horses; he went and saw my horse. I exchanged a horse of mine for the bay gelding, and I gave a one-pound note, and a shilling to boot; my man took the gelding home.

Q. Did he afterwards propose to you to buy another horse?

A. I told him I could not buy it; I had got another, I would exchange with him for it. We exchanged for that, and I gave him five golden guineas, and another horse in exchange for it.

Q. Did you examine these two bay geldings more particularly after you had exchanged?

A. I did, after they were cleaned I found them much better horses than those I had exchanged them for; upon that I went in search of the prisoner; I found him at the White Horse, and the younger prisoner at the Bell.

Q. Which of them did you find first ?

A. The eldest. I found out the youngest at the Bell in Northampton-street; something a friend of mine said to me induced me to think there was another. When I saw the young one, I asked him whether he was waiting for a young man of the name of Loakes; he said he was. I then told him, I had exchanged some horses with him, and I thought they were stolen. The young one went with me to the White Horse, there we found the elder; I told the elder that I had strong suspicion the horses were stolen horses. He gave me the name of John Loakes ; he made his mark to that name in the receipt of the horses; he told me he lived at Tillbrook, in Bedfordshire. He told me they were Lord St. John's horses; the other horse had a broken leg, and he was to be sold. Then I went with them both to the Mayor; they were both examined separately; they were detained, and the horses were detained.

Q. In consequence of what you learned, did you make any communication to Mr. Wilkinson?

A. I did; he came down and swore to the horses; they were delivered to him as his property.

JAMES RICHARDS.

Q. In the month of September last, were you a servant to either of the prisoners ?

A. I was, to John Moore , the elder; he lived in Mount-row, Islington.

Q. By what name did you know him?

A. John Moore; his stables were in Sherborn-lane, in the Back-road, Islington; he was in the horse dealing way.

Q. Do you remember any bay geldings being brought to his stables on the afternoon of Tuesday the 16th of November ?

A. I do.

Q. Who brought them there?

A. They both came together.

Q. By both, whom do you mean?

A. Both the prisoners at the bar; they did not come in together directly, but afterwards one brought one, and the other the other; the young one brought the other, his name is I Robert Moore; they are brothers to the best of my knowledge. At about six o'clock in the afternoon they brought in the two geldings; I took one of them to be shod at Mr. Balam's, Cross-street, Islington; they were both shod on Wednesday morning, one by Balam, and the other by another person. The horses were taken away on Thursday afternoon, what time I cannot say; I was not at home. I did not see either of them after the Thursday.

Q. Have you since seen these two bay geldings?

A. Yes, it was in the second week after they were taken away; I saw them in the custody of Mr. Wilkinson.

Mr. Wilkinson. The two geldings I shewed to the last witness were the two that Mr. Nunn bought of the prisoner.

Mr. Knapp. Q. to Richards. You only took one to be shod?

A. No.

Q. When you saw him on the over night in the stable it was dark?

A. Yes.

Q. Therefore you had little opportunity of seeing him?

A. Yes, I mean to swear to him by the cut of the tail; I assisted in cleaning them.

WILLIAM BALAM.

I am a farrier at Islington.

Q. On the morning of Wednesday, the 17th of November, was a bay gelding brought to you by the last witness to be shod?

A. There were several shod at that time.

Q. Was a bay gelding brought to you by the last witness, Richards?

A. There was. I have since seen that bay gelding again, Mr. Wilkinson brought it to my shop; it is the one to the best of my knowledge; he had rather particular feet; I believe it to be the same horse, I cannot swear it to be the same. The horse was brought to me to be shod about the middle of November; Mr. Wilkinson brought it about a fortnight afterwards; I think it is the same horse; it is the same colour, and appeared to be the same horse.

Q. to Nunn. What name did the younger prisoner tell you?

A. He told me his name was Robert Loakes .

DEFENCE.

John Moore 's Defence.

My brother is innocent. Mr. Nunn is wrong to say that I said I came from Tillbrook in Bedfordshire; I told him the horses I had to sell was the property of my uncle, one horse was the property of Lord St. John.

Mr. Nunn. This is the receipt the prisoner signed with his mark.

Robert Moore said nothing in his defence

.

The prisoners called four witnesses, who gave them a good character.

JOHN MOORE , GUILTY - DEATH aged 24.

ROBERT MOORE, GUILTY - DEATH , aged 17.

First Middlesex jury, before the Lord Chief Baron.

Chapter 4. Case 2. George Lentz – Forgery

( of Negotiable Instrument. Defendant tried separately and convicted of Theft of watch – no separate sentence)

GEORGE LENTZ

was indicted for feloniously forging, disposing of, and putting away a certain forged order for payment of the sum of 137 l. 13 s. with intention to defraud Elizabeth Elvey , widow .

SECOND and THIRD COUNT, for like offence, with intention to defraud Peter Esdaile , James Esdaile , and Thomas Scott .

PROSECUTION.

ELIZABETH ELVEY.

I am a widow; I live at No. 9, New Bond-street; I keep a shop; I sell writing desks, pocket-books, and dressing cases. He said his name was Douglas, that his brother had purchased a number of articles of me, and that he now wanted a dressing-case.

Q. In fact, had a gentleman of that name some time ago dealt with you?

A. Yes. He looked out a dressing case, a handsome one, price one hundred and ten pounds. After he looked that out he said he wanted a handsome present for a lady. He looked out a pocket-book, a silver ink stand, two gold pencil-cases, and several other articles to the amount of one hundred and thirty-seven pounds thirteen shillings. He directed me to send them to 14, Charles-street, Grosvenor-square; he said he would go and get the money ready if I would take them there.

Q. COURT. He desired you to take them there, did he?

A. Yes; I myself went with them. When I got to the house he met me at the door; he took me into the parlour; I shewed him the box and the other things; he said they were all right, and there was the money. He gave me a check upon Sir James Esdaile 's house. It was ready written. This is the check.

Q. Did you give him any receipt?

A. He did not ask me for any. I left the things with him. I sent the check to Esdaile's house. I sent it on the 27th, Saturday morning, the same day.

Q. Mr. Gurney. The transaction was on the 26th ?

A. Yes, it is dated on the 27th. Before I presented the check I went to the house in Charles-street; I found he was gone.

Q. Did you ever find him afterwards until he was taken up?

A. No. I have found some of my things at the pawnbrokers.

Q. COURT. Did you observe the check was dated the day after?

A. No, I did not.

Q. Should you have left the things if you had not received that check?

A. No.

Q. Where did Mr. Douglas live that he named to you?

A. In Bolton-street. He did not mention where he lived, only that he was his brother.

Q. Not mentioning what Mr. Douglas he meaned?

A. No.

Q. But there was a Mr. Douglas in Bolton-street, who had been with you before?

A. Yes.

Q. By whom did you send the check?

A. By my man, William Lawrence .

WILLIAM LAWRENCE.

Q. Did you on the 27th of November present that check at Sir James Esdaile 's?

A. Yes, it was not paid. I took it back to Mrs. Elvey's. I gave it into the hands of the clerk, I believe; he took it into a back room. This is the check that I presented.

Q. to Prosecutrix. Mrs. Elvey, I believe, your initials are upon that check?

A. Yes; I wrote that after it went to the bankers.

Q. There is a blot upon the figures?

A. Yes; I observed that blot upon the figures before I sent Lawrence with it.

Q. How did that blot happen?

A. Afterwards he took a pen and writ, it fell on it; he said that would be no detriment to it.

Q. Prisoner to Lawrence. When you presented that check what did the clerk say to you?

A. I presented the check; the clerk answered, there was no such person as George Henry Douglas that kept cash there.

JOHN HALARD.

I am clerk in the house of Sir James Esdaile and Company.

Q. Has the prisoner, either by the name of George Henry Douglas , or by any other name, kept cash at your house?

A. No, sir; no person of the name of George Henry Douglas ever kept cash at the house. It was to me that check was presented. I took it into the country office, supposing it might be drawn from the country bank. I never parted with it.

WILLIAM HARDING.

I am a musician; I live in New-street, Broad-street.

Q. Do you know the prisoner at the bar?

A. I have known him six or seven years; I knew his father and family; his name is Lentz; that is his father's name.

Q. How many years have you known his father?

A About the same time; I have played the same time with him in the same profession; he is in the musical department as well as a player.

SAMUEL TAUNTON.

I am an officer. I apprehended the prisoner on the 1st of December last; I found him at the Swan livery stables, Knightsbridge. I took him to his lodgings, No. 2, Blacklin's-lane, Chelsea. I found upon him two duplicates of two gold pencil-cases, dated the 27th of November. I found them on his person, and the key of the dressing-case that was tied to a bunch of keys in his pocket. I found the dressing-case at his lodgings, No. 2, Blacklin's-lane; he told me he lodged in Southampton-row; I told him he lodged in Blacklin's-lane, where I was going to take him to. This key was in his pocket; it opens the dressing-case.

JOHN WOODYEAR.

I am a pawnbroker. On the 27th of November the prisoner pawned two pencil-cases with me.

FRIEND LAWRENCE.

I am a servant to Mr. Turner, pawnbroker. The prisoner pawned a pocketbook with me on the 29th of November.

Q. to Prosecutrix. Look at the pocket-book last produced ?

A. It is the pocket-book the prisoner had of me; there is my shop mark upon all the articles; it is made by a person in my employ; I know it to be the pocket-book. The pencil-cases produced by Woodyear there is my mark upon them.

Q. Mr. Gurney to Woodyear. You have an inkstand also?

A. Yes, a silver ink-stand. I lent one pound on the ink-stand.

Prosecutrix. That is my ink-stand. The dressing-case is mine. There are a great many things wanting.

(The draft read.)

"Sir James Esdaile and Company, bankers, London. 27th of November, 1813. Please to pay Mrs. Elvey, or bearer, the sum of 137 l. 13 s. which place to my account.

GEORGE HENRY DOUGLAS ."

DEFENCE.

Prisoner's Defence.

The draft that was given to Mrs. Elvey was not written by me, it was written by one of the name of Knight, who had been with me. On the 24th of November, I, George Lentz , in company with Philip Henry Knight went to the shop of Mrs. Elvey, No. 9, New Bond-street, Oxford-street, with intention of asking any one that might be in the shop where one Mr. Easton, a tailor lived. Mrs. Elvey informed me the place of his abode. When in the shop, Mr. Knight enquired the price of a dressing case, and asked me if I was not in want of such an article, which question caused me to look at one. We looked at one; the price was one hundred and ten pounds. We answered we would call, and give an answer in the morning, having just returned from Brighton. Knight observed to me that we should lose no time. We fixed upon an apartment to have it sent home. Knight advised me to take the name of George Henry Douglas . This was on the 27th, in the morning; the lady of the house not being able to inform us the terms, we deferred taking it till the next morning. We returned to Mrs. Elvey, and informed her that we should have the dressing-case at one hundred and ten pounds, and to look out the pocket-book and other articles, which made it one hundred and thirty-seven pounds thirteen shillings. We then desired her to send it to No. 14, Charles-street; I told her to make out the bill for George Henry Douglas . We returned to Charles street; the lady could give no answer. He observed to the lady that we had some articles coming then for us. We gave in the name of Spencer Pemberton and George Henry Douglas . He immediately returned to the door; a knock came at the same time, the door was opened; Mrs. Elvey came up to us; Knight gave the check into my hands, and without previous excuse left me. Mrs. Elvey and her man went into the parlour; she produced the dressing-case, the bill, and other articles, which amounted to more than she had told us. I gave her the draft; she went away. I ordered the man of the house to take the box to the first coach stand; he did. I put the case on my shoulder; I had not proceeded far in Brompton-row, when Knight asked me for some of the things. I told him, after using me as he had he should have none. We proceeded then to the public-house and opened the case

.

Prosecutrix. The direction the prisoner wrote in my presence. G. H. Douglas, 14, Charles-street, Grosvenor-square. He gave it me as his name and address.

GUILTY - DEATH , aged 17.

Second Middlesex jury, before Mr. Justice Bailey.

Chapter 5.Case 3. Thomas Smith - Burglary.

(as resident – 3d worth of cheese.)

THOMAS SMITH was indicted for burglariously breaking and entering the dwelling-house of Charles Smith , about the hour of five in the night of the 3d of December , with intent to steal, and stealing therein a piece of cheese, value 3 d. his property.

CHARLES SMITH.

I live at Hampton Wick.

Q. Who was up last on the 3rd of December?

A. I was up last; about eleven I went to bed. I examined the house to see whether the doors and windows were fast; they were all fast.

Q. Who came down first in the morning?

A. The prisoner; he lodged with me at that time; he went down to go to his master's work.

Q. Then he was in your house that night?

A. Yes; he went to bed and came down first in the morning. On the 13th of November twelvemonth, his master came to me and engaged to rent a stable of me; he introduced four horses to his stable, and once or twice he changed his carter; at last the prisoner was his carter.

Q. He lodged in your house on the night in question?

A. Yes.

Q. The doors and windows were all fastened?

A. Yes. When he came down he knocked at my bedroom door, and asked me for the key of the stair-case door; I gave it him. In consequence of my having suspicion, and I had been frequently