We often come across cases where it becomes the word of one person against another. This week we had a case of stolen flour, with 2 men accused of a crime, both giving convincing statement of their innocence and in turn, blaming the other.
A Welwyn miller by the name of James Chalkley had employed Amos Fowler for 4 or 5 years. Fowler’s role was to deliver flour out from the railway station at Luton to the customers with written orders. On 22 July 1887 a sack of flour went missing from the station. A witness by the name of George Battens, son of a cow keeper, explained how he had been on the railway bridge when he had been approached by the co-accused William Lawson. Lawson asked him to use his mule and cart to carry a sack in return for sixpence. Battens fetched his mule and cart to the bottom of the railway steps at GNR. Lawson was waiting and after 5 or 10 minutes Fowler came up and they went into the yard. Battens followed. They stopped him went on 20 yards to a truck and fetched a large sack which was white and floury looking. Fowler carried it and put the sack in Battens cart with Lawson undoing the tailgate. Battens took the sack to a house in High Street, High Town and Lawson met him at the door and took the sack into the house.
Both men were arrested and Fowler was charged with the theft of the sack of flour and Lawson with receiving stolen goods. However their own statements varied greatly.
Statement of William Lawson: On Monday he had been going up Chapel Street by the Queens Hotel. He saw a wagon and horses standing against a baker shop. The Wagoner came from behind the wagon and asked him if he had his old pony and cart. Lawson said he had sold it and the Wagoner said he wanted to send some flour to High Town and had not wanted to take his horse and wagon up there. Lawson said he could get a pony and cart and agreed to meet the Wagoner at the station. On his way he met George Battens and asked him to go to the GNR station with him in return for sixpence. At the station he went into the yard with the Wagoner who went to the truck and got a sack of flour out of it and put it in Battens cart. Battens drove off and he met Battens again at his house. He took the flour into his house as he had forgotten where he was taking it so went to the Bull to meet the Wagoner to tell him he’d forgotten. He told the Wagoner he would like the flour and gave him 10 shillings, with the Wagoner agreeing and saying he’d be back in a day or two and would collect the rest of the money. He believed the Wagoner had the right to sell the flour.
Statement of Amos Fowler: he had met Lawson as he came down Bute Street. Lawson asked him for a sack of flour for Mr Giltrow and he agreed. They went to the station and Lawson said he had a cart. He put the flour sack in the cart. Mr Giltrow often fetched or sent for a sack or two. Mr Chalkley told him to always send a sack if he asked. He did not receive any money or give a receipt. He did not know Lawson’s name.
So here’s our challenge……who do you think was found guilty? We’ll reveal the answer on Friday.
QSR1887/4/5/3,4b
Showing posts with label depositions. Show all posts
Showing posts with label depositions. Show all posts
Wednesday, 11 July 2012
Monday, 20 February 2012
Billy the Sweep
We sometimes come across Quarter Sessions cases that read like episodes from a soap opera. Take this unfortunate incident from 1843 involving William Smith, a Leighton Buzzard chimney sweep known as Billy the Sweep. Putting together the various depositions and Smiths own statement the gist of the story appears to be as follows:
Billy the Sweep arrived home intoxicated and discovered his wife had taken out a contract with the tally man (buying goods "on tick" or hire purchase). He insisted on knowing what she had bought. When she refused to tell him how much she had paid for a shawl he carried out a threat to cut it up. Unfortunately as his wife tried to rescue the shawl her thumb got in the way of the knife Billy was using and she was badly cut. She cried "murder" and a couple of neighbours, Maria Gardner and Mary Gilbert, rushed to her aid and bound up the bleeding digit. Meanwhile a rumour reached the Royal Oak Public House that Billy the Sweep had chopped off his wife's thumb. A noisy crowd gathered outside Smith's house, laughing and teasing Billy. After a failed attempt to close the shutters and stop the crowd peering in through his window, Billy reached a pitch of exasperation in which he threatened to shoot the onlookers if they did not go away. Enraged he grabbed the nearest thing to hand. This turned out to be a potato fork - I presume this would have been similar to a modern garden fork - which he jabbed through the window into the face of an unfortunate bystander, Henry Munday.
Billy the Sweep arrived home intoxicated and discovered his wife had taken out a contract with the tally man (buying goods "on tick" or hire purchase). He insisted on knowing what she had bought. When she refused to tell him how much she had paid for a shawl he carried out a threat to cut it up. Unfortunately as his wife tried to rescue the shawl her thumb got in the way of the knife Billy was using and she was badly cut. She cried "murder" and a couple of neighbours, Maria Gardner and Mary Gilbert, rushed to her aid and bound up the bleeding digit. Meanwhile a rumour reached the Royal Oak Public House that Billy the Sweep had chopped off his wife's thumb. A noisy crowd gathered outside Smith's house, laughing and teasing Billy. After a failed attempt to close the shutters and stop the crowd peering in through his window, Billy reached a pitch of exasperation in which he threatened to shoot the onlookers if they did not go away. Enraged he grabbed the nearest thing to hand. This turned out to be a potato fork - I presume this would have been similar to a modern garden fork - which he jabbed through the window into the face of an unfortunate bystander, Henry Munday.
The Royal Oak in Friday Street, Leighton Buzzard c.1925
Munday fainted, bleeding profusely. The fork had caused a minor wound to his left cheek, but a tine had penetrated deeply between his right eye and his nose. The surgeon who examined him, Philip Wynter Wagstaff, later measured the depth of the wound as greater than one inch. During that evening symptoms suggested to the surgeon that it was likely to proved fatal. Fortunately he was mistaken and by the time he gave his deposition he believed that Munday would not lose the eye and would make a full recovery. Meanwhile Billy the Sweep had been arrested and incarcerated in the parish lock-up, where he became maudlin and was heard threatening to hang himself. The constable removed his handkerchief and other items and "confined him by the leg". By this time however Billy had reverted to the furious and exasperated stage, declaring that he wished he had shot Munday and "should not care a damn if I had killed him". In the cold light of day, sobered up and facing examination by the magistrate, he was very apologetic. He was bailed to appear for trial at the Easter Quarter Sessions where he was convicted and sentenced to six months hard labour. [QSR1843/2/5/15]
Tuesday, 31 January 2012
Building a Bigger Picture.....
The beauty with the QSR is the richness of information in some of the depositions (witness statements). For example, take the case of Henry Harris, a 18 year old labourer accused of breaking and entering the dwelling of John Franklin Gilbert, and stealing money. (QSR1853/2/5/4 - Henry Harris)
In this case there are 7 witness statements as well as the statement of the accused.
The below list is of statements from this case. They may sound like random statements but it's the little details which help build a bigger of picture of what was happening at the time.
* George Stonebridge had been making the dough for Mr Crowley of Wilshamstead on 15 March, as his man was ill.
* Henry Harris was described as having hair on his top lip.
* We frequently come across the police using footprints to help identify the offender. In this case the footmarks are quite unusual. "He examined the window and found footmarks. He took their dimensions. There appeared to be 2 different footmarks evidently made by the same person."
* It was later determined that Harris, wore 2 odd boots, one longer than the other.
* William Clark lived at Wilstead with Benjamin Gilbert, whose father lived with him. So we now have a family picture building. We now know John Franklin, Ann Jepps, her sister in law and Benjamin were all living in the house. As well as a boy (presumably a servant).
* James Kitchener boarded with John Franklin Gilbert and had employed the accused about 8 weeks previously. He was Mr Gilbert's foreman. So we now have added another member of the household and his job role, he had previously just been described as a labourer.
* Henry Harris had gone into the house to have his dinner on the day he had been employed by Mr Gilbert. This gives us an idea of the daily routine of the farm.
* The window was a lattice window and the lead work was lying on the floor. Giving us details regarding the appearance of the house.
* Mr Crowley lived between 200 to 300 yards from the gates to Mr Gilbert's.
* There had been a heavy fog that morning. So we know the weather conditions on 15 March 1853.
For those of you interested in the outcome of the case, Henry Harris pleaded Not Guilty but with a mountain of evidence, and the incriminating footmarks, he was found Guilty. He was imprisoned and kept at hard labour at the House of Correction for one calandar year.
In this case there are 7 witness statements as well as the statement of the accused.
The below list is of statements from this case. They may sound like random statements but it's the little details which help build a bigger of picture of what was happening at the time.
* George Stonebridge had been making the dough for Mr Crowley of Wilshamstead on 15 March, as his man was ill.
* Henry Harris was described as having hair on his top lip.
* We frequently come across the police using footprints to help identify the offender. In this case the footmarks are quite unusual. "He examined the window and found footmarks. He took their dimensions. There appeared to be 2 different footmarks evidently made by the same person."
* It was later determined that Harris, wore 2 odd boots, one longer than the other.
* William Clark lived at Wilstead with Benjamin Gilbert, whose father lived with him. So we now have a family picture building. We now know John Franklin, Ann Jepps, her sister in law and Benjamin were all living in the house. As well as a boy (presumably a servant).
* James Kitchener boarded with John Franklin Gilbert and had employed the accused about 8 weeks previously. He was Mr Gilbert's foreman. So we now have added another member of the household and his job role, he had previously just been described as a labourer.
* Henry Harris had gone into the house to have his dinner on the day he had been employed by Mr Gilbert. This gives us an idea of the daily routine of the farm.
* The window was a lattice window and the lead work was lying on the floor. Giving us details regarding the appearance of the house.
* Mr Crowley lived between 200 to 300 yards from the gates to Mr Gilbert's.
* There had been a heavy fog that morning. So we know the weather conditions on 15 March 1853.
For those of you interested in the outcome of the case, Henry Harris pleaded Not Guilty but with a mountain of evidence, and the incriminating footmarks, he was found Guilty. He was imprisoned and kept at hard labour at the House of Correction for one calandar year.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)