# The Annual Register, Or, A View of the History and Politics of ..., Հատոր 104

he had done so, and Curtis, believing it to be Hall, called out, "Jack, Jack, I know thee." The man swung himself over a gate and got away. The other man who was in company with him was a labourer named John Tuckey, who was captured by Curtis, after a scuffle. It was clearly proved that the man who fired was the prisoner. But it was also shown that, during the day previous to the fatal occurrence, he had been drinking at various beer-houses, and in the evening, when he went out with Tuckey, was so drunk that he could not load his gun, and it was done for him by another man. The gun, also, was produced, and proved to be so rusty and worn that the slightest touch would bring down the hammer on the nipple. Under these circumstances, when the jury found him Guilty of wilful murder, they recommended him to the mercy of the Crown; and his sentence was commuted to penal servitude for life. 5\. THE MARYLEBONE HOMICIDE. -At the Central Criminal Court, Henry Quail, aged 22, Thomas Cox, William Polton, and Thomas Walsh, (whose ages were between 18 and 25,) were indicted for the wilful murder of John Wincott, on the 3rd of February last. The wanton cruelty which had resulted in the death of an unoffending and very respectable tradesman had directed much attention to the case. The inquiries before the coroner and the police magistrates had been eagerly read, and the public expected that a severe penalty would be exacted for so shameful a violation of personal security and public order. The deceased, Mr. Wincott, was about 32 years of age, with a wife and children. He carried on a good business as butcher in Southstreet, Manchester-square. On the afternoon of the 3rd February a person, on, named Vialls, was removing bones from Mr. Wincott's shop into his cart, which stood at the door, when the four prisoners, who are costermongers, or of that class, came up the street. They were all drunk, and as they walked along the street they made a great noise, hallowing, and shouting. They had already burst into a greengrocer's shop and thrown the vegetables about and committed violence. When they came up to the cart, they took down an empty basket that was hanging at the end, and threw it at Vialls; they then seized upon the bones which they threw about and at the man. Vialls took up a bone and struck one of the men who had got upon the cart, and then, alarmed at their violence, ran into Mr. Wincott's shop, whither he was followed by the ruffians. Mr. Wincott then came forward from his private room, expostulated with them, and then endeavoured to force them out into the street. One of the men-probably the prisoner Quail-struck him and he returned the blow. A scene of great noise and confusion followed. One of the prisoners was seen to flourish a chopper over Mr. Wincott's head, and then Quail took up a knife which was lying upon a block and stabbed the unfortunate man in the belly. He was about to repeat the blow when his arm was arrested by a bystander. The other prisoners were still continuing the disturbanceone of them exclaimed, "Go and let the have it," or words to that effect, and the person who had prevented the second stab was knocked down. The prisoners then went away, but were followed and secured. The prisoner Quail, on bring told that he had stabbed Mr. Wincott, asked his captor whether he had seen him do it? and then added, "that it was a bad job, but he supposed he should get over it somehow." Mr. Wincott, in his dying declaration, said he believed that it was Quail who had stabbed him, but he could not say so posi. tively there was, however, no doubt as to the fact. The knife had penetrated the liver, and the unfortunate man died the following evening. There is no doubt that, by the law of England, where several persons are jointly engaged in the commission of an unlawful act and deathensues, all are guilty; the person who causes death in the first degree as principal, and those who are present with and abetting him in the commission are guilty in the second degree as aiders and abettors. It was certain that the four prisoners were all in combination to do an unlawful act, and were jointly engaged in a violent infraction of the peace. Whatever, upon the most careful investigation of the facts, the law might pronounce to be the nature of the crime-whether murder, manslaughter, or homicide by misadventure-there could be no question that a most worthy man had been slain by a most wanton and cruel deed, his wife and young children deprived of their natural protector.and possiblyreduced from a respectable sphere to poverty. Yet, strange to say, the sympathy of the lower classes, and especially of those resident in the neighbourhood of the scene of slaughter, was not with the murdered man, nor with the widow and the orphans, but with the murderers. The pro ceedings before the magistrate had a singular tone-even the policeman's evidence was all apologetic. The verdict of the coroner's jury found all the accused guilty of wilful murder; but the Recorder, in his charge to the grand jury, reviewed the circumstances in such a light that that body returned a "true bill" for murder against Quail only, and for manslaughter against the other three. All the ruffians might have been put on their trial for murder on the finding of the coroner's inquisition; but that ancient form has been surrounded with so many technical objections that hardly one in a hundred can be supported. It was, therefore, held advisable to proceed on the bill found by the grand jury; and the prisoner Quail was put on his trial for the capital offence. The circumstances above narrated, with the addition of many minor details which had the effect of aggravating the prisoner's conduct, were proved. The prisoner's counsel did not attempt to deny that the prisoner had struck the fatal blow; there was no doubt, he said, that this unhappy affair had arisen out of the mad-drunk state of the prisoner and his companions, and that none of the party had contemplated the possibility of such a dreadful result. There could be no doubt, he said, that there was a good deal of confusion and excitement among the parties, and that nothing was more possible than that the deceased had struck the prisoner, and that in the excitement of the moment, aggravated by his condition from drink, he snatched up the knife and inflicted the deadly injury; and he urged that upon such a supposition the jury would be justified in convicting the prisoner of the crime of manslaughter only. The Chief Baron, in summing up the case, referred to the circumstances which in the eye of the law would reduce such a crime as this from murder to manslaughter; but, he said, the law did not allow drunkenness to be an excuse for crime, and that the safety of the public and the security of human life imperatively required that this should be so. The other alleviation offered was, that the prisoner had been struck by the deceased before he stabbed him. This fact had not been stated by the prisoner when the deceased made his dying statement in his presence; nor had any of the witnesses who had now come forward to state it, gone before the coroner or the magistrate. But if it were the fact, and the deceased had struck the prisoner, this would not have formed any excuse for the prisoner resorting to such an extreme act of violence; and the law made a great distinction between the cases of those who defended themselves from violence while they were doing right, and those who did so while they were doing wrong. In this case, the deceased was perfectly justified in resisting the violent and unlawful conduct of the prisoner and his companions; and, even if he had struck the prisoner, it would have been no justification for the act that he afterwards committed. The jury, with no long deliberation, found the prisoner guilty of the lesser offence of manslaughter. The other three prisoners were then put on their rial for manslaughter. The only defence their counsel could set up was, that the four persons were not combined for any illegal purpose; they had no common purpose, nor any purpose at all. The affair, however unfortunate in its results, was nothing more than a drunken "lark," and it would be a cruel straining of the law to make all a drunken man's companions answerable for all his frantic acts. The Chief Baron, however, pointed out that there were circumstances in this case which pointed to a common purpose: they all encouraged each other to acts of violence and outrage, were all engaged in one common fray, and had all one common mind to make an assault on the deceased. All were, therefore, answerable for the acts of each. The jury found them all Guilty, recommending them to mercy on account of their youth. The sentences were reserved for consideration. It happened that, on the following day, the Chief Baron was engaged in trying an important case, and the duty of pronouncing judgment fell to Baron Martin. The sentences were, that Quail should undergo six years' penal servitude, and the other three nine months'imprisonment. Now, Baron Martin expressed himself satisfied with the verdict; yet the Chief Baron had clearly identified Quail's offence with murder, and had warned the jury not to import into their deliberations circumstances which could be entertained by the Executive alone. It seemed strange, therefore, that six years' penal servitude should be considered a sufficient punishment for a crime which an experienced Judge could not distinguish from murder, and a less sentence than is frequently awarded for an assault should be passed upon the ruffians who abetted the commission of it. This case made a very bad impression on the public mind, which had already been agitated by numerous acts of robbery with violence, committed in the public streets, and which, before the close of the year, had brought the people into such a state of indignation as will probably compel the Legislature to reconsider the whole subject of criminal punishment. 5\. MURDER IN THE RATCLIFFE HIGHWAY.-Patrick Devereux, 19, sailor, was indicted for the wilful murder of James Gardner. The prisoner looked like a goodtempered Irish lad, younger than described. The deceased man Gardner kept a lodging-house in Denmark Street, St. George's-inthe-East. It was one of those dens into which sailors are inveigled as soon as they come ashore with money in their pockets, and are kept there under the constant excitement of liquor and vice until their funds are exhausted; they are then turned out into the streets, diseased and ruined. The prisoner was a young sailor who had been thus treated. On the night of the 29th of January the deceased wasat the "George and Vulture" publichouse, when the prisoner came in and said, "Now, Mr. Gardner, are you going to give me my clothes or chest?" He asked four or five times, but the deceased took no notice of him; and he again, after going out for a short time, came to the door and repeated his demand, adding, "By, I'll let you see in a minute," and then went away for about five minutes. Gardner left the house, and was standing outside, when the prisoner again came up and asked for his clothes, and deceased said, "Go away, you rascal," and said he should not have the clothes. The prisoner then struck at him. The deceased ran into the public-house, and said, "I am stabbed!" Deceased then let his trousers down, and there was a great gash in the side of his belly. He was taken home in a cab, and died on the 2nd of February. The prisoner's counsel made an animated address to the jury, and pressed upon the Court that the circumstances were such as reduced his crime from the capital offence to the lesser offence of manslaughter; but the jury, after long consideration, returned a verdict of Guilty of wilful murder. A most distressing scene ensued. The usual proclamation enjoining silence in the Court while sentence of death was being passed having been made, the prisoner was asked what he had to say why the sentence of death should not be passed upon him. He suddenly mounted himself upon the dock, and, crying most bitterly and in a boyish manner, in a very clear and apparently truthful mauner told the following story: -He said that he was fatherless aud motherless, and he hoped most sincerely that the Judge would deal with him with mercy. He said that when his ship came to Gravesend on the Friday the man Gardner came on board and pressed him to go and stay at his house; that after some persuasion he did so; that on the Wednesday he went and took his pay; and that Gardner told him it would not be safe for him to keep the money, as he would get himself surrounded by thieves and have it stolen from him, and that therefore he gave him his money, and his clothes were at Gardner's house. When they spoke about a settlement, Gardner said that he had paid 18s. 6d. for a pair of boots and some mending for him, and he also made a charge against him for the barber, which he (the prisoner) had himself paid the day before; that he tried to get him to give him his box with his clothes, but that he would not; that some of his shipmates were there, and Gardner abused him and struck him, and he was shut in the room. They were drinking and playing at cards, and he could not get the deceased to give him up his things. He then went out of the house, and spoke to a police constable, who told him he must go before a magistrate. He again went back, and wanted to get his things, as he was going to Cork the following morning, and he then followed him to the public-house, and there he was again refused, and the deceased struck him. From that time he did not recollect what occurred until he found some girls holding him, and he was given into custody of the police. He concluded by leaning nearly half way out of the dock, and, with his hands clasped in the attitude of prayer, he begged most earnestly for mercy. Mr. Baron Martin attempted to pass the sentence of death, but was so deeply affected that he had several times to pause to overcome his emotion, his tears flowing freely all the time. He said it was not in his power to give him mercy; all that was left him was to pass the sentence of death, but the jury had very properly recommended him to mercy, and that recommendation should be immediately forwarded to the Crown, from whom alone he could hope for a remission of his sentence. He hoped that recommendation would have the desired effect. Sentence of death was then passed in the usual form. The prisoner was borne in an almost fainting state out of the dock by the gaolers, and such a painful scene has scarcely ever been seen in a court of justice. From the earnestness with which he told his story, it gained a breathless attention, and there was scarcely a person in Court who was not sobbing, some most audibly. To add to the horror of the occasion, these tragic incidents took place while the dock was full of prisoners who had just been brought up for a fresh arraignment, and they seemed perfectly terror-stricken at what was passing around them. It is almost unnecessary to add that the poor fellow's life was spared. 12\. GREAT JEWEL ROBBERY IN CORNHILL-A very daring burglary, by which the thieves carried off a great plunder, was perpetrated in one of the most frequented thoroughfares in the City. Messrs Dodds Brothers are extensive jewellers, occupying the house, No. 40, Cornhill. The upper part of the house is used as a residence by one of the firm. The lower part is the shop, filled with a very rich assortment of the valuables proper to their trade. The front of the shop is in Cornhill. The front can scarcely be said to be divided; for the window recedes into a doorway, in which is a door of the light description usual in such establishments when open for business. At night a "stall-board," of the height of the window-sill, is let into the front of the doorway, and securely bolted into its place, and an iron shutter is then rolled down, and covers the whole win  
---