Sivut kuvina
PDF
ePub

pistol in one hand. Having made her way across the room, she seized the hand-bell, the man still retaining his hold. She rang the bell. After she rang the bell the men left, and were followed by her husband, who went to the next room to fetch a gun which he kept loaded. Shortly afterwards she heard another report of fire-arms proceeding from the front of the house. When Mr. Holiest returned, he said, "The fellow has shot me." A surgeon was immediately sent for. She observed that Mr. Holiest was wounded. She was led to believe that Levi Harwood was the person who struggled with her, from his voice and general appearance. The men were all brought to her house and were placed in the positions represented on the night of the burglary. After she said she knew Levi Harwood by his voice, he asked her several questions. Unquestionably Harwood could have shot her if he liked.

Mr. Ballantine.—Have you seen Hiram Smith (the approver)'.'

Mrs. Holiest.—I have.

Mr. Ballantine.—Did you, on first seeing him, believe that he was the man who struggled with your husband '?

Mrs. Holiest.—I did think so.

Mr. Ballantine.—Did you believe that Smith was the man who fired at and shot your husband?

Mrs. Holiest.—I did believe so.

Mr. Ballantine.—Do you believe so now?

Mrs. Holiest.—I do.

This remark was made most emphatically by Mrs. Holiest, and created a thrilling sensation throughout the court. It was thought by many that it would go far to destroy the evidence hereafter to be given by the approver Smith.

Hiram Smith, the approver, was then called. The prisoners looked fiercely at their former associate, who seemed thoroughly depressed, and trembled violently. He said his real name was Richard Trowler. He then gave an account of the arrangement of the gang to rob the house, their entry, and their deliberate feast in the family sitting-room.

"When we got up stairs, Jones, Levi Harwood, and I went into Mr. Hollest's room. Samuel Harwood stood at the door. Mr. and Mrs. Holiest were in bed. Mrs. Holiest awoke. Levi Harwood laid hold of her and said, 'Lay still, my good woman, or I will blow your brains out.' They were all at the foot of the bed. Mrs. Holiest jumped out of bed, when Jones caught hold of her and thrust her up in the corner. Mr. Holiest then jumped out of bed and was about to lay hold of Levi Harwood, when Harwood fired the shot. While this was taking place, I took a gold watch off the stand on the table at the foot of the bed. We then all four ran down stairs. When we left the house we got as soon as we could into the fields, where we put our shoes on. Levi Harwood then said, 'I hope to God it has not killed the man.' It was Jones who pushed Mrs. Holiest into the corner. Levi Harwood and I did not move from the foot of the bed, and Levi Harwood shot him while he was standing in that position. Mr. Holiest was getting out from the foot of the bed when he was shot. Levi Harwood was standing on my right, I had no pistol in my hand. I had a watch in one hand and a candle in the other. Levi Harwood \ras about a yard or a yard and a half off Mr. IIIlest when he fired at him. Mr. Holiest was going to make a'' grab' at Levi when he fired at him. I did nothing to save Mr. Holiest, but after the shot had been fired I ran down stairs. I cannot say whether Mr. Holiest fell back upon the bed or not. I did not struggle with Mr. Holiest at the fireplace, and I did not see him struggling with any one else. We all ran away directly the shot was fired, and I do not think it was possible for Levi Harwood to have struggled with Mr. Holiest afterwards. I did not see the pistol presented, and I had no opportunity to prevent Levi Harwood from firing it off. I was not stealing the watch while the pistol was being fired."

On the second day, a very long and minute chain of evidence was entered into for the purpose of corroborating the statement of the approver. It might possibly have sufficed to prove the case without the assistance of the ruffian, who in that case would have been placed at the bar with his fellows; but the law officers very properly resolved that there should be no doubt upon the case. The most decisive evidence was that of Mrs. Hollington, wife of the keeper of the Guildford Police Station, who overheard a conversation between Levi and Samuel Harwood from their separate cells, which amounted very nearly to an admission of their guilt.

The counsel for the prisoners rested their chief defence upon the untrustworthy nature of the confession of the accomplice.

"He asked the jury," said Mr. Ballantine, who defended Levi Harwood, " with the greatest confidence, whether, if all these facts alone had been laid before them,

and they had not heard the evidence of the accomplice, they could think for a moment of finding a man guilty of the crime of wilful murder upon such evidence. He called upon them to consider attentively the evidence that had been given by this man Smith, and having done so, he expressed a confident opinion that the result would be, that they would come to the conclusion that his evidence rather damaged than assisted the prosecution. He had no hesitation in deliberately charging this man with being the actual murderer of the unfortunate gentleman, and he should, he trusted, be able to show them that to this dreadful crime he had not scrupled on the present occasion to add perjury. They had heard the cross-examination of this man, and although a man of this description must, from a long career of crime, have become perfectly callous and dead to every proper feeling, and therefore, to a certain extent, not likely to be operated upon by a counsel's cross-examination; yet they had heard the admissions he had made, and he believed that, taking his own story alone, he should be able to show them that he had told falsehood after falsehood, and lie after lie, and that not the slightest reliance ought to be placed upon his testimony. It was right to consider his evidence, but the jury would recollect that all these matters on which he was said to be corroborated, such as the prisoners being seen upon the road to Friar ley on the night of the murder, Q., were all brought to the knowledge of the approver by the examination of the witnesses while he himself was under charge, and it was therefore the easiest thing in the world for him to dovetail his statement as to the time when the prisoners were represented to have accompanied him to commit the crime, and to make it accord with the evidence given by those witnesses. This was a very important fact for their consideration, particularly when they found that, with regard to what took place in the bed-room, where there was a possibility of contradicting him, the approver was, iu point of fact, contradicted upon almost every important particular. It was perfectly clear that this man Smith was well aware of the importance of making it appear that he was not the man who actually fired the fatal shot; and his object evidently was not only to escape from suffering the consequences of his crime, but also to obtain a portion of the reward that had been offered. The evidence of Mrs. Holiest, which was above all suspicion, entirely contradicted the evidence of the accomplice: and by her statement, it appeared to be impossible for Levi Harwood to be the man who fired the fatal shot, for she identified that prisoner as the man who stood over her; and he was sure they would not forget that she stated, at the same time, that, according to her conscientious belief, and upon her solemn oath, Smith was the man who murdered her husband. He could not understand why such a course had been adopted by the prosecution, as to place the man who was represented to be the actual murderer in the witness box to give evidence, and seek to hang three other men upon his testimony; and why he had not been placed at the bar to answer the charge, instead of being in the position of a witness. It appeared to him that if Smith had been placed at the bar, the evi

dence against him would have been quite conclusive."

For Samuel Harwood it was urged that the evidence, taken to its fullest extent, was by no means conclusive, and that it had been clearly proved that he was not present when the fatal injury was indicted.

The interest and evident satisfaction with which the accused listened to the defences made on their behalf by their counsel were changed into a different but not less impetuous channel when the learned Judge proceeded to sum up the evidence on the whole case. As, under that calm and deliberate review of all the circumstances, each saw his chances with the jury reduced to their exact limits, a great and obvious alteration took place in their appearance and bearing. Jones, upon whom the evidence bore strongest, [the penny token was found in his possession,] though his animal courage did not desert him, exhibited through his coarse, sullen, and hardened features the distinct traces of extraordinary emotion. His complexion deepened into a dull bronze hue, and his face was suffused with perspiration, the result of mental anxiety. Levi Harwood was not less moved, though he showed it in a different manner. He moved restlessly about in the dock, never remaining for more than a minute in the same position. His eyes rolled wildly from the bench to the bar-table and the jury; and, though his cheek did not blanch, his features appeared to shrink up and become attenuated under the violence of his sufferings. Samuel Harwood seemed more at his ease than any of the prisoners, partly from the peculiar stolidity of his disposition; but even his countenance was flushed with emotion, .when the jury returned their verdict in his favour. By far, however, the most remarkable characteristic of the day's proceedings was not what took place in the flock, bttt in a small box near it, where Hiram Smith sat alone, listening to the evidence against his accomplices in crime, and seeing the last links in the chain of proof against them supplied. He was calm enough while this was going forward; but when the couusel for the prisoners rose, and one after the other denounced him as a self-convicted murderer and a perjured witness, he fairly quailed under their attacks. His face was overspread with a death-like pallor, and his whole appearance was that of a man suffering the most intense anguish.

The jury consulted for two hours, and then" returned a verdict of "Guilty" against Levi Harwood and James Jones, and declared Samuel Harwood "Not guilty." The foreman at the same time said that it was the unanimous opinion of the jury that neither Levi Harwood nor Jones fired the fatal shot at the deceased, but that it was fired by Hiram Smith.

So distinct was the impression that Hiram Smith was the actual murderer, that Baron Parke, in passing sentence of death upon Levi Harwood and James Jones, said, "The jury had expressed an opinion that it was not by the hand of either of them that this unfortunate gentleman had met his death, and probably this was the fact; but he had explained the law to them upon the point, and it should be understood by all, that on such a case, where all parties were equally determined to resort to violence tb carry out the illegal object contemplated, the act of one was the

act of all, and every one concerned was, in the eye of the ham, and also according to common sense and reason, equally guilty."

The authorities were in consequence left in a very painful position: for though undoubtedly, whatever the real fact might be, the prisoners convicted had justly forfeited their lives, yet it gave a colouring of hardship to their case that they should be hanged for the deed of another whosb act had given the murderous character to the offence in which they had engaged, and that upon the evidence of that person, who should thereby escape. In fact, the jury petitioned the Home Secretary for a commutation of the sentence on that ground.

The Home Secretary, however, rightly considered the difficulty as more apparent than real, and the sentence of the law was ordered to be carried out. The doubts of the less firm were fortunately relieved by the confession of James Jones, who, the evening before his execution, made a statement to the chaplain in which he distinctly admitted the truth of Hiram Smith's evidence. He said, "I held Mrs. Holiest round the waist; I had a pistol in my hand, and might have shot her, but never intended to do so. Levi Harwood was the man that rushed at Mr. Holiest as he was stooping down to pick up the poker. Levi Harwood was the man who fired the shot ; of that I am certain." (These words were added with marked emphasis.) "The account given by Smith of what took place in the room is quite true, and Mrs. Holiest is mistaken when she swore that it was Levi Harwood who held her round the waist, for it was me;" and he stated that the penny token, which seemed to afford such conclusive evidence against them, wasnot a part of the plunder, but was received at a public-house in Guildford in change.

This confession of Jones was communicated to the other convict, Levi Harwood, who, however, refused to hold any converse on the subject, doggedly repeating, "I have nothing to say;" but about an hour before their execution he sent for the governor of the gaol and said, "The truth was spoken by Smith. What was done was never intended to be done." The governor said, "You mean that murder was not contemplated?" To which the prisoner answered " Yes."

They were executed at Horsemonger Lane Gaol, on the 15th of April, in the presence of an immense crowd.

The approver Smith was put on his trial for the murder and pleaded "Not Guilty." The counsel for the Crown offering no evidence, he was found "Not Guilty," and set at liberty.

The remaining party to this ruffianly act, Samuel Harwood, was tried at Croydon for burglary, and sentenced to be transported for life; others of his associates were convicted, and the gang broken up. ( See Chronicle, pp. 1 and 112.)

The Murder In Marylerone.

Central Criminal Court,
Jan. 8, 1852.

Thomas Bare, 43, pipe maker, was indicted for the wilful murder of his wife, Louisa Bare.

The counsel for the Crown said that there could not be the slightest doubt that the prisoner had committed the dreadful act imputed to him, and the only question

the jury would have to decide would be, whether the act of the prisoner amounted to the crime of wilful murder, or to the lesser offence of manslaughter. It is necessary to premise that the deceased had separated from her husband, owing to his ill-treatment, and had endeavoured to conceal herself from his brutality, by living under feigned names.

Fanny Nott, the mother of the deceased, said,—One day the prisoner came to my house. He asked me after his little boy, and also if I knew where his wife was. I would not tell him, and he said he would be revenged; he would do something to some one, but he would not say to whom.

Sarah Abrahams said—I live at 5, Brook's Gardens, Bagnigge Wells. I know a woman named Hands. In October she was lodging at my house, and the deceased came and stopped with her. She was called Mrs. Bare. Tbe deceased and Mrs. Hands left my house together about a fortnight before I heard of her death, and my boy carried away two boxes that belonged to Mrs. Bare. After the deceased had left, the prisoner came to my house and inquired for her. He said she was his wife. The prisoner next asked me about some boxes, which he said belonged to him, and I told him that everything had been taken away. He left my house soon afterwards, and came again almost every day, and wanted to know whither his wife was gone, and I told him I did not know. On Saturday evening, the 8th of November, he came again, and I told him I was going to send my little boy to where Mrs. Hands was, and he might go and see if his wife was there. The prisoner went

« EdellinenJatka »