9th August 1816: The Judge at Bury Assizes gives death sentences to 'Bread or Blood' arsonists

The Bury St Edmunds Summer Assizes commenced on Friday 9th August 1816, and saw a number of prisoners face trial for offences committed during the previous months in Suffolk.

A number of cases failed, or were postponed, as noted by the Bury & Norwich Post of 14th August 1816:

No true bills were found by the grand jury against Thos. Baker, for setting fire to a barn at Kettlebaston, or Susan Bruty, for setting fire to a building belonging to J. Skelton, of Clare.—The trials of the nine Brandon rioters were traversed to the next Assizes.

However, the main spectacle was reserved for the trials of two arsonists, and the same edition of the paper gave extensive coverage to these:

Trials of the Two Incendiaries.

James Pleasants, a boy of 15 years of age, was indicted for having feloniously set fire to a barn in the parish of Lawhall, in the occupation of Mr. Thomas Bradley, a farmer, by which the same and other buildings were destroyed by fire on the 12th of May last. The only witness in this case, in addition to the prisoner’s confession, was a little girl about 15 years of age, in the service of Mr. Bradley. She stated that during the divine service on the 12th of May, she was left at home with the prisoner and her mistress, who was ill up stairs, her master being on a visit to Mr. Reman, a neighbour adjoining.—The witness had been cleaning knives, and doing dirty work, for which she had occasion to put some water on the fire in a back kitchen, for the purpose of washing her hands: the prisoner was then present by the fire, when he observed to the witness, "why don't you go up stairs and put on your cloathes."—Witness replied it was wet and she should not change her dress that day. She took the water from the fire to the sink in the same apartment, and on turning her back, the prisoner left the kitchen; she did not see that he had any thing in his hand, but soon after he returned, saying, "the barn is on fire." This the witness was soon enabled to perceive from a great quantity of smoke issuing, and immediately after she observed the place all in flames. She instantly ran out and gave the alarm. The boy ran towards the church, thinking his master was there. He, however, accidentally met his master by the way, who by this time saw with great alarm the situation at his premises. There were several good and valuable horses, together with several cows and calves, besides other stock, which were totally consumed. The flames, however, did not reach the dwelling-house, from the timely assistance of the neighbours. When the prisoner was apprehended, he voluntarily confessed that he had conveyed in his glove a coal of fire from the back kitchen to the barn, where he threw it amongst some wheat in the straw. This confession was recorded by the magistrates, who thereupon committed him for trial.—It further appeared, that an anonymous letter containing threats to three persons in the neighbourhood had been previously picked up by the prisoner. That letter said, "the Magistrate was no Justice, and that he should be the first to suffer." But by whom that letter was written had never been discovered.—The prisoner being asked what he had to say in his defence, wept bitterly, and in a low voice which could only be heard by the gaoler, stated that this confession had been extorted from him under a threat from some person, that if he did not confess the crime, or say who did it, he should be scalded to death, and that it was under an impression of fear that he had so confessed. The magistrates being examined whether any such disclosure or threat was made at the time of his commitment, completely negatived that statement.—The prisoner was found guilty, but on account of his youth, recommended by the Jury to mercy. 

Joseph Bugg was capitally convicted of setting fire to a barn and a cart-lodge, in the occupation of Mr Jas. Glanfield, at Martlesham-hall. The prosecutor stated, that he rented the farm and premises under the Rev. Geo. Doughty, of Hoxne. He left his house on the 23d of April, with his wife, on a visit to a neighbour, and returned at 12 o'clock at night, when the premises were all safe. As he had walked from home, and did not expect to return very early, he left directions with the servants not to sit up for him. About an hour after his return, he was awakened out of his sleep by a cry of "fire!" and, looking out of his chamber window, saw the barn on fire. He immediately went down stairs, and saw that the cart-lodge was also on fire, and the roof was just falling in. These outbuildings were distant about 150 yards from his house. The night was calm, and the flame from the buildings, which were considerably apart, arose in an upright direction.—There were 80 coombs of barley in the barn, chiefly in the straw, and most of his farming implements in the cart-lodge, the whole of which were destroyed. Eliz. Hammond, who lived servant at Waldringfield Cliff public-house, was next examined. She stated, that the prisoner was there on the night the fire happened; he came about 6 o'clock in the evening, and drank with several others, all of whom went away before him. He staid until a little time after a quarter past 12, and went away then, upon her refusing to let him have any more beer. She had supplied the prisoner with a half-quartern of rum, 2 pints of old beer, five or six pints of other beer, with a half-quartern of gin in each. On cross examination, she admitted that, altho’ the prisoner had had part of this in the first instance, subsequently they had all drunk together. The next witness was ____ Rouse, who stated that he lived at Martlesham, and have known Bugg ever since he was a boy. On the night of the fire, the prisoner called at his house between twelve and one; his wife, who heard the prisoner call out to know whether he was at home, awoke him. On his getting up, the prisoner asked him if he could lend him a tinder-box and steel, which he at first denied, as he should want it himself in the morning; on a promise, however, that it should be then returned, he gave them to him. When the prisoner had gone three or four yards from the window, he called out to the witness, "don't tell any body!"—Directly upon hearing of the fire, he went and acquainted Mr. Glanfield of this circumstance. Witness’s house is nearly three-quarters of a mile out of the direct path from the Cliff public-house to the prisoner’s. The tinder-box was returned in the morning. He thought the prisoner wanted a tinder-box because there were gipsies in the neighbourhood. A young man, servant to Mr. Cattermole, next deposed, that when in conversation with one John Barber, on a Sunday, upon a stile, near the Lion at Martlesham, the prisoner came up to them; and in talking about work, the prisoner observed, that the farmers in the parish were all damn’d rogues, especially Mr. Glanfield; he would do them a kindness, and he (Mr. Glanfield) should be the first.—Mr. John Cook, a farmer, residing at Bucklesham, about four miles from Martlesham, but occupying a farm in that parish, stated that Bugg had formerly worked with him; that in March last, on being sent to work in the roads, he complained of Mr. James Glanfield, saying, it might bethank him that men were posted about from parish to parish. He thought Mr. G. the worst of them all; and he should not wonder if something were to happen to him before long.—The prisoner, on being called upon for his defence, said, that he drank all the liquor himself.—The learned Judge, in summing up the evidence, remarked, that in the species of crime with which the prisoner stood charged, it was by circumstantial evidence alone, that conviction could be founded; it was not likely that a man having such a diabolical purpose in view, should have any accomplices in the act. His Lordship took great pains to point out the connecting chain of evidence upon which the guilt of the prisoner might reasonably be presumed; and, after some pertinent remarks on the heinousness of the offence, and the necessity of preventing its recurrence, by example, he left the case for the consideration of the Jury. He concluded by noticing, that, as he had hinted before, the evidence was only presumptive, and in such a case, could only be so, the Jury would therefore give the prisoner the benefit of any doubt which really existed in their minds.—It was not, however, the province of a Jury, with the view to exonerate themselves from such a painful duty, to fabricate doubts, but to deliver such a verdict as the evidence of the case, in all its bearings, might lead them to. The Jury returned a verdict—Guilty, but recommended the prisoner to mercy.

The paper also recorded Sir Vicary Gibbs' sentencing:

Sentence passed on Prisoners capitally convicted.—Chief Justice Gibbs, in passing sentence, addressed the prisoner Bugg, expressing his regret at the situation in which this unhappy man was placed, by the heinous offence of which he had been convicted, on such clear evidence as that which had been adduced against him.—The learned Judge said he could not see the slightest hope which the prisoner could entertain of any thing like reprieve or pardon, from the awful severity which the law had denounced against his crime by way of punishment; and, for the sake of example, to deter others from committing the like offences; that sentence, however painful, yet towards a criminal like him, it was his Lordship's duty to pronounce. From the depravity and wickedness which the nature of the crime evinced, it was justly ordained that it should be expiated by the death of the culprit. The pretence of not knowing right from wrong could not avail the prisoner, whose years and experience must have taught him to view the extent of enormity which belonged to the crime of which he was convicted by a Jury. 

His Lordship next addressed James Pleasants, whose youth excited a great degree of compassion in the mind of the Judge, being under the necessity of passing sentence of death upon him for the same offence. His Lordship said, it was astonishing that such a degree of malignity should have entered the heart of a boy at his early age, whose depravity on that account was the more to be lamented. The Jury, on this consideration, and in hopes he might yet live to repent, the more sincerely as he advanced in years, were disposed to rescue him from an ignominious and untimely death, by recommending him to mercy; and although it was the Judge’s duty to pronounce the sentence of the law, corresponding with the magnitude of the offence, his Lordship was in hopes that by conforming to the recommendation of the Jury his life might be spared, in order that he might become a penitent, and at some future period, a useful and industrious member of the community, by seriously reflecting, that death was the least punishment which must await the commission of an heinous offence.

Before he left Suffolk for Norfolk, Gibbs reprieved Plesants, but left Bugg to hang.

21st March 1812: The trial of 'Luddite burglar' John Thompson at Derby Lent Assizes

The Nottingham Review of 27th March 1812 continued with coverage of the trial of John Thompson on Saturday 21st March 1812:

On Saturday morning, John Thompson, aged 25, a native of Draycot, in Derbyshire, was put to the bar, and charged with having, in company with others, on the 6th of January, 1812, robbed the house of Thomas Theobald, of Wilsthorpe, in the said County.

Mr. Theobald deposed, that he was the holder a little farm at Wilsthorpe; that his family consisted of two daughters, a servant girl, and a little girl; that just before two o'clock in the morning of the 6th of January, he was awakened from his sleep by two men coming to his bed side, armed with pistols, one of which had a candle in his hand; that they demanded his money, when he said he had but 15 or 16 shillings in his breeches pocket, that lay on the bed, which they took away; that he saw their faces, and was sure the prisoner at the bar was one of them; that a third man came in, that one staied by him while the other two went to search other rooms and came again; but they stopped an hour; that his daughter had the care of his other money; that they took eight five pound notes, five one pound notes, eight silver tea spoons, three silver table spoons, one pair of silver tea tongs, several linen and cotton sheets, and various other articles. Witness further stated that he got up at three o'clock, and when he went down stairs, he found the kitchen window taken out, and that it was large enough for a man to get through. On his cross-examination, he stated that his house was an odd one; that Mr. Harriman, who lived at least sixty yards from him, was his nearest neighbour; that he was 77 years of age, and his eyes not very good; that he knew the prisoner when a child, and was sure as to his person; that when the robbers had taken his money, he told them to go about their business, in reply to which they threatened to shoot him if he spoke another word—would not swear that he had ever mentioned the prisoner’s named till after he was taken, nor could he tell the reason why he had not done so.

Mary Theobald stated herself to be the daughter to and housekeeper of the former witness; that on the 5th of January, at night herself and the servant girl were up the last in the house; went to bed at ten, and was quite sure that she fastened the door and windows. She then stated that at two o'clock in the morning she was alarmed by two men coming into her bedroom, and drawing aside the curtains, one having a candle to his hand, and each holding a pistol, servant who slept with her having fled as they entered the room; and that they told her death should be her portion if she did not lie still. Witness then saw them go into the middle room, and so on into the far room, where the money was, and where her sister slept, who was then on a visit. She got out of bed, notwithstanding the threat, and distinctly saw them rummaging a large trunk, in which was a small trunk, which contain the cash notes named in the indictment. She swore positively to the prisoner being one of the men, though he was not the man who held the candle; and that the other man had a large nose.

Jane Hanberry, daughter to the first witness, deposed that she was on a visit as a father's house at the time it was robbed; that she slept the room where the truck was that had been rummaged; distinctly saw the men; was much alarmed, and would not swear to the person of the prisoner.

Mr. Whiston clerk to Dr. Forester, deposed that he took down the prisoners examination before the Magistrates; and that he, the prisoner, on hearing the deposition of Mr. Theobald read, declared at about three o'clock in the morning mentioned to the indictment, he was walking near Barrowash, and found Cook, Scott, and Fine John, who shewed him that articles said to have been stolen from prosecutors house; but they went to England's house at Derby, and there divided the spoils; that he Cook went up to London, where Cook sold the silver spoons, &c. to a landlord whom he knew; that he bought himself a suit of clothes with part of the money; gave the prisoner another part of it, who then went down to Tewkesbury. The prisoner had nothing to say in his defence; and the Jury, without hesitation, found him Guilty. The Judge, in passing sentence of death upon him, was peculiarly impressive, and very much affected. His Lordship said he understood that the prisoner’s father had ten or eleven children, and that his grandfather now lay dead in the house of broken heart, on account of the prisoner’s abandoned conduct, and the fate that now hung over his head. The Court were in tears; and the Judge, after he had pronounced, in the most solemn manner, the awful sentence of the law upon the prisoner, gave him hopes of mercy, in consequence of some important discoveries he had made respecting the desperate gang.

NB: John Thompson's death sentence was later reprieved by Judge Bayley.

20th March 1812: The trials of the 'Luddite burglars' Pierce Cook, James Tomlinson & John England at Derby Lent Assizes

 The Nottingham Review of 27th March 1812 had extensive coverage of the trial of the Derbyshire 'Luddite burglars' whose trial took place on Firday 20th March 1812:

On Friday morning the Court was crowded to excess, when James Tomlinson, alias Fruz, [the prisoner obtained this appellation having large whiskers,] Perceval Cook, and John England, were put to the bar, charged with committing a burglary in the house of Mr Samuel Hunt, at Ockbrook mill, early on the morning of the 23d December, 1811. They each to the least five feet nine inches high, and were all fine looking young fellows; Cook being 26, Tomlinson 27, and England 29 years of age. England protested against being tried with the other two, saying, if he were, and was found guilty, he should consider himself a murdered man. The Court, however, took no notice of his protest, and proceeded to call

Elizabeth Walker, an interesting young woman, sister to the prosecutor’s wife, who resides with him in the capacity of a servant. She stated, that she got up to wash at two o'clock of the morning named in the indictment, and when she had been to the kitchen about an hour, had a strange voice call “hallo;” that she then went into the house to listen, and heard some people whispering on the doorstone. They then lifted up the latch several times, and she proceeded upstairs to call Mr. Hunt, who bid witness go down stairs and ask what was wanted, which she did, but received no answer. Mr. Hunt then went down and asked the same question, when he was answered, that they were Ned Ludd’s men; that they wished him to sign a paper to sell his corn and flour at a reasonable price; that they had left off breaking frames, and now intended to break human souls, if their grievances were not redressed. Witness then stated that several of the persons went to the windows, the shutter of which was then open, and demanded admittance; that one person had his face close to the glass, and another looked over his shoulder. On being told to look at the prisoners, and state whether any of them were the men, she immediately pointed out Cook and Tomlinson, and said Cook was the man who had his face close to the glass, and that Tomlinson looked over his shoulder. She was positive as to the identity of their faces, in consequence of having had so clear a sight of them, which she was enabled to have from the light of a large fire and having a candle in her hand, and from their standing conversing whether in that position at least a quarter of an hour. She further stated, that Cook had a black handkerchief on, which reached up to his ears and covered his chin; and that Tomlinson had something under his hat like the ears of a cap, which came down by the side of his face. [It was inferred that this was a cap to conceal his whiskers.] In the meantime, Mr. Hunt had been upstairs to fetch his gun, and on being pressed to open the door, he positively refused; when one of the depredators said if he did not, he would be dead if he should not see his mill and house burnt before his eyes. He then asked permission to dress himself; but they swore they would have him as he was. He then lifted up his gun, when one of them said, “he has a gun! we have fire arms as well as him.” Mr. Hunt replied that he had twenty guns up stairs, and that he would discharge them all before he would be robbed. She admitted that this was a [illegible] to drive the depredators away. Witness then said that she asked her brother where the trumpet was with which she might alarm the village, which was not more than a quarter of a mile from the house; but that while she was thus preparing to defeat their purpose, a brick-bat came through the window, which induced her to open it and call out murder; she then received a blow on the mouth from another brick-bat, which cut her upper lip and caused her to bleed profusely. Witness then went on to state, that a man set his foot against the door and sprung it partly open, when another said “stop a bit;” then they shortly after forced it open; and Mr. Hunt went up stairs with his gun; saw two men on the first or second stair, the first of whom was Cook; saw them quite plain with pistols in their hands, and observed Tomlinson have bits of flannel on the side of his face proceeding from under his hat; and saw other men in the house. One of the prisoners then said, what makes this man so stupid? why dont he come down and sign the paper? if he dont we will have vengeance! Mr. Hunt said, he would shoot the first man that attempted to advance another step. Mrs. Hunt had by this time dressed herself, and came to the top of the stairs with a child in her arms; and on seeing witness bleed so profusely, begged most tenderly of her husband to surrender himself, lest they should be murdered, which induced him to set his gun down and come downstairs. They then demanded his money, and he gave them his purse, containing a little silver and the key of his bureau. Witness saw five men in the house, some of whom had their faces disguised: saw three go up stairs, two of whom were Cook and Tomlinson; followed them, and saw them in Mrs. Hunt’s sleeping room; saw them at the drawers casting the things upon the door; went to them and laid hold of Cook’s arm, to whom she said, “justice will overtake you in this world, for this crime, and vengeance from an offended God in the next.” Witness then went down stairs, and saw them take three shirts from among the dirty linen. On her cross-examination she re-stated near the whole of the foregoing, and added, that she was quite sure that she knew Cook and Tomlinson, as they stopped in the house half an hour, and besides the light of the fire, there were six or seven candles burning in the house; and that she saw Cook take away Mr. Hunt’s gun.

Miss Hunt being then sworn, he stated himself to reside at Ockbrook mill, and confirmed all the material parts of the last witnesses testimony. He was positive as to the persons of Cook and Tomlinson; sure he was not alarmed until, at the tender entreaties of his wife, he surrendered himself, and that then he was afraid they would have murdered him from the resistance he had made. He further stated, that, besides his gun, which Cook had carried away, they took thirty-five one pound and guinea notes, which lay in his drawer under two suit of clothes, with sundry other articles; and that, when they were going away, he begged most tenderly that they would leave him a little money, to which Cook answered by shaking a pistol at him, and said, “We will remember you another day.”

Thomas Draper, an accomplice, aged 22, the same who swore against William Wells, alias Black Tom, at the Nottingham assize, was called as a witness: and, after receiving a caution from Counsellor Clarke to speak nothing but the truth, he deposed, that he had known Cook and Tomlinson about two years, and England about six months. He likewise knew Ockbrook Mill, Andrew Scott, a Scotchman, and Howett. He stated, that on the night preceding the burglary, the whole six met at England's house who gave them four black crapes for face cloths, and a flannel cap to Tomlinson to cover his large whiskers; it being agreed the Ockbrook Mill should not go [illegible] house in his own neighbourhood, therefore he did not want a face-cloth. [This accounts for only five persons being seen in Mr. Hunt’s house.] Witness went on to state that England furnished them with five loaded pistols, and advised them to go first to Brentnall, at Locko-grange, whom he knew bred many horses and sold them, and did not put his money in the bank, consequently, that they would there “get a good life” that they went out of England's house two by two; that they went to Brentnall's house, and got defeated; that they had forgot to bring their powder from England's; that for want of priming to discharge the pistols, he drew his own to prime the others with; but they all discharged their pistols in a close, except Cook, who he believed had not a sufficient quantity of priming; that they did not wish to do murder; that they then went to Mr. Hunt's house and robbed, as described by the two foregoing witnesses, (the circumstances attending which robbery he particularly described;) and that Tomlinson was the man who forced Mr. Hunt’s door, a panel of which he kicked out, and then entered through the hole, unlocked the door, and let in the rest. He further stated, that on their return they found England's back-door open, according to agreement, that England was gone out a brewing, and that when he came home to breakfast they gave him Hunt’s gun, and two one pound notes. On his cross-examination he admitted, that he had been charged with stealing his indenture from his master when he was an apprentice at Sheepshead; that he was a deserter from four regiments, but denied having received £111 14s. bounty money in one year.

The evidence against Cook and Tomlinson here closed, but then it was necessary to corroborate Draper’s testimony against England, to prove him an accessary, and to accomplish this, Mr. Whiston, clerk to Dr. Forester, a magistrate for the county of Derby, was sworn. He stated, that having taken down the deposition of Draper, and when he was reading it over to England, and came to that part which says, that they went out to commit the robberies in question with five pistols, “nay, says England, you had six.” “I think they [obscured] Draper,” “Yes,” replied England, “you know, Cook had two!” Witness further deposed, that when he came to that part of Draper’s testimony, which says that England received Mr. Hunt’s gun, and two notes, England said ”Nay, the notes were given to my wife!”

William Jowett, game-keeper to Lord Harrington, deposed, that some time ago he gave England a blue coat. The object in calling this witness was to prove that the coat which Cook had on Mr. Hunt’s was the one thus given to England; but as the latter part of the circumstance was not clearly proved the Judge struck out the whole of it from his notes.

Cook had an excellent character given him from his childhood down to the year 1807, by persons of high respectability from Nottingham; Tomlinson’s character stood high in the estimation of a creditable housekeeper of Belton, with whom he had lodged for a considerable time back down to 9th of January, 1812. But when he was asked, whether Tomlinson had not sometimes been absent for several days at a time, he said yes; but suppose that such absence might be accounted for by him going to Leicester with his work. And England had a fair character given him by several people up to May 1811.

The Learned Judge bestowed infinite pains in summing up the evidence; and the Jury, almost without hesitation, pronounced the prisoner Guilty.

Cook and Tomlinson were again indicted for having, in company with others, entered the dwelling-house of John Brentnall, of Locko Grange, on Sunday night the 22nd of December, 1811, it being the same night that the robbery at Mr. Hunt’s was committed; and England was again indicted for being an accessary to such forcible entrance.

Joseph Brentnall, son of the prosecutor, stated, that at eight o'clock, on the night stated in the indictment, his father's door being shut, two men rushed into the house; and that on him rising up in attempting to force them out again, he received a violent blow on the head with a pistol, while another was snapped at his breast; that he through the first man down; that three or four others rushed in: that the servant girl with a brush, and his father with a long bill-hook came to his assistance; but one of the ruffians cried out “murder; that they then got the whole of them out; that his father pursued them into the yard with the bill-hook, and was then knocked down by one of the villains throwing a large piece of wood at him; that he ran to his father's assistance as soon as possible, got him into the house and shut the door; but on missing the servant girl, he opened it again to seek for her, when he met her returning towards its and one of the villains pursuing her; and that on him appearing, the latter retreated with all possible speed.

John Brentnall deposed to the foregoing, and further stated, that when, in the yard two or three pistols were snapped at him; that he found two buttons, part of the tricker-guard of a pistol, and a hat; and that when the depredators entered his house, his family which was just rising from prayers.—We should have stated on the former trial, that Miss Walker deposed to one of the villains being without a hat, and having a handkerchief tied round his head; and that Draper declared himself to be the man. On this trial, this wretch deposed that he and Andrew Scott were the men who entered Mr. Brentnall's house; that he struck young Mr. Brentnall with a pistol, and Scott snapped the other at his breast; that he lost his hat in the scuffle; that he believed that Tomlinson was the man who knocked Mr. Brentnall down with the wood; and that on their disappointment here, they went and robbed the house of Mr. Hunt.

Mr. Whiston, Clerk to Dr. Forester, deposed on this trial, as he had done on the former, respecting the expressions made use of by England.

The Judge, in summing up the evidence, particularly stated, that a man who had furnished the means for the commission of a crime, became equally guilty, in the eye of the law, with the perpetrator of it, and consequently merited the same punishment.

The Jury found the business Guilty, and the Judge immediately proceeded to pass the awful sentence of the law upon them, and more than once enjoined them not to expect mercy.

These two trials lasted eight hours, during which time the prisoners conducted themselves with becoming deportment.

NB: John England's death sentence was later reprieved by Judge Bayley.

18th March 1812: The trials of John Osborne & William Wells at Nottingham Lent Assizes

The Nottingham Review continued it's coverage of the Nottingham Lent Assizes taking place on Wednesday 18th March in the 20th March 1812 edition of the paper:

On Wednesday morning, John Osborne, Framework-knitter, aged 29, of Heanor, in the County of Derby, was [obscured] at the bar on a double indictment for burglary and [frame-breaking].

Sarah Wild being sworn, stated, that she resides [obscured] Eastwood, in this County, in a house occupied by herself and her mother; remembered having seen the prisoner at the [obscured] her mother's house with about twenty others, in the [obscured] February, and heard him say “damn them, (meaning Hussars who were guarding a waggon load of frames (from Nottingham,) they durst not fire—we are all Ned Lud’s [obscured], said witness, you have not your hammer [obscured] yes, we carry them out of sight, and shall come [obscured] night; have you got a coal pick to lend me, to which she replied yes! She went to bed before ten at night [obscured] awaked out of her sleep by some forms scratching at the window; heard nothing said; asked who was there; when [obscured] prisoner asked if a colt worked there, to which she answered [obscured] Let me in, or I will break the door open; to which she replied; stop till I dress me, and I will; but instead of [obscured] she alarmed her brother, who lived in the next house [obscured] -ping against the partition wall with the tongs. She [obscured] stated, that the prisoner then ran round the house [obscured] the window in, against which stood the frame; that he [obscured] his shoulder against the window-stool; and struck the frames three violent blows with a piece of iron, which broke the sinkers and needles all to pieces. Witness while this was going on, flung down the tongs, and placed one foot on the frame-side and the other on the bed, to see who he was, which she was enabled to do by the light of a great fire, and recollecting his features in the day time, and from having heard him sing in company the preceding Christmas. Being asked what was meant by a colt, she said she was one, for she had not worked seven years at the trade. On her cross-examination, she admitted she had been accused of stealing lace; that she did not know whether it was five miles or one mile from Eastwood to Heanor; that she knew no more of the prisoner than that of having heard him sing in company at Christmas; and having seen his face (one side of which was besmeared with something of a dark colour,) in an oblique direction as he was breaking the frame; and that she had no expectation of gaining £10 by his conviction. She further stated, that she did not know what part of the room the bed was in; how long the window was, nor what time of the night it was when she saw the prisoner.

Hannah Wild, mother of the last witness, being sworn, she remembered a waggon load of frames passing through Eastwood, guarded by soldiers; knew not the person with whom her daughter conversed on the day mentioned in the indictment; heard the noise of the door, and the scratching of thorns at the window; called her daughter, and heard a voice ask if any colts were there; had a curtain by the side of the bed; the mischief was done in a moment, at three strokes; yet upon recollection cannot form any opinion of the length of time the man occupied in breaking the frame.

Eleanor Ingram remembered the waggon load of frames going through Eastwood; saw the prisoner in company with many others, conversing with Sarah Wild.

Josiah Mee saw the frames go; saw the prisoner of the Sun Inn, in Eastwood; had known him from a child, and gave him an excellent character.

Vincent Wild, brother of the first witness, remembered the noises his mother's door on the 5th of February at night; heard the report of a gun or of a pistol; heard the knocking at the wall; heard the window smash; heard three strokes, and went out at twenty minutes before eleven o'clock, but all was over.

William Howitt, of Taghill, deposed that he knew Hannah Wild; that he saw the frame in question at her house on the 6th of February; that the frame was not broken, but was only damaged a little in the sinkers and needles, as if the man had drawn his fingers across them; and conceived that five or six shillings would repair all the damage. He had known the prisoner 20 years, and he and his parents bore good characters. This witness dropt some curious observations respecting the formation and altering a stocking frame, which caused the Counsel for the Crown to call in the evidence of Mr. Alexander Hadden, Hosier, to give a more correct account of that machine.

Roger Osborne remembered being out with the prisoner on the the 5th of February, and parted with in a little before eight, in the evening, on his way home.

John Walters lives at Loscoe, and remembered going after the waggon load of frames, on the 5th of February, through Eastwood; and on returning home, caught the prisoner on the road between that village and Heanor, and parted with him about a quarter of a mile from his (the prisoner’s) home, about nine o'clock.

Joel Godkin remembered going with the prisoner after the so often mentioned frames, on the 5th of February, as far as the water slash near Nuttall, and returned with him home.

Robert Lomas knew the prisoner well; lives the next door to him; went into his house on the 5th of February, at nine o'clock at night; stood with him till a quarter before eleven, during which time the prisoner sat with his shoes and stockings off, which were very dirty.

Henry Savage deposed to his seeing the prisoner in his house at nine at night, on the 5th of February.

Sarah Savage, wife of the last witness, went into the prisoner’s house at eleven the same night, to boil a sop of gruel, and saw him and without his shoes and stockings.

After this long investigation, the Jury were divided in opinion; but after being locked up three hours, they returned a verdict of Not Guilty.


The next prisoner put to the bar was William Wells, alias Black Tom, who pleaded guilty to the charge of robbing Mr. Robert Crompton, of Epperston, on the highway leading from that village to Mansfield, on the evening of the last October cheese fair, held at the latter place; but the Judge wished him to have the advantage of a trial, and he pleaded not guilty. Mr. Crompton stated that he was met by four men, about a quarter of a mile on the Epperston road, leading from Mansfield, during the course of the evening, who stopped him, dragged him from his horse, rifled his pocket-book of two one pound notes, presented a pistol to his breast, cut the bridle reins of his horse, and turned the animal loose; and when they thought they had taken his all, they let him go. Mr. Crompton thought the prisoner was one of the robbers, but was not quite sure of it.

Mr. Heath, Blidworth, deposed that he was attempted to be stopped on the same road and the same evening, by four men; but through exertion of courage and prudence, escaped with his property.

William Draper, a native of Sheepshead, and an accomplice, corroborated the testimony of Mr. Crompton; and likewise stated that Pierce Cook, and a person of the name of Thompson, were their accomplices, who are now in Derby jail, waiting their trials the present Assize; from which place Wells was removed by writ of Habeas Corpus, and to which place Draper is removed to appear against the other two. The Jury returned a verdict of Guilty; sentence of death was passed upon him, but he was afterwards reprieved.