Imatges de pàgina
PDF
EPUB

A second count charged the said Renwick Williams, that, on the same day and year, he did unlawfully, wilfully, and maliciously, tear, spoil, cut, and deface, the garments and clothes to wit, the cloak, gown, petticoat, and shift, of the said Anne Porter, contrary to the statute, and against the peace, &c.

Miss Anne Porter deposed that she had been at St. James's, to see the ball, on the night of the 18th of January, 1790, accompanied by her sister, Miss Sarah Porter, and another lady; that her father had appointed to meet them at twelve o'clock, the hour the ball generally breaks up; but that it ended at eleven, and she was therefore under the necessity either of staying where she was, until her father came, or to return home at that time. Her father, she said, lived in St. James's Street, and that he kept a tavern and a cold bath. She agreed to go home with her party.

As they proceeded up St. James's Street her sister appeared much agitated, and called to her to hasten home, which she and her company accordingly did. Her sister was the first to reach the hall door. As the witness turned the corner of the rails, she received a blow on the right hip; she turned round, and saw the prisoner stoop down: she had seen him before several times, on each of which he had followed close behind her, and used language so gross, that the Court did not press on her to relate the particulars.

He did not immediately run away when he struck her, but looked on her face, and she thus had a perfect opportunity of observing him. She had no doubt, she said, of the prisoner being the man that wounded her. She supposed that the wound was inflicted with a sharp instruRent, because her clothes were

cut, and she was wounded through them.

Miss Porter farther deposed that on the 13th of June last she was walking in St. James's Park, with her mother and her two sisters, and a gentleman of the name of Coleman. The prisoner at the bar met and passed her; she was struck with his person, and knew him; she found he had turned to look after her. Upon appearing agitated, she was questioned, and pointed him out to Mr. Coleman. She said she knew him when he was brought up to the public office at Bow Street.

Her gown, of pink silk, and her shift, which she wore the night she was wounded, were produced in court, and were cut on the right side, a considerable length.

Miss Sarah Porter was next called. She swore that she had seen the prisoner at the bar prior to the 18th of June last, but had no acquaintance with him. He had followed her, and talked to her in language the most shocking and obscene. She had seen him four or five different times. On that night, when her sister was cut, she saw him standing near the bottom of St. James's Street, and, spying her, he exclaimed, O ho! are you there? and immediately struck her a violent blow on the side of the head. She then, as well as she was able, being almost stunned, called to her sister to make haste, adding, Don't you see the wretch behind us ? Upon coming to their own door, the prisoner rushed between them, and about the time he struck her sister he also rent the witness's gown. There were lights in the street, and she knew him.

Two more sisters, Miss Rebecca Porter and Miss Martha Porter, also bore unequivocal testimony as to the identity of the prisoner, with

respect to his having accosted them, in company with their sisters, with the most obscene and indecent language.*

[ocr errors]

Mr. John Coleman was the next witness called. He swore that he was walking with Miss Anne Porter, and the rest of her family, in St. James's Park, on the evening of Sunday, the 13th of June, 1790. That, upou observing Miss Porter much agitated, and inquiring the cause, she pointed out the prisoner at the bar, and said the wretch had just passed her.' Having pointed him out, the witness followed him to the house of Mr. Smith, in South Moulton Street, and, upon going into the parlour where he was, expressed his surprise on the the prisoner's not resenting the insults he (the witness) had offered him; and demanded his address. Mr. Smith and the prisoner both expressed their surprise at such a demand, without a reason given; he therefore said, that he, the prisoner, had insulted some ladies, who had pointed him out, and that he must have satisfaction. The prisoner denied having offered any insult; but, upon his persisting, they exchanged addresses.

The prisoner's address was produced by the witness, No. 52, Jermyn Street. The witness and the prisoner then mutually recognised each other, as having been in company with each other before, and the witness then departed. On his departure be repented having quitted him, and, turning back, he met with him at the top of St. James's Street: he then accosted him again, saying I don't think you are the person I took you for; you had

better come with me now, and let the ladies see you.' The prisoner objected, as it was late at night; but, upon his saying it was close by, he went with him.

On his being introduced into the parlour, where the Miss Porters were sitting, two of them, Anne and Sarah, fainted away, exclaiming, Oh! my God! that's the wretch!' The prisoner then said, 'The ladies' behaviour is odd; they don't take me for the monster that is advertised " The witness said they did.

The prisoner was there an hour before he was taken away, and in that time said nothing particular.

Mr. Tomkins, surgeon, was next called. By his description the wound must have been made by a very sharp instrument. He had also examined the clothes, and they must have been cut at the same time. The wound itself was, at the beginning, for two or three inches, but skin-deep; about the middle of it, three or four inches deep, and gradually decreasing in depth to wards the end. The length of the wound, from the hip downwards, was nine or ten inches.

The prisoner, being called upon for his defence, begged the indulgence of the Court, in supplying the deficiency of his memory, upon what he wished to state, from a written paper. He accordingly read as follows:

'He stood,' he said, an object equally demanding the attention and compassion of the Court. That, conscious of his innocence, he was ready to admit the justice of whatever sufferings he had hitherto undergone, arising from suspicion. He had the greatest confidence in the

This is a practice among a set of scoundrels of the present day, in the public streets, wherever they find a modest, well-dressed, unprotected female. They not only whisper the most abominable bawdry in her chaste ear, but often pinch her on the side or behind, so as to put her in both bodily and mental pain. Such rascals ought to be whipped at the cart's tail through every street in London.

justice and liberality of an English jury, and hoped they would not suffer his fate to be decided by the popular prejudice raised against him. The hope of proving his innocence had hitherto sustained him. He professed himself the warm friend and admirer of that sex whose cause was now asserted, and concluded with solemnly declaring that the whole prosecution was founded on a dreadful mistake, which, he had no doubt, the evidence he was about to call would clear up to the satisfaction of the Court.'

His counsel then proceeded to call his witnesses.

Mr. Mitchell, the first evidence, was an artificial flower-maker, living in Dover Street, Piccadilly. The prisoner had worked for him nine months in all; he had worked with him on the 18th of January, the queen's birth-day, the day on which Miss Porter had been wounded, from nine o'clock in the morning till one o'clock in the day, and from half past two till twelve at night: ne had then supped with the family. He gave the prisoner a good character, as behaving with good nature to the women in the house.

Miss Mitchell, the witness's sis ter, told the same story.

Two other witnesses, domestics in the same house, likewise appeared on behalf of the prisoner; but the whole of the evidence, on his part, proved rather contradictory.

Mr. Justice Buller, with great accuracy and ability, went through the whole of this extraordinary business, stating, with great clearness and perspicuity, the parts of the evidence that were most material for the consideration of the jury, with many excellent observations.

He said it had been stated, in various ways, that great outrages had been committed by the prisoner at the bar, and therefore, in his de

fence, he had, very properly, not only applied to the compassion of the jury, to guard against the effects of prejudice, but also to their judgment. It was very proper to do so, and in this he only demanded justice: prejudice often injured, though it could never serve, the cause of justice.

In this the jury would have only to consider what were the facts of which they were to be satisfied, and on which it was their province to decide. This being done by them, and if they should find the prisoner guilty upon the present charge, he would reserve his case for the opinion of the twelve judges of England; and this he should do for several reasons: first, because this was completely and perfectly a new case in itself; and, secondly, because this was the first indictment of the kind that was ever tried. Therefore, although he himself entertained but little doubt upon the first point, yet, as the case was new, it would be right to have a solemn decision upon it. So that hereafter the law, in that particular, may be declared from undoubted authority.

ever

Upon the second point he owned that he entertained some doubts. This indictment was certainly the first of the kind that was drawn in this kingdom. It was founded upon the statute of the 6th George I. Upon this statute it must be proved that it was the intent of the party accused, not only to wound the body, but also cul, tear, and spoil the garment; (here the learned judge read the clause of the act;)-one part of this charge was quite clear, namely, that Miss Porter was wounded, and her clothes torn. The first question, therefore, for the consideration of the jury would be, whether this was done wilfully, and with intent to spoil

the garment, as well as to wound the body. That was a fact for the jury to decide; and, if they agreed upon this, then, whether the prisoner was the man who did it.

He observed that there might be cases in which the clothes were torn, and yet where this act would not apply; such, for instance, as a scuffle in a quarrel, where clothes might be torn wilfully, but not with that malice and previous intent which this act required.

It should be observed, that here there was a wound given, with an instrument that was not calculated solely for the purpose of affecting the body, such, for instance, as piercing or stabbing, by making a hole; but here was an actual cutting, and the wound was of a very considerable length, and so was the rent in the clothes. It was for the jury to decide whether, as both body and clothes were cut, he who intended the end did 1.0t also intend the means.

He left it to the jury to say, upon the whole of the case, whether the prisoner was guilty or innocent.

The jury immediately, without hesitation, found the prisoner guilty. Mr. Justice Buller then ordered the judgment in this case to be arrested, and the recognizances of the persons bound to prosecute to be respited until the December ses

sions.

The court was crowded with spectators by nine, when this trial began, which ended at five o'clock at night.

All the witnesses were examined separately.

At the commencement of the sessions at the Old Bailey, on the 10th of December, 1790, Judge Ashurst addressed the prisoner nearly in the following terms: You have been capitally convicted under the statute 6 George I. of maliciously tearing,

cutting, spoiling, and defacing, the garments of Ange Porter, on the 18th of January last. Judgment has been arrested upon two pointsone, that the indictment is informal; the other that the act of parliament does not reach the crime. Upon solemn consideration, the judges are of opinion that both the objections are well founded: but, although you are discharged from this indictment, yet you are within the purview of the common law. You are therefore to be remanded, to be tried for a misdemeanor.'

He was accordingly, on the 13th of the same month, tried at Hicks's Hall for the misdemeanor, in making an assault on Miss Anne Porter.

The trial lasted sixteen hours: there were three counts in the indictment; viz. for assaulting with intent to kill, for assaulting and wounding, and for a common assault.

The charge was that he, on the 18th of January, 1790, made an assault on Anne Porter, and, with a certain knife, inflicted on her person a wound nine inches long, and, in the middle part of it, four inches deep.

The same witnesses were then called in support of the charge as appeared on the trial at the Old Bailey: they gave a very clear, correct, and circumstantial evidence, positively swearing to the person of the prisoner.

The facts proved were nearly the same, with very little variation indeed, with those which were given in evidence on his trial for the felony at the Old Bailey; for which reason we forbear to enter more fully on his trial.

The prisoner produced two witnesses, Miss Amet and Mr. Mitchell, who attempted to prove an alibi, and the credit of their testi mony was not impeached by any contradiction. The question there

fore was, to which the jury would give credit; for the evidence on both sides was equally fair and unexceptionable.

The prisoner was again put to the bar at ten o'clock the next morning, and tried on the remaining indictments, on three of which he was found guilty; when the Court sentenced him two years' imprisonment in Newgate for each, and at the expiration of the time to find security for his good behaviour, himself in two hundred pounds, and two sureties in one hundred pounds

each.

Thus ended the case of this man,

which had greatly interested every rank of people; but all were by no means satisfied of his guilt, believing that the female witnesses, a circumstance which we have shown too frequently to have happened, mistook the man who wounded and ill treated the prosecutrix. The particulars we have given of the uncommon and brutal attack on the defenceless, by a monster of the stronger sex, with our full report of the trial, will sufficiently prepare our readers to judge for themselves on the case of Renwick Williams, divested of the popular prejudice then strong against him.

JOHN DYER, EXECUTED FOR FORGERY.

THE case of this thoughtless malefactor adds another instance of the fatal consequences attending young men who give loose to what they painly call pleasures.

John Dyer brought great trouble and disgrace on most respectable parents and connexions. He re

ceived his education at Westminster school; from thence he was placed in a merchant's counting-house, and had not seen quite nineteen years when he atoned for his crime by his life.

The melancholy transaction was the forgery of the insignificant sum of ten pounds ten shillings; and if we were charitable enough to give credit to his defence, and taking into view his youth and inexperience, we may be almost led to believe that he did not know the fatal consequences of committing forgery.

On the 7th of May, 1789, Dyer called at the shop of Mr. Scott, waxchandler, in New Bond Street, and ordered 361b. of candles, which he pretended were for Sir William Ha

milton; and in payment tendered a bill of exchange for ten pounds ten shillings, dated Richmond, Surrey, April 22d, 1790, at fourteen days after date, drawn by Charles Thomas, on Messrs. Hankey, bankers, London; and accepted.

Dyer received the balance; and the candles, when sent as he directed, being refused, Mr. Scott instantly suspected that he had been imposed upon by a forgery. The unfortunate youth was soon found, and committed to Newgate.

When put on his trial every spectator's heart was filled with pity; and, being called on for his defence, he said that he received the bill from Mr. Kelsy, his employer, who ordered him to put the name of Mr. Miller on the back; and that he was ignorant of the consequence of so doing; and that he acted merely as a servant; but, bringing no proof, he was found guilty, and, though interest was made to save his life, he died ignominiously on the gallows, at Newgate, August 5th, 1790.

« AnteriorContinua »