Графични страници
PDF файл
ePub

point as a place of public execution, on Wednesday the 14th of April.

Murder.

After the examination of the witnesses, the counsel for the prosecutor and for the pannel addressed the jury; and the Lord Justice-Clerk having summed up the evidence, the jury retired and deliberated for an hour and three quarters, when they

High Court of Justiciary, Monday, returned a written verdict, finding, by

June 14.

Peter Bowers, journeyman millwright in Haddington, was charged with the murder of John Sandilands, day-labourer or farm-servant to the Earl of Dalhousie, on the 15th day of April preceding, by striking him on the head with an axe.

The prisoner having pleaded Not

a plurality of voices, the pannel Guilty of the crime libelled, but unani. mously and earnestly recommended him to mercy. The Justice-Clerk immediately pronounced the awful sentence of the law.

HOUSEBREAKING AND THEFT.

Guilty, the jury were sworn to try High Court of Justiciary, Monday,

the case. It appeared in evidence, that some young men had been amusing themselves by leaping on the high road, opposite Coalston toll-bar, when they were joined by the prisoner and his master's son, who had been working in the neighbourhood, and after finishing their job had regaled themselves with some gills of whisky at different public-houses. The deceased was standing enjoying the amusement, when the pannel said he would leap with any of them for twopence; and having lost his bet, and refused to pay it, some trifling altercation took place among the parties, when the deceased said he would either jump with him, or fight with him, for any thing he liked. Some high words then ensued between the prisoner and the deceased, the import or amount of which was not distinctly recollected by any of the witnesses present; but it ended in this, that the prisoner advanced towards the deceased, and struck him a blow on the head with an axe, which he then had on his shoulder, and inflicted a severe wound on his left temple, out of which a part of the brain obtruded.

July 19.

Ralph Woodness, and Richard Smith, commonly called Curley, were charged with housebreaking and theft; in so far as they did, on the 29th day of March preceding, wickedly and feloniously break into and enter the shop of Andrew Edgar, merchant in Linlithgow, by cutting through the shutter of a window, and taking out a pane of glass, and thereby getting at and removing the pin which fastened the bolt of an iron bar; and did then and there steal a large quantity of woollen cloth of different sorts, also bombazines, sarcenets, cambrics, silk handkerchiefs, burial crape, silk thread, &c. to the value of L.350 Sterling or thereby; they being both habit and repute thieves, and previously convicted of theft before the Magistrates of Glasgow.

The pannels pleaded Not Guilty to the indictment.

The declarations of the pannels were proved to have been freely and voluntarily emitted before the Sheriff-substitutes of Lanark and Lin. lithgowshires.

Upon the examination of Daniel Hamilton, Esq. Sheriff-substitute of Lanarkshire, it turned out that the first declaration of the pannel, Woodness, had not actually been taken in the presence of the Magistrate, but was afterwards read over in his presence. Mr Cullen, counsel for the pannels, took an objection to this declaration being read; and it was stated by the Lord Advocate, that he certainly admitted the irregularity, and would not insist on the declaration being read as evidence.

The Lord Justice-Clerk reprimanded Mr Hamilton for the irregularity which had taken place, and while he pointed out to him the necessity of a Magistrate being present during the whole examination of a prisoner, and not deputing so important a duty to others, he hoped that such a circumstance would not again call for the animadversion of the Court.

The Public Prosecutor then proceeded to call a great number of witnesses, no less than fifty having been inclosed.

It appeared in evidence, that Mr Edgar's shop had been broken into on the night betwixt the 28th and 29th of March in the manner stated in the indictment, and that on the morning of Monday the 29th, about five o'clock, the town-drummer, in go. ing his rounds, had found a parcel lying in the street of Linlithgow. Upon going towards Mr Edgar's shop he found the window-shutter broken, and upon alarming Mr Edgar, the shelves, &c. of the shop were found to have been rifled of goods to the amount of betwixt three and four hundred pounds in value. Many articles were found upon the streets of Linlithgow which had been dropped by the thieves, and a wright's chisel was found on the outside of the shop, with which it is supposed they had bro

ken the window-shutter. It was proved by a number of witnesses, that the pannel Woodness, accompanied by one of the name of Gardner, came in a gig to the door of a person of the name of Sinclair, who keeps a public-house in Glasgow, about eight o'clock on the morning of Monday the 29th of March; and having taken a number of bundles from the gig, containing a quantity of haberdashery goods, threw them down on the floor; desiring that they might be kept there till they (Woodness and Gardner) returned; but the mistress having become suspicious that all was not right, not only sent for her husband and called in some of her neighbours, but sent for the police-officers, who carried the whole to the police-office. All the witnesses who saw the arrival of the gig at Sinclair's door, swore to the pannel Woodness being one of the persons who was in it. His person was also identified in the gig on the road, and Mr Edgar swore positively to the goods left at Sinclair's as having been part of those stolen from his shop. Although there was no proof of the pannel Smith arriving in the gig at Glasgow, when the goods were left at Sinclair's, yet several witnesses swore to having seen him on the road at Cumbernauld, and other places, that morning in the gig with the other pannels, together with several bundles. Both prisoners were proven to be habit and repute thieves. With regard to Woodness, in particular, several witnesses swore, that, for a considerable time past, he had followed no occupation, nor had gained his livelihood by any other means than plundering the public.

The Lord Advocate having shortly addressed the Jury for the Crown, Mr Cullen for the pannels, and the Lord Justice-Clerk having summed

up the evidence, they did, without leaving the box, return a unanimous verdict of Guilty against Woodness, of housebreaking and theft, aggravated by being habit and repute a thief, and finding the libel as to Smith Not Proven.

After a very impressive and interesting address from the Lord JusticeClerk, Ralph Woodness was, on the following day, sentenced to be executed at Linlithgow, on Friday the 27th of August ensuing.

HAMESUCKEN AND ROBBERY.

son in, saying he would not rise, but desired him to go away, and he would get a gill in a house farther on the road. Shortly after this, the shutter of the window was broke with one blow into two pieces, on which his sister, Mary Duncan, opened the door, when the man struck her a blow before the door was fully opened, which cut her head severely. There are two doors, an outer and inner; the threshold of the inner door is so low, that a person must stoop on entering. The man then presented a pistol at the witness, and ordered him to deliver his money, or he would blow his brains out. On this the witness went to a chest where

High Court of Justiciary, Wednes- the money was, from which he took

day, July 21.

This day came on before the Court the trial of James Whiteford, accused of hamesucken, and also of violently assaulting, beating, wounding, and bruising the lieges, and likewise of robbery by breaking into the tollhouse at Hopetoun-wood, Linlithgowshire; and violently assaulting Mary Duncan, sister of Henry Duncan, toll-keeper, and striking her a severe blow on the head with a bludgeon, to the great effusion of her blood; and also presenting a pistol at the said Henry Duncan, and compelling him to open a chest in which he kept money, taking therefrom .. nine pounds in bank notes, two pounds in silver, a bottle of whisky, and a quartern loaf, on the evening of the 26th or early in the morning of the 27th of March.

The pannel pleaded Not Guilty. Henry Duncan, tacksman of the toll at Hopetoun-wood, said, that, on the morning of the 27th of March, somebody came to his door before three o'clock, and asked for a bottle of porter, and then for a gill of whisky. Witness refused to let the per

out bank notes to the value of L.10, one of which was a five pound note of Sir Wm. Forbes and Company; one of the notes fell, but witness lifted it up and gave it to the man, who then asked for silver, and the witness gave him what was in the brass box, to the amount of about twenty shillings. Being shown a brass box, he said it was his property, and that it contained the silver. The man had a whistle, and said more people would be there soon,—and whistled. Witness gave him a handful of penny pieces, and also a bottle of whisky, and a quartern loaf, both of which he demanded. The pannel is the man who committed the robbery, and he gave him the money to save his life.

Mary Duncan, sister of the preceding witness, said she opened the door, when the pannel instantly knocked her down by a violent blow on the left side of the head. He had a pistol in his hand, and a stick under his arm. She called Mr Baird, surgeon, who dressed her head, and she was eight days confined to her bed, and is still not quite well.

Witness had seen the

pannel passing on the road, but was not acquainted with him. She confirmed her brother's evidence in every particular.

James Fordyce, formerly smith at Long Hermiston, said, that on Sa

TRIAL OF PEI, A CAPTURED NEGRO, FOR MURDER.

turday morning, the 27th of March, Sierra Leone. (From the Royal Ga

he saw the pannel at Kier-hill tollbar, who said he was a master shoemaker from Lanark, and was travelling to Edinburgh, and that he had a bottle of whisky, and a pistol in his breeches pocket, but does not know if it was loaded.

William Kennedy, sheriff-officer, Linlithgowshire, said that he was employed to search for a brass box, which he found in a field about a hundred yards from Hopetoun-wood toll-bar. Being shown a brass box, he said it was the same he found in the field, and which was formerly sworn to by Henry Duncan and his sister.

The declaration of the pannel was then read, which closed the evidence for the Crown. In his declaration the pannel admitted having committed the robbery, and that, although he had a pistol in his hand, it had no priming in it.

The Lord Advocate on the part of the Crown, and Mr Cullen as counsel for the prisoner, mutually declined addressing the jury, as the proof was so clear and conclusive: and the Lord Justice-Clerk having summed up the evidence, the Jury, without retiring from the box, unanimously found the pannel Guilty of the crimes of hamesucken and robbery libelled.

Before pronouncing the awful sentence of the law, the Lord JusticeClerk addressed the pannel in a most earnest and impressive manner, and warned him to prepare for death, as he could not entertain the smallest hope of mercy.

zette of July 24.)

Pei, a captured and liberated negro, was indicted for the murder of Zongobia, another captured negro, at Charlotte-town, in this colony, on the 5th of January last, by severing his head from his body with a sharp instrument made of a piece of ironhoop.

Previously to the commencement of this trial, much difficulty was experienced in procuring adequate means of interpretation between the Court and the prisoner: and at length, when a person was found capable of conversing with the prisoner in his own language, a second interpreter was required to render the bad English of this first interpreter intelligible; but, at the best, the interpretation altogether was very insufficient and unsatisfactory.

The first object of the interpretation was, to inform the prisoner of his arraignment and to instruct him how to plead; which being accomplished, an endeavour was made to apprise him of his right to challenge the jurors, and of the proper mode of exercising that right; but upon the first option of challenge being put to him, in swearing the foreman of the jury, an answer was returned, which threw the whole Court into an involuntary burst of laughter, at the same time that it produced a strong and universal sensation of horror. When the prisoner was told to look upon that man, and say if he liked to be tried by him, the answer as interpreted, given in a tone of astonish

ment by the English interpreter, was, "He say, he like him too much; if he catch him, he eat him."

The particulars of this horrid transaction, as detailed in evidence, were as follow:

Hyena, an inferior overseer of captured Negroes at Charlotte-town, employed to superintend the deceased and his countrymen, because he could speak their language, having missed the deceased (Zongobia) at ration time, reported his absence to his superior, Mr Ashford, who or dered him to cause search to be made in the bush. Shortly after leaving Mr Ashford, he saw a man coming out of the bush with a canvas bag, which he attempted to shift away, as if to put it out of sight. He im mediately questioned the man, whom he found to be one Quia Pei, of Zongobia's nation, and insisted on seeing the bag and its contents. The man reluctantly opened the bag, which he said contained some meat. On inspection, he discovered several pieces of human flesh. The man was immediately secured, and Mr Ashford was sent for; Quia Pei died in prison while awaiting his trial.

William Ashford, principal native superintendant at Charlotte-town, stated, that on being informed by the last witness that Zongobia was missed, he had given orders to search for him. Shortly after he was informed of the detention of Quia Pei, and came to the place where he saw the bag and its contents. There was part of a human hand, with the thumb, a piece of the shoulder, and lower part of the neck, and some of the intestines. Quia Pei, he understood, avowed the killing of the man Zongobia, and implicated the prisoner Pei as his accomplice in the act. Quia Pei and the prisoner Pei were kept in close custody for the night,

while Mr Kearney, the nearest magistrate, was sent for.

John Ouseley Kearney, Esq., a Magistrate, was resident at Bathursttown. In the month of January last, he was sent for by Mr Ashford, to inquire into the particulars of the horrid transaction now before the Court. The bag, containing the mutilated remains already described, was shown to him. Quia Pei, upon whom it was found, confessed the act, and alleged that the prisoner Pei first suggested it to him, saying, the deceased was fat, and good to eat. Both together seized the oppor tunity of surprising the deceased as he was stooping down in the brook searching for crabs. The prisoner caught the arms of the deceased be. hind his back, and held him while Quia Pei threw him over: he struggled hard. They were obliged first to cut off his hand, and afterwards they cut off his head: they then proceeded to the horrid process of cooking and eating the flesh, and in this abominable repast it was understood that others also assisted. This statement was given freely and voluntarily by Quia Pei, the man who had since died in prison: the prisoner Pei also confessed, but slowly and reluctantly, and not till the other repeatedly accused him, and remonstrated with him on the inutility of denial. Mr Kearney caused them to conduct him to the place where the dreadful deed was perpetrated, and to show where the further remains were to be found. He saw the place where the fire had been made, and the bones that had been left, some of them bearing the marks of such persevering voracity, that a thigh-bone had been broken for the purpose of extracting the marrow. The head, with the tongue and upper part of the neck had been left entire and

« ПредишнаНапред »