Part 95

The budget of papers found in the prisoner's possession contained a multitude of curiosities besides those above alluded to, which our space will not allow us to particularise. It appeared from one of them, an indenture of apprenticeship, that at the age of thirteen he had been apprenticed to a sweep and collier in Staffordshire, till he should be twenty-one years old. The indenture described him as a poor child from Fatfield, in the county of Durham. There were several licences and documents relating to his marriages. One of these was a memorandum of an agreement between Robert Taylor and Mary Wilson, of Newcastle-on-Tyne, to marry in three months from October 16, 1839; Taylor to forfeit 20,000_l._ if he married any other woman, and Mary Anne to forfeit one-third per annum of her yearly salary if she proved faithless. Annexed to this was a memorandum of a loan of 4_l._ from Mary Anne's father, with an engagement, on the part of Taylor, to pay 1_l._ per annum interest. Many of the papers related to the prisoner's connexion with the Wesleyan and Primitive Methodists, and with the Teetotallers, of which latter society he appears to have been a staunch adherent. The most curious paper was "a memorandum of agreement made between Robert Taylor, Esq., son of the late Lord Kenedy, of Ashby Hall, in the parish of Ashby-de-la-Zouch, and those he may engage as servants." We regret that we cannot give this amusing document entire. It bears what purports to be the prisoner's signature, and from it he appears to have engaged an establishment of stewards, butlers, footmen, grooms, coachmen, gamekeepers, helpers, &c., at salaries of from 20_l._ to 60_l._ per annum, sufficient for half-a-dozen princes. The stipulation of the engagement was, that the servants, butlers included, were to observe the teetotal pledge.

When the prisoner was placed at the bar to take his trial, the court was excessively crowded, and all eyes were fixed upon the young Lothario who had so readily succeeded in procuring half-a-dozen wives. Instead of a handsome, seductive gallant, there stood before the court a shabby-looking individual, with a face not merely ordinary, but repulsive. He was evidently much amused at the sensation which his appearance produced, and joined in the smiles of the bystanders. He was perfectly unabashed, and conducted himself throughout the trial with the utmost ease and unconcern.

The first case taken was that of the prisoner's intermarriage with Mary Ann Davidson, the sister-in-law of Mr. Fryer, the Primitive Methodist preacher. John Wood, a waggoner, of Birmingham, was called to prove the first marriage of which the authorities had any knowledge. It appeared, that this witness met the prisoner in Birmingham, in 1838. The prisoner told Wood he was heir to 60,000_l._ a-year, under the will of his father, Lord Kenedy. In proof of this assertion he produced papers. He said he had a great wish to be married to a respectable young lady, and if Wood could introduce him to such a one, he would make him a handsome present. Wood introduced him to Miss Sarah Ann Skidmore, and to her father, who was a shopkeeper. The documents were shown to the young lady and her parents; the licence and the wedding-ring were procured that very day; and the couple were married the next morning. Shortly after, the prisoner went to London to settle his affairs. He subsequently returned and lived with his wife; but he had not been married more than six or seven weeks when he deserted her altogether.

As the prisoner was undefended, the court asked him if he had any questions to put to the witness.

Prisoner: "I'll ax him one or two. I axed you if you knew a decent girl as wanted a husband, and you said you did; you knew as how one Sarah Ann Skidmore wished to be married, and I told you I'd advertised, and offered a reward of 10_l._ You took me to Benjamin Skidmore. Now, are you sure as how he saw the dockyments?"

Witness: "Yes, quite sure; you showed him a document stating that you would have 60,000_l._ a-year when you came of age."

Prisoner's mother (from the middle of the court): "Robert, tell them thou's under age, and thy marriage can't stand good."

The prisoner gave a lordly wave of the hand, accompanied by a significant gesture, intimating to his maternal parent to leave the management of the case to his superior skill. Then, turning to the witness, he said, "Are you sure that you yourself saw the will?"

Witness: "Yes."

Prisoner: "No, it was not the will; it was only the certicket of my guardians to show who I was, and what property was coming to me."

Here Mr. Granger, the counsel for the prosecution, drew forth the tin case, which was a pitman's candle-box, bearing the following inscription, "Robert Taylor, otherwise Lord Kenedy." From this case the learned counsel drew the "dockyments." The "will" was rich alike in its bequests and its odours. It was a foul and filthy affair to look upon and to approach. Disregarding the usual long and dry prefaces in which lawyers are accustomed to indulge, it rushed at once into the marrow of the subject. Mr. Granger tickled the ears of the court with a line or two. Thus:--"I give and bequeath to Robert Taylor, son of Elizabeth Taylor, single woman, 1,015,000_l._ Three per Cent. Consols and no more." The will proceeded to bestow upon him four coal-pits, a woollen-factory, two or three ships, and sundry other trifles, as before mentioned.

Mary Davidson, a neat, modest-looking girl, detailed the circumstances which led to her marriage with the prisoner. The latter, she said, was introduced to her at the house of her father, on the 4th of April, by Benjamin Fryer, her brother-in-law, who was a preacher among the Primitive Methodists. The latter said he had known the prisoner some time, and he recommended him as a pious young man whom he had brought to the house on purpose to marry her. The prisoner said he was the son of Lord Kenedy, and the moment he arrived in London with a wife he would have 700_l._, and 20_l._ a year till he was of age, when he would have 60,000_l._ per annum. He showed her several documents, one of which was a certificate that he was Lord Kenedy's son, and would have 60,000_l._ a year when he came of age. He had previously seen her unmarried sister, whom he rejected in favour of her. They were married, by licence, the very next morning. They lived together three weeks, during which time the prisoner had made several attempts to get away; and many times, in the night, he had endeavoured to slide the ring off her finger. While they were together, he lived upon the money which he borrowed from her brother-in-law, to whom he owed 22_l._

The prisoner being again directed to ask the witness any questions he pleased, said, placing his hands upon the bar, and leaning forward in a counsellor-like attitude, "Now, Mary, are you certain that I had 22_l._ from your brother-in-law?"--Witness: "You had 12_l._ in money, and you were to pay him a reward of 10_l._"

Prisoner: "You say I had 12_l._ in money, Mary. Now there was 10_s._ to be paid for the ring, 5_s._ for fees, 3_l._ 10_s._ for the licence, and 8_l._ I had in money, which makes 12_l._ 5_s._ So you see, Mary, you are wrong. You was also wrong when you said I told you I was to have 20_l._ per annum per year."--Witness: "You said 20_l._"

Prisoner: "No, Mary, I said 150_l._ per year per annum. And I wish to ax you if I didn't say, 'Will you have me, money or no money?'"--Witness: "No, you did not."

Prisoner: "Yes, Mary, I axed you, would you have me, money or no money, and you consented either way."

The prisoner spoke at considerable length in his defence, giving a rambling account of his various migrations from the north to "Brummagem," from "Brummagem" to the north, &c., with some amusing

## particulars of his marriages and courtships, whereby he wished to make

it appear that all the young ladies he came near wanted to have him, and that he had been in every instance inveigled into wedlock for the sake of his possessions. His main defence was, that he was under age, and that all his marriages were illegal; and his conclusion seemed to be, that having contracted one illegal marriage, he thought himself perfectly justified in contracting a hundred.

The prisoner's mother having expressed a wish to give evidence, and the prisoner having consented, she took her place in the witness-box, and deposed that she was now the wife of Michael Rickaby. The prisoner was not born in wedlock; she had him in a love-affair. But she would not say who his father was. She had not come there for that. He was under age.

The jury found the prisoner "Guilty."

The prisoner was next indicted for having, in October 1839, married Mary Ann Wilson, daughter of George Wilson, a tobacconist, of Newcastle. The marriage to Miss Skidmore was again proved by the certificate, which bore his lordship's mark. The prisoner, it appeared, had advertised for a wife in the Newcastle papers. In that town he appears to have attached himself to the Wesleyan Methodists. By his professions of religion and his teetotal pledges, he obtained a high character for morality and sanctity. Miss Wilson said she first saw the prisoner in October at a Methodist chapel in Newcastle. On the same day she met him at a class-meeting. On the 16th of October she was introduced to him by a friend, when he promised to call upon her at three o'clock that afternoon. He did so, and as soon as he sat down, he pulled out a tin case which was marked "Robert Taylor, otherwise Lord Kenedy." He said he was entitled to 60,000_l._ a year, and other hereditaments. The following day he made her an offer of marriage, and she accepted him. He said if he could get the loan of some money, they would be married the next morning. Her father lent him 4_l._; a licence was bought; and they were married the day but one after she had accepted him, and three days after her introduction to him. Eighteen days after this he deserted her, and she heard no more of him till he was in custody.

By the prisoner: "He spoke of putting in the bans. She did not say 'she would rather be married off-hand.'"

Prisoner: "Oh, yes, Mary, you did. I consented to take you immediately if the money was raised, and you raised it."

The jury returned a verdict of "Guilty."

The court having spent some time in deliberation,

The chairman said: "You have for some time been going about the country in a most unprincipled way, marrying weak and unsuspecting girls, and bringing misery upon them and their friends. We have seriously considered whether it is not imperative upon us to visit you with the severest penalty that the law allows. We have determined, however, to stop short of this; but you must be punished with great severity for your wicked conduct. For the first offence of which you have been convicted, you are sentenced to be imprisoned one year to hard labour; and for the second, to be imprisoned eighteen months to hard labour, making altogether two years and a half."

Prisoner: "Gentlemen, when I come out again, will any of my wives have a claim upon me?"

The court declined to answer the question, and he then requested that his "dockyments" might be restored to him.

The court thought it better to make no order; they might be placed in the hands of the governor of the jail.

The mother of the prisoner, on quitting the court, finding herself an object of some attraction, became somewhat communicative on her family history. Among other things, she stated that her son was one of General Evans's "Legion;" and that she had sent a letter into Spain, which had the effect of procuring his return to England. She had come from Workington, in Cumberland, a distance of one hundred and fifteen miles, to attend the trial; for "her son was her son," and she could not rest without coming. One thing she would not allow curiosity to penetrate--and that was, the mystery which hung over the prisoner's birth. She had "kept the secret" nineteen years, and was not going to reveal it in the twentieth. All that she would say was, that "she had him to a real gentleman."

THOMAS PATTESON.

CONVICTED OF MANSLAUGHTER.

The trial of this person took place at Aylesbury, on Tuesday, March 10th, 1840, before Mr. Baron Parke, when the indictment charged that the prisoner had been guilty of the manslaughter of John Charles, on the 21st of October previous, at Buckland, in Buckinghamshire. The case excited a great deal of interest in the county, from the condition in life of the deceased and the prisoner, who were both respectable farmers, and from the close intimacy which had long existed between them, as well as from the mysterious manner of the death of the former. Though the coroner's jury returned a verdict of manslaughter only, the prosecutors sent up a bill of indictment for murder to the grand jury, which they ignored.

The main circumstances of the case were, that on the 20th of October 1839, the deceased John Charles went, about ten o'clock in the forenoon, to the "Boot," on Buckland Common, where he had some beer; and while there, the prisoner came in to take lunch, about twelve o'clock. They remained talking and drinking together until about five o'clock in the evening, when the landlord, John Edwards, came in, with whom they had some more drink. About half-past ten o'clock at night they rose to go away, their road being the same to pretty near their respective homes. Before they went, however, Charles said, "I think I am the best man now, let us walk the chalk;" meaning that he was the less intoxicated of the two. "Walking the chalk" is, in this part of the country, the test of drunkenness, and the experiment is performed by the attempt to walk straight upon a chalked line drawn across the floor, or by walking along the straight line between two layers of bricks where the floor is of that material. The experiment was tried in this case, and the result proved that Charles, the deceased, was the less affected by drink of the two; and he therefore undertook, as is usual between two companions on such occasions, to see the other safe home. Neither of them ever reached his home, for the deceased perished on the way, and the prisoner having been taken into custody the same night, remained in Aylesbury jail up to the day of the trial. The first person who made known the dreadful catastrophe was the prisoner himself, who, about half-past twelve o'clock on the same night, in a very wild and still intoxicated state, went to Johnson, the policeman, in the town of Tring, about two miles from the place where the death took place, and told him "he had killed a man." At first the policeman did not believe him, thinking it the mere folly of drink; but he persisted, and said he would take him to the place where the body lay. The policeman then went with him, and in a lane leading to the homes of both parties, the body of the deceased was found lying on its back on the grass, in a place not exactly on the road, but where a gap in the field, which was the termination of a footpath running parallel with the lane inside of the hedge, led into the road. That path was one which had been made by people going through the adjoining land to avoid a bad part of the road; and having passed that portion of the road, they came into the road again. The prisoner, before the body was found, had told the policeman that he was sure the person he had killed was "Joe Kibble, the sweep of Tring, who had been sent by Humphrey Bull to kill him." Humphrey Bull was the relieving officer of the union, of which both the prisoner and the deceased were guardians, and was of different politics from the prisoner, the latter being a liberal, and Bull a conservative; but they were on good terms; and nothing could show more strongly the strange state of delusion which the effects of intemperate drinking had wrought upon the prisoner's mind on that fatal night, than that he should give as a reason for killing one of his friends, that he believed him to be an assassin sent by another friend for the purpose of murdering him! On examining the body of the deceased, it was found to bear marks of dreadful beating on the head and face, which had produced great effusion of blood. The bones of the nose were completely broken, and a surgeon deposed to a concussion of the brain, as one of the effects of the violence which caused death. In the pockets of the deceased were found a ten-pound note, a five-pound note, and some sovereigns. On the notes being taken out of the pocket, the prisoner immediately exclaimed, "These are the two bank-notes which Bull gave Joe Kibble to murder me!" At that time nobody present was aware that the body was that of farmer Charles. So far from that, the policeman actually sent a person to the house of Charles, to ask him to come to see the body. The prisoner had previously told the police that he had been going home from the Buckland Inn, with his friend Charles, but the latter parted from him somewhere on the road, he could not tell where. The probable solution of the mystery is, that the deceased, who was proved to be, when in his cups, of a jocose disposition, and rather addicted to the too-often dangerous practice of practical joking, or what is vulgarly called, "larking," had, in going home that night, resolved to frighten Patteson, who, though a man of prodigious bodily strength, was known to be rather deficient in courage, and had before expressed fears of going home by that lonely road. With this view, it is supposed that Charles, taking advantage of the very drunken state in which Patteson was, slipped away from him among some trees which stood at the entrance of the footpath which we have before described, and which ran parallel with the road along which Patteson had to proceed to his home. A high bank and hedge would screen any person going along this pathway from the view of another on the road. At the place where the pathway led again into the road, at the gap, there was a mound of earth with an open space between that and the hedge, so that a person coming from the gap might, by going partly behind that mound, be concealed until he came suddenly in view, and this is probably what the deceased did in order to frighten his companion; and the position of the body near the gap when found seemed to strengthen that supposition. Whether the deceased laid hold of the prisoner before the latter saw him or not must remain for ever involved in obscurity, as the panic-terror into which Patteson was suddenly thrown, operating upon the drunkenness, caused him to destroy the unfortunate man immediately; and it is probable that from his strength, his first blow knocked him senseless. The prisoner said, that, while he was beating the supposed murderer on the ground, he asked him "who sent him to kill him," and that he pronounced the name of "Bull" three times. This of course was the mere hallucination of the temporary frenzy produced by drunkenness and terror. When the prisoner and deceased left the inn together, the latter had a knobbed walking-stick in his hand, the other had none. The stick was found under the body of the deceased, but not marked with blood, or presenting any appearance that could show that it had been used in inflicting the wounds by the prisoner. Those wounds the surgeon was of opinion were inflicted by the fist only. The prisoner was in an agony of grief as soon as he was made aware that it was his friend and companion Charles that he had so unwittingly slain, and continued in a state of deep affliction, even up to the time of his trial.

On behalf of the accused, evidence was adduced which showed that he was a most amiable and respectable man.

Mr. Baron Parke, in summing up the evidence, told the jury that if they were of opinion that the delusion which operated on the mind of the prisoner, and led to the perpetration of the fatal act, was caused by such an alarm of personal danger as would not have produced a similar effect upon the reasonable mind of a sober man, they must find him guilty of manslaughter, otherwise the act would be excusable homicide.

The jury returned a verdict of "Guilty of manslaughter," accompanied by a recommendation to mercy.

Mr. Baron Parke, in pronouncing judgment, observed, that from the time he had read the depositions he believed the fatal act of the prisoner to have been the result of a delusion produced upon a mind which intoxication had deprived of the control of reason; that the prisoner never had the slightest intention of killing his friend, with whom it was proved he never had any quarrel, was clear beyond all doubt. It was not right that he should, however, go altogether unpunished, but in consideration of his having already suffered five months' imprisonment, he should sentence him to be imprisoned for two months only, hoping that this case would be a warning to all who heard it of the danger of indulging in intemperate habits.

JOHN TURNER FLYNN.

CONVICTED OF FORGERY.

This person was convicted of an offence of a most mischievous description.

He was indicted at the Old Bailey sessions, on Saturday the 11th of April, 1840, for feloniously uttering and putting off a forged order for the payment of money, and a forged certificate, knowing the same to be forged, with intent to defraud the Commissioners of Chelsea Hospital.