A murder of a burglar, did they find the killer?
In the village of Cuckfield Sussex on Monday 19th November 1869 a man was found dead near Newbury Pond by a man named Packham, a Rat catcher.
Packham was going in the direction where the body was found when he was attracted by one of his dogs showing symptoms of having seen something in a ditch. He proceeded to the spot, and found the dead body of a man, having two wounds in his head. He raised an alarm, and the body, with assistance, was conveyed to the Ye White Harte Inn on South Street.
The description was a male aged between 45-50 years wearing a Roundabout brown hat, grey coat, black cloth waistcoat and trousers, striped cotton shirt, scarf, small silk necktie, white cotton stockings, buttoned-up boots not much worn. Height about 5ft. 7in, brown hair, partially bald, with whiskers shaved off beneath the chin. Three pawnbrokers' tickets were found on the person and four penny pieces. The tickets are all dated the 24th of November, at different addresses, all in London, with the name John Williams, written on them all.
The place where the body was found is about 30 yards from the Holy Trinity Church and 100 yards from the footpath which runs by the pond. Although the strictest search had been made, the distance from the pond, was thirty or forty yards but no weapon of any description could be found
An inquest was held on Wednesday, 1st December at the Ye White Harte Inn with the Coroner.
Dr Sanders and Dr Byass stated his death was caused by two gunshot wounds in the head, which fractured his skull, which would have rendered him senseless immediately and said it could not have been possible that the deceased could have inflicted the wounds that caused his death himself, and that the man had not been dead twenty-four hours.
The inquest was then adjourned till Wednesday 8th and the body was removed to the room at the Cuckfield Union Workhouse, where they kept the dead, before burial.
The heightened suspicion that a foul murder has been committed, caused intense alarm and consternation in the area, believing there may be robbers in the area
Over 200 persons visited the White Hart during the time the body lay there, to try to identify him, but with no result,
They did know it was the same person, as the name of the tickets, after evidence given by the pawnbroker’s assistants, who recognised him as the man who raised a loan on Nov. 24th, on a pair of men's boots. The boots are of superior make, but a little worn, corresponding with those the deceased was wearing.
No one answering that description has been noticed at Cuckfield, Hayward's Heath, or the neighbourhood, although the dress was somewhat noticeable but, the person was said to have been seen at Crawley, where the police had started making enquiries.
The adjourned coroner's inquest on the body of a man unknown was resumed at the Ye White Harte Inn,
The first witness was William Borrer, of the White Lion Inn, Lowfield Heath, in the parish of Charlwood, Surrey,
''l have seen the clothes of the deceased. A week ago last Saturday, a man wearing the clothes produced came to my house at about nine o'clock in the morning. He stayed there all day; it was very wet. I particularly noticed his coat, hat, and trousers. When he came in he asked if I had got a fire. He said he was very wet and cold, and. that he had come from London that morning. He said he had walked from London. I noticed that he was wet. When the rain abated between three and four he left the house. He said he wanted to go to Balcombe to see a man and he said so twice, but he did not say who the man was. He was quite empty-handed except for a little walking stick. I told him he had got into the wrong road, and he ought to have gone down by Horley Station. He seemed annoyed that he had been told the wrong road. I directed him to go through Crawley and down by Handcross, but he went the other way, on a crossroad leading to Tinsley green, on the way to Pound-hill. He had nothing to eat at my house, he had only about four glasses of beer. My tap room was pretty full all that day, but the man said nothing to anybody. He seemed in a low melancholy state. He did not smoke. He changed a shilling while he was there. I have never seen him before. My house is about 26 miles from London. I told him he must have left very early or overnight to have got there so soon, but he made no answer. He left the house with a carpenter named Tillett, who left him after he had gone a short distance. Tillett is a near neighbour of mine. I hear that he went about 100 rods with the deceased. There was no one else with him, and I saw no other stranger that day. I have not seen the carpenter since, he is working some distance away now''
The Coroner: ''Is the carpenter here Superintendent''
Superintendent Pocock: ''No, that is the first I have heard of him. I understood he left the house alone''
Coroner: ''Have you any other witnesses''
Superintendent Pocock: ''The signalman at Tinsley-green crossing had a long talk with him, but he could not leave his post. I have two witnesses who saw him afterwards at Balcombe:
William Jones, Gamekeeper, of Balcombe, took the stand:
''I saw the body of the deceased in the dead house at Cuckfield Union, last Monday. I don't know who he is, but I believe I saw him alive last Saturday week, the 27th November between five and six, at the Railway Inn, Balcombe. He came into the room and said he was very wet. I told him to sit by the fire and take off his jacket. He did so and turned his sleeves inside out. The jacket produced might have been the same, but I thought the one he was wearing was darker. I do not recognise the hat. He was wearing a scarf. He asked if old master Gibb, the old shoemaker Turner, old Tom Constable, who lived at the beer shop just above, and old Tally Marchant were alive. I told him old Master Gibb was alive, Tally Marchant was dead, and Constable had gone to live up in the forest. He said he used to be a Station worker or Porter, at Balcombe, I don’t recollect which, but he did not tell me his name. I asked him if he was on the company’s service now, and he said '' No, in business.” he did not tell me what business.
He had a pint of beer and asked for & a penny worth of bread and cheese. They told him they did not make a pennyworth, so he had two-penny worth. I left him at the house.
I have been at Balcombe for 15 years, and I thought I had seen the man before, that was what made me come and see him''.
In reply to the foreman's question: ''I cannot swear that the dead body, is that of the man I saw at the Railway Inn, Balcombe, but I believe it is''.
Examination continued: ''He had a scarf under his waistcoat, and the ends came down over his shoulder. He said he had put it like that to keep out the wet. The scarf produced is like that he wore. I did not notice that he was wearing a watch or chain. I asked him where he came from, he said Horley, or Crawley, I forget which''
Next was Henry Godsmark, host of the Railway Inn, Balcombe:
''I saw the body of the deceased at the Union house on Monday. I believe | saw him at my house on the evening of Saturday week, . He came there about a quarter past five or from that to half-past. I believe he left a little after seven o'clock, but I did not see him go. He spoke to me when he came in and he said he was very wet and had walked a long way. It was raining at that time. He had a pint of beer and two pennyworths of bread and cheese. He was in his shirt sleeves when he spoke to me, and his coat was drying at the fire. He said he was a porter at the Balcombe Station at the time Shaw was Killed. I have heard that Shaw was killed 23 years ago. He said the place was very much altered since he was there and remarked that the covered way down to the station, was not there when he was. The bread and cheese produced is not any of that he had at my house. He asked my man when he left the way to Brighton and went in the direction of Cuckfield''.
William Jones was recalled and said in answer to Mr. Coates, that he could not swear to the shirt deceased was wearing, but it was not a white shirt.
Superintendent Pocock said he had seen two of the persons to whom the deceased had referred, but they knew nothing of him. He told them to come and see the body, but they had not been.
The Coroner enquired if the police thought there was any chance of procuring further evidence.
Superintendent Pocock said he was afraid there was not. He had made every enquiry but could hear nothing further.
The Coroner then addressed the jury.
The evidence they had taken tended very little to inform them how the deceased met with his death, but he did not think it desirable that they should adjourn again. Mr Pocock had made every enquiry, and he told them that he saw no probability of procuring further evidence. Therefore the coroner thought the ends of justice, and the hands of the police, would be strengthened by their now recording their verdict.
The evidence they had was very slight. It would be remembered that the first witness spoke to the finding of the body, but that was all he knew about it; then they had surgical evidence, which proved that death resulted from serious wounds in the head, the skull being fractured into 20 pieces. They had to consider whether those injuries were the cause of death, and by whom they were inflicted. Did he occasion them himself, or were they inflicted by the hands of another person? Briefly, was it a question of suicide or murder? The medical gentlemen had expressed an opinion and given reasons, that the injuries were not caused by firearms, but no doubt they had all formed an opinion upon that point. There was no perforation, neither were there any marks of powder or burning, and it seemed impossible that one bullet could have caused such injuries, yet if the deceased had inflicted the injuries himself he could scarcely have used any weapon except firearms, and he would only have fired one bullet. It would also be remembered that no weapon or anything which could have inflicted the wounds was found near the body, a circumstance which tended to show that he had not committed suicide but it was not conclusive, because the weapon might have been removed. If they believed that he did not cause these injuries himself, there was only one verdict they could find was that of murder. In all cases, the taking of human life was murder, unless reduced by certain circumstances to manslaughter. In this case, there were no appearances of struggling or trampling near the spot, and no bruises on the body to lead to the impression that he had been engaged in a quarrel. Indeed, the evidence left little doubt that the blow which caused death, was given suddenly and without any resistance being offered on the part of the deceased. If there was no doubt in their minds that the deceased did not inflict the injuries himself, they would find a verdict of wilful murder against some Person or persons unknown.
After a brief consultation, the jury found a verdict, that the deceased, whose name was unknown, was murdered by some person or persons unknown.
Just as the verdict had been recorded, Mr Turner, the shoemaker to whom he had been mentioned by the gamekeeper, entered the room and stated that having seen the body he was unable to identify it. He did not remember any young man, a porter at the station at the time Shaw, the Station Master, was killed.
A labourer with Major Meck also came and stated that he had seen the body. He believed it was that of James Greenhead, a young man, a porter at the station at Balcombe, who lodged with him about 20 years ago at the time Shaw was killed. He stated he came from Tunbridge Wells. He had only seen him once since he left, about 17 or 18 years ago at London-bridge Terminus.
A reward of £290 was offered for the apprehension and conviction of the murderer or murderers
Who was James Greenhead?
He was born in Croydon, in 1825, the last of 9 children born to Yorkshire man John Greenhead and Winifred Arnold from Leigh Surrey. His parents lived in Reigate, where 6 of his siblings were born, and then, between 1816 and 1819, they moved to Croydon and had their last three children inc. James.
His father died in Croydon on 1st March 1841 aged 71
On 6th June 1841, at age 16, he was living alone with his mother in Union High Street, working as a farm labourer, his mother was a washerwoman
I have been unable to locate him in any 1851 census
In 1853 he fathered a daughter named Eliza Ann with a woman called Eliza age 25. I have found no marriage record for them, (other members of Ancestry have her surname as Peirce, but I cannot confirm this)
His mother died in January 1855 also aged 71
He had taken up the trade of a painter.
In 1857, he fathered a child named Alfred with Eliza
Then on the 8th of December 1860, he was arrested and remanded for 3 crimes:
Feloniously stealing a gun in Carshalton, property of Samuel Gurney
Feloniously stealing a rug in Croydon, property of Robert Hicks
Feloniously stealing a picture in Croydon property of William Beech.
He was committed for trial on 22nd December and was found guilty on 2nd Jan 1861 for Receiving stolen goods for the gun but wasn't tried for the other two. he was sentenced to 12 calendar months with hard labour at Wandsworth Prison
in these criminal records it says he had 4 children but no names given
There are no confirmed records found for the 1861 census for Eliza, they may have gone into the union with the children or been split up amongst the family.
It wasn't long before he got into trouble again and on 1st July 1862, he was again arrested for burglary.
On the 7th of July, at the Central Criminal Court in London, he was tried for breaking, and entering, into the dwelling-house of Mr Stanton Eardley, and stealing his property; therein 7 ladles, 10 spoons, 4 forks, and a fish knife, He pleaded guilty and having been convicted before, he was sentenced to 5 years penal servitude at send to Newgate prison and on 27th July he was transferred to Portsmouth Hulk Prison
On 6th March 1862, he was transferred to Chatham Prison
On 11th June 1866, after 4 years, he was released on License due to good behaviour.
He returned to Croydon and on 17th March 1867, he had another child called Charles with Eliza.
Eliza died on 13th July 1869 aged 40 from Phthisis
A superintendent of police at Hammersmith believed that the dead man's name was James Greenhead and not Williams and that he was connected with suspicious persons.
The Croydon police on Tuesday identified the photograph of the deceased as that of Greenhead, who was well known to them.
He had been implicated in a robbery on 30th September in the shop of Mr. Harland, jeweller, of Northeast, Croydon, on which occasion the thieves carried off about £500 worth of jewellery.
James Greenhead was associated with a gang and wanted for the burglary but had evaded police and a £75 reward being offered for his apprehension.
The only clue that was obtained of the robbery came with the arrest of a Bricklayer named Charles Rowland. The prisoner denied having received any but a quantity of gold rings from the burglary was found in his possession.
He denied doing the burglary, saying he had bought them from Greenhead. One officer asked him, " Where are the letters you received from Williams?" He denied having received any letter but when asked how long it was since he saw Williams, he said, " Williams?, it is Greenhead you mean. He did the burglary, I did not."
The prisoner was brought before the bench of magistrates on Tuesday,28th December at Croydon, and after some formal evidence had been heard, he was remanded.
A bludgeon had been found on the premises of Rowland, which had been loaded with lead, which had since gone.
James Greenhead had said he was visiting friends in Brighton, when in reality, the only friends he knew, were part of a criminal gang in Croydon. It was believed he was proceeding via Cuckfield to meet the others to commit a burglary, so the most reasonable conclusion was that he had quarrelled with his accomplices. They had killed him and deposited his body where it was found.
The police searched the spot where Greenhead's body was found, for the missing piece of lead from the Bludgeon. Mr Caffyn had let the water out of the pond, so it was dug through but nothing was found. A large bullseye lantern was found in some bushes, near the pond, rather battered but it was not thought to be the murder weapon and a small crowbar which was believed, might have been used by the gang who passed through that way.
It was said that he had left Croydon to lodge at Twickenham, and at some point, he had stated that Rowland was his brother-in-law, but this does not appear to be true. It was also rumoured that Rowland frequently applied to Greenhead for money, blackmailing him with the police about the robbery, if he refused.
On the 8th of October, a man answering the description of Rowland was at the White Hart, Lowsfield Heath, and he was said to have made a statement to be at the Railway lnn, Balcombe, on that night, which was proved to be not true.
A statement given by the landlady at the Coach and Horses beer house Heath Lane Twickenham was as follows:
''Between seven and eight o'clock on the evening of Friday, the 8th of October- (somewhere about the time several burglaries were committed in the neighbourhood of Staines), a light cart, with a fast trotting pony, with the notorious criminal "Greenhead" and another man, drove into Twickenham and called at the Coach and Horses beer house in Heath Road. The occupants alighted and ordered two glasses of ale, and the man Greenhead, who appeared to be drunk, offered to pay for the ale pulled out a handful of gold and silver, and asked the landlady if she could accommodate him with a bed. first, she said she could not, but subsequently arranged for her children to sleep in her room, and prepared this room for Greenhead, fearing that having so much money about him he might get robbed. Turning to the other man who accompanied him, he said ''How much am I indebted to you for bringing me here? '' The other man replied, " Oh, give me seven shillings, that will do." The money was paid, and the man with the cart drove off toward Richmond. Greenhead was dressed something like a bricklayer's labourer, but on the following day began to alter his attire, purchasing a new waistcoat at a clothier's, and on Sunday he sent a note to the same warehouse to ask if they would send him some coats on approval. This the tradesman declined to do, and the landlord of the Coach and Horses produced a coat he had purchased for himself, which was rather too small, and offered it to Greenhead. who bought it? He afterwards purchased several other articles and on Sunday hired a carriage, and took the landlady and her family for a drive to Sunbury-common. On the following day, he doled out a liberal supply of beer to some workmen who were laying some huge water pipe through Twickenham to Hampton and he went to the baker's and ordered some half-quanten loaves, which he distributed himself to some poor women living in the neighbourhood.
After remaining five days he shifted his quarters to the Prince of Wales Inn, on Twickenham common, where he remained for fifteen days, and then returned to his old quarters. Running short of cash, he went to Croydon, as he said, to see his sister, and obtained £5, and subsequently went again, accompanied his landlord, and got £2. The third time he never returned, but, as reported, his dead body was found at Cuckfield, with his skull smashed in''.
It was found that after Eliza died, Greenhead had absconded from home, leaving a family of six children, the eldest being a girl fifteen, who was subsequently forced to seek refuge in the Croydon union.
It was thought that his dispensing charity with such a liberal hand in Twickenham was throwing the police off the scent., as there was the reward offered for his apprehension at that time.
(I have been unable to locate all his other children but found Annie, who appeared in the court case against Rowland).
In March 1870, Charles Rowland of 6 Queen's-Terrace, Chapel Street, Croydon stood charged with being involved with the burglary and stealing 164 Gold rings, 36 Scarf rings, 38 Collar studs, 36 Gold lockets and other articles all valued at £500
Anne Greenhead, age 15 was a witness in his trial. She said that she was the daughter of the late James Greenhead, She lived with her father till lately at 23, Linden-road:
'' The first time I saw the prisoner was with my father at Mr. Bennett’s beerhouse, Linden-road, about four months ago, just before my mother died. I heard of the robbery at Mr Harland’s and saw some of the rings at my father’s house, the witness described the rings. I heard my father say to a man named Edwards, ''Here are some of the rings.” This was the Sunday afternoon after the robbery. The rings seemed like new ones. A short time before this, Rowland came to my father's house in the evening and brought a large piece of iron, wrapped up in a white rag. The piece of iron was bright on both ends''.
(The 'Jemmy' was then produced by the police and handed to the witness).
''The piece of iron brought by Rowland appeared longer and larger than that one, it was sharp at one end. Rowland said to my father, when he brought the iron, “Jim, think this will suit you.” my father left it with him''.
She had seen Rowland with her father several times after this, she had also been seated with her father at Rowland’s house several times. She was generally reading when Rowland came to their house and did not take any notice of the conversations that took place between him and her father.
''On the Wednesday or Thursday after the robbery, my father sent me to Rowland's house in Chapel Street and instructed me to tell Rowland that I had come for what he had got. I did not see Mr Rowland, but saw Mrs. Howland, and received from her a sovereign, wrapped in paper, which I took home to my father. the following Saturday my father sent me again to Rowland's, and was seen by Mrs Rowland. She was told to tell Rowland to send £2, but she received £2 15s. On that occasion, I met my father at the bank, and I gave him the money. On the following Tuesday morning, my father left home, I have not seen him since. This was about two and a half months ago. When he went away he said he was not going far and he got over the back fence''.
She had since a photograph, which was the likeness of her father. (The photograph referred to, was of the man found murdered at Cuckfield.)
On the following Friday, she and the other children, all of whom were younger than Anne, all went to the Union. She was sent to the North Surrey District School, Anerley Road, Penge, and a situation had since been obtained for her.
She said her father was a painter and glazier and worked at Crystal Palace. She did not ask her father what, the piece, of iron was for. She said it was used afterwards, to keep up a pot shelf at the sink. Her father used sometimes to brighten it up. He had never told her to leave the room when Rowland came but once, and that was the occasion of bringing the piece of iron. Her brother, 13 years of age, was also in the room, and his father told him to see what time it was on Bennett’s clock.
In reply to a question from the Chairman: ''It was while my brother went to see what time it was, that Rowland produced the piece of iron. one occasion, after the robbery, when Rowland came, my father said to me, ''You can out for a few minutes;” I stayed out about a quarter of an hour''.
P.S. Burton stated about going to Greenhead's house in October and finding the “jemmy” now produced, under the sink in the washhouse.
Rowland had his landlord and Landlady, where he had lodged for 3 months speak out in his defence, having no issues with him.
He was convicted of receiving stolen goods and given 12 calendar months. Due to lack of evidence, they could get him for the actual burglary or the murder of Greenhead
Then it wasn't until 4th Sept 1871, that things were thought to have progressed with his murder and at the Cuckfield Bench of magistrates, before Mr J. M. Norman, Esq., in the chair, Mr J. Hamkey, Esq., Col Holden-Rose, Capt. Sergison and Mr B. A. Hankey, Esq. stood the two men, William Petit, a Labourer, from Brighton and Trayton Weller, a Painter from Lewes were charged on remand, with the wilful murder of James Greenhead.
The court was crowded with spectators.
The first witness called was Edward John Packham, a labourer:
''l live at Anstye and work for Mr. Webber. On the 19th Nov 1869, I was passing along the footpath by the church, and just beyond the slaughterhouses, I passed the body of a man lying dead on the path that leads from Cuckfield church to Tyler's Green. The ditch in which the body was lying was near Newbury Pond. I did not recognise the body. I went and gave the information to Supt. Pocock. I touched the body and found that it was cold. I attended the inquest and gave evidence. The body was identified as that of a man named Greenhead. A verdict of the murder was given against some person or persons unknown.
Petit was asked if he had any questions to put to the witness, and said: ''No, sir, | know nothing about it''.
The next witness was James Edwards, a Beer house keeper, of the New Fort Tavern, Newhaven:
''On Sunday morning, a fortnight ago yesterday, Weller came to me at half-past seven or a quarter to eight in the morning. He wanted a pint of beer and some breakfast, which I gave him. I had known him before, they used to call him ‘Chickabiddy'. I had not seen him for about six months before. Pettit, who was lodging in my house, having been in the neighbourhood at work, swopping, came into the room just as Weller came in. They did not speak at first, but when I was in the pantry, Weller said to Pettit, “Jack, how do you get on? Do you know how Jack and Bill are getting on?" Pettit said, “I don't know who you mean.'’ Weller said, *“ You have no cause to be strange about it. I want to know where that gold ring is " Pettit said, “I don't know nought about what gold ring you mean.” Weller said, * Yes you do, you know where it is, and I believe you have got it, If you don't give that gold ring up when I get you all together, I'll split and get the £300.” He also said. “Jack, didn’t he die hard when you hit him on the head Didn’t he die hard when he was hit the last time''
Weller then said to the witness: ''Did you state that in your last evidence''
Edwards replied: ''Not far out, I reckon''.
The Chairman: ''What followed''
Edwards: ''Pettit said he knew nothing about it''
The Chairman: ''If there was no more than this, there was plenty of time for Pettit’s mate and Head to have heard what took place''.
Edwards: ''So they might for what I know: I left the pantry then''
The Chairman: ''Was anything further said regarding the murder at any other time''
Edwards: ''Yes! On the following Saturday night, the 26th of August, Pettit was sitting on the settle and said to me, “Jim, I never done that murder, but I see it done. He was hit on the head with an iron bar and thrown into the ditch. That is all I knew about, and if you don't have the reward you're a fool.” He looked up at me and said again, “Jim, if I had got my swap hook with me, I would chop your head off, and then that would settle that hash, and that wouldn’t go any further.”
The Chairman: ''When he said he did not do the murder, but saw it done, what did he refer to''.
Edwards: ''He said the murder at the back of Cuckfield Church.”
The Chairman: ''What caused him to threaten you''
Edwards: ''I don't know sir''
Pettit responded: ''You get people drunk and tell tales about them''
The Chairman: ''What state was he in''
Edwards: ''He was neither drunk nor sober''.
Pettit: ''l was beery, sir. I had had six quarts'' and he laughed.
Examination continued:
Edwards: ''I think I served him with three quarts. My mistress serves the beer as well as I. After he said he wished he had his swop hook to cut my head off, I said, I did not want the reward''
The Chairman: ''Of course, you would not if he chopped your head off But you did not say that in the first evidence. Do we clearly understand that what you have stated was all that took place''
Pettit having denied he knew anything about Weller, the murder, or any ring, cross-examined the witness as to whether he did not begin the second conversation by asking if it was right what had been said about the ring. The witness admitted that he did and that Pettit said he knew nothing about it.
Weller was proceeding to make a statement, saying that he was only asking Pettit some questions for information, when the chairman interrupted and told him to confine himself to questions. He then said he could ask no questions, as he was so tipsy, that he did not even know he was there.
Edwards, re-examined by the Chairman, said that both men were together in the house again on Sunday morning, but nothing was said about the murder or the ring then.
Weller: ''l have been brought up at Lewes all my lifetime, and I can tell where I was when the murder was committed''.
Pettit; ''l was living in Brighton''.
The next witness was Charles French, stable keeper, of 1, Mount Pleasant, in Lewes:
''About three weeks ago I was outside of my house when Weller came up to me. I asked him what he was doing and he said he was round about Cuckfield. What he said then as far as | can recollect had reference to the murder at Cuckfield about two years ago. I understood him to say that he had been to see about the murder. He said I know all about it, and I shall get the £300.” He was drunk at the time; it was about seven o'clock in the evening. I was then called away. Weller has been a painter and sometimes has been on with a thrashing machine. I have known him for some time. I know nothing about Pettit. I think Weller is a native of East Hoathly. Weller said it was all along of a drunken start, but he was not sure that he should not get the reward now. Having been to Croydon, and come down to Cuckfield on his way back to Lewes had heard a good deal about it, and he believed if the police had acted on his advice, they would have taken the right man''.
Superintendent Pocock then asked for another remand to produce further evidence, and prisoners were again remanded for a week.
On the 11th of September in 1871, Petit and Weller appeared again before the Magistrates. Due to no fresh information being obtained, they couldn't proceed further just on hearsay and both men were discharged.
The murder was never solved, and knowing he was a criminal, the police no doubt didn't put much effort into finding out who did it. For them, it was just another criminal off their streets.
So his murder will remain a mystery, or you can form your own opinion, was it one of the men in court? who got away with the murder of a burglar!
Life After:
Charles Rowland
He was released from prison but never went back to his wife straight away, Living in lodgings in 1871 they had reunited and moved area by 1881, living at 8 Cambrian Rd Lambeth, and remained in that home, He carried on with his Bricklaying work and stayed out of trouble. He died in Sept 1894 in Lambeth aged 64.
Greenhead Children
I've found three of the children
Annie
The eldest was born Eliza Ann but went by the name Anne or Annie. After going to the North Surrey District Schools, Anerley Road, Penge, she found employment as a servant in 1871 with retired upholsterer John Tabernach, his wife and their 10-year-old daughter.
In 1872, at age 17, she married John Aston, aged 23 a bricklayer, from Derbyshire, at All Saints, Upper Norwood, Surrey giving her age as 20. She put down Henry Greenhead as her father's name and occupation Painter. clearly trying to hide her past. She had an uncle called Henry, living in Croydon but he was a coachman. They remained in Croydon living on Union Road, White Horse Road, and had 6 children ( 4 girls, and 2 boys) between 1873 to 1883.
I have been unable to confirm a death for her. She was still alive in 1911. Her husband died in 1919 from Bronchitis and his brother Edward had registered the death and was present at his death. He had been living with the family for several decades.
Alfred
By 1871 Alfred age 14, had been sent to the training ship Goliath in Essex.
In 1876, he was at Aldershot in the 100th Foot Brigade and was given a pass on 19 Dec 1876. then in a newspaper report Publication 12 Jan 1877 he was named a deserter, as he never returned.
At Age 22, on 25 Dec 1879, at Saint John The Evangelist, Goose Green in East Dulwich, he Married 34-year-old, Sarah Bucklee from Thorpe-le-Soken Essex. he gave his age as 26 and Sarah as 25.
They moved to Hatcham and Alfred worked as a Seal skin Furrier
They had 9 children (7 girls & 2 boys) between the years 1882 to 1901 and settled at 39 Senegal Road, South Bermondsey
His wife Sarah died in 1908 aged 63 at Camberwell London and was buried at Camberwell Old Cemetery
He died on 2nd Dec 1926 aged 69 at Camberwell London and was also buried at Camberwell Old Cemetery
Charles
In 1871, Charles aged 4 was in the Croydon Union Workhouse
In 1881, at age 14, he was found at North Surrey District Schools, Anerley Road, Penge.
On 15th May 1854, at age 17, he succumbed to the disease Phthisis, while still at Anerley Road school. No record of his burial
Sources
Luton Times and Advertiser (1871) 'The Cuckfield murder' 16 September pg 4
Epsom Journal (1871) 'The Cuckfield murder' 05 September pg 3
Surrey Advertiser (1870) 'The great Jewel robbery in Croydon' 26 March pg 5
Globe (1869) 'The days' law and police' 28 December pg 5
Echo (London) (1869) 'The Suspected murder in Sussex' 29 December pg 3
South Eastern Advertiser (1869) 'Mysterious Murder at Cuckfield' 04 December pg 3
Tunbridge Wells Weekly Express (1869) 'The mysterious murder in Cuckfield' 14 December pg 2
Hastings and St Leonards Observer (1870) The murder at Cuckfield 01 January pg 3
Bring your backstory to lifeTM (no date) Ancestry® | Genealogy, Family Trees & Family History Records. Available at: http://www.ancestry.co.uk/
Archive, T.B.N. (no date) History’s colourful stories in black and white, Home | Search the archive | British Newspaper Archive. Available at: https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/
(2024.). Service records. Forces War Records by Ancestry from https://uk.forceswarrecords.com/
General Register Office (no date) General Register Office - Online Ordering Service - Login. Available at: https://www.gro.gov.uk/gro/content/certificates/
Pictures and historical info from Wikipedia https://www.wikipedia.org/
Comments