Blog 40 1856 Hastings Sussex -Murder at the Gaol.

A young man went from a pick pocketing charge to the charge of the murder of his Gaoler

James Wellerd was born in Appledore, Kent, in 1785, the second-born child of Thomas Wellerd and Elizabeth Nee Hart.

He became a Butcher, eventually setting up his own business.

On 19th August 1811, at age 26, James Married at Deal Kent to 24-year-old Mary Ann Simmonds from Hawkhurst Kent. Six months later, in February 1812, Mary gave birth to their son Edward Walter in Canterbury, Kent.

They eventually moved counties and settled in Hastings Sussex and lived in Shepherds Street, Stonefields, and James had a Butcher shop at 183 High Street.

In 1842 at age 57, He retired from Butchery work and was appointed the Gaol Keeper at Hastings Gaol in Bourne Street (now part of the Hastings museum)

He earned £45 per year at the Gaol. His wife Mary became the Matron and earned £10 per year.

On 25th September 1846, his wife Mary passed away at age 56 (unfortunately I have been unable to access her death certificate and have reported the problem, so will update when I can )

He remained at the Gaol with his son Edward Walter, a carpenter, and daughter-in-law Ann, who had become the Matron there.

James was well-known and liked. The family he belonged to had a long-standing in the town and was respectfully connected.

While at the Gaol, he showed himself as a man of strict integrity and had a humane attitude towards the prisoners.

On 25th February 1856, James Murdock, who was described in reports as “21 years of age, a pick-pocket, about five feet nine inches in hair, grey eyes, pale complexion, clean shaven; full neck and face and was dressed in shabby clothes, black trousers, black hat, black silk neckerchief collar.”, and his accomplice George Wright, just 12 years of age. Both had been arrested and accused of pickpocketing. Another named George Young was also charged with being an accomplice but he was eventually discharged, but the two former were committed to trial at the subsequent borough quarter sessions and sent to the Hastings Gaol.

Young was again apprehended for uttering counterfeit coins but was discharged again for lack of evidence. Somebody stated that it was probable that the statement made by the prisoners, leading to Young’s second arrest, may have been a ruse to enable the three to construct a plan of escape after Young’s second discharge.

On Tuesday, 10th March, Edward went to work early in the morning. His wife, Ann, was in her room, looking after their 10-month-old daughter.

At seven o’clock, James Wellerd released the two prisoners, John Murdock and George Wright, from the cells. They were following him to the backyard, where they generally washed themselves; John Murdock, a desperate character, seized the poor man by his neckerchief, threw him down, and strangled him. Unable to find the keys to the prison, he scaled the prison wall about 12 feet tall, assisted by a lean-to coal shed and ran off.

George Wright tried to effect his escape but was too small to jump the wall, failing and began to cry, exclaiming, “Oh dear, we’ve killed him!”

Ann, who heard the scuffling and the dying struggles while in her bedroom, immediately raised the alarm. Information was dispatched to the police and the railway stations, with a description of Murdock and parties were sent in all directions.

No one saw him until around three o’clock when some little girls were playing in Tor Hill field at the top of the High Street. One of them saw a man lying on the ground. She got the attention of some boys who went to the spot, one who said, Oh, perhaps it’s the pick-pocket. Murdock then jumped and exclaimed, “I’ll knife you or murder you if you are not off,” but the boys, trusting their number, began shouting and hollering at him, and he ran off. They gave chase over West Hill, and he was grabbed at the bottom of the hill by Russell Street, not far from the railway station and held him in a ditch until assistance came.

He was taken back to the quarter. A crowd had gathered at the police station to try and catch a glimpse of him.

When he was told the Gaoler was dead, he cried and wept and said he hadn’t meant to kill him, and if he had done so, then he must be hung for it.

On Tuesday, 11th March, an inquest was opened at three o’clock at the Town hall before Mr Grouse, the Deputy Coroner for the Borough.

The Jury viewed the body, which was placed in one of the apartments at the Gaol. His throat showed signs of strangulation, and finger marks were evident.

The principal witness was George Wright, and he explained how John Murdock had grabbed the Gaoler with his right arm around his neck and grabbed his face with the left until he had overpowered him. He then ransacked his clothes, looking for the key to escape, but failing to find one, he scaled the wall. The Matron called out, but Murdoch had sealed the door so she couldn’t escape. He threatened her with a poker he had in his hand. Wright said he was not on good terms with Murdock because he wouldn’t do what he was told. Murdock wanted him to escape, too, but he wouldn’t, so Murdock swore at him.

Ann Wellerd deposed that a fortnight ago, her father-in-law had told her that a prisoner named French had warned him to be on his guard in the morning, but French said he would say no more.

Since Murdock’s recapture, he has exhibited signs of contrition and has cried bitterly. The same night, he made a statement as follows:

“I did not intend to kill the gentleman. If I had known he was dead, I would have given myself up at eight o’clock. I have done so much; I am guilty and shall die for it. Oh dear, oh dear! The gentleman was kind, as good as a father to me, and I shall die for it. What you said about getting to know me in London is correct.

Will you write a letter to my father, who lives at 8 Three Colt Street, Old Ford Bow, London?”

A post-mortem had been carried out, which confirmed death by strangulation

The jurors’ verdict was Wilful murder of James Wellerd by John Murdoch, and he stood committed by the Coroner’s warrant. He was not present at the examination.

The murderer was a native Londoner who only arrived in Hastings a few weeks prior. He described himself as a Tailor.

On 18th April at the sessions house, The Grand Jury returned a true bill against John Murdock and George Wright on the pick-pocketing charge at Hastings. Still, due to the circumstances of them being at Lewes House of Corrections on the charge of murder, the case had been deferred.

On Monday, 14th July, the Summer Sussex Assizes Crown Court opened with Lord Chief Baron Pollock.

The Grand Jury consisted of Sir A. Asbburnham, Bart., Sir H. Shiffuer, Bart., Mr R. Stent, Esq., Mr R W. Blencowe, Esq, Mr J. G. Blencowe, Esq., Mr W. Peachey, Esq., Mr F. J. Davies* Esq. Mr W. J. Campion, Esq., Mr W. H. Blaauw, Esq. Mr G. C. Courthope, Esq., Mr F. Thomas, Esq., Mr George Darby, Esq., Mr J. G. Dodson, Esq., Mr Edward Hussey, Esq., Mr C. W. Elwood, Esq., Mr W. Sergison, Esq., Mr B Godlee.Esq., Mr John Ellman, Esq., Mr N. Borer, Esq., Mr J. G. Monck, Esq., Mr G. C. Dalbiac, Esq., Mr K. B. Kaye, Esq. and Mr J. J. Pickford, Esq.

The following magistrates were also present and answered to their Barnes: Lieut.-General H.J. Davies, Mr H. W. Bates, Mr J. Molineux, Esq., Mr T. Sanctuary, Esq., Mr G. Scrivens Esq., and Mr G. Whitteld, Esq.

Mr. Straight (deputy clerk of Assize), having read Majesty’s proclamation against vice and immorality. The Lord Chief Baron delivered his charge to the Grand Jury.

On Wednesday, 16th July, Lord Chief Baron Pollock took his seat on the Bench at half past nine.

John Murdock and George Wright, were charged with wilfully, and of malice aforethought, killing and murdering James Wellerd at St. Clements, Hastings, on 10th March.

Mr. A. Dell, of Brighton, was the Foreman of the Jury.

In a firm tone, the prisoner Murdock pleaded not guilty; Wright also pleaded not guilty. Murdock pleaded guilty to stealing 31/2d at Hastings, from Jane lsted. Wright had also pleaded guilty to this charge the previous day.

Murdock applied to His Lordship to be allowed counsel for his defence.

The Lord Chief Baron “Certainly”.

Mr. Horne and Mr. Attree conducted the prosecution, and Mr. Denman defended the prisoner.

Mr. Horne said, concerning the prisoner Wright, he was merely arraigned upon the Coroner’s Inquisition. The Grand Jury had ignored the Bill against him for murder; he proposed at that stage of the proceedings to take an acquittal.

Mr. Straight (Deputy Clerk Arraigns): “Then you say, gentlemen, not guilty”.

The boy, Wright, was then removed from the dock.

Mr Horne then proceeded to open the case by observing that the prisoner, John Murdock, was accused of the crime of murder. He must bespeak their calm attention to the facts as he should state them and the evidence that would establish those facts.

The prisoner was charged with the murder of James Wellerd, who, on 10th March, was the Gaoler of the prison at Hastings and had been so for some time; he was a man advanced in life, being about 70 years of age, but perfectly healthy and robust, and about half-past ten o’clock on Sunday night preceding he was perfect health when he was last seen alive by his daughter-in-law, who also lived in the prison.

At that time, the only people in the prison were the Gaoler, his daughter-in-law, and her husband. The daughter-in-law was the Matron—the prisoner at the bar (Murdock)—and a little boy named Wright, who was in the deceased’s custody.

The learned counsel then described the premises, and a plan for the Gaol at Hastings was laid on the table. On the ground floor was the day room occupied by prisoners, and opposite to that was the keeper’s room communicating with the yard of the prison; on the floor above was the room of the Matron, and also on the same floor, the room of the deceased Gaoler; above that on the second floor were two cells occupied by the prisoner and the boy Wright.

On the morning of Monday, 10th March, his daughter-in-law heard him downstairs, open the shutters, and remove them from one room to another; heard him light a fire, and a little time after that, heard him upstairs, unlock the cell door and go down again, followed by the prisoners. Shortly after, she heard the door at the bottom of the stairs (between the keeper’s room and the passage) shut violently; this attracted her attention, and upon looking down the staircase, she saw that the door of the keeper’s room was closed, and the door of the prisoner’s room open; at that time she heard a gurgling noise proceed from the keeper’s room as if someone was being strangled. She opened the door of her room, put her head out, and cried for assistance; simultaneously, she saw the prisoner and the boy Wright go out of the keeper’s room into the yard. When the prisoners heard her cry out, they returned, and she found that the door was locked, which would prevent her from gaining access to the rooms below. She then saw Murdock mount upon a coal shed near the wall, which would allow him to get to the top of the wall, and he then endeavoured to draw Wright up but could not do so; she then saw the prisoner get over the wall, and two men, who were outside, saw him drop from the wall and make his escape. The boy remained in prison. The daughter-in-law then went downstairs and, according to the statement of the learned counsel, saw her father-in-law lying on the floor of his room, quite dead but warm, his eyes staring from the sockets and a little blood about him.

The surgeon, who was called in, would tell the Jury the appearance he first noticed, as well as after the post-mortem examination, and would say to them that, in his opinion, death was caused by strangulation.

About two o’clock on the same (Monday) afternoon, the prisoner was apprehended at Hastings and made a statement to the policeman, which would be given to them; and at a later period of the afternoon, made another statement to Inspector Battersby, which was taken down writing, which would be read over to the Jury. (The prisoner appeared to be deeply affected at this stage of the proceedings, notably when the learned counsel repeated the conversation between him and the French witness.)

In conclusion, continued the learned gentleman, those were the facts, and he reminded the Jury that if a prisoner in the lawful custody of an officer attempts to escape from that officer’s custody. The death of the officer results from such an act; even if the prisoner did not intend to kill the officer, it is considered by the law to be murder. Those facts would be laid before them to enable them to conclude the case, whether the prisoner was guilty or not.

The first witness was then called:

John Shorter stated that he made the plan produced.

Ann Wellerd then took the stand:

“l am the daughter-in-law of James Wellerd, the deceased. He was nearly 70 years of age. He was the Gaoler of Hastings Gaol. I saw him on 09th March at about half past 10. He was then in excellent health. The prisoners Murdock and Wright were in custody under the warrant produced, signed by Mr Ticehurst, the Mayor of Hastings, for stealing the sum of 31/2d from Jane Isted. I was Matron of the Gaol. At the time in question, the prisoners were at the Gaol. My husband left for work in the morning, and at about 7, I heard the deceased down, removed the shutters, and lit the fire. He afterwards came upstairs and went to unlock the prisoners over where I sleep. After unlocking the prisoners, I heard the deceased and the prisoners go downstairs. When they reached the bottom, the door leading to the Gaoler’s room banged; that alarmed me. I heard a gurgling noise and went back to the room. I saw the prisoners crossing the yard; I called for the police, and the prisoners ran back into the keeper’s room and locked the door, preventing me from entering the keeper’s room. I then saw them cross the yard again, and Murdock got upon the coal hole and got the boy Wright upon the top. Murdock then jumped over the wall, and Wright jumped back into the yard, opened the door and let me into the keeper’s room. The deceased was lying on the floor, quite dead. Mr Ticehurst came shortly afterwards”.

Richard Coote, Drayman, in the employ of Mr Ginner, Hastings

“On the morning in question, I was standing about 60 yards from the Gaol, near my master’s gate; it was about seven o’clock; I saw a horse run away, and immediately after that, I saw a man on the top of the yard wall of the prison in the act of letting himself down. He dropped into the street and ran away. I ran up to the Gaol and called to the Gaoler. I went round to the Gaoler’s window and saw the Gaoler lying on his back in his room. I went to the police station and gave information. When I returned to the Gaol, I looked in the window again and saw Mrs. Wellerd. She let me in the room along with two more who were outside. The deceased was still there, on the floor. There was a little blood on his face. The hands were warm, and so was the whole body”.

In reply to the Judge’s questioning,” I did not see the face of the man who got over the wall. I could not identify him.”

John A. Pace, landlord of the King’s Head, opposite the prison:

“My wife heard a scream, and I ran to the window and saw the prisoner getting over the wall; directly he saw me, he dropped back, and just after, he came over and ran away.”

Frederick Ticehurst MD:

“I am a surgeon. On the morning in question, between 7 and 8 o’clock, I was called to see the deceased. On going to the keeper’s room at the prison, I saw the deceased lying on the floor on his back. I found he was pretty dead. A slight stream of blood had run from his nose to his right eye. His pockets were turned inside out. On unfastening his shirt collar, I saw some marks of scratches on his throat. The face was dark. The blood was setting; it looked livid still. The marks on the neck appeared to have been done by fingernails. The left hand was clenched. Afterwards, I made a post-mortem examination of the body. The lungs were in a very congested state, indeed. The inner lining of the throat and the bronchial tubes were filled with bloody serum. The right side of the heart was full of blood, and the left side was empty. The bowels were healthy, the head was healthy, and the spleen and liver were also perfectly healthy. There was no disease in the body sufficient to cause death. From the state I found the body in, I have no doubt he died from strangulation.

Cross-examined: I form that opinion partly from the appearance of the chest. There was slight congestion of the brain; it was very subtle. I made a meticulous examination of the brain. I attribute the congestion of the brain to the stoppage of the circulation. I had known the deceased before. I had never attended to Mr Wellerd medically. If taken alone, the appearances about the heart might have arisen from other causes than strangulation. The state of his heart would not have caused his death. Death might not have arisen from any other reason than strangulation. The state of the heart was that blood was prevented from going into the lungs by stopping breathing. Anything blocking the breathing might have produced the same effect on the heart. The deceased was about 70 years of age. He was a powerful, healthy man”.

Henry Barton, a Wood-Turner, deposed:

''I remember the 10th March. In the afternoon of that day, I was in a garden in West Hill. I saw a man coming across the meadow. I started in pursuit of him and called the attention of other people. I called out, “Stop, thief, murder.” I caught him, and he asked me what I took him for, and I said, “For murdering the Gaoler.” We went along a few yards, and he asked me if he was dead. I told him he was. He asked me where the boy was, and I told him he was safe at the Gaol. He said, “Oh dear, oh dear,” and seemed affected. He said,” I shall be hanged for it, and it is a bad job. I shall deserve all I shall get. I did not do it with the intent to kill the man; I did it to gain liberty.” I gave him into the custody of police constable Brasier.

Cross-examined:” It was about two in the afternoon”.

William. Brazier, the Hastings police force, gave evidence:

“l received the prisoner in my custody in Castle Street, about half-past two; I assisted in taking him to the police station. On the way, he asked me,” Is he dead ?” Someone in the crowd said, “Yes, he is.” The prisoner said, “I have done it, and I shall have to die for it, shan’t I? I did not intend to kill the man. No, I did not intend to kill the man. If I had known he had been dead, I should have given myself up at eight o’clock.”

I took him to the police station, and after examining him, I found one stocking and a comb. He said he had taken his shoes off and thrown them away. He had neither shoes nor stockings on his feet. He said he had taken them off to enable him to run faster. I went to a garden belonging to Mr Macmurde near St. Mary’s Cemetery. There, I found a pair of shoes and a stocking in the direction the last witness said he saw him.”

Cross-examined: “Prisoner appeared extremely sorry”.

Inspector Battersby then took the stand to give evidence:

“I was at the prison on Monday morning, 10th March, at half-past seven, and saw the deceased and agreed with the description of the appearances stated by the other witnesses. The same afternoon, about four o’clock, I saw the prisoner Murdock at the station; he began to make a statement, and I said to the prisoner, don’t say one word to me which you would not like me mentioning to a Coroner’s Jury, or to a jury that may have to try you for your life.” then I said, “Whatever you do say, I shall be compelled to take down in writing. It may be used in evidence against you.”

His Lordship: “Do you think it your duty to take down the statements of prisoners in writing? ''

Inspector Battersby: “I think so, my Lord. I told him that I must write it down, and I said I would do so”.

His Lordship: “Yes, and when he spoke, you did so. But it is not part of your duty to usurp a magistrate’s authority by taking down a prisoner’s statement in writing. You should take him before a magistrate if he wishes to say anything to you”.

Examination continued:

Inspector Batterby:” I took it down writing, and afterwards, the prisoner said, did not intend to kill the gentleman; If I had known the man was dead, I would have given myself up; the prisoner then asked to write to his father in London”.

Cross-examination: “I wrote it on the paper while the prisoner was there and read it over to him; I am confident I did not first put it down on the slate and then on paper. Murdock said, “I can’t sign it because I have my irons on.”

PC Munn then took the stand:

“l am in the Hastings police force. On the afternoon of 10th March, the prisoner was passed into my custody at the police station. When in the Gaol afterwards, he made a statement to me; I told him that if he wished to say anything to me concerning the murder, I must write it down on paper. He said he wanted to make a few remarks, so I got a piece of paper, pen, and ink and wrote down what he said:

“He was not dead when I left him; he was not, I assure you. If I had known that he had been dead, I should have given myself up at 8 o’clock.” he wrote a letter to the prisoner’s father in London, requesting the prisoner sign it himself. Walter Wellerd was present during part of his statement.

The Judge: “Was that letter sent to his father?”

PC Munn: “lt was not, my lord”.

Cross-examined: “I told him I should write down what he said before he expressed any desire to say anything.”

Re-examined: “He had begun to speak about the murder before I did caution him that I should write it down”.

The Judge: “Is it your practice to keep pen, ink, and paper with the prisoners?”

PC Munn: “I was recommended to do so”.

The Judge: ''By whom?''

PC Munn: “By the Inspector”.

The Judge: “Is that Charles Thomas Battersby, who has his own paper?”

PC Munn: “Yes”.

The Judge: “Then he advised you to take down anything in writing?”

PC Munn: “Yes, anything that referred to the murder”.

Walter Welierd then took the stand:

“I am the son of the deceased. A little before 7 o’clock in the morning, I went to work. I have heard what Munn has stated, and it is correct concerning the statement made by the prisoner.

Cross-examined: “It was about four o’clock in the afternoon that he made the statement”.

Next was Joseph French, a labourer:

“l was in custody at the Hastings gaol on a charge of assault, at the same time the prisoners Murdock and Wright were there. I was in the cell with them part of the time”.

Mr Denman asked the learned Judge whether prisoner Murdock’s statement to this witness and what transpired between them were near enough for the present charge.

The Judge said he could not see how time affected the matter. It would have been admissible as evidence if it had been months or even years before.

French continued:

“When I was in the day room with them, Murdock said, “Joe, I know how we can get out in the morning, easy.” He was sitting on the table at the time, and I looked round to him and said, “How?” He got off the table, approached me, and said, “Turn round, and I will show you.” I did turn around, and he put his arm around my neck and lifted me off the floor. I sang out twice for him to let me go. He let me down. He said, “There in the morning, when we come downstairs, I will do the same to the old gentleman or man (I don’t know which he said), and we can all three get clear.” I said, “I shall not have anything to do with that, I can assure you.”. He never said anything more to me about it. As a consequence of what transpired, I communicated this to Mr Wellerd, the deceased. I spoke to him twice, but he took no notice of me. l never spoke to Mrs. Wellerd or the son about what Murdock said. The first time I told it to anyone after I spoke to the deceased was to the Jury at the Coroner’s inquest. I don’t know when that was held”.

The Judge: “The inquest, I perceive by this paper, was held on 10th March and, by adjournment, on 13th March”.

Examination continued;

“l told the governor of the Lewes Gaol of it the same day I gave evidence before the Jury. I live in Hastings. The Jury sat at Hastings. I had never been in prison for any offence.

Re-examined: “I was in prison for two months for the assault”.

Mr Horne said there was one more witness in the depositions, John Campbell, who would respond to a statement by the boy Wright. Still, he should not call him unless the counsel for the defence wished it. This witness was not called.

Mr Denman then rose and addressed the Jury for the defence. He said the present was a most painful and Shocking case, which he, on behalf of the man who was for trial on a charge of murder, by the direction of his Lordship, the request of the prisoner was then called upon to defend. And he felt himself in a most painful position, for as a lawyer practising at the English Bar, he could not deny that the charge brought to the prisoner in the way in which his learned friend wished him to consider it—in that case, he could not then deny that the man would be guilty of the crime of murder; because, if by attempting to escape, he did such an act upon the person of the poor deceased Gaoler, and the latter came to his death by those means—if by the violent acts of the prisoner, the Gaoler came to his death—there could be no doubt that in point of law, the prisoner would be guilty of murder. He believed he should stultify his defence by setting up before them and his Lordship that the man would not (if such appeared to be the case) be guilty of the crime he was charged with.

If a prisoner committed a violent act intending to defeat the ends of justice or escape from justice when in lawful custody, he was responsible for any result it might subsequently end in. But there were cases like the present where the object of the person was not to commit murder, where the sole and only object was to effect his escape from prison, which certainly was an illegal object and a wrong object. Still, there was no intention to accomplish the melancholy end of the Gaoler, whose death the prisoner stood charged with committing.

When informed of the death of the Gaoler, the prisoner appeared to be most contrite and most miserable, willing to give himself up even to be hung rather than to attempt his escape or to justify the melancholy result. He expressed great sympathy and contrition for what was done.

Let them then enquire if it was a blow struck by the prisoner that caused the death of the Gaoler because if it was not by that blow, he was entitled to ask for an acquittal at their hands.

Having told them the law upon the case, he then alluded to the evidence that had that day been heard, first reviewing that of the man French, according to whose statement the prisoner had a short time before led him to suppose that he premeditated the offence with which he was charged. The man, they must bear in mind, was in Gaol at the time and consequently was, to a certain extent, a damaged character. There might be an inducement to regain the character he had lost. There would probably be an inducement for him to come forward to gain the reasonable opinion of the officers of justice. He did not say that that was the solution, but it might be. As he was defending the prisoner on a charge in which, if found guilty, his life would be in jeopardy, he felt justified in making that suggestion.

He then commented upon the witness’s not mentioning anything of what he stated had passed between him and the prisoner till two days after the offence had been committed when he would have had an opportunity to read the reports in the newspapers and hear the gossip of the case in the town, where he was then living.

He next adverted to the statements alleged to have been made by the prisoner to the police officers, contending that it could not be taken from those statements that the prisoner contemplated doing that particular act (with which he was charged) in that specific way. The Gaoler’s death might have happened, and it was possible, nay, even probable, that it did so in quite a different way to that supposed by the prosecution. He suggested that death might have been caused by the Gaoler having been seized with an apoplectic fit at the time the prisoner was attempting to escape, that it was not unlikely that he might have been attacked in that manner, and that the marks observed on the deceased’s neck might have been made himself in trying to unfasten the collar of his coat; there were marks of scratches of fingernails on the neck and was possible that they might have been “used by the Gaoler himself and not by the prisoner. It might have been that certain feelings of giddiness were manifested to the head of the Gaoler upon his surprise at the prisoner attempting his escape.

In that state, he might have put his hand to his neck to open his collar, and that might account for the appearances which had been observed by the medical gentleman, which led to the deceased’s death, which might have resulted from that cause and have nothing whatever to do with strangulation.

His Lordship remarked that he thought it was very likely the Jury might wish to ask the medical gentleman further questions, for the learned counsel had assumed some facts not spoken to by the medical.

Mr Denman: “My lord, I merely submitted what I have understood to the jury.”

His Lordship (to the Jury): “If you wish the medical men to be questioned before the learned counsel has finished his address, I will ask him.”

The Foreman: “The jury is perfectly satisfied”.

His Lordship observed it appeared to him that before they could proceed further, the medical man ought to be asked if it was the consequence of an apoplectic seizure that the heart on one side should be found full of blood. Mr Ticehurst was again requested to enter the witness box.

His Lordship asked him whether it followed, in consequence of apoplectic seizure, that the right side of the heart should be found full of blood and that the other side should be empty and the respiration stopped.

Mr Ticehurst: “It does not, my Lord”.

His Lordship: “What would cause the apoplectic seizure?”

Mr Ticehurst replied that the brain might have been congested. Asphyxia or congestion of the lungs might have taken place.

Mr Denman: Can you tell when the apoplectic seizure and the giddiness would occur?”

Mr Ticehurst: “Certainly not”.

Mr Denman: “Would not an apoplectic seizure lead to brain congestion?”

Mr Ticehurst: “It would probably”.

Mr Denman: “Is it not the case when an attack or apoplexy has commenced that the medical man almost always takes off the neckerchief?”

Mr Ticehurst: “It is so”.

The Judge: “Does it appear to you that there was any indication that the deceased died from apoplexy?”

Mr Ticehurst: “None whatever, my Lord.”

Denman then resumed his address to the Jury for the prisoner, in the course of which he observed that he did not wish to put it to them that the man died from apoplexy but that there was congestion of the brain that would come on by apoplexy. The surgeon could not tell when that commenced, so he assumed it was done as suggested.

After briefly alluding to the other portion of the evidence, he remarked that he thought he had pointed out to them by the medical evidence how death might have resulted without any further intention on the part of the prisoner than that of making his escape. He again repeated that there was nothing in the evidence to show that the prisoner had contemplated the murder of the Gaoler, which had unfortunately taken place, but that what he had done was solely to effect his escape.

He appealed to them to do justice in the case and, if they had any doubts, to give the accused the benefit. He was pretty sure they would impartially do their duty by exercising their judgment and satisfying their minds how far the evidence proved the guilt of the prisoner and would not allow themselves to be swayed by anything which might fall from his Lordship unless they were satisfied with it in their minds, as the prisoner’s life or death was placed in their hands and would depend upon their verdict.

The Learned Judge then addressed the Jury and summed up the evidence.

His Lordship commenced by saying that the questions mainly arising for the Jury to consider were: first, whether they believed that the deceased came by his death by violence. If he came by his death from natural causes and not by violence of any kind, there was the foundation for the charge of murder. On the other hand, if the deceased, in their opinion, died by violence, the subsequent enquiry was, who was the person who committed that violence, and was there sufficient evidence to charge it on the prisoner?

The learned counsel who had addressed them on behalf of the prisoner in the dock remarked that it was harrowing to be connected in any enquiry into a case that he called constructed murder. The enquiry was no doubt extremely painful. It was impossible to be engaged in any way in this enquiry without feeling the most incredible pain and reluctance at having such a duty to perform. The charge was one of the most serious characteristics, as it was connected to the life of the prisoner Murdock. It befell all of those associated with the trial to proceed upon safe and, as far as possible, specific grounds. They (the Jury) were to hold the scales of justice between the prisoner Murdock, who was accused of the crime and the public justice, which demanded a searching enquiry.

His Lordship then read the principal parts of the evidence from the depositions and remarked upon it in the following manner. While alluding to the defence set up by the counsel on behalf of the prisoner concerning the state of the deceased when he was found, his Lordship remarked that it was presumed that the deceased caused the marks upon his neck. It did not seem probable that he would turn his pocket out. If it was done to any other person, to whom was it done, and for what object? When the prisoner’s counsel addressed the Jury, he suggested that Wellerd died substantially of apoplexy. Something occurred to him (the learned Judge) that it was dangerous to proceed physiologically and medically without better evidence, and he accordingly called Mr Ticehurst again.

His Lordship then alluded to the additional evidence Mr Ticehurst gave. He moved on to state that there could not be doubt in the mind of anyone who had heard the case that the prisoner did not murder the Gaoler for the sake of murdering him, certainly not. His main object was to effect his escape, for his own words were, which no doubt were genuine and sincere, said, “I did not do it to kill the man. I did it to gain my liberty.” If, however, he did kill the unfortunate deceased while he was effecting his escape, he was guilty of murder.

While alluding to the evidence given by Inspector Battersby, his Lordship remarked that it appeared that the Inspector and Police-constable William Munn had taken down the prisoner’s statement in writing. One of them would have permitted the prisoner to have signed it if he had not been in irons, which prevented his doing so. It indeed appeared that these statements were written for the ends of justice, but so far as they went, they were more in favour of the prisoner than otherwise. They contained statements to the effect that the prisoner did not intend to kill the deceased. If he had known he had been dead, he should have given himself up at eight o’clock in the morning. He must say that he felt it his duty to condemn in the strongest terms this assumption on the part of either inspector of police, constable, sergeant, or anyone; he must condemn this assumption of the duty that could only be discharged by a magistrate. A prisoner desired to confess, and it was right that he should be allowed to do so. Public justice might be satisfied by an instant communication with a magistrate. The writing of a statement supposed to be made by a prisoner by an Inspector of Police seemed to him (the learned Judge) a very improper and censurable course. It appeared constantly in the statements made by the prisoner that he admitted what had something to do with the case, but what that something was did not appear. If instead of these written statements being useless in the prosecution, they had been necessary to make out a case, he could imagine severe difficulties that might have arisen as to the nature of the evidence and as to the unquestionably most improper interference of those who had far different duties to perform. The Inspector and Munn, assuming the office of a Justice of the Peace, cautioned the prisoner and then took down his statement, by which they exposed themselves to reproof and censure. They were doing what it was their duty to abstain from, and they ought to have taken the prisoner to a magistrate.

He also disapproved of another thing. Before the prisoner made any statement, he was repeatedly cautioned, after which he requested a letter be written to his father; he signed it, and then it was not sent.

About the boy Wright not being called as a witness, his Lordship entirely concurred with it. After remarking upon the statement made by the witness French and recapitulating the law he laid down at the commencement of his address, the learned Judge concluded his observations by impressing upon the Jury, in very able terms, the nature of the duty they had to perform.

The Jury retired at about noon. At 10 minutes to two, they returned to the Court, when His Lordship, addressing them, said he had sent to them a short time before to know whether there was any point of law, or any doubt or difficulty, that they might wish to have any part of the evidence read over.

The Foreman said one of the jurors had felt doubt about whether death resulted from violence or not, but they, at that time, all agreed.

Mr. Straight: “Are you all agreed, gentlemen? Do you find the prisoner at the bar guilty or not guilty?”

The Foreman: “We find him GUILTY but strongly recommend him to mercy”.

His Lordship: “I must ask you the grounds for that recommendation so that I may state them to the proper authorities”.

The Foreman: “The prisoner’s confession, Lord, that it was only his intention to regain his liberty”.

The Judge then directed the prisoner to be removed from the dock for a short time, and he was removed accordingly.

After an hour, his Lordship put on the black cap, and the sentence was passed.

The Judge: “John Murdock, you have been found guilty of the murder of James Wellerd, and that the violence of which you were guilty was the cause of his death, there can be no reasonable doubt. Whether you left him dead or struggling the last agonies of death may be a matter of some doubt. Still, there can be no doubt that your object was so to incapacitate him from making any resistance as to secure your escape from prison, and when such is the object of violence, if it ends the death of the party on whom it is inflicted, not only is the party causing it guilty of murder in the eye of the law, but he must be taken to be responsible for all the consequences of the violence that he has used. Your intention to kill the Gaoler was only secondary to your intention to escape. The Jury have strongly recommended you to mercy. It will be the duty to transmit that recommendation to the proper authority—the crown—but one can hold out no hope. I have no right to hold out any hope that your life will be spared. It remains for me to pass upon you the sentence of the law, which is that you be taken from the prison whence you came and that you be hanged by the neck until you are dead and that your body be buried within the precincts of the Gaol.

John Murdock burst into tears and was once removed from the dock.

The sentence of George Wright:

In passing sentence upon the boy Wright for pocket picking, to which he pleaded guilty the day before, the Judge said he had already been imprisoned some time and would now be committed to two months’ hard labour.

So now I come to James Murdoch's poor life. Throughout the case, it was reported in the papers that he was 21; he was, in fact, 19. His father died in his early life, and his mother, not having any control over him, left him to fall into illegal activities. By seven, he had obtained a living as a pickpocket.

At the age of 12, the metropolitan police employed him as a spy or scout to track prisoners, and he successfully detected one or two robbers.

He then went on to become a sailor but deserted.

He was said to have a mischievous and lousy disposition. Still, he had not shown any deep-seated vice. He possessed many better qualities, which belong to most human beings, hence his upset when he found he had murdered James Wellerd.

He had gone from a pickpocketing charge to murder out of desperation to escape his former charge.

He showed immense remorse for his actions. The act was not premeditated; even the Judge and Jury could see this, hence their call for mercy.

A body of influential Clergymen and Gentlemen put together a petition, but it wasn’t to help; he was to feel the full force of the law.

On Tuesday, 05th August 1856, the sun shone on Lewes’s old town. The golden crops were on the down, waving in the breeze, but it was a solemn atmosphere.

A black, ghastly-looking scaffold was erected on the prison wall abutting the public road, with the rope swinging in the breeze.

Around eleven o’clock, the street started to fill with people from the lower class. Men were smoking pipes, and others were sitting in vehicles or lounging about. The adjacent public house had put out a table, and men sat around it, smoking pipes and drinking ale. Around 2,000 were said to have attended that day, which isn’t many compared to other hangings over time.

Even up to the last minute, many doubted the young man’s fate. Several gentlemen telegraphed through to London, expecting a reprieve to come through. Many were watching anxiously for a reply, but none came.

One gentleman exclaimed, “I trust no one will hold the jury responsible for this scene.” He also said he fully believed, and it was the earnest hope of the Jury, that the extreme sentence of the law would not be carried out in this case. This was the feeling most people had up until the last moment.

Just before 12, the bell rang slowly, and the precession emerged from the prison into the yard.

Thomas had spent his time in prison in earnest prayer but suffered, awaiting his sentence to be carried out. He had taken to having violent fits of grief as it drew closer.

He had a visit on Saturday, 2nd August, from his mother and stepfather; that time was described as painful.

During the night before his execution, it was reported he had suffered with the most significant distress of the mind, slept little and cried piteously.

He was expected to be unable to walk to the scaffold.

In the morning, he had only half a pint of Porter; at half Eleven, He had also requested to see George Wright. It was said to have been an emotional scene. Thomas urged the boy to keep his fate before him, but seems the young boy didn’t heed his warning.

Thomas had written letters to his relatives and also one to James Wellerd’s son Edward Walter, expressing his contrition over the unintentional murder of his father, by whom he was treated with great kindness whilst in prison.

He seemed to have accepted his fate and was said to have followed the procession, walking with a firm step, arms pinioned, accompanied by the Chaplain and William Calcraft as his executioner.

When he reached the foot of the scaffold, he stared at it for a moment, then with strong steps, he walked to his doom.

When he reached the top, he stared ghastly at the people below, his youthful appearance creating great sympathy.

Thomas was described as a lifeless mass as prayers were being read out by the chaplain, and Chalcraft took hold of him and positioned him over the hatch.

Calcraft secured the cap over his head as soon as he was in position. Thomas kept uttering, “Lord have mercy on my soul, Lord Jesus, receive my soul” Then Calcraft placed the rope around his neck, threw the other end over the beam, and secured it. He then ran down the steps, leaving Thomas alone. As soon as he was under the scaffold, Calcraft released the bolt and down fell the trap door, with Murdock straight after. There was some twitching of the rope, which suggested Calcraft was pulling his legs to facilitate his death quickly. His body was left hanging for the usual hour, then taken down and buried within the walls of the prison.

The execution of Thomas Murdock cost £11

Many people stayed in the area, visiting the local pubs. Some voices were heard exclaiming ‘murder’ and ‘shame’. There was a significant police presence. Still, they were not needed, and the crowd dispersed quietly.

Life After

George Wright had no better life. He was born in December 1844, the 11th of 14 children, to Thomas Wright, an agricultural Labourer, and Mary Ann Johnson Nicholas. They lived in the village of Hames near Lewes. All the children were born one or two years apart, so no doubt, they lived in poverty in a cramped house and were most often left to their own devices as they got older.

He was eleven when he was involved with Thomas Murdock.

His criminal activity never stopped:

20th July 1857: At age 12, he was convicted of Housebreaking and Larceny and served 4 Calendar Months

His father died in 1858

In 1861, he lived with his mother and three sisters at 19 Brook Street, St Marys, under the castle of Lewes and worked as an agricultural labourer.

18th March 1867: At age 22, he was convicted again for Larceny and served 3 Calendar months

He could no longer return home to his mother as she had moved in with his sister, Esther, and her husband.

In July 1869, at age 24, he married Martha Gander, aged 21, at Lewes. They had lived on the same street in 1861; Martha lived next door at no. 20. Her father, William, was a Carman.

She had a son, Henry Gander, who was born in 1868 at the workhouse, so possibly her father kicked her out when he found out she was pregnant. George may have been the father. Henry took on the surname Wright.

In October 1870, Martha had another son, George Edward.

In 1871, they were living in Southwick, Sussex. George’s occupation was not listed on the census. Had he gone back to his old ways?

He was convicted again on 18th October 1880 for Larceny with a previous conviction and served 4 Calendar months with hard labour.

In April 1881, the children, Henry, age 12, and George, age 9, were found as inmates at the “Union Workhouse” Irelands Lane Lewes, both down as Paupers. There is no sign of Martha or George. They seem to have disappeared without a trace. Martha may have moved out of the area to escape George and changed her name.

George may have lived a vagabond life when leaving prison, thus avoiding the census, possibly dying a pauper without a name or grave.

Son Henry became a sailor and was found boarding at The Sailors Home Dock Street, Whitechapel, London, at age 23 in the 1891 census.

In 1891, at age 21, George was living with a work colleague, Alfred Avery, his wife, and their young family. They worked as moulders at the Iron Foundry.

Any further investigation on them will take extensive research, so will update if found.

SOURCES

1. (1856, March 13). The Hastings murder. Brighton Gazette, pg 6.

2. (1856, March 18). Murder of a Gaoler at Hastings. Maidstone Journal and Kentish Advertiser, pg 7

3. (1856, April 24). ‘Hastings. Brighton Gazette, pg 7

4. (1856, July 22). Summer Assizes. Sussex Advertiser, pg 2

5. (1856, April 24). Finance Committee. Sussex Advertiser, pg 5

6. Bring your backstory to lifeTM (no date) Ancestry® | Genealogy, Family Trees & Family History Records. Available at: http://www.ancestry.co.uk/

7. British Newspapers Archive

   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/

8. Wikipedia - Pictures and historical info from Wikipedia https://www.wikipedia.org/