Page images
PDF
EPUB

times after that. The present Mrs. Sheward was there. I went in 1849, the year he failed. A dark woman came into the shop. My uncle was in the shop at the time. I heard my uncle say to her he would not mind half-a-crown a week for the room. He went over the counter after the woman; she wore her hair low over the face, she was plain, and I have often fancied it was the present Mrs. Sheward. I believed at the time it was his present wife. Mr. Sheward visited me at St. Faith's about seven years since. I heard my aunt, Mrs. Nunn, say, "I have come to ask you what you have done with my sister." He said, I have done nothing with your sister; she went away and left me penniless." She said, "You are a false man, my sister never went away and left you." He afterwards went to Mrs. Nunn's, but I did not hear any of the conversation. I never heard him ask after or about her.

[ocr errors]

Cross-examined. This witness, who was pressed very closely about the man Worseldine and Mrs. Sheward's going away according to the prisoner's statement above mentioned, showed great reluctance to answer the questions put to her, saying that she was too young at the time to know any thing about the matters referred to.

Hannah Hurn, a very old and infirm woman, one of the sisters of the deceased, said she visited the prisoner and his wife only once about twenty years ago. Had a relation named Fisher, who left some money; witness got her share from Mr. Canu, a solicitor of Wymondham. He was dead. Prisoner never came to make any inquiry about her sister.

Rachel Fox, a widow, and niece of the deceased, said she used to visit her when she and her husband were living at St. Giles's, but never saw her afterwards. She lost her husband in February, 1868, and had visited the prisoner several times since. He never made any allusions to her. About three years ago witness asked if he could tell her any thing about her aunt, but she could not remember what he said.

John Francis, an inmate of the Norwich Union, was married to a sister of the deceased. He went to the prisoner's house in King-street some time after the death of Mrs. Fisher. Sheward was there; and he said to him, Mr. Cann would settle to-morrow if Mrs. Sheward, his sister, would come. Prisoner said, “ Very well, I'll tell her when I see her."

In cross-examination, he said he got 107. 4s. 6d. as his share of the legacy. Thomas Alfred Francis, a nephew of the late Mrs. Sheward, gave similar evidence to the other witnesses (relations), adding this, that the prisoner told him on one occasion he was sure his wife would not go to the funeral of his mother.

Mr. E. C. Bailey, solicitor, practising in Norwich, and Clerk of the Peace for the city, produced some papers from the office of the late Mr. Cann, his brotherin-law, among them a letter dated the 24th of March, 1853, from the prisoner to Mrs. Bunn, at Holly-house, Wymondham :

:

"Mrs. Bunn,-I am sorry to hear of Mrs. Fisher's death, but your sister not being in Norwich at this present, I shall not take any part in arranging of affairs; therefore you need not expect me, nor send to me any more.

"WILLIAM SHEWARD."

Sarah Batson.-I was married in March, 1850. After my marriage I went to live in a house in Tabernacle-street, St. Martin's-at-Palace. After my confinement in January, 1851, I found that the house next to ours, before that un

occupied, was taken by a man and woman. The woman was light-complexioned and had golden hair in ringlets. I saw her last on Whit-Sunday, the 8th of June, 1851, when I took into her part of some custard I had been making. I do not recollect seeing her afterwards, but I saw the man.

Potter Batson, husband of last witness, gave similar evidence, and added that he saw the house shut up after Whitsuntide.

Ruth Swan proved that she saw the prisoner at his house in St. Martin's-atPalace, where he was selling off his things about fifteen or sixteen years ago. The witness had known Mrs. Sheward and described her in precisely the same way that all the other witnesses did.

Mr. Smith, a surveyor, called to speak to a plan of the city of Norwich, and so much of the environs as embraces the different places where the remains were found, was asked about Tabernacle-street, and said there was a dead wall opposite that part of it in which Sheward's house is situated. That house was next door to the Old Man's Hospital.

Cross-examined.—He knew nothing about the street in 1851.

James Smith was recalled to fix the position of the Old Man's Hospital in 1851, and as to the "cockeys."

Mr. Simpson, Governor of the hospital mentioned, proved that in 1851 there were no houses on one side of Tabernacle-street. There was a lodge there, with a window looking into the street, and one window looking into Hospital-lane. There are houses in Hospital-square, about sixty yards distant from the house where the prisoner used to live.

Cross-examined.-Tabernacle-street is one of the public thoroughfares of the city, and is frequently crowded by persons going to Mousehold-heath. The house where Sheward lived was about the centre of Tabernacle-street. A person going from the house where the prisoner was supposed to have lived would have to pass four houses and the entrance of a yard, in which there are many houses, in going to Bishopgate-street. There is a church at one end and a chapel at the other end, and another church at a short distance, in Bishopgate-street.

Re-examined. The road through Tabernacle-street to Mousehold-heath was the chief thoroughfare from Norwich to the eastern parts.

John Bird said, In 1851 I resided in St. George's, Middle-street, in Norwich. At the half-quarter after Midsummer, 1851, prisoner hired of me three unfurnished rooms. I understood from him that he was then living at St. Martin's-atPalace-plain. At Michaelmas prisoner came to live in those rooms alone. Two women came to visit him, among others, about two or three months after he came there. The present Mrs. Sheward was one. I gave him notice to quit about February, 1853. I had observed something in prisoner's conduct and the woman's. A twelvemonth after I saw him occupying a house in King-street.

Cross-examined by Mr. Metcalfe.-The present Mrs. Sheward was not the first person I saw there. Prisoner moved his bedding, &c., into the rooms and well furnished them.

Re-examined by Mr. O'Malley.-Had not seen prisoner.

Margaret Lince.-I worked for Mrs. Coley in 1851. She lived on St. Andrew'splain. Know the present Mrs. Sheward. She lived with Mr. Frank Coley, in King-street, as nursemaid. One Sunday afternoon I went with Mrs. Sheward to the Shakespeare Tavern, in St. George's. Had a meal there with Mr. Sheward and the present Mrs. Sheward.

Cross-examined. The present Mrs. Sheward came from Cringleford-hall.

Several other witnesses were called to speak to their knowledge of the present Mrs. Sheward and of the prisoner's acquaintance and intimacy with her since the year 1851.

Mary Leigh's depositions were then put in, that witness being disabled by illness from appearing in Court. She had known both the prisoner and his present wife for about thirteen years, having nursed her in two confinements. At those times in the years 1856 and 1859-the prisoner and his wife were not married, the marriage at which Mary Leigh was present having been solemnized at the Registrar's office in Norwich on the 13th of February, 1862. The certificate of that marriage and of the one on the 28th of October, 1836, between the prisoner and his first wife, Martha Francis (the subject of the present inquiry), were then put in and read, and on the close of the case for the prosecution,

Mr. Metcalfe addressed the jury for the prisoner. He reminded them that the confession made by the prisoner in London had been revoked, and that he now said it was untrue. He dwelt upon the improbability of the prisoner's making away with his wife in the manner supposed in a house situated in a row in a crowded suburb. There was not the least evidence of murder or of where the body could have been cut up. As for the discovery of the remains in the way alleged, what was more probable than that they might have formed portions of a subject used for dissection by an unskilful hand, secretly obtained and secretly got rid of, buried, after they had served their purpose, so hastily as to be easily found in the way described? He also pointed out the utter absence of any corroboration of the prisoner's statement against himself.

Mr. Baron Pigott then summed up, and the jury, after an hour and a quarter's deliberation, found the prisoner guilty, whereupon he was sentenced to death. Sheward shortly before his execution made a horrible confession of the way in which he had murdered his wife and disposed of her body.-(See CHRONICLE for April.)

III.

THE CASE OF ESTHER LYONS.

ONE of the most extraordinary cases which have ever arisen in the Principality of Wales was tried at the Glamorganshire Assizes at Cardiff in July, and occupied a whole week in its elucidation. The respectability of the persons involved, the curious incidents of the case, and the amount of religious feeling which it evoked, all contributed to make the case one of more than ordinary importance. On each of the six days which the trial occupied, the Cardiff Town Hall was besieged by crowds of respectably-dressed persons belonging to every religious community, only a portion of whom were enabled to gain admittance to the Assize Court. The 300 or 400 who were present daily included nearly all the clergy and ministers of the town and neighbourhood, and a large proportion of the local gentry-ladies and gentlemen.

The case took the form of a civil action for damages, and was tried by Baron Channell and a special jury. The plaintiff was Barnett Lyons, a Jew moneylender at Cardiff, and the defendants were the Rev. Nathaniel Thomas, a Welsh Dissenting minister, and his wife; Mr. John Sanderson Hollyer, an iron

merchant, and his wife, all of Cardiff; and Mrs. Keep and Dr. Charles A. Schwartz, editor of the Scattered Nation, both of London.

The counsel in the case were Mr. Hardinge S. Giffard, Q.C., and Mr. Michael for the plaintiff; and Mr. Grove, Q.C., Mr. R. E. Turner (of the Home Circuit, specially retained), and Mr. Hughes for the defendants, who, it was understood, were indemnified by the London Society for the Conversion of the Jews. The papers in the case were most voluminous, and included several hundred letters which had passed between the respective defendants and the young lady who was alleged to have been abducted.

The

As the respective leaders occupied five or six hours each in addressing the jury, and the witnesses took several days to examine, we will content ourselves with a general summary of the case as presented by both sides. The declaration consisted of two counts, in the first of which the defendants were charged with having "unlawfully enticed and procured Esther Lyons, unlawfully and without the consent of the plaintiff, to depart his service, she being at the time his servant," and in the second, that they "unlawfully received, harboured, and detained, the said Esther Lyons, his daughter." The defendants pleaded that they were not guilty, and that Esther Lyons was not the servant of the plaintiff. The evidence showed that in the beginning of 1868 the plaintiff had a pawn-shop at Roath, near Cardiff, as well as his loan-office at the Bute Docks, where the family resided-about a mile apart. Esther Lyons previously managed the pawn-shop, and slept at home; but in March, 1868, she was kept at home to assist in the household duties. On the 23rd of that month her father returned home about ten o'clock, and was surprised to find that Esther was not in. family waited till half-past eleven, thinking she had gone out for a walk, and then dispersed about the town to seek for the missing girl. They failed to hear any thing about her, and could learn no trace of her on the 24th. An examination of her bed-room showed that she had not taken any thing with her except her every-day clothes. The distracted father went to Newport and other places, but failed to get the least clue of her whereabouts, but at last heard that she had been seen at the door of the Rev. N. Thomas on the 23rd. Mr. Lyons went to Mr. Thomas's house on Sunday, the 29th, and told him his business, but Mr. Thomas said he had only returned from the Monmouth assizes on the previous night, and knew nothing about the matter. In reply to the question, "Can you give me any information?" Mr. Thomas said, "I don't know; I don't know nothing." The plaintiff was satisfied by that denial, and went away; but the next day, gaining further information, he repeated his visit, and saw Mrs. Thomas. After expressing himself strongly that she knew something about his daughter's disappearance, Mrs. Thomas at last admitted that Esther Lyons had slept in her house on the Monday night, but on the father asking where she then was she replied, "You ask me too strong questions. I told you she was here one night. I cannot tell you more." The father threatened proceedings, but failed to elicit any further information from the Thomases, although he called almost daily for weeks afterwards, and sometimes four or five times a day. In the interval he received various bits of information which confirmed him in his suspicion that Mrs. Thomas had been and was cognizant of his daughter's disappearance and present abode. Eventually overtures were made for an interview, the father stating that if he was assured that his daughter wished to leave his house he would not pursue his inquiries any more. The negotiations called forth the following extraordinary letter from Mrs. Thomas to Mr. Lyons:

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

'Roath, Cardiff, May 25, 1868. My dear Sir, I promised to reply to your letter of May 14 on Monday. Before considering your proposal as to seeing your dear child, I must make one or two remarks. You seem to imply that I have acted deceitfully, and assert that the whole of the time I have said I know nothing about her. This is not true. I never said so. I told you I did not know where she was; and I spoke truly. I told the police-officer I was wilfully ignorant of her whereabouts. This was also true, and is true now, I thank God. I fear falsehood, nor have I uttered any to you or either of the other querists. I was placed in a very difficult position, for I had to shield your child while I replied to your and others' many questions. The dear girl came to me for refuge, having left a very wretched home. I of course took her in, but fearing our house was not safe, I advised her to leave us. She did so; and I took care the hands she fell into were of the very safest and best in all ways. Of course I shall never betray these, which is why I halted in your examination of me, and hinted to you that I had said enough, though I volunteered to you the information that she had slept in our house, and was not obliged (as you say) to acknowledge that I gave her shelter, &c. Perhaps this is your awkward way of putting it, however, and not meant as an implication in any way. And now for your threats and accusations, &c. I can only say my conscience is perfectly clear; that I should act the same over again; and that I am not at all afraid of any punishment that you can inflict. I am a friend and no enemy of yourself and family-would not harm a hair of your heads, and would do and suffer a very great deal for your welfare and salvation, and that of your nation, and pray (oh, how fervently!) that the veil may be removed, and that with joy you may see and adore the blessed Messiah who died for you on Calvary, and look upon Him whom you have pierced, and mourn, and bathe in the fountain opened for sin and for uncleanness, and be saved! The Lord-even Jesus-bless you and all yours! And now for your proposal. I don't know where your dear girl is; but I can find out if I desire so to do. She could be brought to Cardiff to see you; but this would incur a heavy expense, for it would need the far-away travelling expenses of herself and a friend here and back again; and it must be first-class travelling. She was destitute of clothing, so that much expense has been incurred by her friends, as you may suppose; and she is dearly loved by all who have had to do with her, I hear; and one friend remarked, 'What a mine of wealth in her loving heart her mother has lost.' Now, are you willing to pay 107. for the expenses of the interview? Any overplus you should of course have returned; and you could bring any of your friends to meet her, and she should have a few of hers present; also, you should then see that she was not detained or influenced by any one from the first moment of her flight from your roof; and if she likes she can go back with you, and if not, as I understand, you give a pledge to leave her to her own choice? If you give this pledge and wish the interview, and will hand over the money, I shall then endeavour to find her out, and she can have the plan laid before her.I am, Sir, yours faithfully, "L. E. A. THOMAS."

The plaintiff agreed to pay the 107. and abide by certain conditions in an agreement drawn up in respect of the interview, but when the matter came to the point of signing Mr. Thomas drew back, and said he must make further inquiries, as he was not certain if he could produce the girl. Eventually the interview fell through, and the plaintiff took legal proceedings by making an

« PreviousContinue »