01/03/2006
Transcribed by Carol Harrison
The court resumed this morning with the cross-examination of James Hickman.
By Mr Rodwell – I first became acquainted with the prisoner about a year ago. I went to the house with her sister Jane. After then I used to go and read to the little boy. I read little books which the parson gave me – good books. Won’t swear that the boy was not present when prisoner sat on my knee; he was never present when prisoner kissed me.
Prisoner at this point appeared greatly excited and trembled throughout her whole frame.
His Lordship gave a prescription to the Governor of the gaol, who sent it to the chemists. A draught was brought and given to her; but she appeared to get worse. Professor Taylor, at his Lordship’s request, examined her. She complained of great pain, and had to be supported by her female attendant.
Professor Taylor made a private communication to his Lordship respecting her, and a second restorative was administered, after which she appeared somewhat to recover. Subsequently a bottle of hot water was placed at her feet.
Examination resumed – I have taken the child to bed at times. When the child got better I did not read to him. He was taken to bed. I used to go two or three times a week. I went when I pleased, not by appointment. She used to come and ask me in the day time to come up at night. She used to come to the barn where I worked. About a month before Christmas, prisoner told me she had £500 at her sister’s, at Westgate. I broke off with Jane Piper before I heard of the £500, not long before , it was about the same time. I had once about the money before I broke off with Jane. Prisoner told me if I had her, she would keep me without work. I did not always kiss the prisoner when she kissed me, only sometimes. On the night of the onion pie, deceased was at supper when I got there. I saw him help himself from the pie. French did not offer me any; prisoner and the child might have had onion pie before I got there. I don’t know that anything was the matter with the oven. I don’t recollect either deceased or prisoner going out during supper time. Cannot recollect when the child was put to bed. Before Christmas day I heard deceased say he had bought some poison. I know where the brewhouse is; there is a small cupboard under the stairs; the poison might be put there. I know Mrs Bennett. I did not see her on the night of French’s death. I was not at the house that night. I heard of his death on Thursday morning. I went the same evening and saw the prisoner. I asked if French was dead? I had heard that he was, but I wanted to know the truth. The sister that was at the house on the night of the funeral was the one that I had courted. I was at the prisoner’s house, in Hellingly, when the constable came. Prisoner pushed me into the pantry by main force. I did all I could to prevent getting in. I was not locked in. I don’t know prisoner’s height. I am the tallest. She is a small woman.
The judge enquired what height.
Mr Sanders- 4 feet 10.
Cross-examination resumed – I could not get out of the pantry because the latch string was gone. I got out by putting my knife between the door and the post. I was quarter of an hour getting out. I did not try to get out till the policeman was gone. It was nine o’clock when I left the pantry. I went direct home, and never saw no one. I went direct to bed. I had supped before I came out. I was called out of bed by Manser, the Carter, I returned to Mrs French’s and slept with her. I don’t recollect what we talked about in bed. She said something about the constable. I don’t know that we were awake all night, and talked a great deal. Something was said about the pantry. She said she thought I should have stayed until she came back. I don’t recollect what other conversation. She said if her husband was poisoned he had taken it himself. We had some conversation about the poison, and about deceased’s health. I did not hear anything about the onion pie-or about his being taken ill after eating it. I never conversed with her about that any time. When I said before we had no conversation, I had forgot about the talk respecting the poison and deceased’s health. I now recollect we had a great deal of talk about her going to the Gun and the inquest.
Re-examined – I broke off with Jane French (sic) because I had fault to find with her. She went along with another man. When I was put into the pantry we were both dressed; I resisted, but not quite with all my strength.
Did you push against her with all your might? – I did not want to go in.
Did you push with all your might? – Not with all my might.
Did you make use of your hands at all? – I think not.
By the judge – During our conversation on the night referred to—She said if her husband was poisoned he had taken it himself.
Francis Harding Gell Esq., Coroner proved a statement made by the prisoner at the second inquest. The statement which has been previously published respecting prisoner was this – “I am not guilty, I am innocent, if it were the last word I had to speak. I never bought any poison in my life.”
A conversation took place with the counsel on both sides, and the learned judge, as to certain questions put by the prisoner at the inquest, at which the coroner had only got the answers. The nature of it did not transpire.
The prisoner’s child, a boy about eight years of age, was next called – He said my name is James French. I can’t read. I have been to chapel once. I have been taught my prayers. I don’t know what becomes of people who tell lies. It is wicked to tell lies. Persons have read to me out of a book. People who tell lies will be punished. His Lordship would not allow him to be examined.
James Flannagan, superintendent of the Police Force of East Sussex – I went to prisoner’s house at Hellingly on 29th January. It was between 10 and 11. I said, “I believe your name is French”. She said, “Yes”. I said, “You have recently lost your husband”. She replied, “Yes.” Asked if he had been ill long? Said no, he was taken ill on the Sunday evening with a violent pain in his bowels, but on the Monday he was better, and went to his work, on the Tuesday he was also better, but was worse on Wednesday and died the same night. She said she had given him gruel, and on Tuesday night had given him brandy; which he brought up. She said she had fried beef for dinner on Sunday. She said she had no arsenic in the house, but her husband had bought poison twice of Mr Noakes, for the mice, which he bought home. She said her husband was very low at Christmas about some bills; that he began to cry and she cheered him up. She said she had no doctor till after her husband’s death. She said she had heard the rumours about, and if there was poison in her husband’s body, he must have taken it himself. She was not then in custody. She said she had never purchased any arsenic herself. I told her she would have to go up to the inquest, and on the road I told her I should take her into custody.
S. P. Lower, constable, deposed, that on the Tuesday night before the inquest, he went to the prisoner’s house. I can’t recollect whether I knocked at the door. I asked at the next house whether Mrs French lived there? I don’t know that the prisoner heard me enquire. I asked her to go with me to the Gun, and she went with me.
Cross-examined – I did not hear any noise inside the house. I was admitted directly.
Mr Creasy – That is my case.
Mr Rodmell then addressed the jury for the defence in a most powerful and eloquent address. He warned the jury against allowing their minds to be influenced by anything they might have heard out of court, but to be guided entirely by the evidence. The question they had to consider was one of life and death. The life of the prisoner was in their hands and it was, therefore, their highest duty to give the evidence their calm, patient, and impartial consideration. He then replied to the points urged on behalf of the prosecution. He accounted for the fact of the surgeon not being called in from the reluctance generally felt by persons in the station of deceased to call in medical assistance, on account of the expense. On the question of the cause of death, he said, Mr Holman had admitted, there was a rupture in the deceased’s bowels, and that rupture might have produced fatal consequences. With reference to the alleged motive for the dreadful crime which she was charged, the desire to obtain the embraces of Hickman, he contended there there was not the slightest necessity to take away the life of her husband to accomplish her desires, as it was evident from the character of the young man. Judging from his own statements, there would have been no difficulty in bringing him to her arms. He had admitted that she had never asked him prior to her husband’s death to have criminal connection with her, as it was given in evidence she had lived happily with her husband. The whole charge rested on certain alleged expressions and acts on the part of the prisoner, the whole being of entirely of a circumstantial nature. No human eye ever saw the act which deprived the unfortunate deceased of his life; for after the evidence of Professor Taylor, a gentleman whose talents have made him known throughout the whole of Europe, it would be idle to waste the time of the court in endeavouring to deny that the arsenic was the cause of death. He would not argue that even the administration of the poison was the result of an accident; or taken by the deceased with the intent of committing suicide. The question, then was, by whom was the poison given. Were the jury satisfied, he asked, after hearing the evidence they had, that no human being other than the prisoner at the bar, had administered that poison. For his own part, he had no apology to offer them, in endeavouring to do his duty to the unfortunate prisoner at the bar, for adopting the statement she had made before the magistrate in gaol. If there was any doubt on their minds even to the possibility of the arsenic being administered by other hands, they would not by their verdict say that it was the wife who had murdered her husband. That statement of the prisoner implicated a witness who had been called before them; it would be for them to judge how far that evidence was to be relied upon. The prisoner in her statement had deposed to a long and extraordinary conversation with Hickman as to the events connected with her husband’s death. That conversation Hickman at first pretended not to recollect. He would not go into the disgraceful scene profligney and lust which that witness had described without a blush. But he would ask, was not such a man likely to become an instrument capable even of committing an act of murder. It was not for him to charge him with that dreadful crime, but he would call their attention to certain facts which had come out in evidence, which at least were capable of bearing a very suspicious aspect. They would bear in mind that that young man was first introduced to the prisoner by her sister to whom he was then paying his addresses. How did the prisoner treat that young woman? When he learned that the prisoner was possessed, or likely to be possessed of £500, he immediately discards her sister and transfers his attention to her, and who could say that a desire to get possessed of that money, and to lead an idle life (which the young man had confessed he should like to do, might not have led him to a still greater crime than those of which he had acknowledged himself guilty. With respect to the evidence of Hickman as to the prisoner pushing him into the closet when Lower, the constable, called, he ridiculed the notion that she could have effected it against his will, and even if it had been so, the witness might certainly have obtained his release. He left it for them to consider whether he did not go into the closet voluntarily and from a motive of which he would leave them to be the judges. As to the prisoner buying poison at Crowhurst, it might certainly be argued that a woman intending to commit murder would never go in the broad light of day to the shop of a man by whom she had been known for years. After commenting with great ability and discrimination of other portions of the evidence, he again warned the jury as to the solomn responsibility of their position. That if the fatal word “guilty” once escaped form their lips, it could never be recalled, and if it should ever be found that the deceased had come to his death by other hands, there could be no recompense for that unfortunate woman, what they did was done forever. He therefore called once more upon them to hesitate before they let the word guilty pass from their lips.
The learned judge then proceeded to sum up the evidence, remarking that he had thought it right to appoint counsel for the prisoner, and whatever might be the result of that enquiry. She would have the satisfaction of knowing that all that could be done had been done to place the suspicious circumstances, which had surrounded her in as favourable a light as possible. If they believed the prisoner either administered the poison with her own hands, or that she was accessory before the fact, it would be their duty to find a verdict of wilful murder, and he urged upon them, if they came to a decision contrary to the arguments of the learned counsel for the defence, to maintain the dignity of the law, by giving the verdict which their consciences, after weighting the evidence, directed them to do, and however painful the result might be, they might go home satisfied with themselves, and sleep peacefully on their pillows. His Lordship after commenting on various portions of the evidence, further observed with reference to the evidence of the witness, James Hickman, that the jury would consider a priori whether Hickman, who was 21, or the prisoner, who was 27 years of age, was the more likely to have originated a wicked scheme like the one which had come before them. He then proceeded with the evidence, observing on the question said to be put to Hickman by the prisoner as to whether he would marry her if her husband was dead; that, if they believed it, it told strongly against her as to the motive by which she was influenced, and furnished a key to other portions of the evidence. His Lordship, in respect to the prisoner’s statement – that Hickman had put poison on her husband’s plate, observed that it looked very suspicious that she had not stated that fact at the inquest. Supposing it to be true he was bound to say that it went to prove she was a guilty participator in the act of poisoning. With reference to poison being put in the gruel on Tuesday night before the death, by Hickman, and the observation he made, that if she said anything about it he would run right away from the place, and she would never see him again, it only corroborated that portion of the evidence that the prisoner and Hickman stood in a relation to each other which ought not to have existed, and that the subject of future connection by matrimony had been mentioned between them. On the matter of Hickman being pushed into the closet by the prisoner it was observed that the constable’s statement contradicted his evidence, because, if, as he had said, she pushed him in violently, and he resisted, there must have been some noise. With regard to the threat that Hickman was alleged to have used, on her complaining of her husband staying out late, that he would poison him, the learned judge observed that it was a statement she ought to have made known to her husband, and also to the coroner’s jury at the inquest. His Lordship further observed with reference to the statements made by the prisoner to superintendent Flannagan and others, that if deceased had taken poison, he must have taken it himself, it was a complete contradiction to her statement, and only went to show that the statement was an afterthought, after her committal.
A juryman requested to hear the portion of Professor Taylor’s evidence as to whether a large portion had been given within twenty our hours of death. His Lordship read the evidence, which went to show Professor Taylor’s belief that a large portion had been administered within 24 or 30 hours before death, though it was quite possible that smaller doses might have been previously given to deceased.
His Lordship then observed that the question would come to this, was the poison (as suggested by the learned counsel) administered by the witness Hickman or by the prisoner herself. In either case, if they believed the prisoner was aware of it previously, she was an accessory before the fact, and equally guilty of the offence for which she was charged.
The jury retired, and returned after an hour’s absence with a verdict of guilty.
His Lordship then put on the black cap, and, in passing sentence of death upon the prisoner, said, that the jury, who had just pronounced their verdict against the prisoner, after a long patient consideration of the case, had performed their duty to their country, under the solomn obligation which was imposed upon them. Upon the evidence in this case it was impossible for them to have arrived at a different conclusion; and it remained for him now, under the same solomn obligation, to tell her that for the offence for which she has been justly convicted she must die. It was indeed a painful duty. It was a sad thing to have to tell a woman, in the prime of her life, that she would in a few days be carried form this place to the place of execution and suffer an ignominious death upon the scaffold. Her crime was enormous, she had deprived of life, by one of the most base and cruel means, that man to whom she had sworn love and obedience at the alter, and that for the purpose of gratifying an unchaste affection for another person, a youth, a mere stripling. She had bought arsenic and mixed it with the food, which she must have given to her husband, and the case was almost as plain as if they had all seen it, and it showed a degree of depravity almost unheard of. He trusted that in the few short days that were left to her she would endeavour to make her peace with God for her dreadful crime. He trusted that she would exert herself and use every effort in praying to Almighty God to give her the spirit of repentance – to give her His holy aid to review her past life, and in endeavouring to secure His pardon, for in this world her days were numbered. His Lordship then exhorted the unhappy woman to avail herself in the short space of time allotted to her, of the reverend chaplain, and then sentenced her to death in the usual form.
The wretched criminal was then removed, having been obliged during the sentence to be supported by two turnkeys. The young man Hickman betrayed not the slightest emotion, and appeared as unmoved at the awful position of the prisoner now as he had been during the day by the proceedings in court. This trial, which terminated about five o’clock, closed the business of the assizes.
01/03/2006 | Transcribed by Carol Harrison |
|