The Victorian Master Criminal E-Book

David C Hanrahan

• Herausgeber: The History Press
• Kategorie: Sachliteratur, Reportagen, Biografien
• Sprache: Englisch

Seitenzahl: 346

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2016

Beschreibung

On 2 August 1876, a young policeman named Constable Nicholas Cock was shot dead while walking 'the beat' at Whalley Range, Manchester. A few months later, on the evening of 29 November 1876, Arthur Dyson, an engineer, was murdered in his own backyard at Banner Cross, Sheffield. Charles Peace was Victorian Britain's most infamous cat burglar and murderer. He was a complex character: ruthless, devious, dangerous, charming, intelligent and creative. Mrs Katherine Dyson identified him as the murderer of her husband, and as the police searched the country for him, Peace was living a life of luxury under another identity in London. One of these murders became the most notorious and scandalous case of the Victorian age, with a tale of illicit romance and a nationwide hunt for Britain's most wanted man; the other was to become a landmark in British legal history. Although no one suspected a link between them, these two sensational murder cases would, in the end, turn out to be tied together in a way that shocked Victorian society to its core.

Leseprobe

To Margaret, Aisling and Michaelfor everything

Contents

Title

Dedication

Part 1

  1  The Murder of Constable Cock

  2  A Swift Arrest

  3  The Trial of the Habrons

  4  Peacefully Disposed

  5  Day Two

  6  Closing Statements

  7  In Accordance with Human Nature

Part 2

  8  The Banner Cross Murder

  9  Humble Beginnings

10  Going Straight

11  A Demon Beyond the Power of Even a Shakespeare

12  That Night in Banner Cross

13  Life on the Run

14  New Love in Nottingham

15  A Lavish Life in London

Part 3

16  Luck Finally Runs Out – An Encounter with Constable Robinson

17  True Identity Revealed

18  The Trial of Mr John Ward

19  The Trial of Hannah Peace

20  A Murder Charge

21  Bid for Freedom

22  The Continuation of the Hearing

23  The Notes and the Ring

24  ‘Base, Bad Woman’

25  The Banner Cross Murder Trial

26  I Will Have My Turn

27  A Cry for Blood

28  Justice and Jury

Part 4

29  Rewards and Other Matters

30  The Incredible Confession of ‘a Hardened Wretch’

31  A Wrong put Right

32  The End of a Life of Villainy

Select Bibliography

Copyright

Part 1

1

The Murder ofConstable Cock

In the general area of Whalley Range, Manchester, just after midnight in the early minutes of 2 August 1876, police constables Nicholas Cock and James Beanland were doing their normal nightly rounds. The area that they were patrolling was regarded as one of their more ‘respectable’ suburbs, with its array of impressive houses and gardens. The two constables had split up for a little while and Constable Cock was walking with his friend, a law student named John Massey Simpson.

Constable Cock and John Massey Simpson met Constable Beanland beside a local landmark known as the ‘jutting-stone at West Point’, where the three men stood in conversation for some five minutes. As they chatted, they saw a man walking from Upper Chorlton Road. ‘Who is that man?’ Constable Beanland asked, peering into the darkness. His companions looked, but not being able to see much did not answer. The man in question seemed slightly unsettled by the sight of the two constables and after a short hesitation turned up Seymour Grove. At one point he had been only 10–12 yards away from them, but in the darkness of the night neither the constables nor John Massey Simpson could make out more than the barest outline of the man’s figure, the brown overcoat that he had on, the ‘pot hat’ on his head and the slight stoop in the way that he walked.1

Something about the manner in which he had glanced at the constables, just briefly, before walking off ‘at a quick pace’, attracted their attention sufficiently for them to follow him.2 As the constables moved to investigate the matter further, Mr Massey Simpson parted company with them and proceeded home along Upper Chorlton Road.

As the policemen walked up Seymour Grove, the mysterious man was nowhere to be seen. On reaching the property of Mr Gratrix, however, they noticed that the garden gate was not closed correctly. Constable Beanland entered the garden and went up to the house to investigate; Constable Cock waited on the road. Beanland checked the rear door to the house and found that it was locked securely. There was nothing suspicious. He had a quick look through the windows and everything inside seemed fine too.

At the same time two working men, Abraham Ellison and William Morrell, were passing by on horse-drawn carts. Both men, who were travelling together, noticed the small, familiar figure of Constable Cock or the ‘Little Bobby’ as he was known locally, being only 5ft 8in tall.3 They saw Cock standing looking up Seymour Grove. The men had gone no more than 10 or 12 yards further when their horses were startled by the sound of two loud bangs. They recognised these as the sounds of gunshots.

John Massey Simpson heard them too. Realising what they were and concerned for the well-being of his two constable friends, he ran back towards them. As he did so, he saw Ellison and Morrell struggling to get their spooked horses under control. The men had just managed to calm the horses when they saw Constable Cock stagger from Seymour Grove and fall to the ground.

Constable Beanland, still inside the garden, had turned back towards Mr Gratrix’s gate when he heard the shots coming from the other side of the garden wall. He saw two accompanying flashes of bright light. To his horror, he heard his colleague call out in distress, ‘Murder, murder, I’m shot, I’m shot’.4 Beanland ran to the road and was the first to reach the Little Bobby. He found Cock lying on the ground, his head leaning against a wall. He could see fresh bruising emerging on his colleague’s forehead and right cheek. He raised Cock into a sitting position against the wall and said to him, ‘Oh, Cock, whatever is the matter?’5 Constable Beanland began to whistle furiously for assistance.

Ellison, Morrell and John Massey Simpson came running. Another constable, William Ewen, who had been on duty nearby, arrived in response to the sound of the shots and the frenzied whistling of his colleague. Realising that the bleeding constable’s condition was very serious, the men loaded him up onto one of the horse carts. ‘Do you know who shot you?’ Constable Ewen asked the injured Cock as they did so.

‘No,’ the Little Bobby replied, adding simply, ‘They have done for me this time.’6

The men rushed the injured constable to the house of Dr John Dill. By now the concerned group had been joined by Police Sergeant Moses Thompson. Thompson also inquired of Constable Cock, a number of times, whether he knew who his assailant was but by now the wounded man was unable to give any cogent reply. Dr Dill examined the patient and noted that he had a wound under his right nipple that was bleeding profusely. The doctor probed the wound. As the doctor conducted this painful investigation, Cock spoke only once more, saying, ‘Leave me a be. Oh, Frank, you are killing me.’7 There was no one in the room called Frank.

The doctor knew as soon as he had examined Constable Cock’s wound that there was little chance of him surviving the night. He was barely alive by the time Police Superintendent James Bent arrived on the scene; the superintendent had been awoken from his sleep, such was the gravity of the situation. Constable Cock died about forty minutes after being brought to the doctor’s house.8 He was 26 years of age and had only been a constable for eight months.9

Dr Dill carried out a post-mortem examination on his body. ‘There were no other injuries but the [gunshot] wound and the bruises on the face. The bullet had passed through the lung and lodged under the fourth rib. A piece of bone had penetrated through the lung.’10 The doctor removed a conical shaped bullet from the muscles of Constable Cock’s spine, where it had become lodged.11

As those present struggled to come to terms with what had happened to the young policeman, Superintendent James Bent believed that he already knew who was responsible for this heinous crime and he was determined to make the perpetrators pay.12

Notes

1  Shore (ed.), Trials of Charles Frederick Peace, p.14, the evidence of Simpson.

2The Times, 29 November 1876.

3Ibid.

4Ibid.; Shore (ed.), Trials of Charles Frederick Peace, p.15, the evidence of Constable Beanland.

5Ibid.

6The Times, 29 November 1876; Shore (ed.), Trials of Charles Frederick Peace, pp.15, 16, the evidence of Constable Ewen.

7  Shore (ed.), Trials of Charles Frederick Peace, p.17, the evidence of Sergeant Thompson.

8The Times, 29 November 1876; Shore (ed.), Trials of Charles Frederick Peace, p.17, the evidence of Dr Dill.

9  His age given on the headstone on his grave; Shore (ed.), Trials of Charles Frederick Peace, p.11.

10The Times, 29 November 1876.

11  Shore (ed.), Trials of Charles Frederick Peace, p.15, the evidence of Dr Dill.

12The Times, 29 November 1876, for the statement that he had suspected these three men ‘at once’.

2

A SwiftArrest

Police Superintendent James Bent was a respected member of the community; an experienced officer who had shown himself to be both tough and compassionate. Bent had enjoyed a long and distinguished career in law enforcement.

Born in Eccles in 1828, he had become a constable in 1848. Law enforcement was to become his lifelong career. By 1868, through hard work and dedication he had risen to the rank of superintendent of the Manchester Police Division. He was understandably aggrieved, shocked and angered by this callous murder of a young, conscientious constable doing his duty. He was determined to act decisively and promptly in the arrest and punishment of those responsible for the crime.

Bent was not an unduly insensitive man. In fact, according to himself, when he was young he feared that he might be ‘too timid’ to ever achieve his aim of becoming a constable.13 However, over the years, as necessitated by the rigours of the job, he managed to develop a tougher side to his personality. He had found himself in many dangerous and violent situations and was nearly killed on more than one occasion. During one particularly bad incident in Miles Platting he received a number of serious blows to the head and his attacker had even tried ‘to burn out his tongue with a heated iron’.14 Bent survived the attack, albeit suffering from adverse health effects afterwards.

Yet, for all his violent encounters with those involved in crime, Superintendent Bent managed to maintain a sympathy for the poor of Manchester. During one particularly severe winter he became concerned about the suffering of the less well-off children in his area, and in order to ease their plight he established a soup kitchen to feed them at Old Trafford Police Station.

He continued the soup kitchen for years afterwards, with the assistance of his wife, and probably saved thousands of children from starvation.15 The soup kitchen also helped to engender a degree of trust between the police and a group of troubled children who, up to this point, had regarded authority figures with nothing but fear and disdain. The children helped by the soup kitchen even became known locally as ‘Bent’s Children’.16

The fervour and determination that was evident in Bent’s investigation of Constable Cock’s murder was no doubt driven both by a fierce loyalty to his men and a revulsion towards the act that had been committed against one of them. The superintendent became convinced that he knew who was responsible for the murder. It was common knowledge that Constable Cock was not an altogether popular figure with many of the people living in his area due to his overzealous attitude to enforcing the law.

The police superintendent was aware, in particular, of three brothers in the locality with whom Cock had developed a highly acrimonious relationship of late. Constable Cock had informed Superintendent Bent about a number of violent threats that had been made against him by three Irish brothers called John, William and Frank Habron, or Hebron.17 The bad feeling between Cock and the Habron brothers had come about as a result of the constable’s attempt to prosecute them for drunkenness and disorderly conduct.

The incident in question occurred after a night of drinking engaged in by William and Frank at a local bar called Lloyd’s Hotel. They both became inebriated. So much so, in fact, that William decided that he would have to go home to fetch their other brother, John, so he could assist him in getting Frank home. As it happened John was at home that evening because he felt unwell. John went to Lloyd’s with William, they collected Frank and walked him home.

Unfortunately, just as they were nearing home, they were approached by three constables, one of whom was Constable Nicholas Cock. Cock grabbed William and Frank by the backs of their collars unceremoniously and said that he was taking them into custody for being drunk and disorderly. This was only avoided by the arrival of the Habrons’ boss, Mr Francis Deakin, who persuaded the constables to let his men go to bed instead. Nevertheless, a few days later William and John received legal summonses ordering their appearance in court, instigated by Constable Cock. This infuriated the Habrons, particularly John, who had not drunk any alcohol that day and was being blamed without justification.18

William’s case was heard before the magistrates on 27 July 1876, only days before Constable Cock’s murder and he was fined 5s along with costs. On 1 August, only a few hours before Cock’s murder, John’s case was dismissed because of the mistaken identity.19

According to Superintendent Bent, while all this was going on the Habrons had threatened the life of Constable Cock on a number of occasions. He remembered the words of his now fallen constable. ‘They have threatened several times to shoot me within the last few months,’ Cock had told him.20 Superintendent Bent claimed that Cock had even expressed concerns to him on the day of the murder itself. According to the superintendent he had said, ‘John Habron has just told me that he will shoot me before twelve o’clock tonight.’21 Bent had asked Cock if he was afraid, but Cock had told him that he was not. The superintendent, however, thought he was ‘a little troubled in his mind’ about the threats.22 To Superintendent Bent it was now clear that the Habrons had followed through on those threats to murder the young constable.

Superintendent James Bent was determined to bring those he believed responsible for Cock’s murder to justice. (Trafford Local Studies)

Bent lost no time in acting on his convictions; a few hours after Cock’s murder, the superintendent and his men surrounded the property of Mr Deakin where the Habrons lived and worked as nursery farm labourers. John Habron worked as a foreman for Mr Deakin and was highly regarded by his boss.23

As he called out for Mr Deakin to answer the door to his house, Bent noticed that a light was lit in the outhouse where the brothers slept. Mr Deakin came to the door and the superintendent, as he claimed later, had a conversation with him during which their employer made a comment that was rather incriminating with regard to at least one of the Habron brothers, ‘What is to do, Mr Bent?’

‘Cock is shot.’

‘Who has done it?’

‘Nay, I must ask you who has done it.’

‘Oh, Dear me. I told them to let it drop, and have no more bother about it. Oh, my God, if it is any of these men it is that young one as he has the most abominable temper of any man I ever knew in my life.’24

By ‘the young one’ Bent took Deakin to mean William Habron. Bent then requested Mr Deakin’s assistance with their arrest:

Will you go quietly to this out building, and let your voice be heard, so that they will know it is you, and then get them to open the door to speak to you, and I will rush into the room. I do not wish you to run any risk, unless your care to do so, but simply to make them believe that it is you at the door and not the police.25

At first Deakin was not keen to co-operate in this underhand plot against his employees, but in the face of official pressure he decided to relent.26 By the time they were ready to approach the outhouse, the light that Bent had noticed earlier had been extinguished. Bent was sure that the light had been on only moments before and, therefore, that the men had not been asleep. The Habrons would always be adamant that there was no light in the outhouse that night. They claimed that as the constables were attempting to surround the building and had approached from different sides, what Bent saw was one of the lanterns held by his own men shining through the windows from the opposite side.27

According to Bent, it took three separate knocks and a violent shaking of the door to get the Habrons to open it. Once they did so, the superintendent and his men burst into the single-roomed building where the three brothers had been lying naked in bed.28 The superintendent’s police lantern illuminated the darkness of the primitive outhouse. Bent announced his presence and warned the men against making any resistance. The bed clothes were pulled off and they were ordered to get dressed, one by one, in the same clothes that they had been wearing that evening. As far as the superintendent was concerned ‘they did not seem like men that had been asleep’.29

Bent told the men to put on their boots; once they had done so, thereby confirming ownership, he took the boots from them for examination.30 All three pairs of boots were wet, but Bent noticed that William’s were especially ‘slutchy’, or muddy, and had been worn outside in wet ground not long before.31 They had, of course, been working hard that day out in the muddy ground, just as they did most days. John had been gathering raspberries while his younger brother, William, had been engaged with another labourer called John Cosgrove in the tying of lettuces.32 Superintendent Bent kept William’s boots and gave the others back. The superintendent noticed that William was wearing a pot hat, just like the one that had been worn by the suspicious man who had been observed by his constables near the scene of the murder earlier that night.33

John and William admitted that they had been close to the scene of the crime earlier that evening when they had gone for a drink at Lloyd’s Hotel and had also frequented another establishment called the Royal Oak. Frank had stayed at home and gone to bed early.

Superintendent Bent had the three men handcuffed and he informed them that they were being arrested for the murder of Constable Cock. As he did so, John Habron said, ‘I was in bed at the time’.34 The superintendent would later make a lot of this off the cuff remark, saying that he had not mentioned the time at which the crime had been committed. The Habrons were all taken to Old Trafford Police Station.

Superintendent Bent personally supervised the examination of the crime scene. It had been guarded until daylight the following morning in a bid to prevent any contamination of the evidence. It did not rain overnight until five o’clock in the morning.35 Bent became very interested in some footprints that were found on the ground in an area of sand and gravel close to the scene of the murder. There were prints there that had been made by ‘two or three pairs of boots’, but he became focussed upon one print in particular made by a man walking from the direction of Seymour Grove.36 He sent to the police station for William Habron’s boots and made a print in the ground with William’s left boot beside the suspect one. ‘I compared William’s left boot with that footprint,’ he would later say, ‘and found it to correspond in every particular.’37

Although the Habrons claimed to have been home in bed by 9.30 p.m. on the evening of the murder, the police investigation suggested that they had not actually left the place at which they were drinking until around 10.30 p.m. or even 11.00 p.m. Bent and his men did their utmost to find the one object that, more than anything else, would have ensured a conviction. According to Bent himself, all potential hiding places were painstakingly searched for the weapon that had killed Constable Cock, ‘… every available means were adopted to recover it. Pits were emptied, drains and ditches were searched …’38

Not only did they drain every pool of water on the nursery farm and sift through the mud and the sludge that was left behind, they also ‘dug over the wheat field’.39 The murder weapon was not found. The police conducted another search of Deakin’s outhouse, where the Habrons slept, on 3 August. On that occasion they found a cartridge for a gun on the mantelpiece and, inside the pocket of a waistcoat, some percussion caps that could be used to fire a pistol.40

During the course of their inquiries the police made contact with a man named Donald McClelland who was a shop assistant at an ironmongers situated across from All Saint’s Church on Oxford Road in Manchester. He told them that a customer with an Irish accent had come in asking about ammunition and revolvers on either Monday, 31 July or Tuesday, 1 August. He remembered their conversation well.

‘Can I see some cartridges?’ the young man had asked him.

‘What kind?’ replied McClelland.

‘Can you show me some?’

‘What kind. We keep both pin-fire and central-fire.’

‘Show me some out of the window.’

‘We have both kinds in the window.’

‘I’ll go outside and point to the box I want to see.’

The young man pointed out the box that he wanted to see and McClelland brought the box to the counter. ‘These are Eley’s patent central-fire cartridges, No. 450, for revolvers. Have you got the revolver in your pocket?’

McClelland noticed that the man hesitated before replying, ‘No, but I think these are the size. How much are they?’

‘Either 3s 3d or 3s 6d the box.’

‘Can I have less than a box?’

‘No. We cannot break into a box.’

‘I can’t take a box. I’ll have to talk to someone else about it.’

McClelland then showed him a revolver designed to take the cartridges in question. In order to demonstrate this, he placed a cartridge inside the chamber. ‘I think that is the size,’ the customer said. ‘How much is the revolver?’

‘35s or 40s. But we have some cheaper, from 10s.’41

In the end the man left without buying anything. McClelland told the police, however, that later he thought three cartridges were missing from the box that he had shown the man. Superintendent Bent called on McClelland at the ironmongers and asked him to come down to the station to have a look at a suspect for him. He did so and identified William Habron as his Irish customer.

Notwithstanding such damning evidence and the threats that the Habrons had allegedly made against Constable Cock, local knowledge of the brothers did not seem to back up Superintendent Bent’s murderous impression of them. A number of people who knew them well said that they did not regard the brothers as dangerous or violent in any way. In spite of Cock’s accusations regarding their disorderly and threatening behaviour, those who worked with them said they were not argumentative men. In fact one co-worker said that on the day of the murder they were particularly ‘jovial and glad’ since Constable Cock’s case against John had just been thrown out of court. One letter-writer to The Times described them as ‘steady, hardworking fellows’ and contrary to the superintendent’s opinion of them, ‘not “given to drink”’.42 Other descriptions of them included the words ‘decent’ and ‘quiet’ and a local physician said that, in his experience, they were ‘peaceable’ and ‘well-conducted’.

John Habron had been employed by Mr Deakin at his nursery garden for nine years and the other two, William and Frank, had followed him over from Ireland and had worked there for seven and eight years respectively. Mr Deakin had only good things to say about them as employees; he liked the brothers very much and said that they ‘bore good characters’.43 When John first asked if Frank could come over from Ireland and work at the nursery, Mr Deakin had no concerns. ‘If he is like you,’ Deakin said, ‘let him come.’44 It was known that they sent money home to their parents in Ireland on a regular basis.45 Apart from the incident with Constable Cock, and another a year earlier when John was prosecuted for drunkenness, the Habrons had not had any other dealings with the law.46

There was also the problem that Superintendent Bent’s developing version of events seemed to overlook the fact that Constable Cock was well acquainted with the Habrons and yet, when he was asked a number of times that night who had shot him, he said that he did not know. The constable had a face to face encounter with his attacker, but was unable to identify the culprit as one of the Habron brothers. Perhaps that could be put down to the fact that it was dark at the time, or he was suffering from the effects of shock; or was it because Constable Cock had never seen his attacker before that night?

In the end the authorities ruled that Frank Habron had no case to answer regarding the murder of the constable and he was released. However, 23-year-old John Habron and 18-year-old William Habron were charged with the murder of PC 1015 Nicholas Cock and the steps were put in motion to put them on trial for the crime.

Notes

13  Bent, J., Criminal Life: Reminiscences of Forty-Two Years as a Police Officer, p.180; Durston, G. J., Burglars and Bobbies: Crime and Policing in Victorian London, p.230.

14  Crofton, H. T., A History of the Ancient Chapel of Stretford in Manchester Parish including Sketches of the Township of Stretford together with Notices of Local Families and Persons, printed for the Chetham Society, 1903.

15Manchester Evening News, 29 January 2010, plaque erected in his honour for this charitable work.

16  Crofton, H. T., A History of the Ancient Chapel of Stretford in Manchester Parish including Sketches of the Township of Stretford together with Notices of Local Families and Persons, printed for the Chetham Society, 1903.

17  Although the correct spelling of the surname is almost certainly ‘Hebron’, as nearly all the records and newspaper reports from the time use the spelling ‘Habron’ I have decided, for convenience, to use that version here. Records show, however, that there were no families named Habron living in their home place of Cloonfad around that time, while there was a family called Hebron (see census records, Ireland). In the letter sent from John to Mr Megson in 1877, he spells his own name as ‘John Hebron’ (see Shore (ed.), Trials of Charles Frederick Peace, p.41).

18The Times, 12 March 1879. This story is told by a letter writer to the newspaper who signed himself as ‘D’, dated 10 March 1879.

19  Shore (ed.), Trials of Charles Frederick Peace, p.12.

20  Bent, J., Criminal Life: Reminiscences of Forty-Two Years as a Police Officer, p.236.

21Ibid. p.236.

22Ibid. p.236.

23  Shore (ed.), Trials of Charles Frederick Peace, p.22, the evidence of Deakin.

24  Bent, J., Criminal Life: Reminiscences of Forty-Two Years as a Police Officer, p.237.

25Ibid. p.238.

26Ibid. p.238.

27  Ward, D., The King of the Lags, p.87.

28  Bent, J., Criminal Life: Reminiscences of Forty-Two Years as a Police Officer, p.238; Shore (ed.), Trials of Charles Frederick Peace, p.18, the evidence of Superintendent Bent.

29  Shore (ed.), Trials of Charles Frederick Peace, p.17.

30Ibid. p.12.

31  ‘Slutch’ is a local word for mud; Shore (ed.), Trials of Charles Frederick Peace, p.12.

32  Shore (ed.), Trials of Charles Frederick Peace, p.22.

33Ibid. p.18.

34  Bent, J., Criminal Life: Reminiscences of Forty-Two Years as a Police Officer, p.239.

35  Shore (ed.), Trials of Charles Frederick Peace, pp.19, 20.

36Ibid. p.18.

37Ibid. p.18.

38  Bent, J., Criminal Life: Reminiscences of Forty-Two Years as a Police Officer, p.241.

39  Shore (ed.), Trials of Charles Frederick Peace, p.19.

40Ibid. p.21.

41Ibid. p.23.

42  Letter published in The Times, 12 March 1879.

43Ibid.

44Ibid.

45  Supplement to the Evening Post, Wellington, New Zealand, 17 May 1879.

46The Times, 12 May 1879.

3

The Trial of theHabrons

John and William Habron appeared before Mr Justice Lindley at the Manchester Assizes on 27 November 1876. They were charged with ‘feloniously, wilfully, and of their malice aforethought killing and murdering’ Constable Cock. The prosecution was led by Mr William H. Higgin QC and the Habrons’ defence by Mr John H.P. Leresche QC.

Mr Higgin, in his opening speech for the prosecution, went through the various facts that pointed to the brothers’ guilt. He explained how close in proximity and easily accessible from the Habrons’ place of work and abode was the murder scene. He referred to the well-publicised animosity that had existed between the Habrons and the victim. ‘The deceased constable was distinguished,’ he said, ‘for the zeal with which he endeavoured to do his duty, and so had incurred the hostility of the three brothers.’47 He explained how, because of Cock’s police work, two of the Habrons had been summoned to appear in court and William had been fined. Because of this, he told the jury, the Habrons had made serious threats against the life and well-being of Constable Cock. He asserted that those threats had been carried out on the night in question. Mr Higgin then outlined for the jury the events as they had occurred on the night.

The prosecution first called a number of witnesses to collaborate the claim, made by the police, that the Habrons had made verbal threats against Constable Cock. Abraham Wilcox, a watchmaker from Chorlton-cum-Hardy, testified that when he returned a repaired watch to John Habron at Deakin’s Nursery, the accused had made comments to him regarding Constable Cock. ‘If he does anything to me or either of my brothers,’ John had told him, ‘by God I’ll shoot him.’ Wilcox was of the opinion that John Habron was sober when he made the threat and, in his opinion, ‘spoke very earnestly’.48 Wilcox said that he was so concerned that he told both Cock and the constable’s mother about the threat.

Eleanor Carter, wife of the landlord of the Royal Oak where the Habrons were regular drinkers, made similar claims. She gave testimony regarding a number of conversations that had taken place between her and the Habrons in the weeks prior to the murder, during which they had threatened to get revenge on Constable Cock. According to Mrs Carter, John Habron, in particular, spoke ‘with bitter feeling’ about the constable.49 ‘… if he does summons us,’ she quoted John as saying, ‘by God we’ll make it hot for him, we’ll shunt the bugger.’50 ‘Dam and bugger the bobby,’ she heard William say, ‘and, if he gets the day, by God, we’ll finish him, and we will see an end to that bugger.’51 By the words ‘shunt’ him and ‘see an end’ to him, it is possible that they only meant to have him transferred to another area. They had expressed that idea to a number of local people and they believed that their employer, Mr Deakin, had the power to get it done.

James Brownhill, who was employed as a wheelwright, heard an even more directly violent threat being made against Constable Cock by one of the Habron brothers. He testified that John had said to him if he was fined because of Cock ‘… he would shoot the bugger’.52 Brownhill said that he did not take the comment too seriously at the time, thinking that it was just idle talk and John Habron meant nothing by it. Anyway, Brownhill knew that Cock’s attitude to policing was engendering unrest and hostility amongst many of the local people; he said that the constable was regarded by the locals as being ‘too forward’, by which he meant too eager to prosecute for minor offences.53 It seems that there were more than just the Habrons who would have been happy to see him sent elsewhere.

Witnesses Sarah Beck Fox and Cock’s girlfriend, Elizabeth Whitelegg, also alleged that John Habron had made threats against the constable. They told of an encounter during which John said that if he was successfully prosecuted because of the constable, he would ‘do him before next Wednesday’.54

This all sounded very incriminating for the Habrons. It must have been clear to the jury that verbal public threats had indeed been made by the Habrons against the physical well-being of Constable Cock. Whether these threats were real or just bravado on the part of the young brothers was the question that they would have to answer. Also, were such sentiments commonly expressed amongst the locals with respect to Constable Cock? It was common knowledge that many people were annoyed by the constable’s conscientious attitude to his work; but that does not mean that they killed him.

Witnesses were called to testify regarding the events as they had occurred on the night of the murder. These included John Massey Simpson who, the jury heard, had been with Cock and Beanland that night and had actually seen the mysterious man believed to be the murderer. He explained how he had parted way with the constables as they went off to follow the suspicious man and two or three minutes later he heard the gunshots. He ran back and saw Beanland standing there beside Cock, whistling for help. He also saw the two workmen on their horse carts. He told of how he was confronted with the shocking sight of his friend, Constable Cock, lying seriously injured on the ground. ‘Cock was lying on the footpath,’ he said, ‘… bleeding from the breast.’55 He told the jury how they had lifted Cock up onto one of horse carts and transported him to Dr Dill’s surgery. Massey Simpson was not very convincing, however, when asked about his efforts at Old Trafford Police Station to identify William Habron as the suspicious man in the pot hat that he had seen that night:

I did not recognise his face. The coat in colour and shape appeared to be the same as the one I saw worn by the man on the night of the murder. The man in the police office was William Habron, and was of the same height and build as the man I saw the night before. I did not particularly notice his walk. I thought the man I saw under the lamp was an elderly man from his stoop and general appearance.56

When Constable Beanland gave his version of events his evidence accorded with John Massey Simpson’s in most respects, except that he thought Massey Simpson had left them before they ever saw the suspicious man. He seemed only a little more certain regarding the identification of William Habron as the murderer:

I noticed that the man was young and fresh complexioned. I could see very well from the light of the gas. He was about 5 feet 7 or 8 inches in height, and dressed in dark clothes. I can’t say who it was. I think now it was William.57

So, not even Constable Beanland could swear absolutely that the man they had seen that night was one of the Habron brothers. Under cross-examination, his doubt became even greater. ‘I do not swear that the prisoner William is the same man I saw that night,’ he said.58

Another local man called Nathaniel Williams also testified that he too had caught sight of a man prowling around on the night of the murder. It was around ‘five or ten minutes to twelve at night’, he said.59 The man he saw was standing still near the gate to a local farm. Williams was unable to identify him. He also met Constable Cock walking, a few moments later, in the company of another man who he now knew to be John Massey Simpson.

The various witnesses who came to the scene of the wounded constable that night were called to give evidence. The two workmen who had arrived with their horses and carts, Ellison and Morrell, outlined the events as they had occurred from their point of view. William West told the jury how he had come on the scene and witnessed the victim lying on the ground. He said that once Cock had been lifted up onto the horse cart, he went home. Constable William Ewen said that he was 600 yards away when he heard the first shot and he ran to the scene. He confirmed, under cross-examination, that when he asked Cock who had shot him the young constable replied that he did not know. He told the court that all he said was, ‘They have done for me this time’.60

Sergeant Moses Thompson and Dr John Dill were also called to give evidence. The doctor confirmed that ‘the deceased had died from the effect of the gunshot wound’.61 The bullet that the doctor had retrieved from the constable’s body was produced in court. Sergeant Thompson confirmed what had been said earlier about Constable Cock being unable to tell them who had shot him that night, despite being asked on a number of occasions. The main plank of the prosecution case was to come next in the form of the evidence provided by Superintendent James Bent.

Notes

47  Shore (ed.), Trials of Charles Frederick Peace, pp.10, 11.

48Ibid., p.12; the Times, 29 November 1876.

49The Times, 29 November 1876.

50  Shore (ed.), Trials of Charles Frederick Peace, p.13; The Times, 29 November 1876.

51  Shore (ed.), Trials of Charles Frederick Peace, p.13; The Times, 29 November 1876.

52  Shore (ed.), Trials of Charles Frederick Peace, p.13.

53Ibid. p.13.

54Ibid. p.14.

55Ibid. p.15.

56Ibid. p.15.

57Ibid. p.15.

58The Times, 29 November 1876.

59  Shore (ed.), Trials of Charles Frederick Peace, p.14.

60Ibid. pp.16, 17.

61Ibid. p.15.

4

PeacefullyDisposed

When Superintendent Bent took the witness stand he explained, in response to questions, that he got to Dr Dill’s house just before Constable Cock had died. He told the court how he went with his men that same night to arrest the Habron brothers. He described getting the men out of their beds and having them get dressed. He repeated the comment that had been made by John Habron that night about being in bed at the time the crime was committed, even though the suspect had not been told at what time the crime had actually taken place.

One of the most important aspects of Superintendent Bent’s evidence concerned the footprint that he claimed to have found in the soil near the crime scene. The superintendent was adamant that the print was a perfect match for William Habron’s left boot. He gave detailed evidence regarding the nails in the sole of the boot, including the number of rows, the number of nails in each row and an irregularity to be seen in one particular row of nails. He pointed to the fact that the outside row of nails were placed close together. There were, he said, two nails near the toe and an iron plate at the toe. The heel, he told the jury, had four small nails in it. He was adamant. ‘There was no single particular,’ he said, ‘in which the impression did not correspond with the boot.’62

There was a problem with this evidence, however. Although William’s boot was produced as evidence in court, Superintendent Bent was forced to admit that he had not made any casts of the print in the ground, nor had any photographs taken of it prior to it being obliterated by the rain. This meant that the gentlemen of the jury would have to rely solely on the word of those who had seen the print, primarily Superintendent Bent and his men. The prosecution recalled Sergeant Thompson to the witness stand and he confirmed everything that the superintendent had said about the footprint, as did Police Inspector Thomas Whillan.63 Police Constable John Gillanders also concurred, along with a number of other police constables who testified in a similar manner. There was one witness who was not a constable, Mr Alfred Love, the landlord of Lloyd’s Hotel, who came forward to testify that he too was present when the boot was compared to the print in the ground and he agreed with Superintendent Bent’s opinion as to their similarity.64