to make away with herself, many a time. She also said the same thing to my wife and other persons. I cannot recollect what brought up the conversation. I think it was when she was talking about Thomas Drory. I did not take any particular notice of what she said, because I thought she was "gammoning." The deceased was busily engaged in making baby linen at my house.

Mary Wheal. I am the wife of the last witness. The deceased left us last August. She was not very cheerful when she lodged with us. I heard her once say that she had a razor in one hand and the other round his neck, and that she had attempted to cut his throat. I thought that she alluded to the prisoner when she said this. I also have heard her say that she had several times attempted to make away with herself, but something had always prevented her. She said she had tried to do it with a line, and also with a razor.

Several respectable witnesses described the prisoner as having the reputation of being a mild inoffensive young man.

Mr. James, in reply, placed before the jury temperately and clearly the principal points in the evidence that had been given-the appointment to meet-the fact of the prisoner having left his house evidently with the intention of meeting his intended victim-the entire absence of any evidence to account for his time during the period when the murder was no doubt committed-the blood upon his clothes-his false representations with regard to the deceased, and his conduct when he was informed of the discovery of the dead body of the murdered girl. If the jury could reconcile all these

circumstances with the innocence of the prisoner, no one would be more gratified than himself at their coming to such a conclusion; but, on the other hand, if they should be satisfied that these circumstances clearly made out his guilt, their duty demanded of them such a verdict as would alone be satisfactory to their own consciences and the justice of the country.

The Lord Chief Justice, in summing up, said, the first question the jury would have to consider was, whether the deceased was murdered, and, secondly, if she was, whether the prisoner's was the hand that destroyed her; and, in coming to that conclusion, they must not give any effect to suspicions or probabilities; but it was the duty of, the prosecution to satisfy them, and to leave no moral doubt on their minds, that he had committed the offence before they found him guilty of it. On the part of the prisoner it was contended that the deceased might have destroyed herself, and it was therefore a very important consideration for the jury whether the case was one of suicide or of murder.

The jury almost immediately returned a verdict of "Guilty;" and the Lord Chief Justice passed sentence of death upon the convict, declaring himself perfectly satisfied with the verdict.

He was executed on the 25th of March with Sarah Chesham, the professed poisoner; but, unlike that criminal, died penitent, having first made a confession of his guilt. By this it appeared that he had made an appointment with his victim in the evening, when it would be dark. He took with him a rope. They sat down on a bank and conversed; while they talked he slipped the rope round her neck,

and had got the end into the loop before she, in the dark, discovered what he was at: she started to her feet, and put her hand inside the noose, but he pulled with all his might, and she immediately fell insensible; he then twisted the rope tightly round her neck, and left her lying in the field as she was found. He took his eggs to Brentwood, ate his oysters and purchased his tea, went home, and retired to bed.

THE FRIMLEY MURDER.

KINGSTON ASSIZES, March 31,

1851.

Levi Harwood, James Jones, and Samuel Harwood were indicted for having on the 28th of September last burglariously entered the dwell ing house of the Rev. George Edward Hollest, and for having fired at and wounded him, from which wound he afterwards died.

The extraordinary interest which this deed excited at the time of its occurrence had by no means abated in the interval before the trial of the perpetrators. Not a hundredth part of the persons who flocked into Kingston to hear the proceedings could obtain entrance into the court; and the bench was filled with the county magistrates. The account given in the CHRONICLE of the ANNUAL REGISTER of last year (see page 122) of the particulars of the murder, and of the remarkable circumstances attending the preliminary investiga. tions, are so perfectly correct, that it will not be necessary to repeat here the facts of the case, nor to give any part of the evidence by which those facts were established. The confession of the accomplice makes it useless to state the evidence by which the complicity of

the prisoners in the burglary and murder was brought home to them; it will therefore be sufficient to give some remarkable incidents which occurred at and subsequent to the trial.

It will be remembered that, in the confession made by Hiram Smith, that ruffian stated that the fatal shot was fired by Levi Harwood. The evidence of Mrs. Hollest upon this point was as follows. After narrating the terrible discovery that there were robbers in their bedchamber, she proceeds :Before she got out of bed she saw two men at the bottom of the bed; one of the men put his hand on her knee; that man had a pistol in his right hand, and held it close to her face. The other man had a pistol, which he held to Mr. Hollest, saying, "I will blow your brains out if you make any resistance." The man who held the pistol to her said he would blow her brains out if she made any noise. She noticed the voice of the man. She attempted to ring the bell, when one of the men, who wore a lightcoloured mask, came up and threw her down on the floor. At that time she saw a pistol in his hand. While she was on the ground he said he would blow her brains out if she made any noise. He used that expression several times. She struggled with him. There was something peculiar about his voice. It was a squeaking voice. By that time her husband was out of bed. He was on the other side of the bed, and the curtain was drawn, when a pistol was fired at him. She did not see the flash. After she heard the report of the pistol she got upon her knees, then upon her feet, while the man was holding her. He was holding her round the waist, still holding the

pistol in one hand. Having made her way across the room, she seized the hand-bell, the man still retaining his hold. She rang the bell. After she rang the bell the men left, and were followed by her husband, who went to the next room to fetch a gun which he kept loaded. Shortly afterwards she heard another report of fire-arms proceeding from the front of the house. When Mr. Hollest returned, he said, "The fellow has shot me." A surgeon was immediately sent for. She observed that Mr. Hollest was wounded. She was led to believe that Levi Harwood was the person who struggled with her, from his voice and general appearance. The men were all brought to her house and were placed in the positions represented on the night of the burglary. After she said she knew Levi Harwood by his voice, he asked her several questions. Unquestionably Harwood could have shot her if he liked.

Mr. Ballantine.-Have you seen Hiram Smith (the approver)?

Mrs. Hollest.-I have.

Mr. Ballantine.-Did you, on first seeing him, believe that he was the man who struggled with your husband?

Mrs. Hollest.-I did think so. Mr. Ballantine.-Did you believe that Smith was the man who fired at and shot your husband?

Mrs. Hollest.-I did believe so. Mr. Ballantine.-Do you believe so now?

Mrs. Hollest.—I do.

This remark was made most emphatically by Mrs. Hollest, and created a thrilling sensation throughout the court. It was thought by many that it would go far to destroy the evidence hereafter to be given by the approver Smith.

Hiram Smith, the approver, was then called. The prisoners looked fiercely at their former associate, who seemed thoroughly depressed, and trembled violently. He said his real name was Richard Trowler. He then gave an account of the arrangement of the gang to rob the house, their entry, and their deliberate feast in the family sitting-room.

46

When we got up stairs, Jones, Levi Harwood, and I went into Mr. Hollest's room. Samuel Harwood stood at the door. Mr. and Mrs. Hollest were in bed. Mrs. Hollest awoke. Levi Harwood laid hold of her and said, 'Lay still, my good woman, or I will blow your brains out.' They were all at the foot of the bed. Mrs. Hollest jumped out of bed, when Jones caught hold of her and thrust her up in the corner. Mr. Hollest then jumped out of bed and was about to lay hold of Levi Harwood, when Harwood fired the shot. While this was taking place, I took a gold watch off the stand on the table at the foot of the bed. We then all four ran down stairs. When we left the house we got as soon as we could into the fields, where we put our shoes on. Levi Harwood then said, 'I hope to God it has not killed the man.' It was Jones who pushed Mrs. Hollest into the corner. Levi Harwood and I did not move from the foot of the bed, and Levi Harwood shot him while he was standing in that position. Mr. Hollest was getting out from the foot of the bed when he was shot. Levi Harwood was standing on my right. I had no pistol in my hand. I had a watch in one hand and a candle in the other. Levi Harwood was about a yard or a yard and a half off Mr. Hol

lest when he fired at him. Mr. Hollest was going to make a 'grab' at Levi when he fired at him. I did nothing to save Mr. Hollest, but after the shot had been fired I ran down stairs. I cannot say whether Mr. Hollest fell back upon the bed or not. I did not struggle with Mr. Hollest at the fireplace, and I did not see him struggling with any one else. We all ran away directly the shot was fired, and I do not think it was possible for Levi Harwood to have struggled with Mr. Hollest afterwards. I did not see the pistol presented, and I had no opportunity to prevent Levi Harwood from firing it off. I was not stealing the watch while the pistol was being fired."

On the second day, a very long and minute chain of evidence was entered into for the purpose of corroborating the statement of the approver. It might possibly have sufficed to prove the case without the assistance of the ruffian, who in that case would have been placed at the bar with his fellows; but the law officers very properly resolved that there should be no doubt upon the case. The most decisive evidence was that of Mrs. Hollington, wife of the keeper of the Guildford Police Station, who overheard a conversation between Levi and Samuel Harwood from their separate cells, which amounted very nearly to an admission of their guilt.

The counsel for the prisoners rested their chief defence upon the untrustworthy nature of the confession of the accomplice.

"He asked the jury," said Mr. Ballantine, who defended Levi Harwood," with the greatest confidence, whether, if all these facts alone had been laid before them,

and they had not heard the evidence of the accomplice, they could think for a moment of finding a man guilty of the crime of wilful murder upon such evidence. He called upon them to consider attentively the evidence that had been given by this man Smith, and having done so, he expressed a confident opinion that the result would be, that they would come to the conclusion that his evidence rather damaged than assisted the prosecution. He had no hesitation in deliberately charging this man with being the actual murderer of the unfortunate gentleman, and he should, he trusted, be able to show them that to this dreadful crime he had not scrupled on the present occasion to add perjury. They had heard the cross-examination of this man, and although a man of this description must, from a long career of crime, have become perfectly callous and dead to every proper feeling, and therefore, to a certain extent, not likely to be operated upon by a counsel's cross-examination; yet they had heard the admissions he had made, and he believed that, taking his own story alone, he should be able to show them that he had told falsehood after falsehood, and lie after lie, and that not the slightest reliance ought to be placed upon his testimony. It was right to consider his evidence, but the jury would recollect that all these matters on which he was said to be corroborated, such as the prisoners being seen upon the road to Frimley on the night of the murder, &c., were all brought to the knowledge of the approver by the examination of the witnesses while he himself was under charge, and it was therefore the easiest thing in the world for him to dovetail his statement as

to the time when the prisoners were represented to have accompanied him to commit the crime, and to make it accord with the evidence given by those witnesses. This was a very important fact for their consideration, particularly when they found that, with regard to what took place in the bed-room, where there was a possibility of contradicting him, the approver was, in point of fact, contradicted upon almost every important particular. It was perfectly clear that this man Smith was well aware of the importance of making it appear that he was not the man who actually fired the fatal shot; and his object evidently was not only to escape from suffering the consequences of his crime, but also to obtain a portion of the reward that had been offered. The evidence of Mrs. Hollest, which was above all suspicion, entirely contradicted the evidence of the accomplice and by her statement, it appeared to be impossible for Levi Harwood to be the man who fired the fatal shot, for she identified that prisoner as the man who stood over her; and he was sure they would not forget that she stated, at the same time, that, according to her conscientious belief, and upon her solemn oath, Smith was the man who murdered her husband. He could not understand why such a course had been adopted by the prosecution, as to place the man who was represented to be the actual murderer in the witness box to give evidence, and seek to hang three other men upon his testimony; and why he had not been placed at the bar to answer the charge, instead of being in the position of a witness. It appeared to him that if Smith had been placed at the bar, the evi

dence against him would have been quite conclusive."

For Samuel Harwood it was urged that the evidence, taken to its fullest extent, was by no means conclusive, and that it had been clearly proved that he was not present when the fatal injury was inflicted.

The interest and evident satisfaction with which the accused listened to the defences made on their behalf by their counsel were changed into a different but not less impetuous channel when the learned Judge proceeded to sum up the evidence on the whole case. As, under that calm and deliberate review of all the circumstances, each saw his chances with the jury reduced to their exact limits, a great and obvious alteration took place in their appearance and bearing. Jones, upon whom the evidence bore strongest, [the penny token was found in his possession,] though his animal courage did not desert him, exhibited through his coarse, sullen, and hardened features the distinct traces of extraordinary emotion. His complexion deepened into a dull bronze hue, and his face was suffused perspiration, the result of mental anxiety. Levi Harwood was not less moved, though he showed it in a different manner. He moved restlessly about in the dock, never remaining for more than a minute in the same position. His eyes rolled wildly from the bench to the bar-table and the jury; and, though his cheek did not blanch, his features appeared to shrink up and become attenuated under the violence of his sufferings. Samuel Harwood seemed more at his ease than any of the prisoners, partly from the peculiar stolidity of his disposition; but even his countenance was flushed with emotion,

with