The Times 1851 - 1860 Apr 21, 1851 - A Fatal Mistake

Apr 21, 1851 - A Fatal Mistake

The Times - 1851 - 1860

FATAL MISTAKE (As reported in The Times newspaper) The Times, 21 April 1851 (page 8, col. D) FATAL MISTAKE (Abridged from the Carlisle Journal.) We have to record one of the most lamentable occurrences that have ever fallen within our observation in this neighbourhood, resulting in the loss of a valuable life, in the prime of manhood, by the hands of a clergyman of the Church of England. The scene of this catastrophe is Walton, a village about three miles north of Brampton; the victim one of the most respectable and respected yeomen of the district, and the unfortunate cause of the death the clergyman of the parish. The occurrence took place at a late hour on Wednesday night, and a visit to the scene yesterday has enabled us to collect the following particulars:– The deceased was Mr. William ARMSTRONG, of Sorbie Trees, in Bewcastle, a large farmer and considerable landowner, about 38 years of age, married, and having two children. He was a man highly respected in his neighbourhood, openhearted, generous, and hospitable. On Wednesday he visited Brampton, for the purpose of making arrangements for the completion of the purchase of some property which he had recently bargained for. It was market-day; and, meeting with a number of friends from different parts of the country, had drunk somewhat freely, and when he left Brampton (about 8 o’clock in the evening) was apparently the worse for liquor. He was on horseback, and proceeded homewards by way of Cambeck-bridge and Walton. At the inn at Cambeck-bridge he had stopped and had more drink about 11 o’clock at night, stopping about a quarter of an hour in company with two friends. All three left the public-house together, and Mr. ARMSTRONG soon cantered forward, leaving his friends behind, and was not again seen alive. We now remove the scene to the parsonage-house at Walton, about a mile from the public-house at Cambeck-bridge. At Walton, a little beyond the parish church, the road diverges in three different directions, leading on the extreme left to Walton-mill, in the centre to Bewcastle (the homeward road of the deceased), and on the right to the parsonage-house, occupied by the Rev. Joseph SMITH (the incumbent) and his family. The distance between the Bewcastle-road and the parsonage-road is about 40 yards. It was now about half-past 11 o’clock, and a fine moonlight night. From the main road to a gate leading to the shrubbery at the entrance of the parsonage grounds is a distance of 86 yards, and from this gate to the front door of the parsonage is 45 yards. Mr. SMITH had not gone to bed, but all the rest of the family had retired. About half-past 11 o’clock he heard a knocking at the study window; this was soon after repeated. Mr. SMITH proceeded to the study, did something to the window-shutter for the purpose of making a noise, and then armed himself with a six-barrelled revolving pistol, which he kept loaded in a drawer in the study, and proceeded to the front door, making a great noise in opening it. He then stepped outside, fired the pistol three or four times, and went back into the house, closing the door after him. Nothing more was seen or heard till about 7 o’clock in the morning, when the body of Mr. ARMSTRONG was discovered just inside the gate, quite dead. On the outside of the gate there were marks to show that a horse had been fastened up there, and that it had stood a considerable time there; shortly afterwards Mr. ARMSTRONG’s pony was found at Walton Rigg, about a mile from Walton, on its way home. The remainder of the facts we take as we gather from the evidence adduced at the inquest, which was held at the village inn, at 3 o’clock, before Mr. William CARRICK, coroner. The first witness was Thomas RICHARDSON, of Solmain, who merely stated that he had met with the deceased on his way home; that they went together in company with Mr. ELLIOT to a public-house kept by James HETHERINGTON, at Cambeck-bridge-end, where they remained a quarter of an hour; that they all left together, but the deceased cantered forward, leaving ELLIOT and him behind. The deceased was rather tipsy at the time. The next witness was Ann GLENDINNING, who stated in substance that she was the servant of Mr. SMITH; that she went to bed a little before 11 o’clock, leaving Mr. and Mrs. SMITH sitting up in the dining-room on the south side of the house, the front door being on the north. She had known the deceased about 20 years, having lived as servant with his father, and afterwards with himself, about nine years ago. She saw deceased in Walton about a fortnight ago, when he walked up the village with her to the end of the lane leading to Mr. SMITH’s house. Witness slept in an upstairs room, and was awoke out of her sleep by a noise, like two sharp knocks, and heard a door shut immediately after with a noise. She did not remember if the door was bolted. She heard nothing more till after 7 o’clock in the morning, when she was told a man had been found lying at the gate. She went and saw the deceased lying across the road. The Rev. Joseph SMITH was next sworn and examined. He said he was the perpetual curate of Walton. His youngest child had become restless in the evening, between 9 and 10 o’clock, and deranged the usual time of family prayers, and had also thus prevented him and his wife from retiring at their usual hour. Near 12 o’clock Mrs. SMITH had gone to bed with the child, and he was left alone sitting up, in the south-east room (the opposite corner to that where the noise was afterwards heard). He was in the act of removing some clothes from before the fire when he heard a knocking. At first he thought it was Mrs. SMITH knocking on the floor above with a chair. A repetition of the noise satisfied him that that was not the case. He then went into the passage, and the knocking was repeated still more loudly and rapidly. It appeared to come from the study window, and he went into the study, and was then satisfied that the knocking was at that window. This put him into a state of great agitation, his nerves being weak at all times. He saw the bar of the window was not fastened, and felt afraid that the window might be driven in. In a spirit of self-defence he went forward to put the bar down, making a great noise, in the hope of intimidating any persons who might be outside, thinking it might be some vagrants, such as sailors, who had often spoken to him through the zinc blind of the window in the way of dictation. He then unlocked a drawer in which was a revolving pistol, took it out, and taking a small lantern, went forward to the front door. (We now quote the witness’s own words.) “I went forward, alone as I was, drew a bolt loudly of the front door, shot back the lock loudly, drew back a sliding guard-chain, and opened the door. I may mention this as a proof of how utterly void I was of self-possession, as I thus exposed the house and myself by opening the door, which may be illustrated by the moth rushing into the candle. I was speechless, and could not say anything. From the noise I had made at the window and door the person had withdrawn from the vicinity of the window. My sight is so defective that I often bid ‘good day’ to a stranger, thinking him to be a parishioner. At this time the moon was in the south, casting a dark shadow on the north-west angle. These circumstances, with the shade of the shrubbery and the glare of the lantern, combined (as we understood the rev. gentleman to have said) to prevent my seeing any one. I at once discharged the pistol two or three times without aiming at any object, more in the hope of creating alarm than anything else. I am not accustomed to firearms, and have always had a dislike to fishing and shooting. The reason I provided myself with the pistol was painful anxiety of mind, occasioned by the Frimley murder and other cases of that kind which have been reported; and, not being possessed with bodily strength, and being alone in the house with women and children – the house being accessible on all sides without passing through the village – I felt it my duty to have some firearms to use in case of danger. I had one before (a pistol) similar to the one I used. [We understand the rev. gentleman here explained, that not being able after several trials to hit anything with that pistol, he had exchanged it for the one now in his possession.] I fired recklessly out at the door, and then went in and shut the door loudly. There were only three or four barrels loaded. After remaining in the house a short time I recovered consciousness so as to see the rash exposure I had made of myself and my family, and also of wounding any person out of doors. At this moment it struck me I should go out again, at all hazards, to see if there was any one there, or any trace of any one having sustained any injury. I held the lantern in my hand, and looked all around to see if I could see any one having sustained any injury, but saw nothing.” At this stage of the proceedings it was suggested that an adjournment should take place in order to give time for a post mortem examination, and it being now 6 o’clock this was agreed upon, and Tuesday next, at 10 o’clock, was fixed upon for the jury to assemble again. The body was laid out in an adjoining room – a most awful instance of the uncertainty of human life. Here was the body of an athletic man, but a few hours before in the full vigour of health and strength, laid low and powerless in a moment by a hand the least likely to deal so deadly a blow. When we entered the room the surgeons (Dr. John GRAHAM, of Brampton, and Mr. MURRAY, the family surgeon of the deceased) had just concluded their examination of the body. There were two bullet wounds; the first and fatal one had entered the right breast, about four inches below the nipple, had passed through the liver, entered the posterior wall of the stomach, passed thence by the lower cavity of the chest on the left side, without wounding the lung, and finally lodged close to the skin between the tenth and eleventh ribs. Here considerable swelling was exhibited on the outside, and a bruised and blackened appearance was presented. The second ball had entered at the back part of the right shoulder, coursed along beneath the shoulder joint, and made its exit in front of the shoulder, and was found, on the body being stripped, lying under the right armpit. The bullets, which were about the size of a small bean, had passed through a top coat, a dress-coat, a thick waist-coat, a linen shirt, and two flannel shirts. The Coroner gave directions for the interment of the body, and it was removed last night to the house of his now bereaved widow and fatherless children – a home which he had left but a few hours before in health and in high spirits. The Times, Friday 25 April 1851 (page 8, col. A-C) THE FATAL MISTAKE IN CUMBERLAND The adjourned inquest upon the body of the unfortunate victim in the recent fatal mistake at Walton, near Brampton, was resumed on Tuesday morning, before Mr. CARRICK, the coroner, and the same jury, at the village inn. The excitement created by this sad event is intense; indeed, no event has happened of late years in the east of Cumberland which has created equal sensation, the position of the parties more immediately concerned in it, and the circumstances under which it occurred, both combining to invest the affair with the deepest and most startling interest. As there have been misstatements connected with the affair, it may be as well briefly to state the particulars as ascertained by the most diligent inquiry and investigation. The deceased, who was 38 years of age, and who has left a widow and two children, was more generally known by the name of his paternal estate, “Sorbietrees,” than by his name of ARMSTRONG, and was the lineal descendant and representative of the “Sorbietrees” spoken of by Sir Walter SCOTT in Guy Mannering. It appears that the deceased visited Brampton on Wednesday, the 16th inst., it being the market day, to arrange as to the conveyance of some property which he had shortly before purchased. Having transacted his business, and mixed much in the society of his numerous friends, he left the town about 9 o’clock at night, in company with Mr. William ELLIOT, of Baileyhead, who lives near the deceased; but they had not ridden far together when the deceased, who was slightly intoxicated, cantered off and left his companion behind. Mr. ELLIOT overtook him, however, at a road side inn at Cambeck-bridge, about two miles out of Brampton, on the Longtown-road, where they remained for an hour, and left about 11 o’clock in company with another farmer, Mr. Thomas RICHARDSON of Solmain; but no sooner had they turned into a cross road, leading to Walton, than the deceased again started rapidly forward, leaving the other two in the rear. Walton is about a mile from the Cambeck-bridge inn, and supposing that, after quitting his two friends, deceased had galloped the whole distance, he could not have arrived at the village more than 10 minutes before them. When they reached Walton they neither saw nor heard anything of him, and, presuming that he had passed through, they proceeded on their way homewards, and never again saw their friend alive. The direct evidence as to the movements of the deceased ends at this point; and on the following morning (Thursday), at half-past 7 o’clock, he was found by a little girl lying dead inside the entrance gate to the house of the Rev. Joseph SMITH, incumbent of Walton. From the circumstances hereafter detailed there can be no doubt that the deceased, in passing through Walton, turned off the main road to another one branching from it at a slight angle which leads to Mr. SMITH’s residence; and that he pursued this road until he reached the entrance gate, to which he fastened his horse, and then entered through the garden to the house of the rev. gentleman. According to the voluntary statement of Mr. SMITH, which will be found with our report of the evidence, he (Mr. SMITH) being greatly alarmed by a knocking at his study window, and having been put into a state of the most painful anxiety and apprehension by the Frimley murder case, opened his house door, discharged a revolver pistol three or four times, without, as he states, aiming at or even seeing any one, and precipitately shut the door again, fearing that some party might rush in and overpower him. Mr. SMITH’s random shots must have taken effect; for the unfortunate ARMSTRONG, it would seem, was only able to stagger to the gate – a distance of 40 yards, where he sank to the ground. The pony had somehow unfixed itself from the gate – where it must have stood for several hours, as the quantity of horse dung showed – and was found grazing the following morning at some little distance. The body on being found was carried to the village inn, where an inquest was held upon it on Thursday afternoon, before Mr. William CARRICK, coroner. The jury having been sworn, proceeded to view the body of the deceased and the place where it was found, and were then addressed by the coroner on the importance of the investigation on which they were about to enter, and urging the necessity of giving their dispassionate attention to the evidence. Thomas RICHARDSON, of Solmain, the first witness examined, said,– I knew the deceased, who was a large farmer and landed proprietor. I was in his company on Wednesday evening the 16th inst., having met with him on my way from Brampton, on the Longtown-road. He rode on before and stopped at the Cambeck-bridge inn, where I overtook him, and where we remained some time. We left the house together. William ELLIOT was with him. Deceased rode on and left ELLIOT and myself behind, and I never saw him again. The place where he left us is distant about one mile from the place where his body was found. Deceased was rather tipsy. Ann GLENDINNING said – I am a servant with the Rev. Joseph SMITH. I knew the deceased, and have known him for 20 years. I lived as servant with his father at Sorbietrees for six months, after whose death I lived for the same time with deceased. That is nine years ago. I never had a child by him or any improper intimacy with him. I never saw deceased for some years till Wednesday, the 9th inst., when I met with him in the village and walked with him some little distance. That was the last time I saw him alive. I went to bed on the night of Wednesday, the 16th inst., about five minutes before 11 o’clock. I left Mr. and Mrs. SMITH sitting up in the dining-room. Mr. SMITH’s study adjoins the passage leading to the outer door. No others were left up. There is a carriage-way leading from the main road to the front door. I knew nothing about the deceased being at my master’s last night. I was awoke out of my sleep about half-past 11 o’clock by a noise like a sharp knock or the fall of some heavy substance. I heard two such noises, one rapidly succeeding the other. Immediately after these noises I heard the front door closed with violence. I did not hear the door opened. I did not leave my room, and heard nothing more until 20 minutes past 7 o’clock this morning, when I heard from a little girl named Mary Ann GRAHAM about the dead body. I did not hear any noise about the premises till I heard the noises before described. In consequence of what Mary Ann GRAHAM said I went to the gate and found the deceased, who was lying on his back, his head towards the shrubbery. His clothes were all upon him except his hat. I did not see the pony, but saw a quantity of horse dung outside the gate. I saw no blood about the place. Joseph FOSTER and others removed the corpse. Mary Ann GRAHAM. – I am 12 years old, and am the daughter of Abraham GRAHAM. I take milk to Mr. SMITH’s. I went this morning as usual with milk. When I got up to the gate I saw a man lying on his back inside the gate, his hat beside his head and a stick lying beside him. I sought Mary Ann NIXON, and I came back with her, and we went up to Mr. SMITH’s and brought the servant down to the body, and Joseph FOSTER came up at the same time. William ELLIO. – I live at Baileyhead. I was at Brampton yesterday with deceased about the conveyance of some property. I left the Bush Inn with the deceased to return home with him, but he rode away and left me. I overtook him at the Cambeck-bridge Inn, where we stayed an hour, and after leaving the inn, on turning the corner into the road leading to Walton, the deceased again rode forward, and I never saw him again. I followed with Thomas RICHARDSON. We passed through Walton about half-past 11 o’clock. I heard no report of firearms. It was a beautiful clear moonlight night, and objects were distinctly visible. Deceased was rather tipsy, but he was able to walk and ride with steadiness. He intended going to Sorbietrees, and he did not say that he was going to call at any place. The Rev. Joseph SMITH was at this stage of the proceedings asked if he had any statement to make. He was informed by the coroner that it must be quite voluntary, when with some agitation he spoke as follows: – I feel very unequal to give any account of the melancholy proceedings of last night, but every one in this room must sympathise with me in my most unfortunate position, and I shall endeavour to place the facts before you as they occurred. My youngest child became restless in sleep last night between 9 and 10 o’clock, screaming with much violence. The steps taken to quiet it interfered with our family arrangements – the time for family devotions and for retiring to rest was disarranged, and after a good deal of delay in this way the night had advanced to 12 o’clock. I was then left alone. Mrs. SMITH having gone to bed, I then took my usual round, being in the habit of seeing that all the windows and shutters were properly fixed. I usually examined the study last. I was removing some shirts which were in front of the fire in the south-east room, being about to leave that room, when I was very much alarmed by a great knocking. I stood for some time fancying what it could be, whether it might not be Mrs. SMITH shaking the chair in the room above. I heard it repeated, when it did not appear to be overhead. I then went into the passage and heard the noise repeated more loudly and rapidly, when I became convinced it came from the study window. I then became exceedingly agitated – my nerves at all times unfitting me to bear the least fright – and went into the study, when I saw that the bar of the window was not fixed, and could not prevent the window being driven in. I went forward partly in the spirit of self-defence, but more under the influence of fear, and with the view of showing some timid bravado I made a noise with the iron bar to intimidate any person that might be outside. I was then under an impression that it was some vagrants who had previously molested me; but, however, without waiting for any further noise, I took a revolving pistol out of a drawer, and snatched up a little lantern, and I then became so utterly unnerved and agitated, so devoid of all possession and judgement, that I went forward, alone as I was, drew the bolt of the front door, shot back the lock loudly, and drew back a sliding guard chain, making the greatest noise, and opened the door, when I at once discharged the pistol two or three times without aiming at any object, and more in the hope of alarming than killing. This is a proof how utterly wanting I was in self-possession to forget myself so far as to expose the house and myself by opening the door, and like the moth rush, as it were, to my own destruction. My utterance was choked – I was speechless. My sight is defective; so much so that I address strangers thinking them to be my own parishioners. I may mention that the moon was on the southern side, and cast a shade on the north-west side of the house. These circumstances combined to make it impossible for me to distinguish any object. I am not accustomed to firearms. I have never been an angler or a sportsman, and always dislike to inflict torture. The reason why I provided myself with a pistol was the painful anxiety of mind occasioned by the Frimley murder; and not being possessed of any bodily weight or strength of my own to cope with any violence, and living in a house with women and children, and which is accessible at all sides without passing through the village, and I felt it to be my duty to have firearms to make an alarm in case of danger. (The pistol was here produced, being a six barrelled revolver.) I had another nearly similar, but on trying it in a field to amuse my children, I found that I could not hit any object with it, however near, and I exchanged it for this. After firing the pistol I came in and shut the door sharply, fearing a rush of parties, and having no more charges to defend myself, there having been only three or four bullets in it, all of which I had discharged. I secured the door, and after remaining in the house in a state of great agitation for some time, I so far recovered my consciousness as to see the rash exposure I had made of myself and of my family, also the possibility of having hurt some one out of doors. At that moment the thought struck me that it was my duty to go out again, at all hazards, to see if I could trace any injury inflicted. I had the lantern in my hand, and in fear and trembling I went out and looked all round, but I saw nothing, and I returned to my house with a mind much relieved and a spirit made thankful that nothing had happened. I was under the impression that the parties had been frightened away and that no injury had been sustained. This impression was strengthened by the consciousness that nothing was remoter from my intentions than to injure any one. The court here adjourned till Tuesday. The coroner resumed the inquiry in the same room on Tuesday morning at 10 o’clock. By this time the news of the melancholy event had spread far and wide, and a great number of persons thronged the village in the hope of gaining access to the scene of so much melancholy interest. The room was consequently crowded to an inconvenient degree – even to the very ceiling. There was breathless silence while the several witnesses gave their testimony. Previous to opening the inquiry the Coroner and jury went up to view the fatal spot. Of course all traces of the sad event were obliterated, and there was nothing but the unusual multitude of persons, sad and dejected, to indicate this awful recent occurrence of the uncertainty of human life. Several magistrates and other gentlemen from the neighbourhood more or less interested in the inquiry were present. John GRAHAM, M.D., Brampton. – I made a post mortem examination of this body on Thursday, the 17th of April, in the afternoon, assisted by Mr. MURRAY, of Newcastleton, Mr. JOHNSON, of Brampton, and Mr. PATTERSON, of Stapleton. I have drawn out a report, which I will read: – “Appearances found on examining the body of William Elliot ARMSTRONG, at Walton, April 17: – “The body was rigid, and exhibited no signs of putrefaction. The only marks of violence observable externally were three wounds on the trunk of the body, which appeared to have been produced by two pistol bullets; and more particular examination proved such to have been the case. One of these was a small circular penetrating wound, from which blood had flowed, near the edge of the right shoulder-blade, and which corresponded to a hole in the dress covering this part. The ball had entered by the opening, passed in an upward direction through the soft parts in the arm-pit, and made its exit by a smaller opening in front of the shoulder joint. The part of the dress which corresponded to this latter opening was not perforated, being only stained with blood. A leaden bullet, by which the wound had doubtless been inflicted, was found in the arm-pit by the officer who undressed the body. About 4 inches below, and in line with the right nipple, there was a bloody spot, the size of a sixpence, in the centre of which was a small penetrating wound, produced also by a pistol bullet. The portion of dress corresponding to it had been pierced by the ball, the course of which will now be traced: – After penetrating the integuments it passed beneath the lower edge of the cartilage of the ninth rib, carrying with it a portion of the dress. It had then entered the upper surface of the right lobe of the liver, causing a large irregular fissured opening readily admitting the finger, passed through this organ, and made its way out of it in the under surface of the left lobe, close to the longitudinal fissure. It had next penetrated the posterior wall of the stomach, passed along the interior of this organ for about an inch and a-half, tearing the mucous membrane in its course, and then made its exit through the same wall by which it had entered. Proceeding onwards the ball had pierced the diaphragm at the point where this structure is connected with the walls of the chest, entered the cavity of the chest without wounding the lung, passed through the walls of the chest between the 10th and 11th ribs, and finally lodged beneath the skin on the left side of the chest, nearly equidistant between the spine and sternum (breast bone), where it was found surrounded by considerable swelling and ecchymosis of the neighbouring parts. The ball had thus passed through the body obliquely from before backwards, and nearly in a horizontal direction. In the abdomen, more particularly on the left side, there was a large quantity of dark liquid blood, very sparingly mixed with loose coagula (clots), which had most probably proceeded from the hole in the liver. The stomach contained about half a teacupful of dark coloured viscid liquid. Owing to a valvular arrangement of the mucuous membrane the stomach, though pierced by the ball in two places, had not allowed its contents to escape. The other organs of the abdomen and chest, so far as examined, appeared healthy. The head was not interfered with. I have no doubt that death was occasioned by the ball which passed through the abdomen, the wound inflicted by the other not being necessarily fatal. “JOHN GRAHAM, M.D.” Dr. GRAHAM. – There were three separate wounds; one bullet produced two wounds, the other bullet one wound and a contusion, which is not a wound according to the statute. Three were penetrating wounds, and there was a large contused appearance on the left side of the chest. Three appeared to have been produced by pistol bullets, the fourth was a mark of violence on the left side of the chest, and of a dark livid colour, in the centre of which was found a small leaden bullet in a cutting through the skin. That was the fatal shot. Joseph FORSTER. – I live in Walton, and I am a farmer. I first received notice of this man’s death on Thursday morning, near hand 8 o’clock. I was in the blacksmith’s shop at the time. Margaret GRAHAM was at the door, and she said there was a man found dead at Mr. SMITH’s. I went straight up to Mr. SMITH’s gate, leading into the yard. I found the body of William ARMSTRONG there. He was lying upon his back inside the gate, his head pointing to the north and his feet southwards; he was lying alongside the gate. There were two or three persons standing about the body at that time. William TAYLOR was one, and I can’t say who the others were. The body did not appear to have been disturbed. We were busy inquiring what could be the cause of death. Some thought he might have died in a fit, others that it might have been possible he had galloped up to the gate and been thrown over it. We stayed some time by the side of the gate. Then I said we should have the body removed, and William TAYLOR said that they were waiting for Mr. SMITH; he was dressing himself. A message had been sent to him. Mr. SMITH was not long in coming. After Mr. SMITH came some one said we might search his pockets to see if there was anything to lead to the discovery who he was. I knelt down, and took some letters out of his pocket, and handed them to Mr. SMITH. Mr. SMITH had not spoken at that time, that I know of. He found they were directed to Mr. ARMSTRONG, of Sorbie Trees. He read the address. I don’t remember Mr. SMITH making any remark then. They lifted his hat, and found the same name there; they called out that it was Mr. ARMSTRONG of Sorbie Trees. Mr. SMITH then discovered a hole in his coat upon stooping down to examine him. I was kneeling at the time, and whether it was my turning the body that showed the hole in his breast I don’t know, but he noticed that first. It was on the right, inside of his upper coat breast. He was the first to discover that hole. He says then, “I’ve been the death of him.” Then I lifted the under coat, and he repeated the same expression. The under coat was holed in the same way. I next opened the waistcoat, and we saw the stains of blood upon his shirt. William TAYLOR calls out, “The man’s shot himself.” I said, “No, Mr. SMITH shot the man.” Some one repeated it again, “The man’s shot himself;” and I made the same answer, “No, Mr. SMITH has shot the man.” Mr. SMITH looked at this blood and exclaimed, “I’ve been the death of the poor man.” We were all silent for a short time, we were so put about. At last I said we might have the body removed. Mrs. PARK said we were welcome to bring him to her house. Mr. SMITH said he thought we had better take him into his house. We lifted the body and were taking it away to Mr. SMITH’s, and word came that we were not to take it there, so we brought it down to Mrs. PARK’s. I saw a wound upon the right side at that time, but not the wound upon the shoulder. William TAYLOR, Walter PHILIP, Henry PEARS, and Robert MOUNSEY brought the body down. We left Mr. SMITH at the gate. There was no further particular examination made of the body when we brought him there. William TAYLOR was next examined, who said, – I am a shoemaker, and live in Walton. I first heard of Mr. ARMSTRONG’s death on Thursday morning about 8 o’clock. I went to the spot immediately. I found no one there except the dead body. The body was lying in the position already described by Joseph FORSTER. I opened the gate and went through, Robert MOUNSEY and Henry PEARS following after me. On going through the gate, and on seeing the body, my first impression was that he was not dead, but on touching the hand of the deceased I found that he was dead. Ann GLENDINNING and Sarah BLACKLOCK came from Mr. SMITH’s house. The next person that came was Mr. SMITH, who was in his ordinary dress, and shaved. We opened the breast of the deceased, and took from it some letters, which showed us who the man was. We searched the body to discover the cause of death. We thought that the deceased might have fallen down in a fit, or been thrown over the gate. Mr. SMITH was in conversation with Joseph FORSTER at this moment, and I heard Joseph FORSTER say, “No, Mr. SMITH has shot the man.” Mr. SMITH proposed that the corpse be removed into his house; but when we were about to do so a girl from the parsonage brought a message that we were not to take the body there. I did not hear Mr. SMITH make any declaration that he had caused the death of the man. Ann GLENDINNING came to the place after. I did not hear any shots fired, but my wife heard the report of three pistols. I think that Mr. SMITH had himself discovered the bullet mark on the coat. It was not discovered till the coat was laid back, when it was quite apparent. I cannot say as to Mr. SMITH being put out of the way. Jane TAYLOR. – I am the wife of W. TAYLOR, previously examined. I remember about a quarter to 12 o’clock on last Wednesday evening hearing the report of some firearms. I heard three reports – all following each other very quickly. I was sitting at the time by the fireside with my daughter, who is 16 years of age. Upon hearing the reports I ran to the back door. I cannot say that I heard anything there. I then went into my husband’s shop, which is close by, when I thought I heard a voice coming from the public road. I had no idea that it proceeded from Mr. SMITH’s. I thought I heard a person’s voice speaking to another at a distance. I cannot tell the words. The voice did not at all resemble Mr. SMITH’s. I only heard the voice of one person, and cannot say whether it had a Scotch accent. The voice ceased, and I heard no more. I heard no bustle or disturbance. It was a fine moonlight night. Objects were distinctly visible at 100 or 200 yards distance. Our house is nearly opposite to Mr. SMITH’s gate. We keep a dog, which barked furiously. Sarah BLACKLOCK, nurse at Mr. SMITH’s of a son of Mr. SAUNDERS, and living in Mr. SMITH’s house. – I remember last Wednesday night. I went up to bed at 20 minutes past 10. I sleep on the north side above the kitchen, in the north-east corner of the house. The staircase is between my room and the room above the study. I left Mr. and Mrs. SMITH and Ann GLENDINNING down stairs. Mr. and Mrs. SMITH were in the dining-room. I went to bed immediately. I heard Ann GLENDINNING come to bed and Mrs. SMITH. It was a few minutes to 11 when GLENDINNING came. Mrs. SMITH followed shortly after. I heard a knocking at 11 o’clock, which I thought was Mr. SMITH. Mrs. SMITH was down stairs then. I did not know what the knocking was. I thought it was in the dining-room, not outside. It was like cracking Spanish liquorice with a knife. It was repeated a few times continuously, rather slowly. It lasted about two minutes; all in the same place, as far as I could tell. The baby cried and Mrs. SMITH came up stairs to it. I did not hear Mr. SMITH till I heard him about half-past 11, or 20 minutes to 12, when I heard him walking on the hall floor. I heard him unbolt the door and open it. I cannot say whether he went direct to the door or not, as there is a carpet on the part between the study door and the dining-room door. Mr. SMITH would then be going between the study room and the outer door. I heard him walk along the passage, unbolt the door, and open it. I cannot say in what order the bolts were unfastened, but it was done as quickly as he could, and loudly. I had not then been asleep. I had been prevented from sleeping by the tic doloreux. I heard no noise at the study window before the front door was opened. I heard nothing, but it was very windy. The house what quite quiet except the noises I have described; at least I heard no other noise. Coroner. – Are you able to say that you could hear any knocking at the study window if there had been any? Witness. – If the night had been calm I might, but I cannot say as it was. As quickly as possible after the opening of the door I heard the reports of three pistols in succession. It was instantaneously on opening the door. The three reports were all immediately one after the other. Immediately after the shots were fired the door was shut violently, as if done in a hurry. The opening of the door, the firing of the three shots, and the shutting of the door again, were one continuous act. After the door closed I think it was bolted. I then heard Mr. SMITH come upstairs and go into Mrs. SMITH’s room. I heard him speak to Mrs. SMITH, but did not hear what passed. A few words passed between them. I could not hear whether Mr. SMITH was speaking in a state of excitement or not. I heard Mr. SMITH come down stairs about 5 minutes afterwards. I did not hear what he did. I went to sleep and heard no more. Master SAUNDERS (who slept in a bed in the same room with me) was not awake. I have no doubt he was fast asleep. Next morning the first intimation I had of the accident was this:– Master SAUNDERS had been dressed and had gone down stairs; he came back into my room about 20 minutes to 8, and told me that a man was found dead in the garden. I went out and met Mr. SMITH on the stairhead. I asked if it was true that a man was found in the garden, and he said “Yes.” He said something more, but I do not remember what it was; he was speaking to Mrs. SMITH at the time. I don’t recollect the purport of it. I also asked, “Did you hear a disturbance last night when you fired the pistol?” He replied, “Yes, there was a knocking.” That was exactly what he said – he might have added “at the window,” but I cannot say. I then went down stairs. I heard no conversation about it between Mrs. SMITH and him. He did not say at which window the knocking was. Mr. SMITH was not dressed at the time. He had only his trousers and flannel waistcoat on. He was on the stairhead. He always comes into the study to dress. He had been to see the man before I spoke to him. He was half shaved when I saw him, and when I came down stairs he went into his bedroom. I went to the front door and looked at the body lying at the gate. I stood there till the girl who found him (Mary NIXON) and Ann GLENDINING went with me to the body. There I remained till Mr. SMITH came. He was dressed. I did not notice whether he was shaved or not. I heard Mr. SMITH say he had fired a pistol during the night. That was while we standing over the body. I don’t remember the exact words, but they were to the effect I have described. I do not remember hearing him say more. He never attempted to conceal that he had fired. Coroner. – Did any one sleep over the study? Witness. – Ann GLENDINNING. I did not hear her moving in her room. The dining-room is at the south-east corner. Mr. SMITH’s bedroom is above the dining-room. Mary NIXON, widow. – I live in Walton. I was told of this misfortune by the little girl, Mary Ann GRAHAM. She durst not go. I went with her, and found the body inside the gate. I did not interfere with it. I thought it was dead. I went up to Mr. SMITH’s with the little girl. I saw Ann GLENDINNING. I handed her the milk, and told her there was a body lying inside the gate, and she was to go and tell Mr. SMITH. She went away and told him. I was at the door, and Mr. SMITH came out. He was in the study when she told him. He was not dressed then. He seemed very much hurt when I told him. He had his flannel shirt, his trousers, and shoes on. I don’t know whether he was partly shaved at that time or not. He seemed very much hurt. I said there was a body lying at the gate. He made no answer but seemed very much hurt, and went away to the place where the body was. Ann, Mary Ann, and I followed all together to the gate. I asked Mr. SMITH if he thought the man was dead? He said, “Sure enough, he is dead.” Then he said, “What shall we do?” I replied, “There must be somebody fetched.” I went for Mr. TAYLOR. Henry PEARS and Robert MOUNSEY were in the shop. Nothing more was said by Mr. SMITH. He said nothing about firing a pistol at that time. I have stated all he said. I went for Watty PHILLIPS, and then returned to the place. The men had got there before me, and Mr. SMITH had dressed himself, and come back also. They had got his coat off. Mr. TAYLOR, I believe, opened it. They were looking for something. Some letters were taken out of his pocket and mentioned his name. I knew it was Ann’s old master and I ran to tell her. She came back with me. She said nothing. I heard Mr. SMITH say that it had been the means of causing his death, “poor man,” but I did not know what it was. Now, then, I’ve got no more to say. I did not hear anybody say anything about any noise the night before, or about the pistol shot. I left when the body was lifted. I did not hear the pistol fired. I know nothing more about it. Ann GLENDINNING, who was examined on Thursday, the 17th, was again examined, and said, – I do not know who told Mr. SMITH first about the dead body, but I think that I did. I went into the study, where I found Mr. SMITH dressing, and I told him that there was a person lying inside the gate, and that it was thought he was dead. He came running out and we all ran away. Mr. SMITH looked at the body and said nothing. Joseph FORSTER and others were there. I don’t remember any remark made by Mr. SMITH, and he ran back, being only partially clothed. I said I knew the deceased, but could not name him. I went home. Mrs. SMITH was up. I was not at the spot when Mr. SMITH returned to it. I don’t know who told Mrs. SMITH; it might be the children. Master SAUNDERS, who boards at the parsonage, was up at that time. Mary NIXON came running for me, and asked me if I knew the name, and I said I did. I knew him when I went again forward; for I looked right at him. Mr. SMITH was then there, and he was the first to look at the place in the waistcoat through which the bullets had passed; and he said that he was the man who had done the deed. These were his words; he said, “I have shot him.” He said this as they were standing over the body. He said that the body might be removed. I asked them to take it to his own house, but Mrs. SMITH objected, thinking it would be a great disturbance in the house. Mrs. PARK, the innkeeper, said they were welcome to take his body down to her house. On the body being removed, Mr. SMITH went into his own house, and I afterwards met him going through the village on his way to Mr. JOHNSTON’s, the nearest magistrate. I did not hear Mr. SMITH say anything more, further than he said it was a bad job. The witness was describing in a very incoherent manner what she knew of what occurred during the night, when she was admonished by the coroner to be careful of what she said, and to confine her attention to what she heard Mr. SMITH say. She went on. – Mr. SMITH said in my presence that he was either in the passage or in the study, and he heard a noise, when he went into the study and found the window unlatched. He was convinced that the noise proceeded from outside the window, and he thought that some person would have then spoken had any one wanted him. It rattled more, and he then went to the drawer, took out his pistol, opened the door, and discharged the pistol; but he did not say that he saw any person. He did not say anything more about it. The Coroner (at the suggestion of Mr. BELL) . – I cannot say when I heard Mr. SMITH make this statement, but I am sure it was after the last meeting. [The witness here fainted away, but on a current of fresh air being introduced into the room she ultimately recovered.] In the interval, John FOSTER was examined, and said, – I am the parish constable. I live on the road side near the inn. I remember hearing the sound of horses passing my house on Wednesday night, but cannot say at what hour. I saw Mr. SMITH next morning after the removal of the body to the inn. I asked him why he had fired without speaking to the man, and I made the observation that I would have suffered much before I fired, when he replied that he thought they were going to break into the house, and said, “You see it was by accident, I was so unnerved.” At the time he said this he was changing colour and showing much agitation. He said, “I think we must tell Mr. JOHNSTONE,” but I said, “No, we must tell the coroner first,” and I went directly away for you (addressing the coroner), and have not since spoken to Mr. SMITH. The examination of Ann GLENDINNING was here resumed, but she could not depose with certainty or coherency to the time when certain remarks were made by Mr. SMITH. She said that Mr. SMITH said he was frightened, having the young gentleman in the house under his charge, and none to protect him but himself, and he shot through fear. I slept in the room above the study. I went to bed about 11 o’clock. The witness here recapitulated a great portion of the evidence given by her on Thursday the 17th inst. This concluded the evidence, and The Coroner having addressed the jury they retired, and after an hour’s absence returned and said, – We find Mr. SMITH “Guilty of Manslaughter.” The Coroner said, he had a great deal to prepare before he could conclude the proceedings, therefore he suggested the adjournment of the Court to Thursday morning at 10 o’clock, when he would read over the depositions and take the recognizances. The jury were then bound over in their own recognizances of 10L. each to prosecute the inquiry until it was finally completed. At this moment the Rev. Mr. BENSON, the vicar of Brampton, entered the room in great haste, and evidently in a state of painful excitement, and exclaimed, “He’s quite gone! quite gone! The poor man (alluding to Mr. SMITH) he is quite gone out of his mind.” This caused great sensation and sympathy among those who remained, and a deep and sorrowful expression overspread the countenances of all on hearing the painful intimation. It appeared that Mr. SMITH had been told the result of the inquiry, which so overwhelmed him that he cried and sobbed like a child, subsequently sinking into a state of imbecility of mind, in which sad condition he still remained some hours after when we withdrew from the painful scene of this remarkable and awful visitation. The magistrates in attendance, with some of Mr. SMITH’s friends and his professional adviser, went up to the unfortunate gentleman’s residence, but they found that, owing to his dreadful state of mind, it was impossible to take the usual steps consequent upon such a verdict of the coroner’s jury. After we left the village we understand that Mr. SMITH continued in such an excited and deranged state of mind, that the magistrates (who had waited nearly the whole day for the purpose) were obliged to leave without having the question of bail settled, either as to the sureties or as to the amount, Dr. GRAHAM having certified that the rev. gentleman was in such a state of mind that it would be most dangerous to communicate anything to him of an exciting nature. An application is to be made to a judge to admit Mr. SMITH to bail without his having to appear before the magistrates, and the coroner has drawn out a certificate of the deranged state of Mr. SMITH’s mind in order that this step may be taken. The Times, 06 May 1851 (page 8, col. E) THE LATE FATAL MISTAKE IN CUMBERLAND. – We have received a letter from a gentleman connected by marriage with the late Mr. ARMSTRONG, of Sorbie Trees, in Cumberland, an account of whose unfortunate death by the hand of the Rev. Joseph SMITH of Walton, and of the evidence at the inquest held on the body, appeared in our columns on the 25th of last month. The writer directs our attention to a part of the evidence before the coroner, reported in the Carlisle Journal of the 25th of April, which he says did not appear in our report, and which goes in his opinion to vindicate the character of the deceased from any inferences injurious to it as to the motive which induced him on the night of his death to call at the house of the Rev. Mr. SMITH. The only evidence omitted was that part of the evidence of William ELLIOT, of Bailey-head, as follows: – “I live at Bailey-head, in the parish of Bewcastle, and am a yeoman. I came to Brampton with deceased last Wednesday. In coming along he said he met with an acquaintance at the public-house on that day. He said she passed him and gave him a bit of a smile; that she had been his servant once before, and he would like to have her again. She told him she was going to stop with the priest; he did not say whether he intended to call.” The evidence of William ELLIOT, of Blinkbonny, Scotland, labourer. – “I have lived with Mr. ARMSTRONG since he was born, and was in his service at the time of his death. Two or three days before he left home he said he was going to call upon Ann GLENDINNING, as he thought of hiring her. He said he had seen her the week before. We were riding together when he told me. He said he had treated her with a glass.” And the evidence of Agnes SCOTT: – “I am a servant of the late Mr. ARMSTRONG. The last time but one that he was at Brampton he asked me if I knew whom he had seen. I said I did not. He then said it was Ann GLENDINNING. I said where did she live? And he said at the priest’s at Walton. I said that would be a respectable house. He said he was going to call upon her when he again went that road. He did not say what he was going to call for. He told his wife he was going to hire the girl as his third servant this summer. I know this from Mrs. ARMSTRONG.” As this evidence was not considered important to the main facts of the case, it did not appear in our report, nor do we see in what way it can operate to remove “an impression universally created by our report,” leading the public to “infer that Mr. ARMSTRONG called at that late hour at the parsonage for an improper purpose.” We have never heard of such an universal impression as is here mentioned, and we are certain nothing said by us could create it; neither can we admit the assertion in the letter, that “our reporter’s sympathies are all directed towards the perpetrator” of what the writer calls “a most diabolical deed.” The Times, Friday 08 August 1851 (page 7, col. C-D) NORTHERN CIRCUIT. CARLISLE, WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 6. CROWN COURT. – (Before Mr. Baron PLATT.) TRIAL OF THE REV. J. SMITH FOR MANSLAUGHTER. Joseph SMITH was indicted for having at Walton, on the 16th of April last, killed and slain William ARMSTRONG. Mr. TEMPLE and Mr. OTTER conducted the prosecution, and Mr. JAMES and Mr. THOMPSON the defence. The facts of this case are well known from their recent extensive publication. The prisoner who is a clergyman, about 45 years of age, was accompanied into the dock by his wife. They were accommodated with seats, and the prisoner appeared deeply to feel his position. Mr. TEMPLE, in opening the case for the prosecution, said the deceased, William ARMSTRONG, was a farmer, residing at a place called Sambitrees [sic], two miles over the border, was respectably descended, was married, and had two children, and was about 38 years of age, and was in his neighbourhood generally respected. On the 16th of April last, having occasion to go to Brampton-market on business, he dined with some friends there and drank freely. He left to go home between 9 and 10 o’clock with a neighbour named ELLIOTT. It was then very moonlight. They had not proceeded very far when the deceased, who was on horseback, cantered off and was overtaken by ELLIOTT at HETHERINGTON’s public-house, and here they met another neighbour named RICHARDSON. On their way home, and when not far from the lane which led to Walton, the deceased rode quickly off, and was not seen again alive. Next day a little girl named GRAHAM found the body of the deceased lying at the parsonage-gate, where the prisoner lived, and his pony standing near. An alarm being given the villagers assembled, and the prisoner came out of his house and looking at the body said, “Oh, he’s dead,” and then returned into his house. One of the villagers told him he had heard the reports of pistols during the night, the prisoner answered, “Yes, that he had heard a knocking at the door and fired.” He then stooped down and looked a hole made in the coat of the deceased, and said It was he who had shot the man, they came about his house, he thought they were going to break in upon him, and he fired. The question for the jury would be, whether the prisoner had acted under such circumstances, and had taken such reasonable precautions as would justify him in firing his pistol as he had done. If he had not, he would be guilty of manslaughter. Thomas RICHARDSON, farmer, a neighbour of the deceased, was then called and proved leaving HETHERINGTON’s public-house on the 16th of April with the deceased, who was rather tipsy. It was a very moonlight night. When near Walton-lane the deceased cantered off in the direction of Walton, and they did not see him again alive. William ELLIOTT was with the deceased at Brampton, and went with him to HETHERINGTON’s. He corroborated the last witness. Mary Ann GRAHAM, a little girl, 13 years old, who was in the habit of taking milk to the prisoner’s house every morning, proved that in the morning of the 17th of April, on going through his gate, at the entrance to the shrubbery, she saw a man lying on his back inside the gate. His hat and stick were lying by his side. She was afraid to go through, and went back and called a neighbour named NIXON, who went with her to the parsonage. She also saw Ann GLENDINNING, and told her what she had seen, and Mrs. NIXON and Ann GLENDINNING went up to the body, and the prisoner came out and went to them. He was dressed in his flannel shirt, trousers, and slippers. She asked him if he was dead, and he replied – “Sure enough he is dead; what shall we do?” She said there must be someone fetched. The prisoner then went back into his house, and she went for William TAYLOR and Walter PHILLIPS. When they came back the prisoner was dressed. The prisoner then said: “I have been the occasion of the death of this poor man,” and they discovered who the deceased was. Joseph FOSTER stated that he went a little before 8 o’clock to the prisoner’s gates, and saw the prisoner come to the body of the deceased, and heard him make the remark stated by the last witness. A man named TAYLOR said, “The man has shot himself,” and witness said, “No, Mr. SMITH has shot him;” and the prisoner again repeated the expression, “I’ve been the death of the poor man.” The prisoner then stated that some persons came to his house during the night, and made such a noise that he got a pistol. He thought they were going to break in, and he fired out of the door, and had taken away the life of a man; and he would now give up his own to bring the other back. Ann GLENDINNING, a servant to the prisoner in April last, stated that the prisoner was married, and had four children. She slept over the study, and went to bed at 11 o’clock, leaving Mr. and Mrs. SMITH in the dining-room. She was awoke some time after by loud knocks. She then heard the front door bang, and heard some one go upstairs quickly. She then fell asleep. In the morning the little girl GRAHAM told her about the body of a man being in the shrubbery, and she went to it. The witness then corroborated what the other witnesses had stated. On cross-examination she stated that the windows of the study below where she slept made a great rattle when moved. Mr. SMITH had said that he heard this window rattle, and went into the study and, being alarmed, he went and got his pistols and then ran to the door and fired off his pistol and slammed the door to again and then ran upstairs, and that he felt very much terrified, being the only man in the house. Sarah BLACKLOCK, nurse in the prisoner’s family, gave similar evidence. John FOSTER, constable of Walton, on the morning of the 17th asked the prisoner why he had fired at the man without speaking. The prisoner said he had suffered much before he fired; he thought they were going to break into his house and he was so unmanned that he fired, and it was an accident. Cross-examined. – The prisoner had been incumbent 15 years. The living was a very small one. Mr. John GRAHAM, a doctor of medicine, had examined the deceased on the 17th of April. He found a bullet in his body. He had been wounded in the right shoulder, and in the breast, and had died from a gunshot wound. It was then proved that the prisoner had purchased some time before a revolving pistol at Carlisle. This was the case for the prosecution. Mr. JAMES, in an able defence, contended that the prisoner, under a bonâ fide impression that his house was about to be broken in at midnight, was justified in firing his pistol to alarm those whom he believed to be attacking his house; and unfortunately, in so doing, he had accidentally shot the deceased. Mr. Baron PLATT left it to the jury to say whether they believed the prisoner had bonâ fide acted under such circumstances of alarm, and whether, being justified in protecting his house, in firing his pistol he had accidentally shot the deceased. The jury retired, and after an absence of half an hour found the prisoner Not Guilty. The prisoner immediately fell on his knees and raised his hands to Heaven. This act seemed to be respected, and the densely-crowded court was silent. The case was not over until nearly 11 o’clock at night. To-morrow Mr. Baron PLATT proceeds to Appleby. Mr. Justice WILLIAMS will remain at Carlisle to finish some very heavy nisi prius causes, which it is said will occupy the time till the commission-day at Lancaster. The Times, Tuesday 9 September 1851 (page 8, col. F) KILLING NO MATTER. (From the Examiner.) On the morning of Wednesday, the 16th of April, in the present year, William ARMSTRONG, of Sorbie Trees, a substantial farmer on the Scottish border, took leave of his wife and children for the day, and mounted his horse for a ride across the border to Brampton, a town distant about 16 miles. His intention was to complete the purchase of some property in Brampton, and return to Sorbie Trees the same night. It happened to be market day at Brampton, and the farmer on arriving there met several of his friends. Having completed his own business, therefore, Sorbie Trees (so ARMSTRONG was commonly called, after the border custom), a man on the light side of 40, in the prime of life and health, united with his friends around the altar dedicated to better acquaintance by the custom of this country – the dinner table – and poured out with them the usual libations. It was between 9 and 10 o’clock in the evening of a clear moonlight night (the moon was at the full) when Mr. ARMSTRONG and a neighbour of his, Mr. ELLIOT, mounted their horses to ride home together. He of Sorbie Trees was in high spirits, cantering in advance of his companion. Being overtaken at a roadside inn and joined by another friend, the three continued on their way in company, and presently turned down the road to Walton. Now there happened to be at Walton parsonage an old servant of the house at Sorbie Trees, named Anne GLENDINNING, and the farmer, doubtless prompted by a sense of gladness and good fellowship, trotted on into Walton, and turned down towards the parsonage to see his old dependent. Tying his horse outside, he entered the parson’s gate a little before 11 o’clock, at a time when he probably felt it to be about an even chance whether or not the family was gone to bed. Perhaps in the cheerfulness of his humour he half reasoned with himself that, supposing all the family to be in bed, he should be sorry to rouse them by a knock or ring – that if they were still up they would be in the parlour or study, and would come out when he shook the window – if he shook the window and attracted no attention they would doubtless be in bed, and he would mount his horse and canter on without disturbing them. Accordingly the farmer rattled at the window and awaited a result. Now, the incumbent of Walton was the Rev. Joseph SMITH, a small man with the valour of a mouse. He lived in the parsonage with a wife and four children, a pupil, and two or three female servants; and what was he, one bit of a man, among so many weaker vessels. In November last, being exceedingly alarmed by tales of housebreaking about the country, and especially by the fate of Mr. HOLLEST, the rev. gentleman had gone to a gunsmith’s in Carlisle, and exchanged a pair of pistols for a six-barrelled single pistol, with which latter instrument he had, after a fortnight, returned to the gunsmith (complaining, according to a statement made by himself, that he could not “hit anything” with it) and exchanged it again for a new pistol of the same build, but larger – the less the pluck the more need of power. The minister of peace, satisfied at length with his formidable six-barrelled revolver, duly leaded this bit of artillery, and kept it ready in his study in a table-drawer. On the night of the 16th of April, when the children of course were in bed, and one of the maids had gone to bed a few minutes before 11 o’clock with a face ache, and Mrs. SMITH, after chopping liquorice for the children’s colds, had not long departed upstairs with the other servant – the rev. master of the house, remaining still below, was stricken with horror by a noise. Somebody was knocking at the study window. No great force was used, for not even a square of glass was broken; not much noise could have been made, for the nursery maid, lying awake in the room directly above, heard nothing; and to be sure housebreakers are not in the habit of rapping at the window of a house at an hour when families are usually but just gone, going, or not gone at all, to bed. But how could the rev. gentleman think of that, or think of anything but a revolver, when “Frigidus oblitterit circum praecordia sanguis,” – when a housebreaker, a murderer, or somebody at any rate, was tapping at the window? He obeyed the first impulse that arose to him as a timid minister of the gospel – seized the revolver, rushed to the street door, opened it rapidly, and, before any alarm could be communicated to the person standing by the window, fired briskly one, after another, three volleys at him, or in the direction whence the noise had come, and then slammed the door, and rushed up to his wife as an affrighted hare to cover. Farmer ARMSTRONG’s family expected him in vain that night. Next morning the milk girl coming to the parsonage was shocked at finding a dead body at the gate. Mr. SMITH, being summoned, came out in his flannel shirt and trousers, and said, sure enough, the man was dead. He went in and finished dressing. Presently letters in the pocket, aided by Anne GLENDINNING’s memory, identified the victim as Sorbie Trees. “It has been the means of causing his death, poor man!” said Mr. SMITH – “it” meaning, perhaps, a clergyman’s cowardice, perhaps a six-barrelled revolver, perhaps an extra glass of wine. The rev. gentleman acknowledged his deed, and was grieved; but was again mortally terrified as the consequences to himself began to gather round him. He perplexed the course of law by an intense state of pitiful prostration. Let us pass over, however, the coroner’s inquiry, and all attendant facts, and come to the last chapter of this history, as enacted at Carlisle. The Rev. Joseph SMITH was tried at the late Cumberland assizes, before Mr. Baron PLATT, charged with manslaughter. The facts were proved as we have stated them. For the defence “Cumberland men” and “a British jury” were appealed to; and stress was laid upon the special sufferings of the defendant, springing from the fact that he was a clergyman. “Yes,” said his counsel, “one may suppose what must be the effect upon his future prospects – a minister of the gospel charged with, or even supposed to be guilty of, any act affecting in the slightest degree the life of a fellow man.” William Rufus was cited as a precedent – the dead of night, the lonely district (where, by the way, it may be worth mentioning that not a burglary, or house robbery, or offence of any magnitude had been heard of for more than 20 years), the wife and children, the gospel ministry – all were duly urged, together with the great consternation of Mr. SMITH when the window rattled. Witnesses to character were called, and Baron PLATT summed up the case as it affected – not “the prisoner” but “the reverend gentleman.” The reverend gentleman, says the report of the trial, had pleaded “Not Guilty” in a firm voice, and been accommodated with a chair. “He appeared to be in excellent health, and listened to the proceedings with great attention and without betraying any emotion.” The learned judge, having reminded the jury that an Englishman’s house is his castle, went on thus: – “It has been said that in these cases some caution should be used. It is true want of caution would in certain circumstances render an act criminal; but there are some cases in which you cannot apply very strictly the rule of caution. A man assailed in the dead of the night, expecting robbers coming into his house – is he to sit down as if to a mathematical problem, to consider how far he is to be cautious in this or in that, at the time he is called upon to defend himself? The principle of caution is, I own, very difficult to be applied in this case. Late us see whether there has been a bona fide belief on the part of the prisoner that his house was assailed. The learned counsel for the prosecution has spoken in terms of compassion for the deceased, who is said to have been a good husband and an affectionate father. Now, this may be very true; but one cannot shut one’s eyes to this – that Mr. ARMSTRONG had no business there. The mischief he sustained was the consequence of his own act. If he had gone home, instead of going to the residence of this clergyman and disturbing the inmates, he would have avoided the unfortunate consequences which ensued. Do not let us set aside altogether the act of the party who first began the nuisance, which was misconceived, no doubt, because he was no robber. If you believe that under that misconception the owner of the dwelling, being the only man to protect his wife and children, went forth to deter or to prevent persons who he believed intended to break into his house, he did only that which by the law of the land he had a right to do. It seems that we have very little evidence as touching the rev. gentleman at the bar, excepting what is taken from his own mouth. [His Lordship here went over the principal portions of the evidence, and then proceeded as follows: –] After weighing this evidence, it is for you to say whether upon the occasion referred to Mr. SMITH bona fide believed robbers were about to attack his house. If a man so conduct himself by making noises at untimely hours as to cause the inmates of a house to believe that it is going to be broken into, it is precisely the same as if a burglary was committed; and no question a man has a right to go forth and alarm persons so acting either by shooting over their heads, or in the direction in which he fancies they are, to prevent the burglary.” After this charge the rev. gentleman was duly acquitted, and the verdict of the jury was followed by a compound expression of the public feeling – “faint applause and hisses.” Hereupon – “The Judge said, ‘Silence! This is not a theatre.’” Mr. SMITH probably did not hear that observation, for he immediately “knelt down in an attitude of prayer” for a few seconds, and then left the dock. Perhaps his prayer was a blessing upon Baron PLATT. Another killer of men, after experiencing the learned baron’s kindness at the same assizes, did not pray, but in a polite manner bowed and thanked the British judge. The case can be told shortly, and must not escape attention. William KIRKPATRICK, a pedlar, and a somewhat prosperous man, had been employed at the late census by Thomas PLENDERLEATH, deputy superintendent registrar, as an enumerator. For this service he received by agreement 18s. and some odd shillings for work done beyond his circuit. About those odd shillings there was some dispute; and after the settlement KIRKPATRICK went away, declaring that he had been cheated of 5s. and insulted into the bargain, and “saying if he died for it that night he would serve PLENDERLEATH out and be revenged upon him.” That night he went to an inn, and was there drinking, though perfectly sober, when PLENDERLEATH came in. His anger instantly returned. He said he would shoot him if he had a pistol; he brandished the poker at him, and finally threw three glasses of rum, one after the other, into his face. PLENDERLEATH was, probably, not quite sober, though the witnesses averred that he appeared to be perfectly so; at any rate he was perfectly good-humoured and refused to take offence. He quietly wiped the liquor from his breast, said that KIRKPATRICK surely would not hurt him, that he did not mean to quarrel any more, and that they should be friends. With that view he rose from his bench, and went to sit down beside KIRKPATRICK upon a chair, which, according to one witness, was large enough for three. KIRKPATRICK immediately throttled him. His head dropped – he spoke no more, and died a fortnight afterwards. In defence it was urged that PLENDERLEATH, in sitting down by KIRKPATRICK, “crushed” him, and caused the latter to believe himself again insulted. It should not be omitted that the prisoner, after throttling his enemy, rejoiced as he went out that he had “cooked his bloody goose.” The judge summed up, and the jury found a verdict of manslaughter. Three witnesses were called to character – one of them a parish clerk. The learned baron in passing sentence said, it was “distressing to find a man who has borne such a character as you seem to have done, according to the testimony of the witnesses called, one of whom – the parish clerk, and therefore probably knowing more about you than the others – holds a responsible situation in this particular district” – it was distressing to see a kind-hearted man, and so forth. His Lordship finally sentenced the prisoner to six months’ imprisonment with hard labour. “The Prisoner (slightly bowing). – Thank you, my lord. “The Judge. – I could have wished that when the fatal act had taken place you had not rejoiced at having ‘cooked the goose’ of the deceased.” Well, to be sure, there was not that easy politeness about the matter which in a Cumberland court makes manslaughter quite pleasant. The very next persons tried were two ignorant men charged with stealing an American clock, three cloaks, and a shawl. The evidence was conflicting, no less than nine witnesses being called to prove an alibi, and these witnesses including a constable and a superintendent of police. The report of the case leaves much doubt on the mind as to the guilt of the persons charged; but they were found guilty, and sentenced to – 10 years’ transportation by the learned baron. Why had they not shot or strangled somebody, the foolish fellows! Information from Roy Perkins to Cumberland List William Armstrong was 38 and a gravestone in his memory is extant in Ettleton Kirkyard, Castleton. "In this spot near which rest the ashes of his forebears is interred Wm. Armstrong of Sorbytrees who to the great grief of the neighbourhood was shot without challenge or warning by the Red. Joseph Smith incumbent of Walton, Cumberland on the night of Wednesday 16th of April 1851 in the 38th year of his age. In affectionate remembrance this monument is erected by a numerous body of friends on both sides of the Border as a tribute of their respect for one whose manly straightforward and generous disposition gained him the love and esteem of all who knew him. 1852. Elizabeth Armstrong nee Hall wife of William Armstrong Sorbietrees born 14th September 1820 at Newcastleton, died 21st October 1900 aged 80 years, a widow for nearly fifty years. "Better is a little with righteousness than great revenues with injustice. Prov.XVI. 8." Extract from "No Road this Way After Dark", George Harkness's Reminiscences of Liddesdale. "A local newspaper of the 18th April of that year (1851) gives us the following information regarding this sad event: We have to record one of the most lamentable occurrences that has ever fallen within the sphere of our duties in this neighbourhood, resulting in the loss of a valuable life in the prime of manhood, by the hands of a clergyman of the Church of England. The scene of this shocking catastrophe is Walton, a village about three miles north of Brampton. The deceased was William Armstrong of Sorbietrees in Liddesdale, a large farmer and considerable landowner about 38 years of age, married and having four children. He was a man highly respected in his neighbourhood, open-hearted, generous and hospitable. On Wednesday he visited Brampton on business and left about eight o'clock in the evening. He was on horseback. At Cambeck Bridge he met with two friends, Mr. Thomas Richardson of Solmain and Mr. Elliot. Mr. Armstrong soon cantered forward leaving his friends behind and was not seen again alive. We now remove the scene to the parsonage house at Walton about a mile from Cambeck Bridge occupied by the Rev. Joseph Smith, the incumbent, and his family. Mr. Smith had not gone to bed but all the rest of the family had retired. About half past eleven o'clock he heard a knocking at the study window. This was soon repeated. Mr. Smith proceeded into the study, did something to the window shutter for the purpose of making a noise, then armed himself with a six barrelled revolving pistol which he kept loaded in a drawer in the study, and proceeded to the front door, making a great noise in opening it, stepped outside, fired the pistol three or four times, and then went into the house closing the door after him. About seven o'clock next morning the body of Mr. Armstrong was discovered just inside the gate quite dead. There were two bullet wounds; the first and fatal one had entered the right breast, the second ball had entered the back part of the right shoulder. His pony which had evidently been fastened up outside the gate, was found at Walton on its way home.' The deceased, who was a keen sportsman, was to have met the Duke's hounds on Canonbie Lea on the Thursday morning, the day after his death, and it was to enable him to keep this engagement that he had decided not to stay at Brampton all night as he had been pressed to do by several friends. At the meet in the morning his well known face and cheerful voice and hearty laugh were soon missed and the common expression on every tongue was 'God's sake, what's gotten Sorbietrees?' Mr. Armstrong was the representative of a long line of ancestors famous in their day as chiefs and leaders in Border warfare. He was considered one of the handsomest men in Liddesdale. He was a fast friend and a kind neighbour, ever trying to do good to all who had ever come under his notice. It was this strong feeling of regard for all who had ever lived under his roof that cost him his life, for there is no doubt from what he had said to his wife and others that the object of his calling at the Walton parsonage was for the purpose of offering to re-engage Ann Glendinning, a servant at the vicarage, who had several years with his father and himself as a servant. At the inquest the Reverend Joseph Smith who laboured under great mental suffering acknowledged that he was exceedingly timid and nervous, and said that he fired the weapon without aiming at any object and more in the hope of alarming than anything else. The jury found a verdict of manslaughter and Mr. Smith was tried at the Assizes in August, and after a long hearing he was acquitted.

 

< Prev