Sept 09 1851 - Comment on "Fatal Mistake" - Cumberland and Westmorland Newspaper Transcriptions

Sept 09 1851 - Comment on "Fatal Mistake"

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!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

There is more about the death of Thomas PLENDERLEATH on Bridget Casson's
Longtown website at
http://mysite.freeserve.com/longtown19/plenderleath.html