Recollections of John Thurtell, who was executed at Hertford on Friday, the 9th of January, 1824 for murdering Mr. W. Weare. Including various anecdotes, and an account of his demeanour after sentence was passed. Also, the condemned sermon, and a correct view of the execution, taken on the spot by an eminent artist / by Pierce Egan ; being an appendix to his account of the trial.
- Pierce Egan
- Date:
- 1824
Licence: Public Domain Mark
Credit: Recollections of John Thurtell, who was executed at Hertford on Friday, the 9th of January, 1824 for murdering Mr. W. Weare. Including various anecdotes, and an account of his demeanour after sentence was passed. Also, the condemned sermon, and a correct view of the execution, taken on the spot by an eminent artist / by Pierce Egan ; being an appendix to his account of the trial. Source: Wellcome Collection.
106/172 page 96
![eyoun Aduy tat, cowed ott 4 SP, ee z, id men atide nm dior? chae By) oye Hunt This fact Was Subistantiated by pérsons from town, and ‘by the, litthe ‘boy~(Addis}, who gave his evidence’ extremely well. Some of thése persons deposed “a8 t0 the colour of the horsé hired by Hunt, and the boy, ‘Addis,.._proved’ that the “Rorge which’ dréw the’ gig “in which Thurtell arrived ‘at his master’s cottage at night, “was of the came! déstription of colour. It was very clearly proved that Thurtell went “away from town with such an animal as that described, and that he arrived alone at “the cottage, his gig being drawn by an animal similar in appearance to that:which was “xo ‘described.’ On the ‘apparent “discrepancy of the evidence, with respect to time, “which appearedin the statement of the, coachman who took up Weare, and who spoke ; to its being ‘daylight when he set him down, and the statement of others, who spoke “to the period at which Thurtell left the Coachand Horses, the learned J udge observed, “that nothing could possibly be more uncertain than the keeping a correct account.o ‘Small ‘portions of time. The question for the jury was, whether the discrepancy was not of a trivial nature—whether, considering the fact, that his watch might goa little ‘slower or a little faster than that of another person—whether, looking to the circum: “Stance that aman might make an erroneous guess at the time, with reference to a mat- ‘ter which had passed some days before, the discrepancy which was likely thus, to “arise, should nilitate against a statement which, on the whole, presented very. little appearance of inconsistency, with reference even to time. The learned Judge, in “pursuing his observations on the evidence of Probert, referred’ to’ the evidence. -of Aarke and Field; the publicans, as corroborative of what had’ been sworn by Pro- bert, and pointing ous a complete link of evidence. The learned Judgé inei- “dentally alluded to that part of Mrs. Probert’s evidence, in which’ she. described Hunt as having talents for singing. [Here Hunt placed one of his hands before his “face, swayed his head from side to side, and exhibited all the Ca are of extreme -distress.. The eyes of the whole Court were attracted towards him, whilst he ex- “hibited this appearance, which continued for two or three minutes: He then resumed “his composure.] The general effect of this evidence (of Probert’s) went to show ‘that Hunt was aware of the various facts of which it imputed to him a guilty know- dedge; particularly that part which regarded the circumstances that took place when “Hunt and Probert stopped to drink at the Artichoke. The boy (Addis) proved the ‘coming in of the three parties together to him (Addis) in the stable’ First of all HFiunt came in by himseli; but having gone out, he returned accompanied by Probert and Thurtell. Probert’s evidence proved another fact—the going out of the parties into Gill’s-hill-lane, after the supper had been ordered, on the night of the murder, ~and the hour at which this incident took place. Now how was all this confirmed ? ‘By the evidence of the woman (Woodroffe) who cooked the victuals which were eaten “at that supper, it appeared that that she received orders from her’ master (Probert) not to dress them so soon as they had been ordered; and she believed that Her “master, Thurtell, and Hunt, did then go out. They said they were going to Mr. Ni- “cholls’s, and they stayed nearly an hour. Now let the jury ask themselves what these “shen did during this time? Did they in fact go to Mr. Nicholls’s? ° Mr. Nicholls, on his: cross-examination, said he was at home all this while; that he was never out on ‘that evening ; and that neither Mr. Probert, nor any of ‘his friends, called upon him on that day. The question, then, for the Jury was, whether, if the parties had not gone out, agreeably to their own account, to Mr. Nicholls’s, they had not’ gone out swith some purpose, which, to say the least, they thought fit to keep entirely secret, and of the suspicious character of which the Jury could not feel much doubt in their own minds. ‘The witness deposed, that John Thurtell, when they went out before “supper, took with him a cord and a sack ; and he carried a lantern down the lane. Now all through this case, it was shown that the body was found in a sack, and hada cord round it. The Court then adverted to the passages in Probert’s evidence, which regarded the expressions used by Thurtell in allusion to the part of the lane in whieh day the body of the deceased; the finding of the body with the red shawl ‘about’ its neck, and the search in the leaves and grass for the knife and the pistol.» Here, again, confirmation was not wanting. If the jury believed the evidence of the two dabouring men, Harrington and Richard Hunt, théy would remember that those wit- nesses did see two men in this same lane the next morning after the alleged murder; the one of them witha black, and the other with a white hat. Harrington had sworn to the man in the white hat, whom he had pointed outin the prisoner Thurtell ; and he deposed thatthe other party wore large bushy hair, and had black whiskers, and a black hat. Now it was proved that John Thurtell had no white hat of his own, but Probert mad. And inthe course of the proceedings, Probert had been ver properly asked by counsel, who had repeatedly addressed the question to him, whether he had not that “morning walked out with a white hat on? . The witness’ positively denied it. This “was, however, a most important fact to be considered by the jury. Had Thurtell on a “white hat or not on the day in question? They could’ not ‘have forgot that Sarah ~ Woodroffe had sworn, that about six or seven, or seven or eight o’clock on the morn- “ing of the same day, on which these two men’ were seen in'the lane, she went anto the parlour at Gill’s-hill-cottage, and saw John. Thurtell lying on the](https://iiif.wellcomecollection.org/image/b33287442_0106.jp2/full/800%2C/0/default.jpg)
