The trial of Edmund Thrower : blacksmith, late of Carbrook, in Norfolk, for the wilful murder of Thomas Carter, & Elizabeth Carter, his daughter, on the 16th day of October, 1793, at Cratfield, in the county of Suffolk; and also the trial of John and Elizabeth Smith, for the wilful murder of Mary Ann Smith, an infant aged 8 years, daughter of the said John Smith by a former wife; by starving and cruelty, at Cookley, in the county of Suffolk. Before the Hon. Mr. Justice Heath, at the assizes held at Bury, March 21, 1812 / Taken in court by George Kent.

Thrower, Edmund, 1754?-1812

Date:: [1812]

Credit: The trial of Edmund Thrower : blacksmith, late of Carbrook, in Norfolk, for the wilful murder of Thomas Carter, & Elizabeth Carter, his daughter, on the 16th day of October, 1793, at Cratfield, in the county of Suffolk; and also the trial of John and Elizabeth Smith, for the wilful murder of Mary Ann Smith, an infant aged 8 years, daughter of the said John Smith by a former wife; by starving and cruelty, at Cookley, in the county of Suffolk. Before the Hon. Mr. Justice Heath, at the assizes held at Bury, March 21, 1812 / Taken in court by George Kent. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by the Francis A. Countway Library of Medicine, through the Medical Heritage Library. The original may be consulted at the Francis A. Countway Library of Medicine, Harvard Medical School.

14/44 page 8

proved to have stated that he had a knowlcctge of the murder. His confession was, that he met two persons near Cratfield, Smith, alias Gipsey Will, and Head. The confession of the prisoner went to state, that he was to get lOl. for the job. On arriving at Carter's house, Smith said they must stop there ; this was be- twixt eight and nine o'clock in the evening.— The deceased woman was putting a shutter to, when Head gave her blows with a hammer, threw her over a hedge, and repeated the blows. Smith went into the house and struck the old man. They did not rob the house, nor did the prisoner receive any money for accompanying them. The story would be proved by a chain of evidence to corroborate the testimony of Head. The prisoner knew the time, described the night, the state in which the body would be proved to have been found, and other parti- culars which would be proved to be correct, and w^hich was tolerably demonstrative that he was there when the murder was committed. [The Judge interrupted the learned Counsel in the above sentence, and observed, it was 2 misprision of felony, and the declaration of the prisoner could only be taken as far as corrobo- rated by other testimony.] The Counsel resumed his address to the Jury, and observed that it was not his desire to stretch the law on the subject. In murder it was gene- rally known there was no accessary, and he (the learned Counsel) was satisfied the wisdom of the Judge would give a clear definition of the law on the subject; and should it turn out that the in- dictment could not be supported, he would leave the prisoner to his own guilty conscienecj

Licence and re-use

Contents