Gloucester

by Jill Evans

  Mr Cole, the house surgeon at the infirmary, said Evain had been brought in at about twenty past twelve on Monday night. He was bleeding from a wound in the front of the upper part of the right thigh. The wound was about two inches long and three to four inches deep. Evain was insensible when he was brought in, and had lost a lot of blood. He died about twenty minutes after his admission.

  The evidence of the prosecution being concluded, Otto Moritz was formally charged with murder and committed to take his trial at the next assizes. The sitting had lasted for over five hours.

  The next day, Thursday, 6 March, Otto Moritz was brought before the magistrates again, this time for the attack on Emile Poirrier. The injured man was too ill to leave the infirmary, so the magistrates went there to take his evidence. Through an interpreter, he told the same story as his companions of how they went to the Barley Mow and were asked to leave quickly. When asked by Mr Taynton who had left the inn first, Poirrier could not remember. He thought he had come out second from last. After he came out, he was struck down, and then Moritz stabbed him in the back of the head. He was kicked and knocked about as he lay on the ground, and lost his senses. He didn’t know how he received his second wound.

  The infirmary in Southgate Street. (Author’s collection)

  He had not said anything to Moritz before he left the inn, and had not quarrelled with him. He saw the landlady throw their beer away, but didn’t hear any angry words spoken. As well as the Frenchmen and Moritz, there was another man, the landlady and her sister in the house. He didn’t see the landlady get struck in the eye. He and his companions had all had a little drop to drink, but they were not ‘deranged’. He was quite sure that Moritz was the man who attacked him.

  Mr Cole said Poirrier had been brought to the infirmary between twelve and one o’clock. He had a wound on the back of his head, about two inches long and down to the bone, and a smaller wound in the muscles of his back, on the left side of the spine. He was also bruised on various parts of his body. The wounds in the head and back were clean cut and could not have been caused by anything other than a sharp-pointed instrument. He said that the wound in the head was not of a dangerous character.

  The magistrates then went to the police station to hear the remainder of the evidence. Etienne Mayon was the first witness. He repeated the evidence he had given on the previous day as to going to the Barley Mow and seeing the prisoner attack Evain. He then saw Moritz strike Poirrier, but could not see whether it was a punch or a stab. He saw Moritz strike Poirrier while he was on the ground, but couldn’t see what he struck him with. Moritz then went back into the Barley Mow, and the doors were shut. Mayon and Machevaux helped Poirrier up and took him to their vessel. Afterwards they assisted in taking him to the infirmary. Joseph Machevaux corroborated this evidence, adding that back on board the Bayonnaise, they found that Poirrier was covered with blood.

  Charles Priday repeated his former evidence, and said he saw Moritz knock down one man outside the front door, then go into the alley and knock down a second man. He saw nothing in the prisoner’s hand. John Price said he saw the prisoner knock Poirrier down and stamp on his head with his left foot. He also saw a knife in the prisoner’s left hand.

  Deputy Chief Constable Griffin said he went to the infirmary on Wednesday and collected some clothes belonging to Poirrier. These were very bloody – especially the two shirts – about the neck and back.

  Moritz was committed to stand trial for wounding Poirrier.

  On the same Thursday, an inquest was held on the body of Emanuel Evain in the Board Room at the infirmary. Thomas Stone was the first witness. He deposed to finding Evain near the entrance gates to the docks, opposite the Albion Hotel, and assisting in taking him to the infirmary.

  Etienne Mayon, in describing the attack on Evain, said he thought the prisoner had a knife in his right hand, and he saw him strike him in the lower part of the body. Evain put his hands down to where he had received the blow, then ran away. Joseph Machevaux repeated the evidence he had previously given to the magistrates.

  John Price and Charles Priday also repeated their evidence. Price added that he saw a knife in the prisoner’s hand, which had been up his sleeve. The knife was four or five inches long. He admitted that he had not previously mentioned the length of the knife, or that Moritz had it up his sleeve.

  Next to be called was a new witness, William Pidler, master of a vessel and a resident of Bideford. He said that on Monday night he had gone to the Barley Mow at about ten to eleven. He saw some foreign sailors in the kitchen, and all was quiet. He went into the bar and called for a glass of ale. He saw a crowd of sailors going out of the door of the kitchen after Mrs Jones told them to leave. He heard one of them call out in French that he was being pushed. He afterwards heard a woman scream out, and then within a minute the house appeared to have been cleared of all the sailors. Then the police arrived.

  Mrs Ann Jones was the next to give evidence. She said she was a widow and kept the Barley Mow inn in Southgate Street, and that she also took in lodgers. Moritz had slept at the house for seven or eight nights before the evening in question. On that night, he had been in the kitchen nearly all evening with several others, who she thought were all Germans.

  The Frenchmen came in at about ten to eleven. They ordered a pot of beer, which was fetched by the servant. They sat down in the kitchen at a table, away from the others. Captain Pidler was in the bar and reminded her that it was eleven o’clock. By her clock, it was five minutes to eleven, but to be sure she sent her sister to the Albion Hotel, to ascertain the exact time. She then ran into the kitchen to clear out the people. She thought there were four or five Germans on one side, and the four Frenchmen on the other.

  She went to the Frenchmen first, because they had begun to sing and appeared rather quarrelsome. Also, in the past she had experienced difficulty in getting French sailors to leave. She asked them to drink up quickly, because the policeman would be there soon. She made them understand by ‘motions’. They said, ‘Oh, plenty time,’ in English, and began to sing. They did not drink up, and she said she would not get into trouble for them, and threw two portions of their beer away. She wasn’t sure if the Germans had gone then, but she believed they left while she was throwing the beer away. Then there was only Moritz, herself, her servant and another woman left in the kitchen. Captain Pidler was in the bar.

  She shut the front door because it was eleven o’clock, and opened the side door to let out the Frenchmen. She didn’t know who went out first, but they left one at a time. The last one was a short man, with a light moustache. He stood at the door as if he wanted to say something, so she pushed him a little bit. As she did so, another man ran up to her and struck her with his fist in her eye. She fell down insensible, and was taken upstairs. She did not see Moritz leave the kitchen, because she was upstairs for twenty minutes.

  Asked if Moritz was in the habit of wearing a knife in his belt, she replied that he may have done so, but she had never seen him with one. She did not know anything about a knife being used that night. She did not know what happened in the yard; ‘I could not see, because my eye was so bad.’ When she came back downstairs, Moritz was sitting on a chair in the kitchen. She thought it was the tallest of the Frenchmen who had struck her.

  Machevaux was then called in, and she identified him as the one who had hit her. Deputy Chief Constable Griffin said that Mrs Jones had previously claimed that it was the dead man who struck her. She said she had thought that at first, but now she was positive that Machevaux was the man. Mayon was called in, and she said he was the last man who left the house and the one she had pushed.

  Mrs Jones’s sister and the servant girl were called, but their evidence was not considered significant and they were not sworn in to give evidence. Caroline Smith, an elderly woman who lived in Royal Oak Yard, was the next witness. She had been in the Barley Mow that Monday night, at about eleven o’clock. Contradicting the landlady’s evidence, she said that Moritz and t
he servant girl were the only ones in the kitchen besides herself. Some French sailors came in and had some beer. She heard the landlady ask them to leave. This they did after some trouble. As the last left she heard Mrs Jones scream, and her sister came into the kitchen, saying Mrs Jones had a black eye. Smith went into the bar, and Mrs Jones said one of the French sailors had done it. She remained with her in the bar for a few minutes, then they all went into the kitchen, where Moritz was standing. Smith remained there a minute or two, then went and looked out of the side door. She saw some men standing there and one lying on the ground. She shut the door and returned to the kitchen, where Mrs Jones remained, until there was a knock on the door and the police arrived.

  Asked whether Mrs Jones had been anywhere besides the bar and the kitchen, Smith said she could not swear, but if the landlady had gone anywhere else, she must have done so very quickly. She did not know whether Moritz had gone outside, but he might have done while she was in the bar with the landlady. She had never seen Moritz with a knife. There had been no confusion in the bar; everything had been pretty quiet. Mrs Jones was conscious after she received the blow.

  Jane Price, the sister of Mrs Jones, then gave her evidence to the inquest. She said she was in the bar when the four sailors left. After they were gone she heard her sister cry out, and she went to her. Finding her on the ground, she and the servant helped her up and took her upstairs. Price came down and went into the bar, and Moritz was then in the kitchen. She stayed in the bar for a short time and then went into the kitchen.

  Deputy Chief Constable Griffin then produced the deceased man’s clothes, and Mr Cole repeated his evidence as to the injury Evain had received. He added that he had now carried out a post-mortem examination and found that the wound had been caused by some sharp, pointed instrument, which had pierced the femoral vein and was the cause of death. He added that all the other organs were healthy, and if medical assistance had been rendered immediately after the wound was caused, the man’s life would in all probability have been saved.

  The Coroner summed up the case for the jury, who then conferred for a few minutes, before returning a verdict of wilful murder against Moritz. Through the foreman, they also expressed their opinion that it would be desirable, if possible, to prevent sailors coming onshore with their knives, adding that they believed notices to that effect were issued in Gloucester several years ago.

  Gloucester from above, with the docks in the foreground. (Author’s collection)

  On 1 April 1873, the assizes opened in Gloucester, and the trial of Otto Moritz began on Monday, 7 April, before Judge Sir George Honyman. The case for the prosecution was presented by Mr Matthews, QC, while the prisoner was defended by Mr Powell, QC. The trial opened with the presentation of the case for the prosecution, and the surviving French sailors and the witnesses were examined. Because of delays in interpreting the evidence, the prosecution had not finished presenting their case by half past six in the evening, so the members of the jury were locked up for the night, and the trial resumed the next day.

  On the second day of the trial, the four principal witnesses were Mrs Jones, the landlady, Mrs Price, her sister, a servant, and Caroline Smith. All of them were examined at the request of the judge. Each of them insisted that Moritz could not have been the one who inflicted the fatal wound on Evain, because he hadn’t left the kitchen at the time of the quarrel. However, when they were cross-examined, Smith, Jones and Price all contradicted each other’s evidence.

  Mr Matthews then summed up the case for the prosecution, arguing that it had been conclusively shown that it was the prisoner’s hand which had inflicted the fatal blow, that there was no sufficient justification for his conduct, and that the jury must therefore fearlessly discharge their duty and find the prisoner guilty of the graver charge – in other words, find Moritz guilty of murder.

  Mr Powell then made an earnest speech in defence of the prisoner, pointing out that no one had actually seen Moritz stab Evain. He hadn’t quarrelled with the sailors, and so had no reason to attack them in such a bloodthirsty manner; it was just as probable that one of the other men who were in the Barley Mow at the time had done it. If Moritz really had inflicted the fatal blow, then it was obviously in self-defence, because when he came to the aid of the landlady, there were four of them against one of him. Therefore this was justifiable homicide, and Moritz should be acquitted.

  The jury absented themselves for forty-five minutes, and on their return announced that they found Otto Moritz guilty of manslaughter. The judge then sentenced him to ten years’ penal servitude. The prison registers recorded that on 28 April 1873, Moritz was sent to Pentonville Prison in London, where he was to serve his sentence.

  In May 1873, a by-election in Gloucester was declared following the resignation of William Price, one of the city’s two Liberal Members of Parliament. The Liberal Party put up Thomas Robinson, a Gloucester corn merchant, as their candidate, while the Conservatives put forward another corn merchant, William Killigrew Wait. The latter was based in Bristol and lived in Clifton, but was an employer in Gloucester, having a warehouse at the docks. The Liberals were hopeful of a victory for their candidate, but the Tories had an energetic supporter in Mr Edward Tew-Smith, a Gloucester town councillor, and an active agent in Mr Taynton, from a Gloucester firm of solicitors.

  Both parties campaigned vigorously in the time leading up to polling day, with the nominated candidates addressing numerous public meetings, and their respective agents sending canvassers out to knock on doors in all the streets of the city and its suburbs. Intense excitement prevailed, made more so by the fact that this election was to be only the second one in Gloucester to use the recently introduced system of secret balloting.

  The election was held on Thursday, 8 May, and both sides exerted a great deal of effort in getting voters to the various polling stations. The atmosphere in the city centre was lively, but the proceedings were conducted in good temper. The Conservatives had their headquarters at the Bell Hotel in Southgate Street, and in the evening, while the votes were being counted, about eighty gentlemen sat down to a meal there, presided over by Mr Taynton. The result of the election was announced from the steps of Shire Hall at a quarter to nine. The winner was the Tory candidate – William Killigrew Wait – by a majority of eighty-five votes. Wait gave his victory speech from a window at the Bell Hotel.

  Gloucester had been investigated on previous occasions for engaging in corrupt practices during elections, and on 3 June, the supporters of Thomas Robinson presented a petition against the election of Wait. This meant that before he could officially take his seat in parliament, an electoral commission had to hold an inquiry to investigate the complaints made against him and his team.

  The specific charges made by the Liberals against their opponents were of bribery, treating, undue influence and personation. Fourteen people working for Wait through his agent, Taynton, were charged with bribing fourteen others. In addition, fourteen people (who were not all the same ones as on the previous charge) were alleged to have ‘treated’ fifty-three voters at fifteen different public houses between 1 and 9 May 1873. Thirty-six people were said to have been unduly influenced by seven others, besides many not named who received a card headed ‘Gloucester Election, Thursday, May 8, 1873’, and containing the words, ‘any other mark upon the ballot paper than a cross against the name of Wait will invalidate your vote.’ There were also three charges of personation (a person pretending to be someone else in order to vote), and eight of Wait’s agents were charged with aiding and abetting in these personations.

  Shire Hall, in Six Engravings of Public Buildings in the City of Gloucester by A.N. Smith. (Gloucestershire Archives, D9795/2/4/5)

  The inquiry was held between 15 and 18 July 1873 at the Crown Court, Shire Hall, before Mr Justice Blackburn. Many witnesses were called to give evidence during the course of the inquiry, and among them was one man who attracted the particular interest of the local press. George Clements was brought
into the courtroom from the nearby prison, where he was in custody awaiting trial on a charge of receiving stolen goods. He was a chimney sweep by trade, and had a long criminal record. A man with a violent temper, he had been in Gloucester Prison on many occasions before now, and was a familiar figure in the courts. On this occasion, though, Clements was not charged with any offence, but was merely questioned concerning his part in helping to canvass for the Tory candidate during the recent election.

  Clements said that in the days leading up to the election he was ‘at large’ and working on his own account for his party, ‘the Blues’. He knew Mr Tew-Smith, the Tory agent, and went about with him, canvassing in the Colombia Street district, which was near his home in Union Street. He was with Mr Tew-Smith on election day, and said he was chosen to go along with him. The judge then declared that he had not been chosen by anybody, but he chose himself – a remark which caused laughter in the court. Clements said he had also canvassed with Mr Taylor, who was his landlord, and Mr Anderson, who ran the Suffolk Arms. After the election, he had been given twenty-five shillings for taking circulars out. That was all the money he received, although he thought he should have got more (laughter). He didn’t suppose he would get it now (more laughter).

  Clements was questioned more specifically on the allegation of treating. The petitioners had complained that during the election, a large number of public houses had opened up which supported the Tory cause. In these establishments, liquor was distributed freely as an encouragement to voters to put their cross against the name of Mr Wait. One of these public houses was the Suffolk Arms, and the petitioners said the Tories held committee meetings in an upstairs room there, at which Tew-Smith and John Butt, another Tory agent, were active.

  Clements said that he knew the Suffolk Arms, but was never in an upstairs room there during election time. He had seen Mr Butt and others there, but couldn’t say it was a committee, or whether they talked about election matters. He had seen people drinking there at election time, but he didn’t know who paid. He had seen some of the men whose names were mentioned as having been treated in return for their votes drinking in the Suffolk Arms, but he couldn’t see if they paid for their drinks or not. He had seen ‘quarts and quarts’ of beer on the table, and had seen cans of beer brought in. He did not see any person pay for this beer. He drank some milk and rum there on the morning of the election, in the presence of Mr Tew-Smith, but Clements did not pay for it. He heard someone say, ‘Put it down, it’s all right,’ but he believed Mr Tew-Smith was in another room at the time.