Trial by Combat

Ashford v Thornton (1818) 106 ER 149 is an English criminal case in the Court of King's Bench which upheld the right of the defendant to trial by battle on a private appeal from an acquittal for murder.. In 1817, Abraham Thornton was charged with the murder of Mary Ashford. Thornton had met Ashford at a dance and had walked with her from the event. Next morning, she was found drowned in a local pit, although there was little evidence of her having died a violent death. Charged with rape and murder, public opinion would have condemned Thornton, but the jury could not see any evidence to convict him and he was acquitted.

But that was not the end of the story, for William Ashford, Mary's brother, launched an appeal and when Thornton was rearrested, he claimed the right to trial by battle or combat. This medieval solution was still on the stature books and therefore quite legal. Back to court they went, with Ashford claiming the evidence against Thornton was overwhelming. The court disagreed and trial by battle was Ashford's sole remaining option. Ashford did not take up the option and Thornton was released. In 1819 appeals of this nature were abolished by the state, but too late for Thornton's reputation and he had already departed for a new life in the United States of America.

The last recorded trial by battle to come to a conclusion dates from 1597. In Scotland Adam Butterfield accused James Carmichael of murder and exacted revenge by killing the latter. Other cases in 1631 and 1638 were stopped by the king's intervention.

Attempts to abolish the law came in the 17th century and twice in the 18th century, all proving unsuccessful. Of course, in 1819 it did disappear from the statute books, but that did not prevent the law being cited in 2002. Unemployed 60-year-old mechanic Leon Humphreys appeared in Ipswich court, charged with failing to tell the DVLA his motorcycle was off road and thus liable to pay the Road Fund Licence. The DVLA were attempting to fine him £25. But the man from Bury St Edmunds did not agree. Indeed, he told the court he would not enter a plea but demanded the DVLA nominate a champion whom he would fight to the death to prove his innocence. He also claimed the new Human Rights laws meant ordinary folk like him could use the law for their own purposes. Traditionally these battles were fought with swords, lances, shields, staves, and the like - but Mr Humphreys was happy to wield Japanese samurai swords, Ghurka knives, or even a blacksmith's hammer.

Mr Humphreys was forced to pay the fine.

The Oddingley Murders

On 24th June 1806, George Parker, Rector of Oddingley, was found in the village of Oddingley lying in a field and dying from a gunshot wound to the abdomen. He was discovered after a shot and the cry of "Murder, Murder!" had been heard by two men travelling along a nearby lane. They saw someone running away and, from their description, Richard Heming, a local odd-job man, was wanted. He could not be found and rumours abounded he had left for America. In 1830 a skeleton was found in a barn near to where George Parker had been shot. From his clothes he was identified as Richard Heming. Both men were deemed to have died in 1806, and neither had yet resulted in a conviction.

The barn was owned by one Thomas Clewes. He was promptly arrested and, while in gaol, he confessed to having witnessed the murder of Heming, and even named the killers. Three local farmers, all substantial landowners, were in dispute with Parker about the tithes they were required to pay. They paid £50 to Heming to murder the rector, and then bludgeoned their own man to death. Clewes, John Barnett, and George Banks were arrested and charged, and the case made national headlines. (The third farmer had since died.) Everyone expected a triple hanging - and, in 1830, who did not enjoy a good hanging (well EastEnders had yet to reach the public and yes, I know it seems like it's been around that long).

First the law did not allow for the charge of murdering Parker to be levelled at any of them. They may have been accessories, but the law in 1806 (when the murder took place) did not allow them to be charged. It had been changed by 1830, but the law was not changed to work retroactively. Yet they could have been charged with Parker's murder, if Heming had been charged, which he could not be as he was already dead. But, it was these three who had had a hand in killing the killer, so where is the justice here?

Further complications meant Clewes was only charged with aiding and abetting the murder of Heming. His two surviving accomplices, Barnett and Banks, were then charged as his accomplices. Now it gets even more frustrating, for there was little evidence remaining, any witnesses called to give evidence were uncertain when giving details and many contradicted statements they had made earlier. Well it was 24 years afterwards and the ringleader, Captain Evans, and the third man, James Taylor, were deceased. To add further confusion, Clewes counsel argued that his confession could not be used to implicate others, as he had had no foreknowledge of, nor participated in, the murder of Heming. All three, despite clearly being guilty, were set free and lived out thier lives in relative peace. The locals, who were rather relieved that nobody was held to account for two murders (showing how unpopular the tithes were), broke into the church and rang the bells in celebration (much to the indignation of the press).

For a clergyman to be murdered was rare in Georgian England, but for his death to result from a conspiracy between a magistrate and yeomen farmers was unique. Although a clash of strong personalities contributed at Oddingley, the dysfunctional tithe system was the root of the conflict. Parker's income as rector came from his 'tithe', his right to a one-tenth share in everything the parish produced. At Oddingley as in most parishes farmers had switched to paying money annually rather than giving actual produce, but by 1800 there was often a mismatch between whatever long-agreed sum they gave as tithe, and the real value of a tenth of their crops. Parker's annual income from his tithes was £135, then a respectable amount; but one which had not altered for decades, while years of war had caused rampant inflation. After Parker tried to renegotiate his payment and the farmers refused, for several years he collected his tithes in kind. This procedure caused smouldering resentment and sometimes violence: when it did, Parker simply took the recalcitrant farmer to court. His stubborn refusal to be intimidated exasperated them and his success in gathering a tenth of their produce cost them money. After five years of attrition they were ready to yield the increase he had asked - but at this point Parker demanded a further sum of £150 compensation for costs incurred in collecting his tithes. With the resentful farmers under the sway of Captain Evans, an ex-military man already familiar with the process of delegating violence, a fairly commonplace quarrel over tithes ended in double murder.

Criminal?

Esther Dyson was in court in York on 31st March 1831 for cutting off her child's head and throwing the body behind a dam to conceal the evidence. She had been deaf and dumb since birth and it was claimed she was insane. At the trial the judge asked the jury to consider one point, was her apparent inability to comprehend what was happening real or not? Was this a good act, or was this God's will? They decided it was the latter and she was acquitted, Yet later a Mrs Ann Briggs came forward and claimed she was more than capable of understanding, she had known her for eight or nine years, and should not have been acquitted. Esther was sent to West Riding Lunatic Asylum in Wakefield where she is reported to have performed tasks associated with a housemaid without trouble until her death on 2nd March 1869 at the age of 62.

Drunken Assault

15th February 1902 and Maud Shipley, aged 28 of Lombard Street was arrested when found running down Lombard Street at 10:40pm by PC Williams shouting, “Oh my lad, what have I done?” At her home on the sofa in the kitchen they found her husband Frank. Part of the lobe of his left ear was missing, there was a wound to his neck, and a 1.1/2-inch gash to his face – he was bleeding heavily. A white-handled knife also covered in blood was also present.

At the inquest adjournment followed, as victim was unable to attend. A week later, head swathed in bandages and looking very unwell, he gave evidence. He was a waggoner, employed by Mr Summerfield, a coal dealer. He left work, called at the Mitre Inn for a pint, then arrived home to find his wife very aggressive, agitated, excitable, the worse for drink and demanding money. He refused and went out for a shave. On coming out of the barbers’ she was waiting for him and again demanding money. She followed him home, again and again demanding money. Eventually he went back to the Mitre Inn to fill a bottle with beer so he could drink it with his supper.

The couple had three children, the oldest 5 and youngest almost 2. Sister said she had seen her sister Maud several times that day complaining of money, she had shared a beer with her, and two other women had got her from the Grapes Inn, and thought her ‘half and half’ with the drink. A passer-by saw her banging on her door, screaming “I will finish the bastard before the night’s out”. She then re-entered, he watched as she picked up a knife and stabbed Frank three or four times in quick succession. He passed her as she ran out and attended to the man who was bleeding profusely and he stated “She was three sheets”. A second passer-by arrived to assist. Second witness went for the doctor and the police. When the doctor arrived, he noted a great deal of blood both inside and outside the house, the place looked like a slaughterhouse. Sent to court she claimed her husband had thrown that very knife at her twice before, although there was no evidence to support this. She was sentenced to three months with hard labour.

Herbert and Maud Freeman

4th September 1911 and at Hanch, north of Lichfield near the present golf club, Herbert Freeman, aged 46, attempted to kill his wife Maud aged 33. Had been living at Craddock’s Yard, Wilcox’s Entry, Tamworth Street, Lichfield. They only married on August 8th, 27 days earlier, and it had already proved to be a terrible marriage.

Their wedding reception was held at the Windsor Castle Inn, Lichfield. Here they fought and were asked to quit but refused and so found themselves in front of magistrates charged with disturbing the peace – at their own wedding reception! Over the next four weeks matters did not improve. On the 4th September they were out on Cannock Chase together and called at the Roe Buck Inn, Wolseley Bridge - now known as the Wolseley Arms. Here they found Alfred Black, a dreyman of the Lichfield Brewery. and obtained a lift back on his float.

All went well until they reached Handsacre, as they left she put her hand in her husband’s pocket. He accused her of trying to rob him, although later claimed it was a joke. Words ensued, then he pulled out a long-bladed knife and threatened to kill both his wife and the driver, Alfred Black. The driver was alarmed but offered to help when Maud said she was hurt, he offered to take her to the nursing home in Lichfield. On reaching Hanch Hall the passengers alighted, husband saying he would take care of her. It seems he took care of both of them – first cutting his wife’s neck before turning to his own and severed the windpipe. When police and doctors arrived at 9pm, two bodies were found lying in a pool of blood. He was dead, she found unconscious but when taken to Rugeley District Hospital she gave an incoherent account of events.

Maud Shipley, as she had been known, was previously married to a workman for the local council, until he met with an accident at Lichfield Isolation Hospital the previous year and had died at Birmingham Accident Hospital from his injuries. Herbert’s daughter Alice Freeman said her mother died in December 1903 and her father had had no regular employment for the last 12 months but was a good father and fed and clothed his children well. Since the fight on their wedding night there had been many quarrels. On the day in question both were taking the train from Lichfield Trent Valley to Hagley, he to seek employment in the railway track widening work, she to look for a home at Hagley as they had been given notice at Wilcox’s Entry. Inquest was adjourned until October 3rd to trace further witnesses.

When reconvening, Alfred Black said Herbert had knocked her to the floor and thrown her from the float, she appeared to be hurt. Another witness driving a car picked up the story. He saw two people near Hanch Hall apparently fighting. He raised the alarm when he discovered the woman on the ground and apparently dead, while the man was still alive. He went to Hanch Hall to summon assistance, it was they who discovered Maud had two deep cuts to her neck although Herbert had but one cut but was dead. Another witness, a labourer at the hall, described how Herbert had hit his wife twice across the face with his umbrella, words were exchanged and there was much pushing. Policeman described the spring knife as that which poachers knew as a rabbit-legger or a buck-sticker. By the time the doctor arrived the man had been dead for 1.1/2 hours. Wife had two deep wounds about 3 inches long, one from the middle of the neck to the left side of the jaw and 3/4 inch deep and opened up a similar gash in the gullet, the right side was but a scratch. She also had a blackened left eye, finger-shaped bruises on her arms and other bruises about the body and legs. The man had fingernail scratches on his arms and face. He had a 4 inch wound to the throat, deep enough to expose the back of the palate, jugular was severed and death would have come in a matter of seconds. The man was also missing a finger and thumb on the left hand but this was from an old injury. His body also showed signs of alcoholism.

Then the wife gave evidence, having recovered from her injuries. She said on the afternoon of their marriage he had tried to strangle her. Soon after had got her on the sofa and held a knife to her throat, but released her when someone tapped on the window. She maintained he was a good man with no drink in him. On August 27th he had forced her upstairs and threatened to kill her, even sleeping with the open knife in his hand should she attempt to move. When drunk he was a jealous monster, sober he complained of pains in his arms and head. The tussle was exactly as others had described, adding he grabbed her around the neck with his left arm, she could not get away, he was too strong. He pushed the knife into her throat. She collapsed and laid her down and he kissed her forehead. She awoke to see him lying three feet away to her right, the poachers knife on her left but she did not know this until later. He was clutching his throat, his face down. With some deliberation as to the location of the knife the jury delivered the verdict of suicide after attempting to murder his wife.