Volume IV
|
December, 1790, of a brutal and wanton Assault on Miss Ann Porter man a report ran through all ranks of society that young females had been secretly wounded in different parts of their bodies, in the public streets, and often in the day- time by a monster, who, upon committing the brutal crime, effected his escape. Sometimes, as reported, the villain presented a nosegay to a young female, wherein was concealed a sharp instru- ment, and, as he offered them the flowers to smell, stabbed them in the face. Other tales were told of some who had been stabbed in the thigh and behind; in fine, there was universal terror in the female world in London. At length a man named Renwick Williams was appre- hended on the charge of one of the young ladies thus brutally wounded, and his trial came on at the Old Bailey, on the 18th of January, 1790. The indictment charged that with force and arms, in the parish of St James's, on the king's highway, Renwick Williams did, unlawfully, wilfully and maliciously, make an assault upon, maim and wound Ann Porter, against the peace, etc. A second count charged the said Renwick Williams that, on the same day and year, he did unlaw- fully, wilfully and maliciously tear, spoil, cut and deface the garments and clothes -- to wit, the cloak, gown, petticoat and shift -- of the said Ann Porter, contrary to the statute, and against the peace, etc. Miss Ann Porter deposed that she had been at St James's, to see the ball, on the night of the 18th of January, 1790, accompanied by her sister, Miss Sarah Porter, and another lady; that her father had appointed to meet them at twelve o'clock, the hour at which the ball generally broke up, but that it ended at eleven ; and she was therefore under the necessity of either staying where she was until her father came, or returning home at that time. Her father, she said, lived in St James's Street, and he kept a tavern and a cold bath. She agreed to go home with her party. As they proceeded up St James's Street her sister ap- peared much agitated, and called to her to hasten home, which she and her company accordingly did. Her sister was the first to reach the hall door. As the witness turned the corner of the rails she received a blow on the right hip : she turned round and saw the prisoner stoop down. She had seen him before several times, on each of which he had followed close behind her, and used language so gross that the Court did not press her to relate the particulars. He did not immediately run away when he struck her, but looked in her face, and she thus had a perfect oppor- tunity of observing him. She had no doubt, she said, of the prisoner being the man who wounded her. She supposed that the wound was inflicted with a sharp instrument, because her clothes were cut, and she was wounded through them. Mr Justice Buller, in summing up, said that if the jury should find the prisoner guilty upon the present charge he would reserve his case for the opinion of the twelve judges of England, for several reasons : first, because this was completely and perfectly a new case in itself; and second, because this was the first indictment of this kind that had ever been tried. Therefore, although he himself entertained but little doubt upon the first point, yet, as the case was new, it would be right to have a solemn decision upon it, so that thereafter the law, in that particular, might be declared from undoubted authority. Upon the second point he owned that he entertained some doubts. This indictment was certainly the first of the kind that had ever been drawn up in this kingdom. It was founded upon the statute 6 George I. Upon this statute it must be proved that it was the intent of the party accused not only to wound the body, but also to cut, tear and spoil the garment. The first question, therefore, for the consideration of the jury would be, whether this was done wilfully, and with intent to spoil the garment, as well as to wound the body. The jury immediately, without hesitation, found the prisoner guilty. Mr Justice Buller then ordered the judgment in this case to be arrested, and the recognisances of the persons bound to prosecute to be respited until the December sessions. The court was crowded with spectators by nine o'clock, when the trial began ; it ended at five o'clock at night. All the witnesses were examined separately. At the commencement of the sessions at the Old Bailey, on the 10th of December, Judge Ashurst addressed the prisoner nearly in the following terms: " You have been capitally convicted under the statute 6 George I. of maliciously tearing, cutting, spoiling and defacing the garments of Ann Porter, on the 18th of January last. Judgment has been arrested upon two points -- one, that the indictment is informal ; the other, that the Act of Parliament does not reach the crime. Upon solemn consideration the judges are of opinion that both the objections are well founded; but although you are discharged from this indictment, yet you are within the purview of the common law. You are therefore to be remanded to be tried for a misdemeanour." He was accordingly, on the 13th of the same month, tried at Hicks's Hall for a misdemeanour, in making an assault on Miss Ann Porter. The trial lasted sixteen hours: there were three counts in the indictment -- viz. for assaulting with intent to kill, for assaulting and wounding, and for a common assault. The facts proved were nearly the same, with very little variation indeed, as those which were given in evidence on his trial for the felony at the Old Bailey. He was found guilty, when the Court sentenced him to two years' imprison- ment in Newgate on each of the three indictments, and at the expiration of the time to find security for his good behaviour, himself in two hundred pounds and two sureties in one hundred pounds each. |