Some Selected Reports from The Windsor and Eton Express
20th May 1837
Attempted Suicide - On Friday evening a person of respectable appearance arrived in Windsor, and slept at the Adelaide Hotel. In the morning when he was called he declined to get up,
alleging that he was much fatigued, and during the day he remained in his bed room. At night Mr. Smith
, the landlord, became alarmed at his non-appearance, and forced open his door,
when he discovered his guest very ill from the effects of a quantity of poison, which, from two phials which had contained poison being found, it was evident he had taken.
Medical aid was immediately procured, and by great exertions the patient was in the morning pronounced out of danger.It has since been ascertained that the name of the person is King
, and that his friends reside in the neighbourhood of London, where he has been since removed.
Narrow Escape. - On Thursday afternoon as Colonel Greenwood
, of the Life Guards, was driving in a cabriolet from Windsor Castle, his horse took fright at the guard presenting arms at the
gate on Castle-hill, and galloped off at a furious speed down Castle-street, Peascod-street, past the cavalry barracks, and up the Spittal-road in the direction of Winkfield. The greatest
anxiety was entertained respecting the fate of the gallant Colonel by persons who witnessed the miraculous manner he escaped running against various vehicles in the town, and were much gratified in hearing that the horse was stopped near the Stag and Hounds without doing
any injury. It appears the Colonel experienced as much difficulty in keeping his groom from jumping out, as he did in guiding the horse clear of the numerous carts, waggons, and drays he met with in his rapid flight.
On Thursday evening two men, who gave their names James Smith
(his right name is stated to be Lomax
), and Henry James
were apprehended in Eton, on the charge of stealing fowls. Upon
enquiry it was found that the fowls had been stolen from Smith's nephew at Great Marlow, and that on the same night it was suspected the prisoners had stolen a quantity of dahlia roots from
the premises of J.Simpson, Esq
, also of Marlow. The prisoners, who were well-known characters were yesterday handed over to the Marlow Constables, and have since been committed for trial.
Vestry Meeting - The Windsor Church Debt
On Thursday a vestry meeting of the parish of New Windsor was held at the Workhouse, Mr.Sharman
(one of the churchwardens) in the chair, "for the purpose" as expressed in the
notice, "of laying before the parishioneers notices served on the churchwardens to show cause why a writ of mandamus from the Court King's Bench should not issue against them to compel
them to make a rate for the purpose of paying the sum of £3,000 , with interest to Mrs.Elizabeth Jenks
, being an amount advanced by her on mortgage of the church-rates; and for the purpose
of submitting to the Vestry the opinion of Counsel ordered to be obtained at a late meeting of Vestry on the legality of making a Church-rate; and also for all other purposes relating thereto."
The Chairman commenced the proceedings, by informing the Vestry that a notice had been served upon Mr.Twinch
and himself by Mr.Darvill
, from Mr.Burn
solicitor, which he
read, and the pith of which was to the effect - that whereas various applications had been made to the late Churchwardens, by Mrs.Jenks
and her agent, for the repayment of the £3,000 due to her, but
without effect; that therefore the said Thomas Adams
, Richard Sharman
, and Frederick Twinch
, the present Churchwardens, were required to call a Vestry to make a rate to repay the said
sum of £3,000 and interest, so due and owing to the said Mrs.Elizabeth Jenks
. The notice was served on Friday, the 28th of April. Now, knowing that an opinion had been taken by Mr.Barton,
at the request of a late Vestry, on the legality of making a rate, he (Mr.Sharman
) did not consider it necessary to take any cognizance of that notice - considering it as almost waste paper.
He should now beg that Mr.Barton
would be so good as read the case submitted to Counsel, and the opinion given upon it.
then read the particulars of the mortgage of June 14, 1824, for the loan of £3,000 from Mrs.Jenks
, payable by instalments from the Church-rates, the last half of which was due and
payable in June, 1836; he also read the details of the proposed renewed mortgage, which it had been in contemplation to execute so as to extend the period of payment for three years longer,
and then submitted the case itself for the opinion of the counsel, Dr.Jesse Addams
; it stated that the rates which had been provided for payment of the sum of £2,000 had been collected, but that instead of being applied to the payment of the debt they
had been devoted to the purpose of sustaining the church and paying its officers; that although there had been a considerable amount of the rates unpaid, that arose from the negligence of the
Churchwardens, and that an ample fund had been provided not only to pay the debt but to allow for a probable loss; that at a late Vestry it was agreed to renew the mortgage at an increased rate of interest, but that subsequently a doubt arose whether the
Churchwardens had the power to make fresh rates to secure the debt, as the rate payers had already performed their part of the compact and ought not to be called upon to pay the debt again.
It was added that the ratepayers were satisfied that the whole mischief has arisen from inattention in the collection and improvident expenditure of the money. The opinion of the
Learned Counsel was therefore required on this question:- Whether, under the before mentioned circumstances the proposed deed would be a legal security for the amount of the debt due to Mrs.Jenks
the Churchwardens for the time being be enabled to make rates to pay the instalments mentioned in such security, and, if so, whether he, the Counsel, could advise the Churchwardens
for the time being to execute such a deed !. The opinion of Dr.Jesse Addams
was - "I think that there may be little if any real risk or difficulty attending the course proposed to be adopted,
provided the rate payers generally are assenting, as I think that in equity,they should be, to the adoption of that course. But, in the other event viz, in that the rate payers generally dissenting, the case
assumes a different aspect." The alluding to the proposition to enter upon a new mortgage it goes on to say - "Now, if the parish (as I think it ought) assents to all this, and is willing to
authorise the Churchwardens to execute the proposed deed, I do not see that they incur any great, if any, risk personally in executing such deed. But as to the Churchwardens being
themselves enabled to make rates for paying this interest at £5 per cent, and the principle sum by instalments by December, 1839, (though I see nothing special at least provided in the deed, so
far as I can collect from the abstract, as to the payment of such instalments), I should very much doubt their authority to do so. And even if such rates were to be made from time to time by
consent of the Vestry of the parish, I am not by any means prepared to say, absolutely, that under the circumstances the payment of such rates could be enforced adversely from any
individual refractory or dissentient parishioner or parishioners."
The Chairman then observed, he hoped the Vestry would consider that what they had heard read would be deemed a sufficient excuse for Mr.Twinch
and himself refusing to act upon Mr.Darvill's
notice. They had
now, however, to act under authority to which they were bound to attend, for which they had been served with a rule nisi (which he read) from the Court of King's Bench, calling on Mr.Twinch
and him to make
a rate to pay the debt of £3,000 together with interest on the same. That noticed placed them in a different position, for they had now to do what they could to prevent the mandamus from being issued against them.
It appeared from what Mr.Barton
had read that the parish had as far as they were concerned fulfilled their contract. He believed he was correct when he stated that the amount of the rates collected had been
quite sufficient for the liquidation of the debt. However, Mr.Twinch
and he had taken steps to resist the issuing of the mandamus, and now that they were acting as Churchwardens , for the short time that would
elapse (until the Visitation), he should be happy if the Vestry would take into consideration the situation in which the Churchwardens would be placed. At Easter, 1836[?], when Mr.Twinch
and he came into office
they endeavoured "to meet the thing," seeing there were difficulties to contend with, and thinking it might have been better then than now. They then wrote to the previous Churchwardens,
requesting them to pass their accounts, but received no answer. He made many applications, but could not get the accounts passed; and Mr.Twinch and he told them until the accounts were
brought forward they would not act, because he did not consider there had been that attention paid to collecting the rates that there ought to have been. He could prove that £1,500 or £1,600
more could have been collected without any difficulty than there had been. It was now for the parishioners to say whether they were prepared to meet such a demand as had been made
upon them - not that he believed even if the mandamus were issued, unless it was backed by an authority commanding every person to pay, it would be effectual; but still the process would be
expensive. He and Mr.Twinch
were in perfect ignorance of the accounts, never having seen the book, and having been treated with contumely in every step they had taken in their endeavours to
obtain the production and passing of the accounts. But now they considered that they had to protect the parish from the imposition of a rate which they had no right to pay. When he had
made an application to Mr.Adams
, the answer was, "I know nothing about it", when he applied to Mr.Legh
, he got the same answer, and thought it absolutely necessary to have a correct
statement of the affairs of the parish. -(Mr. Bedborough
here said "Certainly, you ought to have them.") That was what he wanted. He had certainly not referred to Mr.Bedborough
that gentleman, who was also a Churchwarden, had the charge of the charity accounts, and it was Mr.Legh
who had charge of the parish accounts. The parish ought at all events to know why there was still
£3,000 to pay. The accounts ought to show distinctly the net proceeds of each rate, the amount of arrears of each rate, and the defaulters, the money expended for Church repairs, and for
what were called the current expenses, all of which ought to be laid before the parish.
: Should that be done before we go into the question of the mandamus? Why travel on this occasion into the accounts?
said it appeared to him that the question affected only the Churchwardens and not the parish.
The Chairman observed he had gone into those details because it should not be said that Mr.Twinch
and he were acting hostility to the parish.
observed, respecting the Chairman's statement, that the arrears were £1,500 or £1,600 , that at a late Vestry they were stated to be but £750, from which were deductions to the amount
of £250 , leaving only £500 in arrears. The Chairman was therefore saddling the late Churchwardens with £1,500 or £1,600 instead of £500.
The Chairman insisted he was correct.
: I believe you are in error.
is speaking for the whole 14 years.
Chairman: Yes, and that is the period of trust.
: No, the accounts have been repeatedly passed since then.
: The amount was £792, after all deductions.
: in the case read by Mr.Barton
it was stated that
was churchwarden during a part of that period.
Chairman: I was.
: Then he might have required the accounts to be differently kept.
The Chairman said he had protested against the manner in which they were kept. He would not interfere in them. Seeing what was likely to occur he told the other Churchwardens when the
first instalment was coming due they had better have a rate in aid, but
: The opinion of Mr.Legh
could not control you during the time you were Churchwarden. As far as the case read by Mr.Barton
is concerned, I think it is a very one-sided
case, for it does not state the truth and the whole truth. It appears that the Churchwardens were doing wrong from beginning to end, and that all the other parties have done right. It is not a
fair case to lay before Counsel, and even the opinion on it is in favour of a rate - (cries of "No")
: No; it says the Churchwardens may sign the security without risk, but why ? It is because the security will be no better than waste paper.
: He says that you may make a rate, but he does not say you can enforce the payment. When I came into office, I found the accounts had been kept in the same way for a
number of years. And so they have continued to be kept. The department of the charities was entrusted to me, and I did all I could to keep those accounts in a better way. I certainly wish
was unable to attend, and intimated, as well as we understood, that he attended for him.
and others thought it desirable that the other Churchwardens should be present.
was of the opinion that the discussion they had got into had nothing to do with the question they were called to discuss.
thought it extraordinary that the parish should be called on to pay £3,000 over again, and not to have the accounts produced.
: They have been produced, and passed at the Vestry.
Chairman: At that Vestry I protested against the accounts.
- At the Vestry previous you did not.
The Chairman said he could if necessary give his reason for that. He, however, contended that £800 of uncollected rates might have been obtained by asking for.
said the accounts had been passed, and checked off.
: Certainly they were.
: But all this has nothing to do with this meeting.
: I think it has, because the notice says, "and all other purposes relating thereto."
observed that Mr.Sharman
said at the last Vestry, when the books were produced, that he would have nothing to do with them.
Chairman: Certainly I did; because they are not an account fit to produce to the parish. A committee has been appointed to go through them, and one of the committee men had told
him he should recommend their being put behind the fire, for he could not make them out. All
he (the Chairman) wished to do was to protect the parish from an additional levy of £3,000.
: I don't think you can levy a rate.
: As for the books, anyone may look over them without being much the wiser. I have seen them, and there is certainly no account whatever relating to Mrs.Jenk's
debt, nor indeed
any account that I could make out.
did not believe any part of Mrs.Jenks's
account was in the book, because the rates that were collected were applied, part to pay off Mr.Sawyer's
debt, and in other ways.
The Chairman contended that many of the inhabitants had not been entied
on all the rates. He had enquired of Mr.Cobbett
, who said the Churchwardens had not called on the inhabitants at all.
: But you have heard two of the Churchwardens, Mr.Legh
, declare they have frequently called on them, and why should you take Mr.Cobbet's
word in preference to theirs?
: All I have to say is, that Mr.Sharman
was Churchwarden during part of the time this was going on.
: There is no question that all parties are to blame - the inhabitants, the Churchwardens, and Mrs.Jenks
- and the only question is how to get out of it.
said he had no desire to screen himself from whatever responsibility might attach to him as one of the Churchwardens.
thought the least the Churchwardens could do was to produce the accounts.
: There can be no objection, and the way to do that is to hand them over to the current Churchwardens, but Mr.Sharman
will not receive the.
: The present Churchwardens ought to have produced them
: Why Mr.Batcheidor
had them for two months, and he was not able to make anything of them - (laughter)
: Whatever the accounts may be, the Vestry has passed them.
Chairman: Rates have been levied, sufficient to pay the mortgage, and I have often told them they were doing wrong, and that they should make a rate in aid.
: You were in office the first year the instalment was due.
Chairman: Yes, but I had not got the books.
Mr.Bedborough: You might have got them. If you had gone the right way to get them.
After some further discussion, Mr.Secker
moved a resolution, that the Churchwardens be requested to take the necessary steps to bring the facts of the case before the Court of King's Bench,
in order to meet the application for mandamus.
said he should not oppose the motion, provided the facts were fairly stated.
The motion was carried unanimously, after which the Vestry broke up.
Windsor Police - Monday
, who had been remanded to this day on a charge of stealing a shawl from a child in the Long Walk, as detailed in our paper last week, was brought up, and the mother of the child
refusing to appear and prosecute, she was discharged after a suitable admonition from the Mayor, to whom she promised, she would immediately leave Windsor.
A Profitless Prophet - An elderly man named Calvert
, a native of Ireland, was brought up charged with causing an annoyance to the porters at the Castle.
The prisoner within the last fortnight presented himself at the porters lodges at the Castle, demanding to see his Majesty, to whom he said he wished to impart some prophecy, and as
he appeared to be labouring under some mental delusion and could not be prevailed upon to depart quietly he was given into the custody of Mr.Gillman
, superintendent of the police, who
conveyed him before the magistrates. After a considerable remonstrance he was then induced to promise he would leave the town. However he was now brought before them again, having
returned to the Castle, being impressed with another prophecy, viz to inform the King that he (the prisoner) was to be the King of France. As he persisted with having an interview with his
Majesty the porter on duty again gave him into custody. His demeanour was certainly not that character to manifest madness, or at least if it were so, he displayed a method in it, for finding
he could not succeed in inducing the magistrates to pay much attention to his prophetic commission he earnestly solicited pecuniary relief, and failing that he exhibited sense
enough to choose between the inside and the outside of a gaol, as the following portion of the colloquy that passed will show. After being assured that he would not be allowed to go to the Castle and annoy any one there -
The Mayor said: You may depend upon it you will be confined for life if you trouble the people at the Castle. Do not trouble the King and Queen any more. Now will you return home?
Prisoner: I will have nothing more to do with Kings and Queens. But I hope you will allow me something to set me on the road.
Mayor: Nothing at all. You came here where you have no business, and now you ask for something to relieve you on going back!
Prisoner : I can't get on without something to eat and drink.
: Oh, he is not out of his mind [Every one present agreed in this remark].
Mayor: Now, I tell you, you have the choice either of immediately returning home, or going to prison.
Prisoner : I can't stand prison now. I can't live on one meal a day, for I'm used to two or three a day.
The Gaoler here stated that from the hearty manner in which the prisoner ate his prison breakfast it was evident that his appetite was of the keenest character. Indeed, his appearance by no means betokened a want of food.
Mayor : Once more we will allow you to go home, so choose between that and the prison.
Prisoner: Its hard for me to go without some money.
Mayor: You will get none here, and if we send you to prison you shall be kept on one half of the prison allowance.
This was quite enough for the fellow, who finding he could make no impression upon the magistrates, walked quickly out of Court.
Passing Bad Money.- John Curier
, a lad about 18 years of age, was finally examined on a charge of passing counterfeit shillings. We mentioned this case in our paper this day fortnight, and the
prisoner had been remanded to ascertain whether the authorities of his Majesty's mint would prosecute. An answer having been returned in the affirmative, he was this day fully committed on three
charges of offering bad shillings at Mr Stroud's
the butcher, Mrs. Mary Sutton's
, beer shop keeper, and Mr.Simmonds
, baker; independent of which charges he had in his possession
when taken into custody by Charles Clarke
, the policeman, three other counterfeit shillings.
[?] v MALLISOW
- The complainant in this case was a tall, bony, sallow, visaged lady of easy virtue who complaining of the annoyances to which she was frequently subjected from the
defendant, a man with whom she had cohabited, but whom she had --------- she at present lives with.
Although of ---------------she appears to have had several "fancy" men, the first of whom by designation "Bristol Jack
" unluckily got transported, but his loss was speedily remedied by a successor.
The annoyance complained of by the complainant consisted in the defendants frequently abusing her in the streets "and
all because I will not live with him again, your Worship" said she. His language was most horrid, but her delicacy prevented her from repeating it. Her witness also, who was with her in the
Long Walk on Friday night about nine o'clock, also deposed of the bad language he used - indeed it was so bad that she was even obliged to go away from them.
The defendant admitted he used bad language to the complainant, but said she had provoked him to it, and also that she had been the means of getting him discharged from a situation he
had obtained. He called a witness, who proved that the woman had grossly abused him in the streets.
The complainant admitted she had abused him and called him "a Windsor bully," but it was because he always followed and insulted her for not living with him.
Sims (the gaoler).....
- [For Sims comments please email me]
The Magistrates expressed their opinion that the complainant had brought all this upon herself. No doubt they both had acted improperly, and the warrant should be discharged, each paying
their own costs. The Mayor added, if they came again they should be both bound over to keep the peace, for the use of gross language in the streets was very offensive to all respectable persons.
The defendant by this decision had to pay 3s, and the complainant 8s 6d, she seemed much disappointed at the result.
[For details of the case involving Phillip Lazarus
and Henry Allard
(also mentions Rev.Mr.Herschel and Mr.Peer's coach office) please email me].
was charged with stealing a large copper kettle from the dwelling house of Mr.Henry Wheeler
, beer shop keeper, in George-street.
It appeared that on Tuesday morning, shortly after five o'clock Mole
, the policeman, when on duty, saw the prisoner and a young man named John Plumridge
(which latter had not been
long liberated from gaol, where he had been imprisoned for robbery), go down Goswell-lane together, the prisoner carrying a bag containing something bulky. Mole
followed at a distance
until the prisoner and his companion reached Clewer Fields, and there he came up to them as the prisoner was busy breaking a copper kettle to pieces which he had taken from the bag. Mole
asked the prisoner what he had there, and he said he did not know. Plumridge
ran away, and Mole
took the prisoner, who asked why he did not take Plumridge
. However, on the road to
the station house the prisoner said he was glad that Mole had not taken Plumridge, as one was enough to suffer for it, adding that he might as well be in the gaol as starving. Upon enquiry
it was found that the copper kettle had been stolen that morning from the kitchen at Wheeler's beer shop, the lodgers who went out early in the morning having probably left the street door
open, and thus have enabled the prisoner and his companion to enter.
The prisoner was remanded until Monday, to enable the police to apprehend Plumridge
, a girl of the town, who has for about a month been a pauper in the Windsor workhouse, was committed to hard labour for fourteen days, for grossly improper conduct in that establishment.