|
Matilda Gay , 35, and Constantine
Tripconey, 62, a shoemaker, were charged with
stealing on the 31st May, last, about ten
sovereigns from a dead body at St.Keverne.
Mr.Cole and Mr.Kingdon were counsel for the
prosecution; Mr.Coleridge defended Tripconey, and
Mr.Stork for the female prisoner. The
circumstance of this case were of a very painful
nature, and arose out of the loss of the John,
emigrant-ship, which left Plymouth on the
afternoon of the 3rd of May last. A few hours
after her departure she was wrecked on the
Manacles Rocks, situated on the Southern Coast of
Cornwall, with the loss of more than two-thirds
of her passengers. After the wreck, dredging
machines were employed to take up the dead bodies
by the Coast-guard men of the neighbourhood.
On the 31st May, three men
named John Penticost, James Richards, and
Thomas Kingdon, proceeded to
St.Keverne, the scene of the wreck, and found
floating near the beach the dead body of a
female, unknown. They carried the body a short
distance from the sea, when one of the men
thought he saw the body of another unfortunate
passenger floating in the water. They then left
the body in question, but previous to doing so,
they observed that attached to the stays was a
pocket so sewn that it's contents could not
be abstracted without it's being cut open.
One of the witnesses felt the pocket and it was
his opinion that it contained a considerable sum
of money. The men left the body and proceeded
again to the water's edge for the purpose of
looking for the second body, but when they came
down they found that they had been mistaken.
Whilst absent the two prisoners and another woman
were seen near the body, the female prisoner
being observed to look over the clothes. The men,
apprehending that the prisoners were searching
the body, returned to the spot where they had
deposited it, and they discovered that the stays
had been cut open. The pocket was also cut,
inside of which was some paper, which had
evidently contained money. The men saw the
prisoners go into a meadow and they proceeded
after them. One of the witnesses asked the female
prisoner what was the matter with her, as she
appeared to be hurried, and her reply was that
the state of the woman had frightened her. The
witness told her that she had no business to go
near the body, much less to touch it, and they
subsequently accused both the prisoners with the
robbery. The matter having come to the knowledge
of the Rev. Mr.Griffiths, vicar at St.Keverne, a
warrant was issued for their apprehension, but
before it was put into execution, the male
prisoner came to the rev. gentleman and handed
him over five sovereigns, at the same stating
that that was all the money he and the other
prisoner had found on the body. A woman named
Philippa Martin, stated in her evidence that she
accompanied the prisoners on the morning in
question to St.Keverne. the female prisoner went
over to the body, and after remaining there a
short time Tripconey said "they are
coming" (meaning the men) and Gay then
seemed to be very much hurried. Tripconey then
said, "put the money in my hand" and
witness saw upwards of £10 in gold
transferred to him. Afterwards he remarked that
he had had a good day's work, and he offered
the witness a part of the money which she
refused. When the prisoners were committed, the
female observed that she should not have gone
near the body had not Tripconey pointed it out to
her, and the latter replied, "for God's
sake don't make a bad matter worse."
Mr. STORK, for the female
prisoner, did not deny that she had robbed the
body, but submitted there was no felonious
intent. He put it to the Jury, whether, supposing
she had thought she was doing wrong, she would
have robbed the unfortunate passenger in the
presence of anyone; but when she heard that
robbing a body constituted a felony, she directed
Tripconey to take the money to the vicar, and for
aught the jury knew, the £5 handed over to
that gentleman by the male prisoner was all the
money found on the body. His client evidently
thought that she had a much right to the money as
any other person; and her conduct subsequent to
the occurrence he confidently submitted was a
clear proof that there was no felonious intent;
and therefore she was entitled to an
acquittal.
Mr.COLERIDGE, on behalf of
Tripconey, rested his defence on similar grounds
to Mr.Stork, but endeavoured to cast the onus of
the robbery on the prisoner Gay.
His lordship observed that the
two prisoners were charged with stealing ten
sovereigns, the property of the Bishop of Exeter,
the indictment being so laid, owing to the
ancient right which he had to take possession of
any property found on the body of a person
unknown until administration was taken out, and
the only question for the jury to consider was
whether it appeared to them that the prisoners at
the bar took the money with the intention of
appropriating it to themselves. If they thought
it was so taken, it was nothing less than a
felony; but if, on the other hand, they were
satisfied that there was no such intent, they
were bound to acquit them. The prisoner Tripconey
was committed on two counts - the first with
having participated in the actual stealing of the
property, and the second with having received the
money knowing it to be stolen. If the jury
thought that they had a common design in stealing
the money, and that the male prisoner was present
with the common purpose of aiding her, he was as
guilty as she was, although he might not be the
actual person who took it, or might not have been
within twenty yards of the spot; but if there was
reasonable doubt in the matter they were bound to
acquit them both.
The jury then retired, and
after a few minutes deliberation, they found both
the prisoners guilty, but at the same time, they
thought they had not taken the money with the
intention of committing a felony.
The JUDGE, with evident
astonishment, said the question was whether they
took the money with a felonious intent; if they
did not think so they were bound to acquit
them.
A Juryman: We do not think
they had a dishonest intention.
The JUDGE; You must find them
guilty or not guilty. If you think they did not
take the money with the intention of depriving
the true owner, you are bound to acquit them.
The jurymen were as stupid a
body of men as could well be got together, and it
was some time before they could understand the
judge. They ultimately retired to another room,
and after an absence of about half an hour, they
found both the prisoners guilty.
The prisoners were sentenced
on the following morning to three months'
imprisonment, the female prisoner to hard
labour.
|
