Derbyshire Murders

Press.

1

A CRIME OF COMMON PURPOSE

Stanley, 1842

Seventy-year-old Martha Goddard lived with her sister Sarah, who was four years her junior, at the secluded Stanley Hall, six miles from Derby. It was a large residence, 100 yards from their closest neighbours, surrounded by orchards and fields, and which was approached by a private road.

The daughters of a former vicar of Tideswell, the Misses Goddard, as they were affectionately known throughout the district, had never married. They were members of one of the county’s most respectable and wealthiest families. They were noted for being charitable, kind and humane, but they also had a reputation for being rather eccentric. Fiercely independent, they lived alone and had no permanent servants. If any work needed to be done to the Hall or in the garden, the sisters hired local people from the village of Stanley. By the autumn of 1842, they had lived under the same roof for more than forty years.

Their isolated location and independent nature meant that they were vulnerable, and they had been the victims of two burglaries already that year. In April, two men had broken into their home, and, after threatening Martha, the culprits escaped with several articles of silver and a number of sovereigns.

In early September, a second burglary had occurred and several pieces of linen were taken. However, the sisters had not been disturbed, and had only become aware of the crime when they awoke the next morning. Following this, their friends attempted to persuade them to employ two live-in servants, to offer at least some protection. However, Martha and Sarah would not agree to such a suggestion, and continued to live on their own as they had for many years previously.

However, the concern for their well being, which had been shown by their friends, proved to have been well founded. At 5 a.m. on Friday, 30 September 1842, their neighbours, Mr and Mrs Scattergood, woke to the sound of Sarah hammering at their door. She was in great distress and her nightdress was covered in blood, for she had been the victim of a vicious assault. She told the Scattergoods that another burglary had occurred, that both she and her sister had been attacked, and she believed Martha to have been murdered.

The Scattergoods alerted other neighbours Mr and Mrs Hartson, and together they all made their way to the Hall, which they discovered to have been ransacked. They found Martha in her bedroom, lying on her back on the bed, her legs protruding over the side and resting on a chair. Her eyes were closed, but she was still breathing, albeit with great difficulty. Unable to speak, she was covered in blood and there was a great quantity on the bed and on the floor.

Dr Robert Boden of Smalley arrived at 7 a.m. and found Martha insensible but clinging to life. Tragically, however, she died thirty minutes later. The doctor found four severe wounds to her head, each of which was 1¾in long, and three of these had resulted in fractures to the skull, and these had been the cause of death. All had probably been caused by the same weapon, which he thought was a type of iron bar. He also confirmed that it had been used with considerable force against the elderly victim.

Other injuries included considerable bruising to the right side of her neck, a wound to her left wrist and left forefinger, bruising to the back of her left hand, and the ring finger of her right hand was fractured.

Dr Boden treated Sarah’s injuries at the scene, which, although serious, were not life threatening. There was bruising to her face, neck and hands; he found two wounds on the left side of her head, and the middle finger of her left hand was fractured. He concluded that Sarah’s injuries had been caused by a similar weapon to that which had been used against her sister.

The police discovered a ladder leaning against the wall of the coalhouse, which was about 7ft high. Several tiles had been removed from the coalhouse roof, creating a hole large enough for a man to lower himself through. Once inside the coalhouse the intruders had passed through a door into the kitchen, from which another door led into the main living area of the Hall.

Sarah told the police that the intruders demanded to be shown where their cash and valuables were kept. They took two sovereigns and a few shillings, together with several shawls, a yellow handkerchief, a brown apron and several pieces of cloth, but missed two £5 notes.

The inquest into Martha’s death was held at the White Hart in Stanley before the coroner, Henry Mozley. The jury heard evidence from the neighbours who responded to Sarah’s pleas for help, and medical evidence given by Dr Boden. Additionally, they heard Sarah’s own account of what had occurred. She told the court:

On Thursday night last, my sister went to bed about ten o’ clock. I sat up a great deal later. About half past twelve o’clock on Friday morning, I was sitting by the fire in the house place, and heard a noise like mortar falling. The sound came from the coalhouse, the door of which was open. Just as I got to it there came out of it two men who knocked me down, and afterwards went up to my sister’s room. When I was able to get up again, I went upstairs to my room, and the men came into it, and knocked me down again with heavy iron bars they had in their hands. They were very stern savage men. They stayed in the house about ninety minutes, and they then left it. Soon after they had gone I went into my sister’s room and found her lying, bleeding, on her back across the bed. I put her legs on a chair and alarmed the neighbours. When I first went in my sister said to me, ‘Sally! Sally! A man! A man!’ and she moaned. I cannot describe the men.

The inquest jury returned a verdict of wilful murder, and a reward of £100 was offered immediately by Martha’s friends for information leading to the arrest of those responsible for the crime. A few days later the Home Secretary agreed to an additional reward of £100, which included an offer to pardon any participant in the crime, if not the actual murderer, who would identify those responsible and give evidence against them on behalf of the Crown. Within twenty-four hours of the murder being committed, two local villains named Keeling and Green had fallen under suspicion and were arrested. However, it was soon established that they had not been responsible. They were released after the police received information implicating three other men in the crime, all of whom were known criminals.

News of the murder had broken during the early hours of Friday – market day in Derby – and the crime at Stanley Hall was the day’s major topic of conversation. One of those who returned home at the end of the day’s business was Joseph Simpson, a needle maker from the village of Heage. That evening he discussed the case with his neighbour, John Hulme. During their conversation, Hulme blurted out that he had been one of the burglars, and telling Simpson, ‘I’ll go and tell Bonsall, and he must tell Bland. Nobody can swear to us as nobody was there.’

The following night Hulme met a friend, known as Domino, for a drink. Domino knew that Hulme had taken part in the two earlier burglaries of Stanley Hall, and raised the matter of the murder with him. Hulme admitted that he had been present when Martha was beaten, but insisted that he had not been responsible for her death. He again named his accomplices as Samuel Bonsall and William Bland, adding that Bonsall had committed the murder.

With a reward of £200 on offer, Hulme was clearly being naïve in believing that his admitting to having taken part in the crime would not be reported to the authorities. Domino contacted Constable John Hawkins, who immediately arranged for the houses of the three men to be searched. At Bonsall’s home, a quantity of items including a flannel shirt were found; at Bland’s home, a brown apron was discovered hidden away. It was later established that all of these items had been taken from Stanley Hall on the night of the crime. At this stage, nothing was found in Hulme’s house, but Joseph Simpson, with the assistance of Richard Dronsfield, a youngster apprenticed to Hulme, would later uncover a large quantity of the items stolen from Stanley Hall, which had been buried by Hulme.

Bonsall and Bland were arrested and brought before Sarah. She did not recognise Bland, but she identified Bonsall, saying, ‘He was the man who looked stern and savage at me, and shook his fist. He also knocked me down and afterwards beat me with an iron bar.’

Hulme meanwhile had fled the area, and a reward of £50 was offered for his capture. He travelled to his hometown of Leek in Staffordshire, where his parents still lived. After a few days, during which he had remained hidden, he contacted them through an intermediary, and his mother and father assured him that it was safe to come to the house. However, they had contacted their local constable, and he was arrested as soon as he entered the family home. All three suspects were now in custody.

Twenty-four-year-old John Hulme, also known as Holme, Starbuck and Jack the Sweep, had left his parents’ home when he was eleven years old. He was apprenticed to a chimneysweep and travelled the countryside using this employment as a cover for finding houses to break into. Two of his brothers had already been transported for crimes they had committed. Samuel Bonsall, also known as Bonser, was twenty-six years old, and William Bland was aged thirty-nine. Both men were colliers, originally natives of Belper, and were known burglars.

Their trial took place on Monday, 20 March 1843, and at 7 a.m. the courtroom was already packed. Many were locked out and some of these climbed on to the roof of the court building to watch the proceedings through the rooftop windows. At 9 a.m. the trial judge, Mr Justice Gurney, took his seat and the hearing began.

The prosecution was conducted by Mr Clarke, Mr Whitehurst and Mr Fowler. Bonsall was represented by Mr Miller, but Hulme and Bland had no legal representation. The statements made by Hulme and Bland contained admissions that they had taken part in the crime, but each man attempted to distance himself from the actual murder. Unlike his coaccused, Bonsall denied any involvement and insisted he was not at the scene when the crime was committed. Each of the accused was hoping that if his version of events was accepted by the jury, he would perhaps avoid the noose.

Sarah Goddard was too distressed to attend the trial, and her identification evidence of Bonsall was therefore not presented to the jury. Nevertheless, the Crown was convinced it had a strong case against him and proceeded without her testimony.

William Bland’s account, which formed the basis of his defence at the trial, had been taken down by the police following his arrest. It had been read out in the presence of his two co-accused on 21 October, and in it he stated that:

I am innocent of the charge of wilful [sic] murder; I am innocent of that crime. I was there but on the outside. I mean on the outside of the buildings where the lady lived. Samuel Bonsall began to take the slates off and gave them me. This John Sweep as they call him, he goes by the name of John Starbuck, said, ‘Damn you, stand on one side and let me take the slates off’. There was a bit of a ladder to get up to them. John Starbuck said, ‘They have nailed a piece of wood on here since we were here before.’ Samuel Bonsall goes up the ladder and pulled it off. And Samuel came down and the Sweep went up the ladder and went through. As soon as he got through, the maiden lady I think was nigh at hand. We went in the door. The Sweep unbolted it and said, ‘Damn her eyes, I had to knock her over before I could unbolt the door’. He unbolted it – that is John Starbuck did, in the inside, and I and Bonsall went in. This was through the outer kitchen door. Samuel Bonsall and John Starbuck drove the lady upstairs. I did not offer to go up. John Starbuck said if I did not come up he would come and knock my brains out. They damned and buggered me several times, and I was forced to go up or else I was afraid for my life. Samuel Bonsall and John Starbuck were plundering – that is throwing things on to the landing. John Starbuck got this iron crow and said if I did not put the things into the bag he would knock my brains out. They broke several chests open. They broke the door open where this lady was. They got both their crowbars and sprung the door open. The old lady, her as they killed, screamed out several times, ‘Sally, come Sally!’ Samuel Bonsall struck this old lady several times over the ribs on the side. She kept screaming out like, and he struck her over the head at last. He says, ‘Damn you, I think I have cranked you at last’. I don’t know as I have anything more to say. The other old woman they said was coming out, ‘Damn her, stop her.’ We were going back towards Heage and met a man near some houses in a lane, which I understood Joseph Roe to say this morning was Woodhouse Lane. I don’t know justly the words he said. He said, ‘I think you have got something that is not your own’. Us three, Samuel Bonsall, John Starbuck and me met this man. John Starbuck says, ‘You must be thankful you are against these houses or else we should have cranked you.’ And Samuel Bonsall said, ‘Never mind him, come on.’ We went right home. They said there was 19s 6d, which they found on the premises, and they gave me 6s 6d of it. I have rather overrun my tale; John Starbuck says the old lady soon delivered up 6s 6d. That was all she had she said, and 13s Samuel Bonsall found, that made 19s 6d, they told me.

John Hulme’s defence was given in the account which had been taken down in written form when he appeared before Leek Magistrates’ Court, shortly after his arrest. It read as follows:

On Thursday, the night of the murder of Miss Goddard, Samuel Bonsall of Heage, a collier, came to see me at my house at Heage, in John Roger’s Row, about 8 o’clock at night, where I was getting my supper. My wife and her mother were present. He asked me if I would go with him to Stanley about nine miles off Heage. I asked him what for and he answered to get