[murder - capital punishment, anatomising - capital punishment, public - approver, evidence by - Launceston]

R. v. Davidson, Hurlock and Street

Supreme Court of Van Diemen's Land

Pedder C.J., 19 June 1834

Source: Hobart Town Courier, 20 June 1834

TRIAL OF THE MURDERERS OF THE LATE MRS. HOWELL

On Friday the investigation of this most cold blooded murder came on in the Supreme Court before His Honour the Chief Justice. The three wretched men charged with the murder being arraigned, namely Benjamin Davidson, William Hurlock and Henry Street, the Attorney General opened the case to the jury. Although the main detail of the transaction was elicited from the evidence of John Curtis who had been accessory to the dreadful deed, yet the whole was to clearly confirmed by the testimony of the other witnesses that the guilt of the prisoners was proved beyond a question, even if they had not confussed it previous to their execution.

The facts as elicited in evidence from Curtis were chiefly as follow:- He had been as signed to the service of Mr. Howell, the son of the deceased, in the capacity of a shepherd, in January last, at the time that Lieutenant Dyball quitted the farm. On the 4^th of May last, being sunday, his master had gone to Launceston not intending to return before the Monday evening, leaving his mother, the deceased, alone with the three assigned servants Davidson, Thomas Hazel and himself. Davidson was the indoor servant, and Hazel a farming man. The morning being wet when he got up at 6 o’clock, he did not go after the sheep as usual, on coming down the stairs he met Davidson who aid he was going to get some tobacco in the cellar, which though situated under the parlour, the access to it was by a small trap door from the kitchen. Davison accordingly went down, and Mrs. Howell who was sitting by the fire, and had placed the parlour door open in her usual way with a stick, turning around observed Davidson coming out of the cellar – on asking him what he wanted there, he answered nothing, and it appeared in fact that he had not taken anything.

After this the servants having taken breakfast, Curtis went out to g out after his sheep but returned in a few minutes for some purpose. Davidson had left the kitchen and he observed Mrs. Howell looking into the cellar through the small opening. He then went to the barn where he meet Davidson, and informed him that he had seen his mistress looking into the cellar. Upon this Davidson seems to have taken alarm, saying to Curtis he was sure his mistress would inform his master on his return form Launceston and they would both be punished, - Curtis, however tried to dissuade him from this idea as he had not taken anything, but Davidson persisted, saying, he knew that he would punish him. Curtis then returned to the kitchen where Mrs. Howell was busied with the breakfast things. He descended into the trap door and remained some time, in order that the said, to see if his mistress would say anything on seeing him, - she, however, did not, and on returning to the barn he told Davidson, in order to make his mind easy about the dread of punishment.

Davidson, however, persisted in saying that he was sure his master would punish him, and asked Curtis to do with him to the huts of Hurlock and Street, about three quarters of a mile off. Hurlock was at home. On the road Davidson said to Curtis ‘it would be best to out the old women aside and rob the house as she would be sure to tell master when he came home.’ Curtis not agreeing with this they went on together to Hurlock, who said as street was not at home he could not tell what they would do. Curtis then went to visit his sheep and Davidson to look after a cow which he had in charge, on their return about noon they found Hurlock and Street sitting a little distance from the hut. The former said ‘it won’t do, you have been and robbed the house and want as to come up as a stall.’ Both Davidson and Curtis however assured him of the contrary. Hurlock replied ‘it will not do for us to come up unless we put the old woman aside as she will know us both.’ Both he and Street declared they would like to shoot her, and Davidson with an oath, added he would shoot her himself, unless he and Curtis would toss up which of the two should do it.

Curtis then revisited his sheep, and on returning to dinner was followed by Davidson, Hazel the other servant was also there. On going to the kitchen Mrs. Howell was sitting in her chair in the parlour (as this part of the evidence is most material we give it in the witness’s own words) – "I went for the potatoes but he fire and saw her. The parlour door was set open by a stick. She told me there was more potatoes in the pot for my dinner - she was at needlework. The chair on which she sat was inside the parlour door close to the table. I was at dinner about 20 minutes before Davidson came in. Mrs. Howell said is that you Davidson. I was going up to get a shirt when Davidson asked me if I knew where old Tom’s musket was, I said I did not know unless it was upstairs. I went up and brought it down and gave it to him. I don’t think it was loaded, for the pan was open and cock down. Davidson took the musket to the door. In four or five minutes he returned without it, and went and lighted his pipe at the fire, after that he went to the door and beckoned with his hand, when Hurlock and Street came up. Hurlock had the musket that I gave to Davidson, Street had a fowling piece of his own. Hurlock and Street then came into the kitchen, Davidson taking the musket from Hurlock’s hand. The parlour door was standing open as before. I did not see where Mrs. Howell was at that time. Davidson came to the corner of the flour bin near the parlour door – he was sideways to it. He had the musket in this left hand and a tine pot in his right hand, and kept as much out of sight of the parlour door as he could, rattling the tin pot on the corner of the bin on which the parlour door falls back. Hurlock and Street were both in the Kitchen. Davidson then put the musket up to his right shoulder and shot Mrs. Howell.

The ball passed completely through her body, and the unfortunate lady dropped form the chair and was dead in two minutes. No sooner was the deed done then the most alarming terror seized the murderers. They proceed, however, to ransack the house, broke open the drawers and other places where they expected to find things of value, searched the murdered woman’s pockets, and were only interrupted in the midst of their plunder by the approach of a cart. Curtis in the meantime was sent to the cellar for a pot of rum, form which they all drunk, but the horrible deed which he had done so operated in Davidson as, by his own account, to choke him, when he attempted to shallow the rum it came up through his nose. They had expected, it appeared, to have obtained the sum of 60 sovereigns, of which Mrs. Howell was known to be possessed, she having ore than once been heard to declare she should keep that money in her possession, and not give it up to any of her family. The money, however, had some time before been lodged in Launceston.

They agreed to tie each others hands and legs, in order to make it appear that the murder had been committed by Bushrangers. The improbability of this, however, was very clearly pointed out by the Attorney-general in his opening address to the jury, independent of the subsequent full confession of the murderers themselves. The whole of the facts were most satisfactorily confirmed by the various other witnesses. A plan of the scene of the murder and the apartments of the house was produced by Capt. Smith, which also served materially to elucidate the circumstances. Mr. Cook, the surgeon, who examined the body after the murder, and was one of the jury on the inquest, stated that the ball had entered under the right shoulder blade bone, touched one of the ribs, and had come out just above the left breast, having gone through the body and causing instant death.

His Honour the Chief Justice summed up the evidence in the most clear and circumstantial manner. He called in the jury to look upon the evidence if Curtis as that of an approver taken from the box.[1] He shewed that it was not probable that bushrangers had done the deed, for according to Davidson’s account on the inquest they had come for provisions yet on this occasion no provisions had been taken, and had it been for plunder they would have carried off the double gun and not have left it near the house. Besides the bushrangers could have no object in killing the old lady and leaving the prisoners as living witnesses of their deed and guilt. His Honour read over his notes, comprehending every word uttered by the witness, on which the dwelt, and enlarged by observation. The point was by whom was the crime committed. He left it to the jury and again dwelt on the character of Curtis. This trial commenced at 12 noon and about 6 o’clock the jury retired and shortly returned with a verdict of guilty.

The prisoners then addressed the Judge in the most touching terms. He pointed out the enormity of their crime, and reminded them that even the best of us are not free from sin – that when we are about to die we all require some moments to address the Great Creator, soliciting forgiveness, but the prisoners had placed the poor, unfortunate, deceased lady in a worse position than even that in which they were standing. They had sent her out of the world without a moment’s forethought, totally unprepared, into the presence of the Almighty, and if the law had been farmed in revenge according to the law of nature rather than in truth, justice, and mercy, they (the prisoners) ought instantly be struck to death – whereas they would now have time, although it was but a short time, to repent. He commented on the hardihood evinced by the prisoner Davidson throughout the trial, and hoped that before the dread moment arrived his heart would undergo a change. They were sentenced to execution in Monday morning, their bodies to be dissected and anatomised.[2]

On Monday morning an immense concourse of people was assembled in front of the goal wall to witness the awful spectacle, an unusual interest having been excited both at the trial and on this occasion, from the great heniousness of the offence. The sheriff was punctual to the hour and before 15 minutes to eight the prisoners were no more. They had previously intreated the Rev. Mr. Bedford, whose attentions to them both before and after their trial were unremiting, to announce to the multitude their confession of their guilt, the acknowledgement of the justness of their sentence, and the penitence with which they died. Davidson the immediate perpetrator of the murder was quite a young man, having been only 19 years of age in 1829, when he was tried at Aberdeen and sentenced to 14 years transportation for robbery and house breaking under very aggravating circumstances. He had been formerly assigned to Mr. Hortle.[3] He was addicted to drunkenness and was subject to ungovernable fits of passion, and was recently guilty of some most outrageous conduct in a hut, brandishing a knife and threatening to kill. From the moment of the murder and during all the investigations of inquest he was most melancholy and depressed, and what is remarkable as soon as he heard that Curtis had become an approver he in a great degree recovered his former spirits, arising no doubt from the removal of suspense and the certainty of his fate. He was the most contrite of all the three and was constant in prayer from the hour of his committal. Extreme terror and paleness marked his countenance which indeed from the suddenness with which the final stroke was effected on himself, the jerk of the rope breaking the neck and preventing all flow of blood to the head, continued remarkable after death.

Hurlock and Street, though formerly prisoners, had both been free for some time and lived together in a hut on a small farm of 30 acres, with two females, in a very disreputable manner. Hurluck was tired at the Middlesex sessions in Dec. 1823, and convicted of stealing a quantity of clothing and sentenced to 7 years. At that time he was only 17 years of age, being now 28. He was last year imprisoned on a charge of sheep stealing and acquitted. Street was about the same age. He was tried at the Middlesex sessions in Jan. 1823 and also sentenced to 7 years for stealing from a shop, having been transported the same vessel with Hurluck (the Sir Gedfery Webster). Like his companion Hurluck he had been tried and imprisoned for various offences near London, before being finally sent out to this country.

Much credit is due to Capt. Smith for the unwearied pains he took, as well as Mr. Saltmarsh and the other functionaries of the police in bringing this unparalleled murder to light. The inquest on the poor woman’s body last 6 days, and the promptitude not only ranging and searching the neighbourhood in the first instance, when it was believed according to the murderer’s account that bushrangers had committed the deed, as well as the firmness and judgement of the Police Magistrate evinced in committing the orders cannot too much be applauded. The villains not having a ball fit for the fatal deed, had beaten up a piece of lead into an irregular lump to lad the gun, which accounts for the ragged appearance of the wound. We cannot here conclude without expressing our strong disapproval, through a motive of economy no doubt, in sending the whole 4 men, including Curtis the approver, in a cart all the way for trial from Launceston to Hobart Town, instead of keeping them separate as they ought, by the ends of justice, notwithstanding the express request as we learn of the committing magistrate, were nearly defeated.

Notes

[1] An approver was a person who confessed a crime and accused others of complicity, usually being pardoned or exempted from prosecution.

[2] In this, as in many other murder cases, the trial was held on a Friday and the prisoner condemned to die on the following Monday. This was consistent with the provisions of a 1752 statute (25 Geo. III c. 37, An Act for Better Preventing the Horrid Crime of Murder). By s. 1 of that Act, all persons convicted of murder were to be executed on the next day but one after sentence was passed, unless that day were a Sunday, in which case the execution was to be held on the Monday. By holding the trials on a Friday, judges gave the condemned prisoners an extra day to prepare themselves for death. See the New South Wales case of R. v. Butler, 1826. The Act restricted the opportunity for clemency in murder cases: see Australian, 5 August 1826, pp 2-3. By s. 4 of the Act, the judge was given power to stay the execution; for an example of that, see R. v. Fitzpatrick and Colville, 1824 (N.S.W.).

[3] This means that a convict had been assigned to work for a private master.