Crown

From the Maidstone Journal, 3 April 1792.

"Crown Inn," Rochester.

Thomas Cornwell, many years Butler to John Sawbridge, Esq. Begs permission to inform the Nobility, Gentry, and the Public in general, that he has taken the "Crown Inn," of Mr. Ayres, of Rochester, and enters soon it in a few weeks; when he humbly hopes for the favours and protection of his friends in the public in general; and they made depends that no care or attention shall we wanted to give satisfaction to every person that will do him the Honour to use his house.

The flattering reception he met with at Maidstone, when he had the Honour to wait on the Gentleman of the Grand Jury, gives him the greatest hope of success.

From the Maidstone Journal, 15 May 1792.

Thomas Ayers, late of the "Crown Inn," Rochester, cannot omit embracing the earliest opportunities for offering lodgings, with the greatest gratitude, how much he finds himself indebted to the Nobility and Gentry who have for a series of years honored him with their favours. He begs leave to return them his most sincere and grateful thanks, and respectfully informs them he has resigned the business in favour of Mr. Thomas Cornwell.

Rochester, May 9, 1792.

"Crown Inn," Rochester.

Thomas Cornwell, many years Butler to John Sawbridge, Esq. Thanks permission to inform them nobility and Gentry, and the public in general, that he has taken the Crown in off Mr. Ayers, of Rochester, and amply hopes for the favour and protection of his friends, and the public in general; and they may depend that no care or attention will be wanting to give satisfaction to every person who wishes to him the Honor and use his house, which it will be his humble duty to render, by every possible improvement; and further begs leave to add, that he shall continue to have the cellar supplied with wines of the first class.

Neat Post Chaises, with able Horses, and careful drivers.

Rochester, May 9, 1792.

From the Maidstone Journal, 30 July 1793.

On Friday morning about 2 o'clock, a fire broke out in the stables of Messers Cornwell and Smith, the "Crown Inn," Rochester, but which with timely assistance, and the exertion of the neighbours, was happily extinguished, without doing much damage. Some horses were hurt by the fire before they could be got out.

From the Maidstone Journal, 19 August 1794, Assizes 1.bmp"

Thursday, August 14.

Trial of T. Purefoy, Esq.

The prisoner stood arraigned for Murder in the usual form:- That's not having the fear of God before his eyes, he had fired a pistol at Henry Roper, Esq. on the 21st of December, 1788, in the parish of Gillingham. The ball from the said pistol having entered the right side of the said Henry Roper, Esq. which occasioned his death, &c. &c.

The indictment being red and the jury empanelled and sworn, Mr. Fielding briefly opened the case, as stated in the indictment.

Mr. Garrow entered on a detail of the leading circumstances, in a manner which did honour to his candour without subtracting from his impression on the auditory. He entered, he said, with a painful degree of solicitude on a business so awful and important in its results, to the individual who was concerned, and to the public. However unpleasant his sensations on this occasion, he could not compromise his duty. He could not view the transaction on which the Jury were now called on to decide, in any shadeless deep then that of positive murder. It was the obvious offspring of express malice; but, instead of giving his own opinions on this subject, he would content himself with quoting those of that elegant and scientific expounder of the Law, Mr. Justice Blackstone.

This malice propense takes in the case of the deliberate duelling, where both parties meet avowedly with an intent to murder; thinking it their duty, as Gentleman, and claiming it as their right, to wanton with their own lives and those of their fellow creatures; without any warrants or authority from any power either divine or human, but in direct contradiction to the laws both of God and Man; and therefore the law has justly fixed the crime and punishment of murder on them, and on their fellow beings. Yet it requires such a degree of passive valour to combat the dread of even undeserved contempt, arising from the false potions of honour, too generally received in Europe, that the strongest prohibitions and penalties of the law will never be entirely effectual to eradicate this unhappy custom; till the method be found out of compelling the original aggressor to make some other satisfaction to the affronted party, which the world shall esteem equally reputable, as that which is now given at the hazard of life unfortunate, as well of the person insulted, as of him who has given the insult.

The Jury must decide on this case according to the Law. In its application to the facts, they might implicitly rely on the instructions of the Judge, Mr. Barron Hotham, whose learning and humanity were equally conspicuous. They may also console themselves in case of error, by the certainty that this application would of course be made to that Fountain of Mercy, where an appeal on just grounds was never yet made in vain!

The dual between Colonel Roper and Mr. Purefoy took place on the 21st of December 1788. The interval which had occurred between the time and the present prosecution, was not a signable to the prosecutors, as Mr. Purefoy had for the greater part of the time being able to the kingdom.

It was not, as it would appear in evidence, a sudden recontry, but a dual inconsequence of an agreement previously made, and under circumstances, which, according to the authority which he had quoted, fixed the guilt of murder on the supervisor. It was also material to consider, that the conduct of the unfortunate gentleman at the bar was such, as if not legally punished, precluded all idea of due discipline and subordination in the Army.

He proceeded to give in detail the circumstances of the quarrel from its origin. In the year 1787, Major Roper was Commander in Chief of that island of Saint Vincent's, and Mr. Purefoy was an Ensign in the 66th regiment. The latter having obtain leave of absence, had a festive day, with some others of the junior Officer, in which they committed such successes as occasions a complaint to Major Roper, by whom the leave of absence was recalled. The remonstrance's of Mr. Purefoy were made in such a style as to induce Major Roper to bring him to a Court-Martial. By their verdict he was declared to have forfeited his Commission, and this verdict was afterwards confirmed by his Majesty. This sentence was difficult on undoubtedly to be borne, as breaking in on all the pursuits of a young and ardent mind. Yet it was still the duty of Mr. Purefoy to have submitted.

Mr. Garrow entered into a difficult narrative, which, as the circumstances were more precisely stated in the evidence, we forbear to follow. He admitted in the last instance, the challenge had proceeded from Major Roper, and that in the dual which took place, no foul practice could be alleged, as everything had been conducted in the fairest and most honourable Manner.

John Rudd, a post boy, was the first witness called on the part of the prosecution. He lived in the 1788 at the "Crown" at Rochester. Driving on the 21st of December from Sittingbourne o hat place, he saw four gentlemen get into a turnip field; one of these fired a pistol at an opponent, who immediately fell; the others helped him to his carriage, and soon after two of the gentlemen got into a chaise and four, and drove off hastily towards Sittingbourne.

This witness, on his cross examination, appeared not to know the person of Mr. Purefoy.

John Cresy, the post-boy who drove Mr. Purefoy and his friend, on the 21st of December, said, that at nine o'clock in the morning they were overtaken by another carriage, from which a gentleman and alighted, and spoke to the gentleman in his chaise. He followed their carriage, and afterwards got before it. They afterwards stopped together, and the gentleman in his chaise got out, taking with them a small square box. This was about three miles and a half from Chatham. In a short time he heard the report of a pistol, and soon saw three gentlemen supported one, and putting him into his carriage. The two whom he had driven, got into his chaise, and desired him to make the best of his way to Sittingbourne.

Mr. Vincent Wood, an Army Surgeon, said he resided at Chatham at the time,. He breakfasted that morning with Colonel Roper, when he knew by sight, colonel Slaughter, now General Stanwix, and a Mr. Brand, relation to the former. They drove off in two carriages on the Canterbury Road. He and Mr. Brand went only as far as the "Star" public house. The others, after speaking to two gentlemen in a chaise, went forward. In six or seven minutes he heard the report of a pistol.

On proceeding in the direction of the report, he met Colonel Roper's servant, and soon after found him supported by Mr. Purefoy and two other gentlemen. He had then received a wound in his right side from a pistol ball, which had broken his sixth rib, and lodged under his shoulder blade. His eyes were then convulsed, and he had lost his extremities. He had no doubt but that the wound thus received was the occasion of his death. He died in 14 hours after.

Two witnesses were then called, to lay a foundation for reading as evidence that depositions before the Corona, of ----- Wimble, Colonel Roper's servant, since dead. The one proved his handwriting, and the other his deceased. Mr. Williams, the Coroner proved his signature to the deposition.

Mr. Garrow quoted several presidents, to show that a deposition before the Coroner, taken super visum corporis, (view of the body) under such circumstances, was good evidence - such documents were always allowed where the informant was dead, and in many instances when he was unable to travel.

Mr. Erskine said, that though the deposition was immaterial, he should accept to the proceeding, as one which, whatever may be the ancient presidents, had never been adopted even recent practice. It did not appear that Wimble, whose decease have been proved, was the identical servant of Colonel Roper. If ever the proof of identity was necessary, it was in a charged like the present. The charge was greatly serious, though it different widely from the sole crime of murder, from which every sensate bosom must shrink with the utmost abhorrence. That crime, which was well defined in the ancient law - Homiciaium quod nullo vidente, nullo sciente, clam perpetrator. (A murder that no one sees, no one knows, a secret perpetrator.) "A homicide, committed privately, out of the fight and knowledge of every human being.

"I feel, said Mr. Erskine, in pursuing this arguments, and extreme degree of agitation, though I fear no danger for my client. I cannot but remember, that twice I have been forced into a similar situation with him, and twice have I been rescued only by the interventions of that Providence.

"Without whose seeing not a sparrow falls.

"The ball, in both cases, was aimed by man, but directed by the Almighty. Without that intervention, instead of my giving protection to the unfortunate gentleman at the bar, it must have fallen to some of my brethren near me, to have told the tale of my criminality!

"But if forced into such a situation, must I be accused of that malignity which constitutes the foul crime of murder? No! I would not rely on the mildness of the Judge, or the humanity of the Jury:- If any man who heard me, could pronounce me guilty of such malignity, I would demand to be led to instant execution!

Mr. Barron Hotham, after some further argument, decided, that the deposition should be read in evidence; and that how far the identity of Wimble was determined, should be left as a question to the Jury.

The deposition, when read, added but little to that what was sworn by the two first witnesses. It stated, that the parties having got out of their chaises, Mr. Purefoy pulled off his hat, and put on his spectacles. They stood at the distance of 12 or 13 paces. Mr. Purefoy fired, and his master fell. The former, who had not fired his pistol, previously spoke a few words to Colonel Slaughter (General Stanwix) and his arm, which was then extended, immediately fell. Both parties took aim at the same time. The other Gentleman assisted his master to his carriage; who died on the ensuing day, without making any declaration in the interval.

General Stanwix (the second to Colonel Roper in this art unfortunate affair) was then called. After being sworn, he was cautioned by the Chief Baron, not to answer any questions which might tend to criminate himself.

To the first question he replied, that he knew the late Colonel Roper, and he saw him last at the "Star" public house on the Canterbury Road. That he was then on the eve of expiring, in consequence of a pistol shot. That's on the proceeding Saturday he was in good health.

Mr. Garrow then proceeded to put this pointed question whether he knew from what hand Colonel Roper had received his death wound? and to desire him, if he knew, to state it to the Court. The witness declined an answer to the question.

Mr. Baron Hotham was of opinion, that the answer to the question could not tend to implicate the witness. If the Council for the Crown went further, it was still in his power to decline an answer.

To the question, "from what hand Mr. Roper received his death wound?" General Stanwix then answered, "from that of Mr. Purefoy. - He proceeded to state that the latter showed all the anxiety and humanity that was possible on such an occasion. The meeting of the parties was certainly not accidental. Mr. Purefoy had his spectacles on when he left the chaise,. He recollected that he did not put them on after entering the field, because he asked Colonel Roper whether Mr. Purefoy always used glasses, when the other replied, "Yes, he is almost blind." The prisoner at the bar had never broken his ground. He presented his pistol in the fair and common mode. His conduct disclosed nothing like malignity. It was proper, manly, and humane.

Major Castle, Captain Gabbote and Captain Barwell were called, to prove the previous transactions to the in the West Indies. They stated, that when a paper, which was not before the Court, was read on the parade, the prisoner told Colonel Roper, that he was a coward and a scoundrel.- He was not then an officer, as his function ceased with the reading of that paper. He, on the same day, met Colonel Roper, on horseback, asked him whether he would meet him, and on the refusal of the latter, shook his whip at him, and desired him, "to take that for a flogging." They admitted at the same time that the prisoner was under age, and through the whole of the business was violently agitated.

Some letters from Mr. Purefoy which breathed the same angry spirit, were read; and several Masters and Waiters at Coffee houses were called, who proved that Mr. Purefoy had posted Colonel Roper on his arrival in England. Here the evidence for the prosecution closed.

The Prisoner being called on for his defence, said in a brief address that he felt too deeply agitated to enter on the subject. He entertained no malice against the deceased. He felt not the asperity of revenge. When Colonel Roper fell, he had to lament that he himself had not fallen. It would have spared him the agony which he no felt, and which would follow him to the last moment of his existence. He was led by a call of honour, or more properly speaking, driven by the tyranny of custom to an act, which in early life had embittered his existance, but without which, he was taught to believe, that he should lose all the consolations which society could afford him.

Many false reports had been circulated against him, but these the evidence of general Stanwix, he was happy to find, had completely gone done away. Far from priding himself on any superiority of weapon, he had offered Colonel Roper his choice, and far from feeling any malignity, he had written to his family to desire, that if was his lot to fall, no prosecution should take place. The late challenge, he observed had come from Colonel Roper; and as some expiration for his offence, he had already suffered nearly seven years of exile, and nine months of close confinement.

[The latter part of this address was read from written paper by Mr. Erskine; the feelings of Mr. Purefoy being such as to overpower his utterance.]

The Prisoner called nine most respectable gentlemen to bear testimony to his character, most of whom had known him from early life. They all spoke to the general mildness of his character, and the good humoured ease and aversion to quarrel, which marked his general deportment

Mr. Baron Hotham, in a charge which did equal honour to his justice and sensibility, went through the evidence with suitable comments on the several particulars. - In his concluding address to the jury, his Lordship said, - It is now a painful duty which jointly belongs to us; - It is mine to lay down the law, and apply it to the facts before you. The oath by which I am bound obliges me to say, that homicide, after a due interval left for consideration, amounts to murder. The Laws of England in their utmost lenity and allows for human frailty, extend their compassion only to sudden a momentary frays, and then, if the blood has not had time to cool, or the reason to return, the result is termed Manslaughter. Such as the Law of the Land, which undoubtedly the unfortunate gentleman at the bar has violated, though he has acted in conformity to the Laws of Honour. His whole demeanor in the dual, according to the witness, whom you are most to believe, General Stanwix, was that of perfect honour and perfect humanity.

Such as the law and such are the facts; if you cannot reconcile the latter to your consciousness, you must return a verdict of Guilty. But if the contrary, through the acquittal may trench on the rigid rules of Law, yet the verdict will be lovely in the fight both of God and Man.

The Jury, without hesitation, returned their verdict. - Not Guilty.