THE HAMMERSMITH GHOST

Murder of a Ghost

A Collection of Remarkable Trials by W.M. Medland & Charles Weobly (1804) at 206-211.

TRIAL OF FRANCIS SMITH FOR THE MURDER 

At the Old Bailey Sessions, January 13, 1804.

[This case excited a lively interest, not only in the metropolis, but in most parts of the kingdom, both from the singularity of its cause, and the nice point of law which it involved. The very ridiculous circumstance of the Hammersmith Ghost, and its constant nocturnal disturbance shews that the mind of ordinary people are still liable to be terrified by phantoms; and that the absurdities of barbarous ages are not as yet completely exploded. This concurrence, however, even from its novelty, was calculated to arrest the attention of the public, eager to witness the trial of a man with whose offence a circumstance of this singularity is connected. The consequence was that the court was uncommonly crowded at an early hour; and a very lively interest in every progress of the trial might be observed to pervade all present. With regard to the prisoner himself, no person would witness either his behaviour, or the apparent acuteness of his feelings, without taking a deep concern in his fate. He was dressed in a suit of black clothes. His face was pale, and his features suffered at times by those contortions which are natural to a criminal in his awful situation. Affected by shame and remorse, he was now and then so seriously agitated, that he could with difficulty support himself. When called upon for his defence, his voice faltered, and his tongue so completely refused its office, that it was not without a considerable effort he could articulate a word. On the retiring of the jury to reflect on his case, and the return of their verdict, he betrayed such apprehension of real danger, as to deprive him of the power of sustaining himself without the friendly aid of a by-stander. He then became so faint, as to be obliged to request leave to go out in the air, which, with the accustomed humanity of a British Court of Justice, was granted. On his return, he sat down, and seemed for a long time so perfectly benumbed and totally deprived of his senses, that it was thought it would have been necessary to have carried him out of court. When the jury returned, he made a sort of desperate effort–stood up, and endeavoured to attend to the verdict given. When the dreadful word ‘Guilty!” was pronounced, he seemingly sunk into a state of stupefaction exceeding despair. He at last retired, supported by the servants of Mr. Kirby. The prisoner is a short, but well-made man, twenty-nine years of age, with dark hair and eye-brows; and the pallid hue of his countenance during the whole trial, together with the signs of contrition which he exhibited, commanded the sympathy of every spectator. Mr. Dignum, of Drury-lane theatre, sat near him, and was extremely affected; he wept, clasped his hands together, and suffered the greatest agitation. Several of Smith’s relations were also present, and apparently in great distress. The Sessions-house was crowded in every part by nine o’clock; and the yard was filled by an anxious multitude, all making inquiry, and interested in the fate of the prisoner.]

Mr. JOHN LOCK wine merchant in Hammersmith, deposed, that as he was passing near Cross-lane, he met with the prisoner about half past ten at night, who told him that he thought he had shot a man, and begged the witness to go along with him to the place to examine the body. The witness accordingly accompanied him to the spot, and discovered the deceased lying on the ground, with no apparent symptoms of life, being wounded in the lower part of the jaw. He said to the prisoner that his death was certainly the consequence of his firing; on which the prisoner said that he did not know that it was Milward, and seemed at the time to be much agitated. He told the witness that he had spoken to him twice, and had received no answer.

Cross-examined.--The witness had heard people talk of a ghost for five weeks previous to this unfortunate event, though he himself had never seen this figure. He knew that several young men had gone out every evening, in order to detect the imposter, and the particular dress of the phantom was described by several persons who had seen it, which corresponded very much with that of the unfortunate man who has suffered. It consisted of linen trousers, and a white waistcoat, the trousers being very long, almost touching the shoes. The witness was not personally acquainted with the deceased; the report was that the ghost was sometimes in white and sometimes had the appearance of having a calf-skin wrapped round it. The prisoner said he was in great trepidation, when, instead of the ghost answering him when called on, it advanced straight up towards him. It was a very dark night, and the event took place between two high hedges, so that it was really difficult to discover any body. The witness advised the prisoner to go to his lodgings, and there remain till the matter was investigated; on which he said he was perfectly willing to surrender himself into custody, and for that purpose he proposed that the witness should send for some person empowered to do so. As to the prisoner’s general character, the witness always understood he was a very mild, generous, and humane man

WILLIAM GIRDLER, a watchman in Hammersmith, at half past ten, saw the deceased lying on his back quite dead, being wounded on the left side of the jaw. He had been called to the White-hart in Hammersmith, and was there when the prisoner came. The prisoner said to him, I have hurt a man, and I am afraid it is very bad. The witness carried Smith to the Black-lion, another house in the neighbourhood. Previous to the unfortunate accident, the witness had met the prisoner, who told him he was going to search for the ghost, and seemed armed with a fowling piece for the purpose. The prisoner wished the witness to come and meet him, in order to assist in the discovery of the ghost, which the witness agreed to do as fast as he possibly could. They agreed to make use of the watchword, “Who comes there?” The answer to which was to be, “A friend,”--”Advance friend.” The witness then went to execute some business of his own, and soon after heard a gun fired, just before he had reached Black-lion lane but he did not take any notice of it as he had often heard guns fired in the night-time. A young woman called the witness, and said he was wanted to go along with Mr. Smith, which he accordingly did, and met Smith at the corner of Baver-lane armed with his gun. The prisoner was in company with Mr. Lock, to whom he said he would deliver himself up immediately.

(Cross examined). It was a very dark night. He was armed with a pistol, but that was his usual custom. He had often heard the ghost talked of in Hammersmith,, and had even seen it himself the very Thursday before the event, which happened on Tuesday. It appeared to him to be covered either with a sheet, or a large table-cloth and was just opposite to the four-mile stone, near Baver-lane; he pursued it, and in doing so, he saw it put the sheet or table-cloth round its head, and ran off. This ghost had alarmed the neighbourhood about six weeks or two months, and many people were very much frightened. There was a rumour of mischief having been occasioned by it, though he himself did not know what that mischief was. He had been acquainted with the prisoner for some considerable time past and always found him to be an exceedingly good-tempered young man, and never discovered any thing like a cruel disposition.

ANN MILWARD, the sister of the deceased, said that she lived with her father, and that, betwixt the hours of ten and eleven o’clock on the night of the third of January, her brother (who lived at his father-in-law’s) came to her father’s house, and said, he had been seeking for his wife, who was at a Mr. Smith’s; the witness, as well as her father and mother, were just going to bed. She asked her brother to sit down, which he did, and remained about half an hour; he then bade his father, mother, and the witness good night and walked out, having heard the watchman call the hour The witness having occasion to go to the door almost immediately after her brother, she heard a voice calling out, “Tell me who you are, otherwise I will instantly shoot you.” Soon after a gun actually went off, and she saw her brother fall. She called out, “Thomas,” and returning to her mother, she said to her, “I believe my brother is shot.” Neither her father nor mother would believe it: she then went out, and discovered her brother lying perfectly dead; the prisoner was not present, but she afterwards saw him, in company with Mr. Lock. She returned home very much shocked, and was at that time unable to learn any more of the transaction.

(Cross-examined). Her brother had on his working-dress, which consisted of long white trousers and waistcoat. She had often heard of the ghost and it was described in various ways but was said to be dressed particularly in white, with long horns and glass eyes; she never thought of cautioning her brother of any danger he might be in from wearing a dress so similar in appearance to that of the ghost. She knew nothing of any animosity subsisting betwixt the deceased and the prisoner; and she believed they hardly knew each other but by sight.

MR. FLOWER, a surgeon, deposed that he examined the body of the deceased, and found that he had received a gun shot wound in the lower part of the left jaw; it appeared to have been occasioned by a ball of the size of No. 4; it had penetrated the vertebra of the neck and had injured the spinal marrow of the brain. He entertained no doubt of the wound having been the real and sole cause of the deceased’s death; it was such a wound as is well known to occasion immediate death; it disfigured the jaw, and he observed that the face was all blackened with powder from the gun.

(Cross-examined) He did not know Mr. Smith personally, but he understood that his character was very good, his temper very mild and that he was very far from being of a vindictive disposition.

The prisoner on being called on for his defence, said, he would leave it to his counsel; but, on being told that they could not speak on his behalf, being only allowed to examine his witnesses he started that on the day on which that fatal catastrophe happened, he went out with a good intention and at the very moment of the affair taking place, he did not know what he was doing. He spoke to the person twice and was so agitated on receiving no answer that in his confusion and dred he was unfortunate enough to commit the rash action; but he solemnly declared to God, that he had no malice against the deceased nor any intention of taking away the life of any individual whatever.

On behalf of the prisoner, his counsel called PHOEBE FOULBROOK, mother-in-law of the deceased, who lived at her house; she had frequently heard of the ghost. On Saturday evening the deceased said to her that he had been taken for the ghost, and that two ladies and a gentleman had been frightened at him coming along the terrace; and that he told them that he was no more a ghost than they were. On hearing this, the witness advised him to put on a great coat for fear of accidents and not to frighten any person again; this was the only time she thought of cautioning him relative to this matter.

THOMAS GROOM, servant to Mr. Burgess, a brewer in Hammersmith, deposed ,that he heard a great deal of talk concerning a ghost, and that one night lately, about nine o’clock when he and a fellow servant were walking through the church-yard he met it, and was very much alarmed; that it laid hold of him by the chin, and that he put forth his hand on which it disappeared but he thought he felt something soft.

A great many witnesses were called, who spoke solely to the prisoner’s character ,and all concerned in giving him one of the best, and proved that he was a young man of a remarkably mild temper, and of a humane, generous, and benevolent disposition.

On the conclusion of the evidence the lord chief baron addressed the gentlemen of the jury to the following effect:--

“The prisoner at the bar stands indicted for the wilful murder of Thomas Milward, by shooting him with a gun, so as to have been the occasion of his death. It is proper for me to state to you, that, although it is necessary, in order to constitute the crime of murder that malice must be proved to have existed betwixt the accused and the deceased, yet I must here take the opportunity of explaining to you what the law intends by the expression malice. It is not necessary that he who has killed should have known any thing of the deceased or have entertained spite against him; but it is that disposition to kill, and the act of killing, for which the law finds no excuse or extenuation. Suppose that a man fires a gun into this hall, in which we are now assembled, if he were thereby to kill any individual, he is to be deemed in the eye of the law guilty of murder. If a man intends to shoot at one person, and instead of doing so he kills another, against whom he might be able to prove that he entertained no malice or spite he is nevertheless guilty of murder. The killing of a person through apprehension for one’s own safety, or by mere accident, may indeed be styled only manslaughter, but unfortunately, such circumstances cannot be found in this case. It is important to observe, that neither you nor I, on this occasion, need to take upon us any province which does not belong to us, the law having already sufficiently described the circumstances which constitute murder. If then there appear to you none of those excuses, or extenuations, which I have alluded to, the crime at present under our consideration must necessarily be denominated murder. If the law were otherwise, and if a man could say that he thinks another deserves death for having committed such and such an act, and therefore goes to the highway, and executes judgment with his own hands, by shooting robbers or others whom he may deem troublesome dreadful might be the consequence. It is fortunate that the law of this country has made such an offence to be murder. Even in the case before us, no person can be allowed to say, I will of my own accord go out and shoot this abominable person, who has alarmed the whole neighbourhood, however much disgusted he may be at the crime. It was sufficient to endeavour to apprehend him, for such is the law on the subject. If, therefore, gentlemen, you entertain no doubt with respect to the fact, I should betray my duty, and injure the public security, if I did not persist in asserting that this is a clear case of murder, if the facts be proved to your satisfaction. All killing whatever amounts to murder, unless justified by the law, or in self-defence. In cases of some involuntary acts, or some sufficiently violent provocation, it becomes manslaughter. Not one of these circumstances occurs here. There is here no apparent intention of the prisoner’s wishing only to apprehend this person; instead of that which would have been the proper step in such a case, he proved to have taken out a gun in order to shoot him, erroneously imagining he was entitled to do so. He has been proved to have fired at the deceased with a degree of rashness which the law does not justify. What may be the effect of such a degree of malice, more properly belongs to another, and of much higher tribunal to determine: but, in this court, no such crime can be deemed to amount to less than murder.”

His lordship then recapitulated the whole of the evidence of the  jury, who after retiring for about an hour and a quarter returned and gave in their verdict–Guilty of Manslaughter.

On hearing this verdict the chief baron said that such a judgment could not be received in this case; for it ought to be a verdict of murder or of acquittal. If the Jury believed the facts, there was no extenuation that could be admitted; for supposing that the unfortunate man was the individual really meant to have been shot, the prisoner would have been guilty of murder. Even with respect to civil processes; if an officer of justice uses a deadly weapon it is murder if he occasions death by it, even although he had a right to apprehend.

Mr. Justice ROOKE.--”The court have no hesitation whatever with regard to the law, and therefore the verdict must be Guilty of Murder or a total acquittal from want of evidence.

Mr. Justice LAWRENCE.--”You have heard the opinion of the whole court is settled as to the law on this point it is therefore unnecessary for me to state mine in particular. I perfectly agree with the learned Judge who stated the law in so clear and able a manner. If an officer kills a person whom he has a right to apprehend upon suspicion of felony, he is guilty of murder except in particular cases. Now this man was not even attempting to run away, supposing it had been the very person who was guilty of the misdemeanor; there was, therefore, no excuse for killing him. But though it had been the person who was alarming the neighbourhood, the prisoner had no right to kill him, even if he should attempt to escape, for the crime is only a misdemeanor. Upon every point of view, this case is, in the eye of the law, a murder, if it be proved by the facts. Whether it has or not is for you to determine and return your verdict accordingly. The law has been thus stated by Justice Foster, and all the most eminent Judges.”

RECORDER.--”I perfectly agree with the learned Judges who have spoken. Gentlemen, consider your verdict again.”

The Jury then turned round, and, after a short consultation, returned their verdict–”Guilty,” as laid in the indictment.

LORD CHIEF BARON.--”The case, gentlemen, shall be reported to his Majesty immediately.”

The Recorder then passed sentence of death on the prisoner in the usual form: which was, that he should be executed on Monday next, and his body given to the surgeons to be dissected.

The Lord Chief Baron (as we have observed) told the jury, after they had given their verdict ,that he would immediately report the case to his Majesty; and his Lordship was so speedy in this humane office that a respite during pleasure arrived at the Old-Bailey before seven o’clock.

Account from the Scot’s Magazine January 1804 at 67-70

January 7. SINGULAR CATASTROPHE

For many weeks past, the church bell at Hammersmith no sooner struck one than a spectre seemed to flit among the fields adjacent to Black-Lion lane. The old and young watched its coming, but preserved an awful distance. It appeared as if covered with a white shroud. The terror of the phantom operating upon the superstition of an elderly woman brought on a dejection of mind from which she never recovered. Several of the most respectable persons in Hammersmith were anxious to discover the cause of its visitations; and, as the most likely means, offered a reward of 20l., for the apprehension of the Ghost. A person of the name of Smith, a Custom-house-Officer, with a few others lured by the hope of the reward determined to watch the phantom, and for that purpose provided themselves with arms, and took post in Black-Lion lane. They were stationed there on Tuesday night last, between the hours of ten and twelve. A man of the name of Milwood, a plaisterer, unhappily had sent his wife out upon some business, and imaging she said longer than was necessary, determined to go in search of her in order to protect her home. The ill-fated man was dressed as usual in his white flannel jacket, and proceeded along Black-Lion lane where the ghost hunters were lying in wait. Smith no sooner beheld something white approaching than he imagined it to be the object of his expectations, and instantly springing forward, advanced close to the unfortunate Milwood, levelled his piece, and shot him through the head. The poor man expired on the spot, the ball having entered his mouth, and gone out at the back part of his skull. His murderer, agitated at the effect of his rashness, surrendered himself to an officer of justice. After examining witnesses, the Coroner’s Jury consulted a few minutes, and delivered a verdict of Wilful Murder against Francis Smith, who was committed to Newgate.

The evidence of the sister of the deceased before the Coroner, was particularly affecting; she said “That her brother was about 22 years of age, and was a bricklayer by profession. On the evening of Tuesday last, he left the house between ten and eleven o’clock and the witness was almost immediately struck with a presentiment that some accident would befall him. She accordingly went to the door, and stood on some bricks, in order to look out for him. He had not gone above fifty yards before she heard a voice exclaim, “Damn you who are you? And what are you? Speak, or I’ll shoot.” The words had scarcer passed the lips of the person who uttered them when she heard the report of a gun, and saw the flash. She said her brother industriously maintained himself and his wife. He was in his usual dress, a white jacket and trousers, when he went out. She was positive that he never had personated the Ghost. He had told her he had once been taken for it.

OLD BAILEY– MURDER.

Francis Smith was indicted for the wilful murder of Thomas Milwood at Hammersmith on the night of Tuesday the 3d inst., to which indictment he pleaded, “Not Guilty.”

The evidence given was exactly as above. It was proved that a person representing a ghost had very much infested the neighbourhood of Hammersmith from which very serious consequences had arisen, and that the prisoner had gone out with a view of detecting the imposter, and seeing a person dressed in a white jacket and trousers, he called to him, and he made no answer, on which he fired and shot the deceased dead on the spot, with other circumstances. The sister of the deceased, dressed in mourning, gave the same affecting evidence she did before the Coroner’s Jury.

Several witnesses gave the prisoner an exceeding good character for humanity, &c.

The prisoner, when asked what he had to say in this defence, said that at the time he fired the shot, he was so agitated, that he did not know what he did. He had called out twice to the figure that appeared to be coming towards him before he fired and he would then solemnly declare before God that he was wholly innocent of having an intention to take away the life of the deceased, or any other person whatever.

The Lord Chief Baron began his charge to the Jury, by observing that in point of law, character could avail nothing, where such facts as they had just heard were brought forward. He thought it his bounden duty to lay it down to the Jury, that nothing had been stated on the part of the defence in this case, which could take it out of the legal definition of murder; it was not necessary, according to the law to prove that the person charged with murder had known the deceased, or had entertained any personal malice against him. The general disposition a man might have had in his mind to kill another was malice in point of law. If a man, intending mischief, should fire a gun into that Hall where the Court was then sitting, and kill any at random that was murder; the man did the act with a general malicious intention; or if a man intending to kill one person, missed him, and killed another that was murder. On the same principle, the killing of a person designedly, without any authority but from a supposition that the person ought to be killed was murder; unless the killing was occasioned by accident or took place in consequence of some strong provocation it could not come under any other denomination except that of murder. No man, from a supposition that another had acted wrong, could take the authority to punish into his own hands. If a man went out to shoot robbers on the highway, and should take it into his head that somebody he saw walking along was a robber, and with that idea killed him, such killing whether the man was a robber or not, was murder Even if the very person appearing in this manner as a ghost had been killed such killing was murder. But here a man thought he had a right to go and kill any person he saw in a light-coloured coat. THis was actually the case with the prisoner at the bar. He went out with a loaded gun, intending to kill contrary to law, and killed a man who was perfectly innocent “Gentlemen,” continued his Lordship, “I should be betraying my duty as a Judge and acting contrary to the opinion of my brother Judges near me, if I did not tell you that this act of the prisoner’s provided you believe the facts given in evidence, amounts to nothing less than murder. In this case there was no accident; there was no sudden or violent provocation; nor was there any attempt made on the part of the prisoner to apprehend the supposed ghost. But he went and thought himself entitled to kill that person; and with a degree of rashness, which the law would never allow, he killed another person. It was his duty again to state that this offence was murder.”

The Jury retired for more than an hour, and returned with a verdict–Guilty of Manslaughter. The Lord Chief Baron declared it as the opinion of the Judges, that such a verdict could not be received. For if the Jury believed the facts that must find the prisoner guilty of murder, or they must acquit him–There was no one circumstance belonging to the case, which could bring this offence under the denomination of Manslaughter. The Jury then consulted for about a minute in the box, and pronounced a verdict–Guilty of Murder.

The Lord Chief Baron said he should report the case immediately.

The Recorder then sentenced the prisoner to be executed on Monday next and his body to be dissected.

This was a most affecting trial. The prisoner, a young man 29 years of age was dressed in black, made a very genteel appearance, and conducted himself with the greatest propriety. During the time he remained at the bar his countenance did not appear to express much agitation until the Jury left the box. Upon the return of the Jury he appeared still more agitated, and particularly so when he was pronounced Guilty of Murder. While the awful sentence was passing upon him by the Recorder, he supported himself with difficulty and was led out of the dock by Mr. Kirby’s assistant, overwhelmed with the horrors of his situation.--He was respited the same evening.

January 10. IDENTITY OF REAL GHOST

The real Hammersmith Ghost, to the satisfaction of the inhabitants of that town and neighbourhood, has at last been discovered. Last Thursday evening an information was lodged before Mr. Hill, the Magistrate, against a Housekeeper in the town of Hammersmith, of the name of Graham, a boot and shoemaker, who has a wife and three children, for going out at night wrapped up in a blanket with a design to represent a ghost: Graham was consequently taken into custody and has found bail for his appearance. When questioned by the Magistrate as to the cause of his assuming such a frightful being, he said that he had done it in order to be revenged on the impertinence of his apprentices, who had terrified his children by telling them stories of ghosts. He expected to check them of this disagreeable bent of their minds to the prejudice of his children, by presenting them, as they passed homewards a figure of a ghost.

Partial Account from the New Newgate Calendar

William Baldwin, Andrew Knapp Vol 4 ( 1828 ) at 261-263

One of the witnesses at the trial alluded to the harmful consequences of the ghost’s appearances in Hammersmith but did not elaborate at trial. This excerpt gives an account of some of these consequences.

Francis Smith

Condemned to Death, for the Murder of the Supposed Hammersmith Ghost, but whose punishment was commuted for imprisonment.

Superstition of old, in the beginning of the enlightened year 1804, was revived in the vicinity of Hamersmith, near London, where the inhabitants were possessed with an opinion, that a ghost haunted their neighbourhood, but the fancied spectre was proved to be composed of human flesh and blood which was unfortunately mangled, and shed unto death by the unhappy man whose case is now before us.

The wanton performer of the pretended spirit, merited severe punishment, for, with the frogs to the mischievous boys, who were pelting them with stones, they might truly have said “It is sport to you, but death to us, besides the poor man who lost his life, being mistaken by this mimic ghost, Smith was condemned to die for his murder.

One poor woman in particular, who was far advanced in her pregnancy of a second child, was so much alarmed,, that she took to her bed and survived only two days. She had been crossing near the church-yard about ten o’clock at night, when she beheld something, as she described, rise from the tomb-stones. The figure was very tall and very white! She attempted to run, but the ghost soon overtook her and pressing her in his arms she fainted; in which situation she remained some hours till discovered by some neighbours, who kindly led her home, when she took to her bed, from which, alas! She never rose.

The ghost had so much alarmed a waggoner belonging to Mr. Russel, driving a team of eight horses and which had sixteen passengers at the time, that the driver took to his heels, and left the waggon and horses so precipitated, that the whole was greatly endangered.

Neither man, woman, nor child, could pass that way for some time past; and the report was, that it was the apparition of a man who had cut his throat in the neighbourhood above a year ago.

Several lay in wait different nights for the ghost but there were so many bye-lanes and paths leading to Hammersmith, that he was always sure of being on that which was unguarded, and every night played off his tricks to the terror of passengers!

The account of the trial is the same as above given so will not be given from this work.

Ultimate Fate of Smith

The Lord Chief Baron having told the jury, after they had given their verdict, that he would immediately report the case to his Majesty, was so speedy in that humane office, that a “respite during pleasure” arrived at the Old Bailey before seven o’clock, and on the 25th he (Smith) received a pardon on condition of being imprisoned one year.