MURDERS at GODALMING.
George Chennel and John Chalcraft were arraigned for the wilful murder of George Chennel the elder, at Godalming, on the 10th of November last; and on a second indictment, for the murder of Elizabeth Wilson, by fracturing their skulls with a hammer, and cutting their throats.
Mr. Gurney stated the case. In his preliminary observations, he said, that even the horrid crime of murder had its gradations of atrocity: It was aggravated when committed by the strong upon the feeble and unresisting—when by the servant against the master—and above all, when by the son against his aged father. The last was the dreadful charge which was imputed to the prisoner—the one was the son, and the other the servant, of the deceased. He mentioned this not to excite their passions; on the contrary, the Jury must not suffer themselves to be transported by their indignation at the crime, to be caused, by a premature judgment, to pronounce the accused guilty. They must discharge from their minds all they had heard elsewhere, and found their verdict only upon the evidence which should be adduced before them, for upon that alone they had sworn to found their verdict. With respect to that evidence, from which they must form the result of their opinion, it must of necessity be collected from a variety of circumstances, all tending to the same end. The murderer did not do his foul deed in the presence of witnesses; he chose night and solitude for the perpetration of his crime. The deceased, Mr. Chennel, was a respectable tradesman at Godalming, and was also a man of considerable property. The prisoner Chennel was his son, and the other prisoner his carman, and had been so many years, he having a little farm in addition to his trade of a currier. Eliz. Wilson, the other person murdered, was a harmless old woman, who had been for many years his housekeeper. The prisoner Chennel lodged in the town of Godalming, and usually took his meals at his father’s, but did not lodge, and it would be proved had not that filial feeling which a son ought to have for a father. On the morning of Tuesday the 11th of November last, about seven o’clock, the town of Godalming was alarmed with the account that both Mr. Chennel and his housekeeper were found murdered in their house, which was in the middle of the street of Godalming—the old gentleman in his bed, and the housekeeper in what was called the front kitchen. They were last seen alive at about eight o’clock on the Monday evening, and from circumstances the murder must have been committed from nine to ten o’clock. The old gentleman was a very regular man, and went to bed usually at nine; his housekeeper sat up after him for some time, and usually retired to rest at 10. He was found in his bed, and therefore it was done after he had retired; she was found in the kitchen at work, not having been to bed, and the work which lay near her was a shirt of the prisoner’s, which she was mending. It was therefore presumed, that it was before her usual time of going to rest. The person also who lived in the next house, and whose bed-room adjoined to Mr. Chennel’s, went to bed at 10 o’clock, and could hear any noise after that hour. In addition to this, a person was passing the house about half-past nine, and heard a scream, and afterwards something fall, but did not suspect any thing of the dreadful deed which was then most probably in perpetration. The next morning, when a farming servant of Mr. Chennel’s came to the stables for the horses at about six, he found Chalcraft there, as usual; and it was the conduct of Chalcraft that excited suspicion against him. They dressed their horses, and went to the house where usually the old gentleman and his housekeeper would be stirring at that hour. The door was open, but no on appeared; at length Chalcraft went into the front kitchen, and the other heard him calling his master, but no answer. Now it would be proved that the murdered body of the housekeeper lay in such a position, that when he opened the door he must have seen it, and indeed must have stepped over it to get to the stair-foot door, and therefore his affecting not to see it was a matter of great suspicion. In addition to this, when the alarm was given, he stated that his master was murdered up stairs, before he or any one had been up stairs.He was known to be the constant companion of the other prisoner, Chennel, and therefore he was immediately sent for, and on searching the box of Chennel two Bank-notes were found, one of them slightly tinged with blood, which notes would be traced to the possession of the father a few days before. The prisoner at once acknowledged the notes had been his father’s, and said that his father gave them to him on the preceding Sunday; he should, however, call evidence to prove that the prisoner in the early part of Monday could not pay a sum of 8½d., but about ten o’clock on Monday night, after the murder was supposed to be committed, he went to the Richmond Arms, in that town, and squandered money very profusely. As they were both suspected, they were required to say where they had been, and whether they were together on Monday evening. They both agreed that they had not seen each other since the preceding Friday. The falsity of this statement would be abundantly proved, for both Chalcraft and Chennel were seen on the spot at half-past nine on the evening of the murders, and Chennel was seen standing at the very passage which led to the deceased’s house, and a witness afterwards passing by saw a woman walking backward and forward before the door, apparently on watch. This woman, it was now evident, was one Sarah Hurst, an accomplice; and Chalcraft was seen walking towards his home, Hurst following him, and Chennel at the same time went back to the Richmond Arms which he had left some time before, he insisting that he went to look after a woman, and was gone so short a time, that the pipe he left behind him was burning when he returned. It was also singular, that Chalcraft had a short time before declared, that “there would be a bigger blow up before long than Godalming had ever seen.” With respect to Chennel the prisoner, he was separated from his wife, and was in the constant habit of using invectives against his father and the old woman. These were the circumstances of suspicion; but in addition to this, he should call Sarah Hurst, the accomplice in deed. The Jury knew that an accomplice was an infamous character, and ought not to be believed, unless confirmed by other testimony; and, in justice to the prisoner, he was bound to state, that this accomplice, Hurst, had accused A and B—he would not mention names—who, upon investigation, were clearly innocent. They would hear the whole case, and decide impartially. For the prosecution about 30 witnesses were then called.
Geo. Woods and Charles Coston proved seeing the old people alive about eight o’clock on Monday the 10th November. J. Currington, the farming servant, stated, that on Tuesday morning, about half-past six, he went to the stables behind the house; he found Chalcraft there; the side-door of the kitchen was open, but his master was not up, nor the housekeeper. He and Chalcraft breakfasted in the back-kitchen; and as no one appeared, Chalcraft said he would call them. He heard him open the door leading to the kitchen, and call “Master;” but no reply was given. The witness afterwards went, and on opening the door, he saw a puddle of blood, and the housekeeper dead. They then both ran away into the street, and alarmed the neighbours.
W. H. Coston, the next door neighbour, stated that he went to bed at ten; his door-way faced Chennel’s kitchen door, and at ten there was no light, and all was quiet; in the morning he was alarmed with others. Chalcraft was standing opposite the house, and said Old Bet and his master were both murdered. He, with others, searched the house; the heads were fractured and the throats cut.
Several persons, who had assembled at the alarm, were examined, and they agreed that the old gentleman was found in his bed, and the housekeeper in the kitchen, in her clothes. Chennel, the son, was sent for to his lodgings. He went up stairs at the request of some, and, as described by one witness, he gave a side-look at his father’s corpse, and then sat down, and covered his face with his hands. In the house was found a hammer, which had unquestionably been the weapon with which the skulls of the deceased had been fractured, and a case knife covered with blood, with which the throats had been cut. The money in the old man’s breeches (about 6l.) had not been touched; but the till in the shop had been forced, and its contents taken away.
Wm. Parsons, a surgeon, stated, that he saw the bodies early in the morning of Tuesday, and he was of the opinion that they were stunned first, and had their throats cut while in a state of insensibility. A witness of the name of George Austin, who spoke to the position of the body of the housekeeper, stated, that Chalcraft must have seen her on the floor when he called his master, and that he made him show him how he stood when he called; at the same time asking him why he did not open another door, which was the more obvious method. He made use of this remarkable expression, “You would have done as I did, if you knew the pedigree of the affair as I do.” He also asked him why he did not go up to see his master’s body. He replied, that he could not for all the town, because he never saw any man murdered but the man at Petersfield. Witness asked if he meant to say he had seen that man murdered? He said, no; he meant after he was murdered. The notes found at the prisoner Chennel’s were produced; one of them was slightly tinged with blood.—T. S. Allathorp, wharehouseman, of Gate-street, Lincoln’s-inn-fields, proved that he paid the notes to Mr. Chennel the elder on the 4th November. W. Coombes was waiter, in November last, at the Angel Inn, Godalming. He remembered the evening of the discovery of the murder; Chennel was at their house on that evening, with Sarah Hurst. He observed Sarah Hurst and Chalcraft whispering together. He heard nothing but these words by Sarah Hurst, “Hold your tongue, Chalcraft; I want to hear no more of it.” This ended the whispering. He saw Chennel in August last year, and said to him, “When your business is arranged, you will go and live with your father.” Chennel answered, he would go home to eat and drink, but not to sleep, because the housekeeper would know at what hour he came home. He hoped some morning, when he got up, he should find her with her throat cut; and if he met the men coming out of the door who had done the murder, he would not tell of it, though he were to be hanged for it himself; and that if he found them both so, he would not be the least sorry; nor, even if he committed the murder himself, should he think he had committed any sin. J. Ayles, a wheelwright, remembered Chalcraft coming to his shop in November last. Witness asked him, “What does Great George (meaning Chennel) do now?” Prisoner answered, “D—n me, I do not know what he does. He goes on letting off fireworks at the Richmond Arms. There will soon be a bigger blow up in Godalming than ever was known. You will hear of it.” J. Earl, a gardener, was in Mr. Chennel’s shop on Monday evening, where he saw young Chennel. He saw Chalcraft in the Town-hall when the examination was going on. Witness asked if Chennel had not a hand in it? The prisoner Chalcraft then trembled very much, and said it was a party concern.” Witness saw Chennel in the shop on Monday; he looked very wild. J. Tidy keeps the Richmond Arms, at Godalming. The prisoner Chennel, on Monday the 10th of November, came at seven o’clock, called for beer and tobacco, and paid 8½d. He then went away, leaving his pipe on the table; it was about nine o’clock. There were several other persons in the house, but none in his company. A person named Fisher sat by his side. Fisher and the prisoner went away together. About a quarter before ten he returned alone: he then called for a pint of beer and water—then a second—and then a third—which was drank between him and the landlord. He then said, “We shall want some beer for a cooler,” and ordered a pot. They had another. Chennel left his house about half-past eleven. Chennel was in witness’s house on Friday preceding, when he said he wished his father’s housekeeper was dead; and if he saw any one murder her, he would not tell of it. He had heard prisoner frequently wish her dead. W. Cooper, ostler at the Red Lion, opposite the Richmond Arms, remembered Fisher bidding him good night. Witness saw Chalcraft and Chennel a few minutes after he had seen Fisher. They went towards old Mr. Chennel’s. They had both smock-frocks on.
W. Cotby lives at Godalming. On the night before Mr. Chennel’s death he went out of the Red Lion and talked with the last witness. He then saw Chennel and Chalcraft standing together. In going down the town he passed Mr. Chennel’s: when near Mr. C.’s house he heard a very sharp scream, apparently of a woman: he thought the scream came from Chennel’s passage. Witness walked about eight or ten paces, and saw a woman, who was apparently looking for something, and then he perceived Chennel standing in front of the passage, in the centre of it. Chennel appeared to have come up the passage, as he did not see him till then. The prisoner was speaking to the woman. After the scream, he heard a great fall. In coming back witness met Chalcraft, going home, between Mr. Chennel’s and his own house. Witness wished Chalcraft good night, which salutation he exchanged.
Other evidence was given as to the prisoners’ being seen in Chennel’s passage, between nine and ten, on the night of the murder.
Sarah Hurst appeared deeply affected, and could scarcely stand. She lived at Godalming, and knew the prisoners: saw Chalcraft at five in the evening of Monday the 10th of November. He asked if she should be down town that evening, and she answered she did not know if she should. He said he wished she would, giving no reason for his wish. She told him she would come down, if he wanted her: nothing more then passed. She saw him again a little after nine, a few doors below Mr. Chennel’s: he was then alone. She asked what he wanted. He answered, that he wanted her to stand by Mr. Chennel’s door to watch: nothing more then passed. He went to Mr. Chennel’s house, and witness walked in front of the door way, backward and forward: she remained there some time, but could not tell how long. She saw G. Chennel going in too when Chalcraft went. After Chgalcraft came out, she heard a screech from within doors. Chalcraft said, when he came out, “Is that you, Hurst?” and she said, “Yes.” She asked him what they had been doing. He answered, “We have done for them both.” Witness saw some blood on his round frock-sleeves, by the light of two candles in the opposite window. Witness asked how it came there; to which he answered, it was “the blood from them two.” Chennel came up while they were talking, from the passage, and asked who Chalcraft was talking to. He said he was talking to Hurst. One or two persons passed at this time. They parted—Chalcraft went down the town, and Chennel went up: witness likewise went up. The next night she was in company with Chalcraft, at a public-house, and he offered her 4l. to keep it secret. The prisoners being asked what they had to say in their defence, Chennel gave an account of the transactions of Monday, which he partly read from a paper. The account did not much vary from what appeared in the evidence and his previous statement. He persisted in saying that he used the same pipe when he returned to the inn as he had used before he left it. He went through the transactions of the night at the Richmond Arms nearly as given by the master of that house. He mentioned a good deal of irrelevant matter about his conduct on Tuesday morning, which it is unnecessary to repeat. Chalcraft, when asked what he had to say, likewise gave an account of his conduct on Monday, stating what he did at the different hours, but brought in many things that had no reference to the exculpation. He delivered this story, introducing the most minute circumstances, and the most trifling dialogues, without the least stop or embarrassment, in a firm voice, and with great composure of manner. The only symptom of anxiety or agitation that appeared was a quivering in his lips, which he found it necessary to wet frequently with his tongue. He concluded by declaring, “what I have said is true, so help me God.”
Some witnesses in behalf of the prisoners were then called, but their testimony was of no consequence.
The Judge (Mr. Serjeant Lens) then proceeded to sum up the evidence. He was not aware that he could do any thing more in this important case than merely recapitulate the accounts given by the witnesses of the conduct of the prisoners between eight and eleven o’clock on the 10th of November. If they could rely on any part of Sarah Hurst’s evidence, the decision of the Jury would be short and infallible; but her conduct did not tend to establish her credit. She, according to her own account, was appointed to watch whilst the murder was committed, and was therefore a party in the murder. The declarations of Chennel’s hatred were important; but the Jury were to consider that the expressions he used with regard to his father and his housekeeper, coarse and violent as they were, extended over a long course of time (as much as a year) before the fatal deed; and the Jury were to judge, whether they were the infatuation of criminality, unconsciously avowing its designs; or loose idle words, that had no definite meaning, and were never intended to avow any purpose. He thought that these expressions could hardly be taken to convey what they meant; and though they were not forgotten as evincing a general disposition to evil, and rendering what happened more probable, they were not to be relied on as declaring the intention of murder, which no man in his senses who meant to commit it would previously declare. The Learned Judge then went over the different parts of the evidence, and showed its bearing on the guilt or innocence of the prisoners with great discrimination and impartiality. He concluded an address to the Jury of two hours and three-quarters, about ten minutes before nine o’clock.
The Jury almost immediately returned a verdict of Guilty against both prisoners. Very little change took place in the appearance or countenance of either of them when the verdict was pronounced.
The Learned Judge proceeded to pass the awful sentence of the law, that they be executed on Friday, and their bodies afterwards be given to be anatomised and dissected.
The prisoners were then led away, Chalcraft protesting that he was “as innocent as the child unborn,” and Chennel saying nothing. The latter seems a person about 40; he is a stout-made man, rather inclined to be corpulent, with the outline of a good face, apparently rendered heavy and dull by the effects of indolence and irregular habits. He was dressed in a black jockey coat and striped waistcoat, and a black neckerchief. He displayed, on his entrance into Court, the utmost indifference to his situation, and did not appear to be much touched by any thing that occurred. The prisoner Chalcraft appeared in a smock frock, with a colored handkerchief tied carelessly about his neck; he had all the rustic appearance of his situation, joined to a considerable degree of acuteness in his eye, and general intelligence in his countenance; he seemed secure and confident, but at the same time earnest and attentive.
THE EXECUTION.
The prisoners were executed on Friday in Godalming Marsh, within sight of the place where the murders were committed. Great pains had been taken by the Rev. Gentlemen who attended them, to bring them to a sense of their awful situation and their duty, but they would make no confession. It appeared, however, from words let fall by Chalcraft, that Chennel could disclose the whole, and he urged him to do so; but the other was obstinately silent. It is generally thought that they had entered into some horrid compact not to confess, for they acknowledged that the case was clear enough against them; and that they on a jury should have convicted others under the same circumstances. They were men of the vilest character, and several other murders have been, with great probability, imputed to them. It is singular that both Chalcraft and Chennel were at Petersfield at the time a murder was perpetrated, and that some of the clothes of the victim were found near Godalming where Chalcraft lived. Another murder was perpetrated at Farnham, and the two criminals were there at the time, while the knife found in the house appeared to be one of Chennel’s father’s. They are also suspected of the murder of a Roman Catholic Priest, near Reading, as they were near there at the time. Chalcraft had been the death of his first wife, by the abandoned course of his conduct; and the character of Chennel was of the most dissolute and irreclaimable description. The person whom they last murdered, and for whose murder they were executed, besides standing to the culprits in a relation which should have secured him from their violence, was an excellent and respected man. His murderer was his only son, his only child. He had treated him with great indulgence; he had set him up in life as a farmer, after he had deserted the profession to which he bred him; he had supplied his wants when by idleness and profligacy he had squandered his property; he had taken and offered to maintain his child; he had rescued him from prosecution when by forgery on himself and his brother he had exposed himself to that fate which he ought to have suffered; for this he had mortgaged his small freehold estate, and he would have given his all to reclaim him, when he imbrued his hands in his blood.
The place of execution exhibited an immense number of spectators. Chennel sustained himself with the most perfect callousness till he was turned off, but the other was violently agitated, and could scarcely stand upright. After the bodies had been cut down, they were received into the waggon which conveyed them to the place of execution, and extended on an elevated stage which had been constructed in the vehicle. Amidst a procession of officers, constables, &c. the remains of the murderers were then conveyed in a slow and awful silence through the town of Godalming until they arrived at the house of the late Mr. Chennel. Here the procession halted, and the bodies of Chennel and Chalcraft were removed from the waggon into the kitchen of the house, one of them being placed on the very spot where the housekeeper, Elizabeth Wilson, was found murdered. After this, the surgeons proceeded to perform the first offices of dissection, and the bodies in this state were left exposed to the gaze of thousands, who throughout the day eagerly rushed in to view them. The effect of this awful scene may be imagined but not described. The horror and reflection, however, which it excited, will, it is hoped, produce that salutary warning and effect, which may in future prevent the recurrence of those deeds which gave rise to the sad spectacle.