Chapter V: Part 5

Mr. ADOLPHUS proceeded to state the leading facts of it to the jury. In doing so, he said, that he did not feel it necessary to solicit their most serious attention to it, for he knew it would receive such attention from them, being a case in which the three prisoners at the bar stood charged with the foul crime of murder; and one of which, as persons living in society, they must have heard a great deal for many days past. After paying the usual compliment to the jury, on the ground of their respectability, which, by the bye, would be 'more honoured in the breach than in the observance,' and declaring, as usual, that he never had the honour of addressing a jury more competent by their talents and station in life, to deliver a true and conscientious verdict; he also, as usual, declared himself to be a very humble individual, and that he was fully impressed with the conviction, that a case of such great importance might have been entrusted to far more abler hands than his own. After this positive compliment to the jury, and the negative compliment to himself, the learned counsel proceeded to state, that he was fully aware that the jury knew this to be a case of the greatest and most important interest, and he felt certain, that the gentlemen of the jury required no suggestions from him to induce them to pay the strictest attention to all its details; and having alluded to the interest which it excited out of doors, he was sure that he need scarcely remind them, that they should not allow themselves to be at all swayed by any thing that they might have heard with regard to this case, previously to their entering that box, but that their duty there was merely to judge the case by the evidence which should be laid before them. When he spoke on their deciding on this case according to the evidence which should be laid before them, he begged to say, that there was one point on which he was anxious to call their serious attention. In cases of murder, it often happened that the direct evidence of eye-witnesses could not be produced as to the blow which had been struck or the injury which had been inflicted, and the infliction of which constituted the crime; but it was settled by the constitution of this country, that, in all cases of this kind, a jury might select from the circumstances of the evidence laid before them, such facts as might produce a conviction in their minds as to the guilt of the prisoners charged with the offence. The application of the facts and circumstances of a case for such a purpose was, by the law of the land, vested in a jury constituted as they now were; and it was for them to decide according to the evidence which should be laid before them, as it appeared in their minds; and it was for them, after they had heard the great body of evidence which would be submitted to them in this case, to say whether the prisoners were or were not guilty of the heinous crime laid to their charge. If the facts which would be laid before them, should produce in their minds a conviction of the guilt of the prisoners, he was sure that they would, without hesitation, pronounce a verdict which would consign some, if not all of them, to a certain, speedy, and ignominious death; and he was equally sure, that if an opposite conviction was the result of the evidence, the jury would at once acquit the prisoners at the bar. Without further introduction, he would proceed to state to them the facts which had given rise to this painful and extraordinary inquiry, as he felt justified in calling it, for the murder, to which it had reference, did not appear to have been committed through any of those motives that have ordinarily occasioned the commission of such a crime in this country. It was not to gratify revenge for a wrong done, that the unfortunate victim in this case had been deprived of existence. The minds of his murderers were not stimulated by any passions of that description to the commission of the dreadful deed. Neither wealth nor the other common allurements which influenced the actions of wicked men under such circumstances had impelled them to perpetrate this crime. Nothing but the sordid and base desire to possess themselves of a dead body, in order to sell it for dissection, had induced the prisoners at the bar to commit the crime for which they were now about to answer before a jury of their countrymen. The learned gentleman then proceeded to detail the facts of the case, as they were afterwards stated in the evidence subsequently produced. He dwelt in terms of well-deserved eulogy on the meritorious exertions of Mr. Thomas, the superintendent of police, and of Mr. Corder, the vestry-clerk of St. Paul's, Covent Garden, in prosecuting the inquiry which had led to the trial. He acknowledged that the case depended upon circumstantial evidence, but he contended that a large and well-connected body of circumstantial evidence was, in many cases, superior to the positive testimony of an eye-witness. The judgment of an eye-witness was, in several instances, liable to be deceived; but it was impossible that the jury, after putting all the circumstances of the case together, and weighing them seriously and deliberately, could be mistaken in their judgment. It was for them to say, after doing so, whether the prisoners at the bar were or were not guilty of the crime with which they stood charged. He concluded by repeating his confident expectation that they would give to this important case the deep and serious attention which it deserved, and by expressing his complete reliance on the integrity and good sense of a British jury, which a long life of practice had left him no room to doubt.

WILLIAM HILL, the first witness called, was then examined by Mr. Clarkson. The witness stated, that he is porter to the dissecting-room at the King's College. At a quarter before twelve o'clock on Saturday, the 5th of November, the bell of the dissecting-room having been rung, he answered it; and having opened the door, he found the two prisoners at the bar, Bishop and May, there. He had known the prisoners before. May asked him if he wanted anything, and he said 'Not particularly.' Witness asked him what he had got; he said, 'A male subject.' Witness asked him what size. He said, 'A boy about fourteen;' and he demanded twelve guineas. Witness said they could not give that price, for they did not particularly want it; but if he would wait, he would acquaint Mr. Partridge, the demonstrator of anatomy, with the matter. He accordingly went to Mr. Partridge, who said he would see them. Witness then went back to them, and told them to go round to the place appropriated for them. When he had got them into the room appropriated for them, Mr. Partridge joined them. They could not agree as to the price. Mr. Partridge said that he would not give twelve guineas for the subject. Witness then heard May tell him he should have it for ten guineas. Mr. Partridge then left them, and went into the dissecting-room. The prisoners then asked witness how it was to be, and whether he would have the subject? Witness then followed Mr. Partridge, and, in consequence of what Mr. Partridge said to him, he returned to the prisoners, and told them that Mr. Partridge would only give nine guineas for the subject. May said, he would be d--d if it should come in for less than ten guineas. May was intoxicated at the time. On his going out to the door, Bishop, taking witness aside, said to him, 'Never mind May, he is drunk. It shall come in for nine guineas in the course of half an hour. They then went away. About a quarter past two o'clock on the same afternoon they returned, in company with the other prisoner, Williams, and a man named Shields. They had a hamper with them. Shields appeared to be employed as the porter for carrying it. May and Bishop carried the hamper into another room, while Williams and May remained where they were. On opening the hamper, a sack containing the body was found in it. May and Bishop remarked that it was a good one, to which observation the witness assented. May, being tipsy, then turned the body very carelessly out of the sack. The witness perceived that the body was unusually fresh; and, in consequence of what struck him with regard to the appearances of it, he went to Mr. Partridge. Previously to his doing so, he asked the prisoners what the subject had died of? They said, they did not know, and that it was no business either of his or theirs. Witness replied, that it certainly was not. The appearances with regard to the body with which he was particularly struck were these:--It appeared different from a body that had been laid in a coffin. The left arm was turned up towards the head, and the fingers of the hand were firmly clenched. In consequence of the opinion which he formed from the appearance of the body, he went to Mr. Partridge, and detailed to him what he had seen, and what he thought about the matter. Mr. Partridge accordingly returned to the room where the body was lying, to have an inspection of it. The prisoners had been removed from that room to the room into which they were originally introduced, and where the other two men were also. Mr. Partridge, without seeing them, after seeing the body, went to the secretary's office. In the mean time, several of the gentlemen connected with the College saw the body, and their suspicions were also excited. Mr. Partridge having returned to the place where the prisoners were, showed them a fifty pound note, and told them he must get that changed, and that then he would pay them. Mr. Partridge having pulled out his purse while speaking to them, and there being some gold in it, Bishop said, 'Give me what money you have, and I will call on Monday for the remainder.' May proposed that Mr. Partridge should give him the fifty pound note, and he would go out and get it changed. Mr. Partridge, smiling, said, 'Oh, no,' and then left them. The prisoners remained waiting after Mr. Partridge had gone. In about a quarter of an hour Mr. Mayo, the Professor of Anatomy at the College, came down with Mr. Rogers, the Police Inspector, and a body of police, and the prisoners were all taken into custody. Before that took place, and while witness was in the room with Bishop, Bishop said to him, 'Pay me only eight guineas in the presence of May; give me the other guinea, and I will give you half-a-crown.' The body was then delivered by the witness to the police, together with the hamper and sack; and having accompanied them to the police-station, in Covent Garden, he saw them delivered into the hands of Mr. Thomas, the Superintendent of Police. Judging by his experience with regard to dead bodies, it was his opinion that this body had not been buried, nor laid in a coffin. He observed that there was no saw-dust about the hair of it.

Cross-examined by Mr. CURWOOD.--The first conversation he had was with May and Bishop only; Williams did not appear. Williams was in the College, but not in the same room.

Mr. RICHARD PARTRIDGE examined by Mr. BODKIN.--Witness is Demonstrator of Anatomy at the King's College. He was there on Saturday, the 5th of November. A body was brought there that day, and a communication was made to him about it by the witness Hill, about two o'clock in the afternoon. He accordingly went and looked at it. None of the prisoners were present at the time. The body externally exhibited some suspicious appearances, and it was those appearances that induced him to go for the police. The suspicious appearances were a swollen state of the face, bloodshot eyes, freshness of the body, and the rigidity of the limbs. There was likewise a cut over the left temple. The lips were also swollen. There was nothing else in the external appearance of the body that excited his attention. After he had examined the body, he did not recollect whether he went to the place where the prisoners were before he called in the police. He was certain, however, that he went for the police before the circumstance with regard to the fifty pound note took place. On returning to the College, after going for the police, he showed the fifty pound note to May and Bishop, where he found them at the bottom of the stairs, leading to the anatomical department. He then proposed to them that change should be got for the fifty pound note, with the view to detain them until the police arrived.

The following day he made a more minute examination of the body at the police-station, in the presence of other medical men--the external appearances near the muscles were rigid, though less so than on the preceding day, and there was a superficial wound on the temple. Beneath the scalp and the bone there was some contused blood. On opening the body, he found the whole of the chest, breast, &c., in a healthy condition; the stomach was full. The spinal cord and brain were then examined--the brain was perfectly healthy. In cutting through the skin that covers the spinal cord, he found a quantity of coagulated blood in the muscles, and on removing the back part, blood was found on the membrane that envelops the spinal cord. The spinal marrow appeared to be perfectly healthy. From these appearances he thought the external marks of violence were sufficient to produce death. The violence exerted had had an effect on the spinal cord. The violence must have been on the back of the neck. A blow from a stick, he believed, would have caused the appearances he had described. The injuries might not produce instantaneous, but would cause a speedy death.

By Chief Justice TINDAL.--Witness believed that the appearances of external violence to the spinal marrow had been caused by a blow or some other species of violence inflicted on the back of the neck.

Examination continued by Mr. BODKIN.--It was the opinion of witness, that the blow of a stick at the back part of the neck might have caused such appearances. He would not positively say, that such an injury would produce an instantaneous death; but he believed that it would cause a very speedy one.

Cross-examined by Mr. CURWOOD.--On the external examination of the body, he could not discover anything that would have been sufficient to produce death. The extravasation of the blood in the spinal marrow might have produced death. He would not positively say that it did so, but his conclusion was, that it did. He could only arrive at belief, and not at certainty on the subject. He did not think that the appearances which he had mentioned could have been produced by pressure, or any other means besides a blow. At the same time they might have been produced by a blow of something else as well as a stick.

Re-examined by Mr. BODKIN.--On examining the heart, he found it was empty, which was an unusual circumstance. The face too was swollen and flushed, and both these appearances, namely, the empty state of the heart, and the swollen state of the features, have been found in persons who have died suddenly, but not from violence. They have been found in persons who have met with a sudden but a natural death. But the appearances about the spinal cord, and the coagulated blood at the back of the neck, have not been found in persons dying a natural death.

Mr. GEORGE BEAMAN, Surgeon, examined by Mr. ADOLPHUS.--I am a surgeon to the parish of St. Paul's, Covent-garden. On Saturday night, 5th of November, I first saw the body of the deceased. I examined it with other surgeons. The weather, I should remark, at that time was very favourable to the preservation of dead flesh. The body appeared to have died very recently. I should judge that it had died within thirty-six hours. The face appeared swollen, the tongue was also swollen, the eyes prominent and blood-shot, and the tongue was protruding between the lips. The teeth had been all extracted, the gums bruised, and portions of the jaw-bone had been broken and removed with the teeth. There was also the appearance of blood having issued from the gums. Judging from all these circumstances, I should say, that the teeth must have been taken from the gums within two or three hours after death. I examined the throat, neck, and chest, very particularly, and I found no external marks of violence there. On this occasion I observed there was a wound on the forehead, over the left eyebrow: it was about three-quarters of an inch long, and it penetrated through the skin to the bone. A small quantity of blood had oozed from the wound, but that circumstance might have been occasioned by the body falling out of the sack after death. The blood was uncoagulated. I again examined the body on the following day (Sunday) about two o'clock in the afternoon, but I found no further marks of external violence. The limbs, which were decidedly stiff on Saturday night, were not so much so on Sunday. The appearances of the body were such, in my opinion, as to leave no doubt that it had not been regularly laid out. About eight o'clock on the Sunday evening, I examined the body, assisted by Mr. Partridge and others. I washed the throat and neck with a sponge and water carefully, but I found no scratch or mark of violence there. On removing the scalp on the top of the skull, I detected some blood about the size of a crown. Such an appearance as that must have been produced by a blow, given during life. The brain was also examined, and its appearances were precisely such as Mr. Partridge has described. The body was then turned, for the purpose of examining the spinal marrow, and on removing the skin on the back part of the neck, a considerable quantity of coagulated blood, I should think from three to four ounces, was found amongst the muscles there. That blood must have been effused while the subject was alive. On removing a portion of the spine, for the purpose of examining the spinal marrow, a quantity of coagulated blood was found lying in the spinal canal, which, by causing a pressure on the spinal marrow, must have produced death. The bones of the spine were uninjured. The appearances which I have described would be likely to follow from a heavy contusion on the spine, or from the blow of a heavy instrument. There was about an ounce of blood found in the spinal canal. The heart was empty, which is an unusual circumstance, and one that, in my opinion, denotes a sudden death. I mean by a sudden, an instantaneous death, or nearly so, one that takes place in at least two or three minutes. The stomach contained a tolerably full meal, and the contents smelt slightly of rum. Digestion was going on at the time of death. I should think that death occurred about three hours after the meal. On examining the coats of the stomach, after removing its contents for the purpose of having them analyzed, I found them perfectly healthy. From the whole of my observations on the body, I ascribe the death to a blow given on the back of the neck. This observation I have seen verified from experiments which I have witnessed in animals, where the same appearances have followed that species of injury.

Cross-examined by Mr. BARRY.--I found no external appearances of violence at the back of the neck. It does not, however, necessarily follow, that the severe blow of a stick on the back of the neck would be followed by a contusion or external marks of violence. It would have produced such a mark if the boy had lived some time after the blow had been given. I agree with Mr. Partridge in the statement, that a flushed appearance of the countenance, and an emptiness of the heart, have been found in cases of sudden death, where no injury has been inflicted. In the course of my practice, I never found the heart empty after death. I do not think that any blow on the top of the head would present the appearances which were found on the back of the neck. Any violence applied to the back of the neck itself, however, whether considerable or not, might produce it. I can hardly think that such appearances would be produced by the falling down of a person in a fit of apoplexy. I will not say that it would be impossible, supposing that his head fell against a hard projecting body. A fall on a hard projecting point might produce such appearances. I will not swear as to the time when the teeth were removed, but I think it highly improbable that twelve hours elapsed after death before their removal.

Re-examined by Mr. ADOLPHUS.--Forming my opinion as to the best of my judgment and experience, I would say that the teeth were removed within two or three hours after death. I have never seen a person die of apoplexy, in which the brain was not injured, but I believe that such cases have occurred in what is called serous apoplexy. There was no serum effused on the boy's brain, nor did it present any unhealthy appearance whatever. He was apparently about fourteen years old, and in no respect did he seem inclined to apoplexy.

By Mr. Baron VAUGHAN.--I have examined the bodies of many persons that have died of apoplexy, and have always found appearances to account for the death. There have been cases of serous apoplexy recorded, in which it is stated, that no such appearances could be discovered. If the subject, in this instance, died of apoplexy, it did not present any appearance of it.

Mr. FREDERICK TYRRELL, examined by Mr. Clarkson.--I am one of the surgeons of St. Thomas' Hospital. I have heard the evidence of Mr. Beaman with regard to what he found, and the conclusions that he came to, and in all material points I agree with him. I have never known a case of serous apoplexy in which the appearances on the brain did not sufficiently denote its occurrence. I have been always able to ascertain that a quantity of fluid has been effused in what is termed serous apoplexy, and that itself is sufficient to denote death. I am a lecturer on anatomy and physiology in St. Thomas' Hospital, as well as a surgeon to that institution.

By Mr. Baron VAUGHAN.--The appearances described in the spinal canal might have been produced by violence, without there being marks of violence on the skin.

JOHN EARLE ROGERS, examined by Mr. Bodkin.--I am an inspector of police. On Saturday, the 5th of November, I received the body and the hamper from the witness Hill, and gave them into the custody of Mr. Thomas, the superintendent.

JOHN WILSON, a police-officer, sworn.--I apprehended the prisoners at King's College. May resisted a great deal, and struck me, because I would not let him and Bishop talk together.

JOSEPH SADLER THOMAS, examined by Mr. Adolphus.--I am Superintendent of the division of police F. On the afternoon of Saturday, the 5th of November, from certain information I received, I despatched Rogers and Wilson to the King's College. They returned with May and Williams. Before them, Bishop and Shields were brought to the station-house. Rogers also brought the body, sack, and hamper. The body was placed in the back-room in the station-house, with the hamper. The prisoners were all together in the outer room. I asked May what he had to say, for he was charged with having come into the possession of the subject in an improper manner. He replied, 'I have nothing at all to do with it. The subject is that gentleman's, (pointing to Bishop). I merely accompanied him to get the money for it.' I then asked Bishop whose it was; and he said that it was his, and that he was merely removing it from Guy's Hospital to King's College. I then asked Williams what he knew about it. He replied, that he knew nothing about it, and that he had gone with them to the King's College to see the building. I asked Bishop, in the first instance, what he was, and his answer was, 'I am a b--y body snatcher.' I think that all the prisoners at the time, Bishop and May in particular, were labouring under the effects of liquor. May was carried into the station-house on all-fours, and with his smock-frock over his head. The body was taken out of the hamper in my presence, and placed on the table. It struck me as the body of a person that had recently died. I perceived that the teeth had been extracted from it. In consequence of information, I went, on the following Tuesday, to Mr. Thomas Mills, Newington Causeway, and I received twelve teeth, which I now produce. I also went, previously to my going to Mr. Mills, to No. 3, Nova Scotia Gardens, and on the back-room ground-floor found a trunk, now produced. On the 20th of November I went to the same cottage, and making a further search, I found a hairy cap in the front parlour, amongst some dirty linen. I now produce it. I also found a tin can there. Mr. Thomas also produced the sack and hamper in which the body had been brought to the station-house in Covent Garden.

HENRY LOCK, examined.--I was, in November, waiter at the Fortune of War public-house, Giltspur-street. On Friday, November the 4th, I saw the prisoners there at eleven o'clock in the morning. They had some drink, and went away together about twelve o'clock. There was a strange man with them. About three o'clock in the afternoon of the same day they came again, and remained until about five, and then all three went away together. About eight o'clock on the same evening, they all returned with another man, who appeared to be a coachman. Before the coachman left, one of the prisoners said they had had a ride. About nine o'clock May went to the bar, with something in a handkerchief, which proved to be teeth. I saw him pour water upon the handkerchief, and rub it with his hands. He afterwards opened the handkerchief, and I saw the teeth. I observed to him, that they appeared to be young ones, and were worth two shillings. May said they were worth two pounds to him. The prisoners shortly afterwards left. On the following morning, about eight o'clock, I saw Bishop and Williams, accompanied by Shields. Bishop, addressing Williams, asked, 'What shall we do for a hamper?' Williams made no answer. Bishop requested Shields to go over to the hospital (St. Bartholomew's) to get a hamper, but he refused to go. Bishop then went himself for it, and shortly returned with a hamper. They then all left together, and I never saw them again until they were in custody.

THOMAS WIGLEY, examined.--I am a porter at coach offices. On the 4th of November, about half-past seven o'clock in the evening, I was in the Fortune of War public-house, when Bishop came in, and was followed, in a few minutes after, by May. I heard Bishop say, 'What do you think of our new one? did he not go up to him well, and collar him? was he not a game one?' May said, 'I don't know what you mean.' Bishop said, 'That's all right.' May saw me sitting in the corner of the room all the time. May got up, and went out, and in a few minutes returned, with a handkerchief in his hand, which he was rubbing with his hand. In a few minutes Williams came in, and Bishop observed, 'Here he comes; I knew he was a game one.' Bishop said to May, during the conversation, and before they went away, 'You stick to me, and I will stick to you.'

Cross-examined by Mr. CURWOOD.--I do not know what Bishop meant by saying to May, 'What do you think of our new one? was he not a game one?'

JAMES SEAGRAVE, driver of a cabriolet, sworn.--On the evening of Friday, the 4th of November, I was, with my cabriolet, on the stand in the Old Bailey. It was about six o'clock in the evening, and having put my nose-bag on my horse, I went into the watering-house to take my tea. I was called out, and saw May and Bishop. May asked me if I wanted a job, and said he had a long job. He took me on one side, and said he wanted me to fetch 'a stiff un,' which I understood to mean a dead body. I told him I did not know, but asked what he would stand? He said he would stand a guinea. I said, that I had not finished my tea, and that my horse had not done his corn. He said, that we would take tea together. I went into the public-house, followed by May and Bishop. They took their seats, and called for tea for two. Some person in the room jogged me by the elbow, and hinted that the men were snatchers, and I determined not to go with them. After tea I went out, and drove my cabriolet to the bottom of the rank. I afterwards saw May and Bishop going up the rank amongst the coaches, and I drove off, leaving them, apparently, making a bargain with the coachmen.

Cross-examined by Mr. CURWOOD.--I knew that the circumstances which I have mentioned took place on Friday, the 4th of November, because I had to attend on a summons that day, from ten o'clock till three, before the Commissioners in Essex-street. There were four or five persons in the parlour at the watering-house when May and Bishop were there.

Re-examined.--The conversation which I had with May took place outside the watering-house.

THOMAS TAVERNER, the waterman at the coach-stand in the Old Bailey, corroborated the evidence of the preceding witness, as to the application of the prisoners May and Bishop to him for the hire of the cab.

EDWARD CHANDLER examined.--I was, on the 4th of November, a porter at the King of Denmark public-house, in the Old Bailey. May and Bishop came in with Seagrave, the cabriolet driver, and they had some tea and a pint of gin together. I observed May put some gin into Bishop's tea, and Bishop asked him, are you going to _hocus_ me, or _Burke_ me? I cannot say whether it was _hocus_ or _Burke_. I knew May and Bishop before. I do not know what _hocus_ means.

Cross-examined by Mr. CURWOOD.--I cannot say whether Seagrave had part of the gin or not.

HENRY MANN, hackney-coachman, examined.--On Friday, the 4th of November, about five o'clock in the evening, I was on the stand, in Bridge-street, Blackfriars; May and a strange man came to me; May asked, if I would take a fare, and go with him to Bethnal Green. I refused to go. I refused to go because I knew what May was.

GEORGE GISSING, a boy, examined.--I am twelve years old. I go to school and to church. My father keeps the Birdcage public-house, Crabtree Road, near Nova Scotia Gardens. On the evening of the 4th of November, about half-past six o'clock, I saw a yellow hackney-chariot draw up, opposite my father's house. It is very near Nova Scotia Gardens. I know Bishop's cottage in Nova Scotia Gardens. It is but a short distance from my father's house. I did not see who got out of the chariot. I afterwards saw the prisoner Williams standing on the fore-wheel of the chariot, talking to the driver. The chariot waited ten or fifteen minutes. The door was open all the time. Williams went down Nova Scotia Gardens, and in ten or fifteen minutes he returned, and got into the chariot; then I saw a strange man carrying a sack in his arms, and Bishop holding up one end of it, they put it in the chariot; Williams put out his hand to help it in. The sack appeared to be heavy, as if something heavy was in it. Bishop and the other man got into the chariot with Williams, and they drove up Crabtree Road, and towards Shoreditch Church, on the road to the city. The strange man was not one of the prisoners, but he had a smock-frock on. Bishop is believed to be Williams's father-in-law, and they kept their wedding at my father's house.

THOMAS TRAINER, another boy, corroborated the last witness's evidence.--He saw the prisoners, Bishop and Williams, who were both known to him, on the occasion mentioned. Two of the men had smock-frocks on. A woman, named Ann Channell, was present with witness at the time.

ANN CHANNELL examined.--I was passing by the Birdcage public-house, on the evening of Friday, the 4th of November. I saw a hackney-coach stop, and three men get out of it. They went down Nova Scotia Gardens. I did not remain there. Two of the men had smock-frocks on. I did not notice them sufficiently so as to be able to know any of them again.

THOMAS DAVIS sworn.--I am porter to the dissecting-room, Guy's Hospital. On Friday evening, the 4th of November, about seven o'clock, May and Bishop came to the hospital, May carrying a sack. I knew them before, they asked me if I wanted to purchase a subject. I declined to purchase it, and they asked me if I would allow them to leave it in the hospital until the following morning. I acceded to their request, and locked the body up in a room during the night. Next morning, between the hours of eleven and twelve, I saw May and Bishop in the hospital. Having been out, I returned to the hospital, and ascertained that the body had been taken away. I had only seen a foot out of the sack, and I believed it was either that of a boy or a female; it was not large enough for that of a man. The sack produced is similar to that in which the body was.

Cross-examined by Mr. BARRY.--I only saw May and Bishop on that occasion. I never saw Williams until the other day.

JAMES WEEKS, assistant to the last witness, examined.--On Friday, the 4th of November, I saw Bishop and May bring the sack with a body in it to Guy's Hospital. The sack produced has a hole in it, and resembles that in which the body was brought. The sack was left at the hospital all night. The following morning Bishop, May, Williams, and Shields, came for the body, and I delivered it to them in the same state as I had received it. The night before, May and Bishop directed me not to let it go unless they were both present. They took it away in a hamper, which they brought with them. Shields acted as porter, and carried the hamper. I believe the hamper now produced to be that in which they carried the body away.

Mr. J. APPLETON, curator of Grainger's Anatomical Theatre, Webb-street, Borough, examined.--I know the three prisoners. On Friday, November 4th, about half-past seven o'clock in the evening, Bishop and May came and said they had a subject for sale. I asked what it was; they said that it was a fresh subject. I asked whether it was male or female. They replied a boy about fourteen years of age. I declined to purchase it. The next morning they called to make the same offer, but I again declined it. They had not the body with them.

Mr. THOMAS MILLS examined.--I live at No. 39, Bridge-house-place, Newington Causeway, and am a dentist. On the 4th of November, between nine and ten o'clock in the morning, May called and offered a set of teeth for sale; they were twelve human teeth, six for each jaw. I observed that one of the front teeth was chipped. He offered the set for a guinea. It was then that I observed that one of them was chipped, as that lessened their value. I said that I would give twelve shillings for them, and I remarked that they did not belong to one set. He said, "upon my soul to God, they all belonged to one head not long since, and that the body had never been buried." I gave him twelve shillings for the set. On examining them afterwards, I found that some part of the flesh of the gums was so firmly attached to them, that I imagined they had been violently taken from the head. I found great difficulty in detaching it from them. I remarked to May, that the teeth either belonged to a boy or a female. He replied that they had belonged to a boy, between fourteen and fifteen years of age. Those are the teeth now produced, which I delivered to the superintendent Mr. Thomas.

Cross-examined by Mr. CURWOOD.--I will swear that the expression used by May was not that the teeth were as fresh as if the body from which they had been taken never was buried.

AUGUSTINE BRUN (examined through an interpreter, Parragalli, who is also one of the witnesses) deposed, that he was acquainted with the Italian boy, Carlo Ferrari. Witness brought him to this country about two years ago. Carlo stayed with him but about six weeks. Has not seen him since the 28th of July, 1830. Was shown the body of a boy at Covent-garden station-house, on the 19th of November. Recognized it to be the body of the boy Carlo--that is, to the best of his belief. Could not swear positively, the face was so disfigured, and the absence of the teeth so altered the usual expression of the boy's countenance. The hair, size, and form, perfectly corresponded. Had not seen the boy alive since July, 1830; could not, if he was dead.

The last remark occasioned a laugh in the court; but it arose from the inaccurate manner in which Parragalli, the interpreter, put the questions to the witness. In several instances the questions, as put by Parragalli, were wholly different in sense and meaning to those given by the counsel, and thus a degree of perplexity and confusion arose in the answers, which gave an opposite character to the examination than was in reality intended. The interpreter was frequently checked by the court, in consequence of the comments in which he indulged in the answers given by the witness, and in which he appeared to display a zeal, which broke out sometimes into a certain degree of impertinence and frivolity, not at all in character with the solemn investigation which was then pending.

AUGUSTINE BRUN was cross-examined by Mr. Curwood, when he said, that if he had not heard of the death of the boy, he should have given precisely the same evidence, namely, that he could have inferred from the general appearance of the body, and colour of the hair, that it was that of 'my boy' Carlo Ferrari. If asked at once to whom the body belonged, I should have experienced some difficulty in determining, in consequence of the disfigurement of the face.

JOSEPH PARRAGALLI, the interpreter to Brun, was then admitted as a witness. Obtained his livelihood by playing an organ and the pandean-pipes. Knew the boy Carlo for the last two years. Saw him alive at half-past two o'clock, in the Regent's Quadrant, on the Saturday four weeks before he saw him dead at the Station-house. Carlo had then a cage with two white mice about his neck; was sure that the boy, whom he saw dead, was the same whom he saw thus accoutred in the Regent's Quadrant (the cap was here put into witness's hands). Would swear that, to the best of his belief, it belonged to the boy Carlo.

Cross-examined by Mr. BARRY.--Witness did not know any Italian boys who obtained a livelihood in the manner of the boy Carlo.

_Drawn by Mr. Tillotson in St. Paul's Church Yards_]

MARY PARRAGALLI, wife of the last witness, also knew the boy Carlo Ferrari. Saw him last on Tuesday the 1st of November, in Oxford-street, at a quarter past twelve o'clock; he had a cage, like a squirrel-cage, with two white mice in it. Did not speak to him; he wore a cap. When shown a dead body at Covent-Garden station-house, on the 6th of November, was positive that it was that of the boy Carlo.

ANDREW COLLA knew the boy Carlo by sight. Saw him in Oxford-street on Tuesday the 1st of November. On the following Monday saw a body at the station-house, Covent-Garden, which he believes to have been that of Carlo (a cap was here put into the witness's hands). To the best of his belief, it was the cap worn by the Italian boy when he met him in Oxford-street. Carlo had on him a blue coat and grey trowsers. The trowsers had a patch on the knee (a pair of trowsers was here shown to the witness). Believes them to be those worn by the boy Carlo. Is strengthened in his belief by the peculiarity of the stitching. Has not seen the trowsers since the day he met the boy in Oxford-street.

JOHN KING, aged ten in December, was acquainted with the nature of an oath.--Lived near Nova Scotia Gardens. On the Thursday before Guy Fawkes's day, saw a boy standing at the corner of the gardens. The boy had a cage suspended by a string round his neck. Had a brown hairy cap (a cap was put into witness's hands). Believes the cap to be that worn by the boy. Knew it by the green facing.

MARTHA KING, aged eleven years, sister of the last witness, gave evidence precisely to the same effect.

REBECCA BAYLIS lives at No. 1, Virginia-row, Bethnal-green. Her husband is a cabinet-maker. Remembers to have seen, on Thursday the 3d of November, an Italian boy, standing close to the window of her residence. Saw a box suspended from his neck, on the boy's arms. (The cap which had been shown to the preceding witnesses, was here shown to this witness.) Believes the cap to be the same with that worn by the Italian boy. In about a quarter of an hour after, had occasion to go out, I saw the Italian boy standing within two doors of Bishop's residence. The trowsers appear to be like those worn by the boy; could not speak with the same degree of certainty respecting the jacket. The colour was more inclining to the green than that now produced.

JOHN RANDALL, labourer, lived in Bethnal-green, near Nova Scotia Gardens. Remembers to have seen, on Thursday the 3d of November, an Italian boy standing under the window of the Bird-cage public-house, Nova Scotia Gardens. The boy had a cage with two white mice in his arms. The cage had a box in one part, the other part went round like a squirrel-cage. The boy had on him a brown cap: the cap (here shown to witness) is like that worn by the boy.

SARAH TRUBY is wife of the landlord of the cottages, Nos. 1, 2 and 3, in Nova Scotia Gardens. On the part of her husband, she let in July, 1830, the cottage No. 3 to Bishop's wife. Bishop and his wife lived there since; let the cottage No. 2 to the prisoner Williams in July last. Williams then went by the name of Head. Williams lived there for six or seven weeks; let the cottage since to a person named Woodcock. There was a well in the garden attached to Bishop's cottage, with a passage to it from the other two cottages. There is a privy at the bottom of the garden of No. 3, which was not open to Nos. 1 and 2, but was to her (witness's) own residence. Has seen Williams frequently, since he left No. 2, in the prisoner's (Bishop's) cottage.

WILLIAM WOODCOCK, about twelve years of age, lived with his father at No. 2, Nova Scotia Gardens, next door to the prisoner Bishop's residence. Has seen Williams and his wife frequently of late, in Bishop's cottage; the last time he saw Williams there, was a couple of days before Guy Fawkes' day.

ABRAHAM KEYMAN keeps the Feathers public-house, Bethnal-green.--On Thursday night the 3d of November, at about a quarter before twelve, Bishop, accompanied by a man in appearance like the prisoner Williams, came to his house and took with him half a gallon of beer, and a quartern of rum: lent them a can to carry the beer; lives within two hundred yards of Bishop's residence (a can was here shown to witness); that was the can he lent to Bishop.

WILLIAM WOODCOCK went to reside at No. 2, Nova Scotia Gardens, next door to the prisoner Bishop, on the 17th of October last; lived there till the prisoners were apprehended, but not since; had reason to believe that the prisoner Williams lived along with the prisoner Bishop; does not recollect ever to have seen the prisoner Bishop till he saw him at Bow-street; but saw Williams on two Sundays. On one of these occasions witness was digging in the bottom of the garden attached to his residence No. 2, when he was accosted by the prisoner Williams, and recommended not to dig in that part of the garden, but in another which he pointed out. On the night of Guy Fawkes' day, went to bed about half-past nine. Had been asleep about four hours when he awoke, and heard a noise in the adjoining (Bishop's) cottage. He then roused himself completely from sleep, and distinctly heard the sound of three footsteps. He did not rise, because the noise was not in his own house. He heard a scuffle which lasted for a couple of minutes, when all became silent. After the silence, and before he went again to sleep, he heard the side-entrance door to No. 3 open, and distinctly heard the footsteps of two persons run by his (witness's) window. He also heard the footsteps of one person in No. 3, before the other two returned. There elapsed but about one minute between their going out and return. He then recognized the voice of the prisoner Williams. The partition wall between the cottages was about four inches thick.

On cross-examination, the witness said that he had no particular reason for saying or believing that Williams lived with Bishop, other than he heard it reported, and because he knew him to be his son-in-law. When he heard the scuffle, he did not rise, supposing it to be some family quarrel, with which he had no concern.

ANNA WOODCOCK, wife of the last witness, gave evidence to the effect that the prisoner Williams was an inmate of Bishop's cottage.

JOSEPH HIGGINS (of the New Police) was sent by his officer to the cottage, No. 3, Nova Scotia Gardens, tenanted by the prisoner Bishop; and on searching it, found a chisel and some tools. He then went to the prisoner May's lodgings, near the New Kent-road, and found these awls and screws (here shown to the jury). On one of the awls he discovered drops of blood apparently fresh. He also found a pair of breeches, with marks of apparently fresh blood upon them.

Mr. MILLS, the dentist, was here recalled for the purpose of examining the awls and tools found at the prisoner May's residence. They were such as would serve to extract teeth in the coarse manner in which those sold to him had been evidently extracted.

JOSEPH HIGGINS'S examination resumed.--On the 19th of November, he again went to Bishop's residence, accompanied by another policeman. They minutely searched the premises, and with an iron rod probed the garden in several places. The rod met with resistance in one part of the garden, and on digging they discovered a jacket, a pair of trowsers, and a small shirt. In another part they dug up a blue coat, a drab striped waistcoat, altered from man's size so as to fit a boy, and a pair of trowsers with the braces attached to them. The waistcoat had stains of blood on the collar and shoulders. They were buried about twelve inches under the surface, and were covered with cinders and ashes.

The clothes thus dug up were shown to the jury. The trowsers and coat sworn to by preceding witnesses as like to those worn by the Italian boy were part of them.

The evidence of this witness was corroborated by that of James Wadey, the police-officer who accompanied him in his search.

EDWARD WARD, a child aged six years and a half, was next called. He was previously to being sworn examined as to the nature of an oath. The child, with infantine simplicity, said that he knew it to be a very bad thing to tell a lie; that it was a great sin; and that he who would swear falsely would go to h--l, to be burnt with brimstone and sulphur. He was then sworn.--He stated that he lived with his father near to the Nova Scotia cottages. That a few days before Guy Fawkes's day, his mother having given him a half holiday, he went to Bishop's cottage to play with Bishop's children, three in number, a boy older than himself, a little girl, and a boy about his own age. As a toy, Bishop's children produced a cage, which went round, and which contained two white mice. He never before saw either a cage or mice with Bishop's children. On his return home, he told his brother, who is much older than himself, all the circumstances.

JOHN WARD, brother of the last witness, deposed to the fact of his young brother having told him that he had been playing at Bishop's cottage with Bishop's children, and that their toy was a cage containing two white mice, which went round and round.

Mr. JAMES CORDER (the vestry-clerk of Covent-garden) was apprised of the discovery of the body of an Italian boy at King's College, at five o'clock of the evening of Saturday on which it was brought there. At the instance of the parish, a coroner's inquest was held on the body, and proceedings instituted. At the inquest the prisoner Bishop was examined, and was told that he was not called on to criminate himself, to be cautious in his answers, for that what fell from him would be taken down word for word, and might be used so as to affect his life. Witness here read the declarations of the prisoners Bishop, Williams, and May, as given at the coroner's inquest, to the following effect:--

'I dug of the body out of the grave. The reason why I decline to say the grave I took it out of is, that there were two watchmen in the ground, and they intrusted me, and being men of family, I don't wish to "deceive" them. I don't think I can say anything more. I took it for sale to Guy's Hospital, and as they did not want it, I left it there all night and part of the next day, and then I removed it to the King's College. That is all I can say about it. I mean to say that this is the truth. I shall certainly keep it a secret where I got the body. I know nothing as to how it died.'