Welcome Back! I hope if that you’re reading this post that you have also read my previous blog discussing Criminal Broadsides. To those of you who made it to the end, you’ll remember that I ended on somewhat of a sympathetic note. To me, William Johnson seemed like a good guy. Yes, he committed a terrible crime but through his Christian confession and love for his sister, I saw a young man who could not be as evil as his crime would suggest. HOW WRONG WAS I!
The aim for this week’s blog was to research and analyse trials from the 19th century and with young William still fresh in my thoughts, I decided to research him further. Regretfully, I wish I had done this sooner as the outcome of my last post would have been significantly different. There is no denying his guilt and the testimonies of those who saw him on that fateful night in 1833 paint a dark picture. So get comfy and I’ll relay the grisly details of his trail.
The Crown and Horseshoe public house in Enfield, Middlesex – Looking at it now it seems idyllic, a wonderful place for a beer in the sun or a cosy pint by the fire, perhaps a nice game of dominoes with your fellow locals? For Benjamin Couch Danby, a seemingly innocent night of drinking and playing ended with him dead in a ditch, his throat slit by none other than William Johnson. So how did the night escalate so horrifically you might wonder, from the testimonies in Johnsons trail a small part of me believes the victim had it coming.
Joseph Perry, keeper of the Crown and Horseshoe, told the court about how he saw the victims purse numerous times and that it “was a silk purse, with steel slides and tassles… from the appearance of it there where from twelve to fifteen round coins in it” suggesting that the victim was a bit of a show off and flaunted his apparent wealth. Most of the testimonies acknowledged money in some way. In Joseph Mathews’ (who worked in the pub) testimony, he says:
‘The deceased asked William Johnson if he would like to play; he said “no, I cannot, for I have no money” – the deceased said “never mind the money, If you lose I will pay for you”
I do not wish to say that Danby deserved what he got, but from many of the testimonies it appears that nobody was surprised it happened. What is most surprising is that nobody really spoke of Johnson in particularly bad way more so just of the severity of the crime. All noted at how drunk the victim was and how Johnson was part of a small group helping to take him home. Richard Wagstaff recalled telling John Cooper “take my advice, and go home, and have nothing more to do with them, for I think they are going to rob him”. By getting himself into such a drunk state and by flashing his cash and ‘showing his pockets’ Danby drew attention to himself and the fact that the trail acknowledged Johnson had no money shows that, to all involved, this crime would not have been so shocking given the context.
The defendant clearly had it tough, that does not justify his crime, but it certainly explains it. Johnson was a poor man, so poor as to not wish to take part in the dominos game being played in the pub as he had no money to bet with. To him, Danby was merely an opportunity and although I do sympathise with the fact his life may have been tough, it does not condone his actions. As the trail progressed, Johnson is portrayed more sinister than his broadside and the earlier testimonies would suggest. John Cooper told the court how Johnson said to him “you take this knife and finish him, I have began him” and how he argued back “what have you been doing, don’t hurt him, don’t do anything, don’t kill him”. It would appear that Johnson was not to be reasoned with at this point.
All that spoke against William Johnson were in similar situations to him. They were poor, working class men and this is demonstrated in the preoccupation with Danby’s money that seemed to echo through the various testimonies. People spoke very matter-of-factly about the events of that night and nobody seemed to harbour any opinions of Johnson, like I said earlier, most people seemed to believe something would happen as the victim was so drunk. I get the impression that in 19th century Britain things like this where not uncommon and part of the lifestyle.
In the trail we hear little of the defendant’s voice as procedure is seemingly stacked against him. William Johnson himself acknowledges this and said, ” I cannot but deeply feel that I have, by the most unmerited and cruel aspersions, been deprived of the first and noblest right of an Englishman, which entitles him to be presumed innocent until he be proved otherwise”. His words are only heard at the end of the trail when enough has already been said against him. It’s no surprise that William Johnson was found guilty and sentenced to death by hanging. In an era where this was a common punishment I can’t help but feel it was the appropriate outcome.
Works Cited:
Old Bailey Proceedings Online (www.oldbaileyonline.org, version 8.0, 12 December 2018), January 1833, trial of WILLIAM JOHNSON SAMUEL FARE, alias SLEITH (t18330103-7).
Trial and Execution of William Johnson. N.D http://curiosity.lib.harvard.edu/dying-speeches-and-bloody-murders-crime-broadsides/catalog/9-002933067. Web. Accessed 19 Oct 2018
Cuming, Emily. Piesse, Jude. Rogers, Helen. ‘Telling Sentences and Criminal Trials’ 2018. Lecture Notes
A Total Cell-Out 
Leave a comment