Theft of a Gold Watch; Sentenced to Death

From the Archives of William Andrew Hart, Ph.D., 
University of Ulster, Coleraine.

From: Walker’s Hibernian Magazine

Dublin, July 23, 1794

Michael O’Beirne [spelled O’Berne in original report] was indicted for feloniously assaulting Francis Bennet on the 13th of April last, on the king’s highway in Fleet-street, in the city of Dublin, putting him in dread of his life, and feloniously taking from his person one gold watch, two gold seals, a caroline hat, and one pound two shillings and ten pence, the goods and money of said Francis Bennet.

And Joseph Sallary was indicted for feloniously receiving from the said Michael O’Beirne the said gold watch, chain and seals, knowing the same to be stolen.

Francis Bennet, examined by Mr. Recorder, deposed, that he is a merchant, and lives at No. 84, Fleet-street; that, on the morning of Sunday the 13th of April, a little after the hour of two o’clock, he was returning towards his own house; within seven yards of his door, he saw two persons coming towards him, and he supposed wanted to pass him—that one of them, O’Beirne, the prisoner at the bar, came up to him, and hit him a terrible thump on the left side of his jaw with a clenched fist, and as he was wholly unprepared for attack, he was knocked down; the prisoner instantly proceeded to rummage him, and seized the chain of his watch, which he dragged from his fob. The witness seized the watch as the prisoner dragged it away, and held it fast till the prisoner bit his finger to the bone, and obliged him to let go. The witness roared out, police! Murder!—No one came to his assistance, but the man in company with the prisoner, and whose name was Lambert, came up, and put his hand on the witness’s mouth; and O’Beirne at the same time gave him two or three desperate thumps in the face, and then clapt his foot on the witness’s throat, and pressed it very hard, so as to prevent him imploring mercy, which he was inclined to have done, had he been able to speak; but he was not able to utter a word. The prisoner still kept his foot on the witness’s throat, and then tore the pocket down off his waistcoat, in which pocket he positively swore there was a guinea and a penny, and he thought there may have been 6d. beside; they also took his hat. It was a clear moon-light night; witness had full light to distinguish clearly the features of both persons, and he identified them; he has known O’Beirne personally these fifteen years; and he swore positively that if he had a shadow of doubt as to his identity, no power or consideration on earth should force him to give the testimony he had here given this day, because he knew it was testimony that must go to affect the prisoner’s life.

Witness gave examinations the very same morning to alderman Fleming, and identified O’Beirne.—He first sent for inspector Shee, who was not to be found, and then for alderman Fleming, as he was so ill from the treatment he received, that he was not able to attend at the office. He acknowledged he was unwilling to swear against Lambert, as he considered he had been the means of preserving his life. Witness said he got his watch and seals, in consequence of an anonymous letter he had received, directing him where it was; which letter he had given inspector Shee, who went and brought him his watch and seals.
Cross-examined by Counsellor Curran.
Witness said, that this affair happened at one fourth past two on Sunday morning; he had dined with some friends at a tavern the preceding day; there had been but a bottle of white wine drank at dinner; and after it he might have drank about three pints of claret to his own share. He then came home to his house and wrote letters for about an hour and a half; and afterwards he went to the Horse-Shoe and Magpye porter-house, Temple Bar, where he supped on nine poached eggs, a pint of porter, and drank afterwards two tumbler glasses of geneva and water; he might have drank a third tumbler, but does not clearly recollect.—He came away about a quarter past two. He admits his spirits were a little lively, or he should not have gone perhaps to that house, for he did not usually frequent it, nor had he been there for four months before; but he swore positively he was not drunk, nor what is called fuddled, but in perfect possession of all his senses and faculities at the time, though he admits his judgment might be a little under the yoke, as Mr. Curran phrased it.

Mr. Curran’s investigation was a good deal in the ludicrous: he observed the number of eggs that composed the witness’s supper, were more than that of the Graces, and equal to that of the Muses; he asked him if he did not usually drink a little coarse wine at his dinner, by way of foundation, to keep the claret out of the wet—If he did not swallow a squib after his dinner, by way of Latin for his goose? And, if, after his foundation of white wine, with a superstructure of three pints of claret, a stratum of nine eggs, a pint of porter, and a supra cargo of three pints of geneva punch, his judgment was not a little under the yoke?

Mr. Bennet persevered positively through the whole of his testimony, both as to the facts, the prisoner’s identity, and his own perfect sobriety and clearness of recollection at the moment of the robbery.

He was unwilling, he said, to prosecute Lambert, for he believed he preserved his life; as, when the prisoner O’Beirne held his foot on his throat, and called to Lambert in a low but audible tone of voice, “shall I kill him outright? by the H—ly G—st it is the surest way;” Lambert answered, “no; blast his eyes, you have given him enough.”

On the Monday night, surgeon O’Beirne, brother of the prisoner, and another man came to witness’s house, and told the maid who opened the door they wanted to see witness; the maid answered, witness was ill and could not be seen: surgeon O’Beirne replied, he came on particular and urgent business about the robbery, and would not leave the house till he should see the witness—Witness, who was in a parlour, looked into the hall, and went towards the door, when he saw surgeon O’Beirne, and a man with him, who he said was a friend of Mr. O’Beirne’s, and had just come thirty miles from the country. This man wore boots, and was muffled up in a great coat, apparently disguise—witness guessing Mr. O’Beirne’s business, would not hold any conversation with him; but darting his eyes for the moment earnestly into the man, it struck him instantly he was one of those who had robbed him, and declared so to his servant maid, who was now attending in court. He says Lambert at the time of the robbery was dressed remarkably genteel, but his appearance in the hall was quite otherwise.

Mr. Lambert came to witness’s house in his usual appearance on the Friday following, accompanied by a lady, Mr. Matt. Dowling, and witness’s opposite neighbour Mr. Andrews, and while they were in the parlour in the presence of his clerk, witness asked Mr. Lambert his name, which he did not know well before, though he was familiar with his person; and witness then said to Lambert, if I was stepping this moment out of time into eternity, I would solemnly take the sacrament, you are one of the identical men who robbed me, so go about your business; I do not want to prosecute you, for you preserved my life, and I shall not be instrumental in taking yours; but I expect to have my watch, for it is a valuable one; and Mr. Matt. Dowling then promised I should have that watch, or as good a one made in place of it.

Witness says he did hear the watch had been given to Sallary, the other prisoner, by a person named Horish, but did not believe it. He does not know or to his knowledge ever saw Horish; he has heard that Horish, so far from having absconded, was met by a gentleman in Mass-lane, a fortnight ago.

William Shee, inspector of police, sworn.—Says he was sent for by the last witness to his house on Monday the 14th of April, and called in the afternoon of that day upon the witness, who showed him an anonymous letter which said the watch of which he was robbed was in the house of one Sallary in Chancery-lane, (the other prisoner at the bar,) where, if he would search, it would be found.

The witness then told Mr. Bennet, if he could with a safe conscience swear to his belief of the intimation in this letter, he, the witness, would thereby obtain a search-warrant, which was accordingly done, and witness went to the house of Sallary, told him he got a warrant to search for Mr. Bennet’s watch, and that if he had it, he had better give it up, than put the witness to the trouble of searching, as that would have a bad appearance.

Sallary accordingly gave the witness a gold watch, chain and seals, which he carried to Mr. Bennet, who declared that the watch was the same he had been robbed of, but the chain and seals were not.

He then returned to Sallary with the chain and seals, and described to him those which Mr. Bennet had lost, and which Sallary immediately produced—but they were fixed to another watch.

Shee on the first time inquired of Sallary where he had got the watch, and he told him he had got it from his house-keeper, or servant, who had it from another woman. On Shee’s returning the second time, he brought with him a party of the police to take Sallary into custody—and Sallary then told him he had the watch from Horish, upon which the witness brought him away to Newgate.

Cross-examined by Counsellor M’Nally.
He said nothing at all contradictory to his first evidence; but said that on his mentioning Mr. Bennet’s watch to the prisoner Sallary, he immediately said he had it, before witness produced the warrant. He swears positively Sallary did not tell him at that time where Horish was to be found, from whom he said he got the watch; as his belief is, if Sallary had told him any such thing, he would have gone directly and apprehended Horish. He believes, from what he has heard, that Horish is a person about the size of the prisoner O’Beirne, and is of dark complexion but should not know him. He believes that Sallary had lodged examinations against Horish yesterday, because Sallary told him so; he has no other knowledge of, or reason to believe it.

Cross-examined by Counsellor Fletcher.
He says that he has heard and believes that Mr. Lambert’s friends had offered a reward, and were very active in their endeavours to trace this robbery home.

The evidence for the prosecution stood here—and for the defence,
Mr. George Butler, one of the attornies, was examined, and says he was at the porter-house called the Horse-Shoe and Magpye, on the night of the 12th of April, and left it on the Sunday morning; the house sometimes goes by the name of the Dirt Hole; he was there about an hour and   a half, and saw there the first witness, Mr. Bennet, who appeared to him to be rather in liquor; he does not know how much he had drank, but he saw him pay the waiter two different reckonings. A gentleman had come in who was using some droll expressions, and Mr. Bennet expressed a wish to sit at the same seat; he had put his watch in the sleeve of his coat, and on raising his arm it dropped to the floor, and Mr. Bennet took it up and put it into his fob; the witness observed to him that if the crystal was broke, the watch would apt to be spoiled—but he said there was no fear. [It should have been stated in Mr. Bennet’s evidence that he declared this last mentioned circumstance.] Mr. Bennet then called to the waiter, and asked him what he had to pay—and on the waiter’s answering, he flew into a passion, and asked was he to be robbed of his shilling, or his shilling’s worth—the witness does not recall which.

Cross-examined by Mr. Recorder, whether he believes Mr. Bennet to have been in such a state of intoxication, as not to be able to recollect the features of those he had known before, in an attempt to rob him; says he certainly might recollect.

Mrs. Mary Lambert, wife of the person implicated with the prisoner O’Beirne, sworn and examined; she gave a long, most minute, and circumstantial detail of circumstances, to prove an alibi, on behalf of the prisoner O’Beirne. She said he was at dinner at her house in Clontarf, on Friday and Saturday; drank tea and supped there on Saturday night; went to bed about half past one, which she knew from having seen Mr. Lambert’s watch, which he pulled out, to show it was not so late as she imagined; she heard her husband converse with Mr. O’Beirne after he was in bed; she herself went to bed before two; heard Mr. O’Beirne snore very loud, and remarked it to her husband; she was awakened at an early hour on Sunday morning, by her husband calling out Beirne! Beirne! why don’t you get up and look what the dogs are barking at?—She heard O’Beirne get up, open the window, and answer, he had looked out, and seen nothing but the dogs themselves; she was awakened again at six o’clock, by O’Beirne calling to her husband to know if he had any commands to town.

A Miss Harrison had drank tea at her house the evening before; Mr. O’Beirne, at her request, had made tea for them, and Miss Harrison went away at half past nine. Mr. O’Beirne had afterwards gone, at her request, to deliver a message to a gentleman in Clontarf, and returned again after delivering it.

Witness says she is the daughter of William Bernard, Esq. of the county Carlow; that she brought her husband a fortune of one thousand pounds.

Cross-examined by Mr. Recorder; she swears to the best of her recollection, she was always uniform in her declarations on this head, except at Mr. Bennet’s, when she declared she knew nothing about Mr. O’Beirne; and she, because she knew Mr. O’Beirne’s innocence, said this, that Mr. Bennet should not know what proof she had to bring forward on behalf of Mr. O’Beirne; at this instance she can’t recollect all the conversation with Mr. Bennet; but she positively swears she never declared to any person that Mr. O’Beirne had not lain at her house on the night the robbery was charged.

Here Mr. Bennet was again examined on oath, and deposed, that on the morning Mrs. Lambert called to his house, with her husband, Mr. Dowling, and Mr. Andrews, and seemed extremely anxious, he told her not to be alarmed; that he had no intention of prosecuting her husband; but he called upon her to declare candidly whether O’Beirne was at her house on the day or night of the robbery—and she declared positively that he was not.

Thomas Jones, a boy of eighteen, says he lives in Clontarf, and that he was coming to town at a quarter past six o’clock one Sunday morning some months ago, but he cannot say what Sunday, or what month, or what day of the month; he overtook Mr. O’Beirne, who had a nosegay in his hand; Mr. O’Beirne was at one side of the way, and witness at the other; but witness had no conversation with him; witness heard nothing of the robbery.

Alice Ward says she knows this last witness and the prisoner for upwards of four years, and that she lives at Clontarf; that she was coming to town about a quarter past six o’clock on Palm Sunday morning, and she saw them come towards town, and in conversation with each other.

Here evidence closed on both sides.

Judge Chamberlaine, with the utmost accuracy and precision, summed up the evidence on both sides, on which he commented as he proceeded with great perspicuity, charging the jury if they had the slightest doubt on their minds, to lean to the side of mercy, and acquit the prisoners.

The jury, after retiring an hour and ten minutes, returned their verdict GUILTY against both prisoners; but the foreman, for himself and fellow jurors, recommended O’Beirne as an object of mercy.

The court asked the jurors upon what circumstance they grounded their recommendation.

The foreman answered, upon some scruples of doubt which had arisen in some of their minds.

The judge replied, that he had clearly expressed in his charge, that if they had any doubt on their minds, they were bound in duty to acquit the prisoners. He requested they would, therefore, in the name of God, take back their verdict, retire, re-consider it, and acquit the prisoner if they had any doubts of his guilt from the evidence on the case; but if they had no such doubts, they also knew their duty.

The jury, without retiring from the box, confirmed their first verdict.

Sallary is a man upwards of seventy years old, and was a publican in Canncery-lane.

O’Beirne, on his way from the dock to the carriage, in order to be re-conducted to prison, had just reached the lower steps of the court, when he slipped suddenly from the hold of the gaoler, and ran with astonishing violence and rapidity up Christ-church-lane, rushing through the crowd, and leaving the sheriffs, gaoler and guard in astonishment. He was instantly pursued by sheriff Jenkin, inspector Shee, and one of the soldiers, knocked down and secured at the corner of Nicholas-street, and brought back to the carriage, in which he was re-conducted to prison, surrounded by the guards with loaded arms and bayonets fixed.

Mr. O’Beirne had voluntarily surrendered himself to take his trial on the charge against him, with the strongest professions of innocence, and fullest confidence of acquittal; a circumstance urged strongly by his counsel, admitted by his prosecutors, and strongly remarked on by the learned judge in his charge to the jury.  

July 28, 1794.

Michael O’Beirne was put to the bar.

Some affidavits were tendered on behalf of the prisoner. These affidavits contained the depositions of three several witnesses, who were in the house of Mr. Lambert, the person implicated in the same crime with the prisoner, all going to support the testimony of Lambert’s wife, to the proof of the alibi sworn by her on the trial of O’Beirne; the court however said, the time to offer such testimony was upon the trial; it now came too late to impede judgment, and therefore the affidavits were not received.

The prisoner addressed the court in a short speech to the following purport:

“My Lord,—As to any mismanagement on the part of those who conducted my defence on my trial, in not bringing forward the witnesses whose affidavits your lordship has just now thought proper to refuse, I cannot account for it, and it is now too late to be helped.
“But as to guilt in the crime for which I am convicted, I now as a dying man, do most solemnly declare in the presence of this honourable court and of the Almighty God, that I am as innocent of the robbery of Mr. Bennet as the unborn infant—that I never robbed him or any other person, nor did any such intention ever enter my mind.

“My Lord, Mr. Bennet has known me fifteen years, and I have known him perhaps longer; upon this knowledge he has undertaken to swear to me the most positively.

“But, my lord, is it a probable thing, that if I were inclined to commit such a crime, I should have attempted upon a man I knew so well, who saw me every day, and by whom I must inevitably be known and detected.

“Or is it probable, that were I not conscious of my own innocence, I should have come forward voluntarily, surrendered myself to the hands of the law, gone into a dungeon, and put my own life in risque, against the testimony of a man, who I knew must know me, when I had so many opportunities of escaping, and no sort of impediment to prevent me?

“All my friends, my lord, alarmed by the positive threats of Mr. Bennet to prosecute me with rigour, advised me to quit the kingdom, and go off to the Duke of York—but my answer was, what! shall I fly my country with such a load of ignominy on my back, when it is in my power to substantiate ny innocence!

“My Lord, the unfortunate man by my side, in whose possession Mr. Bennet’s watch was found, has declared that he had not the watch from me, but from another person, against whom he has lodged examinations, and who has fled.

“Mr. Bennet, in his testimony, admitted there was a strong resemblance between that person and mine, according to the description given of him by Mr. Shee on my trial; my lord, the examinations of this poor old man against that person, were tendered to this court on my defence, but were not permitted to be read.

“My Lord, I have no more to say, but again most solemnly, and in the presence of God, protest my innocence.

“If your lordship should be so humane as to think me not unworthy the royal mercy, I should be ready to serve my king and country in any part of the world. If on the contrary, I am fated to death, I would meet it with fortitude in any shape, but the ignominious one which I apprehend is about to be pronounced against me; if I am to rest hopeless of your lordship’s benevolence, and of the royal clemency, let me implore your lordship, if you have the power, to let me be shot, and I will meet my fate with resignation.”

The learned and humane judge, obviously pressed by the tenderest feelings of sympathy, declared he never before in his life felt himself in such a situation as at the present, in performing that melancholy duty which his station imposed on him, in pronouncing the sentence of an ignominious death against a man, the respectability of whose connections and family, and whole person, appearance, and understanding, seemed to deprecate a lot so melancholy—but adverting to the charges that had been laid against him, the positiveness, clearness, and strength of the prosecutor’s testimony, the misfortune of attempting the defence of an alibi, on such testimony as that of the wife of the very person implicated with him in the same crime, and unsupported by the testimony of the servants or other persons in Lambert’s house, (whose affidavits were tendered this day) and the verdict of the jury, were all, his lordship said, circumstances insurmountable.

If the unfortunate prisoner chose to risk his life on such a defence, the misfortune was his own, and it was now too late to amend it; nothing, therefore, remained for his lordship but the melancholy task of pronouncing the awful sentence of the law, which was, that the prisoner be executed on Saturday the 9th of August [1794].