by MarkCDodd » Mon Sep 13, 2010 11:14 am
EXECUTION AT WORCESTER
The extreme sentence of the law was carried out this (Friday) morning in front of the County Gaol, in this city, on William Ockold, who was condemned to death by Mr. Justice Mellor, at the recent winter assize. It is now seven years since this city has been the scene of an execution, the last one previous to this of Ockold being that of Joseph Meadows, who was hanged on the 5th August 1855, for the murder of his sweetheart, Ann Mason, at Kates Hill, Near Dudley. The other executions over during the past thirty-two years have been as follows:- Robert Pulley , for murder, March 26, 1849; William Lightband, murder, March 23, 1837; Robert Lilley, murder, March 12, 1834; Joseph and James Carter, highway robbery, March 22, 1833; Thomas Slaughter, arson, March 25, 1831; Thomas Turner, rape, August 13, 1830; Charles Wall, murder, July 30, 1830; Michael Toll, murder, March 12, 1830.
THE CRIME
The history of the crime for which Ockold underwent the penalty of death may be briefly told. An old man, 69 years of age, Ockold lived with his wife, a woman about his own age, to whom he had been married for the long term of 50 years, in a small house in Halesowen Street, Oldbury, and worked there at his trade, that of a tailor. Their family had grown up and left home, the old couple living alone. A young woman, named Maria Grazebrook, a servant at a public-house, was upon intimate terms with Mrs. Ockold and her husband, indeed so much that she usually called them “grandmother†and “grandfatherâ€Â. On Friday, the 7th Nov. last, Grazebrook visited them, and found Mrs. Ockold sitting on the floor, apparently in pain, and her husband at his work on the table. Mrs. Ockold, it was known, was suffering from an internal disease, and on declining to allow Grazebrook to make her some tea, he husband said she, “wanted to go to bed and groan and keep him awake again all night,†adding that “she should not do it that night.†Later in the evening, the son of the old couple and their daughter-in-law went to the house and carried Mrs. Ockold to bed. Still later on the same evening, Ockold went to a public-house and drunk half a pint of beer. Entering into conversation about his wife he spoke affectionately of her, saying that “she was very ill,†but “the doctor was coming again to see her.†After this it seems he returned home. Early in the morning the next day, Saturday, Hutchings, a police-constable, passing by the house overheard Ockold cursing and swearing at some one who seemed to be above the stairs, and mocking groans which issued from that quarter. He is also heard to swear that that if some one, whom he had previously called “a ___ old cat,†did not come down stairs “he would ____.†The rest of the sentence or threat being lost. This was about three o’clock. An hour later, a labourer attending horses in a stable a few yards from Ockold’s house, is attracted to it by a noise within, and he hears Ockold calling some one “an old ____†and the voice as of Mrs. Ockold saying, “Oh, Bill, don’t kill me, for my head is ready to split.†Policeman and stableman content themselves with listening, the reason for non-interference being that rows of the description were not unusual occurrences in the house. About half past seven o’clock that morning, Ockold revisits the public-house where he drank the half pint of beer on the previous night, and drinking another half pint of beer was asked by the landlady how his wife was. His answer was, “I have laid her straight out on the floor.†He further said she was not dead, but he had given it to her for going off on the previous afternoon, with a man named John Hadley, and getting drunk. He left and went home, and about half-past eight o’clock, Grazebrook going to the house finds him on his table at work. In reply to a question he said he “did not know how his wife was,†and being questioned as to a bruise and blood upon his hand, said it was from “giving his wife a punch in the mouth for going off with Hadley and getting drunk.†Knowing the state in which Mrs. Ockold was in the previous afternoon, Grazebrook said “why was she not able to walk across the house, let alone go and get drunk.†He said he did not know till that morning that she was drunk, for she came in at night as sat at work and he did not notice her. Grazebrook, on this, went to the bottom of the stairs, and Ockold remarked “You baint a going up stairs.†She said she was not; but having called “grandmother†several times without obtaining an answer, she ran up and saw Mrs. Ockold lying on the floor partially dressed and dead. There were bruises and abrasions on her arm and blood upon her face. The blood was then getting dry. Grazebrook went downstairs and charged the old man with killing his wife. He said, “her is not dead, her’s only asleep.†The neighbours were then called in; blood was noticed smeared the stairs. On the table where Ockold worked there lay a piece of a mopstick, recently broken. To the people who came into the house and charged Ockold with killing his wife, he said he “did not do it wilfully,†and when in custody at the police station he said “he only struck her once,†and that he “knocked the skin off his fingers against her teeth.†It was known, however, that the deceased had no teeth. Besides the abrasions on his hands and the blood which he washed off, there was blood on his shirt and trowsers. At the trial, the medical evidence showed that, though deceased was chronically diseased, death was caused by a rupture of a blood vessel, brought about by external injuries. Such injuries appeared on the deceased in a broken cheek bone and a wound on the temple. These injuries were such as might be inflicted by blows from a mopstick. It was also shown the deceased was not drinking, or out with the man Hadley on the day before the murder was discovered, and as was alleged by Ockold. On these facts the wretched old man was found guilty of the wilful murder of his wife, but recommended to mercy. He was sentenced in the usual way and left for execution.
THE CRIMINAL
During the whole of the trial Ockold maintained an account of self-possession which, to the spectator, appeared to be complete indifference to the result, although he was not inattentive to the proceedings. Only once did he manifest any particular interest, and that was on the return of the jury into court with their verdict. He then did little more than look towards them, and when the verdict, which in all probability was to send him to execution, was delivered, he heard it without apparent emotion. The solemn words of the learned judge, in pronouncing sentence of death, had no more effect upon him, and he was taken out of the court apparently unmoved. His indifference, however, was more that of stolidity than bravado. Whilst in gaol, the convict maintained the same stolid demeanour. The chaplain, the Rev. J. Adlington, was unremitting in his attentions to the old man, visiting him twice a day. Up to Sunday last, the seat occupied by Ockold, in the chapel, was screened off from that of the other prisoners, but as he stated that he had no wish to be kept from the gaze of other, the screen was removed previous to Sunday last, when the condemned sermon was preached, in the most impressive manner, by the Rev. J Adlington, who took for his text Isaiah, c. XLIV, v. 20, “He feedeth on ashes: a deceived heart hath turned him aside, the he cannot deliver his soul, nor say, Is there not a lie in my right hand.†The prisoner seemed to listen to what was said, but not to give much thought to the truths which were brought before him by the rev. gentleman. On Monday last, Ockold received a letter, couched in the most pathetic terms, from his daughter. The letter was dated Sunday, the 28th Dec.; and when asked how it was the he showed no emotion, he said that perhaps he might feel it all the same. He made no confession of his guilt, declaring on the contrary that he did not cause the death of his wife. Yesterday (Thursday), he was visited by his son Thomas (who was one of the witnesses at the trial), who asked him to tell him how his mother’s death was caused. The old man said they (he and his wife) had been quarrelling, and that he went upstairs and hit her in the mouth, because she would not go to bed; the he went down-stairs again and proceeded with his work, and that shortly afterwards he heard he tumble off the bed; that he went upstairs and found her lying on the floor, with her head and arms partly over the stairs, and that her arms were moving about. (He then moved his arms about in the way which he said his wife’s were moving). The son pressed the old man to say how he did the deed, but he repeated that he did not kill her and said, “I never did it, it was not from anything she had from me that her died.†He also told his son that the old woman was in the habit of dressing herself on the bed, and that when she met with her death, no doubt she fell off and so killed herself. Melancholy as it may appear, the condemned man persisted in his dogged firmness and indifference to the last; and even so late as yesterday, when reminded of the shortness of his time on earth, he replied sharply, that was a pleasant thing to be reminded of. Then too, when he saw his son, he said, “I’m glad the you’ve come to-day, for if you had come this time to-morrow, you would have found me a corpse!â€Â
As we have already said, the jury recommended the wretched culprit to mercy, and his great age, the absence of sufficient motive for the crime, and the possibility of death ensuing from other causes than those assigned, gave the public the impression that the extreme sentence of the law would not be carried out, but would be commuted into one of imprisonment for which must be the short remainder of his days. So general was the impression that until quite recently no combined efforts were made to influence the authorities in his favour. The first to move in the matter were the inhabitants of Oldbury, who, shortly after his condemnation, addressed a petition to the Secretary of State. Last week the Magistrates of the city or Worcester adopted a similar course. On Sunday, the Rev. H. B. Boullby, of Oldbury, received a reply to the petition sent form that town, which he read to the congregation assembled for divine worship. It was to the effect that Sir George Grey did not see sufficient reasons to interfere with the course of justice. On Tuesday, the following communication was received in reply to the memorial by the city magistrates:-
Black Holes happen when God divides by zero.