THE WEST BRITON , 15 July 1842

CASTING THE FORTUNE

On Thursday, the 7th inst., the Callington Bench of Magistrates were engaged in hearing a charge, preferred by Mr. GEORGE WELLS SNELL, solicitor, against FREDERICK STATTON, who had gained considerable notoriety as a conjurer. From the evidence of EDWARD WESTLAKE, it appeared fortune, one evening, threw the conjurer in his way, who immediately began to display symptoms of knowledge in "casting a figure." Having lost nothing, Westlake did not feel disposed to listen to him, despite his mention of services, only to be known to be immediately appreciated. The principal witness was THOMAS LITTLE, who appeared bound in a most blissful state of witchcraft, so much so, that he could by no means be persuaded to take the oath, which only fear of a commital enforced. From his evidence, it appeared, that having lost some ducks, he immediately proceeded to the man of spells and witchcrafts and stated his loss. Statton, upon being informed of the case, and after a most mysterious perusal of books, aided by wands, and other cabalistic weapons, and indulging in such witticisms as "he feared the ducks were dead, which was a pity as green peas were not yet fit for use," and others of the like nature, told him to go home as fast as he could, and he would find the ducks there before him. He did so; and lo! and behold, for the honour of human nature, there they were. For this he paid the conjurer some money, who gave him a card with "Mr. F. S. STATTON, M.A., Saint Dominic," on it - prefacing it with a hope that if successful, he would recommend him to his friends. Being so successful in his first visit, he resolved to try again, and informed Statton of a certain law case in hand, begging his advice. The conjurer cautioned him to beware of all lawyers, who were certain to go many fathoms below terra firma, more particularly a certain one whom the figures pointed to as being bribed. The dupe, placing his faith in this, directly commenced town crier of his own affairs, which led to the discovery, and the consequent arraignment of Statton before the Magistrates. The conjurer, with great gravity, commenced his defence, "Honourable gentlemen," impressing upon their minds that the case had not been made out against him, and concluded with "Well, gentlemen, and what can you make of it?" The Magistrates, after a long consultation, seemed to have a foggy recollection that they could make something of it, and ordered him to answer any indictment that may be offered against him at the ensuing assizes at Bodmin. To such an extent was the system carried on by Statton, that people had been known to pay £3 or £4 to obtain his knowledge of property worth as many shillings.

7 Oct 1842

COMMITMENT TO BODMIN GAOL

On the 6th ult., a man of the name of Frederick Peter STRATTON, of St. Dominic, against whom several indictments were preferred at the last assizes, was apprehended under a warrant from Mr. Justice WIGHTMAN, for witchcraft, and admitted to bail. On the 27th, he was again apprehended, under a warrant from Mr. Justice CRESWELL, for obtaining money under false pretences, and has been committed to Bodmin gaol to await his trial.

31 Mar 1843

TUESDAY, MARCH 28. - WITCHCRAFT, CONJURATION, SORCERY, AND ENCHANTMENT

Frederick Peter STATTON, 23, a chubby, dumpling-faced looking fellow, who on his paper-apologies for cards, dubs himself M. A., was indicted for falsely pretending to one Jenny FRANCIS, that he could be the exercise of witchcraft, and the use of skill in occult science, tell her what had become of a certain heifer, by which he obtained 3s., with intent to defraud and cheat Jenny Francis of the same. Mr. HUGHES conducted the case, and Mr. SLADE defended the prisoner. Mr. Hughes, in opening the case, said that the prisoner was not charged with witchcraft, but with pretending to exercise that art, and by that pretext extracting monies from parties who were weak and silly enough to believe him. The Act on which this charge was founded was the 7th and 8th Geo. 4, c. 9. Jenny Francis, was then called, but Mr. Slade requested the Judge to look at the indictment, and said that it was impossible that any judgment could stand upon that indictment. The Judge said the indictment would not do, for it said that the prisoner could by exercising witchcraft tell what had become of the heifer, and not that he would, and then it denied that he could. Mr. Hughes said there was another indictment. The Judge to the Jury - You must acquit him upon this indictment. The Jury then found the prisoner Not Guilty.

The Prisoner was again indicted for unlawfully pretending to exercise witchcraft and sorcery, and pretending to discover to one Jenny Francis, where certain goods and chattels of James Francis might be found. This indictment was framed on the 9th Geo. 11., c 5, sec. 3. Mr. Slade took an objection to this indictment, that it was not sufficiently precise on account of the mention of goods and chattels only; the particular circumstances had not been specified; but his Lordship said he would not stop the case upon that objection. Jenny Francis examined - I am wife of Jas. Francis, labourer, of Stokeclimsland; the prisoner lives at St. Dominic; he pretends to tell fortunes; I remember the 10th of June; I went to his house; I had lost a heifer, it was on the common, and strayed off the common; I went to his house to know if he could inform me whether it was stolen or strayed; he said it was strayed 14 miles south east; I found it north-east about a mile and a half from where I lived. He took down a slate and wrote on something. I don't know what he cast up; he did not show it me. He then told me that it was 14 miles off. When he told me that, I asked him what he charged for telling of me; he said 3s. Cross-examined - I was told to go to the Grand Jury by Mr. SNELL, attorney, of Callington; the prisoner asked me what description the heifer was; that was before he took the slate down; he did not say he would look for it; I went home and sent my husband where he directed me. The Judge - Have you told us all that passed between you and him? No; he said she was with calf, and she was not. Mr. Slade - A very bad conjuror, my lord! (laughter). Witness - I told him when I went in that I had met with a loss, and he said he could tell me all about it. This being the case. Mr. Slade urged that there was no case to go to the jury, and that there was not the slightest pretence for saying that the man exercised witchcraft or sorcery; but the Judge ruled that there was some evidence. Mr. Slade then addressed the jury in an exceedingly able and
amorous speech, in which he excited great laughter. He said he hardly knew whether to congratulate or to condole with the jury on their having in the middle of the nineteenth century to try such a case as the present, and to enter upon such a dark enquiry under a statute passed more than a hundred years ago, and for which Mr. Hughes had told them he had been unable to find a precedent for his indictment. In old times, when the statute was passed, which was a statute imposing penalties on those who exercised witchcraft, and not on those who pretended to exercise it, the legal writers thought it necessary to describe what witchcraft, sorcery, conjuration, and so on was, and Lord Hale says that witchcraft is of two degrees. There was the first degree, which Lord Hale says is first, "an invocation of conjuration of an evil spirit." Now Jenny Francis had not told them of any evil spirit that the defendant had with him at the time she called on him. "Secondly, to consult, covenant with, entertain, employ, feed, or reward any evil spirit." "Thirdly, to take up any dead person, or any part thereof, to be employed or used in witchcraft or in any charm." There had been no child's thumb, or any thing of that sort used in this case. Then he goes on to say "to exercise any witchcraft, enchantment, charm or sorcery whereby any person shall be killed, destroyed, consumed, or lamed in his or her body or any part thereof." Now, had they anything of that sort in this case? Nothing of the kind. There was no pretence for saying that he exercised any of those arts. Then Lord Hale went on to tell them what witchcraft was in the second degree. If Jenny Francis had been a young and handsome woman, which he was sorry to say both for the sake of Jenny Francis herself as well as for her husband she was not, (great laughter) then this might in some measure apply. But in this case it could not be said that there was "any intent to provoke any person to unlawful love." (roars of laughter). There was nothing of that kind in this case. And these were the tests by which they must decide, for he was now reading extracts which he had collected with some care, from those writers who wrote on what constituted witchcraft in those days when they might be supposed to know something about it, and when the punishment was exceedingly severe. Now he would proceed to show what conjuration was. He had already shown that although Mr. Statton was a remarkably clever man in a small way, he was no witch, and now he would see whether he was a conjuror. In a very old book called "Les Termes de la Ley," or an exposition of the law terms, it is said that conjuration is commonly used for such as have personal conference with the devil or evil spirit, to know any secret or to effect any purpose." There was no proof at all that Mr. Statton ever had the honour of an interview with the devil, or even with an evil spirit. There was a very great and forcible difference between witchcraft and conjuration, witchcraft being "that which compels the devil to appear and submit to his commands by prayers and invocations upon the powerful name of God;" and conjuration being a friendly gentlemanly conference with the devil, in which he asks him to submit to his commands (laughter). Then, Hawkins, who is a great authority in these matters, draws another distinction. Speaking of sorcerers, he says, "they are those who by the use of certain superstitious words, and by the means of images, &c., are said to produce strange effects beyond the ordinary course of nature." These were all, as far as he had been able, after some research, to discover - these were all the definitions of the words witchcraft, sorcery, incantation, and conjuration, which words had been, from time immemorial, used as bug-bears in the nursery, and he thought it somewhat strange that, in the year 1843, they should have the time of the county taken up to satisfy some spleen of Mr. Snell, who calls this woman forward to give evidence on an act committed as long ago as June last. He was brought up without knowing what the facts of the case were of which he was going to be charged. Mr. Hughes - He was had before a magistrate. Mr. Slade, He was had before a magistrate after you had a bench warrant to take him up, but he was not had before the magistrate to let him know what he was going to be charged with. Mr. Hughes - That is not the
fact. Mr. Slade - There are no depositions, and I am quite sure that if he had been there would have been depositions, and we should know what we were coming here to day to meet; instead of which there is not a single deposition by which the defendant is able to inform his counsel what is likely to be brought against him, or by which his counsel may be able to sift the testimony given to day, and see whether it corresponds with that given at a former period. But at the assizes in 1842, five several indictments, all of them framed in the most general and vague terms, were preferred behind the back of Statton, without any defence, and he is arrested on a bench warrant, and obliged to find bail on these charges, which up to the present moment he was entirely ignorant of.

Mr. Hughes - Do you intend to call any witnesses to prove these facts? Mr. Slade - Certainly not. The Judge - Those acts are apparent. There are no deposition or they would be here. Mr. Slade then asserted that there were five indictments for the same offence - that not knowing how to succeed in their desire to crush the defendant, they had recourse to an old fusty obsolete statute, above a hundred years old, and they instruct their counsel to draw indictments when there was not a single precedent to guide him by - and then they asked the jury to believe that the defendant was guilty of acts of sorcery, conjuration and witchcraft. The learned gentleman, after some other observations, asked the defendant whether there was any one in court that he wished to call to his character. Statton replied that there was a gentleman on the jury who could give him a character, whereupon Mr. Samuel DOIDGE was sworn, and said, - I have know Statton almost ever since I mind. I never knew him keep an evil spirit (laughter). I never had anything to do with him. I cannot tell much about his character. I have heard that when people have lost anything they go to him (great laughter). The Judge - Have you heard that of his character? Yes - that is all I have heard or know about him. I have heard them say that they have been there. I know nothing against him of my own knowledge - not the least. By Mr. Hughes - I have heard say that many of them who have lost anything used to go to hear where it was; - that was the oration of our country! (laughter). I can hardly tell whether he is in any employment. I can't tell how he gets a living - I never saw him work in my life that I know of (great laughter). The Learned Judge then withdrew for a few minutes. On his return, he said he had already stated that he thought it would not be right to stop this trial upon the objection that was taken to the indictment - that the particular goods and chattels supposed to be lost, had not been mentioned, and he continued of that opinion, although that point was open to argument. Upon the other question, whether there was sufficient evidence to justify a conviction, and whether the party had done that which was unlawful on this old statute - upon that question, he thought there was some evidence, and undoubtedly he was desirous of leaving it to the jury, because he did not think so lightly of an offence of that sort as it had been suggested he ought to do by the counsel at the bar. He thought a man was a great nuisance who defrauded people in such a manner, and therefore he was anxious, if there was any evidence, the jury should have it left to them. But, revolving it in his mind as the case went on, he thought that although there was enough to excite a great deal of suspicion, it occurred to him that there was not enough to satisfy a jury that there was any occult or crafty science employed; but before he gave that opinion he was desirous of consulting his learned coadjutor. He agreed with him that there was not enough in this case to enable them to decide that the defendant had exercised "any kind of witchcraft, sorcery, enchantment, or conjuration." There had been no evidence of his general profession to discover lost or stolen things by occult science. If it were shown that he was a man who had held out in the public that he had that occult science - no matter what sort - if he pretended by any secret science to do that which no man could do, and which probably deluded the poor ignorant woman to pay him money - he should have thought he was within the meaning of the statute. But that was so entirely in the dark that it would not be right to give a verdict upon that evidence. He thought they might have framed an indictment for false pretences, and that it would have been good. A good deal of observation had been made about the various indictments that had been framed, and it occurred to his Lordship, that it was improper to frame these two indictments at the same time for the same offence. They did not allow two indictments in a case of any other crime to be presented before the grand jury at the same time. But still that was no ground of acquittal. He thought the evidence fell short of that which ought to be the foundation of a verdict in judicial proceedings, and therefore he thought their proper course would be to say that the man was not guilty. Mr. PEASE, the foreman of the jury, said, under your direction my Lord we find him Not Guilty - but under your direction. The Judge (to the prisoner) - I cannot help thinking you are a great rogue, and if you had been convicted I should have passed a heavy sentence upon you, for you are a great nuisance to the country.

THE PRISONER was again charged with having unlawfully pretended to conjuration, witchcraft, and sorcery, and also with having pretended, from his skill in witchcraft, sorcery, enchantment, conjuration, and knowledge in occult or crafty science, to discover to one Wm. Henry NOTTLE that he was bewitched, and under the influence and power of enchantment, and that he, Statton, would be exercising or using witchcraft, and by means of his skill in occult or crafty science remove the spell and enchantment by which he, Nottle, was then bound The reading of this indictment caused great laughter. Mr. W. H. Nottle was then examined - He said I am a farmer, and live in Stokeclimsland in this county; the prisoner lives in St. Dominick on the common; I went to his house on the 17th of January, 1842, and saw him; I asked him if he could inform me how I had lost some cattle that had died; I told him that the cattle had died in a very strange manner - that I had lost three in about ten days, and another was very ill - that I had had a farrier to look after them, but he could not tell me what was the matter with them. He told me that he would put me all to rights (laughter) - that I should not lose any more cattle. I said if he could do that he should proceed. He said he would do it - that I was ill-wished (laughter) - and he would put the thing all to rights, and I should lose no more cattle. He then took the slate and marked down some signs I don't understand the value of. The figure was the figure that you see in the almanacks, - I don't know what you call it exactly - the latter part of the almanack. The Judge - whose almanack? Witness - Moore's almanack. - (great laughter). He remained at the table ten minutes, I should think; when he had drawn these figures he said I was ill-wished; he said he would not tell the name of the person, but he would tell the person's features and size and what he was, so that I should know exactly who the person was. I had a young bullock at the same time that was ill, and it was likely to die, and I had several fat sheep that were in the house tied up, and one died the same morning that I left to go to his house. He asked me if I had seen any marks on the sheep. I had not seen any, and he said that when I went home the man that was with the sheep would say, if I asked the question, that there was blood on the nose and face - (great laughter). When I went home I met the man in the yard and I said to him - Mr. Slade, I object to what you said to the man being stated. Witness - The prisoner then gave me directions how I was to know the person that had ill-wished me. He read the directions and I copied them down. I took down what he told me, and when I returned home, I had a little memorandum book, and I copied it into that; a calf or a yearling was ill when I went away, I expected it would have died, and he said it would not die before I returned home. The witness then read the following morceaux which he had duly registered in his memorandum book, and most probably acted upon:- "Take the calf and kill it. Take the heart out and prick it full of pins. On Thursday morning next, at the first hour the sun rises, put the heart into a fire and roast or burn it to ashes. The person's name you suspect of ill-wishing you, must be written on a piece of paper and put in the heart, with the pins run through the name. During the time the heart is roasting the 35th Psalm must be read three times." The reading of this curious document convulsed the court with laughter, in which the prisoner heartily joined. After this I asked him what he charged, and he said he had been accustomed to charge a pound, but he would charge me 10s. He did so and I paid him 10s. Cross-examined - This happened on the 17th of January last year. I had no charge to bring against the man; I was subpeauned here by Mr. Snell. I did not go to tell Mr. Snell; his brother came to my house some time before the last assizes, and then I went up before the Grand Jury and told this story. There were a great many things that passed which I cannot recollect. I was there perhaps for two hours. This being the case, Mr. Slade submitted that there was no evidence. The Judge - It is a very different case to the last. Mr. Slade then noticed the remarks made by the Judge in the previous case, and the feeling that the jury had expressed as evidencing their disposition against the defendant, after which he contended that Statton had not pretended to exercise witchcraft, and again cited some other authorities in support of his views. He also urged objections to the indictment, for want of time and place
neither of which had been mentioned. His Lordship then summed up and having read to the jury the words of the statute, he said if there was any objection to the form of indictment that was on the record, and he did not deal with that at present. But the questions now as, whether the prisoner pretended to exercise that which is witchcraft and sorcery within the meaning of the statue. Had he by preternatural means - those means which do not belong to human agency, pretended to do certain things, and that his Lordship thought was the meaning of witchcraft and sorcery as used in the statute. If they thought he pretended to exercise preternatural power, he advised them to find him guilty; but if they thought it was nonsense, and that the prisoner did not pretend to preternatural powers, then he was not guilty. The jury, in a few moments, found the prisoner Guilty. Mr. Slade then moved an arrest of judgement on the ground that the statute made it an offence to pretend to use any witchcraft, &c., whereas in this case no pretence was proved. It was also set out generally that he pretended to exercise witchcraft and sorcery. He submitted that they were bound to set out what kind of witchcraft the prisoner pretended to exercise. The Learned Gentleman spoke on these points at considerable length, and at the end of his address the Judge told the prisoner to stand down.

THE PRISONER, however, was again indicted for falsely pretending to exercise witchcraft, and also pretending from his skill in witchcraft, sorcery, and enchantment, to discover to one Thomas LITTLE, where certain goods and chattels lost or stolen might be found, at St. Dominick, on the 24th of June. Mr. Slade at once objected to the jury, and his Lordship said that he would take the other cases first, and the prisoner should be tried on this indictment by another jury at the close of the day. Mr. Slade said he should take the same objection to all the indictments that he had taken in the last case. The prisoner was then taken away. At the close of the criminal cases he was again brought up, when Mr. RAWLINSON, (for Mr. Slade) urged the objections which the latter gentleman had argued in the morning. The Judge to a new jury that had been impannelled, - I think the man at the bar has been guilty of very gross misconduct, and I regret that I am obliged to discharge him. Mr. Rawlinson - I will take the verdict of not guilty on that charge. The prisoner was then arraigned on the fourth indictment (Little's) when his Lordship said, in this case you must return a verdict of not guilty. The indictment is bad, and it would be a waste of time to go on with these cases. The Jury - Not Guilty. The Judge - Although you have escaped through these technical objections, the law is strong enough to reach you even, and if you take my advice you will give up those bad practices that you have pursued. You deserve punishment richly, and I hope you will meet with it, if you act so again. The prisoner was then discharged. The case, which occupied a considerable time, excited the greatest interest and the court was crammed to excess during proceedings.

Source:
Website: freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~wbritonad/