On the day after the trial, William Moseley was carried to Stockport, and there, upon the information which he had given, Scholfield was taken into custody. He, however, denied the truth of the assertions which had been made of his guilt, but he was detained in custody.
On Saturday the 16th of August, the prisoners were further respited until the 18th of September; and from that date they were again respited until the commencement of Michaelmas Term, in the following November, should enable the Court of King’s Bench to determine the question in dispute between the sheriffs.
On Thursday the 6th of November, the Attorney-General moved for a certiorari, to bring the conviction into that court, and also for writs of habeas corpus, to bring up the persons of the prisoners, with a view to the question being discussed. The learned gentleman explained the objections made by the two sheriffs. Previously to the passing of the Statute 11 Geo. IV., all complaints in the County Palatine of Chester were tried by the Chief Justice of Chester, and rules of court were made for the execution of such prisoners as were condemned to death, which orders were carried into effect by the sheriff of the city of Chester. By the act in question, the court by which this authority was exercised, was abolished, and in its stead assizes, under commissions of oyer and terminer, were ordered to be held in Chester, as in other counties. By the sixteenth section, however, it was provided, “that nothing therein contained should affect the duties or obligations to be performed by the magistrates and citizens of Chester.” In the present case, the sheriff of the city of Chester refused to execute the sentence on the prisoners, alleging that his jurisdiction in such respects extended only to the Palatine Court, which had been abolished, and that if there was any such obligation, it rested on the mayor and citizens, and not upon the sheriff. Under these circumstances, the learned judge had felt it to be his duty to respite the prisoners from time to time, and indictments had been preferred against both sheriffs, which, however, had been ignored. Ex officio informations would be filed against them by him (the Attorney-General) for their neglect of their duty; but as much time must elapse before the questions involved in those informations could be legally discussed, he was compelled to come to the court, with a view to the carrying into effect the sentence of the law upon the prisoners, an object which was of the highest importance. It would be in the power of the court to order the prisoners to be executed by either of the disputing sheriffs; by the sheriffs of Middlesex, or Surrey; or by their own marshal. Several cases were then cited, in which the court had interfered with regard to the execution of offenders, and the writs were granted.
On Tuesday the 11th of November, and Thursday the 13th, the prisoners were brought before the Court of King’s Bench. Mr. Dunn, on behalf of Garside, contended that the court could not award sentence against that prisoner, because he had made a statement to the authorities of Cheshire with regard to the circumstances of the murder, which, by the proclamation which had been issued, offering a reward of 2000l. and a pardon, to any accomplice of the actual murderer, entitled him to be liberated. This fact having been pleaded by the learned gentleman, on behalf of his client, in obedience to the direction of the court, the Attorney-General was heard on the other side. He contended that the jury had distinctly found that Garside had fired the fatal shot; and that even taking the statement of the prisoner to be correct, he was not therefore entitled to his pardon.
Lord Denman held this good ground of demurrer to the plea, and execution having been prayed, the court awarded that it should be done by the marshal, assisted by the sheriff of Surrey.
The prisoners were then conveyed to the King’s Bench prison, to await their death. A petition was prepared by Mr. Dunn, on behalf of Garside, setting forth the same facts which were urged by the learned gentleman in court, but it was declared to be of no avail; and on Tuesday the 25th of November, the wretched convicts expiated their foul offence on the top of Horsemonger-lane jail.
Garside had, during the latter portion of his imprisonment, striven to shift the guilt of firing the pistol upon the witness, Joseph Moseley, and it was not until the very moment of his being turned off, that he retracted this allegation. His conduct, as well as that of his fellow prisoner, during the whole period of their confinement, had been remarkable for its extreme coolness; and on the morning of their execution, their demeanor was in no way altered.
At nine o’clock in the morning the prisoners mounted the scaffold, Garside being first, and they were immediately turned off; Garside’s last words being, “All the statements that I have made at different times since my conviction are false.”
At the Assizes for the County of Chester, held in the month of April, 1835, a bill of indictment was preferred against Scholfield, but it was ignored; and he was, in consequence, set at liberty.