Sentence of death was instantly passed, amidst the unavailing protestations of the wretched convict of his innocence. Between this period and the day of his execution, Ehlert continued firm in his denial of his participation in the murder, and imputed the whole guilt of the transaction to Muller, who he said had destroyed the captain under the very circumstances which he had detailed, as having been those under which he had committed the foul crime. He said he had discovered the completion of the deed, and out of compassion for the boy had omitted to give him up to justice. Muller, however, persisted in the truth of his tale, and on the 16th of August the miserable convict was executed.
GEORGE CANT.
CONVICTED OF RAPE.
THE case of this individual presents circumstances of so remarkable a character to our notice, that we should be guilty of a neglect of our duty if we omitted their recital.
At the Central Criminal Court on Thursday the 31st of October 1839, George Cant, a publican, aged forty years, was indicted for a rape upon Jane Bolland; and in order that the course which the case took may be understood, we shall repeat the evidence which was given by the witnesses at the trial, in preference to a general narrative of the proceedings.
Jane Bolland deposed that she resided with her brother in Solomon-terrace, St. George’s-in-the-East. On the 30th of September she went to live as bar-maid at the Windsor-castle, public-house, Holborn, kept by the prisoner. She slept in one of the attics, and the prisoner and his wife slept in the room underneath. The prisoner called her on the morning of Thursday, the 3d of October; when she came down to the bar the prisoner patted her on the cheek with something; he laid his hand upon her breast, and insisted upon kissing her. She threatened to inform Mrs. Cant of his conduct, and he said, “What the eye did not see the heart would not believe.” He then wished her to leave the door of her room open that he might come in when he came to call her in the morning; but she told him that she was not the sort of person he imagined her to be, and left the parlour. In the course of the day her brother and a person named Balfour called upon her, and she communicated to them what the prisoner had said and done to her. Mr. Balfour said, that after what had passed he did not think the prisoner would again attempt to use indecent liberties with her, and her brother, at the suggestion of Mr. Balfour, advised her not to leave her situation. Subsequently on that day she became unwell, and about eight o’clock in the evening she was conveyed up stairs to bed, but she was then so ill that she could not recollect who went up to her room with her. She was insensible when she reached her bed, but during the night she partially recovered, and then she found the prisoner at the bedside. He placed one of his hands upon her mouth to prevent her calling out, and a struggle took place and she fainted. There was a candle on the table in the room. About six o’clock in the morning she recovered her senses, and found her clothes, which had not been taken off, in disorder, and the bone of her stays broken. The offence charged in the indictment had been committed when she was in a state of insensibility. The prisoner was then standing at the door of her room, and she cried out to him, “You villain, you shall not come in.” He answered, that she was a drunkard and should not again enter his bar. She went down stairs to inform Mrs. Cant of what the prisoner had done; but when she told that person that her husband had used indecent liberties with her, Mrs. Cant said, “I will not hear you, you drunken hussy.” She immediately left the house, and went to her brother’s, where she told what had happened to her. On the Saturday following she was examined by a medical gentleman.
On her cross-examination by Mr. C. Phillips, who appeared for the prisoner, she stated that a young man named Joseph Edwards had slept at her master’s house on the night of the 3d of October, and that he accompanied her home on the next day. He was a friend of Mr. Cant’s, and she had observed him in attendance at the Court. She was subject to a swimming in the head, and was suffering from this complaint when she went to bed on the evening in question. She was not intoxicated, and had taken nothing during the whole day, with the exception of one glass of half-and-half.
The brother of the prosecutrix and Mr. Balfour, a wine-merchant’s clerk, corroborated that part of the evidence of the witness, which referred to her conversation with them; and Bolland further deposed, that his sister had some years previously suffered from a severe attack of erisypelas in her head, from the effects of which she had been for some time insane. She was still occasionally subject to determination of blood to the head.
The wife of Bolland, and the medical man referred to, both gave evidence which left no doubt that the offence which was complained of by the prosecutrix had been committed upon her person; and Mrs. Bolland declared that her sister-in-law, when she saw her on the Friday, exhibited all the agitation which might be supposed to be incident to such an occurrence.
The prisoner was proved to have been taken into custody by a constable named Wells, when he said that he had “only kissed the girl;” and this closed the case for the prosecution.