Huddersfield Chronicle (13/Jan/1855) – Extraordinary Mode of Finding a Missing Human Body

The death of Sarah Ann Lumb is also covered in this blog post.

In March 1855, Miss Challand also attempted to contact the Seed Hill Ghost.


Extraordinary Mode of Finding a Missing Human Body.

The following statement will be sufficiently intelligible without any explanation on our part :—

An inquest was held by Thomas Taylor, Esq., coroner, at the Ship Inn, Mirfield, last Friday afternoon, on view of the body of Sarah Ann Lumb, who was 15 years old, and the daughter of a farmer named James Lumb, residing at Marsden. It appeared from the evidence that on Thursday the 14th ult. the deceased left her home about eight o’clock in the evening, the weather being very boisterous, and having gone about 300 yards with a schoolfellow, she turned back, and is supposed to have accidentally walked into the river Colne, particulars of which occurrence were given in the Chronicle of December 23rd. Samuel Whitehead, of Marsden, builder, deposed that deceased was his niece ; that her skirt was found in the river on the 15th ult„ about a quarter of a mile below Marsden, and that her shawl was discovered on the following Tuesday, her flannel petticoat on the 24th, and her dress skirt on the 28th ult. Advertisements were published offering a reward of five pounds, for the recovery of the body, and witness at the request of deceased’s friends, though opposed to his own judgment, had been to Holmfirth to consult a “wise man,” who, however, could give no information. Enquiries were made at Huddersfield, Dewsbury and Wakefield without success. However, on Tuesday last the witness received a letter stating that Captain Hudson was mesmerising persons in Huddersfield, and last Wednesday he accompanied Mr. Joshua Farrar, mill-owner, of Marsden, to the mesmerist’s lodgings. The captain on being asked if he knew of any person who could give information respecting a young woman who was missing, mentioned the name of a female residing at Mold Green, named Challand, a dressmaker. The witness, accompanied by Mr. Farrar, went for her and brought her back in a cab, but did not tell the purpose for which she was required. She was immediately mesmerised, and then asked if she knew what the two gentlemen had come about. She replied “Yes, about the young woman who was drowned at Marsden.” She was then asked if she knew the shawl there on a chair ; she said “yes, it is the shawl that young woman had on her head when she was drowned.” She also identified the dress-skirt which was very much torn, and was told to see where the missing woman was. The mesmerised person appeared to be asleep for about five minutes, and then gave a description of the progress of the body down the river, and ended by saying that the body was covered with mud, except her feet, within 100 yards of the second bridge in Mirfield, where horses go over. In conscience of this statement the witness went to Mirfield last Thursday, and commenced searching in the river Calder near Legard Bridge, but was told that Shepley Bridge was the second, and he accordingly had the workmen removed to the latter, where after three or four throws deceased was found in the mud about 20 yards above the bridge, and her feet did not appear to have been buried. The distance by land between Marsden and Mirfield is about 14 miles. A post mortem examination proved that deceased had come to her death by drowning, and the jury returned an open verdict. The name of the Clairvoyante is Mary Ann Challand, aged about 18; and her father for 20 years has acted as traveller to Mr. James North, of Kings Mill. She knew nothing of deceased previous to being in the clairvoyant sleep.


Extraordinary Mode of Finding a Missing Human Body

Huddersfield Chronicle (12/Jul/1851) – Assault Upon the Postmaster

ASSAULT UPON THE POSTMASTER.

EXTRAORDINARY SCENE.

The Guildhall, on Tuesday last, about noon, presented a scene of excitement which strangely contrasted with its customary quietude, and the routine order of its general proceedings. In the course of the morning Mr. William Moore, postmaster, was observed in communication with the bench, and in the course of half an hour afterwards, about noon, and during the proceeding of the general business, Mr. Joseph Gaunt, the landlord of the Queen Hotel, Market Street, was brought into court in the custody of the police, by virtue of a warrant, charging him, “that he, on the 8th inst., between the hours of eleven and twelve in the forenoon, did unlawfully assault and beat William Moore.” Mr. Gaunt was accompanied by his solicitor, Mr. William Sykes, of Milnesbridge, his son and daughter, and a number of friends. Mr. Sykes, on behalf of the defendant, immediately made application for an adjournment on the ground that there had not been time to prepare the defence, and an adjournment was understood to be granted for a week. In the meantime Mr. Moore entered the court, in a very excited state, — his face scratched and disfigured, his shirt front torn, his breast exposed, and carrying in his hands a two-pronged hay-fork. He pressed forward to the front of the bench, and standing before Mr. Gaunt, placed the fork on one end upon the table, with the prongs uppermost, at the same time drawing the attention of the magistrates to it as the implement with which he had been attacked. The defendant immediately seized it, and with great violence endeavoured to wrest it from Mr. Moore’s grasp, to the imminent danger of those behind. Not succeeding, in the excitement of the moment, he raised his hand to strike, when, by the directions of the bench, the police interfered, and removed him.

The confusion in the court during this brief interval baffles description. In the eagerness of the crowd present at the time to see the struggle there was a general rush in the direction of the bench, and the court presented at this juncture a scene of excitement and confusion of a most unusual character.

The defendant having been removed by the officers of the court, something like order was again obtained, and Mr. Sykes renewed the application, which had been so extraordinarily interrupted, and wished to know what amount of bail would be required. The bench peremptorily refused to grant bail, and ordered the defendant to be kept in custody during the adjournment, and the Clerk suggested that the depositions should be taken, in order that the case might go to a higher tribunal. Under these circumstances Mr. Sykes claimed to have the case heard at once, and after an excited and desultory discussion, the application was granted.

The depositions having been taken, the case was heard, in the course of an hour or two afterwards, – before Joseph Armitage and B. N. R Batty, Esqs., the defendant being charged with a violent assault upon William Moore, with intent to do the said William Moore some grievous bodily injury. Joseph Brook, Esq., was present on the bench, but took no part in the proceedings.

Mr. William Moore said, this day about half-past eleven o’clock, I was giving instructions to a mason to make certain alterations at the King’s Head Inn, when I was suddenly accosted by Joseph Gaunt, who was about 15 yards distant, calling out “Moore, have you permitted these people to retail in yon place, — by G—d I’ll kill you.” He hastily came up to me, uttering threats, with a hay-fork in his hand. All that I said was, “Mr. Gaunt, I have nothing to say to you.” He then became extremely violent, and flourished the hayfork in an alarming manner Luckily the mason seized hold of the fork, and with the assistance of one or two others wrenched it from him. He then fell upon me violently with his fists, swearing at the time he would kill me, and stating I should not be able to do so and so again. I kept him at bay as well as I could, nevertheless he tore my mouth and otherwise marred me on the face, tore my shirt, and in fact behaved in a most violent, outrageous, and insane manner, uttering the most violent threats the whole time. Several persons then came around us, amongst whom were his son and his daughter, and he then pulled off his coat in an attitude of defiance to me, declaring he would kill me, and that I should never be in a state to use anybody as I had used him. During the scuffle I said I would send for Mr. Brook. He replied, “Send for him,” using some kind of a threat which I cannot remember. I sent for the police, but, before they arrived his friends had taken him away. I immediately went to the Magistrates’ Office for a warrant. When Mr. Gaunt was brought into the court I was there with a fork in my hand : he made a violent snatch at the fork with intent to take it from me, and he would have done so but for the policeman. From the threats that Mr. Gaunt has used towards me I dare not go after my ordinary business : I consider my life in danger. I have an occupation which leads me into contact with him, as the workmen are working in a room over his stable and in his stable.

Cross-examined by Mr. Sykes :— I was engaged by Mr. Brook as agent for the works in Market Street. The Queen Hotel, however, formed a separate work. I at one time advertised the Queen to be let for Mr. Brook. I had several applicants, and Mr. Gaunt was one of them. I made an agreement as to the letting of the Queen to Mr. Gaunt. At the time I let him these premises there was a tap-room attached to them. There was not an understanding that there should be no taproom at the King’s Head, but it was understood that the King’s Head should be given up. The cellar under the King’s Head is not opened as a beer house : they do not sell beer. They sell porter: that comes under the beer license. There has been a fresh license obtained for that property, or rather a continuance of the old license. It was not distinctly understood that there was to be nothing of that kind at the King’s Head when Mr. Gaunt took the Queen. It was not understood that it should not be let for the sale of beer : it was understood that the King’s Head should be given up as a public house. At the time Mr. Gaunt took these premises he also took a number of stables. There has been some dispute about those stables. There has been some dispute whether they are in Mr. Gaunt’s take or not. At half-past eleven o’clock this morning I was in the yard at the King’s Head. I was standing about in the centre of the arch that leads towards the stables, which is about four or five yards from one part of the stables in dispute. I was not near Mr. Gaunt’s premises at the time. The first time I saw Mr. Gaunt he was near the further steps, in a line with the mouth of the passage. There are some steps leading up into a warehouse that is part occupied and part unoccupied, but they do not lead to Mr. Gaunt’s stables. Mr. Gaunt has stables in two parts, — stables that do not in right belong to him, and stables that do. The steps are against the wall of the stables that belong to him. I was about 14 or 15 yards from this spot. I did not see Mr. Gaunt come out of the stable, but I heard his voice. When I first saw him he was at the end next to the stable. He went into the stable, and came out with a fork. He bad not a fork in his hand at first. He flourished the fork, but did not strike me. The only damage I received was what is observable on my face and my shirt front. He did not strike me with the fork.

By the Bench :— He told me he would kill me with the fork.

John Dyson said: I am a mason, I was working in the King’s Head yard, which attaches to the yard of the Queen’s Hotel, of which Mr. Gaunt is the landlord. Both places belong to Mr. Brook. About twelve o’clock this morning I saw Mr. Gaunt come towards Mr. Moore. Mr. Gaunt had a fork in his hand. He said, “Moore, have you given these persons license to sell retail.” He said he would stab him for it. He pointed the fork at him, and made a lunge towards him. I ran and catched hold of the fork from behind Mr. Gaunt, and took it from him, and gave it to one of the labourers to take away. Mr. Gaunt had then aimed to have gone up to Mr. Moore with his fists, but I held him bock. I did not see Mr. Moore use any provocation to Mr. Gaunt.

Joseph North said, I am a joiner, and am working at the King’s Head. Some one said there is a fight, and I immediately ran out. I saw Mr. Moore and Mr. Gaunt scuffling together. I parted them and stood betwixt them. Mr. Gaunt said, “Stand back, joiner: I will learn that devil to behave better. He’s robbed me of £200.” I said to Mr. Gaunt, “Now, Mr. Gaunt, I will not let you touch Mr. Moore.” Mr. Gaunt then pulled off his coat, and said, “Where is that fork?” and then went into the stable, apparently to find it. He came out of the stable again, and wanted to push me on one side, that he might get at Mr. Moore. I said, “Mr. Gaunt, it’s foolishness.” From the violent threats Mr. Gaunt made use of I consider Mr. Moore was in great danger. I heard Mr. Moore say, “Go for Mr. Brook.” Mr. Gaunt replied, “I’d do the same to Mr. Brook.”

Joseph Brier, inspector of the borough police said, this afternoon, about half-past one o’clock, I was in the Guildhall. I saw Mr. Gaunt brought into the court in custody. Almost immediately afterwards Mr. Moore came, having a short fork in hi6 hand. As soon as Mr. Gaunt saw it, he seized it in a violent manner, and wrenched it from Mr. Moore. He brought the prongs of the fork over his left shoulder, as if he was going to strike Mr. Moore. This was in view of the four magistrates on the bench. [Joseph Armitage, B. N. R Batty, Joseph Starkey, and George Armitage, Esqs.] He asked Mr. Moore what business he had to bring that fork there. From the manner in which the fork was wrenched, parties standing behind Mr. Gaunt were in very great danger. It is almost a miracle it did not go into some of them. I seized the fork which I now produce. Other parties assisted me in laying hold of Mr. Gaunt. I took him out of court by order of the magistrates.

This closed the case for the prosecution.

Mr. William Sykes, on rising to address the bench, said, — May it please your worships, in the first place I shall specify the particular charge we are brought here to meet. I find from the warrant that my client is charged “that he did unlawfully assault and beat the said complainant.” I believe your worships’ clerk, in opening, stated that my client was charged with an assault with intent I apprehend, however, your worships, that the warrant itself will at once upset anything of that kind. We are merely brought here for having unlawfully assaulted and beat the complainant, and not, as some of your worships seem to have an idea, as stated by your clerk, to be examined on a charge which must be referred for decision to a higher tribunal. I shall now, therefore, proceed to the facts of the case. Your worships will have observed, from my line of cross-examination, that there has been some dispute between Mr. Brook and Mr. Gaunt, and, with all respect to Mr. Brook, a gentleman whom I highly esteem, it will be my duty in the present case to comment upon the agreement under which Mr. Gaunt entered the Queen Hotel. Mr. Gaunt, I am informed, was highly respected during his residence at Armley, near Leeds, and I can speak individually as to his character since he came to this town, as a quiet, peaceable man. Now, gentlemen, Mr. Gaunt comes into this town, and becomes the tenant of extensive premises, wholly unintroduced, and has a connection to obtain. Attached to these premises is a tap, upon which he has to depend for a great part of his custom. At the time he took these premises it was understood that the King’s Head was to be given up, and that there was to be no beerhouse or porter cellars, or anything of the kind, retained. Mr. Gaunt has succeeded in obtaining a good and respectable connection, but he now finds that some one, I believe Mr. Moore, has opened a beerhouse under the King’s Head. In addition to this, there has also been a dispute about some stables. I submit these circumstances to your worships in palliation, for I am instructed to admit the assault, and I think your worships will concur with me that they were calculated to excite dissatisfaction in the mind of Mr. Gaunt. There may be means used in the irritation of the moment which the individual using them would afterwards regret, and I am authorised by Mr. Gaunt to make every apology for what has occurred. Now, as to the evidence Mr. Gaunt informs me that at the time Mr. Moore came into the yard he was in one of the stables, attending to his duty, and came out with the fork in his hand, and he denies altogether that he went into the stable specially for the fork, as Mr. Moore has sworn. He heard Mr. Moore, and he came out, irritated with the fact that the beerhouse had just been opened; and without premeditation, or intention to injure Mr. Moore, he did flourish the fork in his face. One of the witnesses says he laid hold of the fork, after which Mr. Gaunt went up to Mr. Moore with his fists, but was prevented from striking him. Mr. Moore says, he struck him, and appears here with his face scratched and his shirt torn. Undoubtedly, gentlemen, there has been a dispute, but Mr. Gaunt, whilst acting upon the impulse of the moment, had no intention of injuring Mr. Moore, nor did he, according to the statement of one of the complainant’s witnesses. Mr. Moore seized him, and thereupon a struggle took place, but it never assumed a more serious character than a common assault, and why depositions should have been taken in writing I do not understand. I now come to the scene which occurred in this court, and justice to myself demands that I should remark upon it. I was called from my dinner at a moment’s notice, and appeared here in company with my client to make the usual application for the adjournment. In the meantime, Mr. Moore enters the court, places himself directly in front of Mr. Gaunt, and holds up to the court a hay-fork, to convey the impression that he had been attacked by this instrument. I ask your worships whether this was likely to allay the irritation so recently excited ! My client, however, very improperly seized this fork with some violence, a struggle ensued, and amidst great confusion Mr. Gaunt was removed by the officers of the court. Immediately, I was asked by Mr. Laycock if I was going to defend a man like that ? Gentlemen, you must be aware that my duty was to see that my client obtained justice at your hands, and it was also my duty to adopt such a course for that purpose as appeared to me best. And when, after this occurrence, you refused to grant me an adjournment on bail, I felt myself bound, notwithstanding the disadvantages under which I laboured, to claim an immediate hearing. In conclusion, I am desired by Mr. Gaunt to beg your pardon for what has occurred, and I think, your worships, when you look at all the circumstances of the case, and consider the respectability of Mr. Gaunt, you will concur with me that the depositions have been uselessly taken, and that you will not, for one moment, think of severing the defendant from his family, and incarcerating him in prison, to await a trial at another tribunal, for a paltry assault like this. Fine Mr. Gaunt, if you think proper; and if Mr. Moore, — the valiant Mr. Moore (laughter) is so afraid of his life that he dare not go about the streets, bind Mr. Gaunt over in sureties of peace. The case, your worships, is in your hands.

The Chairman :— We are satisfied Mr. Gaunt that you have committed a violent assault upon Mr. Moore, and for the offence we shall fine you in the penalty of £5. Further, Mr. Moore swears he goes in danger of his life, and we shall, therefore, call upon you to give sureties of peace, yourself in £50, and two others in £25 each.

The fine was immediately paid, and responsible sureties having been sworn, the parties left the court with their respective friends.


Huddersfield Chronicle 12 July 1851

The Times (30/Oct/1812) – The Murderers of Mr. Horsfall

Mill owner William Horsfall was shot by Luddites on 28 April 1812.


THE MURDERERS OF MR. HORSFALL

HUDDERSFIELD, Oct. 24.

A very important event happened here on Thursday last, of which, as the Leeds Mercury of today does not appear to have any information, I hasten to communicate the intelligence.

A man has been taken up and examined before the indefatigable Magistrate, Joseph Radcliffe, Esq. and has at length received the offer of his Majesty’s pardon, and given the most complete and satisfactory evidence of the horrible murder of Mr. W. Horsfall. In consequence of this, the whole of the wretches concerned in that dreadful transaction have been taken and committed to York Castle, to take their trial at the ensuing Commission of Assize. He was with the party (four in number) when Mr. Horsfall was shot. They were furnished with pistols by ——, who ordered them to take their stand in a plantation on Crosland Moor. Two others soon after joined them, and took their station about twenty yards below them. When the unfortunate gentleman came up, two fired. They then all fred across the fields and —— damned them all the way for not firing their pieces. Two ran forwards to Honley, four miles off ; and two more stopped at a place called Dungeon Wood, and his their pistols at ——’s house there, in some flocks, left their great coats, and immediately in their jackets to Huddersfield, where the news of the murder had but just arrived. The next morning they all four met at the workshop of their employer (a cropped), and —— produced a Bible, and made them all swear not to betray each other.

These villains have frequently been examined before, but have always been discharged for want of sufficient evidence. One behaved with the greatest effrontery till he saw ——, and then he changed colour, and gasped for breath. When he came out, he said, “Damn that ——, he has done me.”

It appears that —— and —— have been chiefs in all the disgraceful transactions that have occurred in this part of the country the last twelve months, especially at Rawfolds, where the former was Captain of the gun-division, and the latter of the pistol. —— has thus made discoveries which will lead to a great number of these offenders, and, it is hoped, ultimately restore the West Riding to its former tranquillity.


The Times (30.Oct.1812) - The Murderers of Mr. Horsfall

The Times (26/Oct/1812) – Murder of Mr. Horsfall

Mill owner William Horsfall was shot by Luddites on 28 April 1812.


Government, as well as individuals, have been using all possible diligence in endeavouring to discover the murderer of Mr. Horsfall, who was shot at mid-day, during the riotous proceedings of the Luddites at and near Huddersfield. Among those who have been suspected is a man named Joshua Haigh, a native of Huddersfield, who, during the disturbances, enlisted with a recruiting party into the 51st regiment, and a short time after the attack on the mill, which was so ably defended, he was strongly suspected to have been concerned in the attack, from the circumstances of a hat with his name on it, being found in a brook leading from the mill. On the evening of the day Mr. Horsfall was murdered, when he went home, he appeared extremely agitated when he heard any noise. After he went to bed, he was heard to talk loudly in his sleep, calling out loudly they were coming to take him. In the morning it was ascertained that he had absconded, and no doubt was entertained but he had got out of the window. No tidings were heard of him till a short time since, when the serjeant who had enlisted him into the 51st regiment being recruiting in Ireland, met him there, and took him into custody as a deserter, and had him conveyed to the depot of the regiment, at Brebourn Lees, in Kent, where he was received into the regiment with the punishment of being deprived his bounty, which he has not received when he enlisted. These circumstances getting known at Huddersfield, a warrant against Haigh was sent by Mr. Radclife, of Mill’s bridge, to the Secretary of State’s office, where is was backed for the county of Kent; and Lavender, the Bow Street officer, was dispatched with it, and took Haigh into custody at Brebourn Lees, and conveyed him from thence to Wakefield, where he is lodge in the prison.


The Times (26.Oct.1812) - Murder of Mr. Horsfall

The Times (04/May/1812) – Pardon and Reward

Saturday’s Gazette offers his Majesty’s pardon and a reward of 2000l. for the conviction of the persons who shot Mr. W. Horsefall, of Marsden, near Huddersfield, on Tuesday, of which wounds he is since dead ; also 600l. reward and a pardon for the person who fired at Mr. W. Trentham, of Nottingham, on Monday evening last, as he was knocking at his own door, and wounded him in the breast ; 100l. for the persons who discharged a gun at Mr. J. Raynor, of Lenthwaite, West Riding, on the 23rd of April, the ball of which went through his hat ; 100 guineas and a pardon for the discovery of the persons who discharged a gun at Mr. E. Whitehead, Deputy Constable at Huddersfield, as he was going to bed, on the 15th inst. ; and 200l. for the conviction of the persons who, on the night of the 21st of March, fired upon the boat’s crew of his Majesty’s schooner Pioneer, after she had chased three smuggling gallies on shore between Walmer and Deal, and by which two of them escaped.


The Times (04.May.1812) - Pardon and Reward

The Observer (03/May/1812) – Disturbances in the Country

Mill owner William Horsfall was shot by Luddites on 28 April 1812.


DISTURBANCES IN THE COUNTY

Letters from the country state that, though the great tumults have subsided, shocking outrages are committed by small parties of depredators and assassins.

Mr. Horsfall, a principal manufacturer, was shot in the neighbourhood of Huddersfield, by four men, who fired at him on Tuesday evening last, from behind a wall, as he was retiring from Manchester market.

Mr. Cartwright, who so bravely defended his property, in Yorkshire, has been fired at on three distinct occasions, but without doing him the slightest injury.

Every thing was tranquil at Manchester on the 29th.

Leeds Mercury (02/May/1812) – Atrocious Murder

Mill owner William Horsfall was shot by Luddites on 28 April 1812.


ATROCIOUS MURDER

On Tuesday evening last, about half past six o’clock, as Mr. William Horsfall, a very extensive Woollen Manufacturer, at Marsden, about seven miles from Huddersfield, was returning from the market at that place, he was assassinated on the public road, on Crosland Moor.

The circumstances, as states to us by an eyewitness of this most barbarous Murder are these :— Mr. Horsfall and a Manufacturer, of the name Eastwood, had left Huddersfield together, and at a short distance before they came to the fate spot, Mr. Eastwood stopped to water his horse, while Mr. Horsfall rode leisurely along the road ; when he had come within about 500 yards of the Warren Inn, a distance of about a mile and a half from Huddersfield, on the Manchester road, four men, each armed with a horse pistol, who had just before stepped out of a small plantation, placed the barrels of their pistols in apertures in the wall, apparently prepared for that purpose ; the muzzle of two of these pieces Mr. Horsfall distinctly saw, but before he had time to extricate himself from his perilous situation, they all four fired, and inflicted four wounds in the left side of their victim, who instantly fell from his horse, and the blood flowed from the wounds in torrents. A number of passengers both horse and foot rushed almost instantly to the spot, and, after disentangling his foot from the stirrup, he was some difficulty got to the Inn.

The Murderers, after they had perpetrated the sanguinary deed, walked to the distance of some yards, and soon after briskening their speed, they ran towards Dungeon Wood, and entirely escaped undiscovered, no pursuit or search having been made after them, till the arrival of a troop of the Queen’s Bays, about three quarters of an hour afterwards. One of the Assassins is described to us as about six feet high, another as a low portly man, and the two others as about five feet six or seven inches high, and rather slender ; they all wore dark coarse woollen coats, and appeared to be working men.

From a professional Gentleman, who was called in to visit Mr. Horsfall, we learn, that three of the wounds, out of the four, were slight, and unattended with danger, but the fourth made by a musket ball, which entering the abdomen on the left side had taken a downward direction, and lodged in the back park of the right thigh, from which it was extracted on Wednesday, along with a pistol ball, at which time, some faint hopes were entertained of the patient’s recovery ; but on Thursday morning, about five o’clock, a profuse bleeding came on, accompanied by mortification, by which the thigh was swollen to an enormous size, and between eight and nine o’clock that morning, he expired, in perfect possession of his faculties.

Mr. Horsfall had a very large Woollen Manufactory at Marsden, wherein about 400 work people were employed ; and in part of his premises there are Shearing Machines, which have been erected about seven years, and have attained considerable perfection ; this circumstance, with the additional one of his unremitting activity in detecting, and bringing to justice the persons engaged in the attack at Rawfolds, and other Mills, had rendered him obnoxious in a high degree to the machine destroyers, who knowing his premises were too well defended to justify an attack on his property, committed a crime against his person, that will embitter every future day of their existence, and, that will, in all probability through the retributive justice of that Being, from who no secrets are hid, bring the blood-stained perpetrators of this worst of crimes, to an ignominious end.

A reward of £2000 will, we understand, be offered immediately to any person who will give such information as will lead to the conviction of any one or more of the four men concerned in the murder of Mr. Horsfall.


Murder of William Horsfall - Leeds Mercury 02 May 1812