The Norwich Murder

THE NORWICH MURDER.
TRIAL OF WILLIAM SHEWARD.

IN this case the prisoner, William Sheward, was indicted on his own confession for the murder of his wife, committed nearly eighteen years ago.

It appeared from inquiries made that previously to 1838 Sheward resided in London, where he met with his deceased wife, whose maiden-name was Martha Francis. She was a native of Wymondham, Norfolk, and was considerably his senior. She seemed to have lived with Sheward as his housekeeper at Greenwich, where it was believed they were married, but it was not exactly known in what year. In 1838 Sheward and his wife came to Norwich, and resided for some time in Bar-street, where he worked as a tailor. He next removed to White Lion-street, where he failed for a considerable sum. He next removed to Upper St. Giles-street, Norwich, and thence to St. Martin's-at-Palace, where he was living in 1851. A person who was then a neighbour of Sheward’s remembered missing Mrs. Sheward in about the middle of that year, at a time when considerable excitement prevailed in Norwich in consequence of the finding of a woman’s remains. This affair excited great attention at the time, and every exertion was made to solve the mystery, but without result. The first discovery was made on Saturday, June 21, 1851, when a young man found a hand in a road leading to Lakenham, a suburb of Norwich. About 200 or 300 yards from the spot where the hand was discovered a foot was picked up. The discovery provoked so much horror and excitement that diligent further researches were made in the neighbourhood of Norwich, and pieces of flesh, bones, &c., were discovered at Hellesdon (another suburb of Norwich) and elsewhere on Sunday, June 22; Monday, June 23; Tuesday, June 24; Wednesday, June 25; and Thursday, June 26. The hand first found was clinched and much discoloured, and on the remains being collected the medical men consulted expressed their opinion that they were those of a young adult female. The remains were placed in spirits of wine, and were kept for some time at the Guildhall, Norwich. The search for further remains was continued after June 26, 1851, and a piece of skin and muscle was discovered on Saturday, June 28, some intestines on Sunday, June 29, and a hard substance, supposed to be a thigh-bone, and part of a female breast on Monday, June 30. The last discovery was made on Wednesday, July 2, 1851, when some bones were found. A shirt smeared with blood was also picked up on Mousehold-heath, near Norwich. After the first week in July, 1851, the interest felt in the matter gradually subsided, and the occurrence of another murder at Holkham, Norfolk, about the middle of July, 1851, also served to distract the attention of the local public from the circumstances. A great many theories were ventilated in attempted explanation of the discoveries made, and further confusion was created by sensational misstatements in the local newspapers.

Sheward passed among his neighbours for a quiet, inoffensive man, and he explained this disappearance of his wife by stating that she had left home on a long journey. The next heard of Sheward was that he resided in King-street, near St. Peter-per-Mountergate Church, where he carried on business as a pawnbroker, lending money on goods and plate. While living in this neighbourhood it was remarked that he began to drink. On the 13th of February, 1862, Sheward married a woman with whom he had previously cohabited, and by whom he had two or three children. The marriage was at the Registrar's office in King-street, Norwich. In about August last, Sheward, who appeared not to have been very prosperous in his pawnbroking business, disposed of his stock principally to Mr. Boston, another pawnbroker, of Orford-hill, Norwich, and removed to the Key and Castle Tavern, at St. Martin’s-at-Oak. He left home at the end of December last year, and it was remarked before he left that he was somewhat depressed in spirits. He had stated his intention to go to London in order to see his sister, and he had fixed the Monday after Christmas for his journey. When the day in question arrived he did not start, on the plea that he did not feel well, but early on the following morning (Tuesday, December 28), after passing a somewhat restless night, he started for the metropolis.

On the first of January this year he made a confession to Inspector Davis of the P Division of the Metropolitan Police, who communicated with the Norwich authorities, in consequence of which Sheward was brought before them and duly committed for trial.

The prisoner afterwards retracted his confession, and pleaded “ Not guilty.”

The trial came on at the Norfolk Assizes, before Mr. Baron Pigott. Mr. O’Malley, Q.C., opened the case for the prosecution, and the first witness was Mr. Davis, inspector of police of one of the metropolitan divisions. He said, I was on duty at Walworth Station on January 1. The prisoner came to me and said, “I want to speak to you. I have a charge to make against myself." I said, “What is it? explain yourself." He hesitated; and then said, “For the wilful murder of my first Wife at Norwich." I said, “Have you given due consideration to the very serious nature of the charge ?" He said, “I have; I have kept it for years, but can keep it no longer. I left home on December 29, intending to destroy my life with the razor I have in my pocket.” I asked him for the razor; he gave it to me. He then said, “I have been to Chelsea by the steamboat, intending to destroy my life, but the Almighty would not let me do it." He began to sob, and spoke in broken sentences, and at intervals. I said, “Let us hope it will all turn out a delusion." He said, “You can take my charge in writing." I did so from his dictation, and he signed it. “ I, William Sheward, of Norwich, charge myself with the wilful murder of my first wife. (Signed) W. S.” He was then placed in one of the cells at the station. He was in a very distressed state of mind, but was quite sober, and knew what he was saying.

The next morning I went to his cell. On coming out I said, “Do you recollect what you said last night? He said, “Yes, perfectly well." I said, “Will you give any particulars as to when and how it was done?" He said, “Yes, I will. It was on the 15th of June, 1851." I said, “How could that be? how was it the body was not discovered?" He said, “The body was cut up, and I believe a portion of it is still preserved with spirits of wine at the Guildhall, Norwich. You will find it is quite true; they know all about it at Norwich." I asked him how or where the body was found. He said, “Oh, don’t say any more; it is too horrible to talk about.” He also said, “I went last night to a house in Richmond-street, Walworth, where I first saw my first wife; that brought it so forcibly to my mind that I was obliged to come to you and give myself up." He said he kept the Key and Castle public-house, St. Martin’s-at-Oak, Norwich, and that he had kept a pawnbroker’s shop for fourteen years, and was living at St. Martin's-at-Palace at the time of the murder. I placed myself in communication with the Norwich police. On the second examination on Thursday, the 7th of January, he asked if he had made use of the word wilful. I said, “Yes, he had.” He said, “That is all I have to ask."

Cross-examined. - I asked him if any thing had occurred, and said that perhaps he was labouring under some delusion in consequence of the statement he had made. This was just before he had produced the razor. He said he had had no food for two days, and that he could not eat. I offered him some food and some coffee. He drank the coffee, but would not eat. He seemed very much depressed in spirits, and after he was in the cell moaned and sobbed. He came to me at half-past ten. I have been an inspector for two years. I have heard that it is a very common thing for men to give themselves up on charges, but I have had no experience either personally or at my station.

Charles Johnson - I am a wood-dealer, thirty-four years of age. I lived at Trowse in 1851. In the summer of that year my dog found a human hand in Lakenham-lane, also called Miss Martineau’s-lane. The dog found it in a small plantation just off the road at Bracondale. It is about a mile and a half from Tabernacle-street, Norwich (where the prisoner lived at the time). I showed the hand to my father, he took it to the police-station. It had finger-nails upon it. I went afterwards in the following week to the police-station and saw it. I made search in different parts. My dog found two other pieces of flesh in the Hellesdon-road, about a mile and a half from Tabernacle-street in the other direction. I was with the police at the time, and they took possession of them.

Daniel Johnson. - I am the father of the last witness. I remember a portion of a human body being found in the way described, and noticed that it was a hand. I gave it to the police at the Guildhall.

Richard Fryer, station-master at Sevenoaks station, in Kent - I was living in Norwich in 1851. I knew a young man named Robert Field, since dead. At that time he was clerk to Mr. Merry. He lived on the road from Bracondale to Carrow-bridge. I remember, Sunday afternoon in July of that year, I went to Mr. Merry’s with Field. His garden bounded St. Peter’s, Southgate Church-alley. We found a human hand. It was lying in some long grass among some trees, in an advanced state of decomposition. I think it had been lying there a long time. It was a left hand. The ring finger was missing at the second joint. I took it to the Guildhall and left it there. Any one going up Church-alley could have thrown it into the spot where it was found. The hand was not a very small one for a female, as far as I can remember.

Thomas Dent, living at Trowse, Millgate, a woolstapler, said his dog found a foot in the fence on a Sunday in June, 1851. The dog found another piece of bone in the plantings. They were taken to the police-station at the Guildhall, and were found in Martineau's-lane.

Henry Layton, a greengrocer, living in Finsbury, London, in 1851 was living in Southgate Church-alley, Norwich, and worked at the mills near the Abbey. Remembered a little boy coming to him. In consequence of what the boy told him he went into the churchyard, and saw a foot, a little decomposed; it had been there some time; took it to the Guildhall.

Samuel Moore proved finding pieces of human flesh and a small bone in Strowger's-field, opposite St. Augustine’s Church, in June, 1851, witness being then a night watchman. He gave them to the police.

John Flaxman, who was a police-constable in June, 1851, was at the station when a human hand was brought there, and was employed to search for other portions of a body. Searched in Strowger's-field and found three pieces of human flesh there, and brought them to the Guildhall. The constables who were with him are since dead. In his opinion the flesh came from the breast of a woman. Cross-examined. - I believe a shirt with some blood on it was brought into the station, but I did not see it. I heard it was brought about the time I was searching. I also heard a sleeved waistcoat was brought in; I did not see it. The second officer in command at the station was Sergeant Peck, he is alive. William Neave found two pieces of flesh, part of the breast and the navel, near Strowger’s-field, and took them to the station.

Charles Grimes, living at St. Martin’s-at-Oak in 1851, heard of the finding of a hand and of bones on the Sunday and of a foot on a Wednesday. Went into a field opposite Reynold’s-hill, on the Aylsham turnpike-road, and picked up two pieces of flesh on the hedge.

Ambrose Andrews was playing with two other boys in June, 1851, in a field called Money-box, and found three pieces of flesh.

William Futter, a police-constable of the Norwich force in 1851, remembered a hand being brought to the station in June, 1851. Afterwards searched Martineau’s-lane, found a piece of flesh on the bank facing the lane, and took it to the station. Searched Hangman’s-lane, and in a field, now called Heigham-road, found a piece of flesh, six inches long and two wide, just over the bank. There was some hair on it, sandy, of the colour of a sovereign. Cross-examined. - I heard of a bloody shirt being brought to the station, but did not see it. I do not recollect about a sleeved waistcoat nor about any cotton wool brought in with some of the bones.

Charles Forster found in June, 1851, in Hangman’s-lane, now Heigham-road, four pieces of flesh - large piece and three smaller pieces. Gave the large piece to the inspector, which, in his opinion, came from the lower part of the belly, and buried the other three.

James Carter found a piece of human flesh at the towing-path of the Aldercar against Trowse-eye, about a mile and a half from Tabernacle-street, and took it to the police-station. A medical man in Surrey-street examined it in witness's presence.

Robert Leach spoke to finding flesh in Stronger’s-field on a Tuesday and Wednesday in June, 1851.

Charles Walter Sales. - His father in 1851 was one of the scavengers of Norwich. Witness was employed in clearing out some “cockeys” in Bishopgate-street, which is a continuation of Tabernacle-street. They were large iron grates in the nature of a sink, which could be lifted up. He observed that one seemed as if it were full of blood. His father and he emptied the soil with the blood, and carried it to Bull-close (where the refuse was thrown). Next day Sturges, the constable, called on him, and his father and he went with him to the place where they had thrown the soil and blood, and aftaer searching found a piece of a woman’s breast and entrails. Sturges took them away. That “cockey” was about 300 yards from Tabernacle-street. Cross-examined. - There were at that time two other “cockeys" in Tabernacle-street.

Sturges was then called, and spoke to the visit paid by him in company with Sales and his father, mentioned above. He said a nipple was on the piece of the breast. In cross-examination he said that, though on duty as a constable at the station at the time, he did not remember any thing about a shirt or waistcoat being brought in, nor about a placard being posted up.

James Palmer, who was mowing in a field adjoining Hellesdon and Aylsham-roads with two partners in June, 1851, saw one of his partners pick up a piece of thigh-bone with a small quantity of flesh on it, but did not know what had become of it. His partners were both dead.

John Stone also proved finding a piece of human flesh in Reynold's-field, and seeing a man who was with him, and was 'since dead, pick up a bone.

Edward Peck, an inspector of police in June, 1851. - I remember a large quantity of human remains brought to the station. I saw two hands, a thigh-bone, part of the back-bone, and the pelvis, as well as many portions of flesh. I did not observe any with the nipple on, but did notice that which had the hair. The flesh and bones were put into spirits of wine. I was not present at the examination by the medical man. There were no other human remains at the station but these. People brought many articles, such as bones of animals, &c., to the station, but they were rejected. There was great excitement at the time. I saw a shirt brought into the station, by whom I do not know. It was very dirty, and had blood on it, but not very much. I do not know where it was found. I also saw a sleeved waistcoat, a very old and tattered one. I did not observe any blood upon it. The remains spoken of were kept about a month in the vessels (earthen and glass) in which they were deposited, and then I buried them in a vault under the Guildhall. They were afterwards exhumed in my presence from the same place. They are the same remains. I thought the hands and feet were rather small. Lime was poured into the hole over the jars, which were uncovered. I have charge of them now. Cross-examined.- There was some waste cotton such as is used for cleaning machinery brought in. I do not think it was smeared with blood, but I do not recollect this, nor who brought any of them. I remember that a handbill was printed and exhibited in the shop-windows offering a reward. It ran thus :—

“City of Norwich—Supposed Murder. - Several parts of a human body, &c., supposed to have been recently murdered, and to be that of a young female between the ages of sixteen and twenty-six years, having been within the last few days found in the environs of the City of Norwich, information is requested to be given to the Chief Constable, at the police-office, Guildhall, Norwich, of all females who may have been recently missing, together with any particulars which may lead to the detection of the person or persons who committed it," &c.

Several applications were made to us about females who were missed. I have some faint recollection that a young girl from a factory was said to have been absent, and that her friends had not heard of her for some time.

Charles Johnson, recalled, said he was present when a man’s black satin waistcoat was found near where he found the hand. It was not a sleeved waistcoat.

William Peter Nichols, surgeon, in Norwich - I remember being called in in June, 1851, to examine some remains. I have examined some remains recently, and think they are the same. On the 21st of June I had the assistance of Dr. Dalrymple and Mr. Norgate. We examined them together. The dorsal and lumbar vertebrae, the right osinnominatum, the sacrum, a portion of the left thigh-bone, the right tibia and fibula, the left fibula, the right hand, the right foot, a portion of the right humerus, one patella, and various portions of muscle and skin. Some portions of flesh and bone did not belong to the same person, but several did, and we confined our examination to those portions alone. There were no human bones except those which belonged to one body. As far as I could judge, all that was ascertained to be human flesh and human bone seemed to belong to the same person. I cannot call to my mind any portion with the nipple of the breast attached. As to the pelvis and part of the thigh-bone, I can Come to the conclusion that they belonged to a female. As to the cartilage hanging to the bone, it was that of an adult female. We came to an approximate opinion as to the age of the female. It was an adult, a female, and an appearance of youth, showing it was not an old female. I think in my affidavit I swore to the age as twenty-six. The well-filled understructure of the skin, the delicacy of the skin, the foot of a person not accustomed to hard labour or to wear heavy shoes - the footnails being trimmed, clean, and in good condition, as well as those of the hand - led me to that conclusion. The appearance of the skin and of the flesh is not inconsistent with the age being fifty-four. I should say she must have been in good health from the well-sustained structure of the flesh. I think a woman who has had a family would probably exhibit more symptoms of aging than one who has not. This person must have had a very delicate skin and a very fair complexion - a sort of complexion generally accompanied with fair hair. It struck me that the feet, the hands, and the pelvis had been immersed in some fluid, possibly hot water, but not a corrosive fluid. We had only a portion, about half, the pelvis. It seemed to have been rudely sawn through, first in one direction, then the other, in two places which did not meet, and then it was broken up. This is not the way it would be done in a dissecting-room. The woman could not have been more than five feet one or two inches. Cross-examined. - It might be four or five inches shorter. We came to the conclusion as to the age, twenty-six, because the bones were perfect and in a normal condition. There was no appearance 'of disease, and they were in a healthy condition. The first foot I saw indicated a death within a week. I saw it, I think, on the 21st of June. I made my affidavit on the 26th. I have no doubt I did say the individual to whom these remains belonged might have been dead a fortnight. I did not know when the murder was committed. My impression is that Dr. Dalrymple and Mr. Norgate had the same opinion as to the time of death. I did not test the weight of the bones. Those of an old person are considerably lighter than those of a young one, but not between the ages we are speaking of. I cannot say whether the colour of the bones of a person of the age of fifty-four would lose the ivory character which those of a young person would have. I did not see the placard or handbill. - Re-examined.- I first saw the remains on the 21st, and made my affidavit nearly a week after, on the 25th. The adult state goes on from twenty-six years of age for twenty years. I should not expect the abnormal state of the cartilage so early as fifty-four, not till after sixty. My opinion as to the age resulted from all the matter brought before me. To the Judge. - It was the skin which induced me to think it was the body of a female. I cannot undertake to say unequivocally that the flesh was that of the body of a female. I have no doubt it was the pelvis of a female, and I adhere to all that I have stated on this subject in my affidavit.

Dr. Dalrymple, who was practising as a surgeon in 1851, and examined certain portions of a human body, in company with the last witness, said, On the first occasion I saw nine or ten bones of the back part of the pelvis, the sacrum, a part of the thigh-bone, the large and small bones of one leg, the small bone of another, the kneecap, one or two feet, one hand, the upper portion of the arm, some portions of flesh, and some entrails. It is impossible to say if all belonged to the same person, but the back-bone, the sacrum, and the pelvis clearly did belong to the same person. They joined on and fitted exactly. The other portions might have belonged to the same person. I have no doubt that the pelvis was the pelvis of a woman, and I also believe that one bit of flesh I examined was a portion of the woman’s breast. I did not form an opinion as to any person, but I thought it was a full-grown person, and not an old person; there was nothing inconsistent with the portions of the body being portions of a woman of the age of fifty-four. Cross-examined. - I should have said the portions I examined were of a person under fifty-four. I don’t say nearer twenty-six than fifty-four. I think about forty to forty-four. A woman is an extremely elastic subject. When I saw the portions of the body, I thought the person had been dead a fortnight or longer. I should have difficulty in saying that all the bones belonged to a female. I can say the hands and feet and thigh-bone belonged to a female. Re-examined. - The general condition of the flesh was that of a person exceedingly well nourished, and the cartilages of the kneecaps, &c., were fresh.

Hannah Laws - I am the wife of a labourer. The prisoner married my aunt. He lived in St. Giles’s. Her name was Martha. She was a twin; her other sister was named Mary. She is dead. The prisoner was a pawnbroker. I visited him at St. Giles’s several times. My aunt was then living with him. They afterwards went to a private house on Richmond-hill, Beacondale. I think they moved from there to a house under the Bishop’s-walls. I was quite a child at the time. I have seen Mrs. Batson, of Hellesdon. I can't recollect her living under the Bishop’s-walls. I visited the prisoner and my aunt there just before the Exhibition of 1851. I only went there once. I have never seen her since I visited her there. About twelve years ago I went to the prisoner's house in King-street. I was alone. The prisoner was then living with his present wife. I did not ask any questions about my aunt.

Dorothy Hewitt, a very old woman, a widow, and sister to the deceased, said, After they removed from St. Giles’s, I saw my sister in Bar-street; that was the last place where I saw her. It was about seventeen years ago: I have not heard from her since. I went to the prisoner's house afterwards, in King-street, and said, “I shall be very much obliged, Mr. Sheward, if you will tell me where my sister is." He said, “Mrs. Hewitt, she can write to you if she likes." He never came to ask me if I knew where my sister was or if I had heard from her. I had an aunt named Fisher; she is dead. She left some money, and I have had my share. My sister was a light-complexioned woman. Cross-examined. - I do not know that my sister went by any other name. I do not remember that she was living in Chancery-lane with a gentleman named Worseldine. I never went to Greenwich with my sister and Mr. Hill.

William Bunn, a labourer, living at Wymondham. - I knew the prisoner, having married his first wife’s sister, Mary. They were twins. They stayed with me in St. James’s, Norwich, in 1836, where I was then living. They afterwards moved to St. Martin's-at-Palace, opposite the Bishop's-walls. My wife was with me. She went in, and was there for a couple of hours. I did not go in. The last time my wife went was about a year before Mrs. Fisher died, which was seventeen or eighteen years ago. After her death we all had a little money. I did not speak to Mr. Sheward (the prisoner) about it. I was living at Hollyhouse, Wymondham. I have no recollection of seeing the letter addressed to me there, but I heard about it. I heard that the prisoner and his wife had separated, and that she had gone away to London. I went to his house in King-street to see him, and said, “Will you be so kind as to tell me the last words she said to you?" He said that she said to him when she was on the train, “I will not write to you or my sisters. Never." I told him I had come on purpose to inquire about her. Nothing more was then said. I stopped to dinner. He cut some meat for me, and I noticed that his hand shook so, that I said, “Dear Mr. Sheward, what is the matter?” I said it twice, so that he must have heard me; he made no answer - not a word. I heard no other conversation of any sort from him. He has never made any inquiries of me as to whether my wife and I have heard of Mrs. Sheward. My wife was a fair woman, she had golden hair; she was a very light-complexioned person; she had very small hands and feet; she was a kind of delicate woman, and very neat and clean in her person; her height was about 5 feet 1 inch. Cross-examined. - He said he saw his wife go by the train to London. My wife had heard before that that she had gone. I have heard my wife mention the name of Worseldine. I know nothing about him. I can swear that I never heard that Mrs. Sheward went by the name of Worseldine. I don’t recollect any thing about it. I never heard my wife say that Worseldine was transported. I have heard the name, but my wife never told me she mentioned the name years and years ago, long before this. Worseldine was a carpenter in London. She knew about him, I suspect, from the letters she got from Mrs. Sheward. Before she was married she was a very good friend to my wife - used to send her clothes, shoes, when she was single; that was about the time I heard of Worseldine.

Eva Elizabeth Hewitt - I am a single woman, and live with my mother, Dorothy Hewitt. I know the prisoner, his first wife was my aunt. While they lived in King-street I visited the prisoner and his present wife constantly. The first time must be about fifteen years since. I went with my aunt. I heard my aunt ask him about the money left by Mrs. Fisher. I went to the house several times after that. The present Mrs. Sheward was there. I went in 1849, the year he failed. A dark woman came into the shop. My uncle was in the shop at the time. I heard my uncle say to her he would not mind half-a-crown a week for the room. He went over the counter after the woman; she wore her hair low over the face, she was plain, and I have often fancied it was the present Mrs. Sheward. I believed at the time it was his present wife. Mr. Sheward visited me at St. Faith's about seven years since. I heard my aunt, Mrs. Nunn, say, “I have come to ask you what you have done with my sister." He said, “I have done nothing with your sister; she went away and left me penniless." She said, “You are a false man, my sister never went away and left you." He afterwards went to Mrs. Nunn's, but I did not hear any of the conversation. I never heard him ask after or about her. Cross-examined. - This witness, who was pressed very closely about the man Worseldine and Mrs. Sheward's going away according to the prisoner's statement above mentioned, showed great reluctance to answer the questions put to her, saying that she was too young at the time to know any thing about the matters referred to.

Hannah Hurn, a very old and infirm woman, one of the sisters of the deceased, said she visited the prisoner and his wife only once about twenty years ago. Had a relation named Fisher, who left some money; witness got her share from Mr. Cann, a solicitor of Wymondham. He was dead. Prisoner never came to make any inquiry about her sister.

Rachel Fox, a widow, and niece of the deceased, said she used to visit her when she and her husband were living at St. Giles's, but never saw her afterwards. She lost her husband in February, 1868, and had visited the prisoner several times since. He never made any allusions to her. About three years ago witness asked if he could tell her any thing about her aunt, but she could not remember what he said.

John Francis, an inmate of the Norwich Union, was married to a sister of the deceased. He went to the prisoner's house in King-street some time after the death of Mrs. Fisher. Sheward was there; and he said to him, Mr. Cann would settle tomorrow if Mrs. Sheward, his sister, would come. Prisoner said, “Very well, I'll tell her when I see her." In cross-examination, he said he got 10l. 4s.6d. as his share of the legacy.

Thomas Alfred Francis, a nephew of the late Mrs. Sheward, gave similar evidence to the other witnesses (relations), adding this, that the prisoner told him on one occasion he was sure his wife would not go to the funeral of his mother.

Mr. E. C. Bailey, solicitor, practising in Norwich, and Clerk of the Peace for the city, produced some papers from the office of the late Mr. Cann, his brother-in-law, among them a letter dated the 24th of March, 1853, from the prisoner to Mrs. Bunn, at Holly-house, Wymondham:— “Mrs. Bunn, - I am sorry to hear of Mrs. Fisher’s death, but your sister not being in Norwich at this present, I shall not take any part in arranging of affairs; therefore you need not expect me, nor send to me any more. “WILLIAM SHEWARD."

Sarah Batson.—I was married in March, 1850. After my marriage I went to live in a house in Tabernacle-street, St. Martin's-at-Palace. After my confinement in January, 1851, I found that the house next to ours, before that unoccupied, was taken by a man and woman. The woman was light-complexioned and had golden hair in ringlets. I saw her last on Whit-Sunday, the 8th of June, 1851, when I took into her part of some custard I had been making. I do not recollect seeing her afterwards, but I saw the man.

Potter Batson, husband of last witness, gave similar evidence, and added that he saw the house shut up after Whitsuntide.

Ruth Swan proved that she saw the prisoner at his house in St. Martin’s-at-Palace, where he was selling off his things about fifteen or sixteen years ago. The witness had known Mrs. Sheward and described her in precisely the same way that all the other witnesses did.

Mr. Smith, a surveyor, called to speak to a plan of the city of Norwich, and so much of the environs as embraces the different places where the remains were found, was asked about Tabernacle-street, and said there was a dead wall opposite that part of it in which Sheward’s house is situated. That house was next door to the Old Man's Hospital. Cross-examined. - He knew nothing about the street in 1851.

James Smith was recalled to fix the position of the Old Man's Hospital in 1851, and as to the “cockeys."

Mr. Simpson, Governor of the hospital mentioned, proved that in 1851 there were no houses on one side of Tabernacle-street. There was a lodge there, with a window looking into the street, and one window looking into Hospital-lane. There are houses in Hospital-square, about sixty yards distant from the house where the prisoner used to live. Cross-examined. - Tabernacle-street is one of the public thoroughfares of the city, and is frequently crowded by persons going to Mousehold-heath. The house where Sheward lived was about the centre of Tabernacle-street. A person going from the house where the prisoner was supposed to have lived would have to pass four houses and the entrance of a yard, in which there are many houses, in going to Bishopgate-street. There is a church at one end and a chapel at the other end, and another church at a short distance, in Bishopgate-street. Re-examined. - The road through Tabernacle-street to Mousehold-heath was the chief thoroughfare from Norwich to the eastern parts.

John Bird said, In 1851 I resided in St. George’s, Middle-street, in Norwich. At the half-quarter after Midsummer, 1851, prisoner hired of me three unfurnished rooms. I understood from him that he was then living at St. Martin's-at-Palace-plain. At Michaelmas prisoner came to live in those rooms alone. Two women came to visit him, among others, about two or three months after he came there. The present Mrs. Sheward was one. I gave him notice to quit about February, 1853. I had observed something in prisoner's conduct and the Woman’s. A twelvemonth after I saw him occupying a house in King-street. Cross-examined by Mr. Metcalfe. - The present Mrs. Sheward was not the first person I saw there. Prisoner moved his bedding, &c., into the rooms and well furnished them. Re-examined by Mr. O'Malley. - Had not seen prisoner.

Margaret Lince. - I worked for Mrs. Coley in 1851. She lived on St. Andrew’s-plain. Know the present Mrs. Sheward. She lived with Mr. Frank Coley, in King-street, as nursemaid. One Sunday afternoon I went with Mrs. Sheward to the Shakespeare Tavern, in St. George’s. Had a meal there with Mr. Sheward and the present Mrs. Sheward. Cross-examined. - The present Mrs. Sheward came from Cringleford-hall.

Several other witnesses were called to speak to their knowledge of the present Mrs. Sheward and of the prisoner’s acquaintance and intimacy with her since the year 1851.

Mary Leigh's depositions were then put in, that witness being disabled by illness from appearing in Court. She had known both the prisoner and his present wife for about thirteen years, having nursed her in two confinements. At these times - in the years 1856 and 1859 - the prisoner and his wife were not married, the marriage at which Mary Leigh was present having been solemnized at the Registrar's office in Norwich on the 13th of February, 1862. The certificate of that marriage and of the one on the 28th of October, 1836, between the prisoner and his first wife, Martha Francis (the subject of the present inquiry), were then put in and read, and on the close of the case for the prosecution.

Mr. Metcalfe addressed the jury for the prisoner. He reminded them that the confession made by the prisoner in London had been revoked, and that he now said it was untrue. He dwelt upon the improbability of the prisoner's making away with his wife in the manner supposed in a house situated in a row in a crowded suburb. There was not the least evidence of murder or of where the body could have been cut up. As for the discovery of the remains in the way alleged, what was more probable than that they might have formed portions of a subject used for dissection by an unskilful hand, secretly obtained and secretly got rid of, buried, after they had served their purpose, so hastily as to be easily found in the way described? He also pointed out the utter absence of any corroboration of the prisoner's statement against himself.

Mr. Baron Pigott then summed up, and the jury, after an hour and a quarter's deliberation, found the prisoner guilty, whereupon he was sentenced to death.

Sheward shortly before his execution made a horrible confession of the way in which he had murdered his wife and disposed of her body.

EXECUTION OF SHEWARD. HORRIBLE CONFESSION. - William Sheward, convicted at the recent Norwich Assizes of the murder of his first wife, Martha Sheward, was hanged in Norwich Castle.

The case excited extraordinary interest, the crime having been committed in June, 1851, while it was not discovered until a confession of his guilt was made by the convict at the Walworth police station, in December last. A few days before his execution, Sheward made the following horrible confession:-

The Voluntary Confession qf William Sheward, under Sentence of Death in Norwich Prison. City Gaol, Norwich, April 13, 1869, 2.45 p.m.

In the year 1849, November, I placed a box of money, having 400l. in it, in Mr. Christie’s possession, for him to take care of for me. In the year 1850 and to June, 1851, I drew from that box 150l., during which time my wife wanted me to bring the box home. Mr. Christie asked me if he might make use of the money. My wife seemed determined to fetch the box herself. I knew he could not give it to me.

On the 14th of June, 1851, Mr. Christie asked me to go to Yarmouth to pay 1000l. to a captain of a vessel laden with salt, to enable him to unload On the Monday morning. On Sunday morning, the 15th, I was going to Yarmouth on the above errand. She (my wife) said, ‘You shall not go. I will go to Mr. Christie and get the box of money myself, and bring it home.’ With that a slight altercation occurred. Then I ran the razor into her throat. She never spoke after. I then covered an apron over her head and went to Yarmouth. I came home at night, and slept on the sofa down-stairs.

On the Monday I went to work; I left off at four O’clock and went home. The house began to smell very faint; with that I made a fire in the bedroom and commenced to mutilate the body. Kept on until half-past nine p.m. I then took some portions of the body and threw it away, arriving home at half-past ten. That night slept on the sofa again. Went to work again the next day; went home in the afternoon about four o’clock, and did the same. The same night, again.

On Wednesday went to work as usual; left off early, and went home. Carried some more portions in a pail-basket to another part of the city.

Thursday — Work same, and returned early. The head had been previously put in a saucepan and put on the fire, to keep the stench away. I then broke it up and distributed it about Thorpe; came home and emptied the pail in the ‘cockey’ in Bishopgate-street, with the entrails, &c. I then put the hands and feet into the same saucepan, in hopes they might boil to pieces.

On Friday I went to work, and went home early and disposed of all the remains of the body, hands and feet included, that night, because I knew I should not be able to be home on Saturday until late.

On Sunday morning I burnt all the sheets, nightgown, pillow-cases, and bedtick, and all that had any blood about them. The blankets, where there was any blood, I cut in small pieces and distributed them about the city, and made off with any thing that had any appearance of blood about it.

The long hair, on my return from Thorpe, I cut with a pair of scissors into small pieces, and they blew away as I walked along.

I also state I never saw or knew my present wife until June 21, 1852, twelve months after the occurrence.

I hereby give authority to place the above facts before the Home Secretary and Baron Pigott; but I request that this may not be published at present.

Taken in the presence of the undersigned, this 13th day of April, 1869.

WILLIAM SHEWARD.