It seldom happens that anything of really grave nature occurs to disturb the equanimity of Chichester, but on Thursday evening last-intelligences was received of the death at Petworth Goal of a young man named William Gardiner, who, less than a fortnight ago, had been committed to six months' hard labour for an assult on a deaf and dumb old woman.
  The news of his death was received at first with some amount of doubt, but when the fact was established beyond question certain rumours gained ground in the city that the treatment of the unfortunate young man in prison had been such as to hasten his death. The incidence of circumstances in a measure corroberated this idea, and public feeling ran high indeed in Chichester.
  From our reports of the man in previous issues it will be remembered that the deceased was a journeyman butcher in the service of Mr Ballard. On Whit Monday he appears to have taken drink sufficent to cloud his senses, and in a moment of temorary madness committed the assault on the woman which led to his committal at the Sessions. The sentence passed on him by the learned Recorder was considered to be extremely lenient, but, unhappily, the length of time directed for his encarceration proved not to be so much a matter of moment as a penal conviction, and under this he unquestionably died of a broken heart.
  The deceased has the best of characters, and Mr Ballard, in whose service he had been for several years, exerted himself to the utmost in behalf of the unfortunate young man. Nine days after the reception into the county goal he died.
  The law directs that an inquest shall be held upon every person whose death occurs within the walls of a prison, and on Saturday last F. J. Maltin, Esq., County Coroner held an enquiry into the circumstances surrounding the death of Gardiner.
  The unpleasent rumour prevelent in the city respecting the alleged treatment of the deceased did not escape the notice of the Coroner, and in consequence of this a most searching enquiry was instituted by that gentleman. It is, at the least gratifying to find that the verdict of the jury, based upon the most complete evidence that could be procured, fully exonorated the gaol officals from any blame or neglect which might have conduced to the premature death of the deceased.
  In opening the enquiry, the learned Coroner told the jury that the law of the land held human life to be so sacred that it required an inquest to be held upon the body of every person dying in prison, in order that the public might be satisfied that the deceased came to his death in due course of nature and not from any hardship inflicted during his encarceration. He might mention that in respect to this case of the death of the deceased, great excitement prevailed in the city of Chichester. Certain rumours had their origin in that excitement. He did not mention that this is an inducement to them to do their duty, which he was sure they would do in every case, but to show the wisdom of the requirement of the law. He desired the fullest investigation to be made into the death of the deceased, and trusted that the result of this enquiry would be such as to allay the excitement and give the rumour no place for her busy tongue.
  Mr Linton, Governor of the Gaol, was first examined. He deposed to receiving the deceased into his custody, and stated that the day afterwards duty called him to Lewes Assizes. Previous to that he ordered the deceased to be put upon the treadmill. There were three kinds of punishment he might have ordered him to, but as the prisoner seemed mentally depressed he thought the sense of association with other prisoners might be beneficial to him. The crank would have been another source of punishment, but he had known men nearly killed through working at it. Such cases, however, were exceptional. On the Wednesday morning witness was called to Lewes Assizes, and did not go back to the gaol until Saturday. Deceased would have to work at the treadmill all the time, unless relieved by the doctor. According to the books he performed 9,000 revolutions per day, the maximum being 12,000. On the Saturday morning witness saw deceased in his cell, when he complained of a pain on his stomach. He directed him to remain in his cell and to be visited by the doctor. Witness do not take upon himself to judge whether the alleged illness of a prisoner was genuine or assumed, but left it to the doctor to decide. The next day and on Sunday prisoner seemed better. On Monday he again complained of a pain in his stomach, and said the work he was put to hurt him. Witness at once ordered the case to be reported to the surgeon, and directed his labour should be removed from the wheel to the pump. A warder was there placed over him, who was instructed not to enforce labour on the deceased, but simply to see that he kept hold of the handle and went mechanically round with it. at a quarter past six on Thursday morning whilst witness was in his garden, the Chief Warder came to him and said that Gardiner looked "very strange". He at once went to him and found that his eyes were protruding and saliva was issuing from his mouth. He looked as if he recovering just recovering from an epileptic fit. The doctor was at once sent for and arrived within five minutes. When able to be removed, the prisoner was conveyed to the Infirmary. Witness then sent to his wife, and Mr Ballard, a message of his illness in the course of the day the latter named persons arrived and he [Mr Linton] left them alone in order that they might have unrestrained conversation with each other. He made such arrangements that, if desirable, prisoner's wife might remain with her husband to nurse him during the night.
  The Coroner informed witness of the rumours which had gained ground and asked him if any knowledge had come to him that the deceased was pulled out of bed and ordered to work, when he expressed himself unable to rise.
  Mr Linton said that this was the first intimation he had received of anything of the kind. He did not believe it possible, and asked the Coroner to hear the evidence of the warders who were in attendance upon the deceased.

back to page top
 
related or associated :-
William Gardiner - original article
Petworth Prison
John Mance
Petworth index
 

The Coroner: Had he been to work every day since his incarceration?
Witness: He would be unless the doctor ordered him to his cell.
The Coroner: has it come to your notice that he was forcibly pulled out of bed one morning when he was unfit for work?
Mr. Linton: No; such a thing is quite new to me.
The Coroner: Is it true that prisoners are weighed and measured every morning?
Witness: No; they are weighed when received into the prison, and there is a periodical weighing of every prisoner each month. Deceased might have been weighed twice during the time of his incarceration.
  In answer to Mr. Ballard, it transpired that deceased had said before he died that the Governor wanted nothing unreasonable of him, but a complaint was made of the warder in attendance.
  Mr. Linton further deposed that the deceased was depressed in spirits at the time of his reception, and in consequence of that he put him to such labour as he thought would be beneficial to him.
  The Coroner told witness that there were serious rumours current in Chichester concerning the treatment of deceased in gaol, and asked if he had ever complained to him of a pain in the stomach.
  The Governer replied in the negative, and said he looked upon the case as one of ordinary depression, and treated it in the usual way.
  The Coroner here handed to the Governor a letter which was latter directed to Mr. Ballard, of Chichester, in which he stated that the deceased had been in bed two or three days from illness. Upon this Mrs. Ballard went over to the gaol, and in communication with him found that he had not been in bed at all but that each day he had been kept to hard labour.
  Mr. Linton explained this by saying that he had been at Lewes Assizes for four days, and received his information from his chief warder.
  Replying again to Mrs. Ballard, witness said the deceased complained of illness the day he was received into the gaol.
  William Miles, chief warder, deposed to receiving instructions to put the prisoner upon the wheel. If at full work he would be engaged eight hours per day.
  In answer to Mrs. Ballard, this witness said he might have complained of illness on the day he was received. He could not eat prison food an account of his illness. Witness never heard him complain that he was unable to do allotted work, and kept him at work on the tread wheel until the Govenor came back. He never heard of him being taken forcibly from his bed. If a prisoner did not get up when his door was opened in the morning, it was the duty of the warder to inform him. Deceased never complained to him that he was unable to do his work. The day before he died he seemed much better.
  Mr. Linton produced the prison weigh book, which showed that when received into the gaol deceased weighed eight stone, and that between the first and second weighing there was no difference.
  Thomas Woods, a warder in charge of the section in which the deceased was placed denied having pulled him out of bed or otherwise touched him, and a prisoner who was working on the wheel with Gardiner was sworn and stated that he never heard him make any complaint.
  The warder Woods was recalled, and, in answer to Mrs. Ballard, said he never pulled the deceased out of bed, or that the latter said to him, "You will be the death of me"
  Dr Wilmot, assistant surgeonto the gaol, deposed that he had to make a post mortem examination of the deceased and found an ulcer in the lower part of the stomach which had perforated the bowels. He had attended the deceased during the time he was in prison and on one occasion had directed his removal from hard labour. The cause of death was peritonitis induced by the discharge of an ulcer which perforated the bowels. The doctor also gave evidence very fully as to the deceased's condition day by day, producing the surgeon's book and showing entries.
  Mrs. Hallard was next sworn. She stated that she had a conversation with the deceased half an hour before he died and he then made a statement to her, and at the time he did so she was of the opinion that he was aware of his approaching death.When she saw him in gaol she found him greatly altered but perfectly conscious. He told her he had suffered fearfully from a pain in the stomach ever since he entered the gaol. It prevented him from sleeping and rendered him unable to take the food allotted to him. He stated that two mornings ago he was unable to get up and a warder forcibly pulled him out of bed. He said at the time that the warder would be the death of him. Witness asked him why he did not complain to Mr. Linton and he replied that Mr. Linton himself required nothing unreasonable. Deceased described the work at the treadwheel as "tearing his stomach out" and said that on that morning [the day of his death] he heard something snap in his stomach. At that time he was too ill to reach the bell for assistance.
  The Coroner then summed up at considerable length, and alluding to the importance of such an enquiry, said it was not altogether for the satisfaction of the relatives of the deceased that he came by his death from causes that were natural, but in order that the outside public might learnthat nothing of an illegal character was connected with his death. After an exhaustive resume of the evidence he left it to the jury to say, first, how the deceased came by his death and secondly whether there was any blame or neglect to be attributed to the prison officials. Neither the surgeon or the governor of a gaol were negligent and it was only necessary that the jury should forcibly and fearlessly express their opinion upon the evidence before them.
  After a brief consultation the jury returned a verdict of "Death from natural causes" without attributing blame, neglect or misconduct to any of the prison authorities.