From the Kentish Gazette, 13 November 1838.

DEATH.

At Margate, Mr. Jarrett, landlord of the "Liverpool Arms Inn."

Kentish Gazette, 11 January 1876.

SUSPECTED BRUTAL MURDER AT MARGATE.

Much excitement was occasioned on Sunday last in Margate and the neighbourhood, by the report that a woman had been most brutally murdered near the town on the previous night, by a man named Thomas Fordred, who has been leading a kind of vagabond life for some time past, often making his appearance before the magistrates on charges of violence and dishonesty. The victim of what there is too much reason to believe is a very shocking crime, was an unfortunate woman named Mary Ann Bridger, who has been living with Fordred for some time, holding to him in all the vicissitudes of his irregular life, and sharing his lot through good and evil report. She was 27 years of age, and her parents, who reside in Margate, are poor but respectable. The accused man is 41 years of age, and a very sullen and determined appearance. He is a native of Margate, and has formerly been in the army. The particulars of the sad occurrence, as far as they have at present been divulged will be found in the evidence, taken before the Cinque Ports magistrates at Margate, yesterday (Monday) morning.

The Magistrates upon the Bench were:- G. E. Hannam, Esq., (chairman), H. B. Sheridan, Esq. M.P., K. W. Wilkie, Esq., W. H. Thornton, Esq., Captain Swinford, and Captain Hatfield.

The prisoner, who had a very callous expression of countenance, was charged with the wilful murder of Mary Ann Bridger, in the parish of St. John, Margate. He was not professionally represented.

Superintendent Compton, of the Margate Borough police stated:- On Saturday night about twenty minutes past eleven, from what police-constable Stockbridge told me I came to the station. I found the prisoner there. At one o'clock in the morning of Sunday the prisoner made this statement to me voluntarily:- "I came into town at ten minutes past five. I met Mary Ann Bridger and gave her two half-crowns to pay Mr. Payn, and she had 4 1/2d change out. I took her to Mr. Austen's in the "New Inn" yard, and had a quart of beer. She went to Mr. Pamphlett's pork butcher, and bought three pounds of pork, and brought it to me at Mr. Jezzard's. There I had two 1/2 quarterns of rum and one glass. I went from there to Mr. Jarrett's the "Liverpool Arms." Mary Ann Bridger, her father and mother, were there. We had, say two 2 1/2 quarterns of rum. I went there to Mr. Payn's and got my grocery for the week. From there I was going to Salmstone. When I came to the bridge she fell down. I pulled her up and she fell down again. I went and called the waggoner. I told him I should go to the police and give information that she was dead." Compton continued:- I went to the barn shortly afterwards accompanied by Dr, Crawshaw. I found the body of Mary Ann Bridger, whom I know well, dead, covered with straw. When I took away the straw, she was naked, with the exception of her stockings. Her age is 27 years. I came back to the Police-station at five o'clock in the morning, and charged the prisoner with murdering Mary Ann Bridger. He said:- "I am not guilty." I took off his gabardine (produced) the front of which is covered with blood. His jacket was also covered with blood. I took his boots off, and the doctor will give evidence as to their state. I searched prisoner and found on him a razor, knife, and 9d. in money.

The prisoner said the Superintendent's statement was quite correct, and he had no questions to ask.

George Emptage, waggoner, said:- The prisoner came to me between ten and eleven o'clock on Saturday night. I went with him, and found the deceased Bridger lying on the bank, with her mouth open and her eyes half shut. I did not hear her speak. I did not see any blood. I helped to get her on to the back of the prisoner, who carried her. She was very near naked. I cannot swear whether she was dead or alive. When I went away from him the prisoner said he thought she was dead. When prisoner first came to me I noticed blood on his face and on his coat which he was then wearing.

In reply to the Bench, Mr. Treves, F.R.C.S., said he has seen the body of the deceased, and was of opinion that death resulted from violence, but could not tell the exact cause without a post-mortem examination. On the application of Superintendent Stokes, the Bench remanded the prisoner till Saturday.

W. H. Payn, Esq., coroner for Dover and its liberties opened an inquest upon the body of the unfortunate woman at three o'clock yesterday afternoon at Salmstone Grange and adjourned to Thursday.

Kentish Gazette, 18 January 1876.

THE SUSPECTED MURDERAT MARGATE ADJOURNED INQUEST.

The adjourned inquest was held at Salmstone Grange Farm on Thursday afternoon last, before W. H. Payne, Esq. The first witness called was Mr. W. K. Treves, F.R.C.S., who deposed as follows:- I made a post-mortem examination of the body of the deceased Mary Ann Bridger, and found numerous bruises on the face and bruises on the collar bone, below the left breast, and on the lower part of the abdomen. I also found bruises and scratches corresponding in their appearance to those on the upper part of the chest. I found the muscles under the bruise on the collar bone torn and pulpified. There were also bruises on the front of the legs and on the back. On opening the skull I fund the blood vessels belonging to the membranes of the brain gorged with blood. The brain was otherwise healthy. I examined the wind-pipe and throat, and found those parts uninjured. I opened the chest and found the lungs and heart healthy. On examining the abdominal cavity I found the membrane covering the bowels, which is called the peritoneum, bruised in two places, and blood poured out. In one of these places this membrane was torn. The other organs were healthy. I consider these combined injuries sufficient to cause death by shock, and I consider also that all the injuries, except some of the busies on the face, are such as might be reduced by kicking. The cold weather might have been an accelerating cause.

My opinion is that death resulted from those injuries I have described, and that those injuries were produced by kicks.

Mary Sheaf, wife of Henry Sheaf, a labourer, living at Chapel Bottom, in the parish of St. John, said:- On Saturday night last I was returning from Margate, between eight and nine o'clock, perhaps nearer nine, when I heard a voice near the railway bridge, this side of it. I came under Tivoli Bridge, and proceeded to the top of the hill on my way home, when as I got to the top of the hill on my way home, when as I got to the top of the hill I heard swearing. I was then standing at the cross roads, at the corner of Salmstone Farm meadow, when I heard the voice of a man a short distance off say "You ______ I will do for you." I heard nothing else, but at once proceeded on my road home to Chapel Bottom.

This being all the evidence, the Coroner proceeded to sum it up to the jury, after having read the evidence to them. He reminded the jury that it was simply their duty to enquire when, how, and by what means the deceased woman Mary Ann Bridger came to her death. They had heard the evidence of the medical man as to the injuries, and that of the policeman, who saw Fordred and the deceased out of the town. The constable said that they were purchasing goods, and that both were intoxicated at the time. If the jury thought this Thomas Fordred in coming home suddenly had a quarrel with the woman it was for them to say whether he was the person who inflicted the injuries on the deceased. They seemed, according to the description given by the doctor, to be very brutal injuries, and quite sufficient to produce death. Their duty was very simple, and it would be for another court to settle the matter.

The room was cleared for the jury to consult in private, and after about half-an-hour the Coroner and the public were readmitted, and the following was announced as the verdict the just had arrived at:-

"That the deceased Mary Ann Bridger died from injuries inflicted upon her by Thomas Fordred, and that the said Thomas Fordred is guilty of the manslaughter of the said Mary Ann Bridger." The Coroner then made out his warrant for the commitment of the prisoner Thomas Fordred to take his trial at the assizes at Maidstone on a charge of manslaughter.

At the Town Hall, Margate, on Saturday, Thomas Fordred was brought up, on remand, on the charge of murdering a woman named Mary Ann Bridger, with whom he had lived for some time past. The evidence given by Superintendent Compton on Monday, which contained a statement made by Fordred on giving information to the police of the death of the woman, was to the effect that she received the injuries which caused her death by repeated falls on the stony road, having been read, George Emptage, a waggoner employed on the farm at Salmstone Grange, said he was called by the prisoner between ten and eleven on Saturday night week to assist in carrying the deceased to a barn on the Grange. He believed she was dead when taken to the police-station, and informed him the Bridger had met with her death by repeated falls on the road leading to Salmstone. He caused him to be detained, and sent for the Superintendent of police (Mr. Compton), who, on Sunday morning, charged Fordred with the murder of the woman.

Ann Emptage, the waggoner's wife, deposed that between ten and eleven on Saturday night, while sitting in her room she heard some one open a door; but as she supposed it was her husband, she did not go out. After about three minutes had elapsed, however, she lighted a candle and went to see what was the matter. She found that some clothes, similar to those which had been worn by the deceased, were lying in the washhouse, and also a pudding and some pork. The prisoner then went to her husband, and later in the night they returned together to the farm, with what she subsequently found was the body of the deceased.

Thomas Richard Fuller, a labourer, said that at ten minutes past eleven he saw the prisoner, who had apparently just returned from Shalmstone Grange, and noticed that he had some blood on his left ear. He told him that he was going to inform the police that Bridger was dead, that she had killed herself by falling about on the road.

William Crump, a coalman, deposed that he was in the "Liverpool Arms" at about eight o'clock on Saturday evening. The prisoner and Bridger were drinking there. Fordred threatened her that if he saw her with any other men he would knock his brains out and hers also. He also stated that while there he heard Fordred call the woman his "Daisy," "old dear," and used other endearing names.

Police-constable Bradley said that when he was the prisoner and the woman immediately after they left the previous witness they were both drunk. he walked with them some distance towards Salmstone Grange.

Police-constable Bradley said that when he saw the prisoner and the women immediately after they left the previous witness they were both drunk. He walked with them some distance towards Salmstone Grange.

William Brenchley Nash, labourer, said that soon after the previous witness left the parties he saw the prisoner catch hold of the woman's clothes and pull her off the path.

Mary Sheaff stated that between eight and nine she was about 100 yards from where it is supposed the deceased met with her death. She heard a man say, "I will do for you." he appeared to be in a great rage at the time.

Instructing-constable Stewert, K.C.C., deposed to receiving certain things from Mrs. Emptage, among them being a broken dish in which the pudding had been placed on the previous day. It was wrapped in a handkerchief which was saturated with blood.

Mr. Treves, surgeon, fully described the injuries deceased had received. he pointed out that great violence had been used, and that the injuries must have been made by some blunt instrument.

Mr. Treves, surgeon, fully described the injuries deceased had received. he pointed out that great violence had been used, and that the injuries must have been made by some blunt instrument.

Other evidence having been given the bench retired for deliberation, and after an absence of about ten minutes returned into court.

The prisoner was formally charged, and made as statement substantially the same as the one he made to the police, adding that his motive for taking her from the left-hand side of the road to the other was because he thought if he placed her on the high ground he might get her on his back and carry her to the barn.

The prisoner was then committed for trial at the next Maidstone Assizes on the charge of murder.

Kentish Gazette, 21 March 1876.

WEDNESDAY. THE MURDER AT MARGATE.

Before Lord Chief Justice Coleridge.

The whole of the day was occupied up to a late hour with the trial for murder, in the case of shocking violence to a woman, in which Lord Coleridge, in a charge of remarkable power, told the jury distinctly that if they believes the case for the prosecution they were bound to find a verdict of wilful murder, a verdict which they, after conviction returned.

Thomas Fordred, a man 48 years of age, was indicted for the wilful murder of Mary Ann Bridger, at St. John the Baptist, Thanet, on the 8th of January last. He was also charged in the Coroner's inquisition with manslaughter, but he was tried on the indictment of murder.

Mr. F. J. Smith and Mr. Avery were for the prosecution; Mr. Bargreave Deane, at the desire of the Judge, defended the prisoner.

The deceased was a young woman, who lived with her mother at Margate, and who had from time to time cohabited with the prisoner. He had no fixed residence, and at times she used to meet him at a farm called Salmstone Farm, a little out of Margate, and to sleep at a barn there. At 5 o'clock on the evening of the 8th of January last she left her mother's house to meet the man. Between 7 and 8 o'clock they were seen at a shop, and shortly afterwards they were seen again going out of the town towards the farm. A few minutes afterwards a witness who passed them in a cart was the man pull the woman off the pathway. Between 8 and 9 a woman passing along the road near the meeting of five roads, heard the voice of a man in an angry threatening tone, and she heard the words, "I'll do for you." No more was seen or heard of them, until after the woman's death, which was caused, it was clear, by the violence of some one, between the spot where they were thus seen and a spot further on, where the body was found. About 450 ft. from the meeting of the five roads is the barn belonging to the Salmstone Farm, where a wagonner and his wife named Emtptage (who knew the woman from seeing here about there) lived. Mrs. Emptage hearing some on about the premises, and observed blood upon his coat and face. It was a moonlight night, and she could see him clearly. The man asked her husband to come with him to help him to pick up his Poll, who he had left in the road, he said, and who had killed herself. Emptage went and found the body of the woman lying by the side of the road, quite dead, in a pool of blood, her clothes torn off her back, the road for a space of nine yards being covered with blood and showing evident signs of terrible struggle, and the face and body showing marks of shocking violence. The body was almost naked; it had hardly anything on except the stockings; her clothes being literally torn off her back. The prisoner made statements to the effect that the woman had killed herself by throwing herself about when drunk, and this account he said he gave because he knew the police would be sure to come after him on account of his having been seen with the woman and blood being upon his dress. The surgical evidence showed that the woman had sustained many serious wounds, apparently from kicks. There were several wounds on the shoulder and the chest, and two marks of kicks upon the abdomen, with scratches upon the skin (apparently showing that the body was bare when the kicks ere given), and these blows had caused ruptures. It was observed that though there were no marks on the palms of the hands, the backs of the hands were injured as if by being stamped on. Some hair was found on the spot, which corresponded with the woman's. The prisoner's dress and boots were found stained with blood, and when he was first seen there was blood on his face. Upon being apprehended, he repeated his statement that the woman had killed herself by falling about, and that the tearing off her dress was caused by the efforts to lift her up.

Mr. F. E. Smith, in opening the case for the prosecution, said it would be for the jury to consider whether there was an atom of truth in the statements of the prisoner, and whether they were consistent with the actual facts which would be proved.

On the evidence being begun, one of the jurors said he was unwell and begged to be excused. He was, he said "nervous" and subject to fits, and he had better withdraw at once.

Lord Coleridge upon this directed the juror to withdraw, discharged the jury, and directed a new jury to be empanelled, allowing the prisoner his challenges anew. In fact, the old jury were re-empanelled with the exception of the juror withdrawn, for whom another was submitted who had heard the case stated, and the trial then proceeded the first witness not having yet been examined.

Lord Coleridge, in summing up the case to the jury, said it was in truth an issue of life and death; for upon their verdict it depended whether the prisoner should be left for a few years longer to pursue such a life as he might be able to pursue on the face of God's earth, or whether his life should be cut short by an ignominious death. But serious as the issue was, they must determine as they would any other, on the effect of the evidence on their minds. If they were convinced that the terrible guilt of the crime charged against this man was brought home to him they must not shrink from saying so, but f not satisfied of it then they must acquit him of that guilt. They must not jump to conclusions, or substitute surmise for evidence, but they must act upon their conviction on the evidence. That the deceased woman died in the company of the prisoner was clear; that she died by violence was clear. Did she die through violence wilfully inflicted by the prisoner? That was the great question in the case. The deceased woman had been the mistress of the prisoner, and on this night they were together. The gown the woman wore was not produced, and had not been found. The mother saw the woman at half-past 4, and said she was quite sober, and witnesses who saw them going out of the town, said they seemed drunk, and spoke to give impressions which indicated that they had had former quarrels. At a quarter-past 8 they were seen by a witness who spoke to the man using an angry expression and pulling her off the path, and he said they were not reeling, and this witness was the last person who met them together - the last person who saw the woman alive. The next witness was the woman who, about a quarter to 9, heard the voice of a man in the road near the place exclaiming, "I'll do for you," and heard the sound of scuffling. That was the only time when the prosecution suggested that the deadly attack commenced. It might be so certainly, but it might not be so, and there was nothing in the nature of the evidence to point to the inference that it was the prisoner who was heard. But then came other evidence that it was the prisoner who was heard. But then came the other evidence which presented the most important part of the case, the evidence of the Waggoner and his wife, and the police. Some one about half-past 10 brought to the Waggoner's door some clothes which were part of the clothes which the poor woman had worn. But for the statements made by the prisoner three times over, his counsel might have statements made it clear that he must have brought them, for he admitted that the woman met her death in his company, and that in his company her clothes came off, and no one was present but he, so that the conclusion was inevitable that he was the person who brought them. What effect that had upon the mind with reference to the account he gave? The poor woman was lying naked and dead on the snow in a lane, and the first thing he does is to gather up the outside premises of the cottage. Then the prisoner carried the dead body all the way to the barn and did not (the witness said) reel more than a little. If that were so, then it was vain to contend that he was in such a state of drink as not to be able to commit the act of violence attributed to him. There was also blood upon his face and dress. That was one of the most serious parts of the case against the prisoner. He was the only person with her person. He was capable of carrying her; was he not capable of killing her? Did he kill her? What would be the natural conduct of a person who had no hand in her death? What was the language the prisoner used in speaking of the shocking event? He might be destitute of the ordinary feelings of humanity, and yet not guilty of murder. There was blood upon him, and the policeman at once asked if there was blood upon his hands. He would not comment upon the language used by the prisoner, and after all there came the one "touch of nature." "I found she was cold and dead. I kissed her lips and left her." There was the account which fixed him with being present at the time of her death, and the jury must judge what construction they put upon such conduct and such language. The witness who saw him at this time said that, though he had been drinking, yet at that time he was not withstanding when it was suggested that he was so drunk that he did not know what he was about. He was capable of making that long statement - of the truth or credibility of which the jury must judge.

Mr. Deane interposed to observe that his argument had been, not that the prisoner was to drunk to know what he was about, but that he was too drunk to have the deliberate intent to kill.

Lord Coleridge, however, as to that, said he must as that it was not material, assuming that the prisoner committed these acts of violence. The prisoner, be it observed, had made four different statements, and one of them was written down from his lips and signed by him. Anything more deliberate - true or false- never was done. And the jury must judge whether the state of drunkenness suggested was consistent with such clear, deliberate statements. Then as to the truth of falsehood of these statements, they must contrast the account given by the prisoner with the account of the poor woman's state as detailed by the doctor. She sell down, he said, twice or thrice; that is all; not a word as to falling o her knees, as had been suggested. Then there were the undoubted facts that the woman died in the presence and with the injuries described by the witnesses, and especially the doctor. There were two large wounds on the back of the head into which the witness could put his finger. There were marks of nails (of boots) on her chest. There were other injuries discovered, more particularly by the doctor. The body was naked; there was a wound on the right temple and another over the eyebrow, the lip cut open, and teeth loosened; two scalp wounds on the back of the head two inches in diameter; all the wounds of a bruised and jagged character. "The hands were bruised on the back, but no injury on the palms - it looked as if the hands had been trodden upon." That was most remarkable and deserving of serious attention. On a post-mortem examination there were found other injuries, which the doctor described. It must have been great violence, he said, to have caused the injuries. They seemed to be caused by a thick boot, with large nails; they could not have been caused by a fall; it would have been required great violence to cut the lip and loosen the teeth. There were bruises below the breast and on the hip and thighs and on the front of the legs; there were ruptures in the abdomen, arising from the blows which caused the bruises. Such injuries, he said, could not have been caused only by falling down. Now, it was for the jury to compare this state of the body and the aspect of the spot where it was found with the account given by the prisoner. There were the marks upon the spot - he would not say of a struggle - but of moving about; and the witnesses said there were marks of blood, and one witness said "pools of blood." When the prisoner brought the body it was dead - she had been lying there long enough to bleed so much as to leave behind "pools of blood," and the account given by the prisoner was that she fell down two or three times. The jury must judge for themselves whether this was true. There were no limits to the range of possibilities, but the jury were bound to act on the reasonable result of the evidence before them. Was it reasonably possibly that the wounds could be caused by falling down twice or thrice on the road - wounds in the head large enough to put the fingers in, rupture of the abdomen, bruises and wounds all over the body, the clothes torn off the back, and all this caused by two or three falls? Such was the story the jury were asked to believe. But they must proceed upon principles of common sense and not substitute surmises for the result of evidence. Probabilities were necessarily acted upon the affairs of life, and the question was whether here there was not a strong moral reality that the prisoner was guilty of the crime charges. It had been suggested that they should find a verdict of manslaughter; but the prisoner had never suggested that was necessary to grant such a verdict upon. He had never suggested a quarrel and a fight; and he was bound to say that, in his view, the only verdict for them were the first and the third - wilful murder or not guilty. If they believed the prisoner's story then he was not guilty; if they did not believe it, then he was guilty of wilful murder. gentlemen (said his Lordship in conclusion), the case is of immense importance. To the prisoner, of course, it is of immense importance - it is an issue of life or death. But to me, I confess, greater importance as affecting the integrity of trial by jury, and the trust we must all of us put in the absolute faith and honour of the 12 men to whom the Constitution in trusts in cases of this kind the decision of these dread issues. To you I leave this issue, reminding you again that you have a solemn duty to perform, and I have confidence that you will perform it.

The jury at six o'clock retired to consider their verdict, and after an absence of about a quarter of an hour returned into court with a verdict of "guilty."

The prisoner being called upon to say why sentence of death should not be passed upon him, said he had nothing to say.

Lord Coleridge then proceeded to press upon him in most impressive terms the last dread sentence of the law. He said:- You have been found guilty, after a careful and patient trial, of the greatest crime of which a human being is capable, and for that not I, but the law, through me, says that you must die. I will use but the simplest and shortest and fewest words I can. It is no part of my duty to add to the terror and the misery which must now invest you. You took the life of one to whom you were bound by ties of the closest relations; you took it cruelly, savagely, and without pity and without remorse. You sent her unmercifully from this world to another. The law is more merciful to you than you were to your victim. How you may stand with that ineffable Being before whom we must all one day appear it is not for me to imagine or suggest. To Him and to His infinite mercy I must now leave you. I have to pass upon the sentence of the law, which is, that you be taken to a place of execution and there hanged by the neck until you are dead, and may Almighty God have mercy on your soul!