Just in time for Halloween, we peered into our well-maintained (not dusty or cobwebbed!) historic tomes searching for a creepy legal case.
After long hours by the fluorescent light, we found the tale of ghost hunter Francis Smith in The Newgate Calendar. And appearing out of the darkness, we saw a legal question looming towards us: Is it murder to shoot a ghost?
The Newgate Calendar
The Newgate Calendar details the crimes and trials of felons at Newgate Prison in 18th and 19th century London. But The Newgate Calendar isn’t your usual legal record. Instead, it’s a collection of scary stories hidden behind a thin façade of moral lessons – pages of graphic criminal escapades, followed by one sentence along the lines of “don’t do drugs, kids!”
The accounts were entertainment. They were first published as pamphlets, and later as an anthology. Wildly popular from 1750 to 1850, it was was one of the most common books in England.
SOLL's copy of the Newgate Calendar
Several classic British novels – Oliver Twist, Catherine, and Paul Clifford – draw inspiration from The Newgate Calendar. These novels are called “Newgate Novels.”
A Ghostly Murder
In late 1803, the English town of Hammersmith had a ghost problem. Roaming the maze of streets, the Hammersmith Ghost petrified residents. A pregnant woman reportedly died after the ghost chased her and caught her. She fainted and died two days later. On another occasion, a wagon driver ran in terror after seeing the ghost, leaving behind his horses, wagon, and passengers. Thomas Groom, a brewer’s assistant described how:
Descriptions of the ghost varied, both from our modern idea of ghosts and from villager to villager. One local described the ghost as appearing, “[i]n white sometimes, and sometimes in the skin of a beast; a calf skin, or something of that sort.”
The Hammersmith Ghost from Kirby's Wonderful and Scientific Museum [1]
Soon, armed townspeople wandered the streets, hoping to catch the ghost. But according to The Newgate Calendar they were unsuccessful, because “there were so many by-lanes and paths leading to Hammersmith that he [the ghost] was always sure of being on that which was unguarded and every night played off his tricks, to the terror of the passengers.”
Enter Francis Smith, an Officer of Excise. After a month or so of ghostly terrors, Smith decided to deal with the ghost himself.
Standing in a lane, Smith saw a white figure approaching him out of the darkness. The hedges lining the lane made it impossible to see more than 4 yards. Smith called out for the figure to stop, to tell him who they were! But the figure continued to advance on Smith without speaking. Smith called out again, but still the figure did not answer. At this point, fear overwhelmed Smith, and he opened fire.
Thomas Milwood, a bricklayer, fell dead to the ground in the lane. He was dressed in white, the traditional dress of a bricklayer. His mother-in-law had asked him to wear a greatcoat, fearing others would mistake him for the ghost. On another evening, Milwood had frightened several people, all of whom thought he was the ghost.
Smith, realizing that he had shot a man, turned himself in to the watch. Later, before the Court at Old Bailey, Smith stated, “I did not know what I did; I solemnly declare my innocence, and that I had no intention to take away the life of the unfortunate deceased, or any other man whatever.”
At the trial, the jury first returned a verdict of manslaughter, but the judges refused to accept it. According to the Old Bailey trial records, one of the judges stated, “that they [the jury] must either find the prisoner guilty, or not guilty” of murder and that “the prerogative of shewing mercy lay in the Crown.”
The jury convicted Smith of murder, and he was sentenced the death, but the Crown reduced the sentence to a year of imprisonment.
The Hammersmith Ghost Chasing a Woman, Ex-Classics
The Looming Legal Question
Unfortunately, the case did not answer a complex legal question: Is “I believed I was in danger” a possible defense if the defendant was mistaken?
Even more unfortunately, the question remained unanswered for almost 180 years. As one court decision put it, these are “issues of law which have been the subject of debate for more years than one likes to think about and the subject of more learned academic articles than one would care to read in an evening.”
One legal researcher specifically considered supernatural mistakes. In Glanville L. William’s “Homicide and the Supernatural,” he examines what criminal responsibility means when the defendant thought the victim was supernatural. [2]
Williams argues that the defendant shouldn’t be charged with murder if they genuinely thought they were attacking a ghost. Since ghosts can’t be physically harmed, the defendant cannot have expected to kill or harm the ghost. [3] Furthermore, he points out that ghosts are scary, which “is itself sufficient to reduce a consequential killing from murder to manslaughter." [3] In the case of the Hammersmith ghost, Williams suggests that the court should considered Smith’s "state of mind." [4] Based on the court records, Williams reasons that Smith genuinely believed Milwood was a ghost, not a person when he shot. [5]
In 1983, the British courts gave some guidance. In a R. v. Williams – no ghosts involved – a man attacked someone he thought was beating up a young man. On appeal, the court ruled that:
So… is it murder to shoot a ghost? We can't answer that – we’re law librarians not lawyers, and this is the U.S. not Britain. But we would suggest that since actual ghosts are incorporeal, maybe you should call the Ghostbusters instead.
Can't get enough history? Check out SOLL's other blog posts about our historical collection!
Works Cited
[1] The Hammersmith Ghost. Credit: Wellcome Collection. Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)
[2] Glanville L. Williams, "Homicide and the Supernatural," Law Quarterly Review 65, no. 4 (October 1949): 491.
[3] Williams, 499.
[4] Ibid., 503.
[5] Ibid., 501-502.
0 Comments.