John Archdeacon (1811-1820)
Young John Archdeacon's grave in All Saints Churchyard near to the tower bears a cautionary tale about how the child's tormenting of some mules led to his death.
His epitaph (now very faded) reads as follows[1]:-
Here lies an only darling Boy,
Who was his widow'd Mother's joy,
Her grief and sad affliction prove
How tenderly she did him love.
In childish play he teased a mule
Which rag'd its owners angry soul,
And thro' whose cruel blows and spleen
The Child so soon a Corpse was seen.
This Mother now is left to mourn
The loss of her beloved son.
Tho' sighs and tears will prove in vain
She hopes in Heaven to meet again.
The story, as reported at the trial of his killer - one William Picknell is as follows: "William Picknell was indicted for feloniously killing and slaying John Archdeacon, a youth, nine years old by kicking him on the abdomen, at Hastings, on the 2nd of June.
MR. ANDREWS conducted for the prosecution and MR. ADOLPHUS for the defence.
It appeared in evidence, that on the day mentioned in the indictment, the. deceased, and two other boys were teasing some mules, the property of the prisoner, who in great passion came up to them with a stick in hand and beat them pretty severely, and in the scuffle the deceased received a kick in the right side of his belly. Next day the deceased appeared as well as usual, but was taken ill with an inflammation in his bowels, and lingered until the 5th of June when he died. The body, being opened, it was found that the liver was in a morbid state, from natural causes, but that mortification had been caused by the external injury from the kick. The Surgeon, however; was of opinion that a very slight injury would have hastened death, in the state in which the liver was found. After the deceased was beaten, the Prisoner had expressed himself in an unfeeling manner of the transaction, saying that he had given the boys “a h_ll-fired good beating and had laid into ‘em d_ d well, and he had given one of ‘em a sickening”. There was no distinct proof that the Prisoner had kicked the deceased.
It was proved on the part of the Prisoner that he was the father of six children, and a man of very humane disposition; that the stick with which he had beaten the deceased was very slight, and that the beating was in fact very trifling.
The Chief Justice charged the Jury to enquire first whether the Prisoner had kicked the deceased; if he did they were to consider whether the kick had caused death. If death was not produced by the kick, the prisoner was entitled to an acquittal.
The Jury found the Prisoner—Not Guilty.[2]"
References & Notes
- ↑ Via Phil Sellens Flickr
- ↑ British Newspaper Archive Morning Post 3 August 1820 Pg. 0002
