Personal information about William Ward

Below is all the information we have about William Ward. As far as we know, the information is correct. However, if you find any errors or have additional information, certificates or pictures, please contact us so that we can update this page. Thank you.


Burial Information

Name on burial register:
   William Ward
Burial register image
Click image to enlarge
Age at death:
   47
Date of burial:
   09 June 1870
Abode at death:
(according to burial register)
   Newbury
Burial register information:
  
Book number: 1868
Page number: 033
Record number: 2660
Official at burial:
   Edward Rose, Local Preacher, Newbury.
     
Source of information:
  Burial Register
* This entry is awaiting verification.

Memorial Details

No memorial information available at this time.


 

 

Obituaries and Newspaper announcements

William Ward
Article source:    Newbury Weekly News
Date of source:    09 June 1870
Copyright:    © Newbury Weekly News

Transcription:

 

WILLIAM WARD

 

SHOCKING OCCURRENCE ON WHIT-MONDAY

AT WASH COMMON

 

A fatal event of an unusually melancholy character took place on Whit-Monday at Wash Common. It appears that during the past year a benefit society has been established at the “Gun” public house, which is situated at the top of the Wash-hill, just at the commencement of the Common, and on Whit Monday the first anniversary was held. The newly-formed organisation attended service at St. John's Church in the morning, when a sermon was preached to them. After leaving they returned to head quarters at the “Gun”, where dinner was provided, and the afternoon and evening were spent in the way usually common among clubs.

As it often happens a large number of persons were brought together and among the crowd at the “Gun” on Whit-Monday evening were several denizens of the “City.” A portion of the crowd appears to have been somewhat boisterous in merry-making, and between nine and ten persons attempted to force themselves into the yard of the “Gun,” which was appropriated for dancing, and reserved specially for the club members, their wives, families and friends.

At the time of the rush William Ward, groom to Mr. Sandell, seems to have come up, and, together with others, exerted himself in excluding the intruders, among whom was a young man named William Brindley, but better known by a nickname which took the place of the Christian name. Brindley, who seems to have been in a medium condition, being described by the constable who saw him afterwards as “neither drunk, nor sober, but worse for liquor,” appears to have felt some annoyance at the manner in which he had been ejected, and was desirous of resenting the scratch upon the nose, which he imagined he had received. Meeting with Ward a few minutes after he complained with an oath of his treatment, Ward's reply was most pacific, and should one would think, have expelled that foul demon which thirsted within him for revenge of a n imaginary wrong. No sooner had Ward expressed his determination of having no quarrel, but of having one glass of beer “and going home, please God,” than Brindley raised his fist and struck a blow which proved as instantaneously fatal as if the work had been done by a revolver.

Although the life of a human being had been taken way in the sight of a number of persons, yet such was the indifference, that no attempt was made to arrest him, and an hour was allowed to elapse before he was taken, sufficient time being granted him to make his escape, and baffle, if not defeat, the code of justice. Ward, the man who was killed, is spoken of as being respectable, steady, and well conducted, indeed, he appears to have been a religious man, and recognised for the past 17 or 18 years as a member if the Independent church at Newbury and Hurstbourne, where he lived previous to his removal to Mr. Satchell's situation. He appears to have felt an interest in this newly-established club, and had expressed an intention of joining it on the first meeting night after the anniversary, the reason for not doing so before being that if he joined then it would be thought he did so for taking part in he anniversary.

The inquest in connection with this painful matter was held on Tuesday at the Council Chamber, before Joseph Bunny, Esq., coroner, who was ably assisted by Mr. W. J. Cowper.

 

The following gentlemen were summoned upon the jury, and answered to their names: Messrs. E. Knight (foreman), H. Smith, J. Stacey, J. Gould, Sawyer, Godfrey, Goodchild, E. Stillman, T. Long, W. Bance, Edwell. J. Stillman, C. Nutley, J. Ayres…

 

[Not copied any further -for the conclusion see

 

Newbury Weekly News 9 June 1870

 

Not in Mrs. P

Burial record “William Ward, 9 June 1870 aged 47.”


Conclusion:

The Coroner summed up with much care and minuteness, analysing the evidence and stating the law as it affected the prisoner.
 
There was perfect unanimity, he said, between the witnesses as to the blow being struck by Brindley, and the medical evidence was equally clear in attributing death to the effusion of blood produced by the blow. It next became a matter for their consideration as to whether Brindley was guilty of murder or manslaughter. To establish a charge of murder malice prepense must be shown, which he admitted did not appear to any great extent. If the jury believed that there was sufficient time for Brindley to cool and to think what he was about to do, then, however painful it might be, it would be their duty to return a verdict of murder. If, on the other hand, they believed there was no malice prepense, that would reduce the charge to manslaughter; or even if they had doubt they would give the prisoner the benefit of the doubt, and find a verdict of manslaughter. As respectable men they would do their duty to the prisoner and the public by returning that verdict which their consciences approved and the case required. 
 
The Jury retired to consider their verdict, and after an absence of 20 minutes returned with a verdict of "Manslaughter against William Brindley.” 
 
Prisoner, on being duly cautioned by the Coroner, remarked that he had nothing to say, and was committed on the Coroner's inquisition to the Summer Assizee, an order for his commitment to Reading gaol being made out.

 

This obituary entry is awaiting verification.
 
 
William Ward
Article source:    Faringdon Advertiser and Vale of the White Horse Gazette
Date of source:    16 July 1870
Copyright:    © Faringdon Advertiser and Vale of the White Horse Gazette

Transcription:

 
WILLIAM WARD
 
BEFORE MR JUSTICE MELLOR.
 
Manslaughter at Newbury.
 
William Brindley, 22, labourer, was charged with the manslaughter of William Ward, Newbury, on the 16lh of June.
 
Mr Greene appeared for the prosecutor, and Mr Pater for the prisoner.
 
lt appeared that on Whit-Monday a festival was held at the Gun,” at Newbury, and there was drinking and dancing in a yard at the rear. The prisoner, with other men, was amongst the company, and was expelled from the yard. He afterwards struck the deceased, and died from the effects of the blow.
 
Prisoner was found guilty and sentenced to fifteen months' hard labour.
 
Faringdon Advertiser and Vale of the White Horse Gazette- Saturday 16 July 1870
This obituary entry is awaiting verification.
 
 
William Ward
Article source:    Newbury Weekly News and General Advertiser
Date of source:    14 July 1870
Copyright:    © Newbury Weekly News and General Advertiser

Transcription:

 
WILLIAM WARD
 
MANSLAUGHTER AT NEWBURY, William Brindley, 27, was indicted for the manslaughter of William Ward at Wash-common, Newbury, on Whit-Monday. Mr. H. D. Greene, instructed by Mr. W. J. Cowper, prosecuted ; and Mr. Pater, instructed by Mr. Shaw Smith, defended. Prisoner pleaded not guilty. 
 
The same witnesses were examined as before the Coroner when the prisoner was committed, and their evidence was in all respects the same. The facts are well known to our readers. William Ward, a man of a mild disposition and in his sphere of life much respected, lived at Wash-common, in the service of Mr. Satchel', and went on the evening of Whit-Monday, to the " Gun " public house, where a club, which he contemplated joining, was holding its first anniversary. An attempt appears to have been made by prisoner, and a number of rough characters to force their way into the yard, where the members were assembled. Ward, and others resisted and repulsed this sortie. 
 
Shortly afterwards Ward went outside and was met by Brindley, who had been heard to use threatening language. Brindley said, " Are you the man who scratched my nose ? " Ward replied, "I don't know that I have scratched your nose or anybody else's." Brindley retorted, "I don't much like this." Ward merely remarked, " I wont have any words with you. I wont quarrel wit:. anyone. I'm going across to the Bell' to have a glass of beer, and then I'm going home, please God." Brindley using bad language, raised hii fist and struck Ward behind the ear, the latter falling, and expiring almost immediately. Mr. Pater cross-examined the witnesses to show that Ward had fallen in a scuffle, and in his address spoke of the contrition at the melancholy occurrence which his client felt. He also pointed out the discrepancies in the testimony of the witnesses as to incidents preceding this fatal occurrence. 
 
The Jury without hesitation returned a verdict of " guilty," and the learned judge sentenced the prisoner to 15 months' hard labour. 
 

Thursday 14 July 1870    Newbury Weekly News and General Advertiser 

This obituary entry is awaiting verification.
 
 
William Ward
Article source:    Berkshire Chronicle
Date of source:    16 July 1870
Copyright:    © Berkshire Chronicle

Transcription:

 
WILLIAM WARD
 
CHARGE OF MANSLAUGHTER AT Wm. Brindley (27), was charged with the manslaughter of Wm. Ward, at Newbury. Mr. Greene conducted the prosecution ; and Mr. Pater defended the prisoner. Mr. Greene, in stating the case, said that Whit Monday the prisoner and other persons were at the Gun public house, Newbury, when the prisoner and other persons intruded themselves, and were ejected William Ward and others. The prisoner subsequently waited outside and said be would mark some one. When Ward came out the prisoner went to him and gave him a blow, which caused immediate death. 
 
The following evidence was then given : Mr. Satchell said : I am a brewer, carrying on business at Newbury. William Ward was in my service as groom. I saw him leave my house at ten minutes to nine o'clock on the night in question. He was then quite sober. John Holding said : I live at Enborne, and was at the Gun publichouse, Wash Common, Newbury, on Whit Monday. There was a club supper, and a good lot of people were there, amongst whom was William Ward. A little after nine a couple went into the yard to fight. The prisoner pushed into the yard. The people there had just commenced dancing.' The deceased and other men helped to push the prisoner out. Ward remained for some minutes afterwards. Several other persons were pushed out as well as the prisoner. I heard the prisoner say that some one had scratched his nose, and he would mark him for it. Cross-examined: There was a good deal of confusion, and a large number of persons were in the yard. The prisoner was a little the worse for liquor. 
 
Re-examined : The deceased had not been drinking. Harry Palmer said : On Whit Monday night I saw several persons standing in the road near the Gun public house. I saw Brindley there. I heard him say, " I'll give him a hot 'un." I saw Brindley strike Ward who fell down. Ward did not strike him. I went to Ward who was lying in the road. I helped to carry him to the Bell public house. Cross-examined : I did not hear the prisoner say to Ward, "Are you the /nan that scratched my face." Ward fell heavily on the back his head. I knew Brindley before. I am sure that he was the man who struck the blow. Lucy Hoare said that she saw Brindley standing in the road. She saw him up to Ward and say, " Are you the man that scratched my face." Ward made no answer. The prisoner then hit him under the left ear. She was sure that it was Brindley who struck the blow. Cross-examined The prisoner had nothing in his hand when he struck the blow. William Ward said : I am a groom, and am the son of the deceased. I was in " The Gun" on Whit Monday. There was dancing going on, and there was rush into the place. I afterwards left with my father. He was forty-seven years of age. Brindley came up to him and said, " Are you the man that scratched my nose." My father said, " I don't know whether I scratched your's or any one else's, and I don't want to. I shall not have any words with you, neither am I going to fight with any one." The prisoner then said, " You shall have it now." The prisoner then knocked him down. 
 
Mr. Henry Bursey said: lam a duly licensed medical practioner at Newbury. I saw William Ward between 11 and 12 on the night in question. He was 4hen dead. I made a post-mortem examination by order of the coroner. I found a large clot of blood upon the brain. The brain was perfectly healthy. The back of the head was also fractured. The clots of blood would have been sufficient to cause death, but death was accelerated probably by concussion of the brain. 
 
William Stillman, police-constable said that he apprehended the prisoner. Brindley said "It's done, and it can't be helped." He had been drinking, but was not drunk. Mr. Pater briefly addressed the jury on behalf of the prisoner. The learned Judge having summed up, the jury returned a verdict of Guilty. Brindley was then sentenced to fifteen months' imprisonment. 
 

Berkshire Chronicle - Saturday 16 July 1870

This obituary entry is awaiting verification.
 
 
William Ward
Article source:    Reading Mercury
Date of source:    16 July 1870
Copyright:    © Reading Mercury

Transcription:

 
 
WILLIAM WARD
 
THE MANSLAUGHTER CASE AT NEWBURY. Wm. Brindley, 22, labourer, was charged with the manslaughter of Wm. Ward, at Newbury, on the 6th of June. Mr. Greene appeared for the prosecution; and Mr. Pater defended the prisoner. Prisoner pleaded not guilty, and maintained a firm sullen demeanour throughout the trial. 
 
The facts of the case having been already detailed at length in these columns, it is not necessary to give them again at length. The facts are shortly these. On the day in question (Whit-Monday) a club festival was held at a public-house called the " Gun," in the Marsh, Newbury. There was dancing a yard at the rear of the house. About o'clock in the evening a fight took place in this yard between two men whose names did not transpire, and the deceased assisted in expelling some half-a-dozen persons from the yard, the prisoner being one of them. Shortly afterwards the deceased left in the company of his son, and was crossing the road on his way to the " Bell,” public house on the opposite side of the way, when the prisoner came up from behind him and asked him if he was the man who had scratched his nose. The deceased said, " I don't know that I scratched your nose or anybody else's, nor do I want to. I shall not have any words with you; neither am I going to fight with any one." Prisoner said, " You you shall have it now," and then struck deceased a violent blow with his fist on the side of his head, and he fell heavily to the ground on the back of his head, and died almost immediately. 
 
The medical evidence of Mr. Henry Bursey went to show that death resulted from the blow, the fracture at the back of the head, which was occasioned by the fall, accelerating death. Mr. Pater made an able address for the prisoner. His lordship summed up with much care, and said the crime of manslaughter was the killing of another without malice. It was one of those cases which was unfortunately of too ordinary character; but it was not one which exhibited any very great amount of intention to do grievous bodily harm. The prisoner had been very properly charged with manslaughter, because if the death arose in any way frpm the illegal act of the prisoner that would make his offence one of manslaughter. 
 
The jury, after a brief deliberation, returned a verdict of " Guilty of manslaughter; but not with malicious intent." His lordship, in passing sentence, expressed his approval of the verdict, and said, that although the offence was more mitigated than it at first appeared, it was nevertheless a very serious one. The prisoner was labouring under the influence of extreme passion, which he had allowed a very trivial circumstance to evoke, and under this passion he had taken away the life of a man in the prime of life. He had already been in prison a month, and he must be further imprisoned for the space of 15 calendar months. Let the prisoner, said his lordship, if he should have another Whit-Monday to spend, spend it in a better way than he has the last.
 

Reading Mercury - Saturday 16 July 1870

This obituary entry is awaiting verification.
 
 


Biographies & History

No documents available at this time.



Related Links

 

 

*The FNRC believe that the certificates published on this page have been added in compliance with the rules laid down by the General Register Office (GRO).Click here for more information.
If you believe that we may have inadvertently breached the privacy of a living person by publishing any document, pleasecontact usso we can immediately remove the certificate and investigate further.
Thank you
FNRC.

Website designed and maintained by Paul Thompson on behalf of the Friends of Newtown Road Cemetery.

Administrator Login