John Stanley

Timeline

1824/34? – Estimated year of birth. This one is particularly tricky as his prison records listed him as 10 years older, no doubt a purposeful misdirection by John.

1844 – 2^nd November –John was convicted of Assault and sentenced to 1 month in prison or a fine of £5 and sent to St Augustine’s Gaol.

1844 – 2^nd June – John was convicted of Drunkenness and sentenced to 3 months in prison or a fine of £5 and sent to St Augustine’s Gaol. John paid the fine.

1846 – 11^th October – John, aged 23, was tried for assault and theft but no bill was issued and he was found Not Guilty.

1847 – 29^th June – At the Canterbury County Sessions, John, aged 23, was found Guilty of stealing £1.13s 6d from the person and sentenced to 3 months hard labour.

1848 – May – For disturbance of the peace, John was sentenced to 1 month in prison.

1850 – January – For assaulting a constable in the execution of his duty, John was sentenced to 2 years hard labour in St Augustine’s Gaol.

1855 – 13^th November – Committed at St Augustine’s Gaol, Kent. He was kept separate 1 month 19 days whilst awaiting trial and worked with others whilst under surveillance. His character is described bad and his conduct in prison Good, despite being described as ‘up to any dodge’.

1855 – 20^th November – Extract from the Kentish Gazette – “On Tuesday last Henry Hart, of Ashford, labourer, and John Stanley, corporal in the East Kent Artillery Militia, were had before W. Burra, Esq., charged with obtaining money under false pretences. From the evidence it appeared that on the previous Thursday, the prisoners went to the house of Mr. Saekree, who keeps the Plough, Brabourne, and stated that the nephew had enlisted on the previous Tuesday. Mrs. Saekree immediately sent for the young man’s mother, and tier arrival the prisoner Stanley said, that if she liked to pay the “smart” money, amounting to 21s., her son would be free; Hart at the same time stating that was constable and demanding a fee of 5s 6d. The poor woman being frightened and wishing to save her son, sent for Morley, constable of Brabourne, but he not knowing anything of the matter, she paid Stanley his demand of 21s., and Hart reduced his fee to 25s., which she also paid, believing him at the time to be a constable. The defence set up by Stanley was, that enlisted the young man Saekree, and a companion named Wright the previous Tuesday, and they agreed to meet him the following morning to sworn in, and, as they did not keep their appointment, he proceeded to Brabourne in search of them, taking the prisoner Hart with him to show him the way. admitted taking the 215., but said had written to the Captain of his regiment inform him of the circumstance. Hart denied having said he was constable. —A second charge was then preferred against the prisoners for taking a man into custody suspicion of being a deserter, and taking a sum of ss. from him in order to liberate him. this ease it seemed that a man, who goes by the name of George King, and who is in the habit of travelling round the neighbourhood, subsisting on charity, entered the house while prisoners were here, when was immediately accosted by them, and Hart representing himself to be constable, took him into custody a deserter. The man replied to the contrary, but said he should have days under the Vagrant Act, and would give what few shillings he had in his pocket to settle the matter. To this Hart assented, and some beer being had, the man was allowed to depart. Information of these transactions having been forwarded to superintendent Dewar, at Ashford, he caused both prisoners to be apprehended. —Mr. Burra said, it was a very bad case, and committed both prisoners fur trial the ensuing East Kent Quarter Sessions, but consented to take bail two sureties in £20. each, which prisoners were not able procure.”

1856 – 1^st January – John Stanley, a married militiaman aged 31, is convicted of Obtaining Money by False pretences at the Quarter Sessions in Canterbury and sentenced to 4 years penal servitude.

1856 – 8^th January – Extract from the South Eastern Gazette –“John Stanley and Henry Hart, the former a corporal in the Kent Militia Artillery, and the latter a labourer, were indicted for obtaining, by false pretences, the sum of 23s., with intent to cheat and defraud Mrs Sachree, of the same, Brabourne, on the 8th November last. Mr. Rose prosecuted, Mr. Ribton defended the prisoner Stanley. The prosecutrix stated that she had a son 18 years of age. On the day named in the indictment she was sent for to her sister’s, when she tew Stanley and the other prisoner. Stanley said he had enlisted her son on the previous Tuesday. Witness asked him if she could get him off. The corporal replied, “if you pay the smart money, 21s., he will be clear.” She paid the money, the other prisoner being present at the time, who stated that he was a constable, and demanded 5s. as his fare. Stanley said, “Don’t be hard; she is a poor woman; if she gives you 2s. I will you 1s.” Witness then gave Hart the 2s. claimed by him. Cross-examined by Mr. Ribton—Stanley also told me that he had come over to apprehend my son, who was a deserter. He said he was going to send the smart money to the regiment, to Capt. M‘Cullerne. He wished to receive the money in the presence of someone. He said Hart had come over with him to point out her son to him. Re-examined byMr. Rose—Stanley told me Hart was a constable. Godfrey Morley, constable of Brabourne, went on the 8th November to Mrs. Sachree’s bouse. She told him that her son had enlisted, but he could get him off by paying 21s. smart money. He saw the money paid by the prosecutrix. Cross-examined by Mr. Ribton—Stanley said he would not take the money excepting in the presence of constable, and asked me if I was a constable. The superintending constable of the Ashford division knew the prisoner Bart. He was not a constable. Mr. Ribton asked Mr. Rose to put in the statement made the prisoner Stanley when before the magistrates, it was most material for his defence. Mr. Rose declined to put in the statement. Mr. Ribton then appealed to the court to direct the prosecution to put in the statement in question. He pointed out the injustice of the learned counsel for the prosecution producing the statements of prisoners when it suited their purpose, butdeclining to do so when it told in favour of the accused. He quoted an instance of a recent occurrence the Central Criminal Court, when Mr. Justice Williams had suggested to Mr. Bodkin (who prosecuted) the propriety of putting in a prisoner’s statement, upon his (Mr. Ribton’s) application; and they all knew the effect of a suggestion from a Judge—it was a direction all but in form. Mr. Rose argued against such practice, and The Court declined to interfere with the discretion of counsel in the conducting of their cases. Mr. Ribton then contended that there was no false pretence proved, inasmuch as it had not been shown that no such practice existed, by which the prisoner was authorized in taking the money in question. He might believe he was empowered to do so. The Chairman said it was well known that the prisoner had no such authority. The money could only be paid in the presence of a magistrate. Mr. Ribton’s attention was then called to the terms of the Mutiny Act, after referring to which he proceeded to address the jury at considerable length in behalf of his client. The Chairman then summed up the case to the jury, in a very marked manner against the prisoner, observing that it was his (the chairman’s) opinion that he (the prisoner) knew perfectly well that he had no right whatever to take the money from the prosecutrix, and that was committing a fraud upon her. Mr. Ribton rose to protest against the chairman giving his impression to the jury. The Chairman immediately turned towards the counsel, and in a very excited manner said, “Sit down, Sir—don’t interrupt me.” Mr. Ribton essayed to reply, but The Chairman repeated his injunction, and after warmly commenting upon the treatment he had received at the hands of Mr. Ribton, again gave the jury his own impression of the case. The jury found the prisoners guilty. Hart was sentenced to 6 months’ hard labour, ana Stanley to 4 years’ penal servitude, having, been convicted several times previously.”

1856 – 8^th January – Extract from the South Eastern Gazette –“John Stanley, 30, corporal the Kent Militia Artillery, and Henry Hart,  charged with having unlawfully obtained under false pretences 23s., with intent to defraud Mary Sachree, at Brabourne. They were further charged with conspiring together to defraud the parties mentioned.—Mr. Rose was for the prosecutor, and Mr. Ribton for the prisoner Stanley.—Mary Sachree, wife of John Sachree, a labourer living at Bircholt, deposed that she had a son about 18 years of age. On the 8th November she was sent for to her sister’s, the Plough beer-house at Brabourne, where she saw the prisoners, when Stanley said he had enlisted her son the previous Tuesday; and on her asking she could get him off, he said she could if she paid the smart-money of 21s. to him. Hart was with him, and heard the conversation, and he stated that was a constable, and his fee was 3s. 6d. Stanley advised him not to be hard as she was a poor woman, and advised him to take only 2s. of her, and said he would give him 1s. She thereupon gave him 2s., and Stanley gave him 1s.—Crossexamined—Stanley said he had come to apprehend him as a deserter, and said he would rather receive the money in some one’s presence; Mr. Morley was present. He said he was going to send it to Captain M’Cullum, and that it would be sent back to Mr. Furlcy. He said he had come over to find out where her son lived, whom he intended to apprehend as a deserter.—Re-examined-She stated that when Hart was standing by Stanley said he was the constable Godfrey Morley, constable of Brabourne—Was’ present when the last witness paid 21s. to Stanley and 2s. to Hart, on the former stating that her son would be cleared if she paid that sum, and the latter representing himself as constable, and when he said his fee was 3s. 6d. Stanley told him he could take less. He heard Stanley say he would not take the money except the presence of “a constable, and asked witness if he was not one. Superintending constable Dewar, of Ashford, had known Hart from living about Ashford the past three years and stated that he was no constable. ‘ Mr. Ribton called for the statement made by prisoner before the committing magistrates, to which Mr. Rose objected, as, if admitted, a prisoner had only to trump up a defence to tell the jury. The Court thought they could not interfere as it was within the discretion of the prosecuting counsel. ‘ Mr. Ribton then submitted that there was no false pretence, therefore the charge was not borne out; his friend had not shown that the corporal had no authority to receive the money. Mr. Rose remarked that the pretence of Hart being a constable was false, and one of the counts was that they had conspired, which therefore was substantiated. Mr. Ribton asked how that conspiracy could be maintained, when there was no proof of fraud? The bench remarked that the Act gave power to magistrates to relieve persons enlisted on payment of the “smart” money but that the military authorities had no power to take that money without it being in the presence of the magistrates. Sir. Ribton argued to the contrary, and said it was for the prosecuting counsel to show that the military authorities were excluded from taking the money themselves. Where was the proof that the corporal in this case was not empowered by his Captain, to whom it was stated the money was going to be sent? The bench objecting to this construction, Mr. Ribton proceeded to address the jury, and urged very forcibly that there was conspiracy, and that the prisoners did not knowingly pretend that which was false and illegal, said that Stanley even refused to receive the money unless in the presence of a constable. The Chairman, in summing up, was interrupted by Mr. Ribton, who protested against the Chairman dictating to the jury, which led to a little ” scene.” That gentleman responded with some warmth, and stated that he was doing nothing of the kind—he was merely expressing an opinion, and he knew his duty perfectly well, without any unseemly interruption; and on Mr. Ribton again interposing, he ordered him to sit down. The Chairman remarked that he had hitherto, while presiding that Court, been treated with attention and kindness by the bar, to whom he had no hesitation in looking to set him right in the administration of the laws; and he thought the present interruption most unbecoming. Mr. Ribton said, the honourable gentleman seemed to mistake him, in supposing there was any want of proper respect on his part towards him. He at first interposed, thinking the Chairman should not seek to influence the minds of the jury; and when he told him (Mr. Ribton) to sit down, he thought it was not expressed in the most courteous manner. The Chairman having made another remark or two, proceeded to observe on the evidence, and pointed out that there could be no doubt that Hart did pretend that he was a constable, under which idea the woman paid the money ; and that whether Stanley was justified or not taking the ” smart money”— though he was not justified—he sanctioned the false pretence by appearing to persuade him not to be too hard on her, and to take 25s., offering himself to make it up another shilling, as his fee. The jury having returned verdict of Guilty; the Chairman expressed his perfect concurrence in it, and sentenced Hart to six months’ in the House of Correction. With Stanley, he observed, the case was very different—he had been five times before that dock, and had received one the heaviest imprisonments that Court was in the habit passing on convicted prisoners. There was very little hope that he would be deterred from continuing those practices which he had so long and unscrupulously carried on. The sentence upon him was that he be sent to penal servitude for four years. The prisoner with a smile and giving salute thanked the Chairman; and to someone in the body of the Court he said, on leaving the bar, I shall see you when I come back.”

1856 – 20^th January – Transferred to Millbank Prison and given the prison number 2121.His behaviour here was Good. He also made moderate progress at school and his prison trade was tailoring.

1856 – 9th August – John receives a visit from his wife.

1856 – 14^th April – Transferred to Portland Prison, his prisoner number is 6499. His behaviour here was Exemplary. He also made fair progress at school and his prison trade was quarrying.

1857 – 21^st September – Transferred to Dartmoor Prison. His behaviour here was Very Good.

1858 – 21^st April – Transferred to Chatham Prison, his prisoner number is 1733. His behaviour here was Exemplary. His progress trade was labouring.

1859 – 6^th May – Received at Woking Convict Invalid Prison. Prisoner Number 67.

He is described as having a fair complexion with light brown thin and curly hair, blue small eyes and his height is 5’9 and his body well made.He is further described having a light brown mole on the front of his left shoulder, several moles on his back, scars on the right side of his neck, low down. Further to this are two scars on his right leg from a musket shot, vaccination marks on his left arm and a scar on the left side corner of his mouth. In addition, he is noted as being Protestant. His next of kin is his wife, Jane Stanley, living at gravel walk, Ashford, Kent.

1859 – 31^stDecember – Released from Woking Convict Invalid Prison.

1861 – Census – John Stanley, a 39-year-old labourer, is listed as boarding with Susanna Wheeley, a married 23-year-old dressmaker, at Gravel Walk, Ashford, Kent.

1862 – 19^th February – He is committed to Maidstone Gaol.

1862 – 25^th February – Extract from the Kentish Gazette –“John Stanley, Stephen Penticost alias Spanker, John Kettle alias Bender. Richard Crothall, and John Hills, were charged with stealing and receiving a large silver table spoon. The first four prisoners are notorious bad characters. Their arrest is very creditable to the vigilance of Sergt. Dunk and P.C. Dunk, who having heard that they had been offering a spoon for sale at different places, traced and found the owner before he was aware of his loss. —The case was investigated at great length and resulted in Stanley being remanded until the following day, the other prisoners were committed for trial.—Richard Crothall was also charged with having stolen other silver spoons, which he had sold to Mr. Woodward at different times, and which had been given up by the latter to the police. No evidence as to ownership was offered with respect to sugar tongs and a spoon which the prisoner said had been given to him by his father; or with respect to six other spoons which he said had been given him by an uncle upon his marriage. This uncle said he could not remember the circumstance but it was possible he might have done so; and said that the prisoner knew very well he had stolen a figured silk waistcoat and a gold pin belonging to him. The prisoner was then remanded upon charge of stealing two table spoons then in the possession of Supt. Dewar… Richard Crothall was brought up on remand, charged with stealing two spoons. —Charles Crothall deposed : I am a private gentleman, and live at Ashford. The two silver table spoons produced are my property. I missed them the day after last Ashford Flower Show (July 17th). I bad seen them two or three days before on the table in my room. The prisoner, I am sorry to say, nephew of mine, and I had apartments at his father’s house at the time. He could go all over the house. The spoons were generally on chiffonier. My initials, “C.M.C.,” are on the spoons.—Mrs. Woodward deposed that the prisoner brought one of the spoons to her about July, and, as her husband was not at home, left it, and said he would call the following evening. She saw him sell the second spoon to her husband a few weeks afterwards. —Mr. Woodward: The heaviest of the two spoons was given to me by my wife, and the same or the following evening the prisoner came, and I weighed it, and paid him the full value of old silver. I believe I paid him 26s. or 27s. for the two. I had bought at different times six teaspoons and a pair of sugar tongs off the prisoner, for which I had paid him rather more than the value of old silver. The prisoner brought the second spoon some weeks after the first. It was on Saturday evening, and he said he wanted to have a spree the following day by cheap excursion to London. I kept both spoons till the end of Sept., when I sold them to Mr. Longhurst.—Clark Longhurst, grocer, Regent’s-place, Ashford, proved buying the spoons on Aug. 31; and Supt. Dewar receiving them from him. The prisoner, who had nothing say, was committed for trial on this charge also John Stanley was then brought up on remand. —William Hopkins deposed: I am bailiff under Mr. Eves, at Mersham. I have never seen the broken spoon produced before. I never found one in a drain at Mersham, or gave one to Hills.—William Buck, a man travelling with earthenware, was then sworn. He had said he saw Stanley with the bowl of a spoon in his hand at the New Inn, on Saturday; but seemed to have been dealing with it himself, and would know nothing about it.—Mrs. Vaughan was then again called, and deposed: I was in Mrs. Woodward’s back room last Thursday with her when Stanley came in. I saw the bowl of a spoon on the counter, and heard Mrs. Woodward say she had not money enough by her to buy it. After he was gone, she asked who he was, and I told her that was “Mr. Stanley”. Yesterday I failed to recognise him, as he had cap and coat on, and when he came into the shop he wore a waistcoat with fustian sleeves, and a round hat. (Stanley now wore a sleeve waistcoat.) I have known him by sight for three years. —The prisoner protested that the witnesses had sworn falsely.—Captain Groves said that by his own admission P. C. Dank it was clear the spoon had been in his possession, and it was his duty to commit him for trial upon the evidence which had been given.”

1862 – 28^th February – At the Kent Adjournment Quarter Sessions, John Stanley, a 28-year-old bricklayer who appears 33 years old, was convicted of stealing a silver spoon and was sentenced to 7 years penal servitude. He is described as having a scar from cut over each eye, a mark from a wound on the right side of his neck, a bitemark in the palm of his left hand, a mark from a cut on his upper lip and several moles on the back of his shoulders.

1862 – 4^th March –Extract from the Maidstone Journal and Kentish Advertiser – “Espinasse, Esq. WM. HILLS was charged with stealing a silver spoon, value 7s. 9d., the property of John Eves, of Ashford. grazier; and STEPHEN PENTECOST, alias SPANKER, RICHARD CROTHALL, STEPHEN KETTLE, and JOHN STANLEY with feloniously receiving the same. Mr. Russell appeared for the prosecution. Mary Ann Lockyer, washerwoman, proved washing the silver up after supper on the night of the 29^thJan., and that the spoon in question was there safe. Noticed the initials “A-F.” on the spoon as it lay on the plate basket. Prisoner was in the kitchen, and did not leave the house until ten minutes to twelve. Hugh Langley, New-street, Ashford, general dealer said that Hills told him he had spoons to sell, but witness did not buy old silver. Joseph Woodward, watchmaker, proved that Pentecost, on the 13th inst. offered the spoon in three pieces to him for sale, but declined to buy it because it was broken. On the 15th Crothall brought it again; and on being assured that it was not stolen weighed it and found it 1oz. I2dwts., and gave 7s. 9d., the regular price for old silver. Mrs. Woodward deposed that Stanley, on the 13th, came when her husband was out and offered two parts of the spoon, weighing 1oz. 3dwts., but she declined to buy it. Henry Foster, watchmaker, said Kettle brought the spoon to him; and on being asked where he got it from, replied that a young man that worked at Mr. Eves had found it in cleaning out a drain. The prisoners were all found Guilty. Crothall had pleaded guilty the day before to stealing spoon from his uncle, and was sentenced to twelve months’ imprisonment. Stanley pleaded guilty to a previous conviction, 1856 or obtaining money under false pretences, and was then sentenced to four years penal servitude, and had been in custody six times before. The sentence of the court now was—Hills, Pentecost, and Kettle, twelve months’ hard labour; Crothall, six months, to commence at the expiration of his former sentence; Stanley, Seven years penal servitude.”

1862 – 21^st July– Transferred to Millbank Prison and given the prison number 5085. His behaviour here is good. He makes no progress at school and has no prison trade. His next of kin is listed as his wife, Susan Stanley, living at gravel walk, Ashford, Kent.

1862 – 24^th July – Transferred to Pentonville Prison, his prisoner number is 920. His behaviour here was Very Good. He made little progress at school.

1863 – 6^th May–Transferred to Chatham Prison. He made little progress at school and his prison trade was as a labourer.

1863 – 8^th June – Transferred to Gibraltar, his prison number is 4255. His behaviour here was Latterly Very Good. He made tolerable progress at school and his prison trade is as a labourer.

1867 – 6^th December – Transferred to Millbank, arrived on ship called the “Thetis”.

1867 – 23^rd December – Discharged on license and his destination was Ashford in Kent.

1870 – 12^th May – John Stanley is buried in Ashford, Kent.