THE EXECUTION OF JARVEY FOR THE MURDER OF HIS WIFE.

Hawke's Bay Times, Volume 6, Issue 322, 9 November 1865, Page 1

THE EXECUTION OF JARVEY FOR THE MURDER OF HIS WIFE.

By the arrival of the s.s. Queen on Monday morning last, we received intelligence of the execution of William Andrew Jarvey for the murder of his wife Catherine Jarvey. He was hung on the morning of Tuesday, 24th October, and it would appear died without confession. We now append the following particulars of what followed the solemn event taken from the Daily Times of the 25th ult.:— At a quarter after twelve o’clock the body was cut down, and was placed in one of the out-houses. What had appeared strongly probable was then made apparent; the death of the convict—or rather, perhaps, the total destruction of sensation —must have been instantaneous. The fall allowed by the rope was fully six feet; and the dislocation of the vertebrae of the neck was frightfully complete. It may safely be said that never did the countenance of an executed criminal look more placid than did Jarvey’s, as the corpse lay stretched in the out-house ; such perfect composure of the features is, indeed, rare in cases even of natural death. There was not a trace of distortion in any feature, nor any sign of mental anguish or bodily pain. The mouth was closed firmly, but without anything like compression of the lips. The appearance of the face caused comment on the part of all who looked upon it; and there were those whose curiosity was sufficiently morbid to cause them to seek orders from Magistrates, who are, by the Act, authorised to give documents entitling the holders to a view of the corpse of any murderer. THE INQUEST. At three o’clock an inquest on the body w T as held by Mr T. M. Hocken, coroner, within the Debtors’ part of the prison. After having been sworn, the jurors viewed the body as it lay iu the out-house. The Coroner said that the case which the jury had to investigate was one of what the law called justifiable homicide—the killing being proper and according to law. The law required, in the first place, that there should be a legal record of a criminal execution ; and, in the second place, it required that there should be proof that the execution had been performed by the proper officer, or by his legal deputy. Cases had been known in which an execution had been performed by persons not legally appointed or deputed; and in that event the law considered an execution a murder.

Robert Henry Forman : lam Sheriff of the province and district of Otago. On Saturday, the 21st October, about a quarter before twelve o’clock, noon, I received from the chief-clerk in the Postmaster’s Department, Dunedin, a warrant signed “G. Grey,” and countersigned, “Henry Sewell.” It informed me that, in the case of the now deceased William Andrew Jarvey, the Governor saw no reason for preventing the law taking its course, by the execution of the sentence passed upon Jarvey. I produce the warrant. By an Act of the General Assembly, entitled ‘The Supreme Court Act, 1860,’ sec. 8, it is enacted that it shall be the duty of the Sheriff, within 3 days after receiving notice that the Governor will not interfere with a sentence of death, to proceed to carry it out. In pursuance of that enactment, I, by virtue of powers vested in me, appointed, by letter of attorney, a person to be my deputy in carrying out the sentence of death passed on William Andrew Jarvey. I was present to-day, and saw the same carried out, in due course of law, within the gaol at Dunedin. The prisoner had been sentenced to death by Christopher William Richmond, Esq., one of the judges of the Supreme Court of New Zealand, at the Criminal Sittings of that Court, held at Dunedin, on the 11th and subsequent days of September last.

The Coroner read to the Jury the warrant and the Bth sec. of the Supreme Court Act. Edward Hulme: lam Provincial Surgeon, and also Medical Officer of this gaol. I knew the deceased, William Andrew Jarvey. I was present in this gaol this morning at a quarter after eleven o’clock, when I saw Jarvey hanged by the neck until he was dead. I recognise the body now lying in the out-house as that of William Andrew Jarvey. The jury returned a verdict declaring that Jarvey had been hanged in due coarse of law.

William Andrew Jarvey was the first criminal executed in the Province of Otago; and we believe that only one or two executions had previously taken place in any other of the Provinces of the Middle Island.

Until after the execution had taken place, we were not aware that, during Monday, the Rev. Mr Meiklejohn had not known Jarvey but, simply impelled by a sense of duty, he sought an interview with him on Monday afternoon. His name and desire were communicated to Jarvey, who at once said he should be glad to see Mr Meiklejohn. The interview was a tolerably lengthy one. As soon as he could do so, Mr Meiklejohn approached the question of the convict’s guilt; but he was met with, “ Now, do not disturb me. lam at present in a calm state of mind; and as Ihave to see my daughter, I do not wish to be at all excited.” But Mr Meiklejohn again recurred to the point, after the lapse of a short time; and then the convict said, “ I do not see what good a confession could te now. Any confession I made would only implicate others.” The first sentence is, certainly, the strongest of which we have heard from, the convict, as telling against himself. As to “ implicating others,” we presume that there is not one person who has read the evidence against the convict, who would for an instant attach to such a thing the slightest shadow of credence : but we have heard from different sources that the convict has on several occasions, made remarks of a like tendency. When he had used the words to Mr Meiklejohn, the convict became reserved : he would not again refer to the subject. In the evening, Mr Meiklejohn (by the convict’s request) again visited him ; but he was then somewhat sullen and irritable and would not listen to a word as to his being guilty. During yesterday forenoon, some 50 or 60 persons gathered in knots round the entrances to the gaol, and there were a good many applicants for admission who were refused. Only those were admitted who had a right to be present officially, or who held one of the ten orders which the sheriff is by law allowed to issue. Those who remained outside could see nothing. The arrangements within the gaol w r ere simple, but sufficient, and were well carried out, w'hether they appertained to the duties of the sheriff or the gaoler. After the execution, a person who was stated to represent the proprietress of a Melbourne wax-work exhibition, was allowed to take a cast of the convict’s face and head; and a local “ professor” of phrenology was also permitted to make an examination.

From reasons which we stated yesterday, the permission obtained from the Governor to bury the body elsewhere than within the gaol, cannot be carried out; and the interment will take place to-day, in the gaol precincts.