Charles Benjamin Backhouse

Charles Benjamin Backhouse and his brother Frederick Lawder Backhouse were convicted of the murder of John William Kew and sentenced to death. Charles Backhouse was executed but Frederick Backhouse was reprieved because he was only 17. John Kew had been a police constable. Charles Backhouse and Frederick Backhouse had a reputation for violence and Frederick Backhouse was served a summons by John Kew for an assault on his brother's wife. However, he didn't show up for court and was fined 40/- in his absence. Later Charles Backhouse brought a revolver with nine cartridges and were seen to be using it to threaten people around Piccadilly. When John Kew heard about this he went to investigate and when he saw the brothers leaving Piccadilly he attempted to search them for the gun. When John Kew approached them and told them that it was his duty to search them, Charles Backhouse who had the gun stepped back and pulled it out and shot John Kew in the stomach. However, John Kew still managed to grapple Charles Backhouse who then placed both his hands behind his back whilst still holding the gun and Frederick Backhouse then took the gun and shouted, 'Here's another for you', and shot John Kew again. John Kew was taken to his house which was nearby but later died. Charles Backhouse and Frederick Backhouse had been miners and had lived at 75 Piccadilly. John Kew had lived at 68 Piccadilly. It was said that the primary cause for the grudge against John Kew was that Frederick Backhouse had been summoned and fined and that it was John Kew that had served the summons. The summons had been carried out on 9 July 1900 and it was heard that Charles Backhouse and Frederick Backhouse had been acting in a curious manner and had been away from home together from 7 to 10 July 1900. On 10 July Charles Backhouse bought a revolver at 6pm from an ironmonger at 108 Broad Street in Parkgate. The ironmonger said that Charles Backhouse came into his shop and asked whether he kept revolvers and that he replied, 'Yes', and went to look. He said that he found two and showed them to Charles Backhouse who chose the larger of the two for 10/- including nine cartridges. The ironmonger said that when he was wrapping it up for him that he asked him whether he was after some cats and Charles Backhouse smiled and said no. The ironmonger later identified the revolver as the one that he had sold him. It was noted that the ironmongers was about three miles from Swinton. A miner that lived at 14 Piccadilly in Swinton said that on 10 July 1900 between 10 and 11pm he had been in the High House Hotel in Swinton and that Charles Backhouse and Frederick Backhouse were there and that he had heard Charles Backhouse saying that they had been to Rotherham, Parkgate and Cudworth, it being noted that Rotherham and Parkgate were in the same direction, whilst Cudworth was in another direction. He said that they said that they were going into the fields that night but that he tried to persuade them to go home but that Charles Backhouse told him that neither man nor woman would alter him off his mind, noting that Charles Backhouse had not been far away and would have heard that. He said that Charles Backhouse then put his left hand to his coat pocket and showed him a gun and said, 'Death and Glory', and that Frederick Backhouse said something about a fine at Rotherham, but that he didn't know particularly what. He said that he then left at about closing time and that he saw John Kew outside in the cart way and made a complaint to him about Charles Backhouse having the gun. The miner noted that it was not the habit of people there to sleep in the fields, noting that to get to the fields from the public house that they would have to go to the corner of Back Row and then keep to the left. He added that Charles Backhouse and Frederick Backhouse had left the public house before him and that when he went out he saw them with John Kew all together but that he only told John Kew about the gun after they left, saying that he thought that it was right to do so. It was later noted that if Charles Backhouse and Frederick Backhouse had had any prior intention to murder John Kew that they might well have been expected to have done it then. A bricklayer that had also been in the High House from about 7.15pm said that Charles Backhouse and Frederick Backhouse came in between 9.30pm and 10pm at which time they were sober as far as he could see. He said that they remained until turning out time and that he turned out with them and that they all went to their brother-in-law’s home at 74 Piccadilly where he lodged . He said that they were sober as far as he could see and said that Charles Backhouse pulled out a revolver from his pocket and said, 'Not tonight, but in the morning', and put his finger to his temple in a gun like fashion as though shooting himself, and stated that the revolver was six chambered and fully loaded and that when they were done that he had got some more. He said that they added that they were going to the fields that night. He said that they then went out after ten minutes and so did he but that he didn't know where they went but said that he returned about five minutes later and that they followed him in. He said that they were then there for about five to ten minutes and then a woman there said something that he didn't hear and that Frederick Backhouse said to her, 'if you don't mind I shall do for you', and that he told him that he wasn’t to let the gun off in there. He said that he then left with their brother-in-law and that about five minutes later he heard a shot. He said that he then went out by his back door and ran round to where he had heard the shot which was outside 79 Piccadilly and saw Charles Backhouse and John Kew, with John Kew holding Charles Backhouse by the coat in front of him. He said that John Kew then said, 'You've shot me Charles. What have you done this for, I have done you no harm', but that Charles Backhouse replied, 'I have not'. He said that Charles Backhouse's hands were behind him and that he saw him pass the revolver to Frederick Backhouse who took it out of his hands and say, 'I've one for thee thou bugger', and then brought the gun up level with his hip and aimed at John Kew, stepping about a yard nearer to aim, and then fired, shooting John Kew in the hip. It was noted that it was the shot that Charles Backhouse fired that killed John Kew. The bricklayer said that he then helped John Kew to his home, noting that he was still holding Charles Backhouse. He noted that it had been a moonlight night and said that it didn't strike him as odd that they should have talked about the fields, noting that they had been away from home since the Saturday. He added that he was sure that Charles Backhouse was going to destroy himself, stating that he could see quite clearly and that he was quite certain of that. He noted that on the way that Charles Backhouse said, 'I shall not harm the wife or child'. A coal miner that lived at 74 Piccadilly next door to Charles Backhouse and Frederick Backhouse said that he had been in the High House public house on 10 July 1900 at about 10pm and that Charles Backhouse and Frederick Backhouse were both there and quite sober. He said that he went home at about 10.45pm and that about half-an-hour later Charles Backhouse and Frederick Backhouse and their brother-in-law came in and that a woman there complained to Frederick Backhouse about him touching her herb beer and that Frederick Backhouse then said to her, 'Ain't I as good as you?' to which the woman replied, 'No, you're not'. He said that Frederick Backhouse then said, 'If you don't mind I shall do for you', but that he made no attempt. He said that Charles Backhouse then said, 'Let’s go out' and that Charles Backhouse and Frederick Backhouse left the house. However, he said that they came back about five minutes later and then went back out again, noting that he was persuading them to go home, noting that they went out by the back door and along to Back Row and stood there talking by No 77 Piccadilly. However, he said that John Kew then came along and said to both Charles Backhouse and Frederick Backhouse, 'I am entitled to search you both Charles and Fred', and that he put up his left hand to catch hold of Charles Backhouse but that Charles Backhouse stepped back two paces and took out the revolver from his right hand pocket and fired. He said that John Kew then put his hands to the lower part of his body and bent forward and said, 'What have you shot me for Charles, I have done you no harm'. He said that John Kew didn't take hold of Charles Backhouse and that when Charles Backhouse fired that there had been two paces between them and that it was all done in a moment and that he heard no angry language. The coal miner said that he was frightened and ran home. Another miner that had lived at 79 Piccadilly, said that he had been in the street at about midnight on 10 July 1900 when, in consequence of something he heard, he went to John Kew’s house and saw him laid on the sofa and Charles Backhouse sat at the foot. He said that John Kew said to him, 'Oh, I am shot', and that he replied, 'Nay, never', and that John Kay said, 'Oh yes I am and Charles has done it', but said that Charles Backhouse said, 'No I have not'. He said that John Kew then said, 'Don't let him go' and that he replied, ‘No, I won't'. He said that he then went out at the back door and round to the front and saw Frederick Backhouse looking through the window or listening at it and that he went up to him and told him to go into the house, but that Frederick Backhouse replied, 'No I shan’t, if the b----r likes he can come and fetch me', to which the miner said, 'You know he can't because you've shot him and Charlie says it was not him'. He said that Frederick Backhouse then said, 'It was both of us'. He said that he kept Frederick Backhouse there until another policeman arrived and that he said to the policeman, 'This is your man, he shot Kew and the other man is inside'. The policeman that arrived stated that John Kew had lived at 68 Piccadilly and was the only constable stationed there. He said that when he arrived at his house on the night that there was a crowd there and someone warned him that Frederick Backhouse had a revolver on him. He said that he then seized Frederick Backhouse and with his left hand seized Frederick Backhouse's right hand and drew it out of his pocket, noting that the revolver was in it and that he took it. He said that he then left him and went into John Kew's house and apprehended Charles Backhouse and that Frederick Backhouse was then brought in . He said that John Kew was at the time on the sofa. He said that he then asked how it had happened and who had shot him and that John Kew said, 'It's Charlie that has shot me', noting that Charles Backhouse made no reply. He said that Frederick Backhouse then said, 'You may as well tell the truth. I shot him as well’. The policeman said that he then examined the revolver and found that five chambers were loaded and that in one there was a spend cartridge. He said that Charles Backhouse and Frederick Backhouse were then taken away. He said that he then searched the road and about ten yards from where he took Frederick Backhouse near No 69, that he found an empty cartridge which was like the others. The house surgeon at the hospital said that John Kew was admitted at about 12.20pm on 12 July 1900, at which time he was perfectly unconscious and that he remained there until 2.10pm when he died. He said that he had two wounds: A wound to the abdomen that had penetrated the abdominal wall and penetrated his intestine in three places. He noted that there were no other injuries to the bowels and that he could not find the bullet. A wound to the right hip which he tracked for six inches downwards behind the bone. He noted that he could not find the bullet and that the track was near no vital part. He stated that his cause of death was due to septic peritonitis due to the first wound. He noted that the second wound might have caused shock, but that if it had been the only wound that he might have lived. He added that he thought that a bullet would have caused the wounds and that John Kew was otherwise a thoroughly healthy man. However, he noted that John Kew would have died even if the second wound had not been inflicted, and that he thought that the shot must have been fired at something under six yards. Following the inquest, Frederick Backhouse said, 'Yes, we did it but we were drunk at the time', to which Charles Backhouse said, 'Yes'. It was noted that it had been John Kew's duty to serve all the summonses in the Piccadilly district and that the summons was served at Rotherham on 9 July 1900 and bore John Kew’s endorsement, signed 5 July 1900. It was noted that Frederick Backhouse was fined £10 and 12/- costs or in default one month imprisonment, and John Kew would have had to execute the warrant if the fine was not paid. At the trial the defence stated that the design was to commit suicide and that the revolver had been fired at John Kew accidently. The defence said that if Frederick Backhouse had been charged alone, that he would say with confidence that there was no case to go to the jury, stating that he did not aid and abet his brother. As such, he said that the question was whether the act of Charles Backhouse amounted to murder. He said that there was no evidence showing that the brothers had entertained any ill-will towards John Kew and that the evidence in the way that Charles Backhouse had acted showed that he was not in his normal frame of mind. He said that the fact that he was seen to put his hand to his temple indicated that he meant self-destruction and that his conduct during the evening pointed to suicide. He said that if there had been any intention to shoot John Kew, then why didn't they go to his house. The defence stated that not only did they not do that, but they had walked off in the other direction, towards the place where they said they were going for the night, the fields. The defence then stated that when they met John Kew, that the whole of the evidence with regards to what took place at the shooting rested on the statement of their brother-in-law, the coal miner. The defence then asked the jury to say that it was not a deliberate act, but that Charles Backhouse, whilst in an excited frame of mind, had plunged his hand into his pocket and, desiring to get rid of the revolver, had pulled it out and that it had exploded accidently, adding that there was no evidence of any brutal expression on the part of Charles Backhouse although there was evidence of a menacing expression on the part of Frederick Backhouse. However, he said that they could not use the evidence of Frederick Backhouse using a menacing expression against his brother. The defence noted that there had been a summons that had resulted in Frederick Backhouse being fined, but said that that afforded no evidence of malice. He added that the medical evidence showed that the shot was fired at close quarters which pointed to the conclusion that it was not a deliberate shot and noted that when Charles Backhouse was first accused of shooting John Kew that he said, 'I did not', meaning by that hat he accidentally did it, and had no intention of inflicting a fatal wound. When the judge summed up he told the jury that if two men went out together with a common design to murder a person, or if not to deliberately murder him, to use upon him a fatal weapon in such a way as it caused death, and one of them fired the shot, that the other who was with him was equally guilty. He said that the case was short and presented various possibilities, but that he did not regard it possible, upon the evidence, that they could think that there was no common design between them. The judge then noted that it had been suggested that the common design was not that of murder, but one of quite a different character, and that the firing of the first shot was accidental, and that if that were accepted that the matter would result in an acquittal. The judge added that if the intention to shoot John Kew was made at the moment the revolver was discharged, that it could not be called accidental, any more than it could if the intention was formed weeks before. The judge added that if it had been accidental, then could what had occurred after have happened? He said that if it were accidental, then why did Charles Backhouse not say so and then say, 'Here is the pistol', stating that that would have been the more probable action on the part of a man that had fired accidently. He then noted that when Frederick Backhouse fired at John Kew that he used an expression that showed that he intended to, and asked whether they could reconcile that expression with the suggestion that the first shot had been accidental? However, they were both convicted of murder and sentenced to death although Frederick Backhouse was recommended to mercy. However, although they were both charged with murder and nothing more and it was reported that they were both convicted of murder and sentenced to death, the formal verdicts of the jury were that Charles Backhouse was guilty of murder whilst Frederick Backhouse was guilty of aiding and abetting. When the judge questioned whether that meant that Frederick Backhouse aided and abetted in the crime or whether he consented after the fact, or whether he was an accessory before the fact, the foreman of the jury said that that was the meaning of it, that being that he was a party to it before and at the time the murder was committed and the judge said, 'For today that means a verdict of guilty against both prisoners', after which he passed sentence of death on them both. The police report that followed stated that although there was no doubt as to the facts that took place at and immediately before the murder, that there was much obscurity regarding the facts that led up to the crime. It stated that it didn't appear to be clearly proved that there was a premeditated plot or combination to injure John Kew, stating that the fact that John Kew had served the summons on Frederick Backhouse and would have been the officer to enforce the order of the court had anything to do with the crime was only a matter of conjecture that was more or less probable. The report stated further that as the offence that Frederick Backhouse was summonsed for was an assault against his brother's wife, that it was difficult to see why Charles Backhouse should on that account conceive of taking vengeance on John Kew. It was further stated that the same could be said for the purchase of the revolver. It was added that there was nothing that could be seen in the conduct of Frederick Backhouse and Charles Backhouse after leaving the High House Hotel and at their brother-in-law's that pointed to any specific malice against John Kew, and in fact, rather the contrary, as there was a good deal of talk of 'Not tonight' etc, and Frederick Backhouse's threat of 'Death or Glory', but nothing at all to throw light on any intention to injure John Kew. It was further noted that in fact, Frederick Backhouse and Charles Backhouse had been seen standing outside the public house after turning out time with John Kew and that if they had therefore had any intention to injure John Kew at that time that one would have expected that something would have happened then when they met. It was noted that later, when Frederick Backhouse and Charles Backhouse had gone to the brother-in-law's house that the women there had twice been frightened, first by Frederick Backhouse's threat, and then by the discovery that Charles Backhouse had a revolver in his pocket, and that one of the women had rushed off twice to find John Kew, whose house was close by, first to get protection for the woman that Frederick Backhouse had threatened, and on the second time when she discovered that Charles Backhouse had the revolver. As such, it was noted that it was not until John Kew came up and tried to search both brothers, presumably for the revolver, that there was any definite evidence of an intention to injure him. As such, the police report stated that they did not think that it was safe to treat the case upon the footing that there was, previously to the attempt to search, any intention on the part of both or either of the brothers, to injure John Kew, and that in fact, the evidence on the whole seemed to point rather to the contrary inference. The police report stated that, as such, although it didn't affect the propriety of the verdict, that it did materially affect the gravity of the crime, especially as far as regards Frederick Backhouse. The report stated that the fact that Charles Backhouse, having the revolver in his pocket had used it with fatal effect when John Kew attempted to search him, without any previous intention to do so, the murder, though bad, was not so bad as if the revolver had been purchased for the purpose and a definite design formed. However, the police report further noted that at no point in the trial was the point made as to whether or not John Kew had had the right to search the brothers, presumably to take away a dangerous weapon and the police report stated that they felt that that point should be further considered. It was noted that in the booklet, 'Instructions to Constables', issued 22 November 1839 and reprinted on 25 October 1892, that there were instructions that referred to the searching of a person who had been arrested, but that no definite authority could be found in support of John Kew's statement, 'I am entitled to search you'. It was noted that the first duty of a constable was always to prevent the commission of a crime, and that as such he could arrest anyone who he had just cause to suspect to be about to commit a felony. It was further noted that he had a duty to arrest anyone armed with an offensive weapon, or having with him an offensive weapon, or having with him any instrument with intent to commit a felony. It was noted that in this case that threatening language had been used and that Charles Backhouse had been in possession of a newly purchased revolver for which he had no legitimate use, it being noted that the woman had been frightened by it and told John Kew and that John Kew had then taken a reasonable view in thinking that he was entitled to search the brothers. It was noted that Russel (On Crimes - I 977) stated, 'Constables are invested with the large powers and extensive authority at common law, for the purpose of preserving the peace and preventing the commission of crimes and misdemeanours'. As such it was stated that the case seemed to be quite different from other cases that had arisen through attempts to search poachers, in that John Kew had reasonable grounds for thinking that there was a felony about to be committed. A list of other cases in which it had been held that killing a constable was manslaughter because of the illegitimacy of the authority, were noted as being set forth in Archibald’s 'Criminal Authority', 21st edition, p 736. Sections underlined from the 'Instructions to Constables' booklet, 1892 included: But the first duty of a constable is always to prevent the commission of a crime. The constable may arrest one whom he has just cause to suspect to be about to commit a felony. Thus, when a drunken person, or a man in a violent passion, threatens the life of another, the constable should interfere and arrest. He should arrest any person having in his possession any picklock key, crow, jack, bit, or other implement with intent feloniously to break into any dwelling house, warehouse, coach-house, stable, or outbuilding, or any person armed with a gun, pistol, hanger, cutlas, bludgeon, or offensive weapon, or having upon him any instrument with intent to commit any felonious act. Generally, if the arrest was made discretely and fairly, in pursuit of an offender, and not from any private malice or ill-will, the constable need not doubt that the law will protect him. However, the police report stated that apart from that final consideration regarding John Kew’s authority to search, that they felt that Charles Backhouse was undoubtedly properly convicted of murder, whether or not there was any previous concert or intention, as he had fired at a vital part. The report added that in order to justify the verdict against Frederick Backhouse, that it had to be shown that he was responsible for Charles Backhouse's act, noting that the shot that he fired himself was only important as regards to the case so far as it afforded evidence that he had aided and abetted Charles Backhouse’s act, and that it seemed to be that on that ground that the jury were justified in finding the verdict that they did. However, it was stated that it did not prove that the crime was premeditated or planned in concert and seemed on the whole that were was a strong case for clemency so far as Frederick Backhouse was concerned. They were convicted on 28 July 1900 and Charles Backhouse was executed at Leeds by James Billington on 16 August 1900. Frederick Backhouse was later released from HM Prison Maidstone on 23 July 1915 on licence but was later lost sight of. In September 2023 a memorial to John Kew was unveiled in Swinton. xxx1xxx