Part of the fun of researching fiction and non-fiction is that I end up stumbling down rabbit holes I never knew existed. This happened while I investigated the origin of the Dry Tree menhir’s name, which you can read about fully in The Dry Tree Menhir blog post.
The Dry Tree and the Hanging Post Story
The Dry Tree was in fact the name of a now lost timber pole once used as a navigation aid and meeting point on Goonhilly Downs. I also came across an article which claimed it had a darker use: as a hanging post.
The story about the highway robbery and murder in The Dry Tree Menhir is a good one. Certainly, one which travellers along that particular stretch of road might have told to frighten their companions. The moor here is so empty, it is not difficult to imagine the ghosts of the murdered and the murderer haunting the road.
But I have to question the tale. First, the article was published in 1896, yet the incident occurred at the beginning of the 19th century. Second, the few descriptions of the dry tree pole suggest it is a tall, straight piece of timber. Thirdly, the story of the vigilante officer armed to the teeth and dispensing justice without a judge or jury seems unlikely.
So I found a rabbit hole, and leapt in.
Tracing the Real Case
A newspaper article from 1953 gave me the bones of the true story of the Goonhilly murder, and a date: 12th August 1820. With this vital clue, I could track down the key details printed at the time of the event.
The attempted robbery on Goonhilly Downs
It was a moonless, starlit night. William and Jane Jose were riding home to their farm when they were stopped by a robber on the highway. ‘Stand, or I’ll blow your brains out,’ he threatened. William, protective of his wife, Jane, and with a reap hook to hand, tried to pass, but was halted when a second robber stepped onto the road. William tried to rush them, discovering the robbers were indeed armed with guns. One used their weapon to bash William’s horse in the head. Looking behind in hope of making an escape back to Helston, William saw a third robber approach Jane and beat her and her horse with a club, causing the horse to back into the third robber, who fell to the ground.
Seeing an opportunity, William advanced on the two armed robbers. They aimed their guns and threatened to shoot just as the third man recovered from his fall and struck William relentlessly. His skittish horse turned so it faced in the direction of Helston, and William galloped away, grabbing the bridle reins of his wife’s horse as they made their escape. William turned to see the flash of a gun, which sprayed its shot into them. William kept control of the horses and held onto his wife to stop her from falling from the saddle until they reached safety at Pelewin Gate.
William got off lightly with a broken nose and a wounded arm. His wife, Jane, had twenty-three pieces of shot extracted from her body, two of which could not be removed. At the hearing, William Jose would later give evidence, but his wife remained absent as her husband explained, ‘[she] is unable to leave home and will never be well again.’
The young robbers were unperturbed and carried on along the road in search of more travellers to prey upon.
The murder of William Hancock
William Hancock rode alone back to his Mullion farm after a day at Helston market. A group of youths stepped onto the road, brandishing muskets and a club.
‘Stand and deliver!’
Hancock tried to pass, only for the club to be brought down on his horse’s head, and the robber wielding it seized the bridle reins. Hancock’s horse reared and brought its hoof down on the robber’s foot. One of his companions fired his musket, and Hancock slumped from the saddle. The robbers jumped on him, kicking the mortally wounded man and went through his possessions, taking three shillings, a few pence, and the new hat he had brought in Helston that day.
The search for the Highway Robbers
The sound of gunshots and galloping riders did not go unnoticed by the locals. A few men went to investigate and found Hancock, still alive, and took him to an inn at Cury Cross. He died later of his injuries, but not before giving his account of what happened.
The following day, a band led by local carpenter, Hugh Johns, and headed by the young magistrate, Col. Passingham, went to Goonhilly Down, near the Dry Tree, to search the home of the Barnicoats, who lived only a quarter of a mile from where the robberies occurred.
John Thompson (17) was found approaching the house with a recently used gunlock on his person, which he tried to throw away before being apprehended. They also found a turn screw, a bag of mixed shot and some slugs. When asked what he was doing carrying this on a Sunday morning, John Thompson replied, ‘What is that to you, you d——— d———.’ (This is how it was written in the newspaper. You can probably guess what was actually said).
Hugh Johns found in Barnicoat’s outhouse a broken sneath (a lovely-sounding new word for me, which is the name of the wooden handle of a scythe) with white horse hairs caught in it, matching those of Jane Jose’s horse. John Barnicoat (24) also displayed a limp, and he and John Thompson were taken into custody.
Hugh Johns then searched the neighbouring Thompson’s home, and found two recently used guns without locks. Thomas Thompson (16) was also brought into custody. William (14), the third Thompson brother, and Thomas Daw (16), whom the Thompson brothers had tried to blame for the murder, avoided trial.
The Trial
John Barnicoat was better dressed than the others and firmly pleaded ‘not guilty’, as did Thomas Thompson. John Thompson said he was ‘guilty for being with them,’ until the Judge cautioned him that by pleading guilty, he would not avert the sentence of the law. To which John Thompson pleaded, ‘not guilty.’
William Jose said he was sure the man who struck him was Barnicoat, and that John Thompson was the first man who’d come out from the hedge with the gun. However, he could not be sure if the third man was Thomas Thompson.
Barnicoat hung his head and repeated his was innocent when questioned about the sneath. When questioned about his injured foot, Barnicoat explained he’d cut his ankle with a peat axe, and later, a horse had trodden on his toe while leading it to water. James Simmons was called as a witness to prove he was present when Barnicoat injured himself with the peat axe. William Stephenson (11) was also called to prove he was present when Barnicoat’s horse trod on his toe and that he went to bed in the same room as Barnicoat on the night the murder and robbery happened. However, after cross-examination, the child admitted Barnicoat’s sister and father told him what to say, but he said they desired him to tell the truth. The father and sister were also called in for questioning, saying Barnicoat was home that night, but there were conflicting statements in their accounts.
The Thompsons’ sister and father were also called, saying Thomas Thompson was at home and in bed that night. Of John, they said nothing.
The verdict
After the ten-hour trial, the jury deliberated for half an hour. Thomas Thompson was acquitted due to a lack of evidence. John Thompson and John Barnicoat were both found guilty and sentenced to death. Both men were emotionless when the verdict was given. Although this would not last for John Thompson.
The execution at Launceston
Right until the end, Barnicoat continued to assert his innocence. But he could find no fault in the jury and faced his fate bravely. Had he been in their position and presented with the same evidence, he said he would have come to their same conclusion.
In comparison, the fear of his inexorable execution overwhelmed John Thompson. His fears grew until he was so weak, he was given wine every two hours to restore him. Thompson craved any conversation as a means to claw his thoughts away from his fate.
The night before, the chaplain, Rev. Fryer, administered the sacrament to Barnicoat, but thought it proper not to perform the rite on Thompson, due to his mental state.
At nine-thirty the following morning, the two young men were led onto Launceston’s castle green. Barnicoat stood on the platform, while Thompson was given a chair to sit on.
The chaplain asked Barnicoat if he still persisted in declaring his innocence. Barnicoat replied in earnest that he did, and that he was home that night and knew no more about the murder of Hancock and the attack on the Jose’s than did a child unborn. Barnicoat appealed to Thompson, for they would suffer their fate together.
John Thompson declared that Barnicoat spoke truthfully. That the persons concerned were himself, his brothers, William and Thomas, and Thomas Daw. John admitted he was the one who carried the club and beat Hancock, but not with the sneath they found, but with a pike. Thomas Daw was the one who shot both Hancock and Jane Jose.
The chaplain performed the final prayers. Barnicoat made the signal he had previously agreed on, and he and Thompson were ‘launched into eternity’.
Was John Barnicoat innocent?
It is said Hugh Johns and others often told this story as a warning to over-impetuous youths. As I have discovered, alternative versions of the story have morphed over time. But if John Thompson’s last words are to be believed, it makes for a sad case. Two innocents dead, another with life-changing injuries. One teenager was charged and executed, and three culprits were allowed to go free.
References:
- Royal Cornwall Gazette 24/03/1821
- West Briton and Cornwall Advertiser 30/03/1821
- West Briton and Cornwall Advertiser 06/04/1821
- Royal Cornwall Gazette 07/04/1821
- West Briton and Cornwall Advertiser 09/04/1821
- The Goonhilly Murder – The Cornish Post and Mining News 13/08/1896
- Murder in Meneage: An August Crime of 130 Years Ago – West Briton and Cornwall Advertiser 17/08/1953