JOLIN The Trial and Execution of Philippe George Jolin - 1829 by Ann Parnell |
The murdered man turned out to have been Philippe Jolin, who was baptised 18th March 1778 in St. Helier. He was the younger brother of Daniel Jolin, my great-great-great-grandfather, their parents being Jacque Jolin, baptised 19th November 1740 in St Helier, and Anne Le Bailly, a Huguenot 'refugiere' born in 1735. 'Our' Francis was Francois, a son of Daniel above and Jeanne Moutier, baptised 12th September 1810 in St. Helier, thus he was a nephew of the murdered man.
Philippe married Elizabeth Betsy Turner and had two children both baptised in St. Helier: Philippe George, baptised 5th February 1808, and Betsy Mary, baptised 20th January 1812, but who died in infancy. Philippe, snr, was a blacksmith, but his son had gone away to sea and been a crew member of the brig 'Pelican' at age 15. At the time of the incident, Philippe, jnr, was due to begin work at the shop of Philippe Binet.
The trial - Monday, 28th September,
1829
The trial of Philippe Jolin, jnr, took place at the Royal Court
before a Grand Jury. The Court assembled at 10.15 am and present
were the Bailiff and the Jurats, whose names were:
St Ouen | Rozel | De Carteret | Bertram |
Pipon | Poingdestre | Nicolle | De Veulle |
Benest | De Ste Croix | D'Auvergne |
After the prinsoner had been brought in, the Greffier read out the accusation whereby Philippe Jolin was accused by HM Attorney General of the crime of parricide and murder of Philippe Jolin his father, during the day of 7th September 1829, by throwing a piece of brick which stuck his head.
Thy jury, composed of eight principals of each of the parishes of St. Helier, St Saviour and St Laurens, was then summoned. The names of the jury were.
FOR ST HELIER:
Messres: Philippe Le Vavasseur Dit Durell, Edouard Nicolle, Jean
Mathews, jnr, Clement de Quetteville, Edouard Marett, Daniel
Janvrin, Charles de la Garde, Jean Benest
FOR St SAVOUR:
Messres: Jean Pelque, James Hammond, Isaac Gosset, Abraham Aubin,
Jean Mourant, Jacques Perchard, Daniel le Geyt, Hean Perchard
FOR ST LAURENS:
Messrs: Jean Langlois, Francois Payn, Edouard-Lenhard Bisson, Tom
Dupre, Pierre Marett, Peirre Clement, James Luce, Jean Godfray.
After the Bailiff had administered the oath to
the jury, the Attorney General read out the report of Centenier
Nicolle of the parish of St. Helier:
"Monday, the 7th instant at about 4 o'clock in the afternoon
I was informed that Mr Philippe Jolin had died a short while
earlier from wounds and injuries inflicted by hi son, Philippe
Jolin, Jnr. The latter, having entered his father's house between
1 and 2 in the afternoon and left soon afterwards in a rather
brusque manner followed by the deceased who invited him to come
in; he declined the invitation to do so saying it might result in
either the father or the son killing the other. Shortly
afterwards (the father then being in the lane leading to his
home), the son returned carrying two bricks or pieces of brick
which he threw at his father one after the other, despict the
protests of a woman standing nearby. The dead man was struck on
thehead by the last missile and caused him grievious harm and to
fall to the ground, being unable to pick himself up. As a result
of the fatalilty, I deemed it my duty to arrest the said Philippe
Jolin, Junr, and to make this report."
WITNESSES FOR PROSECUTION
EDOUARD THOMPSON DICKSON, aged 37, surgeon, had
treated the deceased for several years for irregular attacks of
gout and had been called to attend the deceased following the
incident.
WILLIAM McDOUGAL, aged 40, surgeon in the Royal Navy,
had accompanied Dr. Dickson at the inquest. He confirmed that
cause of death was a ruptured blood vessel caused by a blow to
the head.
MARIE LE RICHE, aged 28 had witnessed the argument
between father and son, from a window at Philippe Nicolle's
house.
THOMAS BERTRAM, aged 15, had witnessed the argument and
had also seen the prisoner pick up a brick, break it in two and
throw a piece at his father.
JEANNE LE MAISTRE, wife of Philippe Aubin, age 20, had
spoken with the father after the argument at about 1.30 in the
afternoon and afterwards advised the prisoner not to throw the
brick.
EDOUARD LE FEUVRE, aged 28, a first cousin to the
prisoner, gave evidence about the prisoner being drunk in his
shop before and after the incident.
THOMAS THORNTON, aged 35, had been sitting at a window
of the house opposite to that of Jurat Nicolle and had witnessed
the prisoner fetching the pieces of brick and leaving afterwards
without them.
PHILIPPE WINTER NICOLLE,, aged 28, one of the Centeniers
of the parish of St. Helier, had been informed at about 4 in the
afternoon by Dr Dickson about the killing, He had shortly
afterwards met the prisoner at the quay, arrested him and taken
him to prison.
THOMAS HINCHCLIFFE, aged 35, had found the deceased
bleeding profusely on the ground and helped Jean Valpy to pick
him up and carry him home.
JAMES CLARK, a stone cutter employed in the workshop of
Thomas Hinchcliffe, helped to left the deceased.
WITNESSES FOR DEFENCE
PHILIPPE AUBIN, aged 32, said that in 1823 he
had been a crew member together with the prisoner on the brig
'Pelican.' He gave evidence of seeing theprisoner deranged on
board the ship.
PHILIPPE JEUNE, aged 32, had lodged in the
deceased's home for seven years, before leaving there five years
ago. He had often seen the prisoner deranged, and once had seen
him threatening with a gun, but added that he may have been
provoked by his father who had bad health because he drank too
much.
MARGUERITE COLLAS, wife of Huard, Age 60, a neighbour of
the deceased. A year ago she had answered the prinsoner's
mother's call for help and had found the father striking his son
with an iron bar. Often the prisoner had not been given food and
had asked witness for food.
PHILIPPE MANUEL, aged 37, captain of the 'Pelican' in
1823. Said that the prisoner had behaved properly on board. He
had seen marks and scars of beatings on the head of the accused,
had witnessed the prisoner being kicked by his father and about
14 months ago had seen the father attack his son with an iron
bar.
JOHN CUNNING, aged 39, crew member of the 'Pelican' in
1823, said the prisoner had been well-behaved and friendly with
all the crew.
PHILIPPE BINET, aged 42, said the prisoner had appeared
in his shop drunk before breakfast on the day of the killing, and
returned after lunch and wept after telling what he had done to
his father.
JOHN CASE, aged 45, blacksmith for the deceased, had
often seen the deceased beat his son with a hammer.
COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENCE
Advocate Hammond then spoke on Philippe Jolin's behalf
in an attempt to have him found guilty of the lesser charge of
manslaughter. He then defined the difference between murder and
manslaughter and went on to consider the character of the
prisoner and the extenuating circumstances. In particular he
mentioned an incident that took place on 7 January 1825 when the
prisoner, along with five other young men, risked death by
bravely setting out in a small boart to rescue survivors from the
cutter 'Fanny' which had been fatally shipwrecked on the
"Les Buits" rocks near Elizabeth Castle, whilst coming
from St Malo under Captain Destauches. These young men were later
commended for bravery on 2 May 1825 by the Greffier.
He then spoke about the brick throwing incident in detail, maintaining that it had happened on impulse and without premeditation. He mentioned the fact that the prisoner had wept and said that he was sorry afterwords and insisted that the attack had been committed in self-defence following the quarrel. He then quoted other cases of manslaughter insupport of his argument.
SPEECH FOR THE PROSECUTION
HM Attorney General addressed the Court. He outlined the
details of the incident and played down the defence's previous
remarks about provovation, suggesting that the evidence about
violence and butality at home had been exaggerated. he said that
there was doubt as to whether the prisoner had been drunk when he
threw the brick, but in any case he thought the prisoner had
known what he was doing. He dismissed the manslaughter cases
cited by the defence as irrelevant because in those cases the
actions had been committed immediately on being provoked, and
provovation was not proved in this case. Also, acts between
strangers were different than similar acts between father and
son. He finished by saying: "A son must respect the
authority of a father, even a blow cannot be considered as
sufficient provocation for a son to engage in reprisals
especially when the father is aged, feeble and in bad
health".
The Bailiff then briefly addressed the jury and gave his opinion that: "it seems to me that the indictment has been proved by the evidence and that the prisoner is guilty". The jury retired for 55 minutes to consider the verdict, and when the Bailiff asked the foreman of the jury, Mr Durell, for the result, he replied: "The unanimous opinion of the jury is that Philippe Join, the prisoner at the bar, is moreso guilty than innocent of the crime of which he is indicted."
The counsel for the defence then addressed the Court on behalf of the prisoner. He mentioned the prisoner's young age, read again the Act of the States praising Jolin's bravery in 1825, cited other cases in support of his plea, and finally, he read out a note written by the prisoner. In this note Philippe Jolin was remourseful and said that he should have left home and never returned, thus avoiding being made a scapegoat for his parents' quarrels and witnesing the bad example of habitual drunkenss. Visits from the clergy during his imprisonment had made hime appreciate his duty towards God and mankind and he was not ready to accept the Court's judgement without a murmer.
SENTENCE OF DEATH
The Bailiff pronounced sentence: the prisoner was to be
delivered into the hands of the public executioner, taken to the
place of execution and hanged and strngled until death, and all
his effects to be confiscated.
PHILIPPE JOLIN'S LAST DAYS
During his detention before the trail both friends and
relatives visited him and were said to have found him sad and
depressed. He spoke of the killing to Nicolas Babot, son of the
turnkey. The first clergyman to visit was the Revd. Falle,
followed by Revd. M. Hall and Revd. M Perrot. The chaplains of
the Bishop of Winchester, the Revds. Filleul, Hornsby, Durell,
Cunningham and Gallichan, also in turn visited him and prayed for
him. These visits by the clergy appeared to comfort Philippe and
by the day of his trial he had become calm and composed and
resigned to his fate. During the week before the execution he
asked to see some members of his family and spoke to them about
the Bible and read hymns. The day before Philippe's execution the
Dean and other clergyman visited him and administered Holy
COmmunion. The Revd. M. Gallicahn remained with him overnight.
THE EXECUTION - SATURDAY 3rd October
1829
The Deputy-Viscount and
Denunciators Aubin and Godfray went to the prison at about 12.15.
The Revds. Gallichan and Hall appeared with the prisoner, who
appeared serene. At 1.15, escorted by about 200 halberdiers, they
left the prison and walked to Gallows Hi,, (Mont
Patibulaire/Westmount), followed by a large crowd. Philippe
Jolin's hanging was watched by a crowd estimated at being over
6,000 strong. He had first made a speech in a firm voice which
included a reading from the Bible and a plea to the crowd for
families to be tolerant of each other and to make efforts to
learn their duty towards God and mankind. At 4 0'clock the corpse
was taken down from the gallows.
In the 'Chronique de Jersey' of 10th October 1829, it was noted that since 1820 there had been seven charges of murder brought before the Royal Court where extenuating circumstances had been proved and the death sentence had not been passed. The accused were: Waller, Thompson, Callaghan, C Le Sueur, Coutanche, Marshall and Plowman. In 1826, Chapman, charged with the murder of a Mr Brown in Guernsey, was aquitted on the ground of mental derangement.
It is interesting (and sad) to compare the circumstances of the case with similar cases today, to note how our society's ideas and opinions have changed since that time, and to think how different the verdict and sentence would be today.
NOTE: I have based this article mainly on the information contained in the long and very detailed newspaper accounts published in the Chronique de Jersey, editions 3rd and 10th October 1829, which were sent to me by Christine Patterson.
Return to JOLIN main page
Return to SIMPSON page
If you have comments, alterations, corrections, amendments etc. please follow the details to be found on the Home Page to contact me.