Michael Vincent

1795 - 1828  (~ 33 years)

• Name	Michael Vincent
  Born	CA 1795
  Gender	Male
  Interesting	crime murder
  Residence	1828	Waterloo Twp., Waterloo Region, Ontario, Canada
  Eby ID Number	Waterloo-77717
  Died	Sep 1828	Hamilton, Wentworth Co., Ontario, Canada   [1]
  	Cause: execution by hanging
  Person ID	I77717	Generations
  Last Modified	7 Nov 2024

  
  

  Family 1	Mrs.,   d. 28 Jan 1828, Waterloo Twp., Waterloo Region, Ontario, Canada
  Children	1. Rachel Vincent,   b. 23 May 1827, , Ontario, Canada ,   d. 28 Aug 1897, Zurich, Hay Twp., Huron Co., Ontario, Canada  (Age 70 years)
  Last Modified	12 Nov 2024
  Family ID	F33006	Group Sheet  |  Family Chart

  
  

  Family 2	Mrs., 1,   d. Bef 1828
  Children	1. Abraham Vincent,   b. Between 1823 and 1824, , Ontario, Canada ,   d. Yes, date unknown
  Last Modified	12 Nov 2024
  Family ID	F59880	Group Sheet  |  Family Chart

  
  

• Notes

  Michael Vincent is the only person hanged between 1822 and 1850. "a miserable person of intemperate habits, who frequented stillhouses and other places where liquor was to be had without attending even to the wants of his family." _________________________________ MURDERS IN WATERLOO COUNTY The old, well-known school-teacher, Mr. Benjamin Burkholder brought to our attention that the article which appeared in the "Journal" under the above title was not complete, if one also counted in the murders which occurred in this area before the establishment of the County of Waterloo. In August 1828, Michael Vincent of Wilmot was hanged in Hamilton for the murder of his wife. A certain Ferres in Guelph, also met the same fate in 1846, for the murder of a constable in Wellesley. From our own memory, and information from Mr. John Kressler, former post-master in Heidelberg, we can add that, in 1847, during the construction of a building in Wellesley, a certain Kress, attacked a young man by the name of Pfeffer so fiercely that the latter died during the night following. Kress was tried in Guelph and condemned to 10 years in prison for murder. During the hay-cutting in 1849, Michael Huber in Wellesley got into a fight with his mother-in-law and threw a piece of wood at her head, which caused her immediate demise. Huber had to spend 10 years in prison because of his bad temper. In 1850, the inn-keeper, Bordon, died in Heidelberg (Wellesley township) under suspicious circumstances. A coroner's inquest was held and it was proven that he had been poisoned. Suspicion of having done the deed fell on his wife. She was arrested and imprisoned and the case was investigated at the fall assizes in Guelph. The investigation ended, however, with the accused women being found not guilty. BERLINER JOURNAL SEPTEMBER 4, 1895 PAGE 4 COLUMN 4 _______________________ 'All the privileges which Englishmen possess': Order, Rights and Constitutionalism in Upper Canada A Symbol 'An innocent man … executed unjustly' Michael Vincent, gallows address 'Bears, Wolves, Indians and Unbroken Forest' \endash this heading captured the gist of John Ryckman's recollections of the Hamilton area's early history. 'A hale, lively old gentleman of 82 winters,' he had ambled into the offices of the Hamilton Spectator on 30 September 1880, pulled up a chair, and reminisced with a reporter about the early days. For the most part Ryckman, a justice of the peace of impeccable loyalist parentage, stuck to this and related topics. But one subheading ('Unpleasant Recollections') offered the newspaper's readers a more pungent slice of history \endash his memories of two executions. The first was the mass hanging in 1814 of War of 1812 traitors; the second was the execution of Michael Vincent, convicted in 1828 of the murder of his wife. Hamilton, Upper Canada, 8 September 1828. The day was warm and sunny. By 10 a.m. a crowd had already formed around the still only partially constructed gallows. Three hours later, several thousand onlookers milled about in expectation of the day's event. A squadron of cavalry moved forward to hold the pressing throng at bay. Hawkers, in expectation of a lucrative day, mingled with the crowd peddling their wares. About 1:30 p.m., the appearance of a grim procession of local worthies signalled the beginning of the first public execution in Hamilton since the hangings for treason in 1814: the grand jury, the magistrates of the Gore District, and other leading men of Gore marched out from the court-house in double file. Minutes later, the convicted murderer, Michael Vincent, made his appearance accompanied by the district sheriff and a local minister, George Sheed. The crowd strained for a better view. Most executions in Upper Canada offered spectators a gallows address by the condemned, usually contrite, felon exhorting them not to follow in his or her path.1 Under strong and repeated pressure to conform to custom, Vincent consistently refused, steadfastly maintaining his innocence. Upon the scaffold, he asked permission to address the throng and the sheriff consented. The rope was adjusted around Vincent's neck; he gathered his thoughts and, 'in a firm voice,' declared: 'Gentlemen, you see before you an innocent man who is about to be executed unjustly \endash the witnesses against me have sworn falsely \endash I die innocent of the crime alledged [sic] against me \endash I declare before Almighty God, I am not guilty of the crime for which I am to suffer.' Sheed pressed him to recant and 'implored him to reflect on the consequences of dying with a falsehood on his lips.' Vincent, however, reiterated his innocence, this time as an oath before God. The clergyman then recited the Lord's Prayer. When he reached 'forgive us our trespasses,' the executioner let the trapdoor fall. As was often the case, the execution was bungled; the rope slipped under Vincent's chin, causing further suffering; he convulsed for about fifteen minutes before dying. His body was left hanging for an hour before being cut down and handed over to local surgeons for dissection.2 Public executions were intended as compelling symbols of the potency of the law and its administration, and were considered powerful deterrents to crime.3 Michael Vincent's execution was certainly symbolic but the message derived from it was not altogether the intended one. It was beyond the ability of either crown officials or the judiciary to mould the public's response. Whether the grisly spectacle left the desired impression upon those who witnessed, heard, or read about it is not known. What is certain, however, is that the execution and, more important, the trial were both perceived and depicted by important reform-minded journalists, and others as well, as symbols \endash not of the impartiality of the judicial system \endash but rather of its failings and partiality. And it was this image that endured, not only in the journalists' accounts, but also in the minds of some witnesses. Fifty-two years after the event, the octogenarian John Ryckman, a magistrate himself, told the Spectator's readers that he 'and many others were of opinion that he [Vincent] was innocent.'4 Why Ryckman believed Vincent's claim of innocence is not known. His reasons may have been connected to the disturbing suggestion expressed in some newspapers, such as Francis Collins*'s Canadian Freeman, that Vincent had lost his life probably as a result of a dramatic departure from judicial custom by the neophyte trial judge, Christopher Alexander Hagerman*. Hagerman's apparently stunning judicial novelty occurred during his address to the petit jury. Nearing the end of his summation, he observed that if the jurors agreed with Vincent's counsel, John Rolph*, that Mrs Vincent had died during 'a fit,' they should acquit Vincent. Then, Hagerman boldly declared, 'I shall be always ready to share the responsibility with the jury … my opinion is that the evidence is strongly against the man, and that you will see no possibility of returning a verdict of not guilty.' Francis Collins reported that Rolph, 'seeing the Judge's charge so decidedly against the prisoner, with great humanity threw in a parley in favour of him.' Noting how 'irregular' it was 'to say any thing at this time,' Rolph was, none the less, impelled to do so because 'an unfortunate man's life was at stake.' The judge was 'impatient' and ordered counsel to be seated. Rolph, however, 'persisted' with his own deviation from customary behaviour, claiming that, 'from his knowledge of the [medical] profession' \endash Rolph was not only a leading member of the bar, but also an eminent medical practitioner \endash the evidence by the two doctors who had testified for the crown 'went to show that the deceased died of a fit.' Hagerman dismissed this sally with the comment that his own 'opinion was quite the contrary, and the jury might give such weight as they pleased to their [Hagerman's and Rolph's] respective opinions.' After about an hour, the jury returned its verdict. Hagerman's position had won the day.5 Three days later, Vincent was hanged. Collins damned Hagerman, without reservation, for usurping the jury's role and thereby 'mis-construing the existing code with a view to increase its faults.'6 Bartemas Ferguson*, the determinedly moderate editor of a local Hamilton paper, the Gore Balance, also castigated Hagerman for his actions. A former critic of government in the late 1810s, Ferguson himself had stood before the courts and suffered during his subsequent incarceration. Although he had abandoned many of his earlier causes, he remained keenly interested in the administration of justice. Even in cases where the guilt of the accused was certain, the content of Hagerman's charge to the petit jury was, Ferguson thought, 'without example.'7 Three years later, an unrelenting Collins reminded both his readers and Hagerman of the judge's responsibility for Vincent's execution: 'Let Mr. Hagerman remember, as a consoling thought when he lays his head upon his pillow, the charge that he delivered against an unhappy fellow who protested his innocence with his last breath.'8 The image conveyed by this rhetoric was powerful. It arose from Vincent's claim to innocence from the moment of his arrest, and seems to have lasted for years after his execution. The vaunted hallmarks of the British constitution and English justice had failed to protect the life of a man, possibly innocent. This course of events, in the mind of Francis Collins, was an indictment of the very system itself. Hagerman's place on the bench and his actions in Vincent's case illustrated the partiality that many believed undermined the rule of law in Upper Canada. The familiar nostrums regarding the superiority of British justice provided scant solace either to Vincent or to the system's critics. The trial had locked together in judicial combat the leading adversaries in the legal/constitutional/political battles that racked the province's political communities \endash Attorney General John Beverley Robinson* had prosecuted the crown's case; John Rolph, a leading assemblyman and oppositionist, and one of the foremost members of the bar, had defended Vincent; and 'Kit' Hagerman, a bumptious Kingston lawyer, had presided on the bench. Within weeks of the trial, Rolph \endash recently re-elected to the House of Assembly in July 1828 \endash was planning a coordinated strategy for the reform-minded coalition of lawyers and politicians that included himself, the Baldwins (William Warren* and Robert*), and Marshall Spring Bidwell*. The following year Robinson was elevated to the chief justiceship. Hagerman's appointment to the Court of King's Bench was not confirmed in England; he stepped down from the bench and became solicitor general. The major figures in the Vincent case had all been party to various disputes during the 1820s (some of only several months' standing) concerning the alleged partiality of the legal system. The trial was another lost battle in a war waged both in the legislature and in courtrooms across Upper Canada.9 At no other point in this province's history has the judicial system been so embattled, so mired in controversy, so liable to the charges of partiality and maladministration, and so lacking in broad public legitimacy.10 And, more often than not, critics seized upon trials such as Vincent's both to prove and to assert their claims. "The Introductory Essays Of The DCB/DBC \endash Dictionary Of Canadian Biography". 2021. Biographi.Ca. https://www.biographi.ca/en/theme_essays.html?p=41. __________________________ The 1828 trial of Michael Vincent, for murdering his wife, provides some rare insight into Waterloo Township's early social structure and problems of poverty and depravity. Vincent, who laboured at logging and clearing land, was described at the trial as "a miserable person of intemperate habits, who frequented stillhouses and other places where liquor was to be had without attending even to the wants of his family ." There were five Vincent children, ranging from the eldest aged 8 or 9 to twins who were about 6 months old at the time of their mother's death. A former neighbour testified that the Vincent cabin was dark and meanly furnished and that Vincent habitually treated his wife very cruelly. Detailed press accounts of Vincent's trial depict him as a villain with no hint of insight by community leaders into the living conditions of poor landless families on the frontier. But the Waterloo miller and distillleer Abraham Erb and his wife Magdalena, who were childless, adopted Rachel Vincent, one of the children orphaned by the murder. BUILDING COMMUNITY ON THE FRONTIER: the Mennonite contribution to shaping the Waterloo settlement to 1861, by Elizabeth Bloomfield __________________________ Gore Asizes Trial and execution of Michael Vincent, For the Murder of his wife The Attorney General open the prosecution with the following remarks . May it please hear your Lordship, Gentlemen of the Jury I am called upon the present occasion to discharge a very important and solemn duty - that of public prosecution against the prisoner at the bar, who is now on his trial in a case which involves life and death. I will make no more remarks than what are necessary to enable you to understand the evidence; because I am desirous that you should hear the evidence free from bias any kind. - It appears then, gentleman with the grand Jury have indicted the prisoner for murder, and there is no count in the indictment; for manslaughter; because, from the nature of the case, if the prisoner be guilty at all it is a murder in the most aggravated shape. The prisoner and his wife resided together at Waterloo Township, and it seems that they were very indigent circumstances all the time they resided there. The prisoner is represented as a miserable person of intemperate habits, who frequented still houses and other places where the liquor was to be had without attending even to the wants of his family. I have nothing against the character of the deceased wife, but it will be proved to you by their neighbours that they lived on very bad terms together, and that he was in the habit of beating her cruelly. On 28th Jan last the neighbours heard that his wife was dead, and many of them proceeded to the spot. The house was dark are being without a window, and they found the woman stretched on the bed, and covered with a sheet or blanket. The neighbours were surprized to hear of her death, she being a healthy woman, but first the entertained no suspicion. Two sisters of the name Moxley went to the house with great humanity to lay her out, and a carpenter was employed to make her coffin. When they began to examine the body more particularly, their suspicions arose, and they asked the prisoner several questions, to which he gave unsatisfactory contradictory answers, that one time saying that she was struck dead in a fit - at another, tha she was seized with a vomiting and that when he went to hold her head she died away. It will be proved that her neck and throat were black and swollen, and that there was a very large spot on the side of the head, which was soft and pulpy on pressing it. When she was raised up, a great deal of blood flowed from her nose, although she had been there many hours dead, according to his own account. From these circumstances a strong feeling of suspicion was excited against the prisoner, and the coroner was sent for Mr. Burwell, the Coroner, went out, and held an inquest. The body of the woman was disinterred, and examined more strictly, and both the Coroner and the Jury came to the conclusion that she had been murdered by the prisoner at the bar. I am sorry, gentlemen here to remark [but it is necessary that I do so.] that Mr. Burwell did not on this occasion do as his duty directed, and as well necessary to the ends of justice - he did not call in the aid of a medical gentleman. Whatever delay might have taken place, he ought to have brought a surgeon to examine the body. It is true, there was no surgeon within twenty or thirty miles of the place, but it were even sixty miles it was his imperative duty to procure him, as in a case of this kind of circumstantial evidence, everything almost depended upon the opinion of a surgeon. A s it is now is, gentleman, you must collect the evidence as to the appearance of witnesses and the Coroner, who examined the body in the best manner you can. This case has created great excitement and the Court of quarter sessions the grand Jury presented it, although it is not usual for that Court take notice of such offenses. In this case, gentleman, as the body was found there can be no doubt about the death, the question is whether it occurred by violent means If so, then can be little doubt that murder was committed by the prisoner, when the circumstances before and after the death are taken into consideration. A witness will now be produced who heard the prisoner say, a few days before the death that if his wife were dead he would find no difficulty and getting another, and that he had a notion to go home and kill her. The question is, however, whether a man having such an intention would speak publicly of it is. His inconsistent accounts of her death to the neighbours were also to be taken into consideration, and the Constable who arrested him would be examined to prove that he threw out threats after he was arrested and said he would be revenged of those who swore against him if he ever got an opportunity. As there were no persons but small children in the house of the time, with prisoner and the deceased, it is uncertain how death was occasion, but it seems most likely that she was strangled by hands around the throat. Cases of murder like present, are generally depending on circumstantial evidence and ought to be gravely considered, as for the protection of our lives, they are generally punished by death without hope mercy, and more especially, where the violence has been used to one whom the prisoner was bound to protect. Before you come to determine the gentleman, you will be fully satisfied as to the guilt or innocence of the prisoner at the bar, and if you are convinced of his guilt, you must allow no false feeling of compassion to prevent you from doing your duty Sarah Moxley Sworn - witness lived in the township of Waterloo, knew the Prisoner about a year, during which time he resided there - knew his deceased wife who live there with him all that time they lived for two years Within 18 or 19 rods of witness, but laterally they resided 4 miles distant - they had five children, two of them twins about 6 months old, and prisoner had some children by his first wife, who did not live with them. Witness was often in the house and frequently heard the deceased crying out when the prisoner would beat her, thought he used her cruelly; did not know that they lived on bad terms up until the time of her death; deceased often visited the house of the witness - did not hear of her bad health - she generally had good health, and was a rather rugged woman and never heard her speak of having fits of any kind, witness heard of her death before she heard of any illness; her mother was about going to lay her out, but after sent witness and sister to do so. On Tuesday 28th of January, went with her sister and Mr. Ladshaw to prisoners house; some neighbour boys with their when witness went in - deceased was lying stretched on a straw bed with her every day clothes on and a blanket thrown over; prisoner was there with three children. Witness told him he had bad luck in his family, and asked how his wife died; prisoner said she had a hysteric fit and kind of choaked away. Witness told prisoner to remove the blanket off the deceased; when he did so, there appeared "bunch" of blood on her nose, which appeared as if they're for some time, and on raising her up, a stream of blood flowed from her nose; deceased was then quite stiff, all but her neck, which was quite limber. When they raised her off and got a quantity of blood under her right shoulder but did not see any wound from which it came. The next the deceased was so dreadfully black and blue, and so swollen has to come out nearly equal to the chin, and there appeared spots like the print fingers upon it; the skin did not appear to be broken any part. The blood which ran from her nose appeared rather blacker than usual. When raised up her head will fall back to either sides but not forward, on a count of the swelling and the stiffness in the throat. When witness told prisoner he had very bad luck in his family he turned round towards the door and gave her a very short answer, saying that she died of fit and kind of choaked way Deceased was black around the neck, and down about the breast - prisoner said she died on Monday morning funeral took place on Tuesday for the Coroner called to view her on Wednesday, when she was disinterred. Witness saw her again that time, and thought she look blacker and bluer in the open air, as the house where she laid was dark being without windows. Deceased was about 30 years of age not unhealthy but rather rugged Cross examined by Macaulay - It was about two years, since prisoner lived witnesses neighbourhood, could not say how he and his wife agreed during that period, The blood under her shoulder could not come from her nose the way she lay. Her neck was black and blue all round, and also, behind both ears - her shoulders and part of her arms were also black and blue. The family lived in a wretched way while in the neighbourhood of the witness. Witness was at the funeral and there was a funeral sermon; but did not know if at the inquest prisoner. At the inquest prisoner said deceased got sick at her stomach, that she got out of bed, and he gave her some water to drink, when she lay, down again and the breath left her. It appeared at the Inquest that deceased had black spots on her body and hips - Coroner asked prisoner how she got them and he said it was by falling in a fit against a frying pan which hung on the wall, although there was no such thing in the house at the time. There were black spots as large as a persons hand about the small of her back ,which witness saw on the Inquest Abraham Ladshaw sworn - lived in Waterloo was a carpenter by trade and lived near prisoner - - saw him often and heard the neighbours say he was in the habit of going about the distilleries to get drunk -- called upon to make a coffin for the deceased and went to the House with Miss Moxley - saw the deceased on the bed - saw many dead bodies and was in the habit of assisting to put them in the coffin - when they raised to the deceased, the blood came freely from her nose and he believed from the mouth also - it looked black, but he could not see well as the window was in the house, - All about the throat, chin, and ears, was black and swollen - saw no marks about her hips, at the time, as he paid little attention at first, having no suspicion of murder. Witness was afterwards at the Coroner's inquest, and saw spots on her hips, as if she had been kicked or struck with the fist. The moment he saw the corpse in open day at the inquest, it appears to him that the deceased did not die a natural death - The corpse looked black and blue about the throat and choaked with the hands - never saw a corpse having such appearance before - thought the whole face look darker than a common dead person - had no appearance of natural dead - When coffin was opened at the grave, they called upon the prisoner to touch the body, but he would not do, [Hear witness rolled a pocket handkerchief around his hand, and explained the manner in which prisoner avoided touching the body although pretending to do so] Prisoner, when asked said died of hysterics or fits, and said he was clear the murder. Cross-examined - Witness saw dead bodies changing appearance after death, but none of them look like this Isaac Sowers Sworn- Was witness was also one of the Coroner's Jury, corroborated the testimony of the above witness, and added, that near the small of the back there was the mark of a hand five fingers [unreadable] if the open a hand were dipt in ink and afterwards laid on white paper. This witness also believed that the neck was broken. Mrs. Sowers sworn - was wife of last witness Friday before the deceased died, prisoner came to her house (a Tavern) and remained all night - heard him say the deceased was his second wife. A young man in the bar room said he did not know (the prisoner) could get so many wives, when other men were looking all their time for one and could not find one - prisoner replied that if wife were dead tonight, could get another a [unreadable] young girl to-morrow, and said he had a mind to go home and kill her, as he knew where he could get a young gal - witness thought he was joking; until she heard of the death deceased - - but afterwards reproached prisoner for his observations and subsequent conduct. John [unreadable] - saw deceased on Saturday heard she looked healthy - died on Monday following about day break, as prisoner stated - [ ] persons [ ] of death of a wife more heart than, prision seemed to do - prisoner [ ] Witness he would be move to another lot of land which he owned and had a woman ready to go with him although it might be talked of, he did not wish to break up house-keeping Jane? Henry? sworn - was the constable who arrested prisoner - had assistance with him, and when it came to prisoner's house there was no person with him but some small children. When witness took him and he had Mrs.? Llanogh? already and hoped in God they were not going to take him for killing his wife, and [ ] told witness he had a gun charged on the of the bed and if he knew what witness about was about might have murdered him before have taken him. Prisoner also said he hoped the people who put him in this trouble would pay for it yet. John Burwell Esquire, Sworn, - Was Coroner who examined the deceased and held the inquest - collaborated the testimony of the witnesses to the marks of violence about her neck, &c. Witness neglected taking a surgeon with him because stories of this kind were generally exaggerated - and there was no surgeon within 30 or 40 miles of the inquest Judge Hagerman said that so responsible in a public office was exceedingly ill executed by Mr. Burwell, who was highly culpable For his conduct. He (Mr. Burwell) might has turn? The necessity for procuring Surgical assistant in such a case, and it was his duty to have kept they body above ground, oven for months to procure, a surgeon Mr. Burwell said he should be more careful in the future Dr. Case sworn - was regularly educated as a Surgeon in Philadelphia practiced in the 11th Lt. Dragoons at the request Col O. N.? - heard the whole of the evidence and was of the opinion that deceased met her death by violence and that she was strangled by hands. Dr. Tiffany sworn - did not hear the evidence but on hearing the state of her body thought that violence must have been used James Van Every called on for the defense and swore he knew prisoner and his wife for two years when they appeared to live on good terms together - her deceased say she was subject to hysteric fits. Hear the evidence closed, and judge Hagerman addressed the Jury as follow. - Gentlemen of the Jury It comes your painful duty now to determine the serious matter according to the evidence laid before you. You will recollect gentleman, that this case involves life and death, and that therefor your deliberations ought to be completed with the strictest duty?. At the same time that you are to do Justice between the King & the prisoner at the bar let every circumstance slightest degree favorable to him to have its full weight. To establish the murder, it must be first proven that the person mentioned in the indictment is dead: secondly that death came by the hand of the prisoner of the bar, or by his assistance; and lastly, that it was done maliciously. In order to relieve your minds, Gentlemen, I think it proper to remark, that the prisoner done it maliciously if he did it all something if you find that he deprived the deceased of life in this way, it will be your duty and find him of murder, and mine to pass sentence of death upon him. Although a young judge, I will not withhold from the jury the impression the evidence made upon my mind; but you. Gentlemen, will decide according to your own impressions. [Here the Judge recapitulated the evidence it, giving Mr. Burwell another [ ] that he had done his duty on the Inquest bringing a surgeon to view the body it would have removed a great deal [ ] embarrassment felt by the court today. He then proceeded.] Gentleman, in considering I think it is impossible? (if you will find the woman was murdered at all that he [ ] he declares himself that he was present the death, and [ ] was the only person there who could offer violence. T[ ] that he was guilty might he collected from evidence as to the manner in which he lived - all the evidence was against the prisoner. It is circumstance, it is true, but still evidence of that kind, given from mere facts, is stronger than the positive testimony of a single witness. All the witnesses respectable in their appearance and not likely to have false colouring to that matter - they told their story as they right to do, and in general perfect credence with me. They have not proved that the prisoner committed [ ] [ ] they proved that he had lived unhappy with his wife, and described the singular manner of death. If you are of the opinion that late deceased died in a fit. you must acquit the prisoner- but as I always ready to share the responsibility with the Jury, I am free to say that my opinion is that the evidence is strongly will [ ] [ ] and that you will see no possibility of returning verdict of not guilty. [Here Mr. Rolph, seeing the Judge's charge so decadently against the prisoner, with great humanity threw in on parlay in favour of him, stating that although it was irregular in him to say any thing at this time, yet something unfortunate man's life was at stake, he wished to say a word or two The judge at first appeared insistent? and ordered him to sit down the charge having been given. Mr. Rolph persisted - he said his knowledge of the profession, concluded that the evidence of the medical gentleman want to show that the deceased died of a fit. The Judge said his opinion was quite the contrary and the jury might do such weight as they pleased respective opinions] The jury retired, and in about an hour returned with a verdict of GUILTY. The judge [ ] sentence as follows: Michael Vincent, you have been convicted before a highly respectable Jury of your Countryman of the most awful crime of murder- a crime dreadful under any circumstances, but in the case rendered all the more [ ] by the [ ] that you're victim was one called you had solemnly sworn at the altar to cherish and protect. She has fallen by your own hand - thus breaking the most terrible of the commandments send by Almighty God to man, ---And the same Holy Being has declared, that man who [sheds another] man's blood, by man shall [ ] Hope not therefore, for mercy in this world, but rather [ ] yourself, while it is not permitted to you, to Him whose laws you have us awfully disregarded - Your Creator - [ ] can pardon you - I cannot. Make your peace with Him, and fellow men, for it is my painful duty to inform you that you must soon die. The sentence of the Court is That you Michael Vincent be now take him to the place from whence you came; and that on Monday next between the hours of 10 o'clock in forenoon two o'clock in the afternoon, you be taken to some convenient place in the District there to be hanged by the neck until you are dead: - your body afterwards will be given to surgeons for dissection! - And may the great God have mercy on your soul! Vincent was executed according to the sentence Canadian Freeman 18 September 1828

  
  

• Sources

  [S1447] News - ON, Wentworth, Hamilton - Gore Gazette.

  
  

• Event Map

  Residence - 1828 - Waterloo Twp., Waterloo Region, Ontario, Canada Died - Cause: execution by hanging - Sep 1828 - Hamilton, Wentworth Co., Ontario, Canada  = Link to Google Earth