Bristol Executions

A list of people executed in Bristol in the 1700s and 1800s. The information includes the names, crimes and date of execution.

You can also see some 20th Century Bristol executions.

Sir John Dineley Goodere

There are two other appalling murders connected with this parish which may be here mentioned. The first was that of Sir John Dineley Goodere, Bart., by his brother, Captain Samuel Goodere, Matthew Mahoney, and Charles White, committed on board His Majesty’s Ship, the “Ruby,” man-of-war, then lying in King-road. The murderers assembled at the “White Hart,” an ale-house near the foot of College Green, way-laid and seized their victim in open day, and conveyed him by water to the ship, where they murdered him by strangulation, January 19th, 1740-1. Of this barbarous crime the perpetrators were found guilty, and executed at St. Michael’s Hill gallows, on Wednesday, the 15th of April following, confessing the fact.

The next murder referred to was that of Mrs. Frances Ruscombe and her maid-servant, Mary Champness, otherwise Sweet, which was committed September 28th, 1764. This revolting crime, too, was perpetrated in open day, “whilst the people in numbers were passing and repassing the door behind which were the bodies, and that within a few yards of the cathedral and during divine service; and yet, from that moment even to this, the whole matter was, and is involved in total darkness, and so will now probably remain to the Day of Judgment.” The authors of this foul deed have never been discovered.

Mary Ann Burdock formerly Wade

“The relations of a woman named Smith, having heard nothing of her for upwards of a year, were induced to make enquiries respecting her in Bristol, whither she had gone to reside. Finding that she had died suddenly upwards of twelve months before, and that the persons, at whose house she had lodged, could give no satisfactory account of her death, nor of the property of which she was known to have been possessed, a suspicion arose, strengthened by the character of the parties, that she had been unfairly dealt with. Under these circumstances, the disinterment of the body was determined upon. This was accordingly done; the body was opened, the intestinal viscera taken out, their condition examined, and a portion of their contents analyzed. In consequence of the discovery of arsenic in the stomach, the investigation proceeded. The purchase of arsenic by the accused, the persons by whom it might have been obtained for her, the druggist from whom it was bought, were next inquired into. Then the circumstances preceding the deceased’s illness, the nature of her food and medicine, the hand from which she received it, and the servants who waited upon her, were ascertained: and finally, the amount of the deceased’s property, the circumstances of the accused before and after the death, and the inducements to commit, and increase of wealth, &c., likely to follow such a murder, were taken into consideration.

“The enquiry therefore related to the establishment of four points. 1. The identification of the body. 2. The cause of death. 3. (Assuming it to have been by poison), the person administering the poison. 4. Whether the poison was wilfully administered.

“The first point was proved by the undertaker who supplied the coffin—by the carpenter who screwed it down—by the sexton, who can tell from appearances that the grave has never been disturbed—by the nephew of the deceased, and by two of her fellow-lodgers, who speak to the height of her figure, colour of her hair, and marks upon her stockings.

“The second point was also proved, by the evidence of Dr. Riley, and Dr. Symonds, physicians, and by Mr. Kelson, surgeon, who recognize effects upon the viscera, which might have been produced by arsenic—by Mr. Herapath, who analysed a small portion of the contents of the stomach, and discovered five grains of sulphuret of arsenic—and again, by the medical men, who stated the quantity present to be sufficient to cause death.

“To establish the third point, it was proved that an individual had bought sulphuret of arsenic of a druggist who was in evidence, and that Mrs. Wade, the lodging-house keeper, alone administered food to the deceased. This third point was not proved; the arsenic not having been traced from the druggist’s shop into Mrs. Wade’s hands.

“Upon the last point it was shewn—that Mrs. Wade had cautioned the servant not to taste food after the deceased—that she was singularly anxious, against her apparent interest, to detain the deceased in her lodgings—that the deceased had received £S00 before her death—that the Wades became suddenly rich after that event—and that therefore there were inducements to commit, and appearances likely to follow the commission of such a murder.

“Upon these considerations, which were very clearly stated by the coroner, the jury returned a verdict of ‘ Wilful Murder’ against Mrs. Burdock, formerly Wade.”

Mary Ann Burdock was tried at the Bristol General Assize, April 10th, 11th, and 13th, 1835, and being found guilty of the above crime, that of poisoning Mrs. Clara Ann Smith, was executed at Bristol on Wednesday, April 15th, two days afterwards.