On the morning of 15 May 1795, Ann Broadric alighted from the Southend stage near the avenue leading to the home of the Erringtons, at Grays. Such is the date Borrow assigns in his relation; further along, the domestic George Bailey would fix the visit on 13 May. The historical record thus preserves two conflicting dates for this arrival. It agrees entirely, however, upon the scene that ensued: Broadric demanded to see Errington, came upon him in the drawing-room, and discharged a pistol into his body.
A short time earlier, Errington had caught sight of her approach and cautioned his wife. He desired Mrs Errington to withdraw for a few moments; she preferred to oversee the encounter herself and urged her husband to step into the drawing-room. Broadric gained entry through the kitchen. The manservant informed her that his master was within and bade the gardener conduct her to the parlour. At the threshold, she encountered Mrs Errington. When the latter informed her that Mr Errington could not receive her, Broadric replied that she knew the house far too well to be put off by such an answer, and went straight in search of him.
Entering the drawing-room, she drew from her pocket a small brass-barrelled pistol, newly flinted. Directing it toward Errington’s left side, toward the heart, she declared that she was come to perform her dreadful promise. The weapon discharged. Mrs Errington rushed in and swooned away at the sight of her bleeding husband. Errington, who had not fallen to the floor, asked Broadric what he had ever done to her to deserve such treatment. She replied only with a motion of her head, according to Borrow’s account. When the servants burst into the room, she cast the weapon upon the carpet and told them to seize her, to hang her, to do with her as they pleased: she cared not what became of her now.
Mr Miller, a surgeon of the neighbourhood, examined the hurt. The ball had entered near the lowest rib, fractured three ribs in its course, and traversed the back until it lodged beneath the shoulder blade. All attempts to extract it proved unavailing. Once the wound was dressed, the magistrate, Mr Button, took Errington’s deposition. He inquired of Broadric what could have impelled her to such an extremity. She answered that she had resolved that neither of them should long outlive the loss of her peace of mind. Errington entreated the magistrate not to detain her, believing he should recover. Nevertheless, she was conveyed that very evening to Chelmsford Gaol.
The menace preceding the shot was already preserved in the record. A letter dated 11 September 1794 demanded a final interview, declaring that a disappointed woman could prove more terrible than a tempest. In it, Broadric reminded Errington that he had led her to believe she alone possessed his affections; she insisted on seeing him one last time, threatening to take his life should he refuse. Borrow relates that these importunate epistolary demands continued. At the trial, however, the witness John Eves deposed concerning another missive, delivered to Errington on 13 May and returned unopened: therein Broadric spoke of money and of a sum she claimed was due to her. The two papers must not be confounded: the former was a threat of September, the latter a pecuniary entreaty of May.
The prosecution laid equal weight upon the presence of two pistols. The servant Bailey, having observed Broadric at the moment the shot was fired, had hastened up to the drawing-room and discovered his master drenched in blood. He dispatched a messenger for a surgeon, then returned accompanied by two constables. Below stairs, an officer noticed that Broadric kept her hand concealed within her pocket. When they attempted to handcuff her, she begged leave to draw something forth. Questioned concerning a second weapon, she acknowledged its possession, informing Bailey that she had intended it for herself. A maidservant searched her person and drew out the second pistol. The design of a mutual death rests, therefore, not merely upon the old correspondence: the chronicle expressly attributes to Broadric, following her apprehension, this explanation of the second firearm.
Her confinement did not stay the course of official proceedings. Borrow records that Errington expired a few days after receiving the wound. When the intelligence reached Chelmsford, Broadric burst into a flood of tears and bitterly lamented having caused his death. On 19 May, the coroner’s inquest returned a verdict of wilful murder against her. This finding of an inquest was not yet the verdict of the criminal court. The assize trial opened on 17 July before Chief Baron Macdonald. Broadric arrived at the court-house in a carriage, accompanied by three gentlewomen and her apothecary. She was attired in deep mourning, her hair unpowdered. Pelham notes that she had quitted the gaol as early as six in the morning, waiting in an adjoining chamber of the shire hall. She was subsequently accommodated with a chair within the bar. Before the assembled concourse, her composure was interrupted only by paroxysms of violent agitation, remarked upon by the narrator.
The indictment was opened by Mr Garrow. When the clerk read the charge alleging that she had inflicted a mortal wound upon the right breast of Errington, Broadric exclaimed, “O, my great God!” and burst into tears. Bailey took the witness stand to recount the passage from the kitchen to the drawing-room, the discharge of the weapon, Mrs Errington’s shrieks, and the race to summon a surgeon. He described likewise the second firearm and the confession Broadric had entrusted to him. Eves related his errand with the billet he had carried and brought back. The trial thus brought into view two wholly dissimilar documents: a menacing letter penned months prior, and a recent note which Errington had left unopened.
Counsel for the prisoner called several witnesses who testified to having observed in her unequivocal symptoms of derangement at diverse periods. The relation of Camden Pelham observes that the prosecution did not attempt to rebut this ground of defence. After a consultation of merely a few minutes, the jury returned a verdict of Not Guilty. This determination did not overturn the coroner’s finding as to the violent nature of the death; it answered solely to the criminal indictment upon the evidence adduced at the bar.
At the close of the assizes, the court directed that Broadric be examined by two justices of the peace prior to her transfer under their warrant to her place of legal settlement. Their Lordships added a singular injunction: that she should there receive every possible care and protection.