Halifax Magistrates’ Court, where Mary appeared on 17 April 1864.
Mary Ann Dyson stood trial at the assizes at Leeds Town Hall on 16 August 1864 in front of Mr Justice Keating. Mr Middleton conducted the prosecution and the prisoner was defended by Mr Blackburn. Mary’s father, Archibald Thompson, was a surprise witness at the assizes. He spoke about their life in Ireland and described how Dyson came to live with them, and how he had fallen in love with his daughter. He said that when she was little, Mary was subject to fits because of a spinal injury.
* * *
‘she had been horrified at her actions’
* * *
When she was old enough to earn a wage she was put to work as an apprentice milliner, but he had to fetch her home as she was constantly complaining of weakness and feeling unwell. He had once found her in a very distressed state, having thrown herself in the waters of the River Shannon. On another occasion she ran away from home without any clothes on and was not found until the following day. Her father described his daughter as being very eccentric in her habits and that her brother and sisters had all suffered from a disease of the brain – four of them had died of this cause.
Mary’s mother also attended and she confirmed much of the evidence given by her husband. The surgeon, Mr Pritchett, was called and he stated that as four of her siblings had died from disease of the brain it was obvious that the prisoner would show a tendency towards insanity. He gave his opinion that the prisoner was subject to impulsive insanity. The judge asked him to clarify if she was incapable of judging what was right or wrong, and the surgeon replied that, ‘There might be some dim consciousness of it, without the power to control the action.’ He said that when he visited her on the day after the murder, the prisoner appeared to be wild and insane. Mr Pritchett once again asked her why she had done it and she told him that she couldn’t tell him anything other than that the thought had come upon her so she did it. He gave his opinion that when the prisoner committed the murder she was insane.
Mary appeared at the Assizes at Leeds Town Hall on 16 August 1864.
The prosecution disagreed and told the jury that nothing in Mary’s conduct justified the conclusion that she was insane, apart from her obvious distress at having taken the lives of her two children. He felt that the evidence of her parents had amounted to nothing more than acts of eccentricity or waywardness. The judge summed up and stated that:
Of all the mysterious afflictions which was visited on humanity, this was the most mysterious, the most inscrutable, the most various in its manifestations and the way in which it developed itself. But although this was so, I can only put the question to the jury in the way in which it was sanctioned by law. That is whether at the time when the prisoner committed this act, if she knew the difference between right and wrong. If you are satisfied of that, then you will find the prisoner guilty of wilful murder. If you believe and are satisfied that she was not able to distinguish between right and wrong, it will be your duty to say that she was not guilty on the grounds of insanity.
The jury was absent for only twenty minutes before returning a verdict that she was not guilty on the grounds of insanity. The judge then ordered Mary Dyson to be detained at Her Majesty’s pleasure.
CASE SIX 1864
A CANAL
SIDE RESCUE
* * *
Suspect: Thomas Drake
Age: Eighteen
Charge: Attempted Murder
Sentence: Penal Servitude
* * *
The Calder and Hebble Navigation Canal runs through Halifax and was built as an extension to the Calder and Aire Canal in order to bring goods from Wakefield to Sowerby Bridge. Canals were the early transport routes of the Victorian era and it was not long before they were transporting heavy materials such as coal and timber. However, canals were also used as pathways for families and courting couples.
The Calder and Hebble Canal, which runs through Halifax.
On Tuesday, 6 December 1864, Eliza Wilson, who was described as having a very youthful appearance – she was only seventeen years of age – was late for work. Without having breakfast, she left her lodgings on Nelson Street and made her way to the silk mill in Halifax where she worked. However, when Eliza arrived she was turned away by the foreman for being a few minutes late – it was one of the rules of the mill that an hour’s pay was docked off the day’s wages for anyone who was late. As a result of this, Eliza decided to go home and have some breakfast before returning to work.
On her way home she was met by Thomas Drake, who suggested that they take a walk by the canal, to which she agreed. Thomas was aged eighteen and a dyer at the same mill. Despite their young age the couple had previously lived together as man and wife before they had argued and she had left him and gone to stay in lodgings. As they walked along Drake tried to persuade her to come back to him, but she was reluctant and told him that she wouldn’t. At Caddy Lane Bridge the canal path sloped downwards towards the water. As they walked towards it, down the slope, suddenly and without any provocation, Drake seized Eliza around the waist and threw her into the canal. After callously watching her struggle for a few moments, Drake heard two women shout to some men that there was a girl in the water. He ran off to hide in a nearby lumberyard.
John Furness, a stone cutter who had been working near to the canal that morning, heard the women shout out that there was a woman in the canal. Running to the bridge he saw Eliza struggling in the water, before she disappeared just under the bridge. By now Furness was almost at the canal side, pulling off his coat as he ran. When he reached the spot where Eliza had gone under he jumped into the water. He dived down to the bottom of the canal but it was so dark that he could not see or feel anything, but, undaunted, he dived down again. Finally he succeeded in bringing the unfortunate girl to the surface and two of his workmates pulled her out of the water, although she was barely conscious. He later said that he was so exhausted himself that if his friends had not been at the side of the canal, he would have been unable to get both himself and the girl out and would probably have sunk with her.
At this point, Drake reappeared at the side of the canal and promptly threw himself into the water so that the two men, who were now looking after the girl, were forced to help him out of the canal as well. Even after he had been rescued, Drake struggled to throw himself back into the water. The men took the still struggling Drake and the exhausted girl to the nearby Ship Inn and a constable was summoned. Drake, rather than showing any gratitude towards his rescuers, attacked them at the inn, shouting that they should have left him to drown. The constable arrived and Drake was taken into custody before being taken to the Borough Court. Later that day, Drake was brought before the Bench, charged with the attempted murder of Eliza Wilson, who, by now, had recovered sufficiently to give evidence. The magistrate, in the summing up for the jury, praised the courage of Furness in his rescue of Drake and Eliza. The jury took only minutes to find Drake guilty and ordered that he stand trial at the next assizes.
* * *
‘she was barely conscious’
* * *
On Friday 23 December at the Leeds Assizes, Drake appeared before Mr Justice Keaton. The first witness was Eliza Wilson, who described the ordeal on the canal side and her rescue by John Furness. The judge asked her what her relationship was like with Drake prior to the incident and she told him that they had lived well enough together and that he had been quite kind to her. John Furness was the next witness and he explained how he had been told that there was a young woman in the canal, before describing his brave rescue. The judge praised him for his courage and told him:
Leeds Assizes courtroom, where Drake appeared on 23 December 1864.
Mr Furness, I wish to tell you that you have behaved in a most gallant and creditable manner and you deserve the thanks of everybody who knows you. If I had the power I would order you to be so rewarded, but I much regret that I do not have that power.
Another witness, George Ro
bertshaw, stated that he had seen the prisoner standing close to the water watching the girl struggle. He then saw him run towards the timber yard and disappear. Robertshaw saw Furness rescue the girl and he went to help pull her out of the water. He described the way that Drake had reappeared again and tried to throw himself into the canal. He had helped another man to pull Drake out, but had met with great resistance and he struggled with them all the way to the Ship Inn, where he struck out at them both. Another witness was eleven-year-old Caroline Pratt, who had passed the couple just as Drake put his arms around Eliza and threw her into the canal. Pratt described that within a second or two of passing them she heard a splash and a scream and, turning, saw Eliza in the water.
Drake’s defence lawyer, Mr Wheelhouse, stated that beyond the girl’s evidence, which he suggested was not worthy of credence, there was nothing to show that Drake was guilty of the crime with which he was charged. Eliza had not supplied any motive, apart from the slight quarrel she had with the prisoner, and he suggested that it was more probable that the girl had tripped and fallen into the water. He then went on to inform the jury that Drake had an accident three years ago – he was thrown from a horse and since then he had been subject to fits. Although the fits had become less regular, he was still prone to periods of what he called ‘light states’.
His grandfather and mother appeared before the Bench, accompanied by the woman with whom Drake had lodged. All three of them stated that they had witnessed the fits and the repercussions. His mother told the judge that on the night before the incident, he had had a fit which lasted for over an hour and left him feeling light-headed for the rest of the day. Mr Wheelhouse maintained that if he had thrown the girl into the water he was not responsible for his own actions.
The judge summed up the evidence for the jury and he seemed horrified by the fact that the young couple had lived together as man and wife for a few short months. He commented on the lamentable state of morality which had been exposed by Miss Wilson, ‘without the least hesitation or apparent shame’. He condemned the fact that, at only seventeen years of age, she seemed to think that that such behaviour was an ordinary rule of life. The jury took only half an hour before delivering the verdict that Drake was guilty of attempted murder. In passing sentence the judge said:
The jury have convicted you of one of the most serious offenses, short of murder, that can be committed, because they have found that you threw this young girl into the canal intending to murder her. It is an offence which is sometimes properly punishable with the severest sentence that the law admits. That sentence would extend to penal servitude for the remainder of your days, but I hope, in consideration of your youth and some other circumstances connected with this prosecution, that I am justified, consistently with my duty, in passing upon you a lesser sentence, although it must be a terribly severe one. The sentence of the court is that you be kept in penal servitude for the term of fifteen years.
Showing little remorse for his actions, Drake was led down beneath the court to the cells.
CASE SEVEN 1865
CHILD
MURDER
* * *
Suspect: Janet Currie
Age: Thirty
Charge: Murder
Sentence: Discharged
* * *
In Victorian society, to bring an illegitimate child into the world was frowned upon. There are hundreds of cases of newborn babies being found in the towns and cities of the West Riding, in rivers and canals, on rubbish heaps and privies. Indeed, it is thought by modern historians that this gruesome act might have been some primitive form of birth control.
A case was brought to the attention of the Halifax authorities by a woman who had been charged with the concealment of birth and the killing of her child, not just once but four times. On 10 December 1865, a thirty-year-old spinster from Scotland, named Janet Currie, was charged with killing her child, before being placed in a cell.
She was brought before the Magistrates’ Court at Halifax the next day, where she was described as a domestic servant. She had been employed for some time at Mr North’s commercial eating house on Northgate, Halifax, as a cook. Mr North’s wife had accused her of being pregnant but she had always denied it.
It seems that on the morning in question Mrs North saw Currie lying on her bedroom floor and thought that the way she was laying looked suspicious. She informed her husband, who was not very well at the time – as a consequence of his illness a search was not undertaken until later on the same day. Mrs North discovered the hiding place when the baby started to cry. A newly-born infant had been wrapped up in a hearthrug, and was found under the cellar steps. Mr North, on hearing what had taken place, came down into the kitchen and fell into a passion, telling Currie that she had to leave. He hailed her a cab and she brought the child, wrapped in cloths, out of the cellar and left the premises.
At her request, the cab dropped her off in Horton Street. She walked around the centre of Halifax for some time before going into an eating house owned by a woman named Mrs Marion Lord. Using some of her meagre amount of money, Currie ordered some tea and bread and butter. After finishing her meal she then wandered around the town until it was dark, pondering how she was to get out of this dilemma. About 9 p.m. she went to the Railway Hotel on Horton Street, which was owned by Mrs Bolton, and asked for a bed for the night for herself and the child. Mrs Bolton saw that she looked ill and gave her a room, asking one of the servants, a girl named Helen Smith, to keep an eye on her. Around noon the following day, Helen saw Currie taking the child out of the house and the servant girl noted that the baby was a healthy little girl.
The Railway Hotel on Horton Street, Halifax, where Janet asked for a bed for the night for herself and her child.
In the course of the afternoon, Currie was spotted walking backwards and forwards across Caddy Lane Bridge, where she was seen at around four o’clock by two witnesses; a man named James Thorp and a man named Robertshaw. Thorp, seeing the bundle in her arms, decided to follow Currie at a discreet distance. Around 5.15 p.m. they saw that she was walking by the canal near Hebble Brook, which was opposite the entrance to Messrs Robert Crossley & Sons Mills. The two men followed her back to Mrs Lord’s eating house, where once again she had some more refreshment. After finishing her meal, Currie continued walking up and down along the same canal side. On several occasions the two men, who had now been joined by a third named Seth Wood, watched her demonstrating her agitation by looking into the lock and several times walking away again. Finally, after seeing her do this once more, the three men saw her throw the bundle she had been carrying into the canal. Hearing the sound of a child’s cry. Currie was seized by Thorp and accused of throwing the child into the water. He told her that he was going to fetch a policeman and she told him that if he did, she would throw herself into the canal. Thorp left her in the charge of his companions, instructing them not to let her go, and went to fetch a police constable. It would appear that there was no effort to try to rescue the child from the canal.
The constable arrived and Currie was taken to the Town Hall. A search of the canal was made and the child’s body was found wrapped up in a man’s waistcoat. It had drifted into a dam further downstream. The prisoner was examined by surgeon Mr Wright shortly after she was taken into custody, and it was confirmed that she had recently given birth. On the same day that the child’s body was found, Currie was arrested in her cell in front of the magistrate, Mr James Bowman, and was charged with murder.
When the police investigated further into the case, it was found that, two years previously, Currie had been charged with the same offence while living at the same establishment, which was then owned by a Mr Vickers. Four years previously a similar offence had been dismissed in the Magistrates’ Court, and on another occasion Currie was taken to the assizes, where she had been sentenced to three months’ imprisonment for the same offence.
The inquest into the death of the child took place the following afternoon at the To
wn Hall before Mr Dyson, the coroner. The prisoner was still in a very weak state following her ordeal and was permitted to lie on a day bed, which had been fitted up in the coroner’s court. Throughout the inquest she made no remarks and looked extremely pale. Various witnesses spoke about seeing her with the child and acting in a very suspicious manner. After listening to Mr North, the coroner castigated him for the callous treatment he showed his former employee and for turning her and the child out onto the streets after she had recently given birth. He advised Mr North that he should have exercised greater consideration. He also criticised the three men, Thorp, Robertshaw and Wood, for following her around but not trying to help her or prevent her from throwing the child into the canal. He told them that in all his experience as a coroner he had met nothing like it and that although there was no law to punish them, they certainly were not guiltless. The jury, after just twenty-five minutes of consultation, returned a verdict of wilful murder. They also added their concurrence of the coroner’s remarks with regards to North, Thorp, Robertshaw and Wood.
Currie was brought before Mr Justice Shee at the Leeds Assizes on Tuesday, 9 January 1866, charged with the murder of her child. The prisoner had no defence and at the request of the judge a solicitor named Mr Foster agreed to act for her.
Halifax Page 4