When Mr North gave his evidence and spoke about ejecting her from his house, he was also reprimanded by the judge, who told him:
That was not the way, Sir, to treat a woman under such circumstances. Nobody would find fault with the father of a family, or a person having a young woman about him, for expressing his displeasure to the woman who had a child under such circumstances in his house. But turning her out, letting her go out, although willing, in such a condition, just after she had been delivered, without sending for a medical man, or any decent respectable woman to take care of her, is not the right course.
Mr North appeared to be filled with virtuous indignation towards the prisoner as he bristled at the judge’s words. He protested that she did not go out without his consent, to which the judge replied, ‘You fetched a cab instead of fetching somebody to look after her. You should not have done that.’ When Mr North tried to protest once more, saying, ‘Well, my Lord…’ the judge cut him off, saying, ‘That is enough.’
The next witness to take the stand was Mr Thorp, who was asked by Mr Foster why, when following Currie around the canal side, he did not try to speak to her or to try to prevent her from throwing the child in the canal. He replied, ‘Well, Sir, we thought we had better not do so. We thought if we did, we should be charged with taking indecent liberties with her.’ Unbelievably he had now changed his story and maintained that although they had heard that she had recently given birth to a child, they had followed her not to watch her throw the child into the canal, but rather that they thought she was going to meet someone on the canal tow path.
Mr Wright, the surgeon who had performed the post-mortem on the child, confirmed that the cause of death had been drowning, as the child’s lungs were filled with water and particles of mud. He stated that there was no perceptible difference in the effects of suffocation in water and suffocation out of water. He informed the court that if the child had been suffocated before being thrown into the water there would have been no mud in the lungs. He confidently stated that childbirth frequently caused women to be affected mentally and that the consequent exposure to cold and fatigue, so soon after confinement, would probably lead to light-headedness. In his opinion the prisoner would probably have committed the act because the balance of her mind was disrupted.
Mr Foster, in Currie’s defence, told the judge that this was one of the most painful cases he had ever had to defend. He pointed out that his client had acted as honourably as she could under the circumstances. When her master had suspected that she had given birth, he bundled her into a cab without any money to procure her daily bread – she was left to go where she could. He stated that, ‘On the streets of Halifax she went from place to place with her child, receiving no sympathy and her scanty means diminishing. This woman was exposed to all the rigours of winter weather without any of the comforts that even the beasts of the fields were accustomed to.’ Mr Foster then described, in detail, the anguish of her walk by the canal:
Gazing into the water again and again, trying to summon up the courage to commit this dreadful act. I do not know her true thoughts but was it possible that instead of killing the child she was contemplating her own destruction. I don’t want to disparage the witnesses who had watched her, but it would have been better for them to have told their suspicions to the police when they first saw her, and who would have, in the course of his duty, taken her to the workhouse. If that had been done she would have found a roof over her and the baby’s head and food to eat. Instead, on that wretched Sunday, they chose to follow her about until towards evening, when she probably experienced that lightness of head and diminished responsibility, of which the surgeon had spoken, and she took the action she did. Indeed, by this time the child might have already been dead in her arms, suffocated as she tried to hold it close to her breast in order to keep it warm. I suppose that if she discovered the child was dead in her arms, she might then have suffered from such light-headedness that she threw away the dead body into the black water which would get into the child’s lungs and deposit the mud wherever it went.
Concluding his eloquent defence, Mr Foster pointed out that if this was indeed the turn of events it would still have been an unlawful act but a lesser one, one of concealment of birth, and the offence would be manslaughter rather than murder.
The judge summed up for the jury, stating that if they thought the prisoner had been in such a frame of mind, resulting in her not knowing her actions, then they must give a verdict of manslaughter not murder. He once again castigated Mr North for his harsh treatment of Currie, turning her out without so much as the last few days wages which she had already earned. He told the jury that married women of comfortable means sometimes lost their reason for a time following childbirth and, therefore, they cease being accountable for their actions. It was much more to be expected that a woman in Currie’s circumstances should be in such a state of mind. The jury took only forty minutes to return a verdict of not guilty, proclaiming Janet Currie a free woman.
CASE EIGHT 1865
DEATH OF
A SISTER
* * *
Suspect: Thomas Cockcroft
Age: Forty-two
Charge: Murder
Sentence: Life Imprisonment
* * *
Thomas Cockcroft, aged forty-two, was a farm labourer who had lived with his sister, Hannah Helliwell, at Sowerby for the last five years. Henry Helliwell, Hannah’s son, also resided in the same house, along with her daughter Sarah and her granddaughter, Sarah-Anne, who was aged about eight years.
On the morning of 20 June 1865, Henry, Sarah and Sarah-Anne left the house to go to their respective duties, leaving Cockcroft and Hannah at home. When Sarah-Anne returned home from school for lunch she discovered her grandmother lying injured on the floor. A neighbour, James Farrar, was called to the house. When he arrived he was shocked to see Hannah lying on the floor in a pool of blood; her head and face were covered in blood, her jaw was broken and he found that she was barely alive. There was no sign of Thomas Cockcroft.
A surgeon, Mr James Horsfall of Sowerby Bridge, was quickly summoned and Hannah was moved to the hospital where she survived until the 27th, but she never regained consciousness. It seems that the wounds had been inflicted by a pair of tongs which were usually kept in the kitchen. The family later confirmed to the police that they had been there in the morning but following the murder were missing.
On the same day of the attack, Amos Taylor saw Cockcroft crouching down between stone walls which surrounded a nearby field. Another witness, Joseph Naylor, spotted him at about 2 p.m. at a further distance from the house. News that he was a wanted man had reached Naylor, who said to him, ‘What hast thou been doing at Sowerby?’ Cockcroft told him that Hannah had wanted to mend his waistcoat. He had objected to her doing so unless she used new cotton, but when she refused he hit her. He told Naylor that he had not meant to hit her but once he had started he could not stop. He had given two or three blows to her face and then kicked at her with his clogs before he attacked her with the iron tongs, which he threw away as he made his escape.
* * *
‘once he had started
he could not stop’
* * *
Naylor and Taylor gave information of Cockcroft’s whereabouts to the police authorities and at 4 p.m. Cockcroft was found and brought to Halifax Town Hall. In the meantime, the tongs which he had used to kill his sister had been found, bent and twisted out of shape. Two days after Mrs Helliwell’s death, 29 June, an inquest was held at the Kings Head Inn at Sowerby. A post-mortem examination had been conducted by Mr Horsfall and he was of the opinion that the principal injuries had been inflicted with the tongs. The following day, the prisoner was brought before the magistrates at Halifax, where the jury found him guilty and sentenced him to stand trial at the next assizes.
Cockcroft was brought to the Leeds Assizes on Wednesday, 9 August 1865, before the judge, Mr Justice Mellor. He was described as a sedate-looking man wh
o pleaded guilty. When the judge asked him point blank if he had intended to murder his sister, he said that he had hit her but he never intended to murder her. The judge sought to clarify the issue and asked him, ‘Did you attack her with malice aforethought, that is with an intention to kill her?’ At this Cockcroft shook his head vigorously and told the judge that he did it in a passion, and after a consultation with another judge, a not guilty plea was recorded accordingly.
The first witness to take the stand was Henry Helliwell, who said that he left the house at 6.45 a.m. to go to work, leaving his mother in bed. He said that his uncle had been subject to fits of despondency and depression for many years and was often in such low spirits that he would take to his bed for days on end. On such occasions he would stare wildly and hardly blinked or spoke to anyone. For a fortnight before the murder he had been in very low spirits and had refused to go to work. Henry stated that before the attack, he had never known his uncle to use violence on anyone, let alone his own sister.
Halifax Town Hall, where Cockroft was brought on 20 June 1865.
James Horsfall, the surgeon, declared that he had been called to see Hannah on the day of the attack and he described the injuries which the poor woman had sustained. He said that the wounds had been inflicted with great violence and that some of the wounds were so deep that they went down to the skull. He had no doubt that these wounds were the cause of her death. Horsfall was questioned very carefully as to whether, in his opinion, the prisoner had acted whilst labouring under monomania, to which he replied in the affirmative.
Another surgeon, Mr W.N. Price, was then examined. He stated that while Cockcroft had been imprisoned he had had the opportunity to closely observe the prisoner on several occasions and as part of this observation had been given the opportunity to talk to Cockcroft. He gave his opinion that the prisoner was of a very low type and a very ignorant man, but that he had not seen any indications of insanity. Mr Price also stated that he could see little evidence of any disease of the brain and that on occasions Cockcroft appeared to be cool and collected. He then informed the judge that he had heard evidence indicative of all the classic symptoms of deep depression, but that he had heard nothing which would point towards homicidal mania. The surgeon said he would be cautious in such cases, but would not ordinarily assign the prisoner to an asylum. He also clarified that, ‘The depression to which he was subject to might result in an act of fury, in which state he would not, during the fit, know the moral consequences of his actions.’
The prosecution summed up the evidence and contended that although the prisoner was sullen and sometimes low-spirited, he knew perfectly well what he was doing at the time of the murder. The defence countered the argument by highlighting the fact that there were other cases of insanity in the prisoner’s family and that Cockcroft had been subject to fits of depression, in which he manifested irrational conduct and was prone to sullen outbursts of passion. The act of the prisoner in this case showed to be utterly without reason and without motive. He concluded that the prisoner had been labouring under a form of homicidal monomania at the time of the murder and therefore was not responsible for his actions. In such a case, as he had made the attack without any intention of committing murder, he should not be charged with murder but rather the lesser crime of manslaughter. The judge summed up the evidence for the jury, telling them:
You must consider the whole circumstances of the case, and return such a verdict as you, in your conscience and in accordance with the oath you have taken, believe to be right. If a man was truly labouring under such mental disease that made him not know what he was doing, then the verdict would be one of not guilty on the grounds of insanity. If you consider that the circumstances of the case should prove that there had been some provocation, so as to reduce the offence to that of manslaughter, you should return a verdict to that effect. But if you believe that the prisoner knew what he was doing, and that the offence with which he was charged was the result of uncontrolled passion and bad temper, it is your duty to find him guilty of murder.
After an absence of almost two hours, the jury returned with a verdict of guilty with a strong recommendation to mercy. The judge, in a brief but solemn address, told Cockcroft that he was guilty of a murder committed against his own sister and under circumstances of great brutality. He then sentenced the prisoner to be hanged by the neck until he was dead. The prisoner left the dock looking unmoved by the judge’s words.
A week later, news was heard that the Home Secretary, Sir George Grey, had commuted Cockcroft’s sentence to life imprisonment because of the jury’s recommendation to mercy. Mr Justice Mellor expressed his concurrence with the decision.
CASE NINE 1868
MURDER
AT THE
PARSONAGE
* * *
Suspect: Miles Weatherill
Age: Twenty-three
Charge: Murder
Sentence: Execution
* * *
Miles Weatherill, aged twenty-three, lived in Todmorden, where he regularly attended the local church and was a Sunday school teacher. He was described as respectable, hard working and as having a slightly above average intelligence. It was said that when he finished his day’s work as a weaver, he was often found to be in the news and reading rooms in town catching up on local and national news. Weatherill was the only son of a widowed mother and had a sister of a similar age. He lived a well-ordered life until he met and fell in love with Sarah Bell. She was the servant of the local vicar, Reverend Plow, and worked at the parsonage in Todmorden. In an attempt to win over her employer, he asked Revd Plow’s permission to court Sarah. After some discussion with his wife, however, Revd Plow declined his request, for reasons which never became absolutely clear. His honourable attempt to court Sarah foiled, Weatherill decided to resort to murder.
The Parsonage at Todmorden as it is today.
On Monday, 2 March 1868, Revd Plow had been out on church visits between 8.15 p.m. and 9.40 p.m. and upon returning home had some supper with his wife before he rang for prayers, which were held each evening with all his family and staff. Another servant girl named Jane Smith entered the room and informed Revd Plow that she had seen Weatherill outside the back door. She told the Revd that he wished to speak with him so he went to the back door, where he saw Weatherill waiting for him. Without speaking, Weatherill raised a pistol which he had been holding at his side. Before the Revd could call out or move away Weatherill pointed it at his head and fired. Thankfully, the cap exploded but the pistol did not go off. However, undaunted by this, Weatherill drew out an axe from behind his back. When Revd Plow moved to grab Weatherill by the neck, he struck the clergyman on the head twice. By now there was a great deal of blood and the poor man loudly shouted out ‘Murder!’
The back door to the Parsonage at Todmorden, where Jane Smith informed Revd Plow that Miles Weatherill was waiting.
* * *
‘the poor man loudly
shouted out “Murder!”’
* * *
Still struggling along the passage away from the parsonage’s back door, Weatherill continued to beat Revd Plow’s head with the axe. Three servants were now in the passage as well, including Jane Smith, who went towards the two struggling men and grabbed hold of Weatherill in order to try to take the axe from him. But just as the two men were opposite the dining room door Weatherill drew out another pistol, put it to Revd Plow’s ear and pulled the trigger. Once again, unbelievably, the pistol did not fire and the clergyman wrestled it from his grasp. Turning his attention to Jane Smith, Weatherill struck at her twice on the head with the axe and she ran screaming into the dining room. The woman put her back against the dining room door in an attempt to deter Weatherill, who was loudly accusing her of telling tales to her master about his visits to see Sarah. Finally managing to push the door open he shot her dead with another pistol.
While Weatherill was attacking Jane Smith, the Revd took the chance to escape and ran out of the front doo
r with a pistol in his hand. After Weatherill had shot Jane Smith he closely pursued Revd Plow, drawing another pistol from his belt and firing at the clergyman once more. The servants inside the house heard two more shots ring out, but Revd Plow had managed to escape to a neighbour’s house.
Meanwhile, inside the house, the servants had taken cover. Margaret Bell, the nurse who had been attending Mrs Plow during her recent childbirth, watched Weatherill from her mistress’s bedroom upstairs. She saw him walk between the front room and the kitchen and noticed that he was loading a pistol. She then looked on in horror as he came upstairs carrying the pistol in one hand and the kitchen poker in the other. Bell ran into the bedroom of Mrs Plow and, because there was no lock, put her back to the door in an attempt to prevent him from entering. He told her, ‘Let me in, I mean you no harm,’ and pushed at the door with all his might. Overcoming Bell, he managed to get inside the bedroom; she pleaded for him to take mercy upon them and begged him not to harm the newborn baby. Weatherill remained silent as he approached the bed in which Mrs Plow lay.
Halifax Page 5