Sarah
Hawkins Genealogy Site
Newspaper
Articles
The
Norfolk News, Eastern Counties Journal, and Norwich, Yarmouth, and
Lynn Commercial Gazette 04 Jun 1859
Page 6
THE CHARGE OF CHILD MURDER.
On Monday, Elizabeth ROSE was again brought up on a charge of having murdered the female infant which was found floating on Breydon water, on the 18th ult. There was a large attendance of magistrates, and a considerable amount of public excitement was exhibited. The court was densely crowded, and great numbers of persons surrounded the police-station during the hearing of the case, which lasted upwards of three hours. Mr. J. L. CUFAUDE appeared for the prosecution and Mr. F. S. COSTERTON for the defence. The prisoner exhibited, as on the previous occasion, the most imperturbable coolness and apparent unconcern. The placid expression of her face never changed, and not a single movement betokened that she was in any way affected by the awfulness of her position. For the first two house she suckled and amused an infant which she held in her arms, and when, in consequence of its becoming restless and noisy, it was removed from the court, she sat quietly and collectedly, listening to and gazing at the various witnesses and magistrates. The only time that a change passed over her countenance was when her mother who wept piteously, was brought into the court. The prisoner, and the woman who is, we believe, her constant companion, were accommodated with chairs.
Mr. CUFAUDE, in opening the case, said that he appeared for the prosecution in this most important inquiry, which on the one hand, involved the life of the prisoner, and on the other deeply concerned the administration of justice. He was greatly relieved to find that the prisoner would have the able assistance of Mr. COSTERTON. The prisoner, Elizabeth ROSE, was the wife of William ROSE, a coast volunteer, and was married to him shortly before last Christmas. On Saturday, the 14th of May, she had two children alive – one, Sarah LAKE, an intelligent child, whom she was now charged with having murdered, and the other the infant which she held in her arms. On Wednesday, the 18th May, about eleven o'clock in the forenoon, a fisherman named COLE, while pursuing his occupation on Breydon, found floating upon the water, the naked body of a female child. The spot where it was found was about a mile from the town, and was by a “rond” some fifty yards from Breydon stone wall. COLE at once took it into his boat, and proceeded to Yarmouth, when he conveyed the body to the Workhouse, and gave information to the police. On the following day the coroner instituted an inquiry into the circumstances of the case. On the forehead of the child were marks as though it had been struck a severe blow or blows; and he should show them to demonstration that the child died from asphyxia by drowning. Now, at the time there was not the slightest suspicion as regards the prisoner; all was wrapped in profound mystery. Much good, however, resulted from this enquiry. By the coroner's request a photographic likeness of the dead child was taken, and publicly exhibited, and he had no hesitation in saying that from that likeness, and the very great attention paid to the case by the superintendent of police, the facts he was now about to bring before them were brought to light. The inquest as he had said, was held on the 19th, but nothing further was known by the police until Wednesday, the 25th, when they ascertained that the prisoner on the 14th of May, had lost a female child, of about the age of the one found. This was just four days before the body was discovered, which he believed was about the time that the gases, from putrefaction, would cause the body to float. The mother of the prisoner, Mary LAKE, it would seem, lived at Freethorpe, and had been keeping her daughter's eldest illegitimate child, Sarah LAKE; and previous to this 14th of May, the prisoner had sent a message, by a man named YOUNG, to her mother, requesting her to meet her with the child at Reedham station, on the evening of this 14th of May, at the time when the latest train from Yarmouth arrived there. The prisoner, on that Saturday evening, journeyed from Yarmouth by the 8.40 train to Reedham, with an acquaintance named Matilda HOWARD ; and, as they travelled along, the prisoner told HOWARD she was going to Reedham to meet her mother, and take her child, for the purpose of putting it to school. He should show them conclusively that the prisoner received her child from her mother, that she entered the railway carriage with it, for Yarmouth, and that the train was seen to depart from Reedham with her and the child. This train arrived at Yarmouth at ten minutes to ten o'clock, and since that time the child had not been seen alive. On the 21st, the following Saturday, the woman who journeyed with the prisoner from Yarmouth to Reedham, saw the prisoner, as did also a young woman named KEY, who was with her, in Yarmouth. These woman met the prisoner by accident, and they asked her how the child was, and where it was, and she (the prisoner) then made statements which were of considerable importance. She said the child was at home, playing with her little girl, and was quite well. The prisoner also made other statements. By this time the photographic likeness had gone abroad. He must now go back to a piece of evidence. On the Monday after the Saturday when the prisoner went to Reedham she was found selling the clothes which the child wore at the time she received her from her mother, and they would remember that when the child was found on Breydon, it was entirely denuded of clothing. Now, on the 25th, which was Wednesday, Sergeant BARNES, in consequence of a communication he received through a person who fancied he recognized the likeness of the child, was induced to go to the prisoner's house where he saw her. This was in the evening. On the morning of the same day, a woman named ANNISON, residing at Reedham, went, by the request of the prisoner's mother, to see the child, and was told by her not to leave until she did see it. The prisoner at first told ANNISON that the child was at school, but, after communication with her husband, and weeping, asked ANNISON to come again in the afternoon, and she would tell her something. ANNISON, however, did not go again, as her husband told her not to interfere in the matter. Sergeant BARNES went in the evening and asked the prisoner where her little girl was, when she made the following extraordinary statement:- She said she went on Saturday evening, the 14th, to Reedham, where she met her mother, and that she brought the child with her to Yarmouth. On her way home from the railway station, she met a woman named HOWARD, in Chapel-street, and to this woman she gave the child. Mrs. HOWARD asked her for some money, and she gave her 10s. Mrs. HOWARD, she said, lived on Victoria-road. She subsequently stated that she had, since then, seen Mrs. HOWARD, and had given her some clothes for the child. Every enquiry had been made to find this Mrs. HOWARD, but without success. At this time the prisoner was not in custody, the child had never been seen alive since that Saturday evening, but its clothes had been found; and, as the prisoner resided in Row 104, Gaol-street, those who were acquainted with the locality must know that along her whole route, from the railway station to her home, she had opportunities of immersing the child in the river without observation. He should have to satisfy them that this woman had an illegitimate child, which was born about February, 1857 – that this child was alive on the 14th of May last – and that it had never been seen alive since. He should show the contradictory and untrue statements which the prisoner had made, her dealing with the clothes which the child wore when it left Reedham, on the first day it was possible for her to do so, and he should be able conclusively to establish the identity of the child found with that of the prisoner's. He knew it was a case of a mother destroying her offspring, and that the theory of the defence would be that the crime was unnatural, but presumption was strong that the prisoner had done this dark deed. He did not want to suggest motives, but the prisoner had married, and by her marriage, she had lost the maintenance which had previously been paid by the father of the child. The prisoner's mother, who was in an advanced state of pregnancy, could no longer keep the child, and, whether the husband of the prisoner knew it or not, there might be many motives for the commission of such a crime. Moreover, there were cases of murders, such as those of GREENACRE and GOODES, where motives could not be supplied by the prosecution, but in which, nevertheless, the guilt of the parties had been brought home. He was glad that Mr. COSTERTON had had access to the prisoner, and that she had had every opportunity afforded her of answering the charge. He should tell them that the woman who purchased the child's clothes identified the prisoner as the woman who sold them to her, from several other women, and the superintendent of police, although he had acted with great energy, had also acted with great kindness. The prisoner had been offered a view of the child, but had said she did not wish to see it; she had, however, suggested that her mother might see it, but this the grandmother had declined. He stated these facts in the hope that, whatever might be the course pursued, on the one hand they should do their duty on the part of the prosecution, firmly and tenderly, and on the other hand give every chance to the prisoner to establish her innocence. He then called the following witnesses:-
William COLE deposed – I am a labourer, and live in Yarmouth. On the 18th of this month I went up Breydon in my boat. About a mile from Yarmouth, I found the dead body of a female child floating in Breydon water, a few inches off the “rond,” which is about fifty yards from the stone bank of the river. The child was perfectly naked. It was about eleven o'clock in the morning when I found the body. The wind N.E., with the tide, would wash the child there. I took the child into the boat, and brought it to Yarmouth. It was taken to the workhouse, and I reported the case at the police station. I saw the child at the inquest on the following day. I observed the mark of a blow upon the face when I got to the workhouse. It was a female child. The scar was upon the left side of the forehead.
Mr. COSTERTON – Don't I understand you that the body was knocking against the “rond?”
Witness – There was a lot of swell, and the body was moving about in the water. There might be some stones below but not in the soft “rond.”
Mr. John G. SMITH, surgeon – On Thursday, the 19th, I saw the body of a female child at the workhouse. There was a large bruise upon the forehead. It had the appearance of being a healthy child, about two years old. The bruise was on the left side of the forehead, about the size of half a crown, and ecchymosis had taken place quite through the scalp. This and two smaller bruises were the only marks of violence. I examined the head internally and the vessels of the brain were very much congested. Generally, the internal part of the body was quite healthy, I found the right cavities of the heart filled with fluid blood; the left cavities were empty. The lungs were distended and slightly congested, and contained frothy mucus. In the stomach there was some food, and a small quantity of fluid. From the general appearances presented. I have no doubt that the cause of death was drowning. I am of Dr. TAYLOR's opinion, when he says, in his “Medical Jurisprudence,” that bodies, after drowning, when in a state of putrefaction, will rise, after subersion, on the fourth or fifth day, unless held down by mechanical obstacles. Decomposition had here begun to take place, and the body would float.
Dr. SMYTHE, a physician practising in Yarmouth, and who was present at the post mortem examination, expressed his entire concurrence with the evidence of the previous witness. In reply to a question from the mayor, he expressed his belief that the blow on the forehead was given during the life of the child. He did not think such a wound could have been sustained after the child had been in the water.
Matilda HOWARD – I am a single woman living at Freethorpe, and I reside near Mary LAKE, the mother of the prisoner. Last Saturday fortnight, the 14th inst., I met the prisoner at the railway station, and went with her to Reedham, where she said she was going to meet her mother, who was going to bring her little girl with her. Prisoner said she was going to send the girl to school. I knew the child. At Reedham I saw Mary LAKE, the prisoner's mother, and she had with her the prisoner's child, whose name was Sarah. Prisoner took the girl, and got into a railway carriage to go by the next train to Yarmouth. I saw the train go. I remained on the bridge at Reedham until after the train started. On the following Saturday I was again in Yarmouth, and saw the prisoner, and on that day I went with her to Reedham. After she had left, I went to Freethorpe with Mr. and Mrs. LAKE. When I was at Yarmouth on the following Saturday with Mary Ann KEY, I saw the prisoner in the Market-place. I asked her how her little girl was, and she told me quite well, and that she had put her to school. I was taken to the workhouse (on the 26th ult) to see the body of a female child. I could not swear to the child. I thought it had a great likeness to the child of the prisoner. I don't remember how the child was dressed at Reedham.
Mary Ann KEY – I am a single woman, and live at Freethorpe, next door to Mary LAKE's. On Saturday, the 21st of May, I was in Yarmouth, and was walking with Matilda HOWARD, when we met Elizabeth ROSE in the Market-place. I heard HOWARD ask her how her little girl was, and prisoner said it was very well and that she had left it at home playing with the baby. I also asked her afterwards where the girl was, and she said she was at a school where she paid a penny a-week more, and they kept it all the Saturday. On the 26th of May, I went to the workhouse with HOWARD, to see the dead body of a female child. I believed the child to be Mrs. ROSE's little girl. I had lived next door to the child for the past twelve months. I am cousin to the prisoner.
Cross-examined – Before I and HOWARD went to the workhouse, we were told by the superintendent of police that some body had been picked up in Breydon. I suspected who it was, as I had seen the likeness which a policeman had brought to my father's house, and stated that it was the likeness of a child that had been picked up. My mother told me whose child it was; if she had not told me I should have recognised it. I should not wish to swear to the body I saw as that of Mrs. ROSE's girl. I have some doubt about it now.
By Mr. CUFAUDE – I don't think it is a right thing to swear to a child. Without any suggestion, I had recognized the photograph, and I knew the body when I saw it.
Sarah Ann ANNISON – I am the wife of Benjamin ANNISON, of Reedham. On Wednesday, the 25th of May, I came to Yarmouth, and saw Elizabeth ROSE. I came at the request of her mother, with a message. I saw prisoner at her own house, in Row 104. I said, “If you please, Mrs. ROSE, your mother had sent me to see your little girl.” She said, “You can't see it, for I have put it out to school.” I said, “Your mother told me not to leave the house till I saw it.” She made no answer, but went upstairs to her husband, who called her. I then heard some crying. Prisoner was upstairs with her husband from five to ten minutes. When she came down she asked me to call again in the afternoon, “when,” she said, “I'll tell you something.” I left, but did not call again. On Thursday last, I went to the workhouse to look at the dead body of a child. I believe the body to be that of child of the prisoner. I have frequently nursed the child. I have known it twelve months.
Cross-examined – I did not know from any one before whose body I was to see. Sergeant BARNES told me he wanted me to look at the body of a child. I had seen a likeness in Freethorpe, but I first saw it at Yarmouth, and I thought it was the body of Mrs. ROSE's child. I saw the photograph as I was passing the police-station. My sister was with me at the time, and I said to her “I think that is Elizabeth ROSE's child.”
Mary Ann FARROW – I am a single woman, and live in Row 104. Prisoner and her husband live at our house. Mr. ROSE had lived with us four years, and I was present when he married the prisoner, a week before Christmas, at St. Nicholas' church. I remember Saturday, the 14th inst. On the evening of that day, prisoner left the house after eight o'clock. I did not know where she went. I was at home when she returned before eleven o'clock. She did not bring any child with her. During the whole time she lived in our house I have seen no other child but the baby now in prisoner's arms.
Cross-examined – When the prisoner returned she was calm and quiet as usual. I saw nothing peculiar about her. I have always observed that she was very kind to her child.
Matilda FRENCH – I am a widow, and live in George Street. I am a broker, and deal in old clothes. I have lately purchased some children's clothes. I purchased the straw hat, petticoat, dress, and other articles of children's clothing now produced on the morning of the 16th inst. There was a yellow cotton pelisse and cape, one pair of cotton socks, one cotton frock, a child's straw hat, and a cotton handkerchief. I purchased, at the same time, from prisoner two slips, one child's shirt, a black petticoat, a frock, a feeder, and another article or two. They were all children's clothes, and the last set I sold to a woman the same day. I gave the clothes produced to Police-constable BROWN on Friday last. I know the woman by sight, but I do not know her name nor where she lives.
Police-constable BROWN deposed to receiving from the last witness the clothes produced.
Police-sergeant BARNES – I went to prisoner's house on the 25th inst., between eight and nine in the evening. I saw the prisoner, and asked her if she had a little girl two years of age, and she said, “Yes, two years last February.”
[Mr. COSTERTON here made some objection to the course of proceeding, but after some explanation, the witness was allowed to go on.]
Witness. - Prisoner said, “I gave it to a woman to take care of, and I can't find her now.” Prisoner then said, “On Saturday week in the evening my mother met me with my child at Reedham. I took and brought the child down by the train to the Yarmouth station, where a woman named HOWARD met me, and we went from there into Chapel-street; I there gave her the child. HOWARD asked me for some money, and I gave her 10s. I have been inquiring for her all this day, but could not find her, and I thought about going to Mr. CHAMBERLIN.” She said Mrs. HOWARD lived on the Victoria Road. I said, “You had better go to the station house with me, and the police will make some inquiry, and find this Mrs. HOWARD.” Prisoner and her husband then came with me to the police station; and on reaching the station house, prisoner said, “I met Mrs. HOWARD in the street since she had the child, and gave her some clothes for it. I asked her how it was, and HOWARD said it was doing very well.” I immediately inquired in Victoria Road and neighbourhood, for Mrs. HOWARD, but can't find such a person. Prisoner has since been in custody.
Mary LAKE, who was very much distressed, said – I am the wife of Thomas LAKE, of Freethorpe, labourer, and mother of the prisoner. I had, up to the 14th of this month, had my daughter's child, named Sarah, at my house, for twelve months. It was an illegitimate child. I got a message, saying that my daughter wished me to meet her at Reedham station, by the last train on the evening of Saturday fortnight. I went with the child to Reedham, and we were accompanied by a little boy. When I got to Reedham, I saw my daughter and Matilda HOWARD. I gave my daughter the child and saw her enter the railway carriage on her return to Yarmouth. After the train started, I went home to Freethorpe with Matilda HOWARD. I know Sarah Ann ANNISON, and sent her with a message to my daughter. I wanted to be satisfied. I have had shown to me the clothes in which the little girl left. This is the Tuscan hat, the frock, and the pelisse which she wore, this is also one of the petticoats, marked “S.L.” My daughter said she was taking the child home to put it to school. WILSON, the father of the child, who lives at Strumpshaw, paid for the child until my daughter married.
Mr. CUFAUDE said this was all the evidence he thought fit to offer, although more could be produced if necessary. A witness named YOUNG ought to have been present. The case was, however, carried to a serious extent, and he would leave it to the magistrate to say whether they would remand the prisoner or send her for trial.
Mr. COSTERTON inquired whether the magistrates thought there was evidence enough to warrant them in committing the prisoner.
The Mayor said they were all agreed upon that point.
The prisoner, who said nothing, was then committed for trail at Norwich for the Wilful Murder of her illegitimate child, and the witnesses were bound over to appear at the assizes.
On Monday evening the prisoner was conveyed by our Superintendent of police to Norwich Castle, where she will await her trial at the coming Assizes.
The adjourned inquest on the body of the dead child was held at the workhouse on Tuesday, before Mr. C. H. CHAMBERLIN. The proceedings were exceedingly lengthy, but the evidence was precisely similar to that adduced before the magistrates. The result of the inquiry was that the jury returned a verdict of wilful murder against Elizabeth ROSE.