Page images
PDF
EPUB

said, "No, my dear, it was a fine moonlight night." Now, he would ask, how, if there had not been something of concert and plan in this mysterious affair, Mr. Woodward could have been prepared thus to assist the memory of his daughter, who certainly ought best to have known the sort of night on which she had been so dreadfully abused?

The Rev. W. Hooper examined, deposed, that he was a magistrate; that he knew the defendant, Robert Woodward: he was vicar of the parish of Harrold. On the 7th of June, 1815, he brought his daughters to witness's house. Witness took their depositions on oath, which they signed. They were read over to them before they were signed. The depositions were then put in and read.

Mr. Hooper continued. In consequence of this information, he issued his warrant for the apprehension of Harris: Harris was brought before him the same day, and he committed him to prison. He sent for a neighbour, a Mr. Eyles, to be present at the examination.

Wm. Rogers, a constable, proved that he apprehended James Harris, in consequence of the warrant granted by the former witness, and conveyed him before Mr. Hooper. Recollected Mr. Hooper asking Miss Susannah how she came to recollect the particular night on which the violence was committed. She said she knew it, because it was the night after the gipsey row. [There had been some quarrel in the village with the gipsies.] Mr. Hooper then asked her, what sort of a night it was: she said it was a dark night: upon which her father stepped up

to her, and said, "No, my dear, it was not a dark night; it was a bright moon-light night." Witness took James Harris to Bedford gaol the same day. He utterly denied ever having had any connexion with Miss Woodward.

Mr. Marshall Eyles was present at the examination of the Miss Woodwards before Mr. Hooper. He heard Mr. Hooper ask Susannah whether it was a dark or a light night when the assault was committed? She said it was a dark night; but her father stepped forward and said, "No, my dear, you mistake: it was a light night."-Mr. Woodward spoke in

an audible tone.

Mr. John Garrard, solicitor for Mr. Harris, said he was present at the last spring assizes, when Mr. Harris was tried on the indictment for the violation: he heard Miss Susannah Woodward give her evidence, and took a note of what she said. Witness then read his notes, which in substance accorded with the deposition given by Susannah before Mr. Hooper, except that the particulars of the assault were more minutely detailed.

James Harris examined. - I live at Harrold, and am 22 years of age. I am a saddler by trade. I know the three defendants perfectly well. I never had criminal intercourse with Sarah Woodward in my life. I went to school to her father for about a year. I was then between 13 and 14 years of age. I had no acquaintance with Mr. Woodward, except going to school to him. I had no acquaintance whatever with his daughters. I did not assault Miss Susannah on the night mentioned in July, nor on any subsequent

night. I spent the whole of the evening of the 18th of October with a Mrs. Reynolds and a Mr. Northern.

In cross-examination by Mr. Hunt, witness admitted that he occasionally went to fetch the newspaper from Mr. Woodward's house, and to take it back, but he did not see either of the young ladies there. He did not visit at Mr. Woodward's. He could play the flute. Once was invited to play the flute at Mr. Woodward's, when there was a party there. He did not see the young ladies there that evening; he was in another room, and when Mr. Woodward rapped at the door he played. He paid his addresses to Mr. Woodward's servant-girl. Admitted that he, on one occasion, accompanied Miss Susannah on the road towards Olney. She was on a pony; but being afraid to ride he took the pony back to Harrold, and she went on to Olney in a chaise.

She

Ann Robinson remembered having seen Susannah Woodward for a long time before her preg. nancy was publicly known. appeared ill, and wore a large cloak. She saw her soon after James Harris was sent to prison. She then perceived she was in a family way very plainly. Her sister used to say she wore the cloak to keep out the fever. Her size was such, that no person could live with her and not see that she was pregnant.

Mr. Sergeant Blossett was about to call further evidence, but the learned judge conceived he had already submitted sufficient to support his case.

Mr. Sergeant Blossett said, he was prepared with witnesses who

would prove a clear alibi on the part of his client.

Mr. Hunt now addressed the court and jury on the part of the defendants. The indictment in this case had been prepared ever since last spring assizes, and had been laid before the grand jury as soon as ever James Harris, who was described as having been so much injured, was acquitted. He begged to state to the jury, that this acquittal had taken place, not from any direct discredit attached to the evidence of the prosecutrix, but upon a rule of law for as soon as ever Susannah Woodward had gone through her testimony, Mr. Sergeant Blossett got up and told the jury, that by a rule of evidence, which had been made a rule of law, the prisoner must be acquitted. The prosecutrix, be said, had concealed the fact of the violation of her person for eight months, and this concealment, by law, prevented the conviction of the person accused. It would be observed, from the course of cross-examination which he took, that he was anxious to see whe

ther any attempt would be made to cast any reflection on the character of this young lady; and that, in no single instance, however minute, had any thing like levity or impropriety of conduct been attributed to her. The jury had, no doubt, watched with becoming attention the manner in which Harris had on this day given his testimony. They must have observed the boldness with which he, in the first instance, denied any acquaintance with Mr. Woodward or his daughters, after he quitted school; but upon being pressed, he admitted that he had

gone

gone to the house to play the flute, and went there frequently for the newspaper: and, upon being still closer pushed, he allowed that he had once accompanied Miss Susannah towards Olney. How much oftener these meetings took place it was not his interest to confess. He was at a loss to know by what means Mr. Robert Woodward, the father, could be made a party to their crime. Had the character of that gentleman been impeached in the slightest degree? Had the breath of calumny in the most minute instance affected his moral conduct? Certainly not. Then what were the grounds upon which his guilt were supposed to rest? Why, forsooth, that his daughter could not have been 8 months pregnant in his house without his knowledge. Good God! Could any thing be more absurd than this? Was a father, who had brought up his children in the strictest paths of virtue, to be watching them with suspicion, and to be viewing them as common prostitutes? Could any parent, who loved and confided in his offspring, harbour a suspicion so foul as that they would prostitute their persons in the way in which they must have done to have produced the appearance described? Of all men living, a father, in his belief, was the last man who would have made such a discovery. What was Mr.Woodward's conduct when he did find out what had happened? Did he not immediately carry his daughters before a magistrate? What else could he have done to show his indignation? And then comes the last ground upon which suspicion could be attached to him.

It was said, that when before the magistrate he prompted his daughter as to the kind of night on which the violation had been committed. Why, could any thing have been more natural? The unfortunate girl, in the agony of her mind, returned an answer different to that which she had before given him; and in the anxiety of a parent, alive to every circumstance which she could relate, Mr. Woodward set her right, openly, and in the hearing of every person. Was here any thing like secret concert?

Mr. Baron Graham observed, that the jury had to decide whether the three defendants, two, or any of them, had been guilty of the offence imputed to them. In order to commit the crime of conspiracy, two must necessarily have been concerned; therefore, in this case, the jury must either find two guilty, or acquit the defendants altogether. The learned judge

then read over the whole of the evidence. evidence. From this evidence, he observed, it was clear that the father must have known that his daughter was in a state of pregnancy. In the first place it appears, that not a syllable of this charge came to the knowledge of James Harris till seven or eight months after the fact was alleged to have taken place; and then what was done? The charge is preferred, the prosecutrix is examined, and upon coming into a court of justice finds no credit. Now it is said, not with the strictest and most perfect correctness, that the prisoner was acquitted upon a point of law, and not upon the merits of the case. This, I am satisfied, is not true; the fact

is, that the improbability of the charge was the true ground upon which the acquittal took place; and certainly nothing could wear more the face of improbability than that, if the crime alleged had been committed, it would have been kept secret from the month of October to the June following; but it becomes still more improbable, when the situation of the parties is considered: the one a young woman of education and modesty, and the other a young man living in the same parish. Can any one believe, that the daughter of a clergyman could have been so ignorant of the state of society as not to know, that she would have been sufficiently protected from the violence with which she said she was threatened; or that she would, after having been so atrociously abused, under any feelings of terror, have lost a moment in proclaiming her disgrace, and asking for vengeance on her violater? but still less likely is it that she would have concealed a disgrace to which her own sister had been an eye-witness. These, I apprehend, were the grounds on which the acquittal took place, and not, as has been stated, on a mere rule of law. If the young woman had been treated with the violence she has described, she must and would have told her parent. That she was with child is a matter beyond doubt, and it might, by possibility, happen that this young man was the father of that child; but the violation must be put altogether out of the question. Even this surmise, which I have made for the benefit of the young woman, is set aside by the oath of the young

man himself, who swears most positively that he never had any connexion with her whatever; and that his evidence is at all deserving of discredit, I can in no respect discover. He is a respectable young man, and has given his testimony in a very unquestionable manner. I protest I was most anxious and desirous, for the sake of this unfortunate family, that something might occur which would lessen the enormity of their guilt. The natural compassion of one's feelings in seeing a man of education, and in holy orders, work up his mind to an offence for which there is no palliation, without using a harsher observation, led me to hope some circumstance might arise to lessen the enormity of his guilt. It is with pain, however, that I am driven to say no such circunstance has transpired. What could be the motives for concealing the real father, and fixing it on an innocent man, is beyond our ability to discover? If the charge of violation against James Harris is false, the next question for our consideration is, did the defendants agree to bring forward the charge, knowing it to be false? With respect to the young women, as they both swore to being present when the fact took place, no doubt of their guilt can exist. As to the father, perhaps the evidence is not so conclusive. In the defect of the evidence against the father, you have nothing but the general circumstances of the case, and the palpable falseness of the charge. You will consider whether the natural sagacity of a man of good education could really have persuaded him to give credit to so

foul

foul a charge. If you are not fully satisfied of his guilt, you will acquit him by your verdict. The same observation applies to the daughters; but if you think they were all privy to the conspiracy, you will find your verdict accordingly.

The jury, after a few minutes consultation, found all the defendants Guilty.

Mr. Baron Graham immediately proceeded to pronounce sentence on the defendants. He observed, that during the whole of his judicial life he never felt more pain than in the performance of his duty on the present occasion. It was impossible to imagine a case more melancholy than that which was now before him: a clergyman of the Church of England, a character which stood so high in this country, convicted on the clearest and most satisfactory evidence, of of the most abominable and atrocious conspiracy-a crime which became still more dreadful from his having induced his two unfortunate daughters to follow him in his career, and to bear a part in his foul load of infamy. He confessed he knew not how to do justice. Compassion for the infirmities of human nature might induce him to alleviate the severity of punishment; but in this case all compassion was swallowed up in the contemplation of the scene before him-a soene which presented to his view a man, who, in spite of the benefits of education, and the dictates of religion, had sunk to the last degree of human crime.

The sentence of the court was, that the Rev. Robert Woodward should be imprisoned in the common gaol of the county of Bedford

for two years; and that his daughters, Sarah and Susannah, should each be imprisoned one year in the same gaol.

The defendants seemed deeply affected with their situation. Mr. Woodward is a man about 50 years of age.

His eldest daughter, Sarah, has nothing prepossessing in her manners or person, and is about 25. The youngest, Susannah, is rather a pretty girl, of fair complexion. Their fate has excited but very little commiseration in the county.

COUNTY MEATH ASSIZES.

Trial of Roger O'Connor, Esq. Second Day, Tuesday, Aug. 5. A FEW minutes after nine o'clock this morning, Mr. Justice Daly resumed his seat on the bench, and the trial of Mr. O'Connor was immediately proceeded in.

When the officers of the court had taken their places at the table, Benjamin Rikey, Esq. the Deputy Clerk of the Crown, inquired, as is usual in cases where more than one prisoner is arraigned for the same offence, whether he (O'Connor) would join with his alleged coadjutor in the felony, in the challenges? He answered, that he would not.

It was then intimated to him by Mr. Rikey, that he would be tried separately from Martin M'Keon, who had just arrived in the custody of the under gaoler, and taken his station in the dock. Notwithstanding this intimation, the trial of M'Keon was subsequently proceeded in.

Some desultory conversation here ensued, between the counsel for the prosecution and Mr. Bon

nett,

« PreviousContinue »