Wateringbury doctor testifies in Mereworth murder case (1873)

Post date: Aug 03, 2012 8:17:22 PM

This extract from Whitstable Times and Herne Bay Herald of 6 December 1873 illustrates the local mayhem arising during the hopping season:

WIFE MURDER AT MEREWORTH

James Gormon, hawker, was indicted for the wilful murder of his wife, Sarah Gormon, Mereworth, on the 21st September, 1873. Mr. F. J. Smith with Mr. Morton Smith prosecuted. Mr. R. H. B. Marsham defended the prisoner.

The first witness called was :— Nelson Vesper Cummins, labourer, who said—l was the Torrington Arms public house, Mereworth, the night of the 20th September. The prisoner and his wife were also there and left the place shortly before I did. The man was carrying a bottle his hand. They walked along the road in front of me and shortly afterwards when they were out of sight I heard cries of "oh oh" proceeding from a spot near to which the prisoner was found.

Mr. Henry Hyles.—l am brother of Mr. Hyles, of Brewer's Hall Farm. On the night of the 20th September, I found the prisoner and his wife by the side of the road, near to the Post Office. They were quarreling and I spoke to the prisoner. He said " I am sober and my wife is drunk. I will attend her." The woman used disgusting language to the prisoner, affirming that she was not his wife, but this he contradicted. The woman was nearly naked and the prisoner pulled some clothing from her body while was standing there. I went away shortly afterwards and upon returning later found that the prisoner was gathering together the deceased's clothes, which were scattered about the road, and throwing them over her. I was walking about this time of the night, because we had had a fire, and I was watching the premises. As I came the second time the prisoner exclaimed "Good God she's worse, she's gone into fits again." He afterwards twisted some clothing round her, lifted her from the ground and let her drop. By Mr. Marsham.—l do not know that I thought the man used unnecessary violence, but thought was behaving very unwisely. If I had thought that I should not have returned, as we have so many disturbances during the hop-picking season, and I might have interfered in several the same night.

P.C. Richard Mllen deposed to seeing the prisoner and deceased by the side of the road shortly after midnight. They were quarreling. The man was standing and the woman was lying in the water table partly naked.

Harriet Clements deposed to seeing the two lying near to the same spot at five o'clock in the morning.The woman was entirely naked with the exception a small piece of linen across her chest. The man was asleep, and the woman appeared to be asleep also. I noticed a very severe wound on her hip I then went away for assistance, and when I returned the man had covered the woman's body with some of her clothing. I accused the man of ill-treatment and he said "That is my wife; she is subject to dreadful fits, and when she is suffering from them she tears everything off her body." By Mr. Marsham.—The prisoner afterwards behaved very kindly to her, kissed her twice, and removed some dust from her hair.

Matthew Wick, labourer, Mereworth, who came up to the place while the previous witness was away gave similar evidence as to the condition in which he found the deceased. He further stated that there was a trail mark along the road as though some heavy object had been dragged through the dust.

George Foord, groom the service of Mr. Hyles stated that on the morning of the 21st September at about six o'clock, he saw the prisoner and his wife by the side of the road. The prisoner said to him— "Look here, George, what some man has done to my wife." I said,"You brute, it is you have done this." He noticed that the deceased was much injured, and that her ear had been cut in two. The prisoner did not ask him to give him any assistance with his wife. He afterwards helped the people who were carrying the deceased to one of the hop-picker's houses. This was a little past seven o'clock.

Mary Olive—l was hop-picking at Mr. Hyles in September. The prisoner and his wife were working there and I knew them very well. About seven o'clock on the Sunday morning the prisoner came in to the hopper house where we lived together and told me that his wife had had a fit in the road. He had a bundle in his hands which appeared to contain some of her clothes. She was afterwards brought and everything was done for her, but she died one o'clock. By Mr. Marsham- When the deceased was brought in she was covered with the prisoner's coat.

Charlotte West, servant the Torrington Arms, Mereworth, stated that on the Sunday morning, shortly after seven o'clock, the prisoner came to the house and asked for the brandy. He said that his wife had had a miscarriage, but when she pointed out him some blood which she noticed upon his trousers and boots, said they had had a quarrel on the previous Saturday night. He went away without the brandy.

Amos Hodges, labourer, Mereworth, proved detaining the prisoner until a policeman came in consequence of what he had been told. He found the prisoner seated upon some bricks near to one of Mr. Hyles' oast houses. The witness further stated that the prisoner admitted to him that he had struck his wife with a bottle partly filled with beer.

Sergeant Bates, of the Malling Division of Police, stated that he examined the ground where the prisoner and his wife had been seen, the place having been pointed out to him by the witness Foord. A struggle had evidently taken place and noticed marks in the road as though some heavy object had been dragged along. The prisoner was afterwards given into charge by the witness Hodges and told him that he arrested him on the charge of wounding his wife with intent to do her grievous bodily harm, or, if she died might a more serious charge still. He noticed blood on the prisoner's boots and trousers, and pointed his attention to them. Prisoner replied that he had not touched his wife but that she had been taken in fit and done to herself all the harm she had received.

Mr. Fry, surgeon, of Wateringbury—l was called to see the deceased and endeavoured to revive her, but was unable to do so. She was in a comatose, moribund state, and I found that I could do nothing for her. I left, and on again visiting her found that she had been dead for three hours. I then examined the exterior of the body, and found numerous bruises over the front of her body, thighs, legs, and face. There was a fresh incised wound on tbe right thigh, and another over the hip bone. There were numerous scratches and abrasions over the chest and forehead, and two or three ribs were broken. There were other marks of violence upon tbe body, and the right ear was cut in two. The ribs had apparently been broken by a heavy kick, and boots such as the prisoner wore would have been sufficient to cause such injuries. The mark made also corresponded in shape with prisoner's boots. From several abrasions on the body, and from the state of the ground, I draw the conclusion that the deceased was dragged along the road. the postmortem examination which I made, found great extravasation of blood under the tissue of the skull, above the right ear. There were also two clots ofblood at the base of the brain, which had been caused by the same heavy blow behind the ear. It must have been a dull heavy blow; such as might be given with a champagne bottle partly filled with beer. This blow was undoubted!y the cause of death. By Mr. Marsham.—l do not think the blow behind the ear could have been caused by the deceased falling upon the bottle, or that the ribs could have been broken that way.

The prisoner's statement when before the magistrates was then read, and this being the case for the prosecution, Mr. Smith proceeded with his address to the jury, referring in the first instance the evidence of Dr. Fry which had been given, he said, in a most clear and concise manner. In these cases the medical testimony was always of the greatest possible value, showing as it did the actual injuries which had been received and also those which had been of nature sufficient to cause death. Going into detail upon this subject, Mr. Smith reminded the jury the heavy blow which the deceased had received behind the ear, and also of the injuries to her left side, which, as the medical gentleman had stated, might have been caused in the manner suggested by the prosecution. These were highly important matters for the jury to take into consideration. There was no direct evidence that the prisoner had inflicted these blows, for no one was witness of them. He must remind the jury, however, of statements made by the prisoner himself; and the evidence of the witness Hodges was very material npon this point The prisoner had told this witness that he inflicted upon his wife the blow with the bottle, and had also admitted to the servants the Torrington Arms, who saw blood upon his clothes, that" he had had a row with his wife on Saturday night." It might be urged in his defense that he had afterwards behaved and spoken kindly to her, but there had then been ample time for repentance, and, had he acted otherwise, he would have been hardened man indeed. Mr. Smith concluded bis address by asking the jury to fairly weigh the evidence to which they had listened and decide accordingly.

Mr. Marsham in addressing the jury for defence spoke of the friendless condition of the prisoner. He had come into the county for the hop-picking and no one appeared to know him. He was very poor and was unable to instruct solicitor who would in turn instruct counsel in his behalf ; and (Mr. Marsham) being merely retained through the kindness of the Sheriff, had not in consequence been put possession of facts from which he might have cross-examined witnesses. Proceeding to deal with the evidence of the case the learned counsel remarked upon the fact that at no previous time had the prisoner and his wife been known to quarrel, but had on the contrary, appeared to have lived on very friendly terms. His conduct towards his wife while in an insensible state was not Mr. Smith had suggested the mere result of repentance for what he was supposed to have done, but was an evidence of real concern upon his part, and this was borne out by his subsequent conduct in procuring brandy and in going for the relieving officer. The prisoner had accounted for the condition in which his wife was found by saying that she was subject to fits, and this statement was certainly borne out by evidence, the witness Mary Olive having mentioned a conversation between herself and the deceased, during which the latter remarked that she had recently had fit. In conclusion the learned counsel reminded the jury that they had of course the power to return verdict of manslaughter but he appealed to them to acquit the prisoner altogether, feeling confident that this would be their decision.

His lordship then summed case with great care and the jury after few minutes deliberation found the prisoner guilty of manslaughter. His lordship said those two severe wounds one on the ear and the other on the left aide showed how brutally the prisoner had ill treated his wife. He could not under the circumstances make any difference in his case from that of the previous prisoner and should sentence him to twenty years penal servitude. This concluded the business at the assize.