The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1871-11-25 00:00:00

THE STOCKWELL TRAGEDY.

The following is that portion of the Recorder'a charge
to the Grand Jury, which referred to the tragedy at Stock-
well

The most painful cases in the calendars were always
those which involved losa of life, and of these there
were three, of which, however, one only amounted to a
charge of murder. This was one of the most serious
which hal been presented to a court of justice for some ,
time, namely, the murder of his wife by John Selby
Watson, a clergyman of the Church of England. From
the facts the jury could have no doubt whatever of the ,
nature of the case. Mr. Watson and his wife haul lived
together for a number lif years, and were apparently i
well and happy until the first Sunday in October !
list. On that day the servant went out, leaving
Mr. Watson and his wife together in the dining-
room. She returned about nine in the evening, and '
then her master told her that her mistress wets out of
town, and would not be back until eleven o clock on
the morrow. Afterwards her attention was called to
stains on the carpet, and the prisoner told her that her
mistress had spilled some port wine there. She also
saw other stains of the like kind. On Tuesday he
told her that her mistress would not be at home for
some time. The same day he called on a packing
case maker and ordered a case to be sent to his house,
but this order he afterwards countermanded. On
Wednesday morning he was found to be ill. A doctor
was called in, who found on the table writings, one
of which stated in positive terms that Mr. Watson
had taken the life of his wife. Upon that the doctor
opened the door of a room, and in that room in
asorner found the dead body of the wife, who had
! obviously come by her death by serious wounds from
some blunt instrument. There could be little doubt,
from the appearance of a pistol found in the house, and
from the evidence of the surgeon on that point, that
that was the instrument with which the wounds were
inflicted. In a note in the handwriting of the prisoner
he said, " I have killed my wife in a fit of rage to
which she provoked me. Often and often has she pro-
voked me before, but I never lost restraint over
myself with her until this occasion, when I allowed
fury to carry me away. Iler body will be found
in the room adjoining the library, the key of which
I leave with this paper. I trust her body will be
buried with the attention due to a lady of good birth.
She is an Irishwoman, and her name is Anne." With
regard to the statement that he allowed fury to carry
him away, there was no particular evidence that there
was any quarrel between the two parties except that
statement of his own. There was no mid that she ever
provoked him or that anything existed calculated to
arouse him to fury. The servant, who had lived
with them two or three years, never knew of
any quarrel at all. On two occasions after the mur-
der the. prisoner seemed to have purchased and
taken poison. In neither ease was it sufficient to
kill him, though upon one occasion it produced dan-
gerous symptoms. The most painful part of the case
was that this crime appeared to have been to a certain
extent premeditated. When the servant came in Mr.
Watson was ready with a falsehood immediately; and
no, afterwards, in ordering the packing-case, which
could have been for no other purpose than the con-
cealing of the body. No doubt the difficulty in this
case was to account for the commission of such an
offence by a gentleman who for twenty-five years was
headmaster of a grammar-school, an accomplished
scholar, a learned man, who seems to have left behind
him literary works of considerable value. They would
not be thudded with any inquiry as to his state of
mind. If they were satisfied that the wounds inflicted
by him were the cause if death- of which there could
' be no doubt -they would find is true bill for murder.
Sometimes there were circumstances in these cases
which would reduce them to manslaughter ; but he
could see no such circumstances in this case. The only
, possible answer that could be given was that at this
' time defendant was not responsible for his actions.
That thegrand jury would not trouble themselves with
at all. Any such circumstances would have to be
I argued before the Court itself. The only statement
made by the unhappy man himself wan that this woman
with whom he had lived in friendship and love for so
many years met her death at his hands. If that were
r so they would return a true bill for murder, and the
defence would be heard in due course.