The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1879-07-12 00:00:00

THE RICHMOND MURDER.

Catherine Webster, who was committed from the
Richmond Petty Sessions on the 16th of May to take
her trial at the Central Criminal Court upon the charge
of having wilfully murdered her mistress, Mrs. Thomas,
at 2, Vine-cottages, Richmond, on the 2nd of March
last, was brought up at the Old Bailey, on Wednesday
morning, July 2, before Mr. Justice Denman.

The Solicitor• General, Mr. Poland, and Mr. A. L.
Smith conducted the prosecution; and Mr. Warner
Sleigh and Mr, Keith Frith were retained for the
defence,

The trial extended over six days, terminating on
Tuesday evening,—the court each day being densely
crowded. Fifty-three witnesses were examined. The
case for the prosecution closed on Monday, when Mr.
Warner Sleigh addressed the jury on behalf of the
prisoner. On Tuesday the Solicitor-General replied to
the defence; after which,
Mr. Justice Denman proceeded to sum up. His
lordship commenced by saying that they were ap-
proaching the termination of this long, laborious, and
important case. There could not, however, be said a
word of blame to anybody concerned in the investiga-
tion. He thought that there had not been imported
Into the case a single observation which was not pro-
perly to be used or employed in a case of such im-
portance, and in some respects of so much complication.
The case was complicated by the fact that at three
different times the prisoner had made three distinct
statements, all mentioning as facts a great number of
circumstances as to every one of which it was import-
ant, in the interests of justice, that full inquiry should
be made, and as to which it was important that
several witnesses should be called. Fifty-three wit-
nesses had been called, every one of whom tended, if
their evidence were accepted, to throw light upon
the case. It was his duty to do what he could to
assist them in coming to a true and just solution
of the case; but the ultimate decision of the case
was theirs. They should endeavour, if possible,
to reject from their minds every ;trace of a recol- '
lection or opinion which they might have had before
they entered the jury-box. The counsel for the defence
and for the Crown had laid the case before them,
and they had had the full advantage of their views.
The charge was one of murder, and they would have
to say whether one person or another, or more than
one person, committed that murder. The question
was whether it was established beyond reasonable
doubt that the prisoner was there—whether she was
alone or one of several persons who committed the mur-
der with which she was charged. That had to be affirma-
tively made out. If they entertained any doubt whether
Mrs. Thomas was murdered or not and whether the
prisoner was concerned in the murder, it was their duty
to acquit the prisoner. He was far from saying that
there was any law that they, being satisfied that Mrs.
Thomas was dead, and satisfied that she was murdered,
and murdered by the prisoner, were bound to acquit
the prisoner because the body of the deceased was not
seen lying dead. There was no such law. If they
were convinced beyond all doubt that the prisoner was
concerned as one of several in doing the act, the pri-
soner would be guilty of murder. In all trials for
crimes in this country the party accusing is the Crown.
It is not a battle between the Crown and the prisoner.
The Crown is not in the habit of accepting strong
and rejecting weak evidence. They could not expect
that in such a prosecution as this every witness should
be a choice or select one. There would be witnesses
with weak points, and it would be for the jury to say
how far they accepted or discredited the evidence of
those witnesses. They (the jury) must do their best
to form a true judgment not upon the evidence of one
witness nor on the evidence of each witness, without
they thought at the end that it was consistent with the
whole, whether the testimony brought home conclu-
sively to their minds that the prisoner was guilty of the
crime. Sometimes there would be discrepancies be-
tween witnesses, especially where dates were involved,
or circumstances, or conversations, or as to who were
or who were not present on certain occasions. It was
for the jury to consider whether they were discre-
pancies affecting the testimony of witnesses. In such
a case as this he supposed they would always lean to
the side which told most favourably towards the pri-
soner. Three statements had been made by the pri-
soner which were long and intricate. The jury ought
to look at them as a whole, and see whether they did
fairly or not consist with the facts proved in the ease.
They had to look at the apparent accuracy of memory
of the person who made them, and judge of
the intelligence of the person. It did not follow
because portions were false that they should
not therefore believe other portions. An alibi might
be perfectly true applied to one day, but absolutely
false applied to another. One often found in a narra-
tive where statements were partly true and partly
false that there were unconscious admissions of what
was most important as evidence against a prisoner.
There were two portions of the prisoner's statement as
to the date of certain events afterwards altered to
another date. It was for them to say whether they
were made in the full knowledge of their importance.
They ought to have an irresistible conviction that the
prisoner was guilty before finding her guilty, and that
there was no reasonable prospect of her innocence.
_ _ _

After some further observations, his lordship pro-
ceeded to review at considerable length the evidence
which had been presented before the court, and con-
cluded his summing up (which lasted four hours) by
saying—
Gentlemen, the case has been conducted most ad-
mirably by the counsel on both sides; it has been
conaucLeu unpamaity uuta LILL3 utA LuctuaLuxt, Oy
the counsel for the prosecution and ably and effi-
ciently by the counsel for the defence. The wit-
nesses have been examined with great elaboration
and with great care. Nothing that I can think of was
omitted to endeavour to enable you to form the best
judgment you are capable of in the circumstances as
to evidence of the witnesses, and to appreciate it to the
best of your ability, The issue of the case is now en-
tirely with you. If you are satisfied beyond all reason-
able doubt that the prisoner is guilty of this murder,
you will say so, if you entertain any reasonable
doubt about it, you will then acquit her and say she
is not guilty,
Mr. Sleigh having asked his Lordship if he would
explain to the jury that the prisoner could not be con-
victed as an accessory after the fact, _

His Lordship replied : I have said that distinctly.
(To the jury)—You cannot convict her as an accessory
after the fact. _ _

- -
At a quarter past five the jury retired, and the
prisoner was conducted below. During the whole of
i
the Judge's summing up she had sat n front of the
duck with her eyes apparently almost closed, and the
head bent downwards, never moving from this
attitude except once or twice, when she was startled a
little by the noise of a window, which the Judge ulti-
mately ordered to be kept closed.
At twenty-seven minutes past six the jury returned
into court, the prisoner standing up in front of the bar,
and conversing over the top of it for a moment with
Mr. Sleigh.
Mr. Avory, the Clerk of the Arraigns, having called
over the names of the jurymen, said—Gentlemen of
the Jury, have you agreed upon your verdict?
The Foreman:
Mr. Avory : Do you find the prisoner, Catherine
Webster, guilty or not guilty of the murder of Julia
Martha Thomas?
The Foreman: We find her GUILTY.
Mr. Avory : You say she is guilty, and that is the
verdict of you all?
The Foreman: Yes.
The prisoner, on hearing the verdict, still showed
scarcely any emotion, beyond what was expressed by
a slight increase of previous pallor and a tight coin-
presaion of the lips.
In accordance with a request from Mr. Sleigh, her
solicitor, Mr. O'Brien, was allowed to go into the dock
for the purpose of conferring with her, and for about
two minutes he appeared to be engaged in earnest
conversation with her, not a syllable, however, being
audible in court.
After the lapse of this interval, the Judge said: I
think, Mr. Sleigh, that for any question that can be
material enough time has been allowed, and that any
longer time could do no good to the prisoner or any

one else.
Mr. Sleigh: My lord, the prisoner was anxious to
see Mr. O'Brien.
Mr. O'Brien then left the prisoner, who was placed
at the bar. Mr. Avory, addressing her, said :
Catherine Webster, you have been indicted for the
murder of Julia Martha Thomas. To that indictment
you have pleaded "not guilty," and your country put
you on your trial. That country has found you guilty
of wilful murder. Have you anything to say why
sentence of death should not be passed upon you?
The Prisoner said: I am not guilty, my lord, of the
murder. I have never done it, my lord. When I was
taken into custody I was in a hurry and I made a
statement against Church and Porter, lam very sorry
for doing so, and I want to clear them out of it. Ansi
another thing, I was led to this, my lord. The man
who is guilty of all this is not in the case at all,
nor never was. Therefore, I do not see why I should
suffer for what other people have done. There was
a child put in my hands in 1874. I had to thieve for
that child and go to prison for it, which can be brought
to your lordship. Anybody can tell it round King-
ston or Richmond too. Therefore, the father of that
child is the ruin of me since 1873 up to this moment,
and he is the instigation of this, but was never taken
into custody. I have cherished him up to this
minute, but I do not see why I should suffer for a
scoundrel who has left me after what he has done.
His Lordship, having assumed the black cap, ad-
dressed the prisoner :—Prisoner at the bar,--After a
very long and painful inquiry, and after a powerful
advocacy on your behalf and all the assistance
which could be given you by a aslous and sym-
pathizing attorney, you have been found guilty
upon what, even in the absence of what you have
now told us, I should have ventured to say was
irresistible teatimony of the crime of wilful
murder. You tell us now for the first time that you
were instigated to that crime by some one who is
not in custody and whose name is not before us, and
you have made some reparation at this moment by
exonerating from all charge two persons who it was
not impossible might have been sent to the scaffold
upon the statement that you made against them,
coupled with circumstances which it was hard for them
to explain, So far, I think, all will feel that the result
of this trial is in one respect satisfactory; but though
you put it to me that you ought not to suffer because
another instigated you to this crime, that is a consider-
ation which will not warrant me one moment from
hesitating to pass upon you the sentence of the law.
Indeed, I have no option. My duty imperatively de-
mands it, and I must do it. Whether your statement
now be true or not, God only can tell. After so many
false statements as you have made, it must not be as-
sumed to be true as a matter of course. If it be so, it
is no excuse for you, because, in point of law, you have
been proved to be guilty of the crime of murder, and
indeed that very statement shows the justice Of the
verdict of the jury. I say no more. Ido not wish
to hurt your feelings by saying a single unnecessary
word, but it is my duty to pass upon you the sen-
tence of the law. His Lordship then passed sentence
of death, and remitted the convict to the custody of
the Sheriff of Surrey for execution,
The prisoner heard the sentence with composure,
and replied, "I am not guilty, Sire"
In reply to the usual question of the Clark of
Arraigns whether the prisoner had anything to say