The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1884-05-24 00:00:00

THE FOLKESTONE ABDUCTION CASE.

In London, on Monday, at the Central Criminal
Court, Annie Johnson, 37, a dressmaker, surrendered
to her recognizances to take her trial upon an indict-
ment charging her with taking away Elizabeth
Ilearnden, a child under the age of 14, with intent to
deprive the mother of her possession. The defendant
pleaded "Not guilty."
Mr. Poland and Mr. Denman conducted the
prosecuticn on the part of the Public Prosecutor;
Mr. Montagu Williams and Mr. H. F. Dickeni
appeared for the defence.
Mr. Poland, in opening the case, read the section
of the statute under which the charge was made, and
said the matte- was one which would require careful
attention at the hands of the jury, as the case was
certainly one of a remarkable character. The
defendant, Annie Johnson, was a single woman, living
at Folkestone, and was in the habit of letting
lodgings. In the autumn of last year she had in
her service a niece, who remained with her from
October till a short time before Christmas. After
her niece had left the defendant made inquiries for
a servant to take her place. Elizabeth Hearnden, a
girl ten years of age, the daughter of a widow livmg
at a village a few miles out of Folkestone, was recom-
mended to her, and she went into the service of the
defendant, and was at that time the only servant.
Some time about the Bth March, the defendant went
to the girl's mother and made some complaint about
her, saying that she was tiresome and dirty, and that
she wished the mother would take her away. The
defendant then asked the mother for a piece of paper,
and wrote something upon it. The mother of the
child could not read or write, and the defendant,
without reading to her what she had written, asked
her to put her cross to it, which she did. The mother
did not know what the defendant had written, and
the defendant told her that she was respon-
sible for the child if anything happened to
her, and made some statement about leaving her
some money. At hall-past seven on the following
morning, Sunday, March 9th, the child's mother
went to the defendant's house in Folkestone. The
moment she came in, and before she had asked about
the child, the defendant said to her, "Your little
girl has gone with a niece of mine to London." The
mother replied that she wanted the girl back, and
wished to know where she was, as she must take her
home. The defendant an:, ered that she would try
to get her home again. On the 15th of March the
mother saw the defendant again, and asked about the
child. The defendant said she would go with the
mother to London to look for her, and made an
appointment to meet next morning for that purpose.
The defendant, it was stated, did not keep the appoint-
ment, although the mother went to the place where
they had agreed to meet. On the 12th of March the
defendant spoke to a woman named Marsh about the
girl, and said that she had sent her to London with
her niece to see an old lady. The niece referred to was
undoubtedly the young woman who had been in the
defendant's service until shortly before Christmas.
On the 18th of March the defendant appeared to
have told some one that a sister of mercy had taken
the child away, but she did not know where. Mean-
while the mother had become anxious about the child,
and not being able to get any linformation about her
she, communicated with the police to see if they could
discover where she was. On the 29th of March, Super-
intendent Taylor, of the Folkestone Borough Police,
served a summons upon the defendant, who asked
who made the charge against her. The superintendent
replied that she would know in due course: and in
answer to a question by the, defendant as to what she
had better do, he said that in his opinion the best
thine she could do was to produce the child. The
defendant replied that she could not do that. Sister
Mary had come there and had taken her away, but
she did not • know where to. The defendant did not
say who "Sister Mary" was, but said the child's
mother had signed a paper for her to go away for two
years. The defendant added that she was: very
miserable and that she wished she was dead. The
defendant made similar statements to other persons
at Folkestone.. The summons against the defendant
ultimately came on for hearing before the magis-
trates. No information whatever was given by
the defendant, who was ultimately committed for
trial at the Folkestone Quarter Sessions, but as the
case excited a good deal of discussion in the town, it
was thought right that the indictment should be re-
moved to that Court for trial. Before the case came
on for hearing the defendant went to Scotland-yard
and made some inquiries whether the police could
help her to find the child. The police at Folkestone
made every effort to trace the child, and when the
matter was taken up by the Public Prosecutor the
police at Scotland-yard made all possible inquiries by
the circulation of bills all over the country and upon
the Continent, and at the different "homes," but no
trace whatever could be found of the girl. The
solicitor who conducted the defence had also made
inquiries, but with a like result. It was contepded by
the prosecution that for some reason or another the
defendant had sent the child away out of the custody
of her mother, having obtained her consent by a
trick. _ _

A number of witnesses were called in support of the
opening statement of Mr. Poland. Caroline
Hearnden, the girl's mother, stated that in the course
of the conversation with the defendant about the
child she told her that if she made any disturbance
she would never see the child again. The girl was
full grown, and had expressed a wish to become a
schoolmistress. The defendant never told the witness
that a sister had come and wanted to take the child
away to be a schoolmistress. The defendant subse-
quently told her that a sister had taken the child
away to a home, but she did not know where.
The Lady Superior of the Convent of St. Joseph, at
Folkestone, was called, and said that she knew nothing
whatever of the girl, and that no such person had been
admitted into the establishment. Similar evidence_
was also given by Sister Mary, of the St. John's Mime,
Soho, and other sisters, who stated that before girls
were admitted into " homes " it was the custom to
first obtain the consent of the parent or guardian, ver-
bally or in writing. The niece of the defendant was
called as a witness, and stated that she never took the
child to London, as had been stated.

At the conclusion of the case for the prosecution,
Mr. Montagu Williams submitted that there was
no evidence of any force, fraud, or enticement on the
defendant's part, nor was there any proof that she
had detained the child with intent to deprive the
parent of the custody of the girl. The girl had been
in the service of the defendant of her own free will
nnei b n CL--
taking away from the custody of the parent must be
by fraud, and so far from the defendant having de-
tained the girl she had made every endeavour to dis-
cover where she was.
Mr. Poland contended that there was evidence for
the jury of fraud on the defendant's part by getting
the girl's mother to put her cross to a colourable
authority, without telling her what it was, that the
child should be sent to a home for two years.
The Recorder declined to withdraw the case from
the jury, being of opinion that there was some evi-
dence of a fraudulent detention of the child.

Mi. Montagu Williams, in addressing the jury for
the defence, warned them against allowing any reli-
gious opinions they might have in favour of or
adverse to the "homes" to interfere with them in
their consideration of the case. There was no evi-
dence whatever that the defendant had decoyed or
enticed away by fraud or force the child from the
custody of her mother. On the contrary, the child
went into the service of the defendant of her own free
will and with the consent of her mother. There was
no allegation that the child had come to any harm.
There was an utter absence of motive for the defen-
dant to retain the child. The question was whether
the child had been taken away for the purpose of
being put into a religious home against the consent of
the parent. There was no evidence that the defen-
dant was connected with any home, or that she was
even a Roman Catholic. What gain or object could
there have been, therefore, for the defendant to
detain the child?

The Recorder, in summing up, commented upon the
extraordinary and important nature of the case. In
spite-of every" effort`Vvhfch•had been made to discover
a trace of the girl nothing had been ascertaineil of
her whereabouts, and they were consequently left to
the statements of the defendant, who had been respon-
sible for the child while in her service, . and who
ought to have been able to lift the veil of mystery
surrounding the case.
The jury, after considering the matter for a short
time without leaving the box, returned a verdict of
guilty on the third count, charging the detention of
the child.
Upon the application of Mr. Montagu Williams,
The Recorder reserved the point which had been
raised as to whether there was any evidence to support
the indictment for the decision of the Court for the
Consideration of Crown Cases Reserved, and in the
meantime liberated the defendant on bail as before.