The Sun.
London, England, 1860-10-05 00:00:00

THE ROAD CHILD MURDER.

TROWBRIDGE, OCT. 4.
Elizabeth Gough was this morning again placed
at the bar charged with the Murder of Francis Sa-
ville Kent, at Road, on the 29th of June last. The
magistrates took their seats on the bench at 11
o'clock. Sir John W. Awdry, presided. The
attendance of the public was even larger than it
was on the three previous days, and a number of
ladies were also present.
Mr. Saunders conducted the prosecution ; Mr.
Ribton appeared for the prisoner ; and Mr. Edlin
watched the case for Mr. Kent and his family.
The prisoner looked anxious and careworn, but
there was no change in her demeanour, which was
firm and composed.
Mrs. Dallimore was recalled and examined by
Mr. Saunders—On the 9th of July the prisoner was
at my house. She was sitting down by the fire,
and she said, " Mrs. Dallimore, do you know there
is a nightgown missing ?"
The Chairman wished to know in what capacity
the prisoner was staying at the house of the
witness.
Witness--She was at my house under my sur-
veillance. I told her I had not heard of the mis-
sing nightgown. She said it was Miss Constance's,
and she added, " Depend upon it that nightgown
will lead to the discovery of the murder." I asked
her what she thought about Miss Constance doing
the murder, and she replied, " I can't say any•
thing about that; but I saw the nightgown put in
the basket." •
Cross-examined by Mr. Ribton—l remembered
this last night, but I was not asked about it. I
mentioned it to Mr. Slack on my examination be-
fore him. I was not aware that the nightgown
was missed on the Monday after the murder; the
prisoner had come back to my house on the day
when this conversation took place, from an exami-
nation before the magistrates, at which I suppose
the missing nightgown had been mentioned. My
husband was present during the conversation, but
he was not the first who mentioned the missing night-
gown. He came in while the prisoner and I were talk-
ing about it. When he came in,hearing the nurse and
I talking about the nightgown, he said, " So, nurse,
then you saw the nightgown put into the basket as
well as Cox, the housemaid?" That was the first
thing he said on his coming in. The nurse said,
"No. I shall have nothing to say about that. I
have enough of my own to contend with ;" and she
went to bed. I swear that was the answer made
by the nurse. My husband said before she went to
bed, " But you have just said that you saw the
nightgown put into the basket." She made no an-
swer to that; but had the candle and went to bed.
I think that was all that passed in my husband's
presence. I said yesterday, in the course of my
examination, that Fricker came into the kitchen at
Road hill House on the day of the murder and said
he had found nothing in the privy, and that the
nurse said, " You won't find anything there." I
did not see any one but Fricker.
Mr. Ribton here requested a young man in the
court to step forward, and pointing to him, he asked
the witness whether she saw that person in the
kitchen with Fricker?
Witness—No, I did not. I did not hear any men
in the kitchen say that they had got out all from
the privy except about 6 or 8 inches of water from
the bottom. I did not hear any one asked if they
had found anything. I did not hear any one say
that they had carefully felt with their hands over
the bottom, and searched with cans, but had found
nothing. I did not hear the prisoner say after this,
" Then you won't find anything." I pledge myself
that the questions and answers now put to me were
not put in my hearing. I know nothing of Mr.
Kent and his family. I was never at the house till
that day. I did not see two mem in the kitchen ;
two men might have come in without my seeing
them. I did not swear positively there was only
one. I only knew it was Fricker by hearing the
nurse say, " Fricker, what have you done ?" I did
not see his face ; I only saw his head and part of
his body as he opened the door in part. I saw his
face when I turned round and looked towards the
door.
Which is true—that you saw his face or that you
did not P—Of course I saw his face.
Then it was a positive untruth when you said you
did not see his face P—No, it was not. He stood in
the doorway.
Re-examined—l was sitting in a position so that
I could not see the whole of the man's body. I
concluded there was only one man from only hear-
ing Fricker's name mentioned.
William Dallimore, police constable, said—On
the 9th of July the prisoner was at my house; she
was staying there for convenience. I had no orders
to keep her in custody. When I came home in the
evening, on the 9th of July, I found my wife and
the prisoner there, talking together about Miss
Constance Kent's nightdress being lost. I heard the
nurse say that the nightgown was lost, and that
she thought it must have been lost from the wash.
My wife said, " Did you see the nightdress put into
the basket ?" and she said " Yes." I said, " Then
you saw the nightdress put in as well as Cox ?"
She said, "Oh no, I did not." I said, " But you
have just said so." She said, "Oh no, I did not."
I repeated that she had just said so, but she again
denied it. No more was said about it. I consulted
my wife about this conversation the next morning,
and I am quite certain that the nurse did say she
saw the nightgown put into the basket.
Cross-examined by Mr. Ribton—l don't recollect
any of the conversation that took place afterwards.
I and my wife and the prisoner were in the kitchen
together for half or three-quarters of an hour after-
wards. I went out and left my wife and the prisoner
sitting in the kitchen. I was away for about 10
1 minutes, and when I returned they were just pre-
paring to eo to bed, and they wont almost immedi-
ately. I afterward went out on duty. I was at
Roadhill-house on Saturday, the 20th of June. I
know that two men ware sent there to search tho
privy. I did not hear them say in the kitchen that
they had searched to the bottom, with their hands
and had found nothing. I was not in the kitchen.
My wife slept with the prisoner to prevent her
leaving or escaping. I always mid erstood that she
was at my house for safe keeping., but not to be
treated as a prisoner.
The Chairman intimated that he understood from
Mr. Ludlow that the fact was the -nurse was in ac-
tual custody upon one occasion 'when she was at
Dallimore's house, and that upon ;the second occa-
sion she returned there at her own desire and
at the request of her father.
Mr. Ribton said he was satisS ed with the ex-
planation, and put no further questions to the wit-
ness.

The Chairman said that before `Mr. Ribton pro-
-88
ceeded with his address he should be glad to know
what application was made as to, commitment on
the part of the prosecution.
Mr. Saunders apprehended it w$ j2sesfor the Bench
to determine whether any case had.:
prznesetrabslihsohneldd,
and to say upon what charge the,
be committed.
The Chairman was quite awaro that the charge
on which a prisoner was commit to d was in the dis-
cretion of the Court ; but, at the sal ne time, looking
at the grave consequences of a co 44,1,uittal to a young

person whose previous antecedents were known to
be respectable, he asked whether it was intended to
charge the prisoner as principal, accomplice, or
accessory after the fact ?
Mr. Saunders was not instructed to make any
special application, as to the form of commitment,
supposing the magistrates to come to the conclusion
that such a step should be taken, as the chairman
was quite aware that in the event of a committal
the prosecutor was not bound to prefer his bill be-
fore the grand jury on that particular charge.
Mr. Ribton then proceeded to address the magis-
trates for the prisoner. He could not, he said, enter
upon a discussion of the facts which had been
proved in evidence without returning his thanks
to the Bench for the great kindness and courtesy
he had experienced during the course of this inves-
tigation, for the untiring patience with which their
minds had been directed to the various statements
which had been laid before them, and for the spirit
of fairness and impartiality which had characterised
their conduct at every stage of the inquiry. He
entertained the most perfect confidence that the
same spirit and love of justice which had animated
the Bench heretofore would prevail with them to
the end, and that when they came to consider what
their decision ought to be, acting as they did in the
face of the country, they would take care that it was
such a decision as would be conformable to truth, and
in strict accordance with the principles of jus-
tice. Mr. Saunders had said in his opening speech
that the tragedy enacted at Road had sent a thrill
of horror through every home in the country.
Unquestionably, this dreadful crime, if wilful
crime it was, stood out alone is the annals of atro-
city. To murder a poor innocent, unoffending, and
unprotected child under such circumstances, was
indeed a crime which it would be impossible to de-
scribe in fitting language. It was a crime which
might be said to

" -- blue the eye of day,
" And cast a deeper shade upon the dusky brow of night."
But he was afraid that one fact was painfully pro-
minent in this protracted inquiry—viz., that they
were not now any nearer the truth than they were
immediately after the perpetration of the dreadful
act at Road. The exertions of the prosecutors—
conducted in a manner to which he would pre-
sently allude—had, unfortunately for them, unfor-
tunately for the public, unfortunately for the inte-
rests of truth, been turned into a wrong channel,

The bench, however, had not now to consider by
what fiend in human shape the frightful deed was
perpetrated. The question before them was, had
any evidence been adduced which would warrant
them in sending the accused for trial ? He would

at the outset direct their attention to one or two

points which, though discussed by Mr. Saunders in
his opening speech, had really no immediate bearing
upon the present case. The first had reference to the
time at which the murder was committed. He sub-
mitted that whether it was committed early in the
night or towards the approach of morning had
nothing to do with the prisoner at the bar. The
question of time could no more affect her than it
could any other person who might be charged with
the crime. So with respect to the wound inflicted
after death. Whether it was inflicted after death,
or whether the child was alive and breathing, had
nothing to do with the prisoner. It was a specu-
lation foreign to the present inquiry. Mr. Saunders
had made a great deal of the Newfoundland dog,
and of the fact that it was not heard barking on the
night of the murder. It appeared, however, that
that circumstance was of no importance whatever
as regarded either the prisoner or anybody else,
whether an inmate of the house or a stranger; be
cause the evidence had proved beyond question that
the dog was enclosed in a yard, and that any per-
son might have passed from the drawing-room
window, or even from the front door if the drawing-
room window were a "blind," without being seen
by the dog at all. Mr. Saunders had indulged in
various ingenious speculations. He had said, in the
first place, that nobody could have broken into the
house. That was the only part of the case with re-
spect to which there was anything approximating
to satisfactory proof. But Mr. Saunders had also
dwelt upon the improbability, if not the absolute
impossibility, of anybody having been secreted in
the house. In the attempt to prove that proposition
he had entirely failed. There were unoccupied rooms
in the house, and in the unoccupied bedrooms especi-
ally, anybody might have been secreted during even
the whole of the day on which the murder was com-
mitted. It was a curious faet that Superintendent
Wolfe, when he examined the house, was not shown
into any of the unoccupied bedrooms. He was shown
into the lumber room and another room, and ho had
told the Court that he did not think anybody could
have been concealed in:either ; but so careless was
the manner in which he took his observations of
those rooms that he was unable to say whether in
one or the other there was a cupboard or not. His
evidence might be passed over as utterly valueless,
even if the rooms he examined were the only un-
occupied apartments of the house ; but it had been
proved beyond doubt that there were unoccupied
bedrooms, and that anybody might have been con-
cealed in one of them without being seen by any
of the inmates. Such being the case, was it not
possible, was it not even within the range of pro-
bability, that the murder was committed by a
stranger ? Mr. Kent had himself stated that a dis-
e,arged servant left his house vowing vengeance
upon the children. The matter with respect to that
particular servant had been to some- extent cleared
up; but Mr. Kent held an office entailing upon
him the discharge of duties which might have the
effect of rendering him unpopular among many
persons ; and, at all events, the expressions used by
the prisoner, " Oh ! ma'am, it is revenge," and " Oh !
it is jealousy," might have been, and nadoubt were,
suggested by the violent and threatening language
attributed by Mr. Kent himself to at least one per-
son. It might be said that nobody would have
concealed himself or herself in the house and taken
revenge on Mr. Kent by the murder of his child.
But it did not necessarily follow that murder was
contemplated in the first instance. Perhaps all
that was intended was to take away the child. That
ke was not indulging in an altogether improbable
hypothesis was clear from the manner in which the
child was removed. If murder had been contem-
plated from the first, why was the child wrapped
up in a blanket ? Anything, even the piece of
flannel which was found in the ewatercloset, would
have sufficed if put into the mouth to stifle a cry,
so as to enable the person, whoever he or she might
be, to remove the child without killing it ; but the
fact that the child was wrapped up in a blanket
seemed to warrant the supposition that if a stranger
were secreted in the house—a probability which
was not excluded by the evidence—he might have
intended simply to steal the child, and thus to
wreak his vengeance upon Mr. Kent. Supposing
that, when the child was removed from the house,
it was found that the stifling process had been
carried too far, how did the remaining facts
accord with his speculation that the deed was
done by a stranger ? The throat was cut, a stab
was given in the side, and the body was thrown
down a watercloset. It was unquestionably
put there for secrecy • but an inmate of the house
must have known that, owing to the construction
of the watercloset, the body could not pass the
splash-board. Besides, if the murder had been com-
mitted by one of the inmates, some traces of blood
must have been discovered ; for, although the evi-
dence of the surgeon went to show that the blood

did not spurt outof the wounds, yet blood was found
on the floor of the water-closet, and nobody could
have handled the child without having his clothes
in some degree stained with blood. But there was
no evidence of anything of the sort. The crime,
again, must have been perpetrated with some instru-
ment. Mr. Saunders had, strangely enough, pro-
duced no one to tell the magistrates that all the
knives were safe ; but there was an entire absence,
as far as stains of blood and !an instrument were
concerned, of anything to connect anybody in the
house with the murder. How did the culprit get
away ? It was a remarkable fact that it was stated
by the prisoner, in some of the many conversations
which she had with the otherinmates, police officers,
and others, that she saw the marks of two feet upon
tat
ihe
liseomcoabar
sspeert in theved who
pointingby d ri\aiwr
si.n drawing-room. . she ad marks N e
describedver
iodrnl deb
oas t
oo t
ss.upipi havingoow madecame
such
those
os
boots
oot
st;floapparentlyrr skhso by Len
rafiei
twithlled shoeswas
sebteelaleamnitil the direction of the window,
a
nails—were worn by the prisoner ; but had the
prosecution made any inquiry with the view of dis-
covering by whom the marks were made ? If they
had not, was it because they had not been actuated '
by a general desire to arrive at the truth, and be-
cause their exertions had been directed towards the
attainment of one object, viz., to prove the guilt of
one particular person ? Footmarks were also found
on the tall grass outside. The assistant gardener,
Alloway, had explained that they were made
by himself the night before; but if a stranger
was leaving the house after having cut the
throat of the child in the water-closet, would
not those marks of feet in the tall grass at
once suggest to him a mode of taking his depar-
ture without leaving a trace behind ? There must
have been a heavy fall of dew on the night of the
murder, for it was the middle of summer, and yet as
far as he knew no marks of dew were found on the
boots or shoes of the inmates, if, indeed, they were
examined. Mr. Saunders had stated in his opening
speech that the drawing-room window could not ;.
have been put in the state in which it was found
except by some person who returned into the house ;
but he had utterly failed to prove his assertion. The
prosecutor had never thought it worth while to
make the experiment, It had been left to rerslake
and Cox, the cook and housemaid, to make the ex-
periment for themselves, which they didon thesecond
morning of the present inquiry, when they found '