Mexborough and Swinton Times June 18, 1892

The Kilnhurst Outrage.

Hewitt Before the Magistrates.

Committed For Trial

The Defence.-Tramp Theory.

Great excitement prevailed in Rotherham on Monday, the police court proceedings against George Hewitt, newsagent, of Kilnhurst and Swinton, who was charged with having unlawfully and maliciously wounded Florence Allele Flavell, aged 21 years, daughter of Mr. William Flavell, newsagent, of Kilnhurst, on Saturday night, the 21st May, attracting an extraordinary amount of attention.

Widespread interest was manifested in the case, as was testified by the crowded state of the West Riding Police Court during the whole of the eight hours which was occupied in the investigation of the charge preferred against Hewitt. A large number of people journeyed to Rotherham from Kilnhurst and the surrounding neighbourhood, and a considerable time before the opening of the court the adjacent thoroughfares presented an unusually thronged appearance.

At eleven o’clock nearly every available seat in the largo court was occupied and a vast concourse of people who had congregated near the entrance of the court house were unable to gain admission, the doors being guarded by police officers.

Locally the ease is known as the “Kilnhurst Outbreak.” On the night named, shortly after eleven o’clock, Miss Flavell, who looked after a branch shop at Swinton belonging to her father, was returning home to Kilnhurst, and when near what is called Meadow View, which is some little distance out of Kilnhurst, she was attacked in a most brutal manner. She was rendered unconscious, and injuries were inflicted upon her of a serious nature. Indeed, so greatly disfigured was she when found, that she was almost recognisable. When Hewitt was apprehended on a charge of committing the offence, considerable excitement prevailed throughout the district. He is well-known and highly respected, and looked upon as a perfectly harmless and inoffensive man, and an industrious, sober, and worthy citizen, and one who would not knowingly do an injury to anybody. The majority of the residents of the Kilnhurst neighbourhood believed in his innocence, and did not hesitate to express their feelings that he had been wrongly accused. A defence fund was established on his behalf, among the gentlemen appointed thereon being the Rev. P. Houghton (vicar of Kilnhurst), Messrs. E. Jagger, E.J. Turner, J. Goodinson, B. Heald, E Kettle, T. Palfreyman, H. Treece, J. Jeffery, J. Bentham J. A. Bower, T. Whitfield, and J. W. Carr. A considerable sum has been subscribed.

The magistrates on the bench were Mr. H. Jobb (in the chair), Mr. J. Kekwick, Mr. R. G. Chambers, Mr. S. Camm, and Mr. Skinner.

Mr. W. M. Gichard prosecuted, having received instructions from the police; and Mr. H. H. Hickmott appeared for Hewitt, who had been on bail. The Key. P. Houghton occupied a seat by the side of Mr Hickmott

Mr. Hickmott said at the outset be shown like to ask that the witnesses on both sides of the ease should be out of the court during the giving of the evidence.

Major Hammond (superintendent of police) having directed that this should be so.

Mr. Hickmott in reply to the Chairman, said be hardly knew what were the charges he had to meet. If his supposition as to the charge were correct, he might call twenty-five witnesses if necessary it might not be necessary for him to call any; he did not know.

Mr. Gichard said he had been instructing by the police to prosecute. The prisoner was charged with having unlawfully wounded miss Florence Annie Flavell, at Swinton, on the 21st May. The evidence which be (Mr. Gichard) would have to put before the court in order to point out the whole of the circumstances connected with the offence would be to some extent circumstantial. To deal first of all with the statement of the prosecutrix, it was this. On the night of the 21st ult. Miss Flavell left Swinton, where she managed a branch shop belonging to her father, and where defendant also carried on a similar business – that of newspaper agency. When she got on to the Highthorn road near to Carlisle street (shown on the plan which the magistrates had before them) there was a restless horse in a waggonette. The animal attracted her attention and she stopped for a few momenta to watch it. Just before that restless horse attracted her notice she saw the prisoner Hewitt come four or five yards in front of her, coming from Swinton in the direction of Kilnhurst. That was just before eleven o’clock. When the horse was restless she noticed the defendant turned, and from the direction in which he looked he must have seen the complainant behind him. He proceeded on the Highthorne Road to get to the place marked 2 on the plan, and which was hundred 40 yards from the house known as Meadow View, and was met by a man named Smith and his wife, who were going to their home Highthorne, which was marked number 6 on the plan.

Shortly after, Hewitt was met at the point marked No 5 by Smith and his wife. He was met at No. 2 and Hewitt was met twenty six yards away from the near or Swinton side of Meadow View, and Miss Flavell was met 122 yards further on and nearer to the Swinton side, both going in the direction of Kilnhurst and away from their businesses at Swinton. Then he might tell their worships that the witness Smith and his wife, noticed Miss Flavell to be walking much more quickly than Hewitt. When Miss Flavell got to the beginning or north side of Meadow View houses, marked No. 3 on the plan, and which was on the north side, nearest Swinton, she saw a man about 40 yards in front of her. He would then be getting towards the other end of the busses, 56 yards in extent or so. That man took two or three steps, and she saw him do what appeared to be a very strange thing. He stepped of the causeway into the gateway which led to no houses. He went on the way home, and when she got opposite to where this gate was situated the man stepped out of the gateway on to the footpath, keeping his back towards Miss Flavell. She would tell their worships she could clearly and distinctly swear that

The Man was the Prisoner Charged There that Day

(Sensation in court)

Miss Flavell then went on away, and shortly after that a man named Goldspink, who was coming from the Highthorne direction, in which Miss Flavell and Hewitt had previously come, heard screams when he was something like 220 yards away from the place where afterwards found Miss Flavell.

He ran forward on hearing the screams, and when he got to a place some forty yards on the other aide—the Kilnhurst side— of Meadow View, he there found the complainant reclining on a wall unconscious and bleeding. They would notice that the, assault, according to that, must have taken place some forty yards on the Kilnhurst side of these houses known as Meadow View. There was one circumstance, be thought, which he had better point out then, and that was this —a stick was afterwards found some thirty or thirty yards beyond the place where the assault must have been committed. That stick had evidently been thrown over the wall; at any rate it was on the embankment running down to the railway. That stick would be produced there that day, and it was a stick of similar nature to a large number in the first garden on the north side of the houses known as Meadow View or rather those sticks were there at the time when the assault was committed. They were pieces of a hedge which had been “stubbed” and thrown into that garden so that a wall could be built afterwards. The reason he mentioned this was to point out more clearly to their worships this.

This man Hewitt was at the time that he was seen by the witness Smith and his wife only 22 yards from the beginning of the Meadow View houses. Miss Flavell, who was met afterwards by Smith and his wife, was 122 yards behind that man. According to her statement he had only gone 60 yards whilst she had been walking 140. That seemed to point conclusively that there must have been some reason for that man acting in that way. He put it to them that the time which had been wasted by that man there had been spent in getting one of those sticks out of the garden, and that that had taken some of the time which had been wasted, and during which he might have passed on his way towards Kilnhurst. After the assault had been committed, Hewitt was met nearer Kilnhurst by two men whom he should call. He was met by a men named Gray and several others who were in his company, between the church and the vicarage gates at the point marked out on the plan was a distance of some 235 yards from the place where the assault took place.

The Chairman: That was after the assault had taken place?

Mr. Gichard: Yes; this man Gray, after passing Hewitt, went on his way, and saw Goldspink, who had come forward from the other direction—the Swinton direction—supporting the woman, who was bleeding. At the time he had taken her across the road to the footpath on the other side, the man Gray found the women there, and they helped the man Goldspink to carry her home. It was found, on her reaching home, that nothing in her possession had been disturbed. She had a basket, in which there was a packet of money and several other articles, the packet of money being at the top of the other articles. She had also upon her a watch and chain, and she had in her pocket a purse containing money. But not one single article had been touched. Therefore there could be no doubt about it that robbery was not the intention of the person who committed the assault. He thought there was scarcely any necessity for him to go into the question as to whether there was any intention to commit an assault. It appeared to him conclusively proved there never was any such intention as robbery. In order to look for another reason, if it was necessary to look for a reason, one must look for a strange one indeed, or at any rate for one which is not found in cases of this description as a rule. The reason he gave was this. The complainant’s father and the defendant are business opponents. The father of the complainant had been in business at Kilnhurst as a newsagent, and the defendant then started a branch business at Kilnhurst where the complainant’s father was. The complainant’s father then opened a branch business at Swinton. There appeared, he would be able to prove, to have been some ill-feeling on the part of the defendant towards the complainant’s father, on account of these businesses. He was in a position to prove by a conversation which took place between complainant’s lather and the defendant, that the defendant had shown the spite on more than one occasion. Then he could go still further. He would call a witness who, on May 14, was standing on the bridge near the M.S. and L. Railway Station at Swinton he saw the defendant take up a package of papers which had come down by the Sheffield train, in which were the papers belonging to the complainant’s father and to the defendant. This man saw the defendant take his own papers out of the package, and, although it was raining hard at the time, instead of leaving the other man’s papers so that they would not be soiled, he deliberately threw them into the wet on the platform. Those little circumstances, although they might appear little when looked at in the abstract, when taken together, and when they had to point a motive of a bigger description, as they had in this case, they became serious matters. They were not ordinary motives there; and there must be some extraordinary motives for this assault on the part of the man who committed it. The evidence would have been such as they found here, and there had occurred the very things which they would expect a man under the circumstances and in the position of that man, to do. For, going along that road that night, and knowing that the woman was behind him, he makes up his mind to do her some injury. He finds on his road there are some sticks, and he picks up one of these sticks which, as he said before, he got from the garden, allowing this woman to get as much nearer to him as possible.

The Chairman: You are supposing?

Mr. Gichard: That is not supposition, for the woman can swear to the man who was only 40 yards in front of her. With regard to the stick, he said this was taken by this man, and at the first opportunity it was thrown away by him after the assault. At the place where it was found, there were no bushes. The assault was committed at a place where there is a small bush, on the Swinton side. Then for a little space over the wall there are no bushes. That was where the assault took place, and there was a fairly large clump of bushes up by the side of the wall on the Kilnhurst side. That stick was not thrown into the bushes. It was found on the embankment on the Kilnhurst side of the bushes. There were no other sticks like it there. He should put the constables into the box who would swear that they searched, and had been unable to find any stick of that description, only the one produced.

Mr Hickmott, when the remand was applied for a fortnight ago, put several questions in cross examination, and the witnesses whom he Mr. Gichard called would justify the application for the remand. Several of these questions seemed to be put with the intention of suggesting that the person who committed the assault would have been more likely to have gone down a footpath over the railway, as shown on the plan, and which was on the opposite side of the road—on the Kilnhurst side some 30 yards away from the place where the assault took place. With regard to that there were several reasons why the defendant should not have gone that way if he had acted in the way he did.

The Chairman: It is not his way home.

Mr Gichard: In the first place, supposing it was not his way home, the man who was guilty of committing an offence of that description would naturally feel inclined to get home as quickly as he could. He knew as well as other people that the road was not frequented by a large number of people. He had already seen that, because he did not meet many. Then, if he had gone up that footpath, he would have had to have gone nearest to the houses. He would have almost directly after have passed the first house on the Kilnhurst side. There would have been no reason in a man doing that after the scrums had been emitted from a woman who had been assaulted. But there was every reason why he should not do it, and why he should go in an opposite direction. There was another reason why he should not have gone up that footpath. In order to have to go up that footpath be would have had to go through the gateway and tea have run the risk of the click of the gateway being heard, and to have wasted some little time when he got there to push it back. That footpath, too, was a very bad one indeed upon which to travel; it was a very rough one.       Then not only that, but after he was met by Smith on the side of the road, he would not be likely to go up the footpath, because if he did be would have to give on explanation why he had digressed from the straight road be was pursuing homewards when inquiries came to be made into the assault.

Coming now to the man being seen by the constables shortly after the assault, Police-constable Lund went to the defendant’s house, and he there asked the defendant if he had met anyone at or near Meadow View. The defendant replied that he had not. He also asked the defendant if he had heard any screams on that road that night, and the defendant replied that he had not. He was also asked if he had met anyone on the road, and he said he had met no one. The constable then informed the defendant that a serious assault had been committed upon Miss Flavell some distance on the Kilnhurst side of Meadow View. About one o’clock Sergeant Lyttle went to the defendant’s house and he put the same questions to him as the constable had done. He asked Hewitt if he met anyone at or near Meadow View, and he replied that he had not. He also denied bearing any screams. The officer then said, “It’s a very strange thing indeed that you should not have heard any screams, when I am certain, from information I have already got, you were close to at the time the assault was committed, and when it is clear certain screams were emitted by the prosecutrix.”

He (Mr. Gichard) asked the bench to take particular notice of that statement. Those words could have no other meaning, and could be construed is no other way than as a warning to the defendant. The officer gave Hewitt to understand what the inference must be that might be drawn, viz that he to some extent was suspected; all, at any rate, is presence at that particular place must be explained, only was likely it would have to be explained.

But what did they find? Prisoner simply stated, “The night is too dark for her to see who’s done it.” Were those words which one would expect to bear from an innocent man under the circumstances? The first thing one would have supposed would have come, after an innocent man had been warned in this way, would have been something to this effect, “Surely you don’t suspect me,” or ” I am sorry such a thing has happened,” or ” I wish I had heard of it, I should have been glad to have helped you.’ Instead of this, however, defendant at once saw the danger, and explained, “The night is too dark for her to see who’s done it.”

There was only one construction to be pat on those words —viz., that prisoner knew he was guilty of the offence, and he was trying to hide himself by endeavouring to point out what he thought was a safeguard for himself —the darkness of the night. On the Tuesday following, Sergeant Lyttle again went to the defendant’s shop, and there apprehended him. Instead of making a statement which one would have expected from an innocent man—denying his guilt or saying something to show the constables that he thought their conduct was wrong —he remarked, “Oh dear me, a warrant. I thought a summons would have done. Is Miss Flavell able to appear? That was a very strange statement indeed. Why should he have said this if he was not guilty? Another statement made by the defendant, which was extremely peculiar, was one made when before the magistrates to be remanded in the first instance. In answer to a question as to whether he could give any reason why he should not be remanded in the first instance the only observation he made was, “I was never near the place.” That again was strange. The bench would notice there was no denial on the part of the prisoner all through, and there was no statement to explain his position of having been on the road at that particular time, which were proved. But all through he made statements endeavouring to shield himself in a most peculiar way—a way which he (Mr. Gichard) could not conceive as being adopted by an innocent man. A fortnight ago, when the prisoner was before the court, air. Mr Hickmott (who appeared for Hewitt) put questions to witness who were called on behalf of the prosecution, endeavouring to show that certain marks, which were on the wall near to the place where the assault was committed, had been made by a person who had got over the wall, and who had been the assailant. He (Mr. Gichard) would clearly prove that no marks were on the wall after the attack was made on Miss Flavell, because Sergeant Little, after he had seen the prisoner at one o’clock in the morning, went to the place where the assault was committed—at half-past one o’clock—and made a careful examination of the wall by means of his lamp. The sergeants, and the constables who accompanied him would tell the court there were no marks on the wall of any person having climbed over it. An examination was also made of the grass—near to the place—on the railway side of the road, and that was found not to have been disturbed. While making his examination, Sergeant Lyttle got on to the wall and he had boots on which had been newly mended. Whatever marks therefore were afterwards seen there were those made by him in the course of his examination. A further examination was made of the place at half-past three o’clock the same morning, and Sergeant Lyttle would tell the court that with the exception of the marks made by himself there was nothing at all to be seen. He would also tell the magistrates that none of the grass on the railway side was disturbed except that which had been disturbed by himself and other officers at half-past one o’clock in the morning when they were endeavouring to see if anything had taken place. With regard to another inference which Mr. Hickmott evidently intended to draw, viz., that the assailant might have escaped by the opposite side of the road to that on which the girl was found. That would be on the same side of the road as Meadow View. The constables would tell them that it would be a matter of practical impossibility for a man to get over or through the hedge on the side of the road for a distance of something over 200 yards from where the assault took place. On that side of the road, the causeway side, there is a bank which runs something like ten feet high for a distance of something like 180 yards down to a level, he believed, from the spot where the assault took place on the opposite side of the road; on the top of the bank there is a very thick hedge, a hedge through which no one would be able to get unless he intended to leave a portion of his clothes behind him. That hedge was carefully examined next morning by the police at half-past three o’clock. They would tell the bench that it had not been disturbed by anyone gutting through it. Nowhere were there any traces of any person endeavouring to get up the embankment to get through it into the field. Again an examination was made on the other side of the hedge in order to see if any person could have gone through and walked along through the gate. There were no trace of any footprints or any person having passed on either side of the field recently. These were about the whole of the facts of the case he had to lay before them. There was one other point he was nearly forgetting. Another suggestion was made by his friend, it was better he thought he should clear away at once. His friend suggested to one of the witnesses that a postage stamp which was seen by him at eight to clock on Sunday morning was taken from the pocket of Miss Flavell. Miss Flavell would tell them such a postage stamp was never found upon her and was never in her possession, and that not one single thing in her possession had been taken from her. These were the facts and circumstances be had to lay before the court, and if he could prove these circumstances in detail there could be no doubt that a prima facie case at any rate would have been made out against the man Hewitt, and that it would be a case which their worship would find it was necessary to send for trial, that the prisoner might, if he could, justify himself at the proper time.

Florence Annie Flavell

Miss Flavell said: I live with my father William Flavell, a newsagent at Kilnhurst. My father has a branch shop at Swinton which I manage for him. I remember Saturday. 21st May last. I left Swinton that night at eleven o’clock. I had a basket and an umbrella with me. The basket contained two bottles of aerated water, a post card, and some money wrapped up in paper.

Mr. Hickmott said he should not object to the plans which had been prepared if the bench thought there was a case of trial.

Witness proceeding, said: The paper was on the top of the basket. I also had some money in my purse, which was in my pocket. I had a watch and chain on. I know Carlisle-street, which is a place not far from Swinton. I saw the defendant near it. He would be about five yards in front of me. A waggonette and some horses attracted my attention. The horses were restless

The defendant turned partly round, and was in a position to see me if he chose. I stopped to look the horses a minute or two. I then proceeded on my way to Kilnhurst, and passed Smith and his wife. That would be from 100 to 150 yards from Meadow View. I then proceeded home, and it order to do so I had to pass Meadow View. The man Hewitt would be forty yards in front of me. The defendant was then going towards Kilnhurst. After he had walked some distance he got on the step of the gateway of the last house, which was nearest to Kilnhurst. I overtook the man, and he stepped down on to the footpath. He had his back to me at the time. The man was the defendant; I have no doubt about it at all. I know him well. As I have already said, I had seen him previously that night. After I left Meadow View I don’t remember anything else that night. Since I recovered my father has shown me the things I had with me that night. The stamp produced was not my property. I have not seen the defendant on that road before at night.

Cross-examined, witness said: I have known prisoner several years. Previously he has not done me any harm or injury; only dirty tricks. He has not done my father any harm except in opposition in trade.

Mr. Hickmott: I suppose the prisoner tried to sell as many papers as he could and your father did the same?—Prosecutrix: Yes.

They were competitors in trade?—Yes.

When you referred to dirty tricks I suppose you mean in trade competition?  – Yes

You left your shop at Swinton about three hours later on the Saturday night than you do on other nights ?—Yes ; it is about seven o’clock other nights when I leave the shop.

Did you walk a little distance from him a few nights before? —Yes; on the Friday night.

You were then on the canal bank?—Yes.

That canal bank is a somewhat lonely road?—Yes.

And Saturday night being much later you travelled on the highway_?—Yes.

Now on the 14th May, the previous Saturday to the assault, did you send a messenger named Hague to the prisoner?—Yes.

Did Hague bring you any wall flowers?—Yes.

Did you know wilt they came from?—they came from Hewitt’s shop.

You didn’t send Hague particularly to Hewitt’s shop? —No.

First you sent him to another shop and the lad asked if he might go to Hewitt’s? — Yes.

Did you on the 21st May send to the prisoner’s shop for a Reynolds Newspaper? —Yes.

Were you supplied with it?—Yes.

Did the same boy go for it?—Yes.

On this night you say you left the shop at Swinton at about eleven o’clock. Was it a dark night? —Yes.

May I describe it as a very dark night?-No; not very dark. It has been darker when we have been going home.

With whom do you mean? —My brother.

You say it was a dark night? —I have seen it darker.

Where did you first see the prisoner 7—it was at the end of Carlisle-street.

When the house was restless you say the prisoner turned round?—Partly round.

How far was he from you?—About four yards.

And you say he walked on?—Yes.

Did you lose sight of him?—Yes.

And the next time, according to your evidence, you say the prisoner was at Meadow View, and he had his back to you?—Yes.

And when 40 yards from him I understood you to say you could swear it was the prisoner?—Yes.

Can you tell me how he was dressed?—Yes; he bad a dark coat, and something white around his neck

Did you not think it rather strange when Hewitt stepped off the footpath?—Yes.

Did you speak to him?—No.

He got on the step of the passage of the last house in the row?—Yes.

After you had passed him you remember nothing else?—No.

When did you regain consciousness?—On the Tuesday following.

Were you conscious on Sunday, 21nd May?—Yes; for a few minutes.

Did you say on that day that you had seen the prisoner at Meadow View?—I did not know when it was. I did not say much to anyone until the Tuesday.

Did you say so on Tuesday?—Yes.

Do you remember Mrs. Jeffery, your aunt, coming to see you on the Sunday afternoon?—I remember her coming, but I don’t know when it was.

Do you remember another aunt, named Mackintosh, coming to see you ? -Yes; it was on Thursday.

Did you say to your aunt Jeffery that you saw a man sitting on Lund’s step, that that was the first man you had seen, and that you did not know who it was? -No.

Did not she ask you if you could recognise him ? – I did not know when I said so.

Have you said to anybody that you saw a man at Meadow View, and that you could not say who that man was? – No,         sir.

Re-examined by Mr. Gichard: You have told my friend that you thought it was strange that the man should go off the footpath into the gateway. Did that strange conduct attract your attention to him? -Yes.

Why did you not speak to him when you followed him home on Friday night ? Did you go quickly?-No, because I did not want his company.

What time did you go home on Friday night? It was not dark; it would be about nine o’clock.

And you say you kept behind him purposely?—Yes.

You mention that the defendant has done your father some dirty tricks. What were they?

Taking our parcels to his home.

The effect of that would be that his papers got sold first?- Yes.

Has that happened above once?-I know only of once.

Did you know of anything transpiring on the M. S. & L. Rahway Station on the 14th? – I did not know at the time.

How near would you be to Hewitt when he stepped off the footpath? – Only a yard away.

You had been quite near to him and you know exactly how he was dressed? -Yes.

Mr. Charles Frederick Burton, Surgeon,

practising at Swinton, said that about midnight on Saturday, the 21st May he was called to Mr. Wm. Flavells house at Kilnhurst. He there saw the prosecutor. She was suffering from a lacerated wound on the left ear, about 1 ¼  to 1 ½  in length. She had also a punctured wound on the forehead on the left side, and a severe contusion on the left side of the face. Witness saw the stick produced. The wounds prosecutrix was suffering from might have been inflicted by that. Considerable force would have been required to have produced such injuries.

The Chairman : More than one blow.

Witness said the punctured wound might have been caused by a fall on a hard substance. There must have been either two blows or a blow and a fall to have caused what he saw.

Cross-examine witness said he saw prosecutrix every day after Saturday midnight. She was conscious after that time.

Mr. Hickmott: Has prosecutrix made any statement to you respecting the manner in which she received her injuries?

Witness: No, none.

I believe she has spoken to you about seeing a man on the road near Meadow View ?—I don’t remember.

Did she tell you she did not know who was her assailant—Yes. She said she did not recognise anybody. It was in reply to a question.

When was that? —On the morning I was called in.

Answering the Chairman witness said it was in reply to questions put by him that prosecutrix said she did not remember anything. He saw her twice on the Sunday.

The Chairman: Wham you saw her first, was she conscious?—Yes.

The first time you saw her? —Yes.

You think she never was unconscious?—No; not when I saw her.

Replying to further questions, witness said the prosecutrix said she did not recognise the person who was her assailant.

Mr. Hickmott: Did she say she could not recognise anybody at all?—Yes.

Mr. F. Parker Rhodes (magistrates’ clerk): At that time was she fully conscious?—Yes, she was fully conscious.

Mr. Hickmott: I suppose he would not have asked her questions if he had not thought she was in a fit state to answer them.

Has she talked to you since then about the person who attacked her?—Yes.

The Chairman: You say it was only in reply to questions that she made the statement? — Yes.

Mr. Hickmott : Did she say anything to you on the 22nd to the effect that she saw the prisoner. Hewitt, at Meadow View when you asked her the questions? —No, she said she did not remember anything.

The Magistrates’ Clerk: Did you ask her if she had seen Hewitt?—No.

Mr. Hickmott: Did you ask her the question ? —Yes.

When ?—On the Sunday morning when I first saw her and later in the same day.

Has she ever spoken to you of the person who assaulted her?—Not since the Sunday.

The Magistrates’ Clerk: Now let us have the answers clear. You asked her if she could recognise her assailant?—Yes.

And she said no ?—Yes.

Re-examined by Mr. Gichard: All she said to you was in answer to questions put by you?—Yes, that is so.

When you first saw her did she appear frightened and depressed? -Yes.

Was she highly nervous?—I should not say she was highly nervous.

But you say she was frightened?—Yes.

Well, what is the difference. I think being frightened and nervous is much the same thing? I think she was frightened, but I do not think she was nervous.

Mr. Gichard was about to put question relative to the remark of the witness about questioning the prosecutrix, when

The Magistrates’ Clerk said : You must remember he is your witness.

Mr. Hickmott : I noticed that, but I did not wish to interrupt my friend.

Mr. Gichard : I think I ought to treat him as a hostile witness.

Mr. Jubb : I think you are entitled to ask the question and treat him as a hostile witness. He has put questions to this woman.

Mr. Hickmott: I submit not, sir. The witness is a professional man, and I think he has given his evidence very fairly. He, as a professional man —a surgeon—would naturally ask the question of his patient as to how she received her injuries. It is not my duty to defend witnesses for the prosecution. I think this gentleman has given his evidence very fairly.

Mr. Gichard thought it was only necessary for him to point out one thing to show that he was entitled to treat the doctor as a hostile witness.

The Chairman, after consolation with the other magistrates and the Clerk, said: We shall allow you to ask the questions, certainly.

Mr. Gichard: Very well, sir. (To the witness 🙂 You say that she said in answer to your questions, that she did not remember anything?—Yes; I asked for my own information.

Don’t you think that she would be less likely directly after the assault to be able to collect he thoughts than afterwards?—Yes, certainly.

And things she would not be able to remember directly after the assault would come back to her mind afterwards?—Yes.

Mr. Hickmott : That does not arise, out of my cross-examination.

The Magistrates’ Clerk: Oh, yes it does. You cross-examined to show that she had made a certain statement and he is now re-examining to show the condition she was in when she made the statement. You can appeal to their worships if you like.

Mr. Hickmott resumed his seat.

Mr. Gichard: You saw her twice on the Sunday —Yes.

And both times she told you she could not re member anything?—Yes.

And that’s all you got from her?—I asked her on the Tuesday as well, and got the same from her.

The Clerk: Wait a minute. This is the first we have heard about Tuesday. Let us get it plain. What did you ask her?—I asked her if she could remember anything more, or anyone striking her and if so, in what direction.

Yes, and what did she reply?—Her answer was sheremembered nothing.

Did you say she was or was not unconscious on the night when you saw her first?—She was never unconscious whenever I saw her.

The Chairman: Were there any symptoms of concussion of the brain?—There were not.

The Magistrates’ Clerk: Can you say yes or no that there was or was not any concussion of the brain?—I should certainly say there was no concussion of the brain.

Was there any sickness?—I did not see any.

The Chairman: The injuries then were superficial and were not sufficient to cause concussion? —No. I do not think they were severe enough to cause concussion. I think they were superficial. There was no injury to the back part of the head.

The Chairman: (having in his hand the stick produced) : I should have thought a blow with that stick must have made anybody unconscious.

Mr. Hickmott: There is no evidence it was used.

Mr. Gichard: The doctor has said considerable force must have been used to cause the injuries.

The Chairman: And now he says they are superficial and not sufficient to cause unconsciousness.

The Magistrates’ Clerk: How long was she before prosecutrix was fit to go out and go about her duties?—I think about a fortnight before she was able to go out.

The Chairman: Is she quite well now?—No. She is not quite healed. She is well of herself.

Does deafness arise from the injuries she received? – I should not say so.

Was she deaf before the assault? – I have never attended her before.

Mr Hickmott: did she make any reference to Hewitt being at Meadow View when you spoke to her on Tuesday? – She made no statement whatever.

Jacob Smith

miner, of Highthorn, near Kilnhurst, said he was at Kilnhurst on 21 May.

He left there between 11 o’clock and passed to go to his home at Highthorn. In order to get to his home he had to go over the Midland railway bridge at Kilnhurst, and in getting over he had to turn to the right. After crossing the bridge to reach Meadow View he met no one.

The first person he saw was Mr Hewitt – 26 yards from Meadow view, on the Swinton site. He knew prisoner well. He afterwards met Miss Flavell 122 yards from where he saw Hewitt. The distance had been measured by a surveyor. Both prisoner and Miss Flavell were going in the direction of Kilnhurst. Prosecutrix seem to walking fastest of the two. Witness spoke to Miss Flavell. She said “Good night,” and he replied “Good night.”

After meeting prosecutrix he proceeded home. The distance to his house when he met her was about 150 yards. He met no one during that distance. Hewitt and Miss Flavell was the only two persons he met. When he got to the road leading to his house he stood for about five minutes.

On the Sunday he, Police-sergeant Lyttle, and a man named Goldspink saw Hewitt on the M.S.and L. railway bridge. Witness spoke to him about having seen him on the previous night, and he admitted it. Witness could not remember the words. It was something about his (Hewitt) passing without speaking. On the Saturday night when Hewitt passed, his (Smith’s) wife was with him. It was 11.15 or 11.20 when witness saw Hewitt near Meadow View. The night was not very dark. The gas lamps were not lighted.

Cross-examined: He could have seen Hewitt 5 yards away, but did not think he could have seen him 15 yards away.

Mr Hickmott: If I told you that a person could be seen 40 yards away, would you contradict it? – Witness: No.

But you could not see above 15 yards. – No.

After you passed Hewitt, your dog got behind and you stopped to whistle him? – No; I never whistled in my life.

Did you stop for the dog? – No.

Did you hear that night of the attack and Miss Flavell? – No; not until next morning.

She said good night to you and you returned the compliment? – Yes.

Do you know William White? – Yes.

Did you past him of the road? – No.

Whereas you been to? – Kilnhurst; I had been on business.

What public house did you call at first? – At Cope’s and Barton’s public houses, and that was after 10 o’clock

Do you mean to say that you are shopping with your wife until 10 o’clock? – Yes.

Had you a conversation with Mr Whitfield next morning, and with Mr Jagger in the afternoon? – Yes.

Did you say this to Whitfield: “I do not remember seeing Miss Flavell, but the policeman tells me I must have done,” and did you use an oath about the policeman? – No.

Did you make a similar statement that to Jagger? – No.

Was Hewitt made in this overcoat or one like it? – I cannot say; I did not take much notice.

Can you describe any article of clothing he was wearing? – No.

Witness said he should like to explain. He passed Jagger in Kilnhurst Street, and subsequently saw him shutting up the shop when he got home. Although Jagger passed close to him the in the street he said that he did not see him.

The question of adjournment was suggested by the bench. The Chairman thought they would not be able to finish that day.

Mr Gichard: so far as I’m concerned I can finish today. It mainly depends whether the bench think that a primary face each case is made out.

The court then adjourned for ¼ of an hour. Upon resuming,

Jessica Janet Smith

said: I am the wife of the previous witness. I remember being in Kilnhurst on Saturday night, 21 May, in the company of my husband. I live Highthorn. In order to get to my house I had to cross the Midland railway bridge. The first person I saw was Hewitt, when were about 26 yards past Meadow View. That would be on Swinton site. The next person we met was Miss Flavell about 100 yards further on. My husband said “good night” to Miss Flavell and she replied. It would be about 155 yards from meeting Miss Flavell to our house.

When we got to Highthorn I saw Jagger putting the shutters up. I had seen Jagger previous to that night. He ran past me in Kilnhurst. My husband was sober.

Samuel Goldspink

miner, Thomas Street, Kilnhurst, said he remembered 21 May. He was at Highthorn and left there to go to Kilnhurst about 11.20. As he passed the top of the road down which Jacob Smith went, he heard someone speaking. It was Jacob Smith. Witness then proceeded towards Kilnhurst, walking and running. He ran down the hill – not to exhaust himself, but at a moderate speed.

As he got part way down the hill, near to Meadow View, he heard a scream. The scream came from the Kilnhurst side. On hearing it, witness ran to the spot – straight along the footpath and found Miss Flavell on the Kilnhurst  side of Meadow view – a distance of about 40 yards. Prosecutrix was on the opposite side of the road to the footpath and Meadow View. She was in staggering form, leaning against the wall and was unconscious. He spoke to her and she replied, “Oh dear.” She was moaning. He tried to recognise who the girl was, but could not do so as the night was dark. He then carried her across the road onto the footpath side, and while there some young men came up and he shouted to them. It would take about five minutes to recognise who she was and to carry across. The young men came up in five minutes, and took prosecutrix from witnesses charge and conveyed home. Witness went to the girl’s home. Prosecutrix had a basket with her, and at the time when he first saw her she was bleeding. He could not see while the young men struck a match.

On the following (Sunday) morning witness he went to the spot and found a stamp on the road.

Cross-examined: From the time he got to Miss Flavell to when the young men came up – about five minutes – he was trying to find out who the girl was. Until they came up he could not discover who she was, but as soon as one of them struck a match he recognised her.

Mr Hickmott: It was pretty dark then? – Witness: Yes.

You knew Miss Flavell before this night? – Yes.

But it was so dark that you could not tell who she was? – No.

You say you were with the prosecutrix five minutes before the young men came up. Did you not say a fortnight ago that you were only there a few seconds? – I will not swear to a minute or a second.

It is very important to the prisoner. You were pressed upon the point a fortnight ago. Is it true or not that you only have been there a few seconds?

I should say was there from a few seconds to 5 minutes.

Am I to understand that you think it will be more likely to be five minutes? – Yes.

You carried the prosecutrix across the road? – Yes, a distance of 30 yards, in a slanting position.

Why did you not carry her to the cottages, 32 yards away? – Because I was going on my way home.

And you give it as your reason for not carrying out the cottages because you were on your way home? – That is correct.

That is the reason you give to the court? – Yes.

Did you intend to carry forward? – Yes.

How far would you be from a house in that direction? – Several hundred yards.

Having found this young lady badly wounded, do you say you intend to carry a distance of several hundred yards, when you could have taken her 32 yards? – It never entered my head.

There were lights burning in the nearest cottages? – They might have been; I did not see any.

Do you know Leonard Cox (called into court)? – Yes.

Did you ride with that man from Kilnhurst to Swinton on the Monday morning after the assault? – I might have done, but I don’t remember. Did you say, “They got over the wall as you run towards the spot? – No sir.

Did you say that to anybody? – No, sir.

Are you prepared to swear you never said such a thing? – I never said so to anyone.

Re-examined by Mr Gichard: When you first saw prosecutrix she was not in a good position for him to recognise.

The Magistrate Clerk: Did you recognise before a match was struck and afterwards? – Afterwards.

Mr Gichard: have you seen darker nights and this one? – Yes, but not many.

John Gray, miner

living at Highthorn said: I was at Kilnhurst on 21 May last. I left there about 11 o’clock in company, with Wm. Charles Gray and others. When I got to the bridge on the Highthorn road, between the church gates and the vicarage. I met the prisoner. I did not meet anyone else just then. but further on I saw Goldspink and Miss Favell. I went towards them and found Miss Flavell in a reclining state. She was unconscious and her face was covered with blood. I assisted to carry her home. One of my mates bid Hewitt “Good-night.”

Cross-examined by Mr Hickmott: You assisted this poor girl home? – Yes.

She talked about what had occurred? – No.

Did she say anything about the man she had met on the road? – I don’t remember.

Will you swear she did not? – I will sware nothing of the kind.

Did she say it was a man with a light muffler and dark clothes? – Not to my knowledge.

Mr Rhodes (magistrates clerk): It is possible that she may have said it and you not hear it? – Yes.

William Charles Gray, miner

living at Charles Street, Kilnhurst, said on Saturday, 21 May, I journeyed from Highthorn to Kilnhurst. After leaving the Midland Railway the first man I met was Hewitt. I afterwards saw Miss Flavell; she was unconscious, and her face was covered with blood. I helped to carry her home. I stayed a short time, and then went for the doctor. When going towards Highthorn my brother, one of the other men with him, bid Hewitt “good night.” I am not aware was a Hewitt made any reply.

Cross-examined by Mr Hickmott: When you got her home that she make a statement? – No.

Did she mention prisoner’s name? – No.

Deceased ear as she was struck? – No.

Re-examined by Mr Gichard: What did she say was it in a straightforward or a rambling way? – It was in a rambling way.

Recalled, witness said some of his companions were singing, and some were talking as they went on the road.

James Wood

signal man, in the employ of the Midland Railway Company, said he lived at Carlisle Street, Kilnhurst. Shortly after 11 o’clock on Saturday night, 21 May, he was on duty in his signal box. He had occasion to go from the signal box to the platform, and while there heard some men go along the road singing. A minute or two after he had a short scream, which appeared to come from the Highthorn road. It would be from near Meadow view. The distance from where the assault took place the signal box was about 340 yards. It was exactly 11.10 when he heard the screen. The Bella drunk, and he had gone to attend to him. That was the reason he knew the time.

Cross-examined: He should think the young men he had singing will be opposite the church gates.

Re-examined: He did not know whether the men went Highthorn Piccadilly way.

Sergeant Hamilton Lyttle

stationed at Swinton, said that at quarter to one Sunday morning, 22 May, from information received, he went to Mr Flavell’s house. He afterwards went to the prisoner’s house, and there saw prisoner.

Mr Hickmott, at this juncture, raised an objection. He wished to ask the officer whether, before questioning the prisoner, he gave him the usual caution. If Lyttle did not do so the statement could not be evidence.

The Magistrates Clerk ruled against him, but it was decided to record on the deposition that the evidence was objected to.

Continuing, Lyttle asked prisoner what time he left Swinton that night, and he replied, “I was looking in Elliott’s shop window when the clock struck 11.” He also asked him if he had seen Miss Flavell on her way home from Swinton to Kilnhurst. He did not caution prisoner before making the enquiry. His answer to the question was “No.” Witness then asked when at or near Meadow View he saw anyone on the road. He said “No,” and he also replied in the negative when asked if he had heard any scream at Meadow view. He (Lyttle) said “A most cowardly assault has been committed on Miss Flavell at Meadow View tonight, and I have information that you must have been close to the place at the time, and it is a curious thing if you have no you have neither seen nor heard anything.” Hewitt replied, “The night was too dark for her to tell who’s done it.”

On the following morning – in the early hours – witness went to the place where the assault was committed. He found on the causeway twelve drops of blood. There was no appearance of a struggle. Examining the wall and the opposite side of the wall, on the roadside he found deal of blood. There was a mark as though a person had staggered across the road. He got on the wall to examine it. He wore sharp nailed boots at the time. Police constable Lund came from the railway cutting up the bank, and got over the wall. At the time Lund was looking for a stone. Later on the same morning he visited the same place at 3.15. On that occasion he was accompanied by police constables Pickering and Shuttleworth. He got over the wall, and examine the embankments down to the railway cutting, and there was no trace of footsteps. There was dew upon the grass. With the exception of the marks made by him in getting over the wall there were none whatever. The same day he saw the prisoner in company with Jacob Smith. Smith said, “I met you (Hewitt) coming down Highthorn last night, and I met Miss Flavell lower down the road.”

There was a swinging gate, so that before anyone could get past it they would have to push to get forward and then backward. The footpath was rough. He examined the bank near the roadway, and there was no trace of anyone having walked up it. The gate he referred to would be 15 yards from the embankment he examined. On the top of the bank was a good thick hedge. He examined the hedge about 60 or 70 yards, found it had not been disturbed. On the Sunday afternoons he examined the field. He traced footsteps in the gateway to manure heap about 5 yards distant. With this exception he found no marks of anyone having been on the land.

He apprehended the prisoner on a warrant at his shop of 24 May, and charged him with unlawful wounding. He read the charge over to him. He said “Oh dear me, I thought a summons would have done.” He conveyed prisoner to a magistrate the following morning, and he was remanded. He said “I was never near the place.”

Witness saw some shrubs near Meadow View. He produced several roots growing near that spot. The sticks he saw were close to the footpath. He visited the prosecutrix after the assault. He saw her twice on Saturday and once on Sunday, Monday, and Tuesday. He asked the doctor who visited the prosecutrix on Sunday, if Miss Flavell was conscious. He replied, “She is conscious now.”

The Chairman (Mr Jubb): Did the doctor say she was unconscious on Sunday? – Witness: No.

Mr Hickmott objected to this evidence.

The Chairman said he was only asking the question of his own satisfaction.

Mr Hickmott protested, contending that the bench must be guided by the rules of evidence.

The Chairman said he did not wish anything which was not evidence to go on the depositions.

Mr Hickmott asked the bench were consulted their law clerk upon the point.

The Chairman said he asked it on his own responsibility, for his own information, for the satisfaction of his brother magistrates. What he wants to know was when did the doctor say that she became conscious. The officer said that he saw on Sunday afternoon, and she was not conscious then. The doctor said she was conscious.

Mr Hickmott asked that his objection should be entered on the depositions.

Mr F.Parker Rhodes: Your objection cannot be put on the depositions, because the statement is not put down as evidence.

Sergeant Lyttle, in reply to the Chairman, said he saw Miss Flavell on Sunday afternoon, and she was not conscious. He put the question to her as to who had done it, and the reply was caught, “I cannot remember.”

The Chairman: I never asked you that. All that I wanted to know was a question of consciousness.

Cross-examined by Mr Hickmott, witness said prisoner did not say, “You are on the wrong scent if you suspect me,” when he mentioned to him that having been seen near the place. Prisoner never said anything of the kind. When he (witness) examined the wall at half past 1 o’clock on Sunday morning, he got onto the top, but did not get over it. The wall is 3’ 9” high. Witness was prepared to swear that no one had gone down the embankment on the roadside that morning. There was not the slightest trace of anyone having done so. He admitted that a person could have gone through the gate, crossed the railway, and got into Kilnhurst without leaving any trace.

Re-examined: Witness used a lamp in making an examination of the wall. The reason he got on the top was because he could get a better light there than being below.

Police constable Samuel Lund

stationed at Kilnhurst, stated that on the night of the day he was on duty in Victoria St, Kilnhurst, about half-past 11 o’clock. He saw the young men Grey and Goldspink carrying prosecutrix to her home. From information he received he went to Meadow View where he found a hat and umbrella, which he now produced. They belonged to Miss Flavell. He found a hat about a yard from the causeway, and the umbrella in the middle of the road about 40 yards from the houses. Shortly after midnight he went to prisoner’s house and saw prisoner in the kitchen. Witness asked if he had met anyone the road as he was coming from Swinton, and he answered in the negative. He then asked if, when near Meadow View, he heard any screams or anything unusual, and he again answered “No.” Witness told him what had happened to Miss Flavell. On the following day (Sunday morning) he (witness) went to the place where the assault was committed, in company with Sergeant Lyttle. They made a thorough examination of the spot, but did not find the slightest trace of anyone having gone over the wall down the railway embankment. Witness found the stick produced about 35 yards from where he saw the blood on the wall. It was lying on the railway bank just past some bushes.

Cross-examined by Mr Hickmott: You had a conversation with the prisoner and some other person and amongst other things you inquired at was about the postage stamp? – Yes.

Did he mention about some marks on the wall, and did you say to him that the marks had not been made solely as that morning? – No conversation of that nature took place.

I suppose you admit about the postage stamp? – Yes: he told me about the postage stamp.

Had it been suggested to you that the man who attacked the prosecutrix was wearing a white muffler round his neck? – Yes.

Did you hear that the prosecutrix had said so? – No.

Mr Gichard in re-examination: The whites on the man’s neck you refer to might have been a collar? – Yes.

Police constable Leonard Shuttleworth

stationed at Swinton, said about 3:15 o’clock on Sunday morning, 22^nd of May, he went to the place for the assault was committed, and examine the bank on the same side of the road as Meadow view and a field close to. There were no traces of anybody having gone up the bank. The hedge was a thick one. So far as witness could see tit had not been disturbed in the least. On the Tuesday following, 24 May, witness was present when Sergeant Lyttle apprehended the prisoner. When the warrant was read over to him, he replied “Oh dear me – a warrant. I thought a summons would have done. Is Miss Flavell able to appear?”

William Flavell, Newsagent

said he carried on business at Kilnhurst and Swinton. The prisoner also carried on business at these two places. Witness had occasion to send for prisoner in January in consequence of the letter he had received from Mr Turner, Sheffield, when asked if he might supply the prisoner with newspapers. Witness told him that he had informed Mr Godbehere he (Flavell) was taken his living away from him. Hewitt answered “What I’ve written I’ve written. I did not think it of you.”

Mr Gichard: Have you any other cause of complaint against prisoner? – Witness: He has done things I have not liked.

Continuing, witness said on Saturday night, 21 May, in consequence of information given to him, he went towards the Midland Railway Bridge Kilnhurst and met some young men bringing his daughter home. When she had been taken into the house witness examined her things – nothing but her hat and umbrella were missing. Her purse containing money was in her pocket and there was also some money in the basket on the top of all the goods.

Mr Hickmott: When had you this conversation about the matter? – Witness: I should say it would be about January last.

When you heard of the prisoner having been on the road on the night your daughter was assaulted, you at once jumped to the conclusion that he was a man who had attacked? – No, I didn’t.

Did you not suggest it to your daughter? – I did not.

Did you have any conversation with her? – Not about that at all.

Did you not say this to her – did you see Hewitt that night? – I did not say that to her.

Anything like it? – Nothing at all.

Did you mention Hewitt’s name to her? – I didn’t.

You swear you did not on Sunday? – Yes, I do swear that I did not.

Mr Gichard: she was too badly injured for you to talk to her? – Yes, she was.

William Muscroft

miner, living at Kilnhurst, said on Saturday, 14 May he saw the prisoner on the platform of the M.S.and L. railway station. Witness was on the bridge which crosses over the railway. Hewitt cut open a bundle of papers – which belonged himself and Flavell – and threw those belonging to Flavell on to the platform. It was raining at the time and the platform was dirty.

Mr Gichard: What impression did that because on your mind? – Witness: I thought there was some jealousy between them.

Mr Hickmott: You can’t go into that.

Mr George John Monson

civil engineer and surveyor to the Swinton Local Board, said the plans produced had been drawn by him. The plans were correct ones of the road from Kilnhurst to Swinton. Witness spoke to the various distances mentioned in the evidence of various persons who had been called.

Prosecutrix Recalled

at the request of Mr Gichard, prosecutrix was recalled.

Mr Gichard: after you left Swinton, did you meet anyone who asked you the road to Mexborough? – Prosecutrix: Yes, sir.

Where was it you met that person? – On the top of Highthorn Hill.

Was it a man? – No, it was a boy.

You say you saw him at the top of Highthorn hill – was it before you got to the road leading to Smith’s house.? – It was after I passed Jagger’s shop.

Conclusion of the Case for the Prosecution

Mr Gichard: that is the case for the prosecution. On that evidence I ask you to commit the prisoner for trial.

Prisoner was then formally charged, and on the other advice of his solicitor, he replied, “Not guilty.”

Mr Hickmott’s Defence

Mr Hickmott then addressed the magistrates on behalf of his client. The case, which he said had occupied the attention of the court for six and are for seven hours, had to a great extent been built up by circumstantial evidence. He proposed to address the court first of all upon the evidence given against the prisoner, and in the next place the evidence which he proposed, if necessary to adduce on behalf of the defence.

There have been a mass of matter brought forward and the prosecution endeavoured to prop up a case to go before the jury to get this man committed for trial. He (Mr Hickmott) ventured to submit that after the evidence that had been given had been closely analysed there had not been a prima facie case made out from which the bench would be justified in sending his prisoner for trial.

It was hardly necessary for him to say that it was not for his client to prove his innocence; it was not for him to be asked to account for his conduct of that particular night – as to when he went and as to what he did. The onus resting on the prosecution to bring before the court was such a case upon which a jury would be reasonably expected to convict. Although they have been sitting for over six hours, he ventured to say five of them have been occupied in bringing evidence of the purely negative kind. With exception of the evidence of the girl herself, and that of the police officers at the same was made by the prisoner, had been no evidence of a confirmatory character. It had mostly been of a negative kind. Evidence had been called endeavouring to show there was animus in the breast of the prisoner that would be likely to cause him to attack the girl in the manner described. But, Mr Hickmott went on to point out, as a matter of fact on the very day when the outrage was committed, the prisoner convenienced Miss Flavell by selling her a particular paper that she wanted, and the week before he had let her have some flowers which she required.

When he (Mr Hickmott) sat and heard the manner in which the question of motive was brought forward he was led to smile as he sat and listened to it. It was indeed astounding and incredible to imagine, that because a man was a keen competitor in trade – and he (Mr Hickmott) did not know competitors liked each other any less because they were keen – he had it in his breast to attack this unfortunate girl without rhyme or reason – simply because she carried on the business of her father. It was incredible to think a person would do such a thing. It was a two edge sword which cut both ways. If the feeling his friend (Mr Gichard) wished the court to believe was so great that his client showed his revenge towards that poor girl, and attacked her in that manner, surely, on the other hand, might not the feeling be equally great. Was it not possible for Mr Flavell to have said, “my daughter has been attacked on this road by someone; she does not know by whom. Hewitt was there; he would do it if he could. Hewitt is the man – he’s the man for me.” He (Mr Hickmott) did not think that was so. He did not for a moment put it that feeling was so high in Mr Flavell’s breast that he would carry it to that extent in reality. It was incredible to believe the theory put forward by the prosecutrix, viz: – that simply because these persons were competition competitors in trade, the prisoner would be such a vile scoundrel as to attack Miss Flavell in the dreadful manner described. He did not propose to dilate further on the question of motive, as a Bench had heard the evidence, and the last time there was any conversation between the prisoner and Mr Flavell was as long as January last.

The evidence which had been given was in reality divided into three parts. First of all there was evidence of the prosecutrix – direct evidence; second of the evidence of the witnesses to show the position of Hewitt on the road on the night named at various times and places; and thirdly the evidence of the police officers with respect to statements the prisoner had made.

Then there was evidence of the father and the last witness, Muscroft as to what took place on 14 May. To deal with Muscroft’s evidence Hewitt said what he did on that day was what was done every week, and had been done for months. When a bundle of papers came they were divided – one lot was taken away and the other left.

It was up to the prosecution to prove the guilt of the prisoner. He (Mr Hickmott) was going to submit with the greatest possible confidence that no case had been made out – that there was no evidence at all against the prisoner on this charge.

To deal first of all with the evidence of the prosecution. What did it amount to? She said, “I met the prisoner, I was within 4 yards of him near Carlisle Street, but I lost sight of him on entirely and I never saw him again until near Meadow View, when I saw him 40 yards in front of me.” Mark this. She never saw his face after he left that spot near Carlisle Street, and at Meadow view she saw his back – he stepped off the footpath with his back towards her. She then passed him, and it was directly afterwards that she was attacked. She said she saw Hewitt 40 yards in front of her. Was that evidence true – did the magistrates believe it?

What did Jacob Smith say? He said distinctly, “I could not have seen anybody that night 15 yards off, and I have good eyesight.” But prosecutrix went into the box, and swore that she saw prisoner 40 yards before her. She said she had no doubt about it. He (Mr Hickmott) put it to her in cross examination – was it not possible for you to be mistaken? And she answered “I have no doubt about it.”

The bench would recollect the evidence of Jacob Smith – if it was damnatory against the prisoner it was equal damnatory against the prosecutrix. If ever there was a case in which evidence of the woman had been damned surely it was this one.

He drew the magistrate’s attention to Goldspink’s evidence. He went to the unfortunate girl – with whom no one more deeply sympathised than the prisoner – after brutal attack which had been made upon her, he found the badly wounded and lying against the wall bleeding. He lifted her up, and according to his own description, he had her in his arms. Although he was close to her for five minutes he could not recognise her until one of the young men came up and struck a match. After the evidence of the prosecutrix the statements of Goldspink certainly seemed astounding. When the magistrates considered the evidence of Goldspink and Smith, could they place the slightest reliance on a testimony. With the exception of her evidence there was not one spark or tittle of evidence against the prisoner.

Respecting the other evidence given, with the exception of two points he (Mr Hickmott) was prepared to admit on behalf of his client every word that had been uttered. There were two points, however, which he disputed. One was the evidence of Smith, when he said he passed Hewitt a few yards from Miss Flavell, and the other evidence which wanted explaining was that of Sargent Lyttle when prisoner was on demand remand, viz, the statement “I was never near the place.” What is client meant by that was – he was never near the place where this girl was attacked. With these exceptions, he was prepared to admit every bit of the other evidence which have been given by the prosecutrix. It was consistent with the innocence of the prisoner. He had already said the only evidence against prisoner was that of the prosecutrix, and he was quite aware of the adversion made against the evidence of Doctor Burton. If his evidence was to be believed, although as he (Mr Hickmott) put it viz. that the girl statements were damaged by the evidence of both Goldspink and Smith – then surely her story must go to the wind. Doctor Burton had not been seen by the defence at all with respect to the matter.

Mr Gichard: Are you going to prove that?

Mr Hickmott: Yes, I am prepared to prove it.

Mr Gichard: How can you?

Mr Hickmott went on to say that the bench decided that the doctor might practically be treated as a hostile witness. He (Mr Hickmott) only wants to get before the court the circumstances under which it became known to the defence at the prosecutrix have made the statement at all. It was when an enquiry was made after her condition, and the doctor expressed surprise that Hewitt had been apprehended, considering the statements he had made.

Mr Gichard: My friend is not entitled make ex parte statements of this description. He should only make statements which is going to prove by evidence.

Mr Hickmott: I will call evidence to prove what I say, if necessary.

Mr Gichard: I should object. He contended that such evidence would not be admissible.

Mr Hickmott, continuing, said Doctor Burton had stated distinctly that the prosecutrix was conscious on the Sunday. He did not say that Doctor Burton was expert as a witness – some of the best medical men were the greatest – if he might be excused using the term “duffers” in the witness box, but far as his evidence was concerned he did not think the gentleman came to the court to deceive the bench.

The Chairman thought Mr Hickmott was deceiving them as much as anyone anybody else. The question he (Mr Jubb) put to the witness Lyttle was quite as much in Hewitt’s favour as anyone else’s. He was simply asking for his own information.

Mr Hickmott said so far as that little episode was concerned it was now at an end and he did not think it was interesting anybody to again refer to it.

He went on to say that it was in a case of this sort that my little things they could ascertain who was speaking the truth; and the evidence of police constable Lund struck as very forcible. A question put to the prosecutrix more than once was whether she had made a statement about seeing a man with a dark coat and a light muffler. At any rate police constable Lund next morning went to every house in Meadow View, to make enquiry as to whether a man had been seen about their on the previous night. He (Mr Hickmott) thought this pointed to the fact that prosecutrix have made a statement about a man dressed in the way he had described. It was quite certain she did not believe Hewitt as the man or she would have mentioned his name. If the prosecutrix had not made a statement such as he had alluded to, why should they have an indefatigable policeman, under an energetic Sergeant, going about making enquiries?

There was nobody there when a murderous attack was made on the prosecutrix but the assailant and the girl herself. If, therefore, she had not made a statement to the effect he had referred to, why on earth came Lund to act as they had done?

He asked them next to consider the evidence of James Wood. Wood, if he was speaking the truth, had irresistibly proved the case for the defence, and showed that the prisoner was not the man who attacked the girl at night. Wood had approve the time, and he (Mr Hickmott) contended he had shown that at the time of the assault Hewitt must have been 272 yards away.

Mr Gichard objected, wishing to put his friend right and the point.

Mr Hickmott said would have sworn that at the time you man grave near the church gates and these young men swore they had met the prisoner, that was 272 yards away from where the girl was assaulted.

Mr Gichard again objected.

Mr Hickmott proceeded to read the evidence of Wood the signalman.

Mr Gichard said his firm of putting a very different construction upon the evidence to that which was given.

The Chairman: I think you must leave it in our hands.

Mr Hickmott, continuing, commented further on one evidence, then said the bench might ask what was the theory of the defence. Somebody had injured the woman, and who had done so? His friend called a lot of evidence, but what it amount to? Three hours had been taken to prove as to whether any footsteps could be found in the field on a wall, but there was nothing in it any person might, Sergeant Lyytle had proved, have gone along the ordinary footpath to Kilnhurst. A dozen people might have gone that road that night who would have had every opportunity commit the outrage without being seen by any of the witnesses who had been called by the prosecution.

What he (Mr Hickmott) said was this, and he would be able if necessary to prove it, that a tramp had been there that night, and not only observed but he had stopped more than one person. He would trace the tramp in the direction of the place. He was call a person who would say that as she came out the house at Meadow View, she saw the tramp, who wore similar close to those of the defendant. This was within five minutes of the time the outrage occurred. That man left the house and cut across the road. He argued that the evidence of the prosecution with respect to the time of this was perfectly consistent with this theory.

After criticising the evidence of police, he said there was no evidence to connect the defence, except that of the girl Flavell. With regard to the evidence as to motive he said it was incredible in such as no jury would convict upon.

Turning to the evidence of the defence he again reverted to the theory that the outrage had been done by a tramp. He would call two or three witnesses to prove that this tramp earlier in the night had asked for money and when refused to him he said he would “Deeming” somebody before the night was over. This tramp was dressed in a dark coat., and light muffler. Further, he stopped the woman on the road who took to her heels and ran away. He will prove that the tramp was near the scene of the assault, Meadow View, at the time it was committed. Speaking again on the negative character of the evidence he said he had the greatest confidence as to what would be the result. If the case were to go for trial it would be equally confidence on this point. But he pointed out that for the bench to send the defendant for trial would incur a lot of expense to him. The man had hitherto borne an irreproachable character. He appealed to the bench as strong as he could say there was no there was such a doubt they could not reasonably expected jury to convict.

Susan Jeffrey

wife of Edward William Geoffrey, of Samsung, Victoria Street, Kilnhurst, said:

the prosecutrix is my niece. Since Mr Flavell married again I have not been in the habit of visiting his house. I heard of the injuries to my niece, and accordingly called on the Sunday night. I asked to be allowed to see her, and I was shown into the bedroom. She was able to talk to me about what had taken place. I asked her who she thought had done it and she replied she did not know. She added that it was so dark she could not recognise the man. Prosecutrix also said it was so dark that she could not tell where it was that was near Mr Lunn’s house. Prosecutrix said that someone struck on the back of the neck and she did not recollect anything more.

Cross-examined: Prosecutrix appeared very low, but not depressed or frightened. She had the appearance that she had been handled roughly.

Mr Gichard: She appeared to have all the faculties? – Yes.

Who was the person that first began the conversation in the prosecutrix’s bedroom? I did not ask her immediately I went in, but I asked her who had done it. I didn’t ask before she mentioned it.

Had you gone there for the express purpose of asking that question? – No.

You consider that she was fit to talk about the things? – Yes: I asked her because I thought I should like to know who had done it.

When did you first mention to anyone what she had told you? – When I got home.

To whom did you tell it? – I cannot tell you all the names.

Did you mention it to many people the same day? – I did not keep count.

Who was the first person you mention it to? – I don’t know.

Who was the person in your house when you got home? – My husband.

Was he the first person? – Yes.

Then why did you say moment ago that you did not know? – There were some people in the street when I got home who inquired about the prosecutrix. I didn’t tell them all.

Did the prosecutrix say that she didn’t see the man who struck the blow? – Yes.

Did she say that she didn’t recollect who had struck her? – Yes.

When did she say it was struck? – On the neck.

So that accounts for her not seeing the man who stuck her? – Yes.

You have had many conversations with people about this matter, you have heard that the man stood on the steps? – Yes.

Will you tell me the exact words that she used when she referred to the man who was on the steps? – It was dark so that she could not say who it was. She could not recognise him.

Upon being pressed by Mr Gichard about this statement, witness said the prosecutrix could not say who it was that stood on Mr Lund’s steps, and that was the whole of her statement.

Mr Gichard pointed out that the two statements did not correspond with each other, but witness said that both statements were correct.

Mr Gichard: Who was it that she could not recognise? – The man who struck the blow.

What was the man doing? – He didn’t say.

Was he stood or sat? – He was sat.

May you have made a mistake. Prosecutrix has sworn that he was stood – witness adhered to her statement that he was sat.

Have you anything against the Flavell’s? – No sir.

And yet you have not had the same intercourse with them that you had before his second marriage? – No. The cause of on their part, not mine.

Have they ordered you to stay away? – No.

What is the cause of you are stopping away? – I don’t know, unless it be is because my husband is in the same trade as Mr Flavell.

Do you mean to say that Mr Flavell has had any ill feeling against you? – Yes.

What is the cause of that feeling on his part? What is the done to show it? – I don’t know.

Why do you suggest? Can you give any reason? – No.

Do you know Mrs Bisby or Minnie Marples? – I cannot say.

Two women were then called it took the court, and witness was asked: Did you see these two women on the Tuesday after the assault? – Yes.

Did they ask you and Miss Fennell was? – Yes.

You keep a hardware shop? – Yes.

Did you reply to those women that Miss Labour was rambling and was very bad? – No.

If these two women are prepared to swear that you may have used these words? – No.

Now, brighten up. You can remember what you don’t say but you cannot remember clearly what is said. Have you said anything of the sort? – No.

You have had numerous conversations with people about this matter? – Yes.

Can you remember conversations between any of them? – No.

You could not speak of any particular thing to any single person? – No.

Mr Hickmott then re-examine witness: are you quite clear that prosecutors said she could not recognise anyone who had done it? – Yes.

Did she say she recognise that man at Meadow View or not? – She said she could not.

Mr Hickmott: that is the evidence.

The Chairman said the magistrates would retire to consider their decision. After an absence of a few minutes, the justices return, and the Chairman said the bench were unanimous in committing the prisoner for trial at the Sheffield Sessions.

Mr Hickmott asked for bail to be granted to the prisoner.

The application was acceded to, the prisoner was admitted to bail, himself in £40 and two sureties in £40 each. The Reverend P Houghton and Mr Heald, of Swinton and Kilnhurst, immediately came forward as his bondsman.

The case occupied the attention of the court for over eight hours, and the sitting did not terminate until after 7:00 p.m., the greatest interest being manifest throughout.