HANTS SPRING ASSIZES.
CROWN COURT.—Before Mr. Justice WATSON.
CONTINUED FROM THE SUPPLEMENT.
SERIOUS CHARGE OF ASSAULT.—Isaac Snary, 30, one of the Lay Vicars of the Winchester Cathedral, surrendered to his bail, and took his trial on a charge of having feloniously assaulted Georgiana Hill, at the parish of Chilcomb, on Sunday, the 27th of June last. The prosecutrix is the daughter of a man named George Hill, the keeper of a little shop in the city for the sale of cheap drapery, likewise following the occupation of a hawker, or packman, travelling the surrounding district with tea, grocery, &c.
This case, next to the Andover murder, excited more public interest than any other on the calendar, in consequence of the position of the prisoner and the long time the case has been before the public, it having been first brought on for trial at the Michaelmas Sessions, and from thence traversed to the present assizes, in consequence of an objection to the finding of the Sessions’ Grand Jury. When called on yesterday morning the court was crowded to excess with the inhabitants of the city.
Mr. Gunner with Mr. Russell appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. Poulden and Mr. Cooke in defence of the prisoner. Mr. Seagrim instructed the prosecuting counsel; the brief for the defence was prepared by Mr. Greenfield.
The leading counsel for the prosecution opened the case to the jury in a brief address, describing the evidence about to be offered in support of the charge.
The prosecutrix said she was fifteen years old last June, when she lived with her parents on the Lawn. She first knew the prisoner about three weeks before the 27th of June. He spoke to her first in the High-street on a work-day. He said he mistook her for his niece. On Sunday the 13th June she saw him at the Cathedral, after morning service, at the western door. He asked her if she would take a walk; she at first declined, but he pressed her, and she then went a little way on St. Giles Hill with him, returning home through the Weirs. On the following Sunday she again saw the prisoner at the same place, and, as on the previous occasion, she went with him for a short walk. On Sunday 27th, at about the same time and place, she again met the prisoner. He asked her to take walk, but she declined, telling him she was too poorly. At his persuasion, however, she did go with him, down College-street, by the Dog and Duck, on the Petersfield-road, through a turnpike gate, and across a field with a footpath. They came to a stile, and, at his request, she got over. She made a remark, ‟how beautiful the corn looks!” and the prisoner then put his arm round her waist, and she thought he was trying to throw her down. She cried, and said, ‟Let me go.” She found a dizziness come over her eyes, and fancied something went over her face—a handkerchief or a glove, or something of that sort—and she became insensible. When she came to her senses again, she was lying flat upon the ground, the prisoner standing at a little distance from her. She was very ill and faint, but got up with the assistance of the prisoner, who gave her his hand. [Witness here described her position and circumstances, on coming to her senses, inferring that an assault had been committed upon her while in a state of insensibility]. The prisoner left her, and she went home alone. She was too unwell to eat any dinner, and went to her bedroom, and on her mother coming up sometime after and finding her crying she questioned her. She then told her mother what had happened. They remained up stairs till tea time, and then went down, but she soon returned to her room, where she remained for the rest of the evening.
Cross-examined by Mr. Poulden—Her birthday was on the 25th June. She had only been to the Cathedral once before the prisoner spoke to her, and then she did not see him. He told her that he was one of the singers, but she did not know his name. Kate Allen had not told her who he was. She did not call him by name when he spoke her in the Hight-street; she was walking up the street, and he came in front of her and spoke. He did not catch his foot in her dress, and then apologise. She did not know his name until a week before the 27th June. [In the witness’s former deposition she had said she knew his name a week before she first walked with him, the 13th June]. On the 27th June she came out of the Cathedral at the west door, and the prisoner came to her just as she was stepping out. She had not waited for him, but she supposed he had gone somewhere and taken off his surplice before he came out. They went together through the Close into College-street. When she got home her mother said it was quarter after two o’clock. She could scarcely walk after the prisoner left her, and was a very long time going home. It was about half-past eleven when they left the Cathedral. She did not meet any body she knew, and the prisoner did not speak to any one she met. After becoming senseless she did not know anything that occurred, and did not find herself fall down. She wore a tuscan straw hat, turned up at the sides, a blue and white muslin dress, and a rose-coloured scarf; she did not observe that any of her clothing was torn or disarranged when the prisoner left her. She was quite sure she did not go to the Cathedral on the same Sunday afternoon, and she was not out of doors in the evening; she was not in Cheesehill-street at 20 minutes past 12 that Sunday. She was ill all the rest of that day, and much worse than she had been for some time. She did not suffer any particular pain on the 28th, the following day. She went out with her mother and met the prisoner, who spoke to her; her mother had gone on in advance at the time, but she told her it was Mr. Snary who had spoken to her. They were at the White Hart in the evening with some friends; there was an Odd Fellows dinner there, and they were asked to partake of some food. Some dinner was placed before Mrs. Polkinghorne, who said there was nothing on the table fit to eat; neither herself or mother had anything to eat there. She did not see a Mrs. Hillary on the 7th July, nor speak to the prisoner that day when with her in the High-street.
Re-examined—They were not in the same room as the Odd Fellows at the White Hart. They went with Mrs. Polkinghorne, who wished to see her husband, and hear him make his speech, and she told witness and her mother that she was afraid he would break down in it, because he had learnt it out of a book [laughter].
Mary Collins, a girl 14 years of age, deposed to meeting the prosecutrix and the prisoner on the Sunday before Coronation Day, on the Petersfield road, between twelve and one o’clock in the day. Witness was driving her father’s cow home at the time.
Cross-examined—Her father used to supply Mr. Hill with milk; they were not told to come with any more because they were irregular, but they left off going because they had no milk. She also served the Hills’ with milk; and Miss Hill had taken it at the door, therefore she knew Miss Hill when she met her with Mr. Snary.
There were discrepancies in the witness’s evidence now and that given before the magistrates. She then said she did not know Miss Hill when she met her, and did not serve her mother’s house with milk till after that date. The witness also formerly said her father was waiting for her when she got home, but now said her father came to meet her on the road. The Judge said the most charitable way was to suppose that the discrepancy arose from a mistake; but he did not know if the jury’s charity would so far.
Charles Collins, father of the last witness, stated that he did go and meet her on the Sunday in question.
Jane Hill, mother of the prosecutrix, deposed that her daughter left home at ten o’clock on the morning of the 27th June (Sunday). It was a quarter to two when she returned, and she ate no dinner. Witness was angry with her for being late home. On going up stairs she found her daughter lying on the bed. On questioning her, she complained of being very unwell, and made a communication to her of what had taken place. She did not examine her daughter nor her clothing. The whole of the afternoon and evening her daughter remained in the house. The next day she and her daughter went out together, and a person spoke to her daughter who witness aferwards learnt was Mr. Snary. Witness did not tell her husband what had occurred till the 23d July. He suffered from affection of the brain and disease of the heart, and about the time (June) had to get in a large sum of money; she did not tell him then because of her fear of exciting him. He had not completed his particular business when she did tell him. Her daughter had been ill and under Dr. Hitchcock’s advice for a month before the occurrence. On the 24th July her daughter was examined Mr. Mayo.
Cross-examined—Witness had been to the Cathedral with her daughter on the 20th June; also on the two Sundays previous. Her husband was not under medical advice, and was as well on the 27th June as he was on the 23d July.
George Hill, the father of the girl, gave evidence to the same effect as his wife. In addition, he said he did not know the prisoner till about three weeks after the assault, and on that day (24th July) he came to his house and asked him to go to the George or the White Hart. Witness told him he did not know him, and asked him his name. He told him his name was Snary, and witness then said, ‟Then you shary in here—you are the very man I want to see.” The day before his wife had told him about Snary and his daughter. They both went into the house, and he questioned him about what he had done to his daughter. Prisoner first denied knowing his daughter, but then admitted meeting her in the High-street. He denied walking with her in Kingsgate-street, but said he passed her there, and had not seen her afterwards. Prisoner asked what he was going to do in the job, and putting his hand in his pocket rattled what appeared to be cash, asking if money would settle it. Witness told him in he should put it into the hands of the law, and ordered him out of the house. Some further words passed, and when in the passage prisoner again asked if money would settle it. Witness ordered him away, and when leaving prisoner threatened to split his head if he said anything to injure his character. Witness became very excited, and the prisoner went away. Witness went to Snary’s house directly he heard the story from his wife, and he afterwards went to the Cathedral to find him, but learnt that he had gone to Bristol. Witness told the men at the Cathedral that Snary had been doing something with his child. Witness obtained advice, and got a summons against the prisoner, who was examined before the magistrates.
Cross-examined—He recollected everything that took place on the 27th June in respect to his daughter’s appearance and doings when she came home to dinner. From that day to the 23d July he was about his ordinary business, but was not in good health. The prisoner came to him on a Saturday. He had heard part of the story only at a time from his wife. He had been married to his present wife about 16 years ; his first wife died in Germany, but he was not living with her at that time. He married his present wife in London; could not tell in what church—it was somewhere in Holborn. Witness had been a gentleman’s servant, and had lived with Sir Henry Rivers at Worthy, Mrs. Groves in the Close, Winchester, and in several other families in different places. He had been a butler and footman; and in some places a kind of “jack of all trades,” working in and out of the house. Was born at Micheldever, and left at 15, but had been back there several times. Had lived in Guernsey with Col. Kennedy as servant; after leaving there had been a hawker ever since. When Snary came to him he did not say he was come to ask why witness had been traducing his character, and threatening to break his head. He did not see any money or purse in Snary’s hand inside or outside the house ; he was quite sure on that point. Witness did not tell him he would ruin him and damn all his teaching. Snary did not demand to be brought face to face with the girl. Witness remembered being before the magistrates at Southampton in a case of bastardy, and appeared as a witness. His brother was summoned to maintain the child of the young woman, and witness went to prove that the woman had been familiar with other men, himself among the number. He swore in Court that he had had an improper intimacy with the girl in his brother’s house. This brother was nevertheless ordered to pay 2s 6d a week for the child. He was not ordered out of Court by the magistrates, and he did not hear them say they would not believe a word he said. He was a married man at the time; it might be about two years ago. He could not remember if an affiliation order had ever been made against himself. [The witness was then dismissed, and as he was leaving the box he was loudly hissed by the people in the Court.]
John Jones, a woolstapler, said he saw the prisoner come out of Hill’s house one day last summer, and, when leaving, shake a purse derisively at Hill, who came to the door.
Ellen Stubbington, a washerwoman, deposed to receiving some linen from Mrs. Hill’s, on the 29th June. That belonging to the prosecutrix was very much stained.
Cross-examined by Mr. Poulden, the witness said she was not particularly intimate with the Hills. She was a married woman. She knew Hill’s brother-in-law, and had had a child by him.
Charlotte Morant gave some corroborative evidence about the state of the linen.
Sarah Harding, servant girl, proved being at Hill’s house on the afternoon of the Sunday in question, did not see Mr. or Miss Hill there, but saw her hat lying on the table.
William Polkinghorne, said he was at the Cathedral the afternoon of the said Sunday; sat behind the singers, and did not see the prosecutrix there; if she had been there, and sitting opposite thought he must have seen her; he well knew all the Hills. On Monday the 29th he saw them at the White Hart.
Cross-examined—Witness was before the Grand Jury at the Sessions. He there saw Snary; and told him that thought the whole case was a conspiracy against him. That might be his opinion still.
Mr. C. Mayo, surgeon, gave evidence of an examination of the prosecutrix, but would not undertake to say that a criminal assault had been committed upon her. The girl was the very reverse of precocious, and less developed, both mentally and bodily, than many children of 12 years of age.
This was the case for the prosecution; and Mr. Poulden addressed the jury for the defence. He said he felt rather more anxiety than usual on such occasions—not because he was oppressed by the evidence which had been given on the other side, for he felt quite sure, after the case had been thoroughly sifted his client would leave the Court without a stain upon his character. These cases were not at all uncommon in a court of justice, and they were frequently brought forward from various motives—as malice and extortion, and so on. This was one of the most improbable cases, in the first place, that ever he had heard brought into a court of justice. He contended that the prisoner would have rather attempted seduction than an assault, if the circumstances stated were true of his opportunities. It was exceedingly improbable such a crime should be committed in the open day in a public thoroughfare, on a spot overlooked by higher neighbouring ground ; and most unlikely that a man in the prisoner’s position would so commit himself. The girl’s mother swears a communication was made to her as to the assault, yet she makes no examination, neither of the girl nor her clothing, and says nothing to her husband until the of 23d July—nearly a month afterwards. After the alleged offence the prisoner was away from home on a holiday. Directly he returned, it seems he went to the man Hill to know what he had been saying of him in his absence. His going to Hill in that way was not like the conduct of a man conscious of having committed an injury. The evidence of the girl Collins and the washerwomen was too loose to be depended on for a moment: therefore the case rested solely on the statement of the girl and her father and mother. And then look at the position, character, and conduct of the father. Let the jury ask themselves the question—could they rely upon the statement of a man who had behaved so unblushingly that day before them? Was he not influenced by something else than a desire for justice in bringing forward such a charge? Did the jury not think the charge suggested itself to the father as the means of making money. When he used the word money he (Mr. Poulden) was not the first to allude to it. The suggestion was caused by the father’s statement that at the time the charge was made he was in want of and anxious to get money. Hill appeared from his own evidence to be a man ever wandering from place to place, not residing in any one place above a twelvemonth, and latterly getting his living as a hawker or tallyman. He pretended to have been very indignant and exasperated when he learnt that the prisoner had used insulting conduct towards his daughter, but what had been his own conduct on the score of immorality as the father of that child and the husband of her mother? Out of his own mouth had he been condemned of the most gross conduct, conduct which he (the learned counsel) thought was more than sufficient to put him out of the pale of credit altogether. Then as to the mother—she excused herself for concealing the offence charged against the prisoner for the reason simply that her husband was a man liable to illness and excitement. She, however, said she told him on the 23d of July. But he was no better nor worse in health on the 23d of July than he was on the 27th of June. And it did not appear he had been ill at all, nor had any medical advice. But if he had, what was his temporary health, compared the Importance of his daughter’s ruin ? The learned counsel then said he would pledge himself to satisfy the jury and the Court before he sat down that the prisoner was entirely innocent, and that the charge was brought against him for another reason than that of justice—that it was altogether a case of conspiracy got up by the man Hill. If it was possible that the prisoner had done as was charged against him, he could not have proceeded in the commission of the offence in a way more likely— taking the alleged time and place into consideration—to convict himself, but the jury would soon learn how false was the charge. Mr. Poulden then proceeded to describe how he had the means, by respectable and undeniable evidence, to totally disprove the statements for the procecution. By a fortunate coincidence, the prisoner was enabled show that he could not possibly have left the Cathedral in the girl’s company, as she had stated, on the day named in the indictment. And, in addition to this, a number of other witnesses would flatly contradict the statement of the girl, father, and mother, that she had not left the house during the afternoon or evening of the day staled. It would be positively sworn that she was at the Cathedral that very afternoon. Mr. Snary had spoken to the girl in the street, but that was the extent of their connection, and he was a teacher of singing, his object was to obtain pupils. Mr. Poulden then called evidence:—
Mr. George Barter, of Merton College, Oxford, and nephew of the Warden of Winchester College, deposed to seeing Mr. Snary at the Cathedral on the morning of the 27th June. They left together at the south door of the edifice at the conclusion of the service, and, remaining some time on the steps, walked up and down the Close, and after that went together towards the Lodge at the entrance from St. Swithin-street; he was with Snary about a quarter of an hour altogether. Snary left him, and proceeded towards Kingsgate-street.
Cross-examined—He particularly remembered the day, because he came down on the Saturday night, in order to be present at a cricket match the Monday (Coronation Day). That was the only Sunday he was in Winchester during the whole year.
Fredrick Boyton Smith, deputy organist of the Cathedral, deposed that he lived in Kingsgate-street. On Sunday the 27th June, Snary came to his house, and engaged him to go to a festival at Basingstoke on the following Thursday week. He entered the engagement in his pocket-book at the time, and he now produced the same. Witness had been to the Cathedral that morning, and went to his lodgings in Kingsgate-street at the conclusion of the service. He had been home a quarter of an hour when Snary came, he stayed with him conversing for about ten minutes.
Mr. Hubbersty, the superintendent of the city police, was called to prove that he met the prisoner alone on the Sunday in question between twelve and one o’clock, going his home along the Weirs.
The jury, who for some time had been noticed in commotion, at this period in the trial signified their wish to make some application to the court. The proceedings of the court were therefore suspended, and the foreman, addressing the Judge, asked if the trial could not be stopped.
The Judge: Oh, yes, if you wish it, it shall be so.
The foreman: The jury are perfectly satisfied in this case, and do not wish to hear any more. Our opinion is quite made up, and we are satisfied with the answer already given to the charge, and acquit the prisoner.
The Judge: I am not all surprised to hear it, for there are many contradictions most difficult for the prosecution to meet. I fully agree with the opinion that the charge has failed. The evidence of the woman especially was highly improbable, and the only witness who was alleged to have ever seen the prisoner and the girl together told one story at one time and at another time a different story. The evidence as to the linen was also most unsatisfactory. The prisoner may be discharged.
The verdict of Not Guilty was then formally recorded amidst loud cheers and clapping of hands from the people crowding all parts of the court.
The foreman of the jury: I beg to state that it is our opinion the prisoner leaves the court without the least stain upon his character.
Another burst of cheering followed this announcement, and the cry was taken up by the people in the outer hall and continued for some minutes.
The prisoner, being immediately released from custody, was escorted from the hall by numerous friends and loudly cheered by the public. The man Hill, on the contrary, was subjected to the hisses and execrations of the mob, from whose hands he escaped by engaging a cab to convey him and his family to their home.
See also
23-Oct-1858
14-Aug-1858