WINCHESTER.
At the County Petty Sessions, on Saturday last, present, J. T. Waddington, Esq., W. W. Bulpett, Esq., and the Rev. J. T. Maine—the Bench were occupied upwards of six hours with the following sad and extraordinary case, and which, from the public position of the party charged, excited considerable interest and discussion throughout the whole city. Isaac Snary, one of the lay vicars of the Cathedral, was summoned to appear on an information charging him with having feloniously assaulted Georgiana Hill, a girl 15 years of age, with intent, &c. in the parish of Chilcomb, on Sunday, the 27th of June last. The prosecutrix was the daughter of a hawker and shopkeeper, living in Eastgate-street. Mr. C. Seagrim appeared on behalf of the prosecution, and Mr. G. Pocock (of Southampton) for the defendant. The case was taken in the Grand Jury Chamber, and an unusually large attendance of the public was present to hear the proceedings. Mr. Seagrim opened the case in a lengthened address, in the course of which he imputed to the defendant the commission of a crime of a most disgusting and aggravated character on the person of the prosecutrix. He then proceeded to call his evidence, and the following witnesses were examined and cross-examined in detail :—the girl, Georgiana Hill; another girl, named Collins; Chas. Mayo, Esq. surgeon; some washerwomen; the father and mother of the prosecutrix, and another female, a neighbour of both parties. The evidence, as given in court, was quite unfit for publication in a newspaper; but the following abstract will be sufficient to give the public a fair idea of the case.
The girl’s evidence was very positive, and went to show that defendant, a perfect stranger to her, first accosted her in the street, and then, on three consecutive Sundays following, he met her coming out of the Cathedral and solicited her to walk with him. Shortly after his first speaking to her, the prosecutrix had ascertained who and what he was; yet she consented to walk with him, and they went together short distances on the two Sundays without anything occurring, she stating that he did not take the slightest liberty with her, and that he being a neighbour and a married man, (both parties living in Eastgate-street) she did not fear to trust herself with him. On the third Sunday, however, (the 27th June) after meeting him as before, at the conclusion of the morning service, they walked to the Petersfield-road, and thence across a corn-field and over a stile. The prosecutrix swore that the defendant then seized her round the waist; that she struggled to disengage herself, but immediately became affected with a dizziness, and fainted. The girl’s own exact words were : "I struggled to get away; then I felt a dizziness over my eyes, and fancied something passed over my face, and I became senseless.” When she returned to consciousness, she was lying on the ground, and her state was such as to leave no doubt that she had been feloniously assaulted. Being in great pain, she could not rise; the defendant helped her up, and having done so, he then left her, and she with some difficulty reached her home alone, but was so unwell, that she was obliged to go to bed the whole afternoon. The girl Collins proved her meeting the parties together on the Petersfield-road. Mr. Mayo’s evidence was conclusive that the prosecutrix had sustained a certain violence, but his examination taking place a month after the alleged assault, he could not speak positively as to the time the injury had been received. The washerwomen spoke as to the unusual state of the girl’s linen in the week in question. Her mother gave evidence of her coming home unwell on the said Sunday and going to bed, and within an hour communicating to her the particulars of the defendant's ill conduct. The facts were not told to the father for a month, and the mother said she feared to acquaint him before, in consequence of his being affected with disease of the heart &c. rendering excitement extremely dangerous to him. The father stated that directly he heard of the assault, he commenced proceedings; that the defendant came to his house and asked if money would settle the matter, and, on his refusing any such proposals, the defendant used violent language, threatening to beat, his brains out if he divulged the matter. The last witness was a female, who spoke to meeting the parties walking together on a Sunday.
On behalf of the defendant, the charge was met with a flat denial. Mr. Pocock argued that nothing of a criminal assault had been proved; the girl being unconscious at the time it was alleged the crime had been committed, and a man could not be convicted upon speculation; that, taking the girl’s story to be true, what she proved could not be construed into an assault, under the circumstances of her walking with defendant Sunday after Sunday; that the injury received by the girl, as described by the medical man, could not be proved as the result of any assault, or to have been caused at any recent or particular time. Mr. Pocock totally denied the statement of the girl’s father, and said defendant went to him merely to ask what he had to say against his character, after he had been speaking about him in public. Four witnesses, (Mr. Hubbersty, Mr. Wright, Mr. Smith, and Emily Newton, defendant’s servant) were then called to prove that the defendant was in Winchester on the Sunday in question, from about a quarter past twelve o'clock until his arrival home to dinner at 20 minutes to one. The witnesses, however, could not speak positively as to the time they saw the defendant, and the interval, from the conclusion of the cathedral service (a quarter past eleven) until a quarter past twelve, was entirety unaccounted for—being the very period shown by the girl to have been passed in her company. One witness for the defendant (Mr. Trenham) said he saw the prosecutrix at the cathedral in the afternoon of the Sunday in question—this being in direct contradiction of the girl’s evidence as to her being ill and at home for the remainder of the day. Some reflections were cast upon the non-respectability of the girl’s father, and his conduct in some other case was alluded to, but the Bench would not allow the same to be gone into, as it was quite irrelevant to the present inquiry.
Mr. Seagrim, in his reply, said the attempted alibi had completely failed, though there was no doubt defendant had left the girl as quickly as possible after the offence; that Trenham’s evidence could not be believed in the face of the three positive oaths to the contrary; that the girl's evidence was, on the whole, confirmed by the defence, and there was no room to doubt the guilt of the defendant.
The Bench, after a very short consultation, said they had unanimously agreed to commit the prisoner for trial upon the charge laid against him—but bail would be accepted—himself in £100, and two sureties in £50 each for his appearance at the Sessions. The prisoner was committed in default of bail, which was, however, procured on Thursday last, when he was released from prison.
Hampshire Independent - Saturday 14 August 1858
WINCHESTER COUNTY BENCH.
On Saturday, before J. J. Waddington, Esq., (Chairman), W. W. Bulpett, Esq., and Rev. F. T. Maine.
…
Isaac Snary, one of the Lay Vicars of Winchester Cathedral, appeared to answer a charge of violently assaulting, with intent to ravish, Georgiana Hill, a girl 15 years of age, daughter of Mr. George Hill, travelling draper, and shopkeeper, in Eastgate- street, Winchester. The gravity of the charge, and the official position of the accused, seemed to have excited an extraordinary interest, for the Grand Jury Chamber was crowded by respectable persons, anxiously watching every turn in the evidence. Mr. Seagrim appeared to prosecute, and Mr. Pocock, of Southampton, appeared for the defendant.
Mr. Seagrim opened the case, by alluding to the serious consequences to the parties concerned. The defendant was a married man, and one of the Lay Vicars of the Cathedral, and the girl, like many others, was in the habit of going there, and of taking walks. On the 23rd of June last, she was walking in the High-street, when the defendant accosted her. Next Sunday morning, when she went to the Cathedral, defendant came out at the same door, and again spoke to her, and they walked together round College-street, by the Weirs, towards the street where they both lived; on the following Sunday the same thing happened, and he asked her to take another walk, and then they went down through the meadows and Kingsgate-street. On the third Sunday morning she again went to the Cathedral, the defendant came out as before, and asked her to take a walk. They went down through College-street, up by the Dog and Duck, across Cheesehill-street, to the Petersfield Road, through the Petersfield-gate, till they got into a corn field. They came to a stile over which they got. As soon as they were over, he stopped, put his arm around her waist, and passed some-thing over her mouth. She fainted away, and did not come to herself again for some short time, and was not at all aware of what was passing. When her consciousness returned, she found herself lying on the ground, and quite unable to get up. The defendant was standing by the stile. He helped her up by the hand, and then went off home as fast as he could by the road they came, leaving the girl behind. She found herself in a very bad state, and could scarcely get home. When she at last got there, she complained very much of pain. She was late for dinner, and could eat none. Her father and mother were at home, and a communication passed from the daughter to the mother. Shortly after, the girl was obliged to go to bed. The mother did not tell her husband what had occurred, as she alleged, because he was in a bad state of health. It would perhaps have been better if she had done so, and it might be looked upon as an impropriety that she did not, but the defendant shortly afterwards left his home for a fortnight, and it seemed that during his absence the mother of the girl told her husband, and he immediately took proceedings. He was standing at his door on Saturday, the 24th of July, when the defendant came up to him, and asked him to go for a walk up to the George or the Black Swan. The father did not know the defendant. As soon as he said his name was Snary, the father said. ‟Snary, you are the man I have been looking for,” and asked what he had been doing to his daughter? At first defendant denied knowing her, but at last he admitted that he did; that he recollected taking a walk down Kingsgate-street, and then he said, ‟Is it not a money transaction?” The father said, ‟No; the law should take its course.” Further words ensued, and then again the defendant said. ‟Will not money settle this affair?” The father said. ‟No, nothing will make it up with me,” and told defendant to leave the house. He said, ‟You asked me in; so help me ⎯. if you go out of this house, or to the Cathedral, to say anything to injure my character, I'll split your ⎯ head in two.” The father caught up something, and the defendant left the house; but, after he went out, he again came back, and said. ‟Then, money will not settle it?” The Bench would judge the reason which induced him to go to the house of the father to make these offers. It would be proved by a girl named Mary Collins that she was on the Petersfield road, tending her father's cow, when the defendant and the girl passed on their way forward to the field leading to Chilcomb; other witnesses would prove certain facts in the case, to which he need not more particularly allude. There could be here no question of consent. The offence, if committed, was committed when she was in a state of insensibility. He regretted exceedingly to have to support such a charge as this, committed on such a day, with the full sun of Heaven shining, and, unless the facts fully bore out the charge, the Bench would do well to dismiss it at once ; if, on the other hand, they were incontrovertible, it was but right that the defendant should be punished for the grievous crime which he had committed.
Mr. Seagrim then called as evidence Georgiana Hill, who said: I am 15 years of age. I live on the Lawn with my father, who is a draper and tea-dealer. I know the defendant. He lives on the Lawn near my father’s house, and is a Lay Vicar of Winchester Cathedral. About two months ago he spoke to me for the first time. I was in the High-street, on the right-hand side, and he on the left. He came across to me and said, ‟Miss, you must think me very bold, looking at you so hard, I really took you for my niece that is in London; she was down here some little time ago. You are not offended, are you?” I said, ‟No, sir, I never took any notice of you.” He said, ‟You will shake hands upon it, will you not?” I said, ‟Yes, sir,” and we shook hands. He then left me. I went to the Cathedral to the service at 10 o’clock on Sunday, the 13th of June. I did not see him there. When I came out of the large folding doors he came up to me and said, ‟Good morning, Miss Hill, how are you to-day?” I said, ‟I am very poorly indeed, thank you, sir.” He said, ‟Will you take a walk round this way?” I said, ‟No thank you, I wish to go home.” He said it was very early, and it would be a pleasant little walk. I went for a little walk with him. We went a little way on St. Giles’s-hill. We came back through Eastgate-street home. He left me just at the entrance to the Weirs. On neither of these two occasions did defendant take any liberties with me. I attended morning service at the Cathedral on the 20th of June. On coming out I again saw defendant at the same place I had seen him on the previous Sunday. He asked me how I was. I told him I was no better. He asked me to go for a walk. I went. He took me across a meadow and up Kingsgate-street, turned into College-street, up to the Weirs. When I came to the bridge he left me. On the 27th of June I went to morning service at the Cathedral, and on coming out I saw the defendant near the great doors, where I had seen him previously. He said, ‟Good morning, Miss Hill; how are you this morning?” I said ‟I am very poorly, indeed, thank you, sir.” He said, ‟Will you take a nice pleasant walk this morning?” I said, ‟No, thank you, sir, l am too poorly to go for a walk this morning.” I went for a walk. We went down through the Close into College-street, and over the bridge by the Mill. I do not know the name of it; it is close to the Mill. We went up the small passage, past the Dog and Duck, kept straight up, and went through the Petersfield gate, and through a corn field, which leads towards Chilcomb. We went to the top of the corn field, and came to a stile. Mr. Snary said, ‟We must get over the stile.” We both got over. I turned round and said, ‟How beautiful the corn looks.” He made no reply. He put his arm round my waist. I told him to leave me go. I struggled to get away. Then I felt a dizziness come over my eyes. Something passed over my face, and I became senseless. I knew nothing more that occurred till I came to myself. When I came to myself I was lying flat upon the ground, about three or four yards from the stile. The defendant was standing a little distance from me, between me and the stile. He came across and said, ‟Are you faint?” I said, ‟Yes, very, very.” He gave me his hand to help me up. He then got over the stile. No more conversation took place. He went across the field towards Winchester, in the path we had come. He left me on the opposite side of the stile. After he got out of sight I saw him no more that day. I got over the stile to return. I felt great pain ✸✸✸✸ That continued till I got home. I felt no pain when I went for a walk. I had felt no pain there before that day. I reached home about a quarter to two o’clock. I saw my mother. She told me to go up stairs. I told my mother that day all that had happened, about half an hour after I got home. I felt very ill the remainder of that day. I went to lie down. I was very unwell the following morning. My health is generally bad. I have been under medical treatment by Dr. Hitchcock. I was examined by Dr. Mayo about a fortnight ago. What I have said is true.
By Mr. Pocock: I did not know the defendant when he first spoke to me. I first knew his name a week after. A woman was in our shop, and told me. l am quite sure I have made no mistake about the days. My father called me down when I was laid on the bed. My mother knew I was very poorly, and had a doctor attending me at the time. I did not know that Mr. Snary was married till the person in our shop told me so. She was a grown-up person. I did not tell her he had been talking to me. I was not at the Cathedral service the afternoon this happened. I did not laugh there because a boy broke down in the solo. I don’t know Mr. Henry Trenham. I have only lived here about eight months. I did not go to the Cathedral that afternoon. My father did not talk to me about it till he said he would go to the magistrates, and have Mr. Snary punished. When I came to myself in the field, I could scarcely walk. I was very much afraid of the defendant. I took his hand because I could not get up. I took the walk with him on the first occasion because my doctor told me a walk would do me good. I did not think there was any more harm in going with Mr. Snary than with my own father.
By Mr. Seagrim: I took walks. I went out next day (Coronation-day) with my mother, to see if it would do me good. I stopped to speak to Mrs. Polkingborne. Mr. Snary passed, and asked me how I was. I said. ‟Very poorly, indeed; thank you, sir.” When I overtook my mother I told her, and she said she wished she had been there when he spoke to me. I staid at home the whole of the Sunday afternoon. My father and mother were at home all that afternoon. I am their only child. I went out for a walk about three o’clock on the Monday afternoon, to see if it would do me good.
Mary Collins, a girl who lives in Cheesehill-street with her father, a cow-keeper, said: I am in the habit of going out with the cow for it to graze on the banks of the roads. On the Sunday before Coronation Day I took the cow over to Magdalen-hill Down to graze. I generally bring the cow back about half-past twelve. On that day I do not think it was quite so much as that. I know the defendant. He took milk of us. I took the milk to his house. He left off taking it about ten weeks ago. I saw him this Sunday as I was returning with the cow through the Petersfield turnpike-gate. I was not quite to the gate. He was with some person. I thought at first it was his own daughter. He was with Miss Hill. I know now it was Miss Hill. My father serves Mr. Hill with milk also. Began to do so a little time after I first heard of this affair with Mr. Snary and Miss Hill. I noticed nothing of her dress, except her hat. I had never seen her before. On the Monday I told my mother that I had seen Mr. Snary and his daughter. My sister was telling my father about this affair. That was not so much as a week after I saw them on the Petersfield road. I know the hat again; but it was by seeing her at the door that I knew it was the same person. I was about the length of this room from them. I told my sister I had seen Mr. Snary.
The evidence of Mrs. Hill, the mother, and other witnesses, washerwomen, who deposed to certain facts, was then given, and that of Dr. Mayo, who examined her surgically after the father had been informed of the facts by the mother. The mother stated she kept them from the knowledge of the father because he was in ill health. His head was liable to be affected, and he had important business to attend to for a fortnight Dr. Mayo’s evidence went to show that violence had been inflicted on the girl at some time, but how long ago it was impossible for him to determine exactly.
George Hill, the father, said: As soon as my wife told me I took proceedings, and a day or two after, on Saturday, the 24th of July, when I was looking out of the shop door, the defendant came up and asked if my name was Hill. I said ‟Yes;” and he said ‟Will you take a walk.” I said ‟Take a walk!” ‟Yes,” he said, ‟as far as the George or the White Hart” I said, ‟Take a walk with you, I do not know you! What is your name?” He said ‟My name is Snary.” I said ‟You Snary, then you are the very man I wanted to see.” He came into the shop. I asked him then what he had been doing with my child. He said ‟I do not know your child.” I said ‟Don’t tell me any of your lies here; did you not see her in the High-street?” ‟Yes!” he said, ‟I did see her there, I thought it was my niece from London.” I said ‟Did you never see her after that?” ‟No! so help me ⎯⎯, I did not,” he said. I said ‟You blackguard, you know better. Did you not see her in Kingsgate-street?” He said, ‟No.” I said, ‟I had a witness who saw him with her then.” He then said he remembered passing her there. I said, ‟Did you not see her after that, under St. George's Hill?” and he said, ‟No! so help me ⎯⎯ I did not.” I said. ‟Did you not put your arm round her waist there?” and he said he did not. He said, ‟What are you going to do in this job, will money make it up?” He put his hand in his pocket, and shook his money up—I told him no money would make it up—l should put it into his superior’s (the law’s) hands. He said again, ‟Money won't make it up?” I said, ‟You blackguard, you had better get out of my shop; the sooner you go the better for you and me too,” for I found my hair begin to rise. He said, ‟You asked me in,” and I said. ‟Yes, and now I order you to get out.” When he got into the passage, he turned round again and asked me if money would make it up? and I said, ‟No.” He clenched his fist and said. ‟If you go outside this door to name my name to any person, or to the Cathedral, to injure my character, I will split your head and beat out your ⎯⎯⎯ brains.” I stepped back into the shop and took a hat stand from the counter, and armed with that I went out in the passage and said, ‟You blackguard, if you are not out of my house I will knock you down.” With that he went out of the house backwards, and pretty near fell down in doing so. When he was out he said again, ‟Then money won’t do?” I said, ‟You blackguard, nothing won’t do.” I never saw him before, that I know of. I have been subject to pains in the hand ever since I was in Germany, occasioned by having the small pox and fever. I cannot at this moment recollect the name of the medical man I employed there. I recollect my daughter leaving to go to the Cathedral the Sunday morning before Coronation Day. She did not come home till after dinner. Some was provided for her. She could eat nothing. She generally eats her dinner. She went up stairs, and did not go out again that day. It cannot be true if it is said that she was at the Cathedral that afternoon. If the communication her mother made to me had been made before, I should have taken proceedings at once.
In cross-examination by Mr. Pocock, witness said: Snary never asked to be confronted by his accusers. He never said it was a scheme, and any charge I had to make I should make before the magistrates. I had particular business to take me away from home for a fortnight. It was to make up money. I have given evidence before the Bench at Southampton in an affiliation case, brought by Harriet Cooper against my brother Charles. It was not of such a character that the magistrates would not believe me.
Mr. Pocock said this was the case for the prosecution, and he contended that if they took the girl’s statement to be true it was entirely a case of speculation, for she herself says she was perfectly unconscious after his arm was put round her waist. Here was this girl going to the Cathedral Sunday after Sunday, and must have waited for the defendant at any rate while he took off his gown. She says some dizziness came over her—that something was passed over her face; that part of the story was only brought in now. There was no proof whatever of a felonious assault. He never had a case so open to suspicion. With all respect to Mr. Seagrim, he must say he could not tell how he had bult up his case, for he (Mr. Pocock) was prepared to prove, from the evidence of Mr. Hubbersty, the Superintendent of the Winchester Police, who saw the defendant on that day, that about twenty minutes past twelve he met him against the Warden’s Wall, and that it was impossible from half-past eleven, if he had gone to the place pointed out by the girl, he could have been back when Mr. Hubbersty saw him at twenty minutes past twelve. By another witness, the deputy-organist of the Cathedral, he should also show that Mr. Snary went to his house to make arrangements for the grand provincial masonic celebration at Basingstoke; that he was there talking for ten minutes at a time; when, if this girl told the truth, he must have been at a different place altogether. He should also call Mr. Wright, a gentleman of standing in the city, who was walking round in that direction, whose attention was called to certain facts, which he perfectly remembered; and if he (Mr. Pocock) did all this, he thought it would be quite sufficient to take the case out of Court.
Mr. Hubbersty, Superintendent of Police, Winchester, said: My attention has been called to the place in the field. It was pointed out to me by the girl herself. On the 27th of June I was out for a walk. I met Mr. Snary from twenty minutes to half-past 12. He was on the Weirs, near the High-street. No one was with him. Had some conversation with him about Basingstoke. He said he had just engaged Mr. Smith, the organist, to go there. Should think it might take from 20 minutes to half an hour to come from the spot pointed out by the girl to that where I met Mr. Snary. He was coming in the direction from Mr. Smith’s to his own home.
By Mr. Seagrim: It was close to the bridge, at the back of the Brewer’s Arms, that I met him. It was twenty minutes past 12 when I left the Police-station to go for a walk.
Charles Wright, Esq., one of the City Magistrates, being called, said: I have had my attention called to certain circumstances. I had two nephews staying with me on the Sunday before Coronation-day. I recollect meeting Mr. Snary, near the Warden’s garden wall. Mr. Snary tells me that it was after morning service at the Cathedral. I have nothing to fix it in my memory. The information is more from Mr. Snary than from myself. He called on me, and said I had two young gentlemen with me, and if so that must have been the day. It was the only Sunday I had two young gentlemen with me. If Mr. Snary had not come to me I should not have recollected anything about it. I might have been for a walk after the morning service at the Cathedral. It is my custom to do so, but I cannot undertake to swear anything about it. I had no reason to think of it.
Mr. F. W. B. Smith, deputy organist at the Cathedral, said: On the Sunday before Coronation day Mr. Snary called on me, I think about a quarter-past twelve, relative to the meeting at Basingstoke. I live in Kingsgate-street, five minutes walk from Mr. Snary’s house. I am quite sure about the day.
By Mr. Seagrim: I expected a friend to dine. I think that must have been about the time, from the time I had been from Church. Defendant asked me if I remembered it. He drew my attention to Basingstoke, and I referred to my note book.
Emily Newton, servant to the defendant, said she recollected the Sunday from her master going to the Crystal Palace on the 2nd of July. He came home about twenty minutes to one o’clock to dinner. She did not look at the clock.
Henry Trenham, Lay Vicar at the Cathedral, said he recollected the Sunday previous to Coronation day. Knew the prosecutrix, Georgiana Hill. I saw her at the afternoon service at the Cathedral. I recollect it because of the boy singing a solo. He was a little hoarse. My attention was called to her from that fact. I had seen her in the same position before. I recollect her laughing on that occasion. I did not see her there in the morning. It was one of Mozart’s anthems, and is not performed very often. After this matter was spoken of, the circumstances of her laughing came to my mind.
Mr. Seagrim, commenting on the alibi which Mr. Pocock had set up, said it was as meagre as it was possible for it to be; and if it was not good, it made the case ten times as strong, and he really thought that the evidence of Mr. Hubbersty proved the other facts of the case; and so with the other evidence for the defence, except that of Mr. Trenham, of which he could scarcely speak in terms of too great reprobation, contradicted as it was by three witnesses —the girl, her father, and mother, who all swore most positively that she did opt go to the Cathedral in the afternoon. But the main facts of the case were not denied at all; it was not denied that this poor defenceless girl had received a grievous injury. Who had committed that injury? The defendant, knowing the consequences, got home as soon as he could, that he might not be observed with her in her state of faintness. There was no contradiction that money was offered to make it up. It was certain that the alibi had not been proved. Mr. Seagrim concluded a very eloquent and lengthened address to the Bench by stating that no one would rejoice more than he should if the defendant could clear himself from the charge which justice required should be laid against him.
The magistrates retired to consult together, and on their return, the Chairmen said they had come to the unanimous conclusion to commit Mr. Snary for trial on the charge of assault with intent to commit a rape, but they would take bail, himself in £100, and two securities of £50 each. The necessary securities not being forthcoming, the accused was taken to the County Gaol, but was liberated on Thursday, his father and Mr. W. Cross having been accepted as bail.
(See also 23-Oct-1858 & 05-Mar-1859)