Mexborough & Swinton Times, July 8th 1892

Defence Speech and Context

Mr. Mellors made a strong appeal on behalf of the prisoner, his address to the jury being listened to with great attention. No one, he said, could do otherwise than sympathise with the unfortunate young lady who had been attacked in the brutal way described. It was a horrible thing that a respectable young person belonging to a respectable family like the Flavells—who was compelled to be out late at night on account of her business—should be the victim of such an outrage, as the one which had been perpetrated on the prosecutrix. But it would indeed be almost a still greater outrage, if, without very great care, the police happened to hit on the wrong man—a man who was innocent of the charge.

One of the incidents which had rather prejudiced him (Mr. Mellors) was that Mr. Kershaw, as representing the Crown, should have been instructed to suggest to the jury a motive of the miserable and shallow kind like the one put forward, viz., that of trade rivalry. It was not rather shocking to have gravely put before the jury that such rivalry had seemed to have existed between Hewitt and Mr. Flavell was sufficient to account for the prisoner—they would not have gone like an excellent character he had—to have gone like a coward and a miserable vile creature behind that young lady who had never done him an ill turn, and attack her with such violence as to render her unconscious. Prisoner must have known the road, and that there were houses near to the spot, and if he had wanted to injure the girl, could he not have found a better place where there would have been less likelihood of his being detected? Could he not have committed the deed if he had chosen to do so, when they were on the canal side together on the night before, or at other parts of the road leading from Swinton to Kilnhurst, which were far more lonely than where the assault actually took place? It was a painful incident, that in a matter of so serious a nature, the jury should be asked to believe that human nature was so vile, and that mankind was so inhuman; that for the mere reason that the father of the girl had got a rival business, the prisoner had struck down his daughter in the cowardly manner alleged. The prosecutrix, very fairly and straightforwardly, had said, “No, we have never had a wrong word.”

If the prisoner had been so vile as he had been painted, he might have chosen a better night than that of Saturday on which to have committed the outrage. Mr. Mellors pointed out that on the very day the girl was assaulted a boy in her service had been supplied with a newspaper by the prisoner, who had also let the same lad, on another recent occasion, have some flowers for Miss Flavell. The prosecution suggested that the prisoner was instigated with such a feeling of rage that without having had any quarrel with the young lady in his life, he went behind her and struck her a cowardly blow, which knocked her senseless. This was the imputation against a sober and respectable man—a man who was never quarrelsome with anyone. If there was anyone who ought to have the feeling of commiseration shown towards him it was the prisoner. He asked the jury to think of a respectable man being put in the dock for a vile outrage of this character just because he happened to be on the road at the time the offence was committed, and he was a rival in trade. It would be insulting the intelligence of the jury if he (Mr. Mellors) dwelt longer on the question of motive. He contended that it was through the belief on behalf of the police that Hewitt was the man that he had been accused. If they had only taken as much trouble to find out the man who had committed the outrage as they had done to bolster up a mistake they had made, the guilty person would not escape. He pointed to the darkness of the night, and argued that Miss Flavell, knowing Hewitt had gone on the road before, naturally supposed it was him to make way just before being struck, although she did not see his face. He commented strongly on the evidence of the police, severely criticising the way in which Sergeant Lyttle had given his evidence. With regard to Dr. Barton’s evidence, he asked what interest could the world call a gentleman in his position—the son of one of the best known musicians in Yorkshire, if not in England—to misrepresenting the state in which he found the prosecutrix, whom he was doing his utmost to screen from injury she had received. But he (Mr. Mellors) should call Mrs. Jeffery and Mrs. Macintosh, two aunts of the girl, who would swear that the prosecutrix said she could not recognise her assailant. Mr. Mellors suggested to the jury that there was absolutely no case against the prisoner.