Mexborough & Swinton Times, July 8th 1892

The Scene in Court – Summary of Proceedings

The West Riding Quarter Sessions are generally rather dull affairs, interesting only to a few friends and relatives of prisoners or prosecutors, but the Midsummer Sessions held at Sheffield were a notable exception. The hearing of what became known as the “Kilnhurst Outrage” drew extraordinary attention and was for some time the principal topic of conversation throughout Kilnhurst, Swinton, Mexborough, and the surrounding district. Friends of the accused gathered early at the Town Hall, and when it became known that the grand jury had found a true bill against George Hewitt, there was a rush for the small court in which the case was to be heard, quickly filling it to capacity.

Hewitt, who had been at liberty on bail, appeared calm and composed when the charge was read, and he clearly pleaded “not guilty.” He was defended by Mr. C. Mellor, one of the smartest barristers on the circuit, assisted by Mr. T. F. Ellison, son of the County Court judge of Sheffield. Seated behind the defence was the Rev. Philip Houghton, vicar of Kilnhurst, who took the keenest interest in the proceedings and rendered material assistance to counsel. The prosecution was conducted on behalf of the Crown by Mr. L. A. Kershaw, a barrister regarded as a worthy and able opponent.

After the jury had been sworn, Mr. Kershaw opened the case by producing a map of the road from Swinton to Kilnhurst, carefully tracing the route taken by Miss Flavell on the night of the assault. This prompted the defence to produce maps of their own, which they followed closely as the locality was described in minute detail. The prosecution suggested that ill-feeling existed between Hewitt and the Flavell family owing to trade rivalry, and pointed to various places and times at which witnesses would say Hewitt had been seen. Mr. Kershaw argued that the prisoner’s answers were not compatible with innocence and ridiculed the suggestion that a tramp would commit such an assault without robbery.

Miss Flavell appeared in court wearing a white bandage over her left ear and gave her evidence clearly and distinctly, still evidently suffering from the effects of the assault. Dr. Barton described the injuries she had sustained and was cross-examined on his admission that Miss Flavell had told him she could not recognise her assailant. Evidence was also given by Mr. and Mrs. Jacobs Smith, who stated they saw Hewitt and Miss Flavell together near Meadow Head, along with other witnesses who were presented as links in the chain of circumstantial evidence.

When the defence reply was opened, Mr. Mellor delivered one of his most powerful and telling speeches. He expressed deep sympathy with Miss Flavell but sharply criticised the prosecution for introducing what he described as a miserable and shallow motive of trade rivalry. He reviewed the evidence in detail and contended that there was nothing to connect Hewitt with the crime beyond the fact that he was on the road, as many others were. He suggested that Samuel Goldspink, who assisted Miss Flavell after the assault, might just as easily have been charged on the same evidence. Mr. Mellor accused the police of incompetence, asserting that by fastening upon Hewitt they had allowed the real offender to escape, and he subjected Sergeant Lyttle to particularly severe criticism, dealing more gently with Constable Lund.

The defence evidence was directed to showing that Miss Flavell did not initially think of accusing Hewitt, that there were other persons on the road at the time, and that Hewitt could not have committed the assault as it occurred at about 11.15 p.m., while he was in Kilnhurst shortly after. Considerable interest was taken in the character evidence, particularly after the prisoner’s son, recalled by the prosecution, admitted that his father had treated his daughters severely and that one had suffered black eyes. Despite this, several respectable witnesses maintained that their favourable opinion of Hewitt’s character was unchanged.

Both counsel addressed the jury at length before the case was finally left in their hands. After a brief retirement, followed by further consultation, the jury returned to court. At 7.30 p.m., in deep silence, the foreman announced a verdict of “Not Guilty.” The decision was greeted with loud cheers and other demonstrations of pleasure, both in court and outside. Hewitt was congratulated by friends, provided with refreshments, and once more set at liberty.

The verdict was received with widespread approval throughout the district, and it was evident that the jury’s finding was in full accord with public opinion.