This recent addition to Trove Digital Newspapers gives more details into James Baker Worldon's trial and conviction for the manslaughter of his partner Catherine Rhall. The article produces a few interesting facts about the life that the couple were leading at this time and of their relationship. James testified that he had been married to Catherine for eight years. What proof other than his word was produced by James Baker Worldon as to their marital status, it had been under sufficient doubt as to move the trial to Melbourne from Beechworth, what changed? The daughter referred to in the article as being fifteen years old would of been Catherine's daughter Sarah. Sarah was born around 1840 to Catherine Casey (nee Rhall) and one John Glitherow, not James Baker Worldon. The article however claims (as does his prison record) that they had four children, if so that still leaves us one child short, as we know that Sarah, Richard, William, James and Elizabeth were born to Catherine before this date. Could William have been predeceased at this stage and therefore could the family research for him be wrong? Where did the children go while he was in prison, were they with Catherine's family? Also what were the circumstances of Catherine's fracas at Wallace's drinking house and is it connected with the court case mentioned in the second article below? As usual you find one piece of new information and are left with so many new questions!
On the jury being called, several of them were challenged by the prisoner.
The Solicitor General briefly stated the particulars. He called
Richard Smithers : He was living at Snake Valley on the 14th of February. He knew the prisoner ; he
knew the woman who was living with him ; did not know if she was his wife. He did not make an appointment with the woman on the night of the 14th. She had said she should come to his tent, and he told her not. He cannot say if she came ; he was very much in liquor. He awoke in the morning by being told a man was beating a woman. This was at sunrise. Hewent out and saw the prisoner standing over the woman. He said ' are you a Christian or a brute?' Prisoner said he was neither ; he was a 'b__y Turk,' Deceased was leaning against a log, her shoulders much beaten. She had on her chemise. He fetched a woman and they washed the deceased. He went for the police. Prisoner had threatened him with a knife. He did not see the prisoner strike deceased. He did not see the deceased after going to the police station. Deceased was known by the name of Catherine. Waldron alias Milbanke. Prisoner was known by the name of Waldron.
By Mr. Ireland : This occurrence took place at the time of the Beechworth races. Witness knew no more of the woman than merely seeing her occasionally. He had a man lived with him named Edward Callender, who was his cook. He knew Callender had stated that the (witness) had said, 'You must go out of my tent, there is a woman coming to sleep with me.' He could not say if he had said this. He could not say certainly what time he had been in bed. The woman, had been fighting ,with a person the night previously, at Wallace's, public-house, and he had separated them. He had been taken into custody on a charge, of murdering, the deceased. He had not the woman in bed with him when the man Callender awoke, him. Her husband did not drag her from him. He had not made an appointment with the woman two days previously. He knew nothing of the family affairs of the deceased and her husband. He knew they had a daughter. Did not know if there was more than one daughter. Prisoner had no charged him with, seducing his wife, and taking her away from her four children. He did not remember going into the tent of the deceased with a bottle of brandy, and the husband ordering him out on the night of the murder. He was not sure he had not asked deceased to go with him to his tent.
By the Solicitor General : The daughter spoken of was about fifteen years of age.
Henry Callender, sworn : Was in the employ of the last witness on the 14th February last. He had slept outside the tent on that night at the request of Smithers. He saw deceased enter the tent of Smithers, who had previously gone in. The husband of the deceased shortly after came, and entered the tent with a lighted candle three times. He afterwards heard a scramble in the tent. He saw the prisoner drag out deceased, and beat her, and kick her, and throw her against a log. It was not light then, deceased had on only her chemise. The stick was broken off from a fallen tree. It was about two and a half feet long, and had a knot. Prisoner held the stick in both hands, and beat deceased all over her body. Prisoner, had said to deceased,' Get up, or I'll beat you till you do.' He did not interfere prisoner had said he would serve him the same if he did. Prisoner went into the tent and had a glass of spirits between his several attacks on deceased. Smithers was all this time asleep. Prisoner had commanded him (witness) to hand him the liquor, which he believed was brandy. On the second attack on deceased, he had called up Smithers who had kept him off, and prisoner said he would get a knife and stick him (Smithers.) Witness then ran away into the bush. When he returned they had all left the tent. He did not know any of them by name. He did not see deceased after this.
Cross examined : Before this evening he had not seen deceased and Smithers together. When Smitbers came in he asked witness to sleep outside, as there was a woman coming to sleep with him. He saw her come; she was dressed. Prisoner did not say anything when he went into the tent. Did not think prisoner was worse for liquor. He had never seen the woman before, he saw a woman's dress on the floor in the morning. He did not see prisoner use any other weapon besides the stick. Prisoner said, I am a Turk, I am a cannibal,' on being remonstrated with.
Mr. Bowes Todd Wilson, sub-inspector of police at Beechworth, sworn : deceased went by the name of Mrs. Milbanke. Prisoner was known both by the name of Milbanke and Waldon. Remembers the
morning of the occurrence. Saw the prisoner very bloody. The woman Milbanke was quite dead. The
body was about 120 yards from Smither's tent. The body was covered up. He did not examine the body. There was a track from the spot up to Smither's tent, and he found on this track a hat belonging to the prisoner, also a bloody shirt. There were marks of blood around the tent, also a bed outside. The body was not concealed ; it was lying amongst holes, and might easily have been thrown in. A man named Edward Gibbs gave him the alarm on this occasion. Witness did not know why prisoner was called Milbanke. Did not know till next morning of was quite dead. Prisoner was also lying on the ground, as if asleep. Witness touched him on the shoulder and said, ''Get up, I am going to arrest you ; he replied, 'for what?' Witness said, for murdering a woman.' Prisoner said, 'she is not dead.' Prisoner had on his shirt and trousers, and he said, ' let me go back to get fresh clothing'' Witness replied, 'no, I shall not, you have murdered the woman.' (The shirt and trousers were here produced in court, they were very bloody.) He examined deceased with the doctor. (Witness produced a stick which Callender, on being recalled, said was the one with which prisoner struck deceased.) Prisoner had told witness that deceased had been married to him eight years.
Cross-examined : Believes prisoner was sober, but he became excited. Cannot say why prisoner had lain down beside the body. Witness judges of the condition of a person as to being drunk or sober by the difficulty he finds in taking them into custody.
Mr Hugh Stitt, surgeon: Knew the prisoner. Had attended deceased, who went by the name of Milbanke. He saw her after death. He attributed her death to effusion (q. extravasation) of blood on the brain, in the chest, and in the abdominal cavity. The abdominal injuries 'were sufficient to cause death.'
Cross-examined : There were six wounds on the scalp.
By His Honor: There was no fracture of the skull.
There was haemorrhage from these wounds.
This closed the case for the Crown.
Mr. Ireland, in opening the case for the defence, remarked that there were extenuating circumstances
which sometimes mitigated the crime of murder, as, for example, the fact of the victim of an attack being found in the adultery. He thought the present case was an example in point. He reviewed the evidence of Smitbers and remarked that this witness remembered only just sufficient to shift the offence from his own shoulders, and transfer it to those of the prisoner. The evidence of Callender was conclusive. If ever there were circumstances which ought to mitigate crime here was an instance. The prisoner might possibly have been drunk, for, unfortunately, people living in the sphere of the prisoner were too much in the habit of indulging in intoxication. The jury could not with anything like justice, find any other verdict save that of manslaughter, with the most mitigating circumstances. The deceased had received blows in the fracas at Wallace's, and if the jury thought that injury had been at all concerned in producing her death, they must acquit the prisoner. The conduct of the prisoner was anything but that of a man in his sober senses — he had missed his wife from his bed, in a state of excitement he had gone in pursuit of her,he had taken no knife or other weapon, and in this condition had committed the offence. He claimed the sympathies of the jury for the prisoner, who had already suffered sufficiently by seeing his unhappy children thrown friendless on the world.
His Honor in summing up, gave the legal definition of murder. As to the facts there was no doubt
about them. His Honor defined also the meaning of the word ' maliciously' as applying to this case.
If the jury were of opinion that this act was not done maliciously and of malice or forethought, then the charge of murder was sufficiently disposed of, and the verdict must be one of manslaughter. His
Honor then, at length, went into the question of extenuation, quoting authority in exemplification of
his remarks. The jury would also have to consider whether the prisoner intended going to the length he did. The fact of his entering the tent three times before he commenced his attack, was not an indication of ungovernable rage, but seemed to, suggest deliberation. It was, however, possible that the prisoner was waiting to witness the consummation of the crime he suspected, and did not proceed to the attack until he was fully satisfied of this. He did not think he should be justified in directing the jury to find any verdict less than manslaughter.
Mr Ireland wished His Honor to remind the jury that it was in tbeir power to acquit on the grounds of
temporary insanity.
His Honor thought there had been no evidence in proof this.
The jury consulted for five minutes, when the prisoner rose, and upon being asked by the Clerk if
the Prisoner were guilty or not guilty, replied, 'Not guilty, of wilful murder, guilty of manslaughter.' Mr Ireland rose to request that the sentence be deferred, as he would be able to produce witnesses as
to character, who were not now in town ; there was, however, a testimonial which he was sorry he could not produce, . but spoke favorably of his character, and of his being a married man.
His Honor said he had no objection to take this into consideration in passing sentence. He said he
would not inflict pain upon the prisoner by reviewing the circumstances ; he had no doubt the prisoner had already a sufficient monition before him. He should say, if he were allowed to say it, that he should have been inclined to look with more leniency on the case if he (prisoner) had raised his hand against the seducer of his wife. The sentence of the Court was,that he be kept to hard labor on the roads for a period of two years.
Source: NEW COURT. (1855, March 17). The Age (Melbourne, Vic. : 1854 - 1954), p. 5. Retrieved September 6, 2014, from http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article154853809
Transcript:MANSLAUGHTER.
James Walden pleaded not guilty to an information charging him with having, on the 14th of February, at Snake Valley, Beechworth, wilfully, maliciously, and of malice aforethought killed one Catherine Milbank.On the jury being called, several of them were challenged by the prisoner.
The Solicitor General briefly stated the particulars. He called
Richard Smithers : He was living at Snake Valley on the 14th of February. He knew the prisoner ; he
knew the woman who was living with him ; did not know if she was his wife. He did not make an appointment with the woman on the night of the 14th. She had said she should come to his tent, and he told her not. He cannot say if she came ; he was very much in liquor. He awoke in the morning by being told a man was beating a woman. This was at sunrise. Hewent out and saw the prisoner standing over the woman. He said ' are you a Christian or a brute?' Prisoner said he was neither ; he was a 'b__y Turk,' Deceased was leaning against a log, her shoulders much beaten. She had on her chemise. He fetched a woman and they washed the deceased. He went for the police. Prisoner had threatened him with a knife. He did not see the prisoner strike deceased. He did not see the deceased after going to the police station. Deceased was known by the name of Catherine. Waldron alias Milbanke. Prisoner was known by the name of Waldron.
By Mr. Ireland : This occurrence took place at the time of the Beechworth races. Witness knew no more of the woman than merely seeing her occasionally. He had a man lived with him named Edward Callender, who was his cook. He knew Callender had stated that the (witness) had said, 'You must go out of my tent, there is a woman coming to sleep with me.' He could not say if he had said this. He could not say certainly what time he had been in bed. The woman, had been fighting ,with a person the night previously, at Wallace's, public-house, and he had separated them. He had been taken into custody on a charge, of murdering, the deceased. He had not the woman in bed with him when the man Callender awoke, him. Her husband did not drag her from him. He had not made an appointment with the woman two days previously. He knew nothing of the family affairs of the deceased and her husband. He knew they had a daughter. Did not know if there was more than one daughter. Prisoner had no charged him with, seducing his wife, and taking her away from her four children. He did not remember going into the tent of the deceased with a bottle of brandy, and the husband ordering him out on the night of the murder. He was not sure he had not asked deceased to go with him to his tent.
By the Solicitor General : The daughter spoken of was about fifteen years of age.
Henry Callender, sworn : Was in the employ of the last witness on the 14th February last. He had slept outside the tent on that night at the request of Smithers. He saw deceased enter the tent of Smithers, who had previously gone in. The husband of the deceased shortly after came, and entered the tent with a lighted candle three times. He afterwards heard a scramble in the tent. He saw the prisoner drag out deceased, and beat her, and kick her, and throw her against a log. It was not light then, deceased had on only her chemise. The stick was broken off from a fallen tree. It was about two and a half feet long, and had a knot. Prisoner held the stick in both hands, and beat deceased all over her body. Prisoner, had said to deceased,' Get up, or I'll beat you till you do.' He did not interfere prisoner had said he would serve him the same if he did. Prisoner went into the tent and had a glass of spirits between his several attacks on deceased. Smithers was all this time asleep. Prisoner had commanded him (witness) to hand him the liquor, which he believed was brandy. On the second attack on deceased, he had called up Smithers who had kept him off, and prisoner said he would get a knife and stick him (Smithers.) Witness then ran away into the bush. When he returned they had all left the tent. He did not know any of them by name. He did not see deceased after this.
Cross examined : Before this evening he had not seen deceased and Smithers together. When Smitbers came in he asked witness to sleep outside, as there was a woman coming to sleep with him. He saw her come; she was dressed. Prisoner did not say anything when he went into the tent. Did not think prisoner was worse for liquor. He had never seen the woman before, he saw a woman's dress on the floor in the morning. He did not see prisoner use any other weapon besides the stick. Prisoner said, I am a Turk, I am a cannibal,' on being remonstrated with.
Mr. Bowes Todd Wilson, sub-inspector of police at Beechworth, sworn : deceased went by the name of Mrs. Milbanke. Prisoner was known both by the name of Milbanke and Waldon. Remembers the
morning of the occurrence. Saw the prisoner very bloody. The woman Milbanke was quite dead. The
body was about 120 yards from Smither's tent. The body was covered up. He did not examine the body. There was a track from the spot up to Smither's tent, and he found on this track a hat belonging to the prisoner, also a bloody shirt. There were marks of blood around the tent, also a bed outside. The body was not concealed ; it was lying amongst holes, and might easily have been thrown in. A man named Edward Gibbs gave him the alarm on this occasion. Witness did not know why prisoner was called Milbanke. Did not know till next morning of was quite dead. Prisoner was also lying on the ground, as if asleep. Witness touched him on the shoulder and said, ''Get up, I am going to arrest you ; he replied, 'for what?' Witness said, for murdering a woman.' Prisoner said, 'she is not dead.' Prisoner had on his shirt and trousers, and he said, ' let me go back to get fresh clothing'' Witness replied, 'no, I shall not, you have murdered the woman.' (The shirt and trousers were here produced in court, they were very bloody.) He examined deceased with the doctor. (Witness produced a stick which Callender, on being recalled, said was the one with which prisoner struck deceased.) Prisoner had told witness that deceased had been married to him eight years.
Cross-examined : Believes prisoner was sober, but he became excited. Cannot say why prisoner had lain down beside the body. Witness judges of the condition of a person as to being drunk or sober by the difficulty he finds in taking them into custody.
Mr Hugh Stitt, surgeon: Knew the prisoner. Had attended deceased, who went by the name of Milbanke. He saw her after death. He attributed her death to effusion (q. extravasation) of blood on the brain, in the chest, and in the abdominal cavity. The abdominal injuries 'were sufficient to cause death.'
Cross-examined : There were six wounds on the scalp.
By His Honor: There was no fracture of the skull.
There was haemorrhage from these wounds.
This closed the case for the Crown.
Mr. Ireland, in opening the case for the defence, remarked that there were extenuating circumstances
which sometimes mitigated the crime of murder, as, for example, the fact of the victim of an attack being found in the adultery. He thought the present case was an example in point. He reviewed the evidence of Smitbers and remarked that this witness remembered only just sufficient to shift the offence from his own shoulders, and transfer it to those of the prisoner. The evidence of Callender was conclusive. If ever there were circumstances which ought to mitigate crime here was an instance. The prisoner might possibly have been drunk, for, unfortunately, people living in the sphere of the prisoner were too much in the habit of indulging in intoxication. The jury could not with anything like justice, find any other verdict save that of manslaughter, with the most mitigating circumstances. The deceased had received blows in the fracas at Wallace's, and if the jury thought that injury had been at all concerned in producing her death, they must acquit the prisoner. The conduct of the prisoner was anything but that of a man in his sober senses — he had missed his wife from his bed, in a state of excitement he had gone in pursuit of her,he had taken no knife or other weapon, and in this condition had committed the offence. He claimed the sympathies of the jury for the prisoner, who had already suffered sufficiently by seeing his unhappy children thrown friendless on the world.
His Honor in summing up, gave the legal definition of murder. As to the facts there was no doubt
about them. His Honor defined also the meaning of the word ' maliciously' as applying to this case.
If the jury were of opinion that this act was not done maliciously and of malice or forethought, then the charge of murder was sufficiently disposed of, and the verdict must be one of manslaughter. His
Honor then, at length, went into the question of extenuation, quoting authority in exemplification of
his remarks. The jury would also have to consider whether the prisoner intended going to the length he did. The fact of his entering the tent three times before he commenced his attack, was not an indication of ungovernable rage, but seemed to, suggest deliberation. It was, however, possible that the prisoner was waiting to witness the consummation of the crime he suspected, and did not proceed to the attack until he was fully satisfied of this. He did not think he should be justified in directing the jury to find any verdict less than manslaughter.
Mr Ireland wished His Honor to remind the jury that it was in tbeir power to acquit on the grounds of
temporary insanity.
His Honor thought there had been no evidence in proof this.
The jury consulted for five minutes, when the prisoner rose, and upon being asked by the Clerk if
the Prisoner were guilty or not guilty, replied, 'Not guilty, of wilful murder, guilty of manslaughter.' Mr Ireland rose to request that the sentence be deferred, as he would be able to produce witnesses as
to character, who were not now in town ; there was, however, a testimonial which he was sorry he could not produce, . but spoke favorably of his character, and of his being a married man.
His Honor said he had no objection to take this into consideration in passing sentence. He said he
would not inflict pain upon the prisoner by reviewing the circumstances ; he had no doubt the prisoner had already a sufficient monition before him. He should say, if he were allowed to say it, that he should have been inclined to look with more leniency on the case if he (prisoner) had raised his hand against the seducer of his wife. The sentence of the Court was,that he be kept to hard labor on the roads for a period of two years.
Comments
Post a Comment