|
From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 12 August, 1870.
CONTAGIOUS DISEASES ACT
Sarah Long, alias Marsh, alias Lyde, alias Collins, a middle-aged women,
was summoned to show cause why she should not submit herself to
examination under the provision of the Contagious Disease Acts.
Mr. Fox appeared in support of the information and Mr. E. Elwin, Jun.,
was for the defendant.
On the magistrates' Clerk giving directions for women and children to
leave the Court, Mr. Rees enquired whether the order was according to
law.
The Magistrates' Clerk said he supposed all decent women would be glad
to go.
Mr. Rees said that was a matter of opinion. What he wanted to know was
whether the order was according to law.
The Magistrates' Clerk did not reply to the question. He said he had
been requested by the Magistrates to clear the Court, and he had done
so.
Mr. Fox, in addressing the Bench, pointed out that this was a case of
some importance. The defendant, though a married woman, had carried on
the trade of a prostitute ever since the Acts had been in operation in
the town and garrison of Dover. She had recently lost her husband; but
during her husband's life time she had followed this course of conduct,
and though repeatedly spoken to by the police whose duty it was to carry
out the provisions of the Act, and warned that if she did not abandon it
she would be brought under these provisions, and be requested to submit
herself for examination, like other prostitutes, she had neglected to
profit by these warnings; and the only means left to the officers was to
bring her before the Bench. He was instructed that there was a feature
in this case peculiarly revolting, and although it did not effect the
law of the case, he thought he ought to mention it, in order that the
Bench might form an opinion of the character of the defendant. He was
told that while pursuing her disreputable conduct she was in the habit
of taking with her a little girl, her daughter, between thirteen and
fourteen years of age, who thus became witness of her mother's
degradation, and received from her mother's example the first lesson in
a life of impurity and vice. He would not characterise such conduct; but
would leave the Magistrates to draw their own conclusions. What he had
to do was to satisfy the magistrates that the police had just ground for
believing the defendant to be carrying on the life of prostitution; and
he did not doubt that he should be able to do so most completely.
Mr, Fox then called William Capon, who said: I am an inspector of
metropolitan police belonging to the Woolwich division, and am stationed
here for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of the Contagious
Diseases Acts, 1866 and 1869. The signature to the information produced
is mine. I know the defendant. She also goes by the name of Marsh, Lyde,
and Collins. I believe she is a married woman, and she has a girl about
thirteen or fourteen years of age. She has been under my observation
since January last. Her course of life during that period has been that
of a common prostitute. I have spoken to her and cautioned her
frequently. She is now living at 17, Peter Street, Charlton.
Mr. Fox: From what circumstances do you infer that she is a common
prostitute?
Witness: I have seen her, more especially within the last two months, in
the company of various men, both civilians and soldiers.
Mr. Fox: Is that at night?
Witness: At night, between 9 and 12.
Mr. Fox: In the public streets?
Witness: In public houses, and in the public streets. I have seen her
come from behind timbers on the quays, and men immediately follow. I
have seen her more than once. I have also seen her come out of a dock at
the end of the Pentside, and a soldier follow immediately.
Mr. Fox: have you seen her in the company of prostitutes?
Witness: Yes, she came to the Court with one, this morning.
Mr. Fox: Have you seen the defendant's daughter in her company?
Witness: Yes, and I have seen her leave the child by a lamp-post while
she went away under the circumstances I have stated.
Magistrates' Clerk: At what time of the night has this occurred?
Witness (referring to a note-book): At a quarter past ten on the night
of the 9th June she was behind the timbers with a sailor.
Alderman Rees: Do you know that?
Witness: I an swearing it, Sir.
Defendant: And I'll swear that it is false. I work hard for my living.
(The defendant here burst into tears.)
The witness was then cross-examined by Mr. Elwin, who said: You say you
think the defendant is married. Do you know that she is?
Witness: I believe she is married.
Mr. Elwin: And that her husband died on the 18th June.
Witness: I don't know when her husband died; but believe that he is
dead.
Mr. Elwin; You say that you have had this woman under your observation.
I suppose every poor woman is under your observation.
Witness: Woman who are leading lives of prostitutes are under my
observation.
Mr. Elwin: Your office is to watch poor women; so that it must be so.
Mr. Fox objected to Mr. Elwin's giving evidence.
Cross-examination continued: It is of nightly occurrence for me to see
the defendant in the company of men.
Mr. Elwin: And don't you see other women in the company of men. Don't
you see ladies in the company of officers?
Witness: Yes, but there is a vast difference.
Mr. Elwin: I suppose the difference is that such woman as the defendant
are common prostitutes and the others are uncommon prostitutes.
Cross-examination continued: I don't see the defendant in the streets
till after eight; but I have seen her at all hours between that time and
twelve o'clock.
Police-sergeant Johnstone, of the borough force, said he knew the
defendant, and had been in the habit of seeing her soliciting men in the
streets, for the last six or seven years. During the last month he had
been on night duty, and he had seen her almost every night in the week
going home, between one and two o'clock, in the company of another
prostitute.
Mr. Dickeson: Are you quite sure about her soliciting men?
Witness: Quite certain.
Alderman Rees: Were the men soliciting her, do you think?
Witness: No, she was soliciting them – stopping them in the streets.
Superintendent Coram proved the service of the summons, and then
completed the case. He served the summons at a house at Tower Hamlets,
where she was employed.
Mr. Elwin, for the defendant, said she had been married three times,
which accounted for her answering to so many aliases. There was a reason
for this. She had been married without leave, and it was therefore her
habit to take another name. She married her last husband on the 1st
January of the present year, and he died on the 18th June. Since her
husband's death she had been in the habit of going out to work from
eight in the morning till eight at night. It was the custom of the child
to whom reference had been made to go for her mother at the place where
she was employed, at Tower Hamlets, and they would sometimes go for an
hour's walk before returning home. The landlady of a public-house in
Northampton Street, the “Clarence,” was the cousin of the defendant, and
she might have been seen coming out of this house, after visiting her
cousin; but there was no ground for saying that she was in the habit of
visiting public-houses in general. A certain amount of prejudice must
always be imported into cases of this description, but he besought the
Bench not to be carried away by any such feeling; and he hoped they
would not consider the evidence which had been offered as sufficient to
induce them to stigmatise this poor woman as a common prostitute. It was
a great misfortune in these days for a woman to be poor, and he
considered that in this case the surveillance of the police was due to
that circumstance.
Mr. Elwin called the daughter of the defendant, who deposed to her
mother being employed to work, and to her habit of fetching her mother
and walking with her. Mr. Elwin also questioned the child as to her
cognizance of any act of immorality of conduct on the part of her
mother, and she replied in the negative.
Mr. Fox said he had no questions to ask the child, and would not take up
the time of the Bench in offering any reply.
The Bench made the necessary order, the examination to extend over six
months, under the defendant relinquished her immoral life in the
interim.
Alderman Rees begged to say that he did not concur in that decision, an
expression which was granted with exclamations of “Hear, hear,” from Mr.
Elwin and a gentleman who accompanied him.
Mr. Fox protested against this indecency in a Court of Justice. A person
had a temerity openly to defy the law, and gentlemen sitting by who
ought to know better cried “hear, hear.”
Mr. Elwin said he could not help feeling very strongly.
Mr. Fox remarked that the expression of feeling was usually suppressed
in a Court of Justice. If not, public business could not be carried on.
The defendant was then informed that she would have to attend the place
of examinations on Saturday next; but left the Court still protesting
that she would not obey the order of the Magistrates.
|
)
