Whitstable Times and Herne Bay Herald, 12 March 1870.

RAPE AT WHITSTABLE.

At the Kent Lent Assize, on Wednesday, John Spratt, Frederick Page, Henry Thomas Kirkcaldy, 16, sea apprentice, and William Godden, 21, labourer, were indicted for a rape upon Mary Hockless, at Whitstable, on the 26th September, 1869.

Mr. E. T. Smith prosecuted and opened the case at some length, stating the facts which will be found in the following evidence:-

Mary Hockless said her husband resided at Whitstable and was named Thomas Hockless. On the 26th September she was at the "Railway Inn," where she had a glass of beer and some bread and cheese. She left there about twenty minutes to twelve, and when near the "Two Brewers" she met five or six young men, four of whom she saw in the dock. They set upon her and dragged her over the stile in the meadow. She screamed out. She knew Godden, Spratt, and Page before, but she did not know the other prisoner. They threw her down on the ground and stopped her mouth with their fists, and each of the prisoners committed a rape upon her. She was on the ground for about three-quarters of an hour, and after the prisoners had left she remained there for an hour or two as she was very ill afterwards. She said to Godden, who was the only one she recognised after the offence had been committed, "Oh dear, young Godden, are you here," when he laughed and exclaimed that witness knew him. She reached home about four o'clock in the morning and gave information to the police about twelve.

Cross-examined by Mr. Barrow, who defended Spratt and Page.— She was the worse for liquor when she left the "Railway Inn." It was on the road between the "Railway Inn" and the "Two Brewers" that the young men met her. She lived opposite the "Two Brewers," but that was not were she was assaulted. She had not till now said she knew the four prisoners. When before the magistrates she only said she knew Godden. When before the magistrates she said all six of the young men had connection with her and not four as stated on the depositions. She did not say a word to her husband about it when she got home.

Cross-examined by Godden.— She did not apply to him for protection nor did she say her husband had locked her out so she could not go home.

Cross-examined by Kirkcaldy.— She did not remember seeing the prisoners buying pears out of a cart, nor did she remember lying down drunk.

By the Judge.— She identified Godden by his clothes.

Re-examined by Mr. E. T. Smith.— When she said before the magistrates that one by one four had connection with her she was alluding to the four prisoners then present, but in reality six young men had connection with her.

Thomas Hockleas said he was a labourer living at Whitstable. On Sunday morning, the 27th of September, his wife came home between three and four o'clock in the morning, and he went down stairs and let her in. He did not take any notice as to whether she was distressed or in good spirits. Later in the morning he noticed her mouth was swollen and she was crying, and on his asking her what was the matter she said she had been assaulted by fire or six young men.

By Mr. Barrow.— Was not aware that his wife was given to liquor. Had never refused her admission to his house. P.C. Bates, to his knowledge, had not brought her home drunk forty or fifty times. Could not say he had never seen her drunk.

Mr. Ladams said he kept the "Railway Inn," and on Saturday night, the 26th September, he remembered Mrs. Hockless being at his house. He believed she came in about nine and left about a quarter-past eleven. When she came in she asked for a glass of beer, saying her husband had turned her out of doors. She was drunk that night, but not so bad as he had sometimes seen her. The distance between his house and the "Two Brewers" was something less than a quarter of a mile.

By Mr. Burrow.— Although her husband had never seen her drunk, he had many a time, and she had been in the habit of being carried home by boys.

A young man named Edmunds said he lived at Mr. Garraway's house, near the "Two Brewers." On the night of the 26th September he was awoke by the screams of a drunken woman. He looked out of the window and saw about half-a-dozen young men carrying a woman, whom they put over a stile. He thought he heard Spratt's voice, but could not swear to it. He did not think whose voice it was at the time, but he afterwards thought it was Spratt's. The woman kept calling for help. The screams subsided and he went to bed. Stephen Samson said he kept the "Two Brewers Inn" and knew Spratt and Page, who were at his house on the night of the 26th September. They left about twelve o'clock.

By Mr. Barrow.— There was a harvest supper at his house that night and about forty or fifty persons were there besides the prisoners who all left at twelve o'clock.

Mr. Mitchell, surgeon at Whitstable, examined the prosecutrix and found a number of marks about the lower parts of her body. On the thigh there were some slight bruises. On her chemise he found stains of dirt.

P.C. Tomlin said that on the 27th September he received some information from the prosecutrix, and apprehended Spratt on a charge of committing a rape upon her. He said he was not there, and had not seen the woman. He next apprehended Kirkcaldy, who said the woman was drunk, and they tried to get her home, but she went into the meadow. He next apprehended Page, and he said he saw some men lugging a woman about, and he thought Spratt was one, but as he was so drunk he could not say positively. He charged them all with Godden at the station collectively, when Godden said he did not commit the offence. Spratt afterwards mentioned the names of the prisoners and two others, and said they were all as bad as one another.

This was the case, and the learned counsel having addressed the jury for the prosecution and defence, his Lordship summed up and remarked upon the evidence of the prosecutrix, which he thought, considering her being in a state of intoxication at the time and her prevarications in her evidence, could hardly be relied upon.

The jury, after a few minutes consultation, returned a verdict of acquittal in the case of all the prisoners.

His Lordship said the Jury had found them not guilty. They were all young men and he cautioned them to let the peril in which they stood be a warning to them for the rest of their lives. Had they been convicted of that indictment they would have passed the remainder of their lives in penal servitude. He then discharged them.