Ann Lawrence and the revenge murder of 4 year old Jessie Lawrence
Ann was born in Farningham Kent to Lucy Church and Joseph Milton in Feb 1839. She was the last born of 5 children.
Her life was not to be a good one, by 1841 she was living in the Tonbridge Workhouse with her mother and siblings, which was located where the Pembury hospital is now. Her father had left them and remarried, having another child but died 3 years later in 1844. There is no recorded grave for him. Her mother died in Jun 1851 in High Halden Ashford when she was 12, she was buried in the St Marys parish church
In 1851 Ann was living in Brompton Chatham Kent, working as a nursemaid for a Chaplain who worked at the Melville Hospital in Chatham Kent
In 1855 at the parish church of Plaxtol Kent age 16 she married 27-year-old Stephen Lawrence, who had been a Foot soldier with the Sixth Regiment for 3 years between ages 18 - 21, then had been working as a laborer for his father John Lawrence, who was a veteran turned farmer. He had also lost his mother at age 6 and his father had young boys still at home, inc Stephen, so he remarried again a year later.
In April 1861 Ann and Stephen are recorded as Lodging with an innkeeper Henry Johnson in the town of Westerham Kent. Stephen was working as an agricultural laborer.
Stephen must have been moving around with jobs as their son Jeremiah (Jessie) was born on 25 March 1862 in Brook Chatham Kent. The name Jeremiah was also the name of Stephen's youngest brother.
Now we skip forward a few years...
On Saturday 12 April 1866, Tunbridge Wells was thrown into a state of intense horror that a woman had murdered her child and attacked a man with a bill hook.
That woman was Ann Lawrence.
It seems she had been living with a man called Walter Higham, a fruitier, for several years and they had a newborn girl together.
They had been living in 2 Ebuny cottages John Street Southborough, around 9-10 months. this was 1 of 4 erected in a narrow thoroughfare near the old Harp Inn Hotel, which was situated at 70 St Johns Road Southborough in Tunbridge Wells
That same day she was brought before the magistrates and was duly cautioned to which she replied ''I own to all but killing my child, I can't own to that, I did not do it, so I cannot own to it''
She was remanded and fully committed to trial. She left the court very composed.
The inquest was held for the body of the murdered child.
Walter Highams was visited at the infirmary. He was at the infirmary for 14 weeks. He had 13 wounds—four on his head, four on his shoulder, four on his right hand, and one on his left wrist
He stated that Ann had been living with him as his wife, although they weren't married. her son Jeremiah was with them, and their baby. he couldn't say what month their child had been born but sometime before Christmas.
He relays the story of the evening before the murder...
They argued, he said She had been to London in the day and had begun abusing him upon her return, She noticed her son's Pinafore was dirtied and quarreled with him on that account. the child had been with him for the day and had fallen over when they were in Mount Sion and he had got him off the cart he used to transport his goods around.
George Hollands was there too and had been a witness to this. She had accused Walter of visiting a woman when he had been delivering turnips to a Dr Trustream. She did not threaten him then but at supper, she said ''You bastard, I'll pay you for this'' and she kept swearing at Holland.
He stated they had gone to bed alright and all was quiet.
He then said that she woke around 5 and said she was going to light the fire. he went back to sleep with their baby in his arms, the boy was asleep in his usual place at the bottom of the bed and next awoke by her attacking him saying she would kill all 3 of us. He put his arms up to protect himself, suffering terrible wounds, one finger was severed. He managed to push her away and escaped, sliding downstairs and into the washhouse. he struggled to get the chopper away from her and she then grabbed his hair and started hitting his head against the wall and punching him with her fists, he became weak through loss of blood and couldn't repel her anymore. She stopped and left, leaving the handbill in the washhouse.
It was then she said she had killed the little boy as he was always in his way but he said ''I was always kind to her and the boy, giving him pennies or something. I was with him the day before in the pony cart''. he said it was a blessed day and he had often taken him out in my arms and bought him things, so he couldn't make out what she meant by saying he was in his way.
After she left the washhouse, a neighbor in the next cottage came out and said she went to the water pump and commenced to clean herself, and she then said to him, ''One is dead and I hope the other one will be soon''
The first on the scene was Maria Taylor, wife of Henry Taylor a bricklayer labourer living at no 3 She said at 1.30 in the morning, she heard a noise of tussling in the bedroom of no 2. She also heard Ann saying to him around half 5 ''You dirty bastard I said I would do it, you have driven me to it''
At about 5.40 am she heard screaming of 'murder. voices of a man and woman were heard. she took no notice for a minute or 2 but then she heard the man calling out ''Missus, missus come and assist me, call the doctor or I shall die''.
she then got up and went to the backyard. and when she went outside. she heard a woman shout ''See what it has brought you to, live like this, I won't''. Then she saw the man in his shirt at the wash house of Mrs Mowcumbers who lives at no 1. She went to the front where the woman was standing and she said ''I want you to come in''. there was a policeman there and she saw blood all over the house and the woman was covered in blood. Ann asked her to take the baby, so she did as asked and washed and dressed her. Ann told her ''I has killed my baby, it's not his and he never liked it'' Then she said ''The man has killed my child''
Next to give evidence was the police who attended
Police constable Edward May was on the lower level near the Rose and Crown inn and was called by PC Henley to go to his assistance. He went to the house and Henley went to assist Walter
PC May entered the house and went upstairs into the front bedroom in the right-hand corner was a bed and the boy was lying with a razor across his throat at the bottom of the bed. he then left and went for the doctor.
when PC Henley spoke to Ann she asked if the child was hers she replied '' yes but not his, he has killed it, he meant to do for me but I was too quick for him''. asked if she had inured Walter, she replied ''yes'' and produced the handbill. saying ''this is what I did it with, I meant to do for him, he has brought me into all this trouble''. She never mentioned the child and was said she appeared calm and understood everything. she made a statement about a woman living in Malling.
George Hollands had appeared at the house requesting a clean shirt for Walter.
Ann got agitated and said ''don't let that man come in here, he has been the cause of all this. he had gone with my husband to the woman who has caused the mischief''.
she claimed that Higham took her away from her husband and she had recently found out he had another woman at Malling who had 2-3 children by him. he also had a wife from whom he had been separated for 8 years
The Jury at the inquest ruled that Jessie was killed by wilful murder
The trail began on Wednesday 1st Aug 1866 at Maidstone...
Mr. Serjeant Parry, who was retained for the prosecution, made an application for the postponement of the trial of Ann Lawrence. due to the inability of a material witness to be present. Mr Parry said the witness, whose name was Phoebe Dallard, was a very important witness for the prosecution and had lately met with a very severe accident, He had the certificate of the surgeon which showed that the witness was suffering from inflammation of the liver, and also that she was suffering from an accident, having unfortunately upset a kettle of boiling water, scalding her feet. in consequence of which she was unable to attend the present assize. The name of the witness was not on the depositions, but he had the affidavit of Mr. Simpson. the magistrates' clerk, in which he stated that after the prisoner had been committed he became acquainted with the fact that the woman Gallard was a most important witness. Her evidence consisted of a statement made by the prisoner on the 11th of April—the Wednesday before the Saturday on which the murder was committed, and he thought it was extremely material concerning the defense the prisoner made at the time of her committal. He had the policeman's affidavit, which he had handed to the counsel for the defense. He considered the grounds upon which he proceeded of great importance. The witness was a perfectly independent one, and there was no doubt whatever but that she was necessary for the prosecution.
Mr. Ribton for the defense said he was instructed to oppose the application. He thought it was absolutely in the interests of justice that the trial should take place. He could see no necessity for an opposite amuse. The prisoner had been in prison for three months, and she was most desirous to take her trial.
The learned Judge said he wished it to be understood that the surgeon should make an affidavit. He was not supposed to be acting on the mere evidence of a policeman and a surgeon. It was extremely inconvenient, but he could do nothing under the circumstances but agree to the application. The Court then rose and adjourned
The trail then commenced at Maidstone, on the morning of Wednesday December 21 before Baron Channell.
Mr. Serjeant Parry and Mr. Willoughby conducted the prosecution, and Mr. Ribton and Mr. Ormerod were the defense.
In addition to the evidence for the prosecution which was reported, Dr. Davey was called. He said that the cut on the child's throat was a deep, clean cut. It went back to the spine. The child was on its back. Two powerful jets of blood would come from the child's throat. The witness saw the prisoner's dress and the marks of blood on it. Probably the person who inflicted the wound would be covered with blood. He could not say whether the person's hand would be covered with blood. The person who did it would have been in a stooping or kneeling position. That would tend to deposit blood on the front of the upper part of the person who inflicted the wound. It would be arterial blood. The marks on the prisoner's dress would be consistent with the action of these jets of blood and with a stooping or kneeling position.
If the heart acted a second time there would be four jets of blood, two jets for each vessel. The hand that pressed the razor would be bloody. He said he examined the upper part of the bed. There was very little blood on the pillow. The wall was slightly smeared with blood. There were marks of blood on the ceiling in the center of the room. In the witness's opinion, if the woman had attacked Highams with a billhook there would not have been these marks on her dress. He believed the blood on the ceiling came not from the man's arm. No vessel was wounded in the man to produce such a spattering of blood. There would not be such a flow of blood from the man's wounds. (A piece of flesh was shown which corresponded with a wound on the third finger of the man's right hand.) His two fingers were taken off at the infirmary.
When cross-examined, he said—Highams lost blood. It was principally venous blood. He must have lost a great quantity of blood. If in contact with him, the woman must have been smeared with blood. The appearances on the woman's clothes were not consistent with the blood on them having come from Highams. The apron produced is spattered with blood as if from the nose of a watering pot. In the witness's opinion, the blood must have come from some large vessel. No vessel was injured on Highams' person to create such a spattering of blood as was found here. The shirt of Highams was saturated with blood. Dr Davey thought the blood on the apron did not come from Highams's wounds.
All the appearances on the apron, except the pattern of it, were of blood or blood and water. The carotid artery when severed sends a jet of blood with great violence. Only one of Highams's wounds would send forth a jet of blood. The blood on the ceiling may have come from his hand. There might have been a small jet of blood from the wounds on his head.
Dr Davey could not undertake to swear that the blood from some jet in the veins of the man's head could not possibly have sprinkled some part of the woman's apron. The same as to the blood from his arm. Dr Davey could not say whether there was any of the child's blood on Highams's shirt. It was so saturated with blood that he could not say, whether it was sprinkled before it was saturated. He could only see a sprinkling of blood on the woman's dress indistinctly. He thought she might have been in close contact with the man, and her dress appeared as it was now produced. He must have been out of bed when the wound on the arm was inflicted.
The prisoner's statement made before the magistrates was read. It was, "I own to all except killing the child. I cannot own to that, as I did not do it." Mr. Serjeant Parry lastly summed up the case for the prosecution.
Mr. Ribton now addressed the jury on behalf of the prisoner. He proposed first to consider the case without reference to the evidence of Highams. The prisoner had left her husband at the solicitation of Highams and had lived with him for two years.
''This man, having a taste for illicit amours, was cohabiting with the prisoner at Tunbridge-wells, and at the same time visiting another woman at Mailing. The prisoner's jealousy was excited by these visits to Mailing, but she and Highams had slept together on Thursday night.
On Saturday morning, about 15 or 20 minutes before six, cries of " Murder" were heard proceeding from the house in a man's and also in a woman's voice. Why should she have cried " Murder ?" Was it not at the moment that she attacked Highams on seeing that he had killed her child? She said afterward that she had conquered the devil. The first thing she said to those who came was, " Send for there is murder."
As soon as the policeman came out she denounced him. "He has killed my child." She had said this all along.
She had also said " One is dead, and the other will be soon;" but this was only another mode of expressing the same idea. To one of the policemen, she said "My child! my child! I want my child." This must have meant the murdered child, for she knew at the time that it was murdered. In her distraction, she called, although she must call in vain. It was, in fact, the police who had decided which of these two persons, the prisoner or Highams, should be charged with the murder of the child.
This was an example of the want of some high public functionary to conduct capital prosecutions. The police could have foreseen what sort of evidence Highams would give. His exculpation would be the inculpation of the prisoner. The prisoner's expression of intended vengeance against Highams would be very pertinent to the inquiry whether she wounded the man with intent to kill him, but they did not bear upon the question before the jury.
The evidence of a witness on whose account the trial had been postponed from the summer assizes went to this point. The evidence of Dr. Davey was strong against the prisoner, but he relied on considerations, not of science, but of common sense, on which the jury could form an opinion as well as a doctor. Dr. Davey, however, would not venture to say on cross-examination that the spots of blood upon the woman's apron must have come from the child, and could not have come from any other source.
The only motive which the prosecution could assign for the murder of the tiny child by its mother was the mother's jealousy of Highams. Suppose Highams had died of his wounds without making any statement, could the prisoner have been convicted without his evidence? But consider now what that evidence was. He said, in answer to the learned judge, that the first time he heard the child was dead was from the policeman in the next house; this was untrue, for the prisoner had charged him with the murder in front of the house,
In the hearing of two witnesses. It was remarkable that Highams, in his story, said nothing of the murder of the child. Yet if that story were true the child must have been lying with its throat cut when the prisoner attacked him, and he must have seen it. The question for the jury was not which of these two persons committed the murder, but whether the evidence was sufficient to convict the woman. Suppose the man was now upon his trial, and all the evidence I given yesterday had been brought against him, together with the evidence of the woman, what must have been the result? it would have been urged against him that he was charged by the woman with this murder, and did not deny it, but only said "You, a dear woman"
The woman would perhaps say that she rose early to light a fire, that she was chopping wood, that she heard some cry or sound, rushed upstairs, found the child's throat cut, and attacked the man with the billhook. No doubt it would be difficult to assign an adequate motive for the man murdering the child But a woman would save her child's life even at the price of her own. The affection of the woman for her offspring was not the growth of habit or the product of civilization, but it existed in the rudest age, in the wildest clime, and in the most untutored breast the woman had throughout told the same story and charged the man with the murder of her child. but the jury was not called upon to decide if the man was guilty, the evidence was not sufficient enough to warrant them saying she was guilty and if there was an inch of doubt, she was entitled to the benefit from it''
Mr Baron Channel then proceeded to sum up the case:
''The child was murdered in the morning and not overnight. there is a strong inference that either the man or the woman did it. if the evidence led to the conclusion that the prisoner was guilty, then it would be a fearful thing that she be acquitted because an adequate motive could not be assigned for the crime... It would therefore be right in the first place to refer to PC May's evidence, was saw the child first, felt his body, which was still warm, then refer to the witness, her neighbor Maria Taylor, who heard them both shout murder. he said he had not known about the child death until he went next door when asked about this, one witness said to this charge he gave no answer and the second time, his reply was ''you are a dear woman'' He was covered in his blood, which may have covered the blood of the murdered child. There is no other possible verdict other than guilty or not guilty of wilful murder''
The jury retired at quarter past 1 and shortly after 4 pm returned with the verdict of Guilty.
The sentence of death was then passed in the usual form.
Ann was to be the first woman to hang at Maidstone Gaol.
The last female execution in Kent had taken place over sixty years earlier when Elizabeth Barber suffered for the murder of John Daly at the old execution site at Penenden Heath on the 25th of March 1805.
As was now usual, where a woman had been sentenced to death, a petition had been got up by well-meaning local people to save her but the Home Secretary was unmoved by this and had to take into account the violence of the crimes.
The death warrant was received on Saturday the 5th of January and these were read to them by the Governor of Maidstone prison, Major Bannister.
Ann told the governor that she hoped her execution would be carried out.
The scaffold was erected outside the main gate in County Road on Wednesday 9th January.
The structure comprised a platform supported by heavy beams, containing the trapdoors, and surrounded by a railing. In the center, a simple gallows consisted of two uprights and a cross beam with two iron chains for attachment of the ropes. The drop was reached by a short flight of steps and the lower portion beneath the platform was draped with black cloth to prevent the crowd from seeing the legs and lower body of the suspended prisoners.
This gallows was to be used the following year for the execution of Francis Kidder. who I will be discussing in another blog.
It is recorded that Ann slept well on the Wednesday night before her execution and ate a good breakfast. She particularly asked that her baby not be given to Walter after her death and arrangements were made for her to go into Maidstone workhouse at Coxheath.
Executioner William Calcraft arrived at the prison around eleven o’clock on Thursday the 10th of January 1867 and made his preparations.
Both Ann and another prisoner James Fletcher, also sentenced to hanging (another blog for the future) were given the sacrament in the prison chapel during the morning, by the Reverend William Fraser and then taken to reception cells which were close to the gallows.
They had their wrists pinioned in these cells, before they were led out just before noon. James was brought out first and when he was positioned on the trap, he was hooded and noosed.
Ann was led onto the gallows, accompanied by a warder, and knelt for some time in prayer before being led onto the trap beside James. A white cotton hood was drawn down over her head and the halter-style noose adjusted around her neck. Although she appeared faint she was able to retain a considerable degree of composure until the end and could be heard repeatedly saying “Jesus, have mercy” whilst the final preparations were made.
As the drop fell a woman in the crowd let out a shriek. James died quite easily for the time and did not appear to struggle for long but Ann showed signs of life for several minutes according to newspaper reports. As usual, broadsides were sold among the crowd at the execution.
Ann’s husband, Stephen Lawrence had tried to gain admittance to the prison and had to forcibly removed by the police. It is not known whether he joined the crowd to watch his estranged wife die. It was estimated that some four to five thousand, including a large number of women, had assembled in County Road to do so.
On the Sunday before her execution, Ann had asked to see the governor, Major Bannister, she gave a full confession and accepted responsibility for the murder. She told him that she could not remember how she had done it because she was so enraged at the time. She told him again that she hoped that she would not reprieved and that she wanted her death. She also apologized for having tried to incriminate Walter Highams.
Her motives began to unfold and she related that the main reason for both crimes was jealousy over Walter’s affairs with other women and her wish to avenge herself on him for them.
Ann had been working as a servant when she first met Walter, who after his wife had left him in 1864, had invited Ann to live with him. She decided to leave her husband, Stephen Lawrence for Walter soon after Jeremiah was born. The couple often rowed and it was usually over Walter’s other relationship. Before Ann went to live with him he had been having an affair with a young woman, Miss Eagleton in the nearby village of Town Malling whom he had gotten pregnant. He continued to see her after the relationship with Ann had started and a second pregnancy ensued. This led to a physical fight between Ann and Miss Eagleton in January 1866.
Four days before the murder Walter had sent Ann up to London to buy produce for his fruit and vegetable shop in Tunbridge Wells. Thinking that she would be away overnight he again went to see Miss Eagleton but Ann returned on the Wednesday evening and found out where he had gone which led to a major row the following day, culminating with Ann hitting Walter on the head. On the Friday before, Walter took Jeremiah out with him and the child had a fall and got his clothes dirty. This led to further friction between them. Ann thus went to bed that night consumed with jealousy and rage, sadly poor Jeremiah was the principal victim.
It would seem that Ann was genuinely sorry for what she had done and that her execution bought her closure, rather than having to live in prison for twenty or more years with her conscience.
Her body was buried at Maidstone Gaol Cemetery
The life of the young woman in Malling, Miss Eagleton had an illegitimate son called Edward Eagleton in 1858 when she was 19, she Married in Malling in 1861 to William Hodge an agricultural l worker age 18, she was 22 but that marriage didn't seem to have lasted, maybe she was lured away by Walter too. He remarried Ruth Clark from Hurst Green at Lamberhurst in 1870 she had 4 illegitimate children and they had another 7 together. Emma had another illegitimate child Henry Eagleton in 1862, The children she had with Walter were a boy registered as Walter Higham Eagleton, born on 23 Aug 1864 but died on 10th March 1865 at Church Field West Malling of Tuberculosis. Emma was working as a housekeeper at the time and they had a daughter Mary Ann Eagleton born sometime in Feb 1866 but died on 18th June at age 4 months in Back Street West Malling from Mesenteric Disease. Emma was at that time, working as a Farm Labourer. She was present at both of their deaths.
Life after the execution
The name of Ann & Walter's daughter was never given in reports. I found a record of Eleanor Lawrence born in Tunbridge Wells, as an inmate of Malling Union Workhouse in East Peckham in 1871 and 1881 but unclear if that is their child, so I won't do any further research on her.
Ann's Husband Stephen Lawrence never remarried, he worked as a Cap Hawker and died from Tuberculosis at Linton Workhouse part of the Maidstone Union group in June 1879 at age 51
Emma Eagleton passed away in the East Peckham Union Workhouse from phthisis pulmonalis (Tuberculosis) on 31st July 1867 at age 28 and her first two boys ended up remaining in the Malling Union Workhouse East Peckham, so may have been in the same place as Walter and Anns daughter and didn't know they had a connection. The other bizarre connection is that her Eldest Edward married Alice Hodge, a relation of his mother's husband William, they had one child and he became a builders clerk and then a travelling salesman for Oils and Colors. Both brothers married a girl named Alice. His Brother Henry Married Alice Lousia Sims, they had 8 children and lived in Chartham, where he worked at the paper mill.
Walter Higham was still working as a fruitier and was found in the 1871 census, living in Mill Lane Lodging houses in Deptford with a female Hawker called Jane, also under the surname Higham age 46, down as his wife, and Ellen age 15, one of his children with first wife Susannah, who he was separated from when he met Ann Lawrence. No marriage record is found for Walter and Jane and Susannah was still alive at the time, she died in 1901 and never remarried, so like with Ann Lawrence, she was no doubt, his live-in Lover.
By 1881 He was found living alone on Mote Farm in Marden and recorded as a Widower still working as a fruitier.
He then spent his final days in Linton Workhouse Maidstone, where he finally passed away on 3rd Jan 1891 from Senile Decay (Dementia), at age 68.
Sources
1. Tunbridge Wells Journal (1866) ‘ THE TUNBRIDGE WELLS MURDER ’, 27 December , pp. 2-2
2. Faversham Times and Mercury and North-East Kent Journal (1866) ‘ TRIAL OF PRISONERS. THE TUNBRIDGE WELLS MURDER’, 04 August , pp. 3-3
3. Sun (London) (1866) ‘ ASSIZES INTELLIGENCE ’, 22 December, pp. 4 – 4
4. Sussex Advertiser (1866) ‘ THE TUNBRIDGE WELLS MURDER’, 24 April , pp. 5-5
5. Dover Chronicle (1866) ‘CHILD MURDER AT TUNBRIDGE WELLS’, 18 April , pp. 3-3
6. Manchester Courier (1866) ‘ The Murder Tunbridge Wells ’, 17 April , pp. 8-8
7. Bring your backstory to lifeTM (no date) Ancestry® | Genealogy, Family Trees & Family History Records. Available at: http://www.ancestry.co.uk/ (Accessed: 09 February 2024).
8. Archive, T.B.N. (no date) History’s colourful stories in black and white, Home | Search the archive | British Newspaper Archive. Available at: https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/ (Accessed: 11 February 2024).
9. General Register Office (no date) General Register Office - Online Ordering Service - Login. Available at: https://www.gro.gov.uk/gro/content/certificates/ (Accessed: 12 February 2024).
10. Pictures and historical info from Wikipedia https://www.wikipedia.org/
Comments