THE STRANGE CASE OF THE SOLICITOR AND MISS O’GRADY
Robert Bartlett and Maria O’Grady
Detail from the unrelated Christmas Courtship
The Penny Illustrated 26 Dec 1891
I am mystified as to how the main villain of this piece ended up as a kind of local hero, but I suspect it had something to do with the reputations of the victim and her mother.
Mr Robert Henry William Bartlett (born c. 1816 Devon) arrived in Epsom as a solicitor at some point after 1844 and became clerk to the District County Court; his house was very close to the Spread Eagle public house. Mrs Bartlett was formerly Emily Emma Carpenter Warrington.
The Bartletts had a young live-in house servant and there doesn’t seem to have been any problem with her in relation to Mr Bartlett, but his wife intended to let her go and replace her. Whether or not the girl was unsatisfactory or Mrs Bartlett suspected her husband of an inappropriate interest is not known.
There was a girl in town called Maria O’ Grady, who was the daughter of a Mrs Waghorn by a previous marriage (this marriage was not to a Lieutenant O’Grady of the 9th Foot, who was killed in a romantic duel – the story had been circulated by someone but was later discredited). Mrs O’Grady had then married a brick and tile manufacturer, one of the Ewell Waghorns (possibly William Richard), but they separated in about 1846/47. Mr Bartlett had acted in a matrimonial matter for her.
Mrs Waghorn, who seems to have been prone to violence and fond of a tipple, was in straitened circumstances, to the extent that she applied to the Epsom Guardians for relief. One of the Guardians was Mr Oades of Banstead and, attempting to help, he offered Maria O’Grady, then aged 15, a position as nursery governess to his children. She was quickly found to be unsuitable and, when Oades mentioned it to Bartlett, he and his wife took her in for a few days until they could find her another job.
Maria remained with them for a time, acting as a companion to Mrs Bartlett, but in November 1848 the girl was packed off to Liverpool, apparently by Mr Bartlett, to visit some people who turned out not to be there. She claimed that the Mayor of Liverpool had provided her with the rail fare home.
On her return, Maria told Mrs Waghorn that she had been raped by Mr Bartlett on the night of 6 November 1848. Mrs Bartlett was away for a couple of days and, according to Maria, she (Maria) woke up suddenly that night to find Mr Bartlett in her bed and he had his way with her. He was charged and released on bail. Meanwhile, in an unrelated matter, he was arrested on a civil warrant for debt and incarcerated in Horsemonger Lane Gaol, Southwark (the County Gaol for Surrey).
When the Epsom magistrates next came to hear the case Bartlett did not appear (because he could not) and an application had to be made to the prison governor, who personally escorted him to Epsom. Evidence was given by the house servant and her friend, who had been staying over on the night in question, and Maria’s tale immediately started to sound dubious. The girls said that Mr Bartlett’s bed appeared to have been the only one occupied that night and in the morning he had called for many jugs of hot water to wash his bottom sheet. One of the girls had then been asked to iron it. Maria had said nothing to them about the alleged rape and they had heard nothing untoward in the night – such as a cry for help – although Bartlett had been seen lurking around in his nightshirt. In an attempt to discredit Maria further, the defence lawyer produced a letter to Bartlett from Mr J Bramley Moore, the Mayor of Liverpool, which said, ‘My attention having been called to a paragraph in a London journal, of Monday, relating to yourself and Miss O’Grady, I deem it my duty to address you on the subject. You are a perfect stranger to me, and I can know nothing of what may have taken place between you and Miss O’Grady; but I deem it a duty incumbent on me to inform you that all which Miss O’Grady is said to have stated as having taken place between the mayor and yourself is entirely untrue. There are other important points connected with Miss O’Grady’s visit to Liverpool, which, if you think it worthwhile to inquire into, to promote the ends of justice, I will afford every facility and information respecting her during her stay here.’
It seems from the letter that Mr Moore did know something about Maria’s stay in Liverpool, but nothing of further interest was reported on that aspect, although Bartlett does appear to have been involved in sending her there. There were also allegations at the court that the prosecution side had asked Bartlett for £700 to make the rape charge go away.
On his next appearance before the magistrates Bartlett admitted that he had had consensual intercourse with Maria in his dining-room at lunchtime on the day preceding the alleged rape. As to the nocturnal events which had landed him in court, he said that he had been out and found Maria waiting up for him – lying on his bed. He sent her back to her own room until he was sure that the servant and her friend were not about and then fetched her to his bedroom, where she remained all night.
After deliberating, the magistrates concluded that criminal* intimacy had taken place and that Maria had been ill used, but they felt that the evidence fell short of rape. Bartlett was discharged (and immediately re-arrested on the debt warrant).
As I mentioned at the beginning, Bartlett’s discharge seems to have been a cause for celebration in the town, albeit that he had committed adultery in his own home at least twice with a 15-year-old. The Yeovil Mercury of 3 March 1849 ended its report of the case with, ‘The discharge of Mr Bartlett appeared to give considerable satisfaction to the townspeople of Epsom, and when the news became known, three cheers were given in front of The Spread Eagle Inn, near which his late residence is situated. The household furniture and effects, lately belonging to Mr Bartlett, were sold off on Wednesday, under an execution.’
I have been unable to discover what happened to Maria and her mother: nor can I find the Bartletts in the 1851 census, but they resurfaced later and, somewhat surprisingly, he was still practising as a solicitor (in Staffordshire). Mrs Bartlett died on 11 February 1871, by which time they had moved to Litherland Park in Seaforth, Liverpool. I have a feeling that they may have been separated, since Bartlett had a different address from his wife in her probate record, but by the night of the 1871 census, just a few weeks later (2/3 April), he was ensconced at Litherland Park with a friend of his and his wife’s, one Letitia Gertrude Megevan (née Agar, born c.1830 Ireland), widow of a former High Bailiff of the Staffordshire County Court. The couple married in 1872 and moved to Formby, Lancashire, where Bartlett died on 15 December 1887, leaving effects of just £576. Letitia went to live with an aunt in Acton, West London, where she died in 1910.
This article was researched and written by Linda Jackson in 2013
*in 1848 the age of consent for girls was just 12, so we don’t know why the magistrates used the term ‘criminal intimacy’.
Lloyd’s Illustrated Newspaper, 18 Feb. 1849
CHARGE OF RAPE AGAINST A SOLICITOR.
During the past week, a solicitor, practicing in Epsom, was apprehended on a charge of rape, preferred against him by a young lady holding the situation of companion to his wife. The complainant’s name is Maria O’Grady. She is the daughter of Lieut. O’Grady, who was shot in a duel about twelve years since by Captain Smith, brother of the Princess of Capua. After Lieut. O’Grady’s decease his widow married Mr. Waghorn, a brick and tile manufacturer, of Ewell, in Surrey. This alliance proved very unhappy, and about two years since a separation took place between the parties. Mrs. Waghorn, sometime afterwards, being reduced, applied to the guardians of the Epsom Union for relief, and her case exciting some interest, Mr, Oades, of Banstead, charitably received the complainant (her daughter) into his family as a nursery governess, Miss O’Grady remained in Mr. Oades’ family only a very short period, and when that gentleman desired to remove her be applied to Mr. Bartlett, a solicitor at Epsom, who had been employed by Mrs. Waghorn in some proceedings she had taken against her husband, to know where her mother resided, in order that Miss O’Grady might be sent to her. Mr. Bartlett, who is a married man, without any family, did not furnish Mr. Oades with the desired information, but at once undertook to receive the young lady in his own house. Here Miss O’Grady appears to have remained sometime in the capacity of companion to Mrs. Bartlett. In November last, during the absence of Mrs. Bartlett from home, the offence preferred is alleged to have taken place.
Miss O’Grady states in her deposition, taken before Baron De Tessier, Mr. Northey, and Mr. Gasse, the magistrates acting for the district, that on the night of the 6th of Nov., while sleeping alone, she was alarmed by discovering Mr. Bartlett in bed with her, and that, in spite of her expostulations and entreaties, he succeeded in accomplishing her ruin. She adds that the next morning she complained of Mr. Bartlett’s conduct to a servant, the only female in the house. Within one week of this date Miss O’Grady was sent to Liverpool by Mr. Bartlett, and, in consequence of the parties to whom she was sent not being discovered, she communicated with her mother, and her return to town was the result. The conduct of Mr. Bartlett then became the subject of inquiry, and on Monday se’nnight [week], a formal complaint having been made to the magistrates, after consideration a warrant was issued, and Mr. Bartlett was apprehended at the railway station on his return from town the same evening.
Mr. Bartlett remained in custody on Monday night, and on the following day appeared before the magistrates, when, after hearing the evidence of the complainant, the bench decided on holding the defendant to bail, himself in £300, and in two sureties in £150 each. It is necessary here to state that the female servant to whom Miss O’Grady first complained, was not present at this examination, and it is said that she was sent away from Mr. Bartlett’s service simultaneously with Miss O’Grady’s departure for Liverpool.
Monday last being fixed for the second examination of accused, Mr. Peter Borthwick and a solicitor attended for the prosecution, when, upon the name of Mr. Bartlett being called,
Mr. Owen—who, in conjunction with Capt. Besant, an officer on the retired list of the Bengal army, had become ‘sureties for the accused’s appearance—said he was sorry to inform the bench that Mr, Bartlett had that morning been arrested under a civil process, and was at that time on his way to London in the custody of a sheriff’s officer. Mr, Owen added that he had explained the position of his client to the officer and implored him not to leave Epson at any rate before the afternoon. – The officer was, however, inexorable, and had insisted on conveying Mr. Bartlett to town by the eleven o’clock train.
Baron De Tessier: You are bound to render the accused at this place, or in default thereof you must be aware that your recognisances are forfeited. – Mr. Owen admitted that it was so, but hoped under existing circumstances the bench would either go to town and hear the case, or adopt means to obtain possession of the prisoner, of their power to do which there could not be the slightest doubt.
The Baron De Tessier said he thought the proper course for the bench to take would be to lodge a detainer against the accused and apply to the governor of the prison to produce, the accused at Epsom on a future day. Mr Owen having acquiesced, Mr. Borthwick begged: to submit there were two modes of proceeding open to the bench — The one was to bring the prisoner up by habeas corpus, And the other to commit him for trial at once — providing the magistrates were satisfied that a prima facie case had been made out against the accused. He had not the honour of being present at the last examination; but he had understood that it had been attempted to cast aspersions on the character of the complainant, as well as of that of the complainant’s mother. After all, however, his was not a subject for the present investigation. The question was whether or not a case against the accused had been clearly established on the face of the depositions? If the magistrates were of this opinion, he begged to at the ends of justice would be met by committing Mr. Bartlett for trial at once. The adoption of this course would not affect his bail in any way. At the request of Mr. Borthwick, the deposition of the prosecutrix was here read at length. The following is an abstract of the same: –
Maria O’Grady being sworn, said: I am fifteen and a half years of age. The prisoner Bartlett was carrying on some business as a solicitor for my mother in October last, when Mrs. Bartlett offered me a home at her house. I went on the 2nd November. Both Mr. and Mrs. Bartlett were then at home. I went on a Saturday. On the Thursday following Mrs. Bartlett went into Hampshire. Mr. Bartlett was out nearly all that day and came home at eleven o’clock at night. 1 was at that time in the kitchen with a maid who was called Mary. I went to bed shortly afterwards. It was my custom to lock my door at night, and as I missed the key when I got upstairs, I asked the maid if she knew anything about it? She said she did not. I then asked Mr, Bartlett. He said he knew nothing about it and added that it was nonsense for me to inquire about it. The maid slept in a room over mine. I went to bed and fell asleep. Sometime afterwards I was awoke by, finding Mr. Bartlett in bed with me. I struggled hard and cried out. The witness here described that the capital offence was completed before Mr. Bartlett left her room. In continuation, she said that Mr. Bartlett afterwards induced her to go to his own room, where he repeated the offence, in opposition to her wishes. He then gave her the key of her room, and she returned there, and sat up during the remainder of the night. In the morning she complained of what had to the maid, who advised her to go home to her mother. Witness knew her mother could not receive or keep her and did not do so. In about three weeks afterwards Mrs, Bartlett sent witness to Liverpool, as she alleged, to remain under the care of an uncle named Coleman, whom witness at that time believed resided there. On reaching Liverpool witness found that her uncle had been dead some months, and that her aunt was gone to America. Witness remained at Liverpool about three weeks, at the house of Mrs. Jones, No, 3, Hunter Street, but in consequence of an application made by her mother to the mayor and police authorities of that place, she was sent back to town, Witness saw her mother about a week after her return from Liverpool. She did not then tell her what had occurred, but shortly after wrote down a full statement for Mr. Holmes, her mother’s solicitor, and her mother saw it.
On cross-examination, the complainant admitted that she saw her mother on the night of her return from Liverpool; but that in consequence of her violent conduct she did not then tell her what had occurred. She had written to Mr. and Mrs. Bartlett from Liverpool and asked them to obtain her a place. Would not swear that she had not thanked them for their kindness. Her mother came to Mr. Bartlett’s before she went to Liverpool, and after the 6th of November. She was then an hour in the house. About a week after her return from Liverpool, witness accompanied her mother to Epsom, and called at Mr. Bartlett’s. Her mother was not sober. She guessed what had happened and reproached Mrs. Bartlett on the subject. Before that day witness had seen Mr. Bartlett at a confectioner’s shop in Epsom. Did not remember having shaken hands with him. He said on that occasion, “Oh, Maria, 1 did not expect to see you here” At Liverpool, witness once went to a dancing-room, but returned home before eleven o’clock. In conclusion, the witness stated that she was induced to go to Mr. Bartlett’s room by his promise that she should never want. She did not, however, consent to his wishes owing to any promise on his part. What he did was against her will.
The deposition having been read, a short consultation took place between the magistrates, at the close of which Mr. Borthwick said he believed the extreme poverty of the parties, and their inability to procure even decent clothes to appear in before the bench, was the only reason the complaint had not been laid earlier.
After some conversation it was agreed that the proceedings should be adjourned for a week; that in the meantime a detainer should be lodged at Horsemonger-lane Gaol against Mr. Bartlett, and that a formal application for his production before the magistrates at this place should be made to the governor of the prison.
Daily News, 22 Feb. 1849.
SERIOUS CHARGE AGAINST A SOLICITOR AT EPSOM.
Mr. Robert Henry Bartlett, who stands charged vet with having violated Maria O’Grady, was brought up for re-examination yesterday, before the magistrates sitting at Careless’s Coffee-house, Epsom. Mr. Bartlett arrived at Epsom in custody of Mr. Keane, governor of Horsemonger-lane gaol, at an early hour. Mr. Peter Borthwick I appeared as counsel, with Mr. Holmes, of Fenchurch-street, and Mr. Bickley, of Mitre-court, on behalf of the prosecution. Mr. Owens attended for the defence.
The prosecutrix was recalled by Mr. Borthwick, in order hat to explain what she meant by the statement in her deposition to the effect that Mr. Bartlett had induced her to go into his bedroom on the night in question. On being questioned he by the magistrate, she said-” I may say that I did net go the wholly by my own consent; I was taken partly by force, an: augmented by promises. Mr. Bartlett partly dragged me and accompanied it with promises that he would. not repeat the offence, and that while he had anything I should never want.” With regard to the date of the offence, the prosecutrix said she did not persist in swearing that it was on the 6th of November, as stated in her deposition. She now believed it to have been the 19th of October. She repeated that Mr. Bartlett had entered her bed. In reply to Mr. Owens, the prosecutrix said that when no questioned by Mrs. Amor, to whose house she went on her return from Liverpool, as to whether Mr. Bartlett had taken liberties with her, she did not give any answer. She might have described Mrs. Bartlett as very kind to her to Mrs. Amor, but she did not think she had included Mr. Bartlett.
The two women examined on Saturday last were also recalled, and both of them contradicted the evidence given on that day in one important point, viz, as to Emily Hewett’s having slept in Mr. Bartlett’s house on the Thursday night, when the alleged offence was committed. Hewett herself had previously sworn that she did so, and Mary Norris, after first stating that she had not, declared that she had. To-day both women corrected this portion of their evidence and swore that Hewett had only slept at Bartlett’s on the Friday night. This testimony was corroborated by Mr. Harrison, with whom Hewett previously lived, and by her fellow-servant in the same gentleman’s family. In two or three other minor points also the evidence was exceedingly contradictory.
The prosecution having been declared closed, the bench intimated that they had determined to call upon Mr. Bartlett for his defence, and reminded him, at the same time, that anything he might say would be taken down and used against him.
Mr Bartlett – Before I commence, sir, I think it right observe that I cannot help feeling that I labour under great disadvantage in any observations I may make. I am not upon my oath, but I call the Almighty to witness that every word I state shall be literally and strictly true. The first knowledge I had of the prosecutrix occurred from my having seen her at my Office, where she was brought by her mother. She was then in the Epsom union. Her mother stated to me that she was in great distress, and on my mentioning that fact to my wife, she proposed that the prosecutrix should come to our house and stay for a short time. The girl then came to my house to reside, and stayed with us about three or four days, during which time I obtained the situation for her at Mr. Oades’s. After being there a short time Mr. Oades came to me on a Sunday morning, and said that, from her general conduct, he wished to get rid of her, and asked me what he had better do with her. I consulted my wife, and she desired that the girl might return again to our house, until we could procure a situation for her. On the following Tuesday my wife went to London, and in the middle of that day, between the hours of 12 and 2, the close intimacy commenced. At that time there were two to servants in the house. The door of my dining room, where this took place, was open-the door of the kitchen was open, and the servants were in that kitchen. During the whole time she spoke in a whisper, that the servants might not hear. My wife returned to dinner, and the girl took no notice of the transaction. On the Thursday to which she has alluded, I drove my wife to Kingston, on her way to Farehem. On my return from Fareham I met the prosecutrix, and drove her back. When she got into the phaeton she remarked, “I wonder what Mrs. Bartlett would say if she know I came to meet you. Don’t you tell her of it.” On my return from Kingston I went out shooting, and returned with Mr. Charles Wood to dinner at my house about five o’clock. We sat at table until about eight o’clock, end I then went out with him, and did not return again until nearly one o’clock in the morning. Before I left home I told Maria O’Grady that ‘I should not be home until it was late, and that she need not sit up for me. When I returned I inquired if Miss O’Grady was gone to bed, The servant replied that she was, and I went upstairs. When I came into my room Miss O’Grady was lying on my bed. She rose up from the bed, stretched out her arms, threw them around my waist, laid her head on my shoulder, and asked me how I came the to be so late. I told her to take care-that the servants were coming up stairs, and that if she would go into her own room I would come in for her when they were gone to bad. I then partially undressed myself and sat by the fire reading until last they were, as I thought, asleep. After the servants were gone to bed I went into her room. She was only partly undressed.
I told her the servants were gone to bed, took her by the hand to guide her, as it was dark, end she followed me into my own room. She then got into bed, having finished undressing in my bed-room. She remained there until six O’clock the next morning, when she returned into her own room. After she was in bed, I went into my dressing-room and left her in the bed, which was close top the bed-room-door, which door was open , and left open, because the servants should not hear it closed, and she bad abundant opportunity to have gone up-stairs to the servants if she had thought proper. ‘With reference to the servant Hewett sleeping in the house, there can be no doubt in my mind on the subject, because she brought up water to my room when I returned from shooting.
Miss O’Grady shortly afterwards went to Liverpool, having previously gone to, consult Mr. Legge on the subject. On her return she stated that Mr. Legge said he thought it was the best thing she could do. [This is a direct contradiction to the evidence of the prosecutrix, who, in her examination s in chief stated that Mr. Legge had advised her not to go to Liverpool] My wife and myself both offered to take her to her mother, but she said if we sent her there she would run away from her. My wife also wrote to her mother a week, or nearly as long, before we sent her to Liverpool, stating that as she was going there. On hearing from Maria. O’Grady, while at Liverpool, that she could not find her relations, I wrote to Messrs. Harenden and Co., requesting them to pay her expenses back to London, and to send her to her mother. Soon after the return of the prosecutrix from Liverpool I was informed by Mr. Owens that he had received an application from Mr. Holmes to know if he would accept service of a writ against me for the seduction of Miss O’Grady. By Mr. Owens’s advice I subsequently called on Mr. Holmes with Mr. Owens, and it was then suggested – I think I should previously say that then feeling that I had been guilty of a great indiscretion, and being anxious to keep the knowledge of’ the matter from my wife, I suggested, in the presence of Mr. Owens and Mr. Holmes, that, if any small pecuniary consideration would satisfy the parties, I would leave it to Mr. Holmes and Mr. Owens to say what I ought to do, and at Mr. Holmes’s suggestion I left the room, that Mr. Owens and Mr. Holmes might talk the matter ever privately. This negotiation lasted for nearly a fortnight. In the meantime, Mr. Holmes gave Mr. Owens notice that an application would be made here for a warrant against me, on a charge of rape. The date of that notice was the 2nd of January. The negotiation went on until the l1th of the same month, and in the meantime Mr. Holmes, having, as he stated, consulted Mr. Peter Borthwick, demanded of me 700l., to compromise the charge. I heard nothing further of the charge until last Monday fortnight, a when I was taken into custody under a warrant issued by this bench on that day, neither Mr. Owens nor myself having had any notice of the application.
The Chairman. – Well, now you see you are diverging, and making a complaint against the magistrates, What has that to do with whether you are guilty or not of the crime with which you are charged ? I do not like to interfere with a person in your situation, but really you must endeavour to confine your remarks within proper limits.
Mr. Bartlett – The fact is, I have felt that I have been very ill-treated by the magistrates, and, feeling that I think it better to tell you so, in order that I may give you an opportunity of making any explanation you may desire on the subject—
Several parsons in court here expressed their sympathy with the accused by clapping their hands, &c., on which the chairman said, if any exhibition of feeling were allowed to escape, he would immediately order the room to be cleared.
The chairman, in reply to Mr. Bartlett, said that was not the place for the bench to justify their conduct. If they were accused of any dereliction of duty, there was another place where they might properly defend themselves.
Mr. Bartlett continued – I repeat, sir, that, from the beginning to the end of this affair, I have suffered under great hardship, and have been treated in a most cruel and overbearing manner. There are four or five gentleman sitting at that table (here Mr. Bartlett pointed to Mr. P. Borthwick, .Mr. Holmes, and Mr. Bickley) who, with the two women, ‘have been guilty of a conspiracy to extort from me 700l., and I will indict every one of them at the next session of the Central Criminal Court. One of the gentleman was convicted of a conspiracy only a few days ago.
The Chairman (warmly)-1 really cannot allow you, sir, to insult parties in this manner. It is very unfortunate that you should say anything calculated to disturb the calm consideration with which it is os desirable that this case should be investigated.
Mr. Bartlett said he was very sorry if his warmth of temper had carried him too far, He begged, therefore, to apologise to the bench, and bow to their decision. He then a said, my statement may end here, but I most distinctly deny the statement of the prosecutrix, and also of the girl, Emily Hewitt, who says she slept out of my house on the Thursday night. I have made this statement without one moment’s consideration. I was not aware when I came into this room that I should he called upon to make any statement, and I have only stated, so help me God, every word of the truth.
Mr. Borthwick said a statement had been made seriously affecting the character of several Professional Men, which statement would to-morrow be published to the world. He could not permit it to go forth, therefore, without giving it the most peremptory denial and distinct contradiction in alt a its parts.
Mr. Goose said a very serious charge had certainly been made in fact, it was nothing less than this, that while civil negotiations were pending, the threat of a criminal prosecution had been made for the purpose of extorting money.
Mr. Owens. -There is not a doubt about the truth of it.
Mr. Borthwick. – I say it is -a gratuitous invention, and a most foundationless falsehood.
Mr. Bickley. – I declare I never heard of the sum of 700l. before it was just mentioned by Mr. Bartlett.
Mr. Borthwick – Let Mr. Owens prove his charge.
Mr. Owens – We will give you an opportunity of denying it.
Mrs. Gritton, the matron of the Epsom Union-house, was called as the first witness for the defence. She said – Maria O’Grady called on me the day before she went to Liverpool. She said she should not go back to her mother. She cried very much, and said she felt that she was friendless. She said Mrs. Bartlett had written to some of her friends at Liverpool, but had, not received any answer. She said Mrs. Bartlett wished her to go back to her mother, but she herself did not wish to go,
Mr. Owens wished to, pursue this examination, but, Mr. Borthwick objecting, the bench decided that it was irrelevant.
Mr. Owens said the prosecutrix had distinctly stated, in her first deposition, that Mrs. Bartlett had told her that she had received an answer from her friends at Liverpool. This statement was now positively contradicted by Mrs. Gritton. The object of this inquiry was to ascertain the truth, and he was surprised to find himself stopped at every point by these frivolous objections. Throughout the inquiry scarcely any of the questions had been put in a legal manner, notwithstanding which he had, not felt it his duty to object.
Mr. Gosse said there was one important fact which would supersede everything else, in the minds of the bench if it could he proved, and that was, had an attempt been made to extort money under threat of a criminal prosecution?
Mr. Owens.-That is the statement it is for them to answer it.
Mr. Gosse said the allegation without proof would go for nothing. Unless it were supported by proof, the bench would dismiss it altogether from their minds. If proof existed Mr. Owens had it in his own breast – then why not I produce it?
Mr. Owens – I don’t feel justified in committing the gentleman who made the proposition to me.
Mr. Borthwick-I really cannot permit these observations. Let Mr. Owens commit the gentleman he alludes to. If this story about the 700l. were true, why was it not brought forward before ?
Mr. Owens – We have not been called upon for our defence before.
Mr. Goose – The bench requires that this statement should .be first proved, and that at once. You may take your own choice, and support the statement now, or give it up altogether.
Mr. Owens – If Mr. Holmes gives ma permission to do so, I will.
Mr. Borthwith objected. By the same rule a statement might he made, charging three or four gentlemen named with murder, or some other diabolical crime, and then call upon him to prove the case by their own admission. Let Mr. Owens prove his statement by proper and legal evidence.
Mr. Owens-I can’t do it without Mr. Holmes’s consent.
Mr. Borthwick-Then I call upon the bench for the immediate committal of the prisoner.
Mr. Owens said it had been previously arranged by the bench, that, in consequence of the lateness of the hour, an adjournment should take place after Mrs. Gritton’s evidence had been taken. He had five more witnesses to call for the defence, and could not possibly complete his defence that night.
Mr. Gosse said there were several points in the statement made by the accused which required proof. The first thing, it however, was to satisfy the beach on the question of the criminal prosecution following upon the failure of the civil negotiation.
Mr. Borthwick – Precisely. Does Mr. Owens mean to sustain this statement or not ?
Mr Owens – I shall pursue my own course, and it will rest with the bench, when I open my case, to say whether they are satisfied with the defence I shall make.
After a short discussion, the bench decided on remanding the accused back to Horsemonger-Lane Goal, from whence he will be brought up this morning,
The proceeding did not close until nearly eight o’clock.
The Sheffield Independent, 3 March 1849
CHARGE OF RAPE AGAINST A SOLICITOR.
The Magistrates, at Epsom, have been engaged for several days in investigating a charge of rape, by a young woman named O’Grady, against Mr. Bartlett, solicitor, of Epsom. She was of respectable family, but had the misfortune, with her mother, to get into the union workhouse. Mr. and Mr. Bartlett took her into their house. Her charge was, that one night, when Mrs. Bartlett was from home, she awoke, and found Mr. Bartlett in bed with her, and that he committed a rape upon her. For the defence, witnesses were called to make it probable that she had visited Mr. Bartlett’s bed, instead of he having visited hers; and he made a statement to the Bench, admitting criminal connexion with her, but alleging her consent. It appeared that, instead of being 15½ years old, as she said, she was more than 17; and that this prosecution was only instituted on the failure of the prosecutrix and her mother to make Mr. Bartlett pay a large sum, On Thursday, the prisoner was discharged.