CONSTANCE KENTS STATEMENT IN OCTOBER, 1860.

Hawke's Bay Times, Volume 6, Issue 294, 3 August 1865, Page 3

CONSTANCE KENTS STATEMENT IN OCTOBER, 1860.

[Prom the Eastern Weekly News, May 13. j The interest attaching to any facts connected with the extraordinary crime feu; which Constance Kent is committed for trial will fully Justify a reproduction of her evidence at the examination of the case as against Elizabeth Gough in 1860. It may be remembered that the murder was committed on the night of Friday 29th June in that year, and that the inquest was begun and ended on Monday the 2nd July. Miss Constance Kent was apprehended on Friday, the 20th July, taken before the magistrates at Trowbridge, remanded for a week, and discharged on her father entering into a surety for £2OO to produce her again when required. On that occasion Elizabeth Gough, the nursemaid, appeared in the witness-box against her. On Saturday, the 11th August, a than named Edmund John Gagg confessed to having been the murderer, but after an investigation extending over several days the wild improbability of his ■story was sufficiently conclusive as to ensure his telease from custody. The case was next raken up with a view to establishing the charge against Elizabeth Gough, who was arrested ou Friday, the 30th September, and brought to Trowbridge. The proceedings continued during four days, and ended in her discharge on her giving aecurity for £IOO to come up again should it be .necessary. The situations of the nursemaid and Miss Kent were then reversed, the latter being the witness and the former the prisoner. On the morning of Saturday, the 3rd November, Mr I. B. Saunders, a Chancery barrister and magis-

trate for Wilts, opened what may truly be called an extraordinary inquiry, which lasted many days, and ended in leaving the chances of discovering the murder much the same as they were previously. Nearly four years and a half now passed away before the case was again heard of with a view to bringing the criminal to justice. This was on Tuesday, the 25th of April last, when Mks Kent voluntarily surrendered herself at the Bow-street police-court. On the following day she was taken before the magistrates at Trowbridge, and remanded to Thursday, the 4th May, when she was committed for trial. Again were the respective positions of Miss Kent and Miss Gough reversed, for this was the second time that the nurse was called in evidence against the young lady who when last they stood in the Town Hall at Trowbridge had been produced to maintain the indictment against herself. The testimony of Miss Constance Kent at the examination of Elizabeth Gough is reproduced from the Western Morning News of October 3rd, 1860. It was given on the second day of the enquiry—Tuesday, October 2nd. Mr T. W. Saunders, of the Western Circuit, appeared for the Crown, and Mr Ribton, of London, for the accused. The evidence of several witnesses having been taken—

Constance Emily Kent, the .bird daughter of Mr Kent, was then sworn, and being examined by Mr Saunders, deposed: On Friday the 29:h June last, I was at home, and had been at homo about a fortnight. I had previously been at a boarding-school at Beekington. The little boy who was murdered was also at home. I last saw him in the evening, when he went to bed. He was a merry, good-tempered boy, fond of romping. I was accustomed to play with him, and had done so that day. He appeared to be fond of me, and I was fond of him. I went to bed about half-past ten in a room between my sister’s and that of the two servants. I went to bed at once. I remember my sister Elizabeth coming to my room. I was nearly asleep when I went to bed, and soon fell soundly asleep. I next awoke at half-past six in the morning. I didn’t wake up during the night, aud of course heard nothing to disturb me. I got up when I awoke at half-past six, and soon after I heard of my brother being missing. “Mr Saunders: I wish to ask you some questions about your night-dress. You slept in a night-dress, I suppose ? Witness; Yes.—Q. : How many nights did you sleep with that night-dress—-when did you put it on ?—A. :On the Sunday or Monday night.—Q.; How long was it usual for you to wear the same night-dress ?—A.: For a week.—Q.: On what day of the week did you usually change it? —A.: On Sunday or Monday. —Q.: When you got up on Saturday, what did you do with your night-dress?—A.; I think I took it oft’ and put it on my bed.—Q.; I understand that that was the same night-dress that you had previously worn all the week ?—A.; It was. —Q.: Who usually makes your bod ?—A.: Either the cook or Cox.—Q.: Then the night-dress was there when they made the bed ?—A.: Yes.—Q. : Where did you sleep on the night of Saturday the 30th ?—A.: With rny sister.—Q. : Which sister? —A.: With my sister Mary Ann Kent.—Q.; Can you explain why that change was made ?—A. : 1 think my sister Elizabeth slept with mamma, aud papa stayed up.—Q.: And it was to keep each other company, was it, that you changed?—A.: Yes.—Q. ; Did any one sleep in your bed that night?—A.: 1 don't know that any one did.—Q. : In what night-dress did you sleep on Saturday night?—A. ;In the same one that 1 wore the night before.—Q.: When you got up that morning what did you do with your night-dress ?—A.: I don't know ; but I believe I left it in my own room.— Q.: That would be Sunday morning ?—A.: Yes. —Q.: Where did you sleep on Sunday night?— A.: In my own room.—Q.: Then the parties had resumed their own beds on the Sunday ?—A. :Yes. —Q. : What night-dress did you wear on Sunday night ?—A.: I am not certain whether I put on a clean one that night or on the Monday night.—Q. : I suppose as you put on a clean night-dress every week, one would go to the wash eveiy week ?—A. Yes.—Q..: Who put out the night-dress?—A.: I did. It was on the stairs, as I always do.—Q.: When would the dirty linen be collected ?—A. : On the Monday morning.—Q. : Whose duty was it to collect it?—A. : The housemaid, Cox’s.—Q.: In the usual course would she have to collect your night-dress ?—A.; Yes.—Q.: I believe it was said that one of your night-dresses has been missing ? A,: Yes.—Q.: Do you know what has become of it ?—A.: No I do not. —Q.: I believe you told us you had three night-dresses?—Yes. <l Mr Ribton (to witness): Did you hear anything of the nursery blanket that morning ? Witness : I did, from nurse —Q.; When did she tell you ?—A.: 1 don’t remember whether it was after the child was found or before. I heard the prisoner go to her mistress’s door, and ask if they had the boy. I heard talking outside my door, and I came to hear what it was. “ Cross-examined by Mr Saunders : My door is quite close to my sister’s bedroom. I don’t know what I was doing near the door.”

On Thursday evening, after the court was cleared, the greatest excitement prevailed amongst the assembled crowd to catch a parting glimpse of the prisoner, who throughout the whole of the thrilling proceedings of the day had sat apparently the most unmoved in the court. She was conveyed from the court to a waiting-room, where she appeared perfectly calm and cheerful, and acted as though her mind was relieved of some great weight. She then had an interview with her father and Mr Rodway, the family solicitor. She was taken in ■ a fly, accompanied by Mrs Alexander, the matron, to Devizes Gaol. Miss Graem, the lady superior, was an object of as much marked attention as the self-accused, she being followed by a numerous assemblage to the railway station. Elizabeth Gough, the nursemaid, also was made a mark of observation, but being accommodated for the night at the Woolpack Inn, she was enabled to depart in the morning without experiencing the discomfort of the previous evening. The circumstance of the night-dress, which was an important link in the chain of evidence, is now cleared up. Miss Constance Kent, in the presence of Mr Bodway, the solicitor to the family

asserted to her father that she had obtained possession of the night-dress and burned it in her bedroom. When her father went to see her at the goal she was writing, but on his entrance she rose and met him kindly, but afterwards burst into tears. She was sinking, but her father caught her in his arms. She also stated that the wound in the side of the deceased child was inflicted by her with her father’s razor, and in thrusting the deadly weapon into the body she endeavoured to implant it in the heart. The interview was of a most painful character, Constance being more self-composed than her father. On parting she embraced him and persisted that the course she had adopted was due to him and her God. She will remain under the care of Mr Alexander, the governor of Devizes Gaol, until the mouth of July next, when she will take her trial at the forthcoming assizes.

A letter from ‘Trowbridge has the following with respect to the finding of the blood-stained night-dress:— ’ “ When the murder was consummated the circulation was to languid for the arteries to spurt, but blood still flowed iu sufficient quantity to stain her night-dress considerably. Her first subsequent act must have been to hide this evidence of guilt and on the afternoon of the same day Sergeant Watts finds a bloody garment belonging to some one. Then followed the remarkable stratagem of the prisoner, who, of course, was unaware that the discovery had been made, but who suspected that inquiries would be instituted as to the nightdresses belonging to the family. By regaining possession of the night-dress which had just been booked for the wash she would have two, and the washerwoman would be held responsible for the loss of the third. In one point her calculation failed her. It was clearly apparent, said Joshua Parsons, that the night-dress which Constance Kent represented she had worn throughout the week had all the freshness and starchiness of ono which had only just been taken for use. To quote his own words, it was ‘ extremely clean.’ This, however, was by no means direct evidence of her complicity, though now in conjunction with other circumstances, it seems an important fact. Sergeant Watts swears that he gave the blood-stained garment to Mr Superintendent Foley, but what that officer did with it can only be conjectured. Those best competent to judge of his act believe that be laid a claim by which to trap the owner of this garment, a>'d that it only failed through either his or his subordinates’ being outwitted by a more cunning hand. It was easy to suppose that this bloody garment had been hastily thrust into the fire-hole at a period during the particular Friday night, for there had been a fire there on the Friday, when, of course, too parcel could not have remained stuffed in the hole. The murderer was actively employed in hiding the traces of the crime, and also in so arranging the shutters a l * to make believe that the house had been entered and the child stolen. For the closet in which the body was discovered was not much used, and the person who deposited the corpse there doubtless thought it would have passed down, and not remained in the upper part of the vault. It is true there were marks of blood in the closet j but if the child’s throat was cut somewhere else—and there is no evidence to prove that it was not, but rather to the contrary—the criminal might have thought the body would thus have been cast away, leaving no traces. Mr Foley then, no doubt, considered that the bloody garment had been hastily deposited in the fire-hole, it would be taken away from a spot where it was certain to be discovered sooner or later. Nothing, therefore, was simpler than to put the garment in the fire-hole again, and watch for the person who fetched it. Did Constance Kent, by one of her ingenious manoeuvres, so watch her opporwere either not minding their duty, or too stupid to tunity that she got it when those there to detect execute it, did not observe her? If such was not the case, what became of it? - Sergeant Watts, who found it in the first instance, and ought to know its other history, says, “ I never knew what became of it.” One circumstance the local police have now been obliged to acknowledge : that, for some reason nr other, they kept the finding of this night dress a profound secret.