THE WORKINGTON MURDER

_____

THE PRISONER BEFORE THE

MAGISTRATES

_____

IMPORTANT PARTICULARS.

PART ONE

On Saturday last, at the Workington Police Court, Maynard James

HARRISON, aged 19 years, was brought up on remand on the charge of having, on or

about the 1st of December last, wilfully murdered Lucy SANDS, at the North-side,

Workington.

Long before the time fixed for the hearing of the case a large crowd had

collected in front of the Police Court, and when the doors were thrown open

the limited space set apart for the convenience of the public was speedily

crowded. A large crowd remained outside. Those who had engagements in

connection with the proceedings, and who were late, experienced the greatest

difficulty - even with the aid of police - in forcing their way through the mass of

people.

Amongst those shut out of the court were many people who had travelled

long distances to be present at the examination. From Maryport alone there

were at least a score of persons doomed to disappointment. It would be rather

difficult, however, to decide as to whether those admitted to the Police- court

or those excluded were the most fortunate. Certainly those who found their

way into the circumscribed space set apart for the accommodation of the

general public would experience very little comfort.

About ten minutes after eleven o'clock the prisoner was brought out of

the lock-up and placed in the dock. Judging from his appearance he might be

taken to be about fourteen years of age; indeed, there are scores of lads about

that age who look older than he does. His weight, we should say, will be

little if more than eight stones, and a person could not, in looking at him,

help feel the appropriateness of Margaret CRANNIE's remarks when she said, in

HARRISON's garden, "Who is afraid of you?" when Lucy SANDS refused to accompany

him to the one end of the garden on the memorable night of 1st of December.

Mr. PAISLEY appeared for the prisoner, and the prosecution was conducted

by Superintendent BIRD. The first witness called was Robert MONCRIEFF, the

stone breaker. His evidence as to the discovery of the body was substantially

the same as that given at the coroner's inquiry, namely: that he was breaking

stones on the North-side road on the 1st of March, when he observed what he

at first took to be a pair of stockings which had been concealed in the heap

by a tramp, but in which he subsequently found what he considered was a pair

of human feet, and in consequence, proceeded to the police station at

Workington and there reported the circumstance, and Inspector DODD and

Police-sergeant PICKARD accompanied him to the stone heap.

On the stones being removed by the witness and the police-constables,

the body of a female, in advanced state of decomposition , was found lying at

full length, and in a straight line, the knees and feet together, and the arms

arranged close by the side. Sergeant PICKARD described the clothing worn by

the deceased, and the arrangements made to remove the corpse to the

Workington Bridge Railway Station, where an external examination was made by Dr.

HIGHET.

The articles of clothing produced consisted of a black gown, a pair of

stays, a pair of navy blue stockings, and some articles of under clothing. The

gown was almost covered with mud, and the marks where the wet, dirty cobbles

had lain were plainly visible. The dress was also much torn, and in several

places it was eaten into holes by vermin.

Sergeant PICKARD added that he observed that the deceased's under

clothing, namely: the skirt, chemise, and drawers were very much disarranged. Near

to where the body was found was a double fence. The fence next to the corpse

consisted of old railway sleepers behind which a person could hide when

secreting the body, in the event of anyone coming along the road. Mr. PAISLEY

cross examined the witness, but elicited nothing particular, except that a pocket

of the dress produced had been torn away.

Sarah STEWART and Esther RAY, the grandmother and aunt of the deceased

and Jane STEWART, a dressmaker, identified the articles of clothing produced

as worn by Lucy SANDS, were next examined.

The date of Lucy SANDS disappearance was then shown to have occurred on

the 1st of December last; for on that date Sarah STEWART assisted Mrs. MANSON

in the cleaning of St. John's Church, and was paid the same evening by Mrs.

MANSON, who received the money from Captain ROBINSON, a churchwarden at St.

John's Church, who produced a book showing the entry. So far the evidence was

conclusive both as to the identity and the day on which the unfortunate girl

disappeared.

Dr. HIGHET was next called to speak as to the cause of death. He was not

sure whether a felonious outrage had been committed on the deceased or not

owing to the advanced state of decomposition, but he had no doubt that the

deceased had come by her death through violence. There was a punctured wound

over the right eye leading down to the bone, and a wound on the right side of

the head two and a half inches long, and extending in an angular direction two

inches downwards. On the neck near the angle of the jaws, there was an

incised wound extending upwards, but it did not penetrate the floor of the mouth.

On the frontal region of the scalp there were indications of violence when the

skull cap was removed. The parts presented a bright red appearance, while

the remainder of the skull was white. The body had been placed under a heap of

stones either after death or when the girl was insensible and rapidly

approaching death. Mr. PAISLEY cross examined Dr. HIGHET at considerable length as

to the incised wounds found on the body of the deceased, evidently with the

intention of showing that they might have been caused by vermin or a bullet

discharged from a pistol. The witness, however, emphatically declared that there

were no internal marks to show that the wound had been caused by anything

except a sharp cutting instrument. The wound by the ear might have been caused

by a blow delivered from behind by a right handed person.

At this stage of the proceedings Superintendent BIRD stated that it was

his intention at the rising of the court to ask for a remand for a week, as

he had just received some very important information bearing on the case which

would require the most careful investigation. Mr. PAISLEY, on behalf of the

prisoner, opposed the application. The Bench expressed an opinion to the

effect that some connection should be shown to exist between the prisoner and the

offence with which he stood charged before the application of Superintendent

BIRD could be considered.

Dr. HOGG corroborated the evidence of Dr. HIGHET with the exception of

the last named gentleman's statement as to the number of teeth. Deceased had

twenty-eight teeth, one of which was just cutting. She had no wisdom teeth cut

at all. After the conclusion of Dr. HOGG's evidence the court adjourned for

half an hour. When the prisoner was leaving the dock he made an attempt to

speak to his father, but was preventing from doing so by the police officer in

attendance.

On the assembling of the court at ten minutes past three o'clock the

examination of the witnesses was again proceeded with; the most important

evidence being that of Henry MAINPRIZE. Up to this point no evidence whatever had

been tendered which in any way went to implicate the prisoner in the

perpetration of the crime laid to his charge.

To be continued...