Jacky S - Suburban Souls, Book II

The Rev. T. Churchyard, vicar of Cleasby, stated that the first witness came to him at seven o'clock last Monday evening, and wanted to bury a “still-born child.” Witness asked her a few questions, as he had heard rumors in the village about the girl's father's conduct with her. He communicated with Dr. Johnson, of Darlington, who had attended the family, but he was from home. In the meantime he communicated with the guardian for the village, stating that he could not bury the child, and asked what he was to do. The guardian communicated with the police.

Dr. Walker, of Aldbrough, spoke to having seen the bodies that morning; but they were in such a decomposed state that he could not tell whether they had been born dead or alive.

After Jennie Stott, aged fourteen, had stated that she did not know the children were buried in the garden.

The jury expressed a desire to hear what the father had to say.

A police constable having requisitioned him, he replied, in answer to the coroner, that he “knew nothing about 'em, but he was blamed for being the father of the children.” Continuing, he said he first heard of it between ten and twelve o'clock on the day they were born. Martha, the deceased daughter, told him that Maggie was confined, and she said there were two children, both dead. He saw them the same morning, when they were put in a box in the bedroom where the daughter was. He next saw them in an outhouse three days afterwards, and in a callous, laughing manner, he exclaimed that he “took a look after them to see that the cats didn't get at them.” They were taken through the garden into the house. He had nothing to do with them, and they were never buried by anyone. He certainly never saw anyone bury them. Again assuming a laughing air, he said: “I took blame for them myself; they might be mine. I am blamed for it, but don't know.”

The Coroner, intervening, said he was not asking the witness what he was blamed for. He was a disgrace, and a good horsewhipping about his back would do him good. (Witness laughingly assented.) You are a disgrace to be their father, and your conduct here today is a disgrace also. I have done with you, you can go.

As the witness seemed in no hurry to go, he was removed from the court, the Coroner observing that the man had become such a sinner that he did not know what sin was.

The Foreman observed that it was generally understood in the village that all the children belonged to the old man.

The Coroner: For over forty years I have fulfilled the duties of coroner over this district, and during that time I have had many singular and serious cases in hand, but never during the whole course of my career have I heard of one to be compared with the rascality of that old villain. It is a wonder that the old women in the village did not take him and put him in the water. He added that he had intended to send a memorial to the Home Office on the subject, and it would be advisable for the jury to back him up. The old man was not worth talking to. He was nothing but a brute, and it was strange that in this country a man could seduce his own children without being punished, and there was no means of getting at him. A law for such offences did exist about 1650, but it had been repealed. He would write to the Home Secretary on the subject.

A verdict was then returned in accordance with the medical evidence to the effect that there was nothing to show whether the children had had a separate existence or not.

Subsequently the old man was brought back and severely lectured by the Coroner, who told him that in the whole course of his career he had never met with a bigger brute, or a more thorough old rascal. If the old women had tossed him into the Tees they would only have done their duty. (Applause.)

The Illustrated Police Budget,

London, August 26, 1899.

Appendix Q

INFAMOUS ACTS.

LA FERTÉ.-Recently we announced the arrest and condemnation of a young girl of fifteen, named Vial, living in the hamlet of Courcelles, charged with indecent exposure. It will be remembered that this girl had shown herself in a complete state of nudity.

The gendarmes, continuing their enquiry, have found against the girl Vial facts of such gravity and of such odious obscenity that we cannot give the details here.

The girl Vial and one of her friends, Jeanne Mahé, used two children nine years old to satisfy their mad passions; they had Lesbian habits, and the evidence of Louis Gabriel Vial and his sister Alice is frightful.

Gabriel Vial is own brother to the condemned girl!

Journal de Seine-et-Marne, September 14, 1899.

Appendix R

Monsieur Coudol has had a lucky escape! Monsieur Coudol, from Nantes, is fifty-six. In 1885, he got legitimately mated, but, inconstant and changeable, he soon abandoned his wife, who obtained a separation.

Monsieur Coudol then came to Paris. He was employed at the Montagnes Russes, then at the Moulin Rouge. Monsieur Coudol likes gaiety.

In this latter establishment lived a female dresser. Pretty? History is dumb on that point. Young? Still blooming, albeit she had a daughter of nineteen.

Monsieur Coudol fell in love with the dresser, madly in love. And when he leant that the young girl had no father, he offered to legitimize her by marrying her mamma.

The household lived peaceably.

Nevertheless, one fine day, the dresser got tired. Her husband had become insupportable. And did she not engage her affections elsewhere too? But what pretext could be invented to obtain a fine divorce?

Allow me to draw a gauzy veil.

The dresser confided her wish to her daughter.

The daughter made it her duty to help her mother. Together, they organized the indispensable little flagrant délit. The legitimized girl consented to play the principal part.

Monsieur Coudol fell into the trap. Two coachmen, taken as witnesses, bore testimony to the affair.

A demand for divorce was registered by Madame Coudol, of Paris, and during the suit the discovery of Madame Coudol, of Nantes, was made.

The bigamist of the Moulin Rouge has just been tried. But he pleaded with such good faith his ignorance of the difference that exists between separation and divorce that he benefited by a verdict of acquittal.

He won't be caught again!

Le Figaro, Paris, October 21, 1899.

Appendix S

“As for the adventure of Mademoiselle Rosine, of whom I spoke to you and which I got from being intimate with Victoire, it is far from being funny. Imagine that she is the daughter of a very rich jeweler. Naturally, we do not know the name, nor even in which quarter is the shop.

“She is just turned eighteen, and the father is a man of forty-four. I tell you the age, you shall see why by and bye. Well, then, the jeweler's wife dies and do you know how he arranged matters to replace her? Two months after the burial, one fine night, he goes and seeks his daughter Rosine. He quietly sleeps with her. That's a bit thick anyhow, isn't it? Such goings on are not uncommon among poor people, I know more than one at Grenelle who has been through the same thing, but among middle-class folks who have got money enough to treat themselves to all the women they want! And what sticks in my gizzard more than anything is not that the fathers ask for it, but that the daughters consent to it.

“Now Mademoiselle is so sweet, so amiable, that doubtless she did not wish to let her Papa suffer. Never mind, here they are both nicely trapped. They have placed her here as if in a prison. Nobody comes to see her, and you may well think that orders are given to juggle the child away. A fine bastard who will be able to show off in society!”

Fécondité, by Emile Zola, Paris,

Fasquelle, 1899, 12 mo. (P. 181).