George Smith & Thomas Duckels: Murder at Goole Grange?
Goole History > Goole People & Families > George Smith & Thomas Duckels
From the Goole & Marshland Gazette, November, 1862:
Death: Oct. 20th, at Goole Grange, aged 59, Mr Thomas Duckels, farm servant.
SAD AFFAIR AT GOOLE GRANGE
October 22 - an inquest was held on the body of Thomas Duckels, who was shot on the 20th by his master George Smith, of Potter Grange, and a verdict of "Manslaughter" returned. He was examined at the Court House on the 21st and 23rd, and on the 25th was committed to Wakefield House of Correction to take his trial for "Wilful murder." At the examination on the 25th, Mr Blanshard, instructed by Messrs Wilson, Goole, was for the prosecution, and Mr Pettingell of Hull for the prisoner, for whom great sympathy is felt in this district.
The following is the principal evidence :-
Sarah Martin deposed:- I am housekeeper to the prisoner. He has
several times been queer in his mind, and Dr Johnstone has attended
him. On Friday, October 17th, he again appeared depressed. He was
in the habit of going out shooting. He went on the 18th. On Sunday,
Dr Johnstone attended him, and he went to bed about nine o'clock.
Thomas Duckels, the deceased, went with him, as he had been in the
habit of sleeping with him ever since I went into Mr Smith's service.
My master was up and down the house most of the night. I heard that
he had in his possession a loaded revolver pistol, and tried to
get it from him, but could not. After a while, Duckels succeeded
and brought it to me and wished me to lock it up. I did so. About
eight o'clock on Monday morning, I took the prisoner his breakfast
to bed, and shortly after he came down and went into the front kitchen.
I went and tried the doors of the room and found them all fast.
I then looked in at one of the windows, and saw him sitting in a
chair. I asked him to open the door, but he refused. I then went
to the deceased, and told him master was locked up in the room.
Deceased went and tried for some time to get him to open the door.
He replied, "I want the revolver which has been taken from
me during the night," and then he said he would open it. Deceased
asked me for the revolver, and said, "I can get in if you will
give it me." At first I refused, but at length fetched it.
The deceased then went to the prisoner and said, "If you will
let me in I will give you it." I went into the scullery where
Charlotte Duckels and Martha England were washing. I had not been
there long before I heard the report of a gun. I returned to the
house, and on my way I met Duckels coming out with his hands on
his side. He said, "Oh dear, oh dear, Mrs!" I assisted
him to the scullery and sent for assistance. The room in which the
prisoner was locked up is the room where he kept his guns and powder.
I do not know whether the gun was loaded when he went into the room
or not. Deceased was an old man and master was very fond of him.
I went into the front kitchen, when Mr Samuel Smith, the prisoner's
brother came in. No other person had been there before us. We saw
the single-barrelled gun, now produced by Sergeant Greenwood. The
ramrod was broken. Part of it was in the gun. I did not see the
prisoner after the shot was fired, until he came home about one
o'clock p.m. with his cousin George, a corn-miller, from Goole.
The deceased died about three o'clock the same afternoon.
John Johnstone, M.D., deposed:- I am in practice in Goole. I was
called in on Sunday, October 19th, to attend the prisoner. I found
him suffering from delirium tremens. I have had to treat the prisoner
on several occasions for the same complaint, and am quite satisfied
that his disease has been brought on by excessive drinking. On Monday,
the 20th, on my way to the prisoner, I met one of his servants,
who told me that the prisoner had shot the deceased. When I arrived
at his house I found deceased laid in the scullery, and bleeding
from a wound in his side. I had him removed at once up-stairs, and,
on examining him, I found a large lacerating wound in his right
side, and part of his bowels protruding. I did all I could to effect
his recovery.
George Smith, cousin of the prisoner, deposed:- Monday, October
20th, about ten o'clock, I was going to Goole Grange, when I met
prisoner coming over Goole Bridge. He seemed to be in great haste.
I asked him where he was going. He replied, "I am going to
give myself up to the police, I have shot a man." I said, "Nothing
of the sort," and walked with him to Doyle Street, to Mr Royston's
public-house. We stayed there some time, and then I told the prisoner
that I was going to his house, and requested him to return with
me. In conversation with me the prisoner said that deceased was
going to take the gun from him and it went off and shot deceased.
Mrs Harriet Royston, wife of Mr R. Royston, publican, Goole, deposed:-
The prisoner entered her house on Monday morning last, in a very
excited state, saying he had shot a man. She tried to calm him,
but he still went on talking "that they had tried to take his
gun from him, and that as he lay in bed he heard them talking below
that if he did not die soon, they would throw him out of the window,
and that when he got down stairs, there were two men walking about
with guns in their hands." He kept saying, "It was a bad
job," and that he did not mean to do it. He was so excited
that she did not believe he knew what he was saying; he got some
breakfast and then went away with his cousin George.
Charlotte Duckels, Martha England, Richard Burkill, son-in-law of
the deceased, and Sergeant Greenwood, were also examined. Deceased
made a deposition before he died, but prisoner's counsel objected
to it being received, and at the close the prisoner was fully committed.
...
From the Goole & Marshland Gazette, January, 1863:
YORK ASSIZES
December 18 - George Smith was charged with the manslaughter of Thomas Duckels, at Goole, on the 20th of October last. Mr Blanshard, in stating the case, said that the prisoner was a respectable farmer at Goole Grange, and farmed about 400 acres of land under the Earl of Beverley. For some time previous to the 20th of October the prisoner had been suffering from delirium tremens, and on the 19th of that month he was so ill that Mr Johnstone, a medical gentleman, was called to attend upon him. He had a revolver, and paced from room to room in his house, and alarmed the inmates. Mrs Martin, the housekeeper, being afraid that he would either injure himself or others, with a laudable discretion, got the revolver from him.
On the 20th of October the prisoner rose from
his bed about eight o'clock in the morning, and what was then uppermost
in his mind was to get possession of the revolver. He went into
the front room and locked himself in. Mrs Martin was alarmed lest
something should happen to the prisoner, and she knocked at the
door, asking for admittance, and the prisoner in reply said that
he would let her in in a moment. In a minute or two afterwards,
the door being still locked, Mrs Martin went outside of the house
and looked in at the window. She saw the prisoner with his head
leaning upon his hand. Mrs Martin again knocked at the door desiring
admittance, and the prisoner answered as before - "I'll let
you in in a moment." Mrs Martin however was not able to gain
admittance into the room, and she therefore sent for the unfortunate
deceased, Thomas Duckels, who was a favourite servant of the prisoner,
believing that he would be able to prevail upon him to open the
door.
Duckels had been in the service of the prisoner
and his family for about thirty years, was a confidential servant,
often slept with the prisoner, and his son-in-law also was foreman
on the prisoner's farm. The deceased was sent for from the steam-house.
He told the prisoner that he had got the revolver, and he was immediately
admitted into the room. The report of fire-arms was heard almost
instantly afterwards, and the deceased was found to have been shot.
He came out of the room holding his arm by his side, and his clothes
were on fire. The deceased was placed in a chair, and he appeared
to be suffering greatly from the injury he had sustained. Mr Johnstone,
surgeon, was sent for, and after seeing the deceased he ordered
the poor man to be removed up-stairs. He was laid upon a mattress,
and it was then discovered that in the front part of the abdomen
there was a wound about the size of a half-crown piece, and the
bowels protruded. Everything was done by Mr Johnstone, that his
professional skill could suggest, but the deceased rapidly sank.
There was no chance of saving his life, and he died at three o'clock
in the afternoon.
Previous to his death, Mr Wells, a magistrate, saw the deceased,
to hear any statement which the unfortunate man might be disposed
to make. At that time the deceased was perfectly aware of his position,
ejaculating, "My God, my Jesus, my Saviour," and other
similar exclamations for a man to utter, who was desirous of making
his peace with God, who he was so soon to meet. After stating that
the deceased's account of the melancholy occurrence was taken down
in writing in the regular way, the learned counsel read the dying
declaration of the deceased, and it was as follows:- "No one
was present. We were by our two selves. I opened the room door.
He pointed the gun at me. I said, don't shoot. He said, I won't,
come in. As soon as I got in he took up the gun. I slipped round
and seized hold of the gun. I struggled with him. He pulled the
trigger. I was standing in front of him with my hands held on the
gun. I cannot say which part. I went into the room because he fastened
himself up. We had tried the doors and found them fast. We were
afraid he was going to do something with himself. That is all I
know. He had been in a queer state of mind all the morning and all
the night. It was George Smith with whom I struggled and who I describe
as being in a queer state of mind."
In a minute or two after the deceased was shot
the prisoner was seen coming out of the kitchen, and was observed
to leave the house. At about a mile distant from his residence the
prisoner was met by his cousin, a person of the same name as himself.
His relative asked him where he was going, and he replied, "To
deliver myself up to the police, I have shot a man." Smith,
not believing this statement, said, "Nonsense," but the
prisoner repeated that he had shot a man, remarking that Duckels
tried to get the gun from him, and it went off accidentally.
These were the whole of the circumstances of the case, and it would
be for the jury to say whether the prisoner pulled the trigger of
the gun and caused the deceased's death, or whether the gun went
off accidentally in the course of a struggle. By the latter view
of the case the prisoner would be entitled to an Acquittal. The
dying declaration of the deceased, however, showed that the prisoner
pointed the gun at him, and pulled the trigger when he was standing
in front of him.
Mrs Martin spoke of the moody state of mind of the prisoner and
entered into detail of the circumstances which took place on the
fatal morning when the deceased was shot. She also said that the
ram-rod of the gun was broken, and that a portion of it still remained
by the side of the barrel. The prisoner went out about nine o'clock,
and was brought back about half-past eleven by his cousin, George
Smith. In cross-examination the witness said that the prisoner was
very much attached to the deceased, and had the greatest respect
for him. The prisoner was fond of sporting, and went out shooting
at times. On the Saturday before the occurrence, he, at her request,
went out to shoot, for she thought in so doing his attention would
be taken up, and his health improved. He returned from shooting
that day, and seemed to be a great deal better.
Mrs Hannah Royston said the prisoner told her he had shot a man.
She did not believe him, and said to him that he only thought so.
The prisoner got his breakfast, and said that the shooting of the
deceased was a very bad job. It was not done wilfully, but happened
accidentally whilst the deceased was trying to take the gun from
him.
Mr George Smith, the cousin of the prisoner, said that he saw him
a little after ten o'clock. He was walking very fast, and told him
he was going to deliver himself up, as he had shot Duckels. He added
that Duckels went into the room to get the gun, and that in a struggle
it went off.
Dr Johnstone, the surgeon who attended upon the deceased, said that
the wound was the size of a florin, and that the bowels protruded.
He sewed up the wound, gave the deceased stimulants, and ordered
that he should be kept quiet. It was a hopeless case, and the deceased
died at three o'clock in the afternoon.
Mr Wells, the committing magistrate, had known the prisoner from
boyhood. He was a quiet
inoffensive man, particularly so.
Mr Seymour then addressed the jury for the prisoner. He said the
real question at issue in this case was whether the prisoner pulled
the trigger with the intention that the gun should be discharged,
and if so, did he pull the trigger in the consciousness that the
deceased would be shot. The learned counsel contended that the deceased
had lost his life accidentally in the course of a struggle with
the prisoner. The dying statement of the deceased ought to be received
with caution, for a man giving testimony whilst suffering the greatest
agony of pain, and being in a restless state and gradually sinking,
was not so likely to give so correct an account as a person who
was calm and collected in the witness box. All the facts proved
that the melancholy affair was the result of an accident. The prisoner
did not take aim, and when requested not to shoot he said he would
not. There was no quarrel between the prisoner and the deceased,
they were upon the best terms possible, and therefore there was
no reason for supposing that Duckels was intentionally shot by the
prisoner. The learned counsel again contended that the gun was discharged
by accident, and called upon the jury to acquit the prisoner, who
was a highly respectable farmer, and not brand him with the infamy
which attached to an adverse verdict.
The learned Judge, in summing up, said if the jury should be of
opinion the prisoner had pulled the trigger intending that the gun
should go off, he would be guilty of an unlawful act, amounting
to manslaughter. If the gun was discharged in the course of a struggle,
the prisoner would be entitled to an acquittal.
The jury retired, and were absent for about a quarter of an hour,
when they found a verdict of Not Guilty.
...
But a month later :-
From the Goole & Marshland Gazette, February 1863:
York, January 7 - Before W. Gray, Esq., Under-Sheriff. -
Townhend v. Smith
A jury were empanelled to assess damages in an action for breach of promise of marriage, wherein judgement had been allowed to go by default. The plaintiff was Harriet Townhend, of Rawcliffe, and was represented by Mr J. Smith, who was instructed by Mr Chester, of Hull. The defendant, George Smith, resided at Goole Grange, and was represented by Mr S. D. Waddy, he being instructed by Mr Hind, of Howden. The damages were laid in the declaration at £500.
Mr Smith stated the case, from which it appeared that the defendant
occupies a large farm near Goole, worth some £700 a year,
and was consequently a man occupying a respectable position in society.
About four or five years since, the plaintiff went to live with
him as housekeeper, and remained in such capacity until January
in last year. During the period mentioned the defendant seemed so
satisfied with the plaintiff's character and disposition, that he
offered her marriage, and the woman being nothing loth, it was arranged
that the ceremony should take place in the November following. It
was, however, postponed until January, 1862, and the 15th was fixed
as the happy day. Cards of invitation were sent out, and every arrangement
made for the celebration of their marriage. They had their likenesses
taken on one plate, and had Miss Townhend become mistress of Goole
Grange, that picture would, no doubt, have served to remind them
of the happy days of their courtship. He might also further add
that the plaintiff was about 31 years of age, and that about nine
years ago, she had a child. The existence of this offspring no doubt
the defendant must have been aware of for it had been frequently
at his house, and he had taken great notice of it, presenting it
with books and toys. With regard to the amount of damages, the learned
counsel said that the defendant resided on a farm worth about £700
a year, had a large quantity of arable land, about 40 horses, and
a number of head of stock, besides other farm requisites, together
with which he was worth some £7000 or £8000. Therefore
the plaintiff had no doubt lost a great deal in not becoming the
wife of a man in his position. The promise had not been given under
any circumstances of romance, where pledges of love are given, and
rings broken, the parties afterwards rueing, but one where the parties
had arrived at a mature age, with a full knowledge of the world,
and therefore the defendant ought not to feel surprised if he had
to pay substantial damages for what he had done.
Joseph Townhend was the first and only witness called for the plaintiff.
He said he was brother to the latter and resided at Rawcliffe, being
a tinner and brazier at that place. He knew the defendant at the
time the plaintiff lived there as housekeeper, and at the time the
arrangements for the marriage were in progress. He remembered a
conversation with Smith who was talking something about a marriage
license. The marriage was to have taken place on the 15th or 16th
of last January [1862], but the defendant fell ill. Witness
believed that the defendant had some money in the bank; and he (defendant)
had told witness that if he were to leave his farm he would be worth
£7000 or £8000.
Cross-examined by Mr Waddy:- I don't know where the defendant is
living. He was tried for murder at the last Winter Gaol Delivery.
Since that time I have heard that he has gone back to live at Goole
Grange. He was charged with shooting his servant man. I never knew
at that time, that he was out of his mind. I did hear that the man
he shot had to sleep with him, and that since my sister left he
drunk heavy and was obliged to have this man to stay with him. My
sister never drunk heavy, neither did I, nor is it true that I and
Smith have been drunk together at his house many times. My sister
left in January 1862 and at that time the defendant had not been
confined to his bed. I did not know that his illness was delirium
tremens, but I did know that he wandered in his mind. My sister
lived with Mr Cass some years
ago, but I did not know that she was in the family way when she
left, nor did I know that she had a baby within nine months after
the time of her leaving. I saw her after she left Mr Cass's and
she then had a baby, which I expect was hers, but I was not there
when it was born (laughter). She live with a Mr Garlick, but I do
not know that she was turned away through intriguing with a servant
man. I do not know that there was a man at Mr Cass's of the name
of Smith, and I don't know that my sister passed by that name when
she left that service. I do not know that the letters now produced
are my sister's handwriting. On that subject my mind is a perfect
blank (laughter). I had a sister living in Heriot Place, Waverley
Street, Hull. I do not know that my sister (the plaintiff) lodged
there, and passed as the wife of a person named Smith.
Mr Waddy briefly addressed the jury for the defendant, contending
that in this case very light damages would suffice, for it was not
one of those cases wherein appeared a seductive young lady and injured
innocence. He denied that the defendant was a man of wealth, and
complained of the way in which the case for the plaintiff had been
got up, no witness of credibility being produced to speak to the
extent of the defendant's property. He also contended that the plaintiff
had lost nothing by the breach of promise, but had rather gained,
for if the marriage had taken place she would have been liable to
have been tried for bigamy, for she was believed to be the wife
of the man to whom she had had the child. With regard to the promise,
he believed the plaintiff had practised upon the defendant and wheedled
out of him the promise of matrimony, which fact seemed to be proved
when the defendant's brother turned her out of the house when Mr
George Smith (defendant) was taken ill.
Harriet Herries, the wife of a butcher residing at Beal, near Knottingley,
deposed that she lived as servant with Mr W. E. Cass at the same
time as the plaintiff. The servant man, William Smith (before alluded
to), was witness's brother. She remembered the plaintiff being with
child to Smith, and on the faith that they were married, witness
lent plaintiff some money to furnish a house. At that time plaintiff
wore a wedding ring on her finger. Witness's brother was in America,
and she believed was alive. Several letters were now put in, signed
by the plaintiff in the name of Harriet Smith, which this witness
proved were in her (plaintiff's) handwriting, and were written at
the time she was lodging in Hull, soon after leaving Mr Cass's.
Mr Smith made a few observations in reply, and the learned Under-Sheriff
also briefly reviewed the whole of the case, when the jury retired,
and were absent about half an hour. When they returned they gave
a verdict for the plaintiff, damages £100.