Accused of Being JTR After Death

THE MURDER OF A LIVERPOOL MERCHANT.
TRIAL OF CATHERINE KEMPSHALL.
SENTENCE OF DEATH.
(FROM OUR OWN REPORTER.)

Few murder trials in this part of the country have aroused greater interest than that which took place yesterday at Liverpool Assizes before Mr. Justice Collins. Catherine Kempshall, described in the calendar as of no occupation and thirty-two years of age, was indicted for the murder, on the 29th October last, of Edgar Swinton Holland. The sensational nature of the crime - the accused having shot her victim with a revolver in his own office - brought many would-be spectators of the trial early about the doors of St. George's Hall. The Crown Court is, however, not large, and the police exercised a severe discretion in regard to those whom they admitted. When the time for opening the case arrived, the greater number of the people in court were women. The prisoner, when she was called upon, came briskly up the steps leading to the dock. Here, at first, she was left standing for a little while, but afterwards was accommodated with a seat. She seemed of more than average height, had a pale complexion, and black hair, with a somewhat decided though not large cast of features. A dark dress, short black cloak, and white straw hat, rimmed round with a black band, formed her modest costume, and a black "fall" was drawn over her face. Persistently stared at all day, the prisoner herself appeared to ignore entirely all who were not engaged in the case. She followed every statement, whether of counsel or witness, with close attention. At the outset she surprised the court by enacting a dramatic little scene. Counsel for the prosecution were Mr. Pickford, Q.C., and Mr. Horridge, and Mr. Madden and Mr. Walter Russell were for the defence.
The Clerk of Assize (Sir Herbert Stephen) read the indictment, and the prisoner, being called upon to plead, walked to the front of the dock, and, clutching the rails, said, very distinctly and in a self-possessed manner, "I am not guilty." Then she broke out volubly into a statement which her counsel vainly tried to dissuade her from making. She said that counsel who represented her in the civil court ought to have protected her. It was a case of conspiracy, and she could prove it. The judge in the case ought not to have rejected evidence improperly. Amid some excitement, she continued:

"Sir Edward Clarke, my counsel, ought to be here, and not me. They conspired to defeat the ends of justice, and if it were not for them I should not be here." The prisoner's counsel here again endeavoured to interpose, but the prisoner went on very animatedly: "It is my only chance to speak. I did not kill him. He rushed at me to take the revolver away, and it went off in the struggle. Alsop is a liar, and it would not be his profession if he wasn't. That is my experience, and I speak of things as I find them." The prisoner was then asked to object to any of the jury she might wish as they were called to be sworn, and she exclaimed, "I don't know them." For some little time she continued to make remarks in an undertone, but when she became calmer Mr. Madden had a conversation with her, which appeared to have a soothing effect. She did not again markedly interrupt till, at a late stage in the hearing, her sister was called.
Mr. Pickford opened the case for the prosecution in a somewhat long speech. Counsel having asked the jury to disregard anything they might have heard or read of the case, narrated the circumstances which led to the crime. There could be no doubt, he admitted, that the relations that existed for some years between the deceased man and the prisoner were immoral. The accused lived in London; he was living in Liverpool. Holland visited her in London, and they went to different places together. He paid the prisoner a stated sum per week, and also gave her other sums of money. Counsel called attention to the fact that this could not be called a case of seduction. It was not one in which a young and virtuous girl had been led to an immoral life, because the prisoner had admitted in the hearing of a previous action that when she met Mr. Holland she was leading an immoral life. He went on to say that Mr. Holland was willing to make provision for the prisoner when he wished to terminate their acquaintance. The prisoner here interjected, "Why didn't he do it?" Without noticing the interruption, counsel went on to trace the events which preceded the crime, going first to the breach of promise action brought by the prisoner against the deceased at the beginning of January, 1895, when the case was settled by agreement between counsel on both sides. The prisoner, as he showed, was dissatisfied with the settlement made, and he called attention to a statement made to Mr. Holland's housekeeper by the prisoner, "Do you know these things lead to murder?" and in which she also said Mr. Holland had better beware. She sat in a room of Mr. Holland's house all night, refusing to go away, and further said that if Mr. Holland would not do what she wished him to do she would have to bring a revolver. In July, 1895, the prisoner's second action against the deceased came on, when she conducted her own case, and the jury found for the defendant, saying there was no promise of marriage and no cause of action. After that there were other interviews, and other propositions made as to making provision for the prisoner, but to none of them would she consent. In August, 1896, the prisoner saw the deceased's housekeeper again, and in October of last year she came once more and practically laid siege to Mr. Holland's house. She wrote a number of letters. The prisoner's visit to a woman whom she told she wished to take a shop was detailed. She told this woman that she wanted a place which she could leave during certain hours to torment a gentleman in Water-street. She went on to talk of the deceased, and said to the woman, "I will shoot him like a dog." The woman replied that she must not talk of doing that in England. Thereupon the prisoner said she would follow him to France on his holidays, and shoot him, as a judge and jury there would acquit her. The letters which were written by the prisoner were read by the counsel, and contained much violent and abusive language. Counsel called the attention of the jury to the fact that while these showed a violent and unrestrained temper, they did not show any want on the prisoner's part of appreciation of what was right and wrong. He then came to the day when the fatal interview took place. An appointment, he said, was made for four o'clock on the 29th October, when the prisoner came to see Mr. Holland in the presence of Mr. Alsop, a solicitor, who was a friend of the deceased. The scene which occurred Mr. Pickford sketched very briefly. In the course of the interview Mr. Holland said, "You have no moral or legal claim upon me. You know I never wronged you, and I have always treated you kindly." The prisoner replied, "You lie, you beast," and then she fired four shots from a revolver. One struck Mr. Holland in the chest, one in the thigh, and one in the hand." This happened before Mr. Alsop could stop her, but he then seized her and pinned her hands. It was then found that the prisoner had also a dagger in her hand. Mr. Holland was badly injured, and was taken to the Northern Hospital, where he lingered till the 11th November. He died from the effects of the shot received in the chest. In concluding his address Mr. Pickford intimated that the substantial and serious question for the jury would be whether the prisoner was guilty or not guilty. He mentioned that the Director of Public Prosecutions had had the prisoner examined by two doctors, who had reported upon her state of mind. He considered it, however, no part of his duty to call these gentlemen on behalf of the prosecution, though he had secured their attendance.
Evidence was then called.
The first witness was Mr. Walter Holland, a brother of the deceased, who had offices in the same building in Water-street. He spoke to being called to his brother's office on the 29th October, and being told that the prisoner had shot his brother. The latter told him to take the prisoner away, as "he could not bear the sight of her." Witness had never seen the prisoner before. He had his brother conveyed to the hospital, and was with him when he died.
James Cox Alsop, the principal witness as to fact, then gave evidence. He described the prisoner's visit to Mr. Holland's office. Mr. Holland motioned to the prisoner to sit down when she came in, but she remained standing. Mr. Holland said to her, "Although you have no legal or moral claim upon me, I am going to make a provision for you, but it will be under certain conditions. Those conditions will be settled between your solicitors and mine. My solicitors, who know all the details of the case, are in London. You had better go to London to see your solicitors. I will instruct my solicitors, and will go up at the end of the week so as to be on the spot." The prisoner said, "I want no solicitor. All solicitors are rogues. I want you to pay me. You promised to marry me, and to leave me all your property to compensate me for all my losses, for all the wrongs you have done me." That was not all she said, but she spoke very rapidly, and witness could not remember all. Mr. Holland was indignant. He said, "I never promised you marriage; I never wronged you; I have always treated you with kindness." At that moment the prisoner drew a revolver from under her cloak, held it out, and fired straight at Mr. Holland's breast. She fired four shots in quick succession. He (witness) ran round the table and prevented the prisoner from firing a fifth shot by knocking her arm down, and he then seized her. Mr. Holland rose slowly, and came up, and also put his hand on her shoulder. A policeman was summoned, and the prisoner was given into custody. She then said, "Oh, I won't run away." Mr. Holland said that he thought the prisoner had shot him in the heart. He was conveyed to the hospital.
In cross-examination the witness said he knew the prisoner had written foul letters to the deceased and his sister at different times. He also knew she had indulged in abusive language about solicitors. It was after Mr. Holland mentioned solicitors that she fired the shots. When he seized her she struggled very little.
Mr. Madden: The prisoner was smiling and laughing?
Witness: Yes; she seemed very pleased.
Further cross-examined, Mr. Alsop would not say the conduct of the prisoner gave him the impression that she was a maniac. She certainly seemed pleased.
John Samuel Moore, managing clerk to the late Mr. Holland, said he heard shots fired on the day in question in Mr. Holland's office. He went in and took a pistol from the prisoner's right hand. Mr. Alsop was then holding her. Witness saw that Mr. Holland was wounded, and sent for the ambulance. A policeman was also sent for, and the prisoner was given in charge.
In cross-examination, the witness said the prisoner had previously called at the office. She had talked a good deal about solicitors. She had also said something about losing her voice while she had been "waiting for Mr. Holland."

Police Constable Albert Barnes proved the arrest of the prisoner and the finding at her lodgings of the box of cartridges produced and other articles. He said when he was summoned to Mr. Holland's office the prisoner had the dagger produced in her hand. It was sheathed. Mr. Alsop gave the woman in charge. When witness afterwards charged the prisoner, after the usual caution she said she would reserve what she had to say.
Medical evidence was called to prove that the deceased had suffered injury to the left lung. An operation was considered necessary, and was performed for the removal of the bullet, and was successful. Mr. Holland went on well for some time, but congestion of the right lung ensued, and he died on the 11th November.
Maud Park, daughter of the landlady where the prisoner lodged in Irvine-street, Liverpool, also gave evidence. In answer to the prisoner's counsel, she said the prisoner talked about being swindled by solicitors, and her grievance seemed to be "always preying on her mind."
Elizabeth Butterworth, wife of Edward Butterworth, wardrobe dealer, Mill-street, deposed to a conversation with the prisoner, in which the latter said that a gentleman in Water-street had defrauded her out of 20,000 pounds. She said he had offered her 2,000 pounds and she had refused it. She said also "she would shoot him like a dog." When witness said she must not do that in England the prisoner said she would follow him when he went on his holidays to Germany or the Continent, and shoot him there, as, the prisoner added, "the judge and jury will acquit me, and, in fact, praise me for my bravery."
Cross-examined: The prisoner was at this time very excited.
Further evidence was given as to letters found on the prisoner, and as to the actions which she brought against the deceased in London, and the result. The managing clerk to the prisoner's London solicitors said the prisoner assaulted him, and used strong language, and for the assault she was bound over to be of good behaviour.
A female warder proved receiving a letter from the prisoner to post after her arrest. It was addressed to the prisoner's sister, and was read by the Clerk of Assizes as follows: - "I came her to see Holland about the settlement that he arranged the last time I was here. The other day he wrote telling me I had no claim on him, and whatever he gave me would be an act of kindness, and on conditions, and those conditions are that, I give up all papers and letters, and doing this means that I am to commit perjury or I must have nothing. The other time I was here Holland said I could kill him. I went to Holland's office today and told him I should not commit perjury. The thought of his vileness came before me, and I remonstrated, his heartlessness in cheating me, and then having bribes offered to defeat the ends of justice and the cruel lies he told about me. I said, "How dare you offer bribes to people, and don't you dare to tell me I have no claim. You know I have spoken the truth, you villain, so now you are going to try and make me commit perjury;" and with that I shot him in the legs. Don't grieve about me, dear, and keep it from mother if possible. I hope sincerely that I have injured him for his cruel treatment to you, others, and me. What an unjust thing it seems he should escape justice and that other poor unfortunate people should suffer, if they are innocent, to fall victims to his prey. I have spoken the truth. I want no more of his traps. I have suffered enough. Oh, the thoughts of his horribleness are terrifying. I wish I had never met the vile creature, but it is too late now. Perhaps it was to be; try and think so. If justice could be it would punish those conspiring lawyers, although I am afraid I must not look for any justice in this world. However, the villain is suffering now for the lies and evil, wicked things to destroy some of God's best creatures, and through no cause whatever. He never intended to pay what he agreed, and premeditated my destruction, and anybody else's, so long as he could shift out of his undertaking.
- With love and best wishes, Kitty."
The evidence of Miss C. Matthews, who was for 15 years housekeeper to Mr. Holland, had been taken on commission, and medical evidence was tendered to show that she was in a state of extreme nervous prostration, and unable to attend. The evidence which was read bore out the statement made by counsel in opening the case as to the threats that "these things led to murder," and that she (the prisoner) would bring a revolver.
This closed the case for the prosecution.

Mr. Madden said the defence was that which had its origin from the moment that the prisoner was in the hands of the police. Immediately she was arrested and brought before the magistrates the solicitor who conducted her defence, and through whose hands thousands of criminals had passed, observing the demeanour of the woman, applied that she should be examined by a medical witness for the defence, and the request was immediately complied with. From that time till now the defence had been engaged with the idea of proving to the jury that this woman had for years been labouring under delusions, and the delusions were the outcome and symptoms of a disease which was already well established.
Dr. Beamish, medical officer at Walton Gaol, said that owing to the prisoner's physical condition when admitted to the gaol he ordered her into hospital. She had suffered a great deal from sleeplessness. Early in January signs of bodily improvement showed themselves, and the improvement had continued till now. He had frequently had interviews with the prisoner in order to ascertain her mental state. She conversed rationally and without reserve on general topics, but as soon as the breach of promise case or her relations with Holland were mentioned she showed great animation and excitement. He gathered she was predisposed to mental disorder, and, after due examination and carefully considering all the facts of the case, he was of opinion that the prisoner was suffering from a form of mental derangement known as "the mania of persecution."
Dr. Bedford Fenwick, consulting physician and specialist in women's diseases, practising in London, said that in 1888 the prisoner consulted him, when he found her suffering from a disorder peculiar to women. She was suffering extreme pain. He saw her several times up to June, 1889. On one of these occasions, from her manner and language, he thought she was not in her right mind. There was a close connection between uterine diseases and mental disorders. From what he had read of letters written by the prisoner, he would be inclined to say her mental disorder was beginning at the time when she consulted him.
Mr. W.H. Quilliam, solicitor, gave evidence as to the extraordinary condition in which he found the prisoner when she sent for him to the Bridewell to instruct him for the defence. She was, it seemed from her language, thoroughly convinced she was the victim of a conspiracy in connection with her first breach of promise case, and she wanted to start a prosecution. In consequence of her condition he had her medically examined.
Dr. Wigglesworth, medical officer in charge of the Rainhill Asylum, was called by counsel for the defence. He said he was one of the doctors appointed by the Home Office to examine the prisoner. He examined her while she was awaiting trial. He had not been able to ascertain much of the prisoner's family history, but he had been informed that a maternal aunt of the prisoner had died in an asylum. The written report which witness had furnished was read by the Clerk of Assize. Therein the witness said that the prisoner was a person of a neurotic type. Her mind was still possessed with ideas of conspiracy and persecution, and she was, "so far, suffering from mental derangement." Mr. Madden read passages from letters written some time ago by the prisoner, which were of a wild and incoherent character, and in one of these she suggested she was being urged to poison a third party. In another letter she wrote as if she suspected she was herself being poisoned. The witness agreed that such delusions were consistent with an early stage of the mental derangement from which the prisoner was suffering.
Cross-examined: He would not say that the prisoner when she shot Mr. Holland did not know she was doing wrong.
Dr. Davies, practising in Liverpool, said he had had interviews with the prisoner, who told him that Holland was mad and everybody said he was mad. She further said Holland had had her watched by a detective. She complained of being swindled in connection with a trial she had had. Further, she said another person had given her strong medicine which made a tickling all over her body, and she believed she had been turned into clockwork. Holland, she said, was Jack the Ripper. At his last interview with the prisoner, on the 2nd March, she was in better health, but she was still firmly convinced that Holland had tried to have her poisoned, and had persuaded her to poison another person. He agreed that the prisoner's mind was unsound, and she was suffering from "persecution mania."
The prisoner's sister was making her way to the witness-box, in order to give evidence as to the fact that an aunt of the prisoner was in an asylum. The prisoner, however, as soon as she saw her sister rose in the dock, and lifting her right hand, called out, "Don't go; don't do it. Do as I tell you. They won't believe the truth!" The witness retired, and was not again called.
Mr. Madden finally addressed the jury, and said he would leave it to their own observation that the unfortunate woman in the dock was quite incapable of appreciating the awful position in which she stood. He argued that the prisoner's mental disorder began in 1888. The conduct of the woman after she had committed the murderous act proved, he contended, that it was the act of a maniac. He pointed to the conduct of the prisoner on former occasions - her assault on a solicitor's clerk, her violence in court during the first breach of promise action, the fact that she was put upon trial for shooting at a sister of the late Mr. Holland - and asked the jury to say these acts were not those of a sane woman.
Mr. Pickford, Q.C., in replying for the prosecution, said that the prisoner was labouring under some delusions at the time of the murder there could be no doubt. The serious question was whether they made her so insane as to be irresponsible for causing the death of another.
The Judge then summed up, and said that the mere existence of a delusion in the mind of the person charged did not relieve that person from criminal responsibility. The jury had to consider the nature of the delusion, and its bearing on the particular act done. He further told the jury that if the prisoner had the delusion that the deceased would kill her if she did not kill him, it might relieve her of her criminal responsibility. The general question for the jury to consider was whether the prisoner's mind was in such a condition or not that she was able to realise the nature and quality of her act and the difference between right and wrong.
At seven o'clock the jury retired, and were handed a large number of letters written by the prisoner, amongst them two which were addressed to the Home Secretary and to the authorities at Scotland Yard. They were absent for a considerable time. They returned with a verdict of guilty, and added a strong recommendation to mercy. Asked if she had anything to say why sentence should not be passed upon her, the prisoner said that the revolver went off accidentally. She intended to commit suicide, and not to shoot Holland. She was tired of her life, and had no desire to live longer, and did not wish to be reprieved. His Lordship then passed sentence of death in the usual form.

Source: The Guardian, March 20, 1897, Page 8