The Yew Tree Inn is located just to the north of May Hill, a well-known Gloucestershire topological landmark. The county boundary with Herefordshire almost intercepts the pub. Today the Yew Tree has a Gloucestershire address but when the 1891 and 1903 licensing books were being compiled Cliffords Mesne was in Herefordshire – the boundaries have since changed. Consequently, there are no historical records detailing brewery ownership, etc. It is known, however, that the Yew Tree has 16th century origins and was once a ‘cider house’.
Paul Hackett was a Michel Roux trained chef and in 1999 he and his wife Anna decided to leave the high life in London to open their own restaurant in the heart of the countryside. They bought the Yew Tree at Cliffords Mesne. Paul and Anna’s dream was to serve people with ‘wonderful, high-class restaurant food and wines at reasonable prices”. Paul once told the press: “We decided we wanted to change our lifestyle and we came across the Yew Tree. It was a bit run down but we’ve completely refurbished it. Now we’re an eating pub rather than a drinking pub.” The gastro pub gained an entry in the Good Food Guide 2004.
The transition from a ‘run down’ local pub to a high class and successful restaurant may have been commendable from a business perspective but the average beer drinker felt alienated and had no village pub to go to.
When Phillip and Cass Todd bought the Yew Tree in 2005 they immediately set about turning it back to a traditional country pub, serving not only good food but good beers as well. The Yew Tree Inn at that time was described by CAMRA as having ‘traditional bars with quarry tiled floors, pleasant furnishings and cosy log fires during the winter months. There are 21 local ciders to choose from and the Yew Tree has a Beer Festival in April.’ But an application to extend the trading hours so it could serve alcohol until midnight from Monday to Thursday, and 1 am on Friday and Saturdays was not well received by everyone. The council received 12 objections from nearby residents who expressed concern about longer hours, music and dancing which they said might be a noise nuisance. Caroline Todd of the Yew Tree said, ‘The Yew Tree is a village pub in a rural community which was previously run as a restaurant and mainly food led. We now wish to integrate more with the local community by providing suitable entertainment, charity and theme nights, musical evenings, jazz dinners etc.’
The Yew Tree was named ‘Good Pub Guide’ Wine Pub of the Year 2009. The judges said: ‘A back room is charmingly laid out as an informal wine shop, with a good range that is fairly priced. It has an excellent scheme where you can have a bottle with your meal for just its shop price plus £3, which is much lower than the usual mark-up and the better the wine, the bigger the bargain. We wish more pubs used this customer-friendly pricing system.’
Following a change of ownership the fortunes of the Yew Tree appeared to take a downward turn. An on-line review from a Hereford visitor lamented, “I went to The Yew Tree with friends on Friday night. It used to be a regular haunt of mine when my grandparents lived in the village and I have many, wonderful memories of great times spent there and the good food they used to serve. What a disappointment it is now. It was peak time on a Friday night and it was virtually empty – not a good sign. The landlord was friendly enough, but the place looks just like any number of country pubs that have been updated – so many of the lovely, unique features I remembered had been stripped away, leaving a, almost sterile feeling to the place. We ordered food – the menu wasn’t very inspiring so I went for chicken. I really wish I’d taken a photo of it because it was indescribably bad. How can anyone go so wrong with chicken, chips and coleslaw? The chicken had been overcooked and then clearly kept hot – I couldn’t get my knife into it, let alone chew it. The stringy fries seemed to have been pre-salted somehow and were most unappetising. The meal came with a small pot of sad-looking coleslaw that, although pretty grim, was the most edible thing on the plate. The most unbelievable part of the whole thing was the price – at £11.00, I think the customer should expect food that is tasty and well-cooked. It made me sad to think that this once-great venue has become so mediocre. I won’t be hurrying back there.”
The Yew Tree Inn was listed as an asset of community value (ACV) in June 2017, giving it additional protection from development under the Localism Act of 2011. This came after more than 50 residents had petitioned the District Council to save their pub. A councillor said, ‘The owners are relocating to a different part of the country and have put the Yew Tree up for sale. They are hoping to put arrangements in place which will see the pub remain open after the move, until the sale is concluded. Therefore there is a real possibility at a later date it would be a change of use.’
In August 2018 it was announced that the Yew Tree Inn was set to re-open as a restaurant pub with built in holiday accommodation. Development company Meadow Leisure Ltd applied to Forest of Dean District Council for the construction of new kitchen and toilets, enlarged restaurant area and two holiday lets. The developers stated at the time that they intend the new-look pub to be open in time for the Cheltenham Gold Cup week in March 2019. They hoped that the reopened Yew Tree would be a boost for the local economy and ‘provide up to 12 full and part time jobs, including a gardener who will provide fresh vegetables for the restaurant.’ It was envisaged that opening hours would be from 8 am till midnight seven days a week, offering breakfast, tea, snacks and evening meals. The company added ‘It will also host business conferences, business meetings, weddings, wakes and family parties.’
In April 2022 the Yew Tree remains closed. A Support Our Yew Tree (SOYT) group was instrumental in re-listing the Yew Tree as an Asset of Community Value, of which the owners informed the Forest of Dean District Council of their intention to dispose of. It is not known if the owners have a potential purchaser with the aspirations to re-open the pub. The existing planning permission for the Yew Tree covers the bar area, cellar, restaurant, commercial kitchen and toilets. Support Our Yew Tree Campaign will ensure that any prospective purchaser makes clear whether they intend sticking with the existing planning permissions.
Gloucester Citizen, 16th August 1862:
THE CHILD MURDER AT NEWENT.
John Thurston, Mary Thurston, anil Mary Ann Thurston, were charged with the wilful murder of a female child, on the 30th of April, at Newent.
Mr. Henry James and Mr. Harrington prosecuted, Mr. Cooke appeared for Mary Thurston, Mr. Powell defended John Thurston, and Mr. Matthews defended Mary Ann Thurston.
Mr. James, in stating the case, said there would be no doubt on the minds of the jury that the girl Hill was delivered of a child, and the question for them to consider was whether the prisoners killed that child or not. They had to say first whether the child was killed, and then who killed it. There was no doubt that the girl Hill was in the family way, and that the father of the child was John Thurston; and of course, it was in the interest of the prisoners that this fact should not become known in the neighbourhood, though it had long been suspected by the neighbours. It was a strong supposition that the child was born on the Wednesday, and that it was taken away by the male prisoner who carried it into the garden and there buried it. It was a question for them whether the child was born alive, and upon this point they would hear the evidence of the surgeons; but it would be proved that when the child was born the girl Hill heard it cry out. After stating the material facts of the case, the learned counsel called the following witnesses:
P. S. Matthew Roach: I am a police sergeant stationed at Newent. I remember on the 7th of May going to the house of John Thurston. There is a place called Clifford’s Mesne. The house of John Thurston is an inn. Clifford’s Mesne is called a tyhing. Mr. Cattle went with me. This was about 12 o’clock in the day. We went into the house, Mr. Cattle stayed outside.
When I got into the house the first persons I saw were Mary Thurston and Mary Ann Thurston. I had seen John Thurston outside. I said to Mrs. Thurston that there was a report that her servant had had a child. She said she wondered at my impudence; that was the first word she had heard about it. I asked her whether it were true or not. She said the girl was subject to dropsy. She said she was poor friendless girl, but she would find her money to bring an action against those that raised the report. I afterwards saw Hannah Hill in the presence of John Thurston. After Mr. Cattle made his examination, I made a charge against her. Immediately afterwards I searched the premises. I went to the closet and then I went to the top of the garden. A person named Sterry found something over the hedge. I took it to Mr. Cattle. I went to the Orchard and searched on the ash heap. I found something. I did not know what it was, but I took it to Mr. Cattle. I went into the garden, and near the prisoner’s house I found a softer place than usual. I put the spade in its full length and took out a spade full of mould. I took out something, and getting down on my hands pulled the dirt away. I then found the legs of a child. There appeared to have been a little grave dug, a little square hole. The child was lying with its head turned on its shoulders, on its back. The head was below the body, and nearly off, hanging only by the skin. I took the body out and washed it and took it to the station. I am confident I did not touch the body with the spade. Another police constable and the male prisoner were present.
John Thurston said “It is a lamb, is’nt it Sergeant?” The child remained at the Station, and Mr Cattle and Mr. Cooke came and made a postmortem examination.
Mr. Cooke: I saw Mrs. Mary Thurston. She said she wondered at my impudence. She did not say “impertinence” I charged Hannah Hill with having had a child, and she said, “I have not.” The body of the child did not come up with the mould; I cleared the mould away.
Emma Phelps deposed: I am the wife of Charles Phelps, and live at Clifford’s Mesne, in the parish of Newent. I remember on the 29th of April going to the prisoners’ house. That was on the Tuesday, about ten or eleven o’clock in the morning. When I got there, I saw Mrs. Thurston, and Miss Thurston, and Hannah Hill. Mrs. Thurston said something about examining the girl Hill. She asked her (witness) to say whether she was in the family way or not. Hill denied it. I went into the kitchen. Miss Thurston called me there. Mrs. Thurston asked me for my opinion as to her servant being in the family way. I had observed that Hill was very large. I said I could not give any opinion. I advised Mrs. Thurston to give her some warm brandy and water. Mary Thurston said, “Then we shall have the young ’un here.”
By Mr. Cooke: Mrs. Thurston said to Hill, “If you are in the family way, you had better own it.” They left me alone with the girl. When my opinion was asked, I said, “Pray don’t ask me; I cannot tell you.”
Hannah Hill deposed: I am a single woman and was in the service of Mr. John Thurston. On the 29th of April I was in the family-way by John Thurston. I was taken ill that morning. I was in bed at the time. It was between 3 and 4 o’clock. Mrs. Thurston got up and I told her I was so bad that I could not stop a-bed any longer. About 7 or 8 o’clock Mary Ann Thurston came to me, and 1 told her I could not suffer such pain much longer. I then went upstairs and lay on the bed. Mary Ann Thurston came up to me and asked me if I was any easier. She then called her mother and remained near me. I afterwards went down into the parlour, and the two prisoners came to me, Mrs. Thurston said Mrs. Phelps had told Mary Ann that I was in the family way. Mary Thurston had previously spoken to me about my condition. She told me not to say anything about it to anyone. Mary Ann Thurston went to Mrs. Phelps. I replied that everyone was talking about my being in the family way, and that it be would found out. When Mary Ann returned from Mrs. Phelps’s, she said that Mrs. Phelps said they would soon see what was the matter with me, and she told Mrs. Phelps to mind her own business, and she would have quite enough to do. When Mrs. Phelps came in I asked her what she had to say about it. Mary Thurston said she thought it was a great pity she had nothing else to do. Mrs. Phelps said it was not she alone who said so, for many other persons said so too. Mrs. Phelps in reply to Mrs. Thurston said they had better give her (witness) some warm brandy and water. Mrs. Thurston said if they did, they should have the “young un.” In the afternoon she and Mrs. Thurston went wheat hoeing. Mrs. Thurston said it would deceive Mrs. Phelps. While they were wheat hoeing, Mrs. Thurston said she should like her (witness) to deceive Mrs. Phelps, as she (Mrs. Phelps) was so sure. If the child came there, they could put it in the ditch; no one would be the wiser. I went home about half-past eight o’clock. Mrs. Thurston and Mary Ann slept in the room with me. A child named Bessie, Mrs. Thurston’s grandchild, slept with me. This night the child was taken away and slept with Mary Thurston. I went to bed and fell asleep. I awoke before it was light. I was in pain. Mary Thurston and Mary Ann Thurston got up and came to me. They came to my bedside. The child was born. They had been standing by my bed some time and rendered me assistance. Mrs. Thurston took the child and went away towards the door. The child cried, and I asked her to bring back and let me see It. She made no answer, but went out of the room, and remained away twenty minutes or half an hour. When she came back, I asked her for a light. I said if she did not get me one, I would get up and get it myself. She said there were no matches. I said there were matches, for I brought them up the night before. She said what would Mrs. Phelps say if she came to my window and saw light at that hour in the morning! Shortly afterwards I heard John Thurston get up and go out into the garden. I got out of bed and went downstairs, and John Thurston asked me if I could not go to the farm and fetch a waggon. I said he ought to know better, for I could not walk; it would kill me. Whilst I was having breakfast, he (Mr. Thurston) said I was something less than I was before. I asked him what his mother had done with it, and he said, “I have been and buried it in the garden.” When Mrs. Thurston came down she said I ought to have gone for the waggon, for if I stayed the house people would say I had mis arried. Mary Ann said, “Hold your bother, and no one will think such a thing.” Mrs. Thurston said, “A woman who has lived at home so many years—no one would think I would allow such goings on in my house.” I went to bed, and Mrs. Thurston brought me some gruel. She said she had been to Mrs. Phelps, who asked how I was, and that she had said she did not know what was the matter with me, as I was so unwell that I could not do anything. From the time Mrs. Thurston took the child I saw nothing of it. I recollect Sergeant Roach coming and Mary Ann asked me not to say anything about them. I said I should not stand in their shoes. She said whatever I did I was not to say it was born alive, or that I heard it. John Thurston said the best thing I could do was to say I had had no child, and knew nothing about it, and then they could not touch me. I was angry, and went away. Before the confinement Mrs Thurston said to her son (the prisoner) ‘’This girl is in the family way, and I suppose it is you.” He said, “It is no business of yours, if you do not like it you can leave. The best way she could do was to smother it over, and know nothing about it” I said, “How can we do it, for everyone is talking about it.” I made a statement to the matron of the gaol, but no inducement was held out to me to do so. [The witness spoke in low a tone so that a great portion of her evidence was inaudible to the reporters.] A letter was put in, which the witness said she believed to be in the handwriting of the prisoner. It bore the Gloucester post-mark, of the 26th of July, and was addressed to Hannah Hill, county gaol, Gloucester.” It commenced “Dear Hannah,” and urged the witness to own all, as everybody believed that she confined herself in the closet. The letter continued—
“See what destruction your folly have done. If you could see them you would relent, as nobody believes what you have said. Think of your own dead mother, and your own conscience, and when you come to die there is a great God, whom you must appear before on the judgment day, to give account of your good and evil deeds. Once more let me beg of you to tell the truth. You have friends that are interested for you, and your poor brother vexes about you. As a sincere friend I advise you to tell the truth before too late; you will not get any more done. Some strange men is come to the public. See what you have done to the poor widow and fatherless by your obstinacy. Tell the truth and all will be well.”
The letter bore no signature. In the course of a lengthy cross examination by Mr. Powell the witness stated that she did not tell a Mr. Perry, on the coroner’s jury that when the child was born it did not cry. Substantially her evidence in chief remained unshaken.
Mr. Cooke: After the coroner’s I was let go. Then I was taken before the justices, and made a statement, and I was then sent to prison. I was sworn before the magistrates. I was very angry with myself at Newent that I had told the Thurston’s that I would say nothing about it. As soon as they broke their promises, I determined to break mine. They contradicted my statement. I denied before the coroner that I did anything to the child. I told the coroner that both the female prisoners were in the room. I did not say to the coroner’s jury that when the child was taken from me I did not care any more about it. I first told my story to the matron last Thursday week. It was taken down in writing. The matron said, “a lawyer will come and see you.” I told him my story. The young man Boddingham asked me what I was going to say, I said they might say what they liked I should not say much. It was dark in the room when the child was born. I told the jury at Newent that it was so dark I could not see who was in the room. was in great pain and not able to talk. I did not say that my reason for saying Mrs. and Miss Thurston took the child from me was because they were the only persons in the room. I could not see their faces, but I heard them talking. I said at the inquest that I had no conversation with Mrs. or Miss Thurston about the child. That was after they had broken faith with me. By Mr. Matthews: I did not state to the coroner that I did not tell Mrs. Thurston that I was in the family way. I said I did not own it, and I did not deny it. I heard my statement read over to me by the coroner before I signed if. I did not tell the coroner that I never owned to Mr. Thurston that I was in the family way. He never asked me. I told the coroner’s jury that I did not know where the child was put. I told the coroner’s jury that I never asked what had become of the child. I did not tell the coroner’s jury that I could not swear there was more than one person about me when the child was born. I told the coroner’s jury that I could not say which of them took the child from me.
The learned Judge said he could not understand this mode of questioning. The coroner could not so far have forgotten his duty as to examine an accused person on oath in this manner.
Examination resumed: I had on a brown gown on the Wednesday, the same I had on part of the previous day. I went out into the orchard on the Wednesday evening. It was half-past five o’clock when I came down in the morning. I went into the orchard for air. I stayed five minutes. Mrs. Thurston got up about seven or half-past in the morning, and Miss Thurston got up few minutes afterwards. I went out to the front of the door on the Wednesday, and no further. I was up when Mary Whittington came. I got up about four o’clock in the afternoon, having gone to bed in the morning. I went to bed about half past eight o’clock in the evening.
Mr. James: I saw Mrs. Cecil and Boddingham in the gaol but was not left alone with them. I told the matron my statement on the Monday, and the lawyer came on the following Wednesday. I recollect going before the magistrates at Newent. I heard Mary Ann Thurston and John Thurston examined. They were examined before me.
Mr. William Brookes Cattle, surgeon of Newent, deposed. I remember on the 7th of May going with Sergeant Roach to the house of the prisoner. Mary and John Thurston were present. The prisoners all said Hill had not had a child. I examined Hill in the house. This conversation took place in the yard. I examined the prisoner and found that she had been recently delivered. I told the Thurston’s the prisoner had been delivered. Mary Thurston said it could not be so, as the girl had been there a long time and had not been out of the house for an hour. I called Mary Thurston’s attention to the prisoner’s breasts. She said Hannah Hill had had something forming in her breasts for some time. I said it was no use for her to deny that the prisoner had had a child any longer. Mary Thurston said that two years ago the same report was raised, and Mill was examined by a doctor. I saw Sergeant Roach, and he showed me something. The prisoner John Thurston came up and said it was the inside of a fowl. I afterwards went close to the house. Mary Thurston asked me if they had found anything, I said they had found something belonging to the child. She said she was innocent of anything of the kind. Roach showed me something else. Before I examined the girl, Mary Thurston said, she the (girl) had been unwell about fortnight before. On the same day, I went to the police station at Newent and saw the body of child. It was partially decomposed. It was a newly born child and was full grown. One side of the skull was pressed in; the head was nearly severed from the body, which had other cuts about it. The injuries on the neck and arm were made by a sharp cutting instrument. On the 12th of May I made a postmortem examination, by order of the coroner, I found the side of the head cut, and a depression on the right side of the skull, and a fracture of the right parietal bone. There was a fracture of both temples. The head was severed from the body with the exception of a small piece of skin. There was an incision a little above the shoulder joint. There was also an incision midway between the left shoulder and the elbow joints. There was an incision on the left forearm, and both forearms were fractured. [The witness minutely described other injuries to the body of the child.] A common spade would not be likely to produce such injuries. I found the legs in a partial state of decomposition. I found no trace of food. The child had respired. I formed the opinion that the child had respired from the fact that the lungs filled the chest, and that there was crepitation under the fingers.
By Mr. Powell: I could not say that the child was born alive. The injuries were enough to cause death fifty times. I am not aware that blow from a spade would produce a clean cut. I have seen a sharp hoe, but not one that would make a clean cut. The whole of one side of the skull was compressed. The body was a good deal decomposed. I heard one of the jurymen ask the girl if she heard the child cry. I do not recollect her words; but her reply was to the effect that it did not.
By Mr. Matthews I heard Hannah Hill say, on the coroner’s inquest, that there was a noise when the child was taken from her. The act of pressing down the soil on the child would produce the depression on the head.
By Mr. James: There were nine Incised wounds on the body of the child. If the child fell four or five feet that would not produce the bruise I saw. Persons walking over the surface of the ground where the child was buried would not produce such a bruise upon It.
By the Judge: If the child were thrown Into a pit and mould were heavily trodden down upon it, bruises of the kind I have described might have been produced.
Mr. Cooke, surgeon, deposed, I was with Mr. Cattle at a postmortem examination of a child at Newent. The description of the injuries to the child given by Mr. Cattle is correct. The incised wounds might have been caused by a knife. I do not think a fall from the mother would have caused the bruise. I think the child had respired, but I could not say whether it had left the mother when it respired or not.
By Mr. Powell: A child just born might gasp and die. It might do more than gasp—it might breathe and then die.
By the Judge: The symptoms showed that the child had breathed, but did not show that it was born alive.
James Winter deposed: I am an innkeeper, residing at Clifford’s Mene, in the county of Hereford. I remember John Thurston being at work for him. He (Thurston) was taken ill, and witness went to his house to see how he was. He saw Mrs. Thurston and had some conversation with her about Hannah Hill. Mrs. Thurston said she had sent the girl to Newent for something for Mr. Thurston, and it was time she was back, but she was clumsy and could not get along as fast as she used to do. People, she said, believed the girl was in the family way, but she was not, for she had been examined. Mrs. Thurston also stated that a similar report was raised two years before, and that a surgeon examined the girl, and found that she was suffering from dropsy. The conversation took place about a week before the occurrence.
By Mr. Cooke He was not retained by the prosecution to drive the witnesses in the case into Gloucester.
By Mr. James: I had a horse and trap of my own and drove several persons into Gloucester “free gracious.”
Mary Whittington, a servant to the last witness. Mary Brace, Mary Lewis, and other witnesses deposed to having had conversations with the Thurston’s about the condition of Hannah Hill, and to the prisoners denying that the girl was in the family way, and stating that she was dropsical.
Eliza Hill, a sister of Hannah Hill, residing in service at Malvern, deposed that on Wednesday, the 14th of May, she went to the house of John Thurston, and saw her sister Hannah. She said, “This is a bad job,” Mrs. Thurston said she was innocent of it, and Mary Ann Thurston said she would go down on her bended knees to Hannah if she would tell the truth about it. She saw John Thurston, who said that as Hannah had said she had had no child she had better stick to it. The witness also detailed some farther conversation with the prisoners of an immaterial character.
P.C. 122, corroborated the evidence of Sergeant Roach. A statement of the prisoners to the effect that the girl Hill was not confined in their house, and that they knew nothing of the child, was put in and read.
Mr. Powell, in his address to the jury on behalf of John Thurston, said the offence with which he was charged was wilful murder; and the penalty of wilful murder was death. What, then, was the evidence which would induce them to find the prisoner guilty of such a crime? He contended that the child was not born alive, and the only tittle of evidence in favour of a supposition that it was born alive was the evidence of the girl, who stated that she heard the child cry. But could they believe the evidence of this girl? or was it evidence upon which they would hang a cat? This girl came from the prison to the witness-box to save her own neck, by criminating others. He contended that this was a case such as came before them at every other Assize, namely, that of a girl who had attempted to conceal the birth of a child. The evidence of the girl was proved to be untruthful in several particulars; and if it were untruthful in several particulars, why should it not be untrue altogether? It might be said there were suspicious circumstances about the body of the child. This was true but he submitted that none of these were inconsistent with hurried disposal of the body after death by the girl herself. It was shown that she was up as usual in the morning, and she was well acquainted with the use of the spade, she was quite as able to dispose of the body as his client, Mr. Thurston. There was an important question which he should put to them. Did they think that if a strong man like Thurston had wished to bury a child like that, he would have been content with merely scratching a hole eighteen inches deep? and assuming that they were not satisfied either that the child was born alive or that the prisoner John Thurston was the person who disposed of it, then what reason had they to suppose that he had anything to do with the occurrence at all. The learned counsel concluded by contending that the evidence had quite failed to bring home the charge either to John Thurston, or to his mother and sister.
Mr. Cooke, in an able address on behalf of Mrs. Thurston, said he had no anxiety as to the result of this inquiry. In the first place it had not been proved that the child had lived at all, and no particle of the evidence showed that his client had anything to do with the prisoner’s confinement at all. He contended that no reliance whatever could be placed on the prisoner’s evidence, for corroboration was nowhere, while contradictions were everywhere. He did not believe that the jury would credit the evidence of a girl who came from prison to the witness box to give evidence of a character entirely the opposite of that which she gave before the coroner. If also they found a few respectable witnesses contradicting the girl on points which they could contradict her, why should she be believed at all? There was nothing in the evidence, he contended, that was inconsistent with the supposition that the girl confined herself and then buried the child in order to hide her shame. There were strong doubts of the girl’s credibility, and the law of this land, as it existed at the present day, was that if the facts of the case were as consistent with the innocence as with the guilt of a prisoner, it was their duty to decide in favour of the innocence of the prisoner and acquit him. With reference to Hill’s examination before the coroner (Dr. Teague) the learned counsel humorously observed that it appeared the householders of Gloucestershire had placed a doctor in a lawyer’s place, and that it was his custom to swear everybody who came before him, just as he might have physicked them, and he had no doubt that he would have sworn him (the learned counsel) too, if he had been there. He did not appeal to them (the jury) to take a merciful, but a just view of his client’s case. He would not say that Mrs. Thurston’s altered circumstances had anything to do with the charge against her, but he would ask them whether, if she had been placed there as the respectable landlady of the George Hotel, Newent (which she once was) the tale of this girl would for a moment have been credited. The learned counsel contended that there was no trustworthy evidence whatever against his client or the other prisoners and asked the jury to acquit them.
Mr. Matthews then addressed the jury at considerable length on behalf of Miss Thurston. Mr. John Hill, a farmer, of Newent, Mr. George Smith, a retired tradesman, Mr. Biscoe, Mr. J. Harper, Mr. Thomas Dobbs, Mr. Commeline, and Mr. Bruton, auctioneer, of Gloucester, who had known the prisoners for many years, gave them an excellent character for quietness and respectability.
The learned Judge then went minutely through the evidence, remarking that the jury must first consider the amount of corroboration the evidence possessed, and that they must try John Thurston’s case alone, as though he was charged separately with the offence, considering the female prisoners merely accessories. His lordships summing up occupied upwards of an hour and a half. The jury retired, and after more than an hour’s deliberation returned into court.
The clerk of arraigns addressing the foremen of the jury said: —Do you find the prisoner John Thurston guilty?
Foreman: We find him guilty of concealment of birth.
Clerk of Arraigns: Do you find the prisoner Mary Thurston guilty?
Foreman. We do.
Do you find the prisoner Mary Ann Thurston guilty?
Foreman. We do.
The Judge. Then you find them all guilty of attempting concealment of birth?
Foreman. We do, my lord.
After a short deliberation the Clerk of Arraigns addressing the prisoners said, “Prisoners at the bar what have you to say why the Court should not pass sentence upon you?
John Thurston. I am innocent of the charge.
Mary Ann Thurston. I am.
Mrs. Thurston. I am innocent. I think it very hard that we should suffer for the guilty party. She (the girl Hill) and she only is guilty. I never knew she was delivered until Mr. Cattle the surgeon told me. I will take my oath she was not confined in the house.
His Lordship addressing the prisoners in an impressive manner, said, after a long and patient trial, the jury had found them guilty of the crime of attempting to conceal the birth of a child, and their verdict was justified by the evidence. He must believe that they were each of them parties to the crime. The jury, happily for them, had acquitted them of the charge of wilful murder but taking the verdict of the jury and the evidence into consideration, he had no doubt that they were all concerned in concealing the birth, and that if the child was not dead, they never intended that it should live.
If they did not kill the child, it was because it was not born alive. If they were not guilty, he was very sorry for them, but the evidence justified the verdict of the jury. It might be that the child was born alive, in which case they were guilty of wilful murder.
Under the circumstances he must pass upon them the heaviest sentence the law allowed. The sentence of the court was that they each of them—for he made no distinction between them—should be imprisoned for the term of two years.
The prisoners received their sentences with much agitation and were removed from the dock protesting their innocence. The court was much crowded during the trial, which occupied nearly ten hours.
Information and research courtesy Dr Martyn Beaufort