| Home Page | Root Page | Census Records | GRO Records | Parish Records | Names Directory |
On October 15th 1868 Alfred (1) Woodhurst assaulted his own daughter Elizabeth Eliza, then just ten years old. On April 6th 1870 he was brought to trial at the Central Criminal Court (Old Bailey) on two counts. The first count attributed a sexual ("carnal") element to the assault whilst the second attributed an "indecent" element together with beating and wounding her. He was found guilty only on the second count and was sentenced to twelve months imprisonment with hard labour.
Several records, transcribed below, have been found of the trial:
Records 1-4 were discovered and kindly supplied for this website by Michelle Higgs.
No. 28 - Woodhurst Alfred
Abusing girl between 10 & 12
4th April 1870
Old Court - Wednesday April 6th 1870
334 - ALFRED WOODHURST (42)
Unlawfully carnally knowing and abusing Elizabeth Eliza Woodhurst, a girl under twelve years of age.
Mr PLATT conducted the Prosecution, and Mr LEWIS the Defence [apparently misrecorded - several other records say "Mr. Langford" for the defence].
GUILTY of an indecent assault
Twelve Months' Imprisonment
4 April 1870
No. 28
Puts himself. Jury say Guilty on Second Count only to be imprisoned and kept to hard labor in the House of Correction at Clerkenwell twelve calendar months.
First Count The Jurors for Our Lady the Queen, upon their Oath Present Alfred Woodhurst late of the Parish of St Matthew Bethnal Green in the County of Middlesex. On the 15th day of October in the Year of Our Lord Eighteen Hundred and Sixty Eight with Force and Arms at the Parish aforesaid, and within the Jurisdiction of the said Court in and upon Elizabeth Eliza Woodhurst a girl above the age of ten years and under the age of twelve years to wit of the age of ten years and three months in the peace of God and our said Lady the Queen then and there unlawfully did make an assault and her the said E.E.W. then and there unlawfully did carnally know and abuse against the form of the statute in such case made and provided.
Second Count And the Jurors Aforesaid, upon their Oath aforesaid do further Present that the said Alfred Woodhurst - afterwards, to wit, on the same Day, and in the year aforesaid, with Force and Arms in the Parish aforesaid, and within the Jurisdiction of the said Court in and upon Elizabeth Eliza Woodhurst in the peace of God and our said Lady the Queen then and there being unlawfully and indecently did make an indecent assault and her the said E.E.W. then and there unlawfully and indecently did beat wound and illtreat and other wrongs to the said E.E.W. then and there did to the great damage of the said E.E.W. and against the Peace of our said Lady the Queen her Crown & Dignity.
Page 11, Issue 26718, Column B
Central Criminal Court, April 6
Old Court.
(Before Mr. Justice Lush.)
The Court was occupied the greater part of the day in trying a man named Alfred Woodhurst, 42 years of age, for a criminal assault upon his own daughter, a child between 10 and 12 years of age. In the result the prisoner was convicted on an alternative count of the minor offence of an indecent assault.
The case for the prosecution turned chiefly upon the evidence of the child herself, of her brother, a boy of 14 or 15 years of age, and of a woman with whom the prisoner had been living in a state of concubinage, his wife having left him and since lived with his own brother in adultery.
Mr. Platt was counsel for the prosecution; Mr. Langford for the defence.
Mr. Justice Lush, in passing sentence, said the evidence had disclosed a horrible state of immorality, and had the prisoner been convicted of the more serious charge he should have felt it his duty to subject him to penal servitude. As it was, he sentenced him to 12 months' hard labour.
Central Criminal Court (Old Court)
April Session, 1870.
(Before Mr. Justice Lush.)
Regina v. Woodhurst (a)
Carnal knowledge of girl under twelve - Consent extorted.
On an indictment for carnal knowledge of a girl above ten years of age and under twelve, and also for an assault.
Held, on the latter count, that, although consent would be a defence, consent extorted by terror or induced by
the influence of a person in whose power she feels herself, is not really such consent as will have that effect.
Quaere, if such consent can be given in such a case by a child who is not sui juris?
[quaere - "consider whether" ; sui juris - "legally in charge of oneself".]
The prisoner was indicted for having, in October 1868, carnal knowledge of a girl above the age of ten years, and under twelve, with her consent. In a second count he was indicted for an assault.
Platt for the prosecution.
Langford for the defence.
The prisoner was a strong powerful man, and the girl was his daughter, a child who, at the time in question, was but just above ten years of age. According to the evidence - confirmed to some extent by other witnesses - he had been in the habit of tampering with her person; and on the last occasion there was some degree of penetration, which gave her pain, and for some reason it did not appear to have been repeated. One of the witnesses - the prisoner's son - one night saw the child in his father's bed, and according to his account what occurred was not resisted or resented, and he reproached her with it. From something long afterwards overheard by a woman with whom the prisoner lived, he was accused of tampering with her, and being taxed with it in her presence - though he denied - she had declared he had meddled with her. He thereupon said he had not ruined her, which was represented by his counsel as meaning that he had not completed the crime. The doctor stated that penetration had taken place to some extent, but as it was so long ago he could not say more.
Lush, J. (to the Jury). - Upon this first count, which admits the child's consent, you must be satisfied that the act was completed, i.e., that there was some extent of penetration. On the second count, you cannot convict if there has been consent, as an assault excludes consent. But consent means consent of will, and if the child submitted under the influence of terror, or because she felt herself in the power of the man, her father, there was no real consent, and as the acts were indecent and unlawful in their nature, you can convict.
Guilty, one year's imprisonment with hard labour.
Quaere, as to this, in the case of a person not sui juris, or a child under sixteen, or a wife - Chamberlain.
(a) Reported by W.F. Finlason, Esq., Barrister-at-Law.
William Francis Finlason was a barrister of the Middle Temple and also a legal reporter for The Times.
SHOCKING DEPRAVITY - Alfred Woodhurst, an elderly man, surrendered to take his trial for unlawfully assaulting his own child, Elizabeth Eliza Woodhurst, a girl 11 years of age. He was also charged with an indecent assault. The Jury found the prisoner Guilty of assaulting the prosecutrix, and he was sentenced to hard labour for twelve months.
INDECENT ASSAULT UPON A DAUGHTER - Alfred Woodhurst, an elderly man, surrendered to take his trial for unlawfully assaulting his own child, Elizabeth Eliza Woodhurst, a girl 11 years of age. He was also charged with an indecent assault. Mr Platt prosecuted, and Mr Langford defended the prisoner.
This case presented some very shocking and unusual features of depravity. The prisoner, it appeared, was a married man, but his wife had left him and gone to live with his brother, by whom it appeared she had had three children. The prisoner cohabited with a woman named Eldridge. but at the time the occurrence took place she had gone away, and the prisoner was left with the prosecutrix and a son 15 years of age.
The Jury found the prisoner Guilty of assaulting the prosecutrix. The learned Judge, in passing sentence, said he could not find words to express his feelings at the conduct of the prisoner, and he sentenced him to be imprisoned and kept to hard labour for twelve months.