|
Pigeon vs. Chamberlain [Oct 13 1863] Queen vs. William Douglas [Oct 13 1863] Queen vs. Adam Wilson [Apr 29 1864] |
|
Pigeon vs. Chamberlain [Daily
British Whig; Oct 13 1863] This was an action brought by James Pigeon, of Fredericksburgh, to
recover from Maitland Chamberlain, of the same place, damages to the amount
of two thousand dollars, for the seduction of Jane Ann Pigeon, plaintiff’s
daughter. Jane Ann Pigeon deposed as follows: - I am the daughter of James
Pigeon, and live in Fredericksburgh. He is a farmer. Chamberlain is a farmer
and lives about three miles from my father’s. He lives with his father. I am
twenty-one years of age and the defendant twenty-three. I have seven brothers
and four sisters. I was at service with defendant’s father three years ago. I
went to him in the spring of 1860. I had seen defendant before I went to his
father’s, but never spoke to him. When I went I was about eighteen years of
age. I became intimate with defendant who made a promise of marriage to me.
He had improper intercourse with me in my father’s house a year ago – in
June. He promised to marry me before that. The intimacy took place in my own
room; and he had come six or seven times before and made overtures to me, but
did not succeed. He told me each time that it was all the same, as I was
promised. My child was born on the 12th of March last, but lived
only seven weeks. I gave birth to it at my sister’s. When I discovered my
condition, I told him, and he wanted me to go away to my aunt’s in London and
do away with the child, to keep it secret, and when I came back in the spring
he would marry me. He told me he had property in Fredericksburgh, which had
been willed to him by his uncle. When he seduced me he was working at his
uncle’s, but came home sometimes – on Sundays and through the week. Being cross-examined, the witness stated that she had never associated
with other young men; that there was no lock on her door, and she had no means
of fastening it; that she was sometimes awake and sometimes asleep when
defendant came in; that on such occasions he got into bed with her; that she
was willing to marry defendant then, but she would not marry him now; that
she had heard last fall that he had no longer any interest in the land he
owned; that defendant had used no violence towards her, and that she never
made an alarm; that after she was confined she went to service again; that
she had lived with several families before she went to Chamberlain’s that she
understood on Saturday that the matter was to be settled, but learned
afterwards that Chamberlain had drawn back; that she would not marry him now
because he had deceived her once, and she would not trust him again. John Anderson sworn. – I reside in North Fredericksburgh and have
known the Pigeons for nearly twenty-five years. He is a farmer. I have known
the girl since she was a child. (The learned Judge here objected to the
witness being questioned as to the character of the girl.) This closed the case for the plaintiff and Mr. O’Reilly addressed the
jury briefly for his client. He commented strongly on the defendant’s conduct
in advising his victim to go away and destroy her child and asked the jury to
allow the full amount of damage claimed. Sir Henry Smith followed, urging that the plaintiff was not entitled
to the slightest sympathy. He had not expended a dollar on his daughter
during her illness and his only object in coming into Court was to put money
into his pockets. The girl, he said, did not live with her father, and
consequently it was impossible that the latter could have suffered any damage
from loss of her services. The learned Counsel said that the defendant was a
young man without property and he asked the jury to assess the damages at a
moderate sum. His Lordship instructed the jury to allow damages to the father for
the injury sustained by his family, and a verdict was accordingly rendered
for plaintiff with damages to the amount of $400. In the case of Pigeon vs. Chamberlain, it should have been Mr. J.
O’Reilly for plaintiff; Sir Henry Smith for defendant. Queen vs. William Douglas [Daily
British Whig; Oct 13 1863] Queen vs. William Douglas – rape – prisoner was put upon his trial for
having in June last, committed rape with a woman named Johanna O’Leary, in
the neighbourhood of Napanee. She was in Kingston previous to the commission
of the alleged crime, and left it to travel to Toronto. On her way and when
near Napanee, on a night towards the end of June, she was stopped by four
men, who gratified their passions with her and kept her in said bush for two
days. She afterwards went to the house of a man named O’Lone and sought his
protection. Did not complain to Mr. O’Lone of what they had done, fearing so
to do. They did not abuse her in the house, but took her outside and remained
with her all night. In the morning she returned to Mr. O’Lone’s and drank
some tea. Informed Mr. O’Lone of what had occurred. The next night they came
back and knocked at the door. She got up and hid in the bedroom. It was a
small room.- Mr. O’Lone seemed to have no wife or
children. They took her out and ill-used her again as they had done before.
There were no houses near the place to which they brought her. They had
liquor the second they brought complainant out. Was afterwards taken to the
prisoner Douglas’ house in broad daylight. The house stands close by the
road, within about half a mile of Napanee. Eight men had illicit commerce
with complainant before she met prisoners. Has been known in Kingston by her
own name, Collins, - that of her husband being O’Leary. John O’Lone deposed that he was the person to whose house complainant
came. She came there on a Sunday night in June last, as was taken thence to a
barn 10 rods from the house; in this barn he heard a noise all night, and in
the morning found complainant lying on the straw, apparently in an exhausted
condition. When they came to his house the second night, he asked them if they
wanted to kill the woman? Was obliged at last to put complainant out, else
the gang would have destroyed everything in the house. O’Lone lives on part of the Cartwright estate. During the time she was
in his house, her hair was tossed. She appeared to go off with Douglas
briskly. His place is quite close to the road. Trayton Pierson testified he first saw complainant in a cedar swamp, 191
paces from the house of Douglas, in July last. – She was first discovered by
a little girl of Pierson’s, who had been drawing water from a well. She was discovered
weeping by the girl, whose father (Pierson) at length, after a search, found
her, but she rather repulsed him than otherwise. She was almost nude when
found, and seemed not in her right mind. Went to tell Mr. Stevenson, the
Reeve, the condition she was in; but thought she would be dead before he got
back. Noticed next day marks on her legs, thighs and breast. A skirt,
petticoat and sun bonnet lay near her. – This was on a Wednesday. James Vanalstine, a Constable of Napanee, deposed that he was called
to take the woman in charge in the bush by Pierson, and that he found her
naked, and in a very low state. Never saw the like before. The third day
after this complainant regained her ordinary presence of mind. – Feels
satisfied she never could have got where she was of her own accord. Has known
Douglas for several years, and never heard anything against him. Adam Wilson, the other prisoner, who was during Douglas’ trial, in the
same dock, was allowed to leave the dock. He deposed that he was a stone-cutter
and mason in Fredericksburgh, and lived within three hundred yards of the
prisoner Douglas’ house. Saw the complainant on O’Lones’
place, and heard her ask Douglas if he had no wife, and if he would allow her
to stop with him for a few days. Did not hear them make any arrangements. Saw
them go on towards Douglas’ together, and afterwards found her at said house
sweeping the floor. This was after breakfast. Saw them both in bed together,
though after she had been sweeping. She made no complaint against Douglas.
Witness is a married man. Had heard O’Leary was around and also that she was
at O’Lone’s. Took a constitutional walk that morning and is in the habit of
taking one every morning. Witness and Douglas were together when they went to
O’Lone’s house and the latter spoke to her first. The jury rendered a verdict of guilty against prisoner. Mr. W.H.
Wilkison defended him. Later [same paper]: William Douglas, whose case is reported to-day,
was also sentenced to death, but there is hope of a reprieve. The Queen vs. Adam Wilson – Rape [Daily
British Whig Apr 29 1864] This prisoner is the brother of John Wilson, who was found guilty of
the same offence at the last Assizes, and sentenced to 10 years in the
Provincial Penitentiary. Owing to the absence of Johanna O’Leary, the
principal witness, and he being confined in the gaol since last July, His
Lordship dismissed the prisoner. |
