In Richmond
Township, on June 28th, 1863, teenager Elizabeth York was brutally
murdered by a young neighbour, Zachariah Fralick. Elizabeth was born in 1845,
the daughter of Herman York and his first wife, Charlotte, and step-daughter
of Herman’s second wife Eliza. Herman had four children, two by each wife.
Three of the children died while in their teens, the fourth as a baby.
Zachariah was the son of Peter and Elizabeth Fralick who lived nearby and had
a large family. Zachariah was
described as being “about 20 years of age, a Canadian by birth, about the
medium height and of low mental calibre.” It had also been said that he was
never taught any morals and that his family appeared indifferent to the
entire ordeal. The Yorks are buried in the York
burial ground at Ingle in Sheffield Township. Horrible Murder
in Richmond [Daily British
Whig - July 2 1863] The 11th
Concession of the Township of Richmond has just been the scene of a most brutal
murder, the perpetrator of it being a young man named Fralick, aged about
twenty years. For some time he had been paying his addresses to a young girl,
aged 19, named Elizabeth York and who resided in the vicinity of his father’s
house. Time, however, produced a change in the fair one’s affections, which
she at last placed upon another lover and the consequence was that Fralick
became the victim of jealousy and instigated by the sneers of his companions,
at last resolved upon the murder of his inamorata. On Sunday evening last, Miss York had
occasion to visit her uncle’s who resided near her father’s house, and on the
road was accosted by Fralick, who put his arms around her person in an
endearing manner, whereupon she slapped him the face with the back of her
hand. Fralick then struck her in the face with his fist and then struck her
head repeatedly with a large stone until life was nearly extinct. He then
threw her over a fence hard by, in which spot she was discovered on Monday
morning at a late hour. She lived only a very short time after being found by
her friends and was quite devoid of consciousness; but it was the barking of
a dog that first attracted their attention and the faithful creature led them
to the spot where she lay. Upon being arrested, prisoner freely confessed his
crime, but pleaded in extenuation that he was urged to it by a young man
named John Brandon, from Lime Lake. How far this statement is credible,
further investigation may perhaps elicit. Fralick is a quiet, mild looking young
man, and probably the last person to be suspected of so foul a crime. He is
now lodged in the County Gaol. The Richmond
Murder [Weekly British
Whig - July 22 1861] (To the Editor of the
Daily British Whig) SIR, - In looking over
the columns of the Whig of the 8th inst., I was much surprised
when reading an account of the horrible murder in the 11th
Concession of Richmond, to find my name mentioned in connection therewith, as
having been guilty of urging the demon Fralick to commit the fearful deed. I
have only to say that said statement is notoriously false, for I have never
spoken a word to him in my life. I have, however, heard of him and his family
and have considered myself superior to them. Furthermore, I beg, Mr.
Editor, to inform you that not two words of that foul and brutal murder, as
contained in the public prints and as given to the world at large are
correct. The statement that Fralick had been paying his addresses to the
victim, Elizabeth York, is untrue, for she would not even allow him to enter
her father’s house, unless he (her father) was in. The statement that the
unfortunate girl, when discovered, was yet alive is likewise untrue, for life
was extinct when her body was got on Monday evening about half-past six
o’clock, the murder having been committed on Sunday night previous. The
neighbors regard this as one of the most brutal murders ever committed by the
hands of a human being, but it is not my intention to allude further to it. I trust, however, you
will allow me to take this means of correcting the foul slander my name and
character have suffered in connection with this affair and which
unfortunately has crept into your useful and widely circulated journal. I
further hope that the other city papers will copy this letter and thereby
exculpate me from all blame so undeservedly attached to my conduct. I remain, Dear Sir,
Your obedient servant, John Brandon.
Hungerford, July 20th, 1863. The Assizes
-The Fralick Murder Case [Weekly British
Whig Oct 14 1863] The first witness
called was John Harman York, father of deceased, who testified that he
discovered the body on the morning of the 29th (Monday) under a
pile of rails, near the road fence, and distant from his (witness’s) house
between fifty and sixty paces. The rails were placed over the body
transversely. Witness was led to the spot by the barking of a dog belonging
to the house; and he went there in company with his brother Daniel York.
Several persons crowded near the spot and the mother of prisoner was the
first who jumped over the road fence to the place where the dog was barking
and under which the body lay. The body had received much injury. The hinder
part of the head was much broken and seemed as though it would “fall to
pieces.” When found, the feet of the deceased were two feet apart; there was
no covering on the head, but a black net for the hair lay near one of the
feet of deceased, and close to her right shoulder, a hood; there was a good
deal of blood upon the face, which did not seem injured; found upon the south
side of the road, in a hollow in the ground, near the spot where the deceased
lay, a quantity of blood and hair, and from this spot to the fence, traces of
blood and hair. The fence was sprinkled with blood opposite the spot where
the body was found. Discovered at no great distance from the body, a club,
broken in two, and which, when the parts were united, must have been five or
six feet long. Witness and his brother Daniel York,
took the body and the club up to the house, when the former was laid upon a
bed. Witness sent for a
Coroner immediately after the body was taken up; first time he saw the
prisoner was two days after the commission of the crime, when prisoner come
to his (witness’s) house in company with some others. Upon this occasion,
witness saw prisoner near the fence in question and told him if he was
guiltless “to come back and stand his trial.” From one of these persons,
Charles Cross, witness obtained a large stone (this was produced in Court);
witness did not state whether or not this stone was used in the murder; there
were no stones near the place where deceased lay. Had known the prisoner for
sixteen or seventeen years; he occasionally came to the house before the
murder, but was only, so far as witness knew, on speaking terms with deceased;
never knew them to come together, but believed prisoner had a partiality for
his daughter, who, however, would not listen to his suit. Heard him on one
occasion speak to her in a kindly tone, but she did not answer; deceased was
in her 18th year, knew of no bad friendship existing between
prisoner and deceased up to the time of the murder; did not see him on the
Sunday when deceased left his house. The body lay parallel
with the road and the field in which it was had been ploughed in the spring.
The night when she left was clear and bright, and on the night he (witness)
and family retired to rest about ten o’clock. They were not disturbed during
the night. When prisoner came to the house of witness on the Tuesday morning
following the murder, he only remained half an hour, but witness could not
say where he was at the period when the body was discovered. Saw a man named
McCumber round his (witness’) house on Tuesday morning. Eliza York, wife of
witness and step-mother of deceased, testified that she last saw her on
Sunday evening, the 28th June, between 7 and 8 o’clock, before she
left to go to her uncle’s. Deceased was then leaning over the fence near the
house and said she was going to her uncle’s to take the children home. Heard
no noise round the house after she had gone, and rose at six the nest
morning, remarking at the same time that deceased had not returned. Did not
feel uneasy then, thinking she was at her uncle’s; but found our afterwards
she had left her uncle’s shortly after 9 o’clock on Sunday night. Did not see
the body until it was brought into the house, and merely caught a glimpse of
the face; could not bear to look at it. Saw at the fence the sister of
deceased and her (witness’s) husband. Has known the prisoner more than six
years and saw him on Sunday morning standing at the gate of her house.
Prisoner and deceased did not, on that occasion, speak. Asked him to come in,
but he did not answer. Constable Wagar gave to
the Court the confession of the prisoner, in which he stated that upon the
Sunday in question he went to Church, hearing that the bans of marriage were
about to be published between deceased and another person, and there heard
the downfall of his hopes. Outside the Church he remonstrated with the
minster and the minister asking him why he did so, he said he had the first
right to her. He then rode home. In the evening he waited on the road which
led to the uncle’s of deceased, until she came along and near about the spot
of the murder they had an altercation about the marriage, when deceased
struck prisoner in the face with the back of her hand. Prisoner then hit her
with his fist, and, picking up a stone, struck her several times on the back
of the head. He then threw her over the fence and placed several rails over
her as described and started for home. When a short distance off, however, he
turned back and sizing a large club, beat her about the head until there
could not be the slightest doubt life was extinct. He then went home.
Deceased was buried about three miles from her father’s house, on the road to
Tamworth, which is six miles distant, and on one occasion while passing with
Constable Wager, he asked to see the grave and remarked that “many more would
lie there.” The foregoing
confession was made while the Coroner’s Inquest was sitting on the body, and
before the verdict was rendered. The Court all day
yesterday was crowded so completely that there was hardly even standing room
to be obtained. All eyes, during the trial, were directed towards the prisoner,
whose demeanor betrayed no sympathy with what was going on. He appeared
utterly indifferent to the fact that his life was at stake, and that he was
being tried for the most heinous of all crimes – murder. That Elizabeth York,
the deceased, had been murdered there was no the most remote doubt, but why
she should have been murdered and why prisoner should have murdered her, are
facts it is difficult to reconcile. In the first place, her father, John
Harman York, deposed that he believed there existed an
intimacy between prisoner and deceased previous to the murder, and also that
prisoner had a strong partiality for his daughter, and was on speaking terms
with her; but that she would not listen to his suit. It is clear that under
all circumstances, so far as his evidence went, the intimacy could scarcely
have been of so strong a nature as to create in the breast of prisoner what
might be termed a hopeless love. No evidence either was advanced to shew that after this intimacy cooled, deceased either
fancied or was engaged to any other person; for the bans published in the
church which Fralick and deceased attended, and which were alleged to have
excited so much anger in his breast, form the evidence of the Rev. M. Newton,
Pastor of the church, were published, not between Elizabeth York and her new
flame, but between a person named Elizabeth Green, residing seven miles away,
and some one else. – After Church then, on Sunday
the 28th of June, the Rev. Mr. Newton actually disabused the mind
of Fralick as to the former fact, the desire to ascertain which had induced
prisoner to come to Church on the day in question; and yet knowing he was
agreeably deceived, we find him, on the evening of the 28th June,
committing the crime of murder, with only very slight provocation as the
evidence has shewn. – Why a slight blow from the hand of a girl whom, as his
Lordship stated, he must have loved and being aware also that no bans of
marriage had been published between her and another, should have lead to the
unfortunate issue, is a mystery it would be difficult to solve. And yet, the
girl was found murdered close to her father’s house and from circumstantial
evidence and the prisoner’s own confession, he must have been the murderer!
In his charge to the Jury, and after having clearly pointed out the
distinction between murder and manslaughter, the former being the result of
malice aforethought, or prepense, and the latter of
momentary passion, over which the criminal was supposed to have no control,
his Lordship strongly commented upon the fact that the blow received by
prisoner on the mouth from deceased, who however, was both strong and
muscular, could not have been sufficient provocation for him to lift a large
stone and put an end to her existence in the manner alleged; for the
succeeding day no swelling of the mouth of prisoner was detected by those who
saw him, which assuredly would have been the case had the blow been severe;
and here it was that the argument of the learned Counsel for the defence was
supposed to fail, inasmuch as he did not succeed in proving that the
provocation received by prisoner was such as to constitute the crime one of
manslaughter. Furthermore, so far as prisoner’s confession went, which
certainly was most damning to himself in every way and yet was taken
advantage of by both the learned Counsels, not content with the blows
inflicted on her head with the stone, and after he had thrown her body over
the road fence, and covered it transversely with three rails, or pieces of
fence, and after he had left the spot and started for his home, he turned
back, fearing she was not quite dead, and maltreated the corpse in a most
shameful manner with a large elm club or bough, between five and six feet
long. Individuals who commit crimes like these in the immediate heat of
passion are generally sorry for having done so immediately after their
commission; but that the prisoner should wreak his vengeance on the already
mutilated corpse of deceased in the manner alluded to, is a fact that
precluded him from a hope of being acquitted of the greater crime. That one of his years,
which his own confession and the evidence advanced proves, could have
exhibited such utter indifference either to the commission of the crime or
its consequences, is anomalous; for had Elizabeth York been his bitterest
enemy, and remembering she was a woman, he could not have exhibited greater
sang froid in the commission of the crime,
considering that the greater cause of jealousy had been removed before he did
so. – There is much, however, in many circumstances of the case, which tends
to throw doubt upon it, while the evidence of many of the witnesses is far
from being as full as one would expect. Mrs. Eliza York, wife of the father
of the deceased, made an admission that Mrs. Daniel York informed her that
deceased left her uncle’s house shortly after nine o’clock on the night of
the 28th, and other evidence goes to shew
that she left it about eleven o’clock of the same night. How are these facts
to be reconciled? Again, Mr. John Harman York led all who heard him to infer
that the body of deceased was found by him, Daniel York, and the others, late
in the morning of the 29th, and yet Mr. Daniel York deposed that
it was discovered about six o’clock in the evening! How can these facts be
reconciled? Furthermore, Wager the Constable and Dr. Carey, of Napanee, who
both appear to have been the recipients of the prisoner’s confession, ought
decidedly to have made use of the prisoner’s confession at the Inquest, where
all the information available ought to have been forthcoming; and Counsel for
defence, very justly, strongly commented on this head, since no facts,
whatever they may be, ought to be withheld from the first inquisition into a
crime, for if a Coroner’s Inquest be not an important court of inquiry, what
is, seeing that the life that has departed, and the life that stands in
jeopardy, lie both in the scale? On one point in particular, the Judge
himself confessed his ignorance, namely, as to how prisoner could have
inflicted the blows with the stone on the back of her head, inasmuch as after
he struck her with his fist and about the time he approached her with the
stone, she turned round and faced him; but in all likelihood, he must have
first knocked her down with repeated blows of his fist and then taken her
life by means of the stone. His Lordship believed
it to be a clear case of murder, so far as his own opinion went, and after
about twenty minutes’ absence, the Jury returned a verdict of “guilty.” Prisoner appeared to
take the matter even more coolly than at first, though the presence of his
mother who was weeping near him, seemed to affect him a little. Much has been said
relative to the confession of the prisoner and its consequences; but it is
quite clear if he made any confession at all, it was done neither through
inducement nor compulsion, for he was quite old enough to know that the
consequences of murder would be death. If, therefore, he made any confession
at all, which the evidence advanced has proved, he must have done so in that
reckless spirit of indifference which all the circumstances connected with
the act shew he possessed, or from a consciousness
that his guilt would become too apparent for further concealment. That the
prisoner acted very strangely after the commission of the deed, there can be
no doubt. His coming near the house of her father in company with his
companions and his afterwards lifting up the window curtain to show a friend
the dead body of his murdered mistress, coupled with the expression he made
use of while afterwards in the company of Wager, go far to prove that his
mind was more than ordinarily unsettled; but the plea of temporary insanity
at the time of the murder does not appear to have been advanced, nor is there
any probability, taking into consideration the circumstances which occurred
shortly before the murder, that prisoner was temporarily insane when he
committed it. It was shewn from the evidence of Mrs. Harman York, that on the
Sunday evening in question, and before Elizabeth, deceased, started for her
uncle’s that she, Mr. Harman York had asked the prisoner to enter the house,
a fact, coupled with the taciturnity of deceased, which shewed at all events
that her stepmother was not unfavorable to prisoner as a suitor for the hand
of her daughter, while the father’s admission goes to prove that he had not
forbidden him the house. How could it have been then, that in place of
meeting the deceased at her own house, after the revelation of the Reverend
Mr. Newton, or going there to seek an explanation, at all events, from the
mouths of her parents, who ought to have known of any prospects of marriage
she may have entertained, he posted himself upon the road in question in
order to meet deceased as she came along. The evidence as to the occurrences
about this time is ambiguous, for it is shewn on the one hand that he must
have gone across the fields from his father’s house to the spot where he met
deceased, and on the other that not very long before deceased left for her
uncle’s, he was standing at the gate of York’s house. He was asked to enter
it, but did not, and on that occasion demanded no explanation from the
parents of deceased – a course which he would have been most likely to adopt,
supposing the girl to have refused to speak to him. If jealousy was the
cause of his committing this murder, for murder it assuredly was, prisoner’s
own confession and the evidence of the Rev. Mr. Newton prove that the cause
had been removed, for prisoner was informed that the bans which he so much
dreaded had not been published. Under these circumstances, and if the
intimacy which existed between the parties had been worth a button, it would
have naturally followed that the prisoner would have adopted strategic rather
than harsh means to secure the waning affections of deceased; and it was
therefore unlikely that the expression “go home and mind your business,”
coupled with the blow he received, could have so greatly exasperated him as
to induce him to commit murder with a stone, for deceased did not return the
blow and the one she gave him could not have been very severe. Nevertheless,
Elizabeth York was foully and cruelly murdered on the night of Sunday, the 28th
June and the finger of justice points to Fralick as the murderer! This is a
case many circumstances connected with which are veiled in obscurity; but the
most likely thing of all which would have led the prisoner to commit the
murder, namely, the desire to possess himself of her person and the
consequences thereof, and the evil thoughts which the gratification of his
passions would thus have engendered, was cast away in the Crown prosecution,
although it was admitted by medical evidence that violence had been committed
upon the person of deceased. [Daily British
Whig - Oct 13 1863] This evening, shortly
after 6 o’clock, Sentence of Death was passed upon Zachariah Fralick for the
murder of Elizabeth York, the Judge extending to the prisoner no hope of
mercy. He is to be hanged on the 7th December next, at the Gaol. [Daily British
Whig - Oct 20 1863] The murderer Zachariah Fralick continues to
bear his sentence with all the composure he exhibited during his trial. He
has requested the clergymen of the different Protestant denominations in the
city to offer up prayers in his behalf, but it is feared that he is not truly
penitent. [Weekly British Whig
- Oct 21 1863] Fralick, the murderer, shows less of that
imperturbable carelessness which characterized him during the trial, and the
ministrations of the clergymen who attend him are beginning to have a visible
effect. – From his lips no curse or oath has been heard to drop and he has
even been known to pray. Our reporter visited him and the other convicts this
morning (they are all in the same cell) in company with the Governor of the
Gaol, and Dr. Brown, the Gaol Physician, and found them making their morning
toilet. The Governor addressed each of the prisoners and enquired kindly
after his welfare. They all answered respectfully the inquiries made, and
were apparently on the best of terms with one another. But when Mr. R.
Corbett told Fralick there was no hope for him, he merely cast his eyes down
and touched the stove pipe, close to which he stood, but said nothing. He
seems to have resigned himself to his fate; but may make his peace with heaven
ere he has made atonement for his crime. The prisoners can have as many
religious works as they please, but are not allowed to read secular works.
Their cell, like those of all the others, is scrupulously clean, without even
a straw to indicate negligence. Indeed great praise is due to Mr. R. Corbett
and his officials for the attention they bestow upon the Gaol and the
prisoners in it. [Weekly British Whig
- Dec 2 1863] Decisions were given today by the Governor in
Council on the following cases, in which His Excellency had been petitioned
to exercise the prerogative of mercy, with reference to criminals sentenced
to be hanged: - Zachariah Fralick, convicted at Kingston
Assizes for the murder of Elizabeth York; the sentence of the Court for his
execution on the 7th December, to be carried out. [Daily British Whig
- Dec 4 1863] Fralick has confessed his guilt, according to
the evidence adduced at the trial, but denies having violated his victim’s
person. This he, however, contemplated on the night of the murder. He has
resigned himself calmly to his fate and in his will firmly believes he has
been pardoned by his Maker. Almost all his worldly possessions consists of 30 acres of land in the Township of Richmond,
which he has willed to his two sisters and a brother. The will was witnessed
by the Rev. Mr. Gemley, Sheriff Corbett and Mr. R.
Corbett, Governor of the Gaol. The Sheriff informs us, in order not to
pander to the morbid interest created by an Execution, that
he intends to execute the criminal Fralick at early Grey Dawn on Monday
morning. The hundreds of country men and women who
crowd to sights of this horrible kind, will have to get up early in the
morning. We hope, but hope in vain, that no decent woman will present
herself. [Daily British Whig
- Dec 7 1863] A gentleman who was inside the prison tells
us that Fralick passed the whole of Sunday and Sunday night in prayer. Three
clergymen were unremitting in their attendance, and were with him at a late
hour last night and a very early hour this morning. When pinioned he was
quite calm and resigned to his fate and walked to the scaffold between two of
the clergymen. He was only a few minutes on the drop and died easily without
saying a word, or being desirous of saying anything. The relatives came for the
body today and took it away. The Execution Execution has been done upon the young man
Fralick, the murderer of the poor girl Elizabeth York, in Richmond. He was
hanged this morning shortly after then o’clock. There was a great crowd of
both sexes to witness the horrible sight; but we are happy to say, that no
respectable woman was present. The Sheriff kindly gave permission for the
Press to be present inside the Jail, but no one form this office availed
himself of the permission. Doubtless, everything was done selon
le regle. The prisoner had the consolations of
religion and three clergymen attended him on the gallows. Of course he
repented, as all murderers do on the drop; but we have no faith in that kind
of repentance. But let us hope he has repented – he has gone to meet his
Maker, who may have more mercy on him than he had on the victim of his
brutality. |