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.

 

 

 

 

 

HOME 1