DAISY SOUTHARD WARREN - Jersey crime and punishment in 1924.
Daisy Southard appeared before the
Jersey Royal Court on 16 August 1924.
She was 35 years of
age, an “Exonian” - that is born in Exeter - and the widow of Jersey man George
William Warren.
Over the next few
days her name and details would be published in newspapers throughout Britain
and many places overseas too.
George had been
serving as a private with the Devonshire Regiment but was a 35 years old
railway station master and bachelor living at St Lawrence when they married on
5 April 1916 at St. Helier.
His father was
George a farm labourer who had various manual jobs over the years and had
raised a family with his wife Elizabeth at several addresses throughout the
Island.
Daisy was born in
1889. She was a 27 years old spinster
and brush maker when she married George William the station master in 1816 but when
or why she had moved to Jersey is not known.
Her father Thomas
Southard was described as a railway labourer on Daisy’s marriage certificate.
Thomas had married Evangeline
and there had been at least five other children in their Exeter home.
The First Devon Regiment
was stationed at Fort Regent and St. Peter’s Barracks and many local men had
enlisted. They were sent off to the war in 1914 initially to France but then to
campaigns much further away. George was awarded the 1914 Star for his service
in France and Belgium.
The Regiment did
not return to Jersey but George William had been injured or otherwise made
unfit for further military duties.
He was presumably sent
from the war zone back to Jersey where he was considered well enough to blow a
whistle and wave a flag on a station platform and to marry.
There were several
children born of the marriage. These might have been William George born in
1917, Daisy Doreen in 1920 and a Jesse Maud in 1921 but there were many Warrens
in Jersey, especially in and around St Helier.
Elizabeth Warren a spinster of No 1 Dorset Street had died in 1868. She
left her possessions to the six children of her deceased brother John Warren
and her nephew George Henry Warren.
It was probably not coincidental that Daisy Southard/Warren lived predominantly
at 4 Dorset Street subsequently although she entered nearby 41 Clearview Street
on the false birth registration in 1924.
George William the
former station master died at the Jersey General Hospital on 5 August 1921 from
heart failure but was still described as a “soldier in the Devonshire Regiment”
on the certificate.
Edward Warren, an ex soldier, had died in St. Helier of “heart disease”
too in 1917 and might have been related. Charles George Warren from St Lawrence
also served as a private in the “Devons.”
Three children
survived from Daisy and George’s five years of marriage so it was a strange
decision when the widow Daisy registered the birth of her own baby daughter,
born on 12 July 1924, as being his child, three years after George had died.
This was not true of
course, but nevertheless, the false information was duly entered into the
Registry of births by Registrar Arthur Hamon where the infant was named as
Evelyn Muriel Ellen Warren on Tuesday 29 July.
However, somebody –
presumably the Registrar - blew the whistle so that Daisy duly appeared in the
Jersey Royal Court on Saturday 16 August 1924 charged with making a false declaration
on a birth certificate, contrary to Article 5 ( among others) of the Law on the
Registration of Births, Marriages and Deaths of 1842.
This was a criminal
matter and was evidently considered serious enough to present before the
Island’s Royal Court rather than before a Police Court Magistrate.
That decision to
prosecute had been made by Crown Officer Mr C. E. Mallet De Carteret the
“acting” Attorney-General who was also the Solicitor-General.
Daisy probably
received a visit at her home “Kendum”
4 Dorset Street or 41 Clearview Street, St. Helier from Parish Centenier Cabot (a
police officer) to be charged and warned to appear in court although it was the
newly elected Constable Ferguson of St. Helier who appeared there for the
Parish.
Bailiff Sir William
Venebles Vernon was the 71 years old presiding Judge for the Saturday Royal
Court and he happened also to be chairman of the Jersey Railway Company.
Sitting alongside him
were Jurats Crill and Renouf.
The
Solicitor-General prosecuted and Advocate Duret Aubin defended.
Aubin might have
been engaged to defend in accordance with the Advocate’s oath to represent the
poor and widows of Jersey – a traditional form of legal aid.
For Daisy this prosecution
must have been a frightening development.
She had just
recently given birth and her financial resources were most likely limited,
especially if she was already caring for the three children from her marriage.
She had no
immediate adult family of her own to support her in Jersey and that of her
former husband might not have been very sympathetic to her situation.
However, since
there were three legitimate children of George to be cared for it is possible
that the Warren family rallied round to keep them out of the care of the Island’s
children’s homes.
In the grandiose,
sombre court room, the 4 feet 11 inches tall, brown haired Daisy, weighing just
104 pounds (7 stones 6 pounds), equipped only with an “imperfect” education
would have presented a weak and vulnerable figure before the intimidating and
elevated judicial officers in their scarlet robes.
For some reason,
the trial had attracted a large number of “onlookers” into the court.
The May Assizes in
the same courtroom had included a major criminal trial before the Bailiff, eight
Jurats and a lay jury of 24 men which was reported in the Jersey Morning News as “An Innovation” :
“For the first time
in history the whole of the evidence, Public Prosecutor’s conclusions, Counsel’s
pleadings and Bailiff’s summing -up were in English which should prove a
welcome precedent at future Assizes when the accused have only knowledge of
English language.”
Previously the
language of the courts and judicial system was French and the acoustics were
dreadful so it was traditionally difficult to follow the proceedings.
It was not the only
challenge that Jersey was facing to its “traditions” either.
Not only was the
constitution being tested over the “Imperial contribution” question but in
February the Jersey States had agreed that women could be elected as “People’s
Representatives” to the Legislative Assembly “but not as life members.”
It was to be 1948
before the first woman was elected.
This trial was not “an
assize” but since Daisy was English with an “imperfect education” the court
might have followed the recent precedent. The court proceedings were written in
French.
After the charges
were recited by the Public Prosecutor, Defending Advocate Aubin entered a plea
of “Guilty.”
In court H.M.’s
Solicitor-General described George, the late husband as a “Private in the Devon Regiment” rather
than a station master and explained that the law called for a fine of £50 or 12
months imprisonment but asked that a fine of £2 be imposed or one month’s
imprisonment “without hard labour.”
Advocate Aubin
argued that the Prosecutor was compelled by law to ask for a fine and imprisonment
but “was sure that if he had his choice he would not have done so.”
He continued :
“The case was a sad
one. There were three legitimate children. The accused had acted in ignorance.
If the Court did wish to impose imprisonment he hoped they would grant the
benefit of the First Offenders Act.”
Furthermore, he
explained that the father of baby Evelyn Muriel Ellen was a married man who was
prepared to hand his name to the Court and that he had been abandoned by his
wife 5 years ago.
He was also willing
to marry Daisy “but could not do so.”
Somewhat strangely,
the report in the Morning News which
was published on Monday 18 August ended :
“The Court granted
the conclusions asked for and the accused was accordingly sentenced.”
This simple and
incomplete statement not only failed to record what the sentence actually was
but also omitted any reference to the issue that turned Daisy briefly into a
media celebrity….
The report of the
case in the late Saturday edition of the (Jersey) Evening Post – owned and edited by the Methodist Walter Guiton - did
carry an account of the court case and sentencing but it was the UK Weekly Dispatch (aka Sunday Dispatch) that really exposed the
most disturbing detail on Sunday 17 August.
This account was
copied in the Evening Post on Monday
18 August and was headed:
WOMAN IN IRON CAGE – Exhibited in Court After Sentence.
“Following an
old-fashioned practice that smacks of the Middle Ages, a woman sentenced by the
Jersey Royal Court was placed in an iron cage and subjected to the gaze of a
large crowd of visitors who out of curiosity had come to watch the proceedings.
In her despair the poor woman went into hysterics and had to be removed.”
This account
explained that Daisy was sentenced to pay a fine of £2 and to go to gaol for
one month but was then “placed in an iron cage situated in a corner of the
court for all to see, until her shrieks, compelled her removal.”
Who had ordered
that she should be placed in the cage was not recorded.
The newspaper had
explained that: “In England the practice
of publicly exhibiting minor offenders in the stocks fell into disuse about a
hundred years ago.” (Weekly Dispatch
- August 17)
Jersey’s pillory had stood in the Royal Square (formerly the Market
Place) just outside the Court until 1836. It had been removed then following a
scandalous case when three Jewish traders – Bersham, Myers and Cohen - had been
tried and sentenced for frauds with counterfeited Guernsey bank notes They were
sentenced to be jailed, had their property confiscated, stood together in the
pillory for an hour and were banished from the Island.
Guernsey had a cage with a pillory attached so it was probably similar
in Jersey with this being sited near the market place where the public could
obtain suitable vegetable missiles to throw at the unfortunates on display.
The Guernsey cage was eventually mounted on a cart so that it could be
stored and brought out as needed.
In London, It was not at all unusual for those pilloried to be killed
by the violent actions of the mob until that facility was scrapped in 1816.
The Guernsey cage had metal rings attached which were used to restrain
those sentenced to be whipped or mutilated in public. It was still used during
the 1830s.
The Jersey cage was originally sited in the market-place and used to hold
prisoners for trial in the adjacent court having been marched in from detention
at Gorey Castle.
After a town prison was built in 1693 at Charing Cross those awaiting
trial were kept detained there and the cage was removed from the market place
in 1698.
It seems that a “cage” was then installed in the Royal Court to contain
criminal prisoners during and after their trials. The pillory continued in use and was sited just outside the court in the Royal Square (Market Place) and
under the constant gaze - after 1751 - of George ll’s gilded statue.
The Charing Cross prison was demolished in 1812 to be replaced by a
newly built structure adjacent to the General Hospital in Newgate Street.
It was only after the campaigning of Elizabeth Fry the Quaker prison reformer
that this unsatisfactory prison was in turn demolished and replaced in 1837 in
a similar location with a “House of Correction.”
This was finally demolished and a new prison built at La Moye, St
Brelade in 1975.
This prison too has been subject to several critical reports by the UK
Prison Inspectorate and a UN Committee concerned with “torture or inhuman and
degrading treatment” causing further improvements and extensions to be
provided.
Appended to the Evening Post report was a letter from
C.T. Maine of 35 King Street, St. Helier also dated 18 August.
Charles Maine was a
silversmith, jeweller and clock maker whose premises were situated in the main
retail street of St. Helier a just a few hundred yards from the Royal Court
building.
It was possible
that he was among the “large crowd of visitors” who had gone to watch the
proceedings and it was also possible that he had contacted the Dispatch newspaper in London to express
his disgust at the whole business.
A large number of UK newspaper reporters had been invited to Jersey in 1924
to hear the Channel Islands’ arguments against making a financial contribution
to British defence expenditure and debts following the First World War. This
had become known throughout the Empire as the “Imperial Contribution” question
and raised important constitutional issues but had a special interest in the
Channel Islands where many wealthy British had settled or contrived, to avoid
paying UK taxes. Winston Churchill, appointed as Chancellor of the Exchequer in
1924, promised to curtail such tax dodging.
The case of Lady Lucy Houston and her late shipping magnate husband’s
fortune of £7 million was one that came before the Bailiff and the Jersey
courts over several years. It was widely reported outside the Island too not
only because the UK tax authorities wanted a share but the Jersey court had its
eyes on a £150,000 package of jewels which had arrived concealed in a fruit
basket from Southampton and was held in care by a St. Helier Jeweller.
No Income tax was collected in Jersey until the law was introduced in
1928.
The Bailiff of Jersey was of course prominent in defending the Jersey point
of view and he served as Chief Judge and the “principal citizen” for 32 years
from 1899.
The Islanders he said “were proud of their autonomy” and “England had
always helped the independence of the Island…and Jersey was always loyal to the
throne.”
We are he said a “loyal and prosperous community “ but “we say no to a
contribution in our spirit of independence” and “ there can be no taxation without
representation.”
Or, it might have been that the Dispatch
reporter was still in Jersey when Daisy went to trial.
Charles Maine’s
letter to “The Editor of the Evening Post” revealed some specific observations
about Daisy’s treatment besides knowledge of Royal Court procedures that
suggest he had been observing these for some time and had reformist thoughts in
his mind.
He wrote that Daisy
“had sobbed bitterly when removed to the cage in the Court” and he
congratulated the Editor for “having called the public attention to the continuance
of this barbarous treatment and venture to suggest the petitioning of our
authorities to discontinue this exposure.”
He continued:
“Let a room be
arranged for the placing of prisoners before or after their trial and not an
iron cage. How many instances are there where prisoners have been so exposed
before trial, proven not guilty and yet they experienced this cruel exposure.
An equal sympathy should certainly be also shown the guilty. Sad enough it is
for prisoners to remain in the centre of the Court during trial without
undergoing treatment as you describe on Saturday last.”
That this was
evidently already a matter of public concern followed :
“Months ago this
very question was raised at a meeting of the Rotarians who unanimously agreed
to write our authorities asking were it not possible to make other arrangements for prisoners by
giving them accommodation whereby they would not be put in a cage.”
“How frequently
there are two prisoners waiting trial the same day : the one is removed to the
centre of the Court for trial : the other remains in the iron grill, possibly
for hours, and the whole while gazed at by the folks attending Court.”
He concluded:
“I do sincerely
hope that steps will be taken to discontinue this barbarous treatment.”
C.T. MAINE.
At the end of the
Court’s proceedings on 18 August, Daisy was duly escorted - probably in a van
- the half mile or so to the Newgate Street
prison which retained a treadmill (for grinding peppercorns), picking oakum (from
old ropes and fabrics) and stone breaking as the usual employment for the
inmates.
The prison usually
accommodated about 100 convicts or debtors and included a female wing for about
a dozen more.
Here she was
measured and weighed and her details entered into the admissions ledger as
number 8987.
She was 32 years old,
the widow of George W. Warren, a brush maker with no particular marks but her
hair was dark brown and her religion was “Church of England.”
Somebody assessed
her education as “imperfect” and she had no previous convictions.
If her baby and
three other children had not been taken-in by members of the Warren family or
other friends they would have been removed to various homes around Jersey.
William the 7 year
old boy was probably sent to the “Home for Boys” facility at St. Martin’s
whilst his sisters were probably admitted to the Grouville “Girls Home.” There
would have been little opportunity to visit or communicate with each other.
Daisy as a nursing
mother, separated from her baby and other children and confined to the grim
prison would have had to adapt to a strict regime. Yet her weight had increased
by 4 pounds (to 108 pounds) when she was released on 16 September.
Why she made the
false registration declaration is not clear. It is probable that this was from
ignorance as her defence lawyer claimed in court and she was simply following
the previous procedure without thinking too much that her husband was three
years dead.
Her “imperfect”
education was most likely relevant too but there might have been some financial
inducement such as Parish Poor Law relief or an Army pension increase payable
to an extra legitimate child.
Reports of the case
and the scandalous use of the “medieval” and “barbaric” cage soon appeared in
newspapers around the British Isles and overseas too.
Daisy Southard was briefly
famous.
The cage was a
“strange Jersey Custom” in the Gloucestershire
Gazette.
It was “old
fashioned justice” in the Dunbar Courier.
A “practice that
smacks of the Middle Ages” in the Larne
Times.
“Jersey’s
barbarism” according to the Hull Daily
Mail.
“Back to barbarity”
in the Lincolnshire Echo whilst the Nottingham Evening Post noted the “vigorous
protests from Jersey it is hoped will end the medieval practice.”
It was not the sort
of publicity that Jersey welcomed.
Daisy was soon
returned to her home, family and presumably, her brush making work.
Her moment of
celebrity had passed but not her ability to produce babies.
Whether the same married
lover was attending at “Kendum” 4 Dorset Street is not known but baby Joseph
Alexander Southard joined his “sister” there in June 1926 and baby Irene Maud
Southard was also squeezed into the little cottage in October 1928.
These babies were both
registered by Daisy alone with no father being identified so she might have
been looking after a family of six children when Christmas descended on St
Helier in 1928.
In November of that
same year Daisy’s little sister from Exeter - Mabel Amelia Southard – married
Philip Misson Egan in St. Helier.
He was a 23 years
old bachelor and labourer. Spinster Mabel
was just 15.
Daisy was a witness
at the wedding which was unusual insofar as the newlyweds had brought their own
new born son Philip Henry along too “in order to give him the sight of
legitimacy.”
The fact that he
was “presented at this marriage” was duly entered into the Register.
Whether it had been
intended that young sister Mabel moved to Jersey in order to help out with
Daisy’s many chores is not known but Mabel’s own little family did not survive.
At least, by the
time that the German Occupation of the Channel Islands commenced in 1940 Philip
Henry Egan had been placed in the Jersey Home for Boys at St Martin’s.
When his Identity
Card was produced by the German forces in 1942 he was a schoolboy living –
inevitably – at 4 Dorset Street.
Daisy Southard,
Evelyn Muriel, Joseph Alexander and Irene Maud were all living there too. Daisy
also had an address at “Meadow View”, Longueville, but what had happened to
Philip Henry’s parents is not clear.
They possibly had
sailed to England on one of the evacuation boats just before the German forces
arrived.
Of the three
legitimate children of Daisy’s marriage to George William only their son William
George Warren has been identified with certainty among the Occupation Identity
Cards.
His was issued in
1941 when he lived at “Evadale” Undercliffe Road, St Helier.
Most likely his two
sisters had married and so changed their surnames.
What happened
eventually to Daisy Southard is not known.
The “cage” was
removed from the Royal Court but it is not known when or why.
There remains only
a small room off the back of the Royal Court which is claimed by senior court
staff to have been its former location.
This is a Draft copy of this article.
Daisy
Southard-Warren’s German ID card includes her photo. Subject to agreement with
the Jersey Archives this may be copied here in due course.
This article has
been researched with the help of staff and volunteers at the Jersey Archives,
Jersey Library and Registrar of Births, Marriages and Deaths.
