On this day … 17 November 1869

The Preston Chronicle carried a report of the chief constable’s annual appearance before councillors to present his report on crime in the town. That report included the following:

‘Robert Caton was committed for trial by the magistrates for wilfully murdering his wife, but was committed by the coroner on the charge of manslaughter. He was found guilty of the latter crime, and sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment.’

This would seem a very lenient sentence for such a serious crime, and the description of that crime when the case came to trial showed that it was a ferocious attack on a defenceless woman. The mitigating circumstance that secured the light sentence was that she had provoked her husband.

When Caton appeared at the Spring Assizes at Lancaster Castle, the judge outlined the case to the grand jury, which had to decide whether Caton should face a charge of murder or manslaughter when he appeared before the ordinary jury, telling them:

‘… a man was convicted by the coroner’s jury of manslaughter, and committed by the magistrates on a charge of murder. It appears that the man suffered very great provocation, his wife living in a state of adultery with another man. Unhappily, many of these cases arise from drunkenness, and this appears to be the case of a woman giving herself up to drink.

‘She greatly provoked the man, and the instrument with which he did the mischief was not one, perhaps, which might be considered likely to take away life. It was a stick, but of course much would depend upon its size, and in his anger he struck her with it, and struck her with such violence on the head that she ultimately died of the wounds.

‘Now, you will take into account, looking into all the circumstances, the provocation received … You will consider whether the jury will be likely to convict upon the charge of murder, and if you do not think so, you will probably take the same view of the matter as the coroner’s jury did, and bring in an indictment for manslaughter.’

The grand jury opted for a charge of manslaughter, and when Caton appeared in court he pleaded not guilty to the charge.

The court was told that Robert Caton, his wife Ann, and Ellen, his daughter from a previous relationship, were living in Gardner Street. The couple had a row in a neighbouring shop, during which Caton punched his wife in the mouth, and then they left separately. When Caton returned home the row continued, with Ann accusing her husband of having sex with Ellen, until, as the prosecutor outlined:

‘… the prisoner went to the top of the cellar steps, got a stick with which he struck the deceased while on the sofa, and she held up her arm to protect her face. He then put the stick down, whereupon she said. “If you do that again”, or something to that effect, which caused him to seize the stick again, and he undoubtedly hit her at least three times.

‘He struck her with great force and violence, for he broke her skull in several places, which caused her death.’

The only witness to the crime was Ann’s stepdaughter Ellen. After the assault, father and daughter left the house and the mortally wounded Ann. Caton took his daughter to a shop to buy her a shawl, and then went to the Iron Duke beer house, his daughter returning home, accompanied by a young man, James Ainsworth.

Ellen described the scene that met them:

‘My mother was still on the sofa, and was groaning. I stayed in the house with Ainsworth about an hour and a half, and she was groaning all the time.’

Shortly after, according to Ellen, Ann died and she went to the Iron Duke to get her father. She told the court that her ‘father had had some drink when he struck the blow, and appeared to have had more when I went for him’.

Ellen described the couple’s marriage:

‘My father and mother had been married eight years. She was addicted to drink, and frequently sold stuff out of the house to obtain drink. She was very unkind to me and beat me, and my father had to interfere to protect me.’

Caton’s defence counsel then addressed the jury, telling them:

‘The principal circumstance for them to consider was the provocation which the prisoner received. If any human being had been subjected to such disgusting and abominable accusations as those made by the unfortunate woman now in the grave against the prisoner – accusations of such a beastly unnaturalness, he would not have been able to stand it, human infirmity could not bear it.’

He continued:

‘In considering the case, it was incumbent upon them to remember the horrible nature of the accusation, for there was no doubt that he would be maddened by the words she used. The prisoner would have to suffer the penalty of the law, but he hoped that when they had considered the circumstances connected with it, they would return a verdict that it was not a bad case of manslaughter.’

The jury agreed with him, found the accused guilty but asked for him to be treated mercifully since he had acted ‘under great provocation’.

The next day the judge passed sentence on Caton, noting that he ‘had been strongly recommended to mercy by the jury on account of the provocation he had received’. The judge agreed, and sentenced the prisoner to twelve months’ imprisonment with hard labour.

---

Source
Anyone with a Lancashire County Library card can read the Preston Chronicle and many more papers for free here: https://link.gale.com/apps/BNCN?u=lancs&aty=rpas