William Taylor (38), labourer was indicted for the wilful murder of his infant child Annie Taylor and also of Thomas Birkhill, superintendent of police at Otley, on the 24th November 1887.
On the prisoner entering the dock, the defence said that, acting upon medical evidence, the defence intended to put in issue the prisoner’s power to plead. The defence presented its evidence for this position.
The first witness was Dr Clifford Allbutt of Leeds who stated that he had seen and examined the prisoner upon two occasions at the request of prisoner’s solicitor, once that morning and once on the previous Saturday, the surgeon of the gaol being also present on the latter occasion.
Dr Allbutt said he had endeavoured to ascertain whether the prisoner was or was not subject to delusions, and the following was the result of his observations:- The prisoner’s manner and aspect were suggestive of an epileptic and his disposition was confused. He was frequently smiling and among the answers he made to questions put was this – that he was born with four endowments, health, strength, prosperity and knowledge. He also said there were two gods, and one of them had forced the qualities upon him in some manner which he could not adequately explain. He was weak minded, confused, and incoherent, and when asked concerning the crime with which he was charged said he remembered nothing about the case of the child: but with regard to the murder of Birkhill he stated he had no remembrance of that event until some time afterwards. He had often been informed such an occurrence had taken place, but he disbelieved it. He said he had heard of the circumstances from someone who came into the gaol, and who had told him what they had seen in the newspaper. He then began to think it was true and that he had done the deed, and some indistinct remembrance of the affair entered his mind. So far as the witness could tell, there was no sign whatsoever of hypocrisy on the prisoner’s part in making these statements. The man’s mental condition on that day (Thursday) was different, in that he was more excited. In cross-examination, witness said it was not impossible prisoner was assuming the character of an insane man, but his (witness’s) opinion was that he was not deceived in what he observed.
The defence asked Dr Allbutt whether he thought that at the present time the man knows he is on his trial for murder? Dr Allbutt replied that he thought that he did, and further said he certainly did not think the prisoner was in a fit state to give adequate instructions, or to adequately appreciate his position
The next witness,John Gledstone, solicitor, Otley, stated that he had several interviews of with the prisoner since his commitment. He had, however, been unable to get any instructions there-by. Prisoner made rambling statements and spoke of certain qualities which he had, and said he was possessed of a devil. He further said he had a little old man with him, and when that little old man was with him he did not know what he was doing. Prisoner did not in any way appear to be shamming. He had been examined by two medical men on behalf of the Treasury.
Mr Ritchie, surgeon Otley, who said he had known the prisoner for 30 years, gave evidence as to the fits to which Taylor was subject. There were two distinct characters of these known to the profession, namely petit and grand, the former afflicting the mental faculties, and the latter the motor powers. Prisoner was subject to both kinds. Witness then gave details of a conversation with the prisoner on the day of the murder, in which the prisoner alleged that his wife had been trying to poison him and the infant, and further told the witness that a black cloud came over him in which was the Lord Almighty, and whatever He commanded he was bound to do. He thought the delusions from which the prisoner suffered indicated a general break up of his mind. The man was capable of understanding much that was said to him.
Mr Thomas Greener Brooks, of Otley, said he had attended the prisoner several times as a minister of religion by order of the Home Secretary. The prisoner was subject to delusions the whole of the time. The witness said he had talked to him about his serious position, and he had told him it was no good for me as a parson to talk to him like that: that God Almighty had given him knowledge and power to do it, and if he wanted to talk to anyone he had better go and talk to God Almighty. He then always used objectionable words and told the witness to “shut up” after saying something naughty. The witness added that the prisoner’s parents were members of his (the witnesses) church, and the prisoner himself formerly attended his Sunday School.
The defence asked Mr Brooks if he had heard the account given about the little old man and the black cloud? Mr Brooks replied that Taylor had never mentioned the black cloud to him, but he did talk about the little old man. He had also told him that there were two Bill Taylors, and he had said I had better talk to the bad Bill Taylor. Taylor’s last argument to Mr Brooks was that if he had done this it was not killing, for God had said “Thou shalt not kill”, and God told him to do it. When Mr Brooks told him that there was a difference between God’s promise and God’s command he said: “I don’t care, you parsons can preach anything. God tells me I can’t kill, and I can’t kill.”
Dr Wright, consulting physician to the Wakefield Lunatic Asylum, was also of opinion that the mind of the prisoner was deranged and said the man appeared more demented today than he had seen previously.
Dr Clarke, physician at the Wakefield Gaol, said that from the end of November he had seen the prisoner constantly. The man had enjoyed good health, and slept well. He had exhibited no symptoms that would indicate insanity. Witness had frequently conversed with him on general topics, and he always appeared to understand the questions that were put to him, and to give rational answers to them. Mr Lewis, medical superintendent of Wakefield Asylum, gave similar evidence.
Mr John Richards, surgeon at Armley Gaol, had not noticed anything in the behaviour of the prisoner to indicate insanity. Recently he had been rather doubtful whether or not there were signs of shamming about the man, who had said different things in a different way, and had not always stuck to the same thing. Frequently when witness alluded to the charge of murder, prisoner said, “Do you think a man in his sane mind would ever do anything of the sort?” and witness invariably replied, “It’s not very likely.”
John Williamson, a prisoner at Armley Gaol, deposed to having had conversations with the prisoner both day and night in the gaol. Prisoner appeared strange at times, especially on religious matters. With regard to the charge against him, he had said it was something got up by the newspapers for amusement: they were able to get up anything.
Edwin Danby, another prisoner, said he had spoken to Taylor about the trial that morning, after the clergyman had been, and gathered that he was expecting the trial, and that he would be released to an asylum as a result.
At this point, after arguments placed by both defence, prosecution and summing up by the judge, the jury were asked if the prisoner was fit for trial, to which the jury declared the prisoner fit to stand trial. When Taylor was asked to plead guilty or not guilty, he replied “I don’t know right, sir.”
The prosecution opened by recapitulating the facts of the case
Ellis Brumfitt Hartley corroborated the remarks of counsel with reference to himself. In cross-examination, he stated that the prisoner and his wife had lived peaceably together, the former being much attached to the children. Prisoner had long been subject to epileptic fits, and while in one of them his conduct was strange and eccentric. On the Monday before the murder he spent the night in singing, whistling and praying, and he had another attack on the Tuesday after dinner time. Sometimes whilst in a fit he used to bark like a dog, and after recovering was silent and despondent. At Mrs Taylor’s request witness had removed the gun out of prisoner’s way on two occasions.
PC Macdonald stated that when securing prisoner as he left the house prisoner struck at him with a shovel and said “I’ll kill you too.” Twelve leaded cartridges were found in his pockets, and two in the gun. As he was being conveyed to the police-station he cried out to the crowd, “Hello lads, I don’t care a ------ now : I’ve got my revenge.”
Inspector Crow gave evidence of an interview between Dr Ritchie and the prisoner, when the latter accused his wife of having attempted to poison the child, and of having put something in his tea. He also alleged that she had tried to poison the water which they had in the house.
Mr Pinder, surgeon, who examined the prisoner shortly after the occurrence, stated that he found no traces that the prisoner had been drinking or had recently been suffering from an epileptic fit. When asked about his shooting the child he said, “I didn’t shoot the child; has she been doing anything at it?” meaning his wife.
Dr Clarke, physician at Wakefield Prison, said he had seen the prisoner constantly during his incarceration, and there had been no indication of epileptic mania since he came into the gaol. The prioner’s present condition was not at all incompatible with his having had a severe attack of that mania at or about the time the murder was committed. According to the evidence, the case appeared to have been one of epileptic mania.
Mr William Bran Lewis, medical officer to the West Riding Asylum, Wakefield, stated that he had seen the prisoner on two occasions and had not observed any indication of the mania. He had made an examination at the insistance of the Treasury. He agreed with Dr Clarke’s evidence in every respect, and at the time of the murder would have had no hesitation in signing a certificate for prisoner’s admission to a lunatic asylum.
The defence, addressing the jury, said that when about seven years of age the prisoner had a terrible attack of scarlet fever, the disease leaving behind it consequences of mischief in the system which had never been eradicated. From the time he apparently recovered from the attack he had been the victim of two different kinds of fits, and for a long time past these fits had troubled, and by degrees worn away his intellect. That was not all. When he was about 20 years of age he was attacked and very severely beaten and ill treated, and wounded so ferociously and terribly about the head that serious consequences were anticipated. He, however, recovered from that, but the incident intensified the mischief which had existed, and it brought about the deterioration of his mental powers, which succeeded in placing him in the dock on charge of murder.
Elizabeth Taylor, prisoner’s mother, said that up to the age of six years her son was a healthy child, but had then suffered from scarlatina and an epileptic fit. From that time he had fits frequently, and always behaved in a very strange manner, often saying he wanted to die and complaining that he could not do so. When about 20 years of age he was set upon by a number of men while at a neighbouring fair and was very severely battered on the head. In 1877 he was married, and went to live on a small farm belonging to his brother, but soon had to give it up, as he could not manage it. When witness saw him the day before the crime was committed he was looking very wild about the eyes, and said he felt very ill. She made him a cup of coffee, but he declined to drink it, declaring that poison had been put in it. At the time he was playing with the hands of his watch, turning them backwards and forwards. Her husband paid the rent of the house and made him an allowance. They did not give him money, because they were afraid of his spending it at the public-house. During the last two years he had a gun with which he used to go shooting in places where he had leave. When he had fits he used sometimes to dance, whistle and sing, and afterwards would be for several days before he came right; he talked foolishly and “did not notice much.” He was usually in this condition for more than a week and was not in his right mind.
Stephen Taylor, draper’s assistant, Otley, a younger brother of the prisoner, corroborated the evidence in regard to the fits to which the prisoner was subject. On one occasion when witness contradicted his brother, he threatened to kill him.
John Jeffries, farm servant of Barrowford, Burnley, stated that while servant to the prisoner’s father about 11 years ago, he used to sleep with the prisoner. He gave similar evidence as to the prisoner’s conduct while in the fits which, he said came on every two or three weeks. One form of the prisoner’s delusions was to see a hare in the “midden” and to try and get it out. Witness had seen him going out without his trousers on, and also trying to put his coat on the wrong way up.
William Dibb, cattle dealer, Norwood, Otley, said he had known the prisoner from his boyhood, and from 1874 to 1877 had slept with him at his father’s house. The prisoner had fits frequently one after the other, and did not seem to be right afterwards. After he got married the fits seemed to grow more violent.
Tom Lambert, pig dealer, Otley, also gave details of the prisoner’s eccentric behaviour on recent dates.
Dr Ritchie, of Otley, stated that the prisoner was suffering from epileptic mania, which was a recognised disease. The fits brought on unconsciousness, which was succeeded by fits of anger, with homicidal or suicidal tendencies. The mania was caused by some affection of the brain, and was affected by process of time, the mental condition becoming gradually worse and worse. If a man so afflicted were put under restraint and dieted, the result would be to ward off the fits and to tend to restore his mental powers. The recurrence of the fits was such a state of things as would be likely to cause insanity.
Dr Wright, consulting physician to the West Riding Asylum, Wakefield, said he perfectly agreed with what Dr Ritchie had stated with respect to the prisoner’s condition. Witness had examined the prisoner and found him able to converse naturally on ordinary subjects, but on taking him to the subject of the crime he found he was not able to give any account of it. He ignored the death of his child, said the child was quite well for all he knew, and he did not know that anything had happened. On being questioned about the use to which he had put his gun, he said it had been used for no bad purpose. At the time witness was not sure whether all this was candid and true, or whether the man was feigning. That, however, was a problem he had frequently to solve, and by his observations and examinations of the prisoner since he had quite satisfied himself that the prisoner’s condition was genuine. The delusions to which the prisoner was subject were symptomatic of the epileptic mania. There were many instances in which persons so afflicted attempted to kill those they loved best. From the evidence given in Court, Taylor would unquestionably have been admitted into a lunatic asylum if an application for his admission had been made. Epileptic maniacs were the most dangerous class of lunatics, especially when their complaint was combined with a mania of suspicion and delusions.
Dr Clifford Allbutt, of Leeds, gave evidence similar to what he stated yesterday. In his opinion the prisoner was suffering from epileptic mania when he had seen him in the gaol.
Dr Forbes Winslow spoke concerning an examination he had made of the prisoner on the 7th of February at Wakefield. He had, he said, made a special study of epileptic cases and diseases of the mind, and judging from the sworn testimony of the witnesses and from his own observations, he considered that the prisoner was at that time suffering from insanity, the result of epilepsy, and in consequence of repeated attacks of the grand mal form of epilepsy his mind was weakened.
The defence addressed the jury on the prisoner’s behalf. From what had been admitted by the witnesses, he said there was no man of honour or skill on earth, qualified to give an opinion of the state of the prisoner’s mind on the night before the murder, but would say the prisoner was mad that night. Since that time the prisoner had been properly dieted and cared for under strict regime, and the mania had been got more and more under control. If what ought to have been done had been done, he contended, the prisoner would have been taken to a lunatic asylum on the night before the crime was committed. Practically, he argued, the evidence was all one way, namely on the side he was presenting to them. There was not a particle of evidence to show any ill-feeling, any motive, any malice, or any breaking down of the evidence given by the medical gentlemen on one side or the other. He asked them to say that the prisoner at the time of the crime was the victim of the mania they had heard described, and that it had sapped his intellect and rendered him irresponsible for his actions.
The prosecution drew the attention of the jury to the circumstance that they were trying the prisoner for the murder of Superintendent Birkhill and were not inquiring into whether the prisoner intended to kill the child or his wife. It was, he claimed, perfectly clear from the facts of the case that the man was resisting his arrest, and had a clear idea that he was doing something wrong because he had locked himself in the house and loaded his gun. Then, if he had homicidal tendencies, why did he not also shoot the child which was left in the house with him? The evidence with regard to the use of the gun and the conduct of the prisoner showed he had perfectly recovered his sanity at the time of shooting Superintendent Birkhill, that he intended to shoot that officer, that he knew he was shooting him, and that he knew he was doing wrong. That being so, they had nothing to do with any question of epileptic mania.
The Judge in summing up, pointed out to the jury that there could be no doubt whatever that the prisoner had killed Birkhill. The only question for them to consider was whether the evidence called upon them to add to such finding that at the time the prisoner committed the act he was of insane mind. They had heard a great deal about insanity, but there was only one form of insanity known to law – in this sense that there was only one state of mind which was allowed by the law to relieve a person from the legal responsibilities of crime, namely, that if a person was in such a state of mind by reason of disease as not to know the nature and quality of the act that caused death or constituted crime, then the law relieved him from the responsibility, and not otherwise. After explaining his meaning with regard to the nature and quality of the act, his Lordship showed that prima facie every person was taken to be sane, and it was therefore the prisoner’s insanity that had to be established in order to relieve him from the responsibility. He also observed that there could be no doubt the prisoner was the subject of epilepsy, and pointed out the connection between the evidence that the prisoner had been known to whistle and sing after his fits and the evidence of the police-constable that the prisoner was whistling and singing in the house after the murder. If they thought him of unsound mind at the time they must say so.
The Jury retired to consider their verdict, and came back into court about 25 minutes later. The Foreman said they found the prisoner guilty of causing the death of Superintendent Birkhill, and they also found that he was of unsound mind at the time.
The judge declared that on the verdict, he directed that the prisoner be detained during Her Majesty’s pleasure.
William Taylor was committed to Broadmoor, where he lived until his death in 1925.