True crime book digs deep
Elwood Jones reviews Ed Arnold’s book about a murder in Norwood, Young Enough to Die
Ed Arnold has written a sympathetic, thoughtful and wellresearched story about Robert Henderson, whose short life ended when he was hanged in Peterborough’s county jail yard in June 1910.
Margaret McPherson, 74, a spinster who lived with her sister at Old Maid’s Corner east of Norwood, died following an axeblow to the head, in February 1910. The story hinges around the defence of Robert Henderson so skillfully developed by F.D. Kerr, his lawyer, who was working without fee in his first murder case and conscientiously pursued all avenues to defend his client from hanging, then the prescribed punishment for murder.
There were three lines of defence. First, was it possible that Margaret McPherson died of natural causes, even though struck forcefully with the blunt end of an axe? Second, if Henderson’s blow was the key factor in McPherson’s death, was this manslaughter or murder? Third, is it possible that Henderson should be seen as insane, by some definition of the word, such that he would be spend his natural life in a hospital rather than a jail?
Arnold also pursued the subsequent avenues of appeal that could be undertaken. Should considerations of age and upbringing be taken into account? Henderson was only 17, and an orphan whose father had died, and whose mother had limited ability to raise Robert and his siblings. Were there physical and genetic considerations that spoke to the mental capacity of Robert Henderson to understand right versus wrong? He was classed as a “moral imbecile” by the doctors familiar with working with insane people; but is that the same as insanity in terms of the Criminal Code as it stood in 1910?
Were there irregularities in the trial that would open the way for a reconsideration of the jury verdict? Kerr certainly thought so.
Should the final say rest with the federal government depending on the judge’s version of events rather than with the jury?
Ed Arnold tells his journalistic tale in a largely chronological sequence. This is aided by the availability of three daily newspapers in Peterborough in 1910. Being able to compare three narratives makes it easier to determine what was really happening. The papers had some diversity because they published at different times of the day, and two of them had been tied to political parties since the 1850s before they became daily papers. He has done thorough research in the archives as well.
When looking for background material, Ed has mined the local books. He was particularly inventive in finding street directories and histories Robert Henderson’s home town of Hartlepool, England which seems most distinguished for its powerful cricket teams. Street directories are very useful for pinpointing the world in which people lived, allowing us to see the journey to work and to shopping and church, and to assess qualities of the neighborhoods.
Robert Henderson (18931917) had a sad childhood in Hartlepool, on the northeastern coast of England. His father had worked for the railway but was working as a carter when the family moved to Hartlepool, a town of 28,000 that had grown rapidly in the previous twenty years and was a major port town. Robert was a chain-smoking restless thief by 13, but also apprenticed as a steamfitter when he was 15. Most commonly he posed as a fundraiser for worthy charities and carried a forged letter from a clergyman. After a term in jail, he decided to emigrate evidently with money he had stashed from the poor boxes. He emigrated from Liverpool to Quebec City in May 1909 and then was in Toronto and in Peterborough by January 1910. He boarded in Sarah Edgar’s home on Sherbrooke Place.
The Examiner, January 26, carried an alert from the Rev. Canon J. C. Davidson, of St. John’s Anglican Church; he had not authorized anyone to raise funds for “two distressed women.” What had worked in Hartlepool might work in Peterborough!
The next day Henderson, 5’10’ and 140 pounds, was on the train to Norwood wearing an overcoat he had stolen from the Edgar boarding house. He stayed at the Norwood Hotel, signed in as Norman Henderson from Australia. He left without paying his hotel bill the following day and in due course ended up at Old Maid’s Corner about two miles east of Norwood. This was a peculiar destination and Henderson likely heard while around the Norwood Hotel the old wives’ tale that two spinsters hoarded money in their humble abode.
Henderson’s ruse for visiting the house on January 28 was that he was looking for his brother from Glasgow. The spinsters directed them to another place that might know about migrant workers, but after 40 minutes Henderson returned and asked for something to eat. After eating, he offered to cut wood, but was told that was not needed. Within minutes he returned with the axe from the front yard. He pushed open the door and clubbed Margaret McPherson on the head with the blunt end of the axe. He hit Susann a glancing blow on the hand, and then left. Henderson was on the run and soon pursued through deep snow and along the road between Norwood and Havelock by several men and the local police chief.
Over the next day or so, Norwood was the scene for the post mortem and the inquest. Amazingly, two doctors from Toronto had arrived at the Peterborough jail to determine the sanity of Robert Henderson. The doctors were Dr. Bruce Smith, the penitentiary inspector, and Dr. C. K. Clarke, from the Toronto Insane Asylum.
In the denouement of this Shakespearean drama, Henderson emerged as an engaging individual, rather than the aloof young man seemingly uninterested in his surroundings. Two people were instrumental in drawing Henderson out. One was the Rev. Canon John C. Davidson (later Archdeacon of Peterborough), the rector at St. John’s Anglican Church, and one of the jail chaplains. The other was Francis D. Kerr, the young lawyer in his first criminal case working for free in the defence of Henderson.
The presiding judge at the trial was the Hon. William Renwick Riddell (1852-1945), a native of Cobourg, one of the most prolific historians of his period, and Supreme Court judge from 1906. I have several of Riddell’s books including his biography of John Graves Simcoe, the first lieutenant-governor of Upper Canada. Arnold does not paint an attractive picture of Riddell, who emerges as the foil to Kerr.
The jury of 12 was quickly selected and the twelve crown witnesses heard by 11:20 a.m. Kerr had four witnesses. The first two were the Rev. E. A. Langfeldt, the rector at St. Luke’s and a jail chaplain, and the jailer, Henderson Nesbitt. As well, Kerr examined Dr. Smith and Dr. Clarke, who had both visited Henderson in the Peterborough Jail. Clarke’s evidence showed that Henderson was a “high grade imbecile” whose intellectual qualities were stronger than his moral ones; he was amoral. Dr. Smith noted that “moral imbecility” was mostly hereditary. Henderson, in short, was not insane, but Kerr felt that he should be hospitalized rather than jailed, and that such a young man should not be hanged. The jury found Henderson guilty, but recommended mercy.
Kerr appealed the sentence of hanging to the Privy Council, but was handicapped by a few developments. Kerr persisted but in the end Henderson was hanged in the Peterborough jail yard.
During the appeal process, Canon Davidson developed a relationship with Henderson, somewhat surprising as Henderson had been so quiet and sullen. Henderson was confirmed by Bishop Reeve after being prepared for confirmation by Davidson.
Ed Arnold has written an admirable book that allows the reader to see the world of 1910 mostly from journalists’ perspective. The book is dedicated to Davidson and Kerr for both persisted well beyond the call of duty. There was room for more humanity in a murder trial than had been imagined by Judge Riddell. A fine addition to the library of books on Peterborough county, too.
Ed Arnold, Young Enough to Die: a true Peterborough story (Peterborough, Sketches to Remember, 2016) Pp. 134, no illustrations except on the cover.