SCENES IN A RECTORY.

WIDOW CHARGED WITH LIBEL.

REMARKABLE ACCUSATIONS.

At the Norfolk Assizes yesterday before Mr. Justice Bray, a charge was brought by the Rector of Whinburgh, Norfolk, of criminal libel against a soldier’s widow. The rector was the Rev. Alexander James Shepherd, and the accused Jessie Beatrice Gillett, aged 39. The accused pleaded justification.

Mr. Gerald Dodson, for the prosecution, said Mr. Shepherd was some 62 years of age, and for over twenty years had been the Rector of Whinburgh and Westfield, near East Dereham. For a long period he had worked in these parishes, and had earned for himself a reputation anybody might envy. The prisoner came into his life for the first time towards the end of 1918, when she came to Whinburgh from Camberwell, or somewhere in the London district. She had lost her husband in the war, and had four children to care for. Mr. Shepherd received a letter from the rector of a London parish commending this woman and her children to his care.

Mr. Shepherd was a simple, kind-hearted, elderly man, and he responded readily to the call made upon him to befriend this woman and her children by extending to her kindness and sympathy. From time to time she went to the rectory and did odd work there. She was musical, and it was owing to the rector’s exertions on her behalf that an organ or harmonium was obtained for her from the Pensions Committee, while he also allowed her to practise on the harmonium in the rectory. Consequently she was often there. Mr. Shepherd had had a housekeeper to look after him ever since his second marriage, for he separated from his wife on account of incompatibility of temper, as it was called. Things were very happy and quiet in the parish until October of last year. Mrs. Gillett had been about the rectory a great deal more than she was wanted, and apparently had got an idea into her head that she ought to be Mr. Shepherd’s housekeeper. In October, 1921, Mrs. Golding was installed as housekeeper, and then the trouble began, being attributable, counsel submitted, to the fact that Mrs. Golding was appointed instead of Mrs. Gillett. It was quite plain that Mrs. Gillett became very jealous of Mrs. Golding, and the jealousy and spite of the prisoner began to show themselves soon after October. Her demeanour and manner changed, and she became rude on occasions. In the early part of this year the flame which was smouldering suddenly flared up, and the prisoner behaved in a most extraordinary way.

‘PURE IMAGINATION.’

On March 10 the rector and his half-brother, Mr. Algernon Shepherd, were together in the library at the rectory when the prisoner burst into the room and declared that she had heard them speaking about “that woman and her brats.” It was pure imagination. She was in a very excited condition. She charged them with having said things about her they had never said, and followed this up by charging the rector with a long course of immorality with her. On the following evening she again visited the rectory and repealed the charges. The rector endeavoured to put her out by force, but she flung herself upon the floor and grasped the leg of the table, and he had to leave her there. The force the rector used was not much, for he had three paralytic strokes about thirty years ago.

The prisoner in March and April busied herself in spreading throughout the parish charges against the rector.

On the night of Good Friday, after being in church, she forced her way into the rectory and made the wildest kind of charges. Then the rural dean interposed. The rector very reluctantly consulted Mr. Vores, solicitor, of Dereham, in the hope of stopping this woman from making these charges and making hi life altogether intolerable. Mr. Vores wrote to the prisoner, giving her every chance of withdrawing her statement. In answer to the letter, which not provocative, the prisoner wrote the letter which formed the subject of the charge:

Mr. Shepherd – I have received this morning a letter from Mr. Vores. I expected it before this. I have already promised a gentleman I shall not lower myself to annoy you any more, but I cannot withdraw anything I have said. You know I have spoken the truth, and if it is too ugly for you to face, you will find it is not so with me. I am going through with it, and am ready as soon as ever you care to start. I am not afraid, and now I have got the comfort of knowing I am going to clear myself if you will give me the chance, and if you succeed in coming out top – I don’t think you will – I shall know the devil is more at large than ever he was. I don’t want solicitors. I can go up with evidence. Whilst I admit how I have spoken to you through your window, I can show marks on my body which prove my cause for annoying you, if I have done so. I also have proof of anything else I have said. Do you think I am fool enough to say what I cannot prove? You can send this to lawyer Vores. It is your duty to do it, and can you, a man who has induced misconduct with me over 300 times, face it and the other business which I charged you with, and which I have full proof of? When you stopped asking me to come to you I was put on my guard. I was not the first person to find it out, and I will say to you “Go on with your case.” I dare to add that conscience tells me God is with me. You dare to say you have been kind to me, when you have brought me to the dogs. You know this is true, you bad old scoundrel! P.S. – You can bring up what lies you like about me, even to trying to put a wrong interpretation on the letter sent you when we came. You and you only are the only man who tempted me to break my honour to my husband. You cannot deny that. J. B. G.

INFAMOUS LETTER

A more infamous letter, counsel continued, if it was untrue, it would be difficult to imagine. After that the prisoner went to the Rural Dean at Hardingham, and there, at the request of the Rural Dean, put her charges into writing, and this document formed the second charge.

The prosecutor in the witness-box bore out counsel’s statement. Describing an incident in the churchyard, he said he saw the accused in the road, and turned back to avoid her. She followed him into the churchyard, and when his back was turned to her she hit him violently twice on the back of the head. On Good Friday evening she began to pick a quarrel with the church cleaner, and, appearing in front of the rectory window, repeated the charges she had made against him. After he had sent her a solicitor’s letter she met him on the rectory lawn and said, “If you had only listened to me I should never have pursued my course of conduct towards you.”

In cross-examination by Mr. Van Den Berg, the prosecutor said the accused worked at the rectory virtually as a charwoman. He denied having said she was introduced to him as a prostitute. He tried his level best to give help to the woman from the monetary and spiritual point of view.

Did you have a nickname for her? – I called her by the name her eldest son was known by, Willie Gilly. Did you ever write to her in the name of Willie Gilly? – I don’t remember.

A letter was handed to the prosecutor, who recognised his signature. It read:

Dear Mrs. Willie Gilly – Hoorah! How good of you! Shall enjoy the delicacies immensely. How are you? A1 I hope. It is two o’clock. Have had too much to eat, so feel rather lasified Passed your house this morning. No sign of life. – Yours always, A. J. S.

What makes you write to a charwoman, “Yours always”? – It is the ordinary way I write my letters.

The Judge: You don’t write to a charwoman like this? – I wrote to her like that, but there was no other relationship between us.

‘RIDICULOUSLY FALSE.’

In further cross-examination, the prosecutor said the accused sang at the rectory from time to time. He did not remember that she sang the song, “The Sunshine of Your Smile.”

I put it to you that she did sing several songs, including the “Sunshine of Your Smile,” and that you I got up from your chair, and putting your hand on her shoulder asked her for a kiss? – It is absolutely false.

She says that as she turned away from the organ stool you made certain improper overtures to her? – It is ridiculously false.

The defendant, giving evidence, said that after returning from the sports the rector complained of loneliness. She said she would not be half so lonely if she had a good book. He told her to put the children to bed and come to the rectory and she could have any book she liked. She went, and he gave her two books, one entitled “Loneliness” by Benson. They talked about music and about her four favourite songs – “The Sunshine of Your Smile,” “I Hear You Calling Me,” “The End of a Perfect Day,” and “Thora.” She sang them to the rector, and when she had finished the rector came and put his hand on her shoulder and asked her to give him a kiss. She told him she was not the kissing sort. As she got up from the organ stool he interfered with her, and she cried bitterly. He seemed rather upset and asked her not to repeat what had happened or they would both be ruined. On the Friday night following Bank Holiday she went to the rectory at his invitation. Improper relations took place on that and every subsequent visit.

The hearing was adjourned.