QSR1868/4/5/4

Depositions of Samuel Fuller, farmer of Sandy. Charlotte Remington, spinster of Sandy. Elizabeth Andrews, wife of John of Sandy. Charles Newton, gentleman of Sandy. Henry Ryley, surgeon of Sandy. Ann Triplow, spinster of Sandy. In the case of Samuel Hannaford Branscombe accused of unlawfully assaulting, beating, wounding and ill treating Mary Ellen Branscombe occasioning actual bodily harm.

19 August 1868

From: 1868 To: 1868

Samuel Fuller: he received information that Samuel Branscombe had violently assaulted and seriously injured his child Mary Ellen Branscombe. He went to Branscombe’s house and enquired about it. Branscombe had some difficulty in allowing him to see Mary Ellen but afterwards acknowledged having beaten her and allowed him to see her. The injuries appeared to be so severe that he sent for Dr Ryley and he produced a certificate that Mary Ellen had a broken thigh. Charlotte Remington: she lived next door to Samuel Branscombe. On Tuesday 28 July between 8pm and 9pm she heard Branscombe threatened the child for not doing something. At the same time she heard a noise as if Branscombe was beating the child with a strap. She heard the child scream out. Whilst the child was being beaten Mrs Branscombe fetched 2 pails of water from the pump and took them into the house and immediately afterwards she heard a noise as if something was plunged into water. At that moment the child gave another scream. She did not hear anything of the child for some days and then wondering what had become of it she told her landlord. [cross examined] the pump was in her yard. There was a boarded fence between their yard and the Branscombe’s with a door in it. In order to go from that door to the Branscombe’s house it was necessary to go round a smoke pantry. Elizabeth Andrews: wife of John and they lived 2 doors from Samuel Branscombe. She was talking to Mrs Remington on the night of 28 July and heard Branscombe threatening the child. She heard Mrs Remington’s evidence and it was quite correct. She had known the child for 3 years and had frequently seen her bruised and cut. Charles Newton: he lived next door to Branscombe and had done so since Branscombe arrived about 3 years last March. He had known the child for that time and repeatedly saw Branscombe assault the child. The last occasion had been 4 or 5 months previous and on one occasion about 2 years previous he had seen Branscombe sounded beat the child with his hand. He heard the blows from inside and noises as if the child’s screams were being stifled. The same thing had happened repeatedly. Henry Ryley: he was a surgeon practicing at Sandy. On 11 August he was requested by the Overseers of the parish of Sandy to examine a child named Mary Ellen Branscombe, daughter of Samuel. He went to the house on the same day and saw Samuel Branscome and asked to see the child. The child was in the room and he examined her. She was greatly emaciated and her left thigh was fractured. There was an incised wound, about 3 quarters of an inch on her right elbow. She was severely contused from the right shoulder blade to the hip joint. Bransombe and his wife were present the whole time. He asked how the child’s thigh had broken and Branscombe said it had been by putting her in a cold bath but that he had not been aware her thigh was broken or he would have sent for Ryley immediately. He asked to see the bath and was shown it. Branscombe said he had plunged the child in head foremost with her legs hanging over the side and that the child had struggled a great deal and then had given a violent scream. On being removed from the bath he had asked the child what the matter was and she had complained of her knee and liniment had been applied to it. Ryley asked Branscombe to account for the contusions and was told they were caused by him beating her with a small clothes line. Branscombe acknowledged he had beaten the child more severely than he ought and had done so in the excitement of the moment and had been very sorry for it. The child appeared about 6 years old. He had previously made an application to see the child but Branscombe had refused him. That had been on the preceding Saturday. He produced a letter which arrived from Branscombe on the same day. From appearance he would say that the child’s thigh had been broken about a fortnight and the contusions were made about the same time. The incised wound appeared to have been caused by striking against some instrument. He enquired of the cause of the [?] and the step mother informed him the child suffered from worms which might had caused that appearance. [cross examination] Branscombe told him he had put the child in the cold water because it dirtied itself and told a lie about it. The cold water had on previous occasion cured her of the habit for some time. The back was not bleeding and he could not say if the skin had been broken. Branscombe did not say if the child was marked when he flogged her. Ann Triplow (on behalf of the defence): she lived at Sandy and had nursed Mrs Branscombe last Christmas after her confinement. She was with her for a fortnight and then went to Mrs Andrews. She would sometimes go into the Branscombes whilst at Mrs Andrews. During the time she was at the Branscombe the child was taken care of and fed but subject to dirty habits. She had told the child she would wash her in cold water and Branscombe and his wife had heard her. She told the Branscombes that she had heard of a child, a boy, who had been cured in the similar way. She never heard Branscombe flog the child. Statement of the accused: there was reference to the term “general emaciation” on the Doctors certificate. The doctor who attended her mother said he would have great difficulty in securing it as she was always thin. He had spared no expense and had moved the child to different parts of England and eventually to Sandy. The child had a bad fault as one of her nurses could testify. The nurse had told him “you will have a great deal of trouble Mr Branscombe with your child” which had since proved true. His anxiety to cure the child of the habit had led him to adopt the suggestion of the last witness, a nurse and experienced woman. The child denied being dirty and for the falsehood he corrected it but never unfairly. There was malice from some many of his enemies against him. He had not known the child’s thigh tot be broken until Dr Ryley told him.

item

Fuller, Samuel,
Remington, Charlotte,
Andrews, Elizabeth,
Andrews, John,
Ryley, Henry,
Triplow, Ann,
Branscombe, Samuel Hannaford,
Branscombe. Mary Ellen

SANDY, assault, wounding, farmer, gentleman, surgeon, child abuse