Catherine Anderson - Tried Twice for Child Murder - Part 1

 

The case of Catherine Anderson is an incredibly poignant one which shines a light on the treatment of women by the late nineteenth century criminal justice system. Her crimes were reported in significant detail by the newspapers of the time which has made it possible to construct a vivid picture of her life from the contemporary reports and other sources. Rather than compress everything into one blog post, her story is divided into two parts, the first of which focusses on her early life up to her first conviction in 1883.

The image of Catherine at the top of this page is the first mugshot in the Register of Returned Convicts for Aberdeen to feature an innovation where a mirror, placed at an angle of 45⁰, has been used to show the person's profile and to assist with identification. Her hands are also placed on her chest to ensure any distinguishing marks would be captured by the camera.

The photograph was taken at HM General Prison, Perth, on the 7th April 1893, just over a month before Catherine's discharge on license on 22nd May that year. She had been sentenced to five years' imprisonment on 21st January 1890 for the culpable homicide of her infant daughter. This was in fact the second time she had been incarcerated for such a crime - as already mentioned, her first conviction occurred in 1883.

A native of Aberdeen, Catherine was born in 1865 and grew up at 102 Hardgate. She appears there on the 1871 census aged 6, along with her father, James L. Anderson, an "engine smith", her mother, Ann Anderson, and her sister, Margaret, aged 4. Almost exactly ten years later, on 8th March 1881 at the age of 16, Catherine gave birth to a son named Samuel at her parent's house. Samuel's birth certificate records that he was illegitimate and that the father was a Samuel Montgomery. Both he and Catherine are described as "linen bleachfield workers" on the certificate. While we can't be absolutely certain, additional research on the 1881 census suggests that Samuel snr. was an Irish immigrant boarding at an address in the Rubislaw area of the city and described on the census as a "cloth worker". It is evident from subsequent census returns that Samuel jnr. grew up with and was cared for by Catherine's parents. Indeed, while he is named as "Samuel Montgomery" on the birth certificate, the child evidently took the family surname of Anderson and is noted as such on the census returns.

That Catherine's parents had to care for her son was a situation that arose out of necessity rather than choice: two years after the birth of Samuel, Catherine had given birth for a second time on the 5th or 6th April 1883. She appeared in court on 26th June that year charged with the murder of her baby. The newspaper report in the Aberdeen Weekly Journal of 30th June carried a detailed report of the proceedings, including a description of Catherine:

"The prisoner took her seat in the dock a few minutes before 12 o'clock. She is a girl of 18, of medium height, of rather stout build, with full broad face, and rather prominent cheek bones. Her complexion is rather pale and, as she took her place at the bar, she appeared to manifest considerable anxiety, and glanced nervously around. She was respectably attired in a black dress, a black jacket hanging over her left arm, a white straw hat with some flowers, and a neat scarf around her neck".

Catherine's anxiety is understandable: given the nature of the crime for which she was on trial, the already intimidating nature of the courtroom must have been further compounded for her by the fact that the jury was all-male. Catherine's mother who was also "much affected" according to the newspaper report, gave evidence:

"...the prisoner is my daughter. She is 18 past on the 14th January. She has all her life been with me. She was latterly working in a bleachfield. She had a child on the 8th March 1881, when she lived with me. Sometime before I removed into 100 Hardgate, I thought my daughter was with child again, and I spoke to her about it. She said she would get someone to keep it. The other child, a boy, was living with me at the time. He is two years past in March. When I removed on the 29th March I thought her time was near, but I did not speak to her at the time. Three months before that time I engaged a doctor and a midwife. The midwife is Mrs. Stewart, Dee Street. My daughter knew that I had a doctor and midwife engaged, though I did not tell her".

Catherine's mother describes the domestic events at the house during the evening of the 5th/6th April including having to leave the house at around 10:00pm to run an errand. On returning a little later, she met Catherine who was leaving the house to visit the water closet to the rear of the property. After half-an-hour or so, Catherine's mother went out to look for her but Catherine only returned to the house at 1:00am. On asking where she had been Catherine replied that she had been at the house of a friend called Maggie Gray. The report goes on,

"She [Catherine] went and washed her hands and arms in a basin...She then took off her boots and sat down at the kitchen fire. She afterwards went into her own bedroom. I then heard some moaning coming from the bedroom. I thought she was in labour and went into the room. I was satisfied that the child had been born and I asked Catherine where it was. She replied that the child was at the bleachfield. The latter is about a mile from the house. I asked her where the child was born and she said at the back of the water closet door...I asked her why she had not brought it into the house and she said it was dead before she could lift it. Once or twice I proposed to send for a doctor, but she would not allow me. She pleaded with me not to send. Catherine remained in bed on Thursday and sat up in her bed on Friday...On Monday night I remember my husband reading an account in the papers about the finding of a body on the seashore at Torry, and a description of the articles about it. Catherine got into a state and said "That's it"".

The trial went on to hear that Catherine left Aberdeen for Dundee, where she had friends, soon after this revelation and that the next time her mother saw her was when she was in the custody of the police. Catherine's mother also testified that she recognised the pieces of cloth in which the child's body had been wrapped when it was discovered on the shore at Torry together with the knitted boots that it was wearing, as being from her house.

Dr. Garden of Golden Square, who carried out the autopsy, provided evidence to the court that the body was that of a female child who had been alive at birth but who had subsequently died of a head injury. There is significant debate in court about exactly how and when the baby had died, although no definite conclusion is arrived at.

Catherine entered the courtroom charged with murder, but at the end of her trial, and partly because of the uncertainty regarding the manner of the child's death, she is sentenced to five years' imprisonment for the lesser crime of culpable homicide. In his summing-up the presiding judge, Lord Deas, said:

"You were in your father's and mother's house kindly treated and they were willing to provide you with what was necessary. It was not the least surprising in these circumstances that you are indicted on the charge of murder. But luckily for you that is not the verdict...You are treated very leniently and humanely from beginning to end, and on that footing I shall limit your sentence to the shortest possible period in my power, and that is five years".

A small notice in the Aberdeen Evening Express of 4th July 1883 records that Catherine was transferred to HM General Prison, Perth, that morning.

The next part of this blog will look at the circumstances around how Catherine ended up back inside Perth prison for a second time, appearing there as an inmate on the 1891 census.