|
From the Dover Express and East Kent
News, Friday, 10 June, 1870.
THE CONTAGIOUS DISEASES ACTS.
Mary Ann Godden, a woman of the town, was summoned to show cause why
she should not present herself for examination, under the Contagious
Diseases Act.
Mr. Fox appeared in support of the prosecution, and Mr. Delasaux, of
Canterbury, for the defence.
Mr. Fox, in addressing the Court, reminded the Magistrates that it
was not their province to determine whether the Acts were wise or
politic; but that, if they were satisfied that the defendant came under
the denomination of "common prostitute," it would be be their duty to
make the order sought.
William Capon: I am an inspector of the metropolitan police, and the
inspector appointed under the Contagious Diseases Acts for the district.
I have good cause for believing that the defendant is a common
prostitute. During the last fourteen days she has been residing at 16,
Hartley Street. Previous to that she was in prison for neglecting to
present herself under the provisions of the Act. Since the prisoner's
discharge from gaol I have seen her nightly in the company of various
men, at different public-houses and beer-house. On the 30th May I
visited the "Old Post Office"
public-house at 11.45 p.m. There were fifteen prostitutes including the
defendant, and several man-of-war's men, some dancing. At 12.05 on the
31st, the defendant left the house, walked down Snargate Street, and
there met a seafaring man, whom she accompanied to the "Northampton
Arms," Pentside, and went upstairs into a bedroom.
Mr. Delasaux: You saw all this?
Witness: Yes, I followed them, and went upstairs. I state nothing but
what I saw.
Examination continued: She remained there till 12.32 with the man,
and then came downstairs and went out. Since that - as late as last
night - I have seen her in company with other men. I may add that, after
she left prison, she attended for examination, but she objected to sign
the voluntary submission.
Dr. Astley: Is it necessary she should sign that?
Witness: It is, under the provision of the Act.
Examination continued: She attended on the 24th May; but she was not
examined, as she declined to sign the submission. I have laid this
information under instructions from the Commissioner of Police.
By Mr. Delasaux: I have been in Dover since the 5th of January last.
At the public-house the defendant was assembled with other prostitutes.
She did not commit prostitution with other prostitutes - there is no
charge of that nature; but I saw her in a bedroom, with a man, at a
house of accommodation. I do not know the nature of the accommodation in
this particular room - whether it has a bed or only a couch. A constable
was outside the door of the public-house, and saw the woman leave the
house. He did not see what I saw in the bedroom. That rests on my
testimony alone.
George Crux: I have been in Dover since the 8th January, and within
fourteen days prior to the 3rd June I observed the defendant's conduct.
I have seen the defendant in the company of various men. On the morning
of the 31st May I saw he go into the "Northampton Arms." Prior to that I
had seen her with a man in Snargate Street, in whose company she went
into the public-house, and I saw her afterwards come out of the
public-house with the same man. She afterwards went down Snargate
Street; and I do not know what became of her.
By Mr. Delasaux: I have seen the defendant dancing and drinking in
public-houses with various men; and I have afterwards seen her with
other men. From these circumstances, and the facts now described I
conclude her to be a common prostitute.
In reply to Dr. Astley Inspector Capon said that if the defendant had
signed the voluntary submission she would have not been summoned.
Alderman Rees: That is, if she had registered herself as a common
prostitute?
The Inspector: She is registered a common prostitute already. She has
been in prison for refusing to be examined.
This being the case, Mr Delasaux submitted that, although Capon had
sworn he was an inspector, he had not proved the fact to the Bench, and
he held that, under the act, this was necessary. The appointment itself
must be produced, or the copy of the London Gazette containing
it.
The objection was over-ruled by the Bench, and the Magistrates' Clerk
pointed out that the section of the act which Mr. Delasaux referred to
related to the medical inspector, and not the inspector of police. It
was necessary that the appointment of the medical inspector should be
formally proved by the production of the appointment, or the of the
Gazette; but this did not apply to the police officer.
The magistrates then retired to consider their decision; and on their
return into Court Dr. Astley said that the majority had come to the
conclusion that the case was proved, and that it was their duty to make
the required order. They ordered, therefore, that the defendant should
submit herself to examination for the space of three months. Dr. Astley
explained that the Bench had made the term as short as possible so that
the defendant might have every opportunity to abandon her course of
life. If she resolved to do so every opportunity would be afforded her
of entering a reformatory.
Mary Ann Whiting was summoned for a similar offence; but she was
unable to attend, a medical certificate to that effect being put in, and
the case was adjourned for a fortnight.
|
