On Wed 14 Feb 1906, the trial opened before Mr Justice Kennedy and a Grand Jury; the Treasury had retained Mr H. F. Dickens K.C. with Mr Biron as his junior. For the prisoner, Mr Vaughan Gower, solicitor of Tunbridge Wells, who had strenuously taken the defence in hand, had retained Mr Ernest Wild, the well-known barrister who defended the prisoners in the St. Neots and Peasonhall cases, and Mr Berwick. Much interest was shown in the trial and on each occasion the Court was crowded. The Courier reported that, throughout the trial, there was no perceptible alteration on the demeanour of the prisoner from that which he wore at the proceedings before the Magistrates, beyond that the smile of indifference which had previously played upon his features was now absent. “He looked well, but sat silently gazing with silent stare in front of him.”

His Lordship took his seat at 10.30 and opened the case with a brief summary of the facts. Mr Dickens K.C. stated that the evidence was of a circumstantial nature. He did not mean to say that evidence of that nature was not good; very often it was stronger than evidence of a more direct character, if the links were all forged in one chain.

On the morning of 11 December, a domestic servant, named Florence Hawkins, passed the cottage at 7.30 on her way to Wadhurst Station [confirmed at the inquest by Albert King, signalman at the station—but The Courier variously calls her Clarence and Clara]. She heard the deceased and a man, whose voice she did not recognise, quarrelling. The prisoner claimed he had left home at 7.15 but his workmates, Richard Stapley of Brickkiln Cottages and George Dunk of Osmers Hill, both stated at the inquest that James Stevens did not arrive at work at the shaw at Perrins Farm until 8 o’clock. Mr Dickens added that there was no doubt that they were honest men but the Jury must very carefully watch their evidence and determine their accuracy.

He next turned to various statements made by the accused. At the Old Vine on the evening of 11 December, James Stevens stated that he had left the cottage between 6 and 7 o’clock; afterwards he said to his aunt “I know nothing about it; I really don’t, aunt” and to a labourer at the Balaclava Inn, suggesting it might be the last drink they would have together: “I suppose they will hang me, and hang an innocent man”.

Mr Dickens, in conclusion, said that the first question which would arise was that of motive. He suggested, on behalf of the Crown, that there was probably a sudden quarrel, and that it was in consequence of the quarrel that the deed was committed. “The woman’s life was insured for a few pounds, the premiums being paid lately by the daughter. What motive was there for any outside person to commit the crime? She was a poor woman, and there was no suggestion that any violation had been attempted. She was, undoubtedly, alive at 7.30 and quarrelling with a man at that hour. If the prisoner was in the house at that time she was quarrelling with the prisoner. Of course they were in doubt as to when the murder was actually committed, although it was certain she made no sign of being inside the cottage alive when Mrs. Hemsley passed at 9.20.”

Witnesses were then called and examined. Rhoda Blackman of Great Butts Cottages, daughter of the deceased woman, gave evidence that her mother was insured and that she occasionally paid the premiums; she also kept the policy. Cross-examined, she said that she had claimed the insurance money and had taken possession of the furniture. When she had spoken to the prisoner on the day of the murder he appeared very much upset. “The mother and son appeared to be very fond of each other.”

George Dunk, labourer, of Woods Green confirmed that, on the day of the murder, he had been working in a shaw about 150 yards from the Stevens’ cottage. He was “brushing” the wood, a sort of work he had not previously done. On the Saturday before Stevens and Stapley were working with witness at wood cutting on piece rates. They arranged on that day to take their dinners on the next Monday. He went to work on the Monday morning at 7 o’clock. Stapley followed about 7.30. Shortly after his arrival, witness looked at his watch, when it was about 7.40. The prisoner came to work at 8 o’clock, so near as the witness could judge. Between the time he looked at his watch and the arrival of Stevens he made four faggots, which took him about twenty minutes, and this enabled him to fix the time as eight o’clock. During the morning Stevens appeared normal and witness did not notice any bleeding on the prisoner’s arm. At noon the prisoner went to the cottage and came back hurriedly remarking: “Someone has been and killed her.” Stapley said “You don’t mean it” and the prisoner said “That’s right.” Dunk next described the scene at the cottage—and the Court then adjourned for lunch.

Dunk was then cross-examined and re-examined to try and determine precisely at what time Stevens arrived for work. Richard Stapley, labourer of Pell Green, then gave evidence that he had started work at 7.30 and had cut enough wood “to make two house faggots”, which took him to eight o’clock, at which hour Stevens arrived. During the morning, the prisoner commented that he had had “a tidy drop of beer” on the Saturday and Sunday and that his mother was going to bring him some beer with his lunch. Witness had seen the accused with a red handkerchief with white spots, similar to the one produced in evidence earlier. Cross-examining, Mr Wild commented that he had one himself. Continuing he asked: Have you ever snared a rabbit? - For my employer I have [laughter]. His Lordship said if there was another outburst of unseemly behaviour he would have the Court cleared. It was disgraceful that people should behave in such a way during a murder trial.

Mr Wild: Do you remember giving Stevens a rabbit in the hop garden last October? - Yes.
Was it bleeding? - Yes, from the mouth.
Did he put it in his pocket? - Yes.
P.C. Keep then gave evidence that Stevens had come to his house and reported that someone had murdered his mother. Witness went down and found the body on the bed with the throat cut. A blood-stained handkerchief was lying in the doorway, which the prisoner declared he had never seen before. The prisoner found a rusty razor and, on being asked, confirmed that it was his, but added that he should have another somewhere. He shortly after picked the razor produced out of a basket in the scullery. The razor blade had the appearance of having been washed but not properly wiped. Cross-examined he confirmed that the soles of the dead woman’s shoes were damp.

P.C. Anscombe, called as a witness said he had examined the sleeves of the prisoner’s shirt and on the right wrist-band found five distinct spots of blood, which were dry. The prisoner said he had scratched his wrist that morning in the wood. “There was a small scratch across the wrist. It was very slight indeed.” The same evening he saw Stevens in the Old Vine and asked him what time he went to work in the morning; Stevens replied that he went at 7.15, leaving his mother in the kitchen. Later, he added that he had enquired as to any other man in the vicinity. Miss Hodge, at Hodge’s cottage, told him she had seen a man leaving Mrs. Hemsley’s gate at 11.15 that morning. He had followed the description given of this man and believed he had discovered who it was.
At the conclusion of Wednesday’s hearing “the Jury was locked up.”

On Thursday morning, Dr Hugh George Rashleigh gave evidence on the position of the body on the bed. The woman had been killed instantaneously by a right-handed man, who had probably grasped her right hand, which bore blood marks. The cord, with which the arms were tied, he judged to have been placed on after death. He did not think it possible that blood would have spurted on to the murderer, as there was no blood on the victim below the collar bone. He added that, in his opinion, the five spots of blood found on Stevens’ wrist-band could not have been the result of a scratch that morning. The woman lost a lot of blood but, in his opinion, this would not affect the onset of ‘rigor mortis’.

Fanny Ballard, wife of the landlady [sic] of the Old Vine gave evidence that, on the day of the murder, Stevens was in the house and told her he started for work between six and seven on the morning of the murder.

Harry Walter, Pell Green, deposed that on the evening of the murder, the prisoner said to him, after telling him of the murder: “They will hang me for it I suppose but they will hang an innocent man.”

Mabel Hodges of Wadhurst, was then called. She said she lived at Hodge’s Cottage; on Monday December 11th, shortly after 11 a.m she was in a bedroom at the top of the house and saw a man coming from the direction of the back door of Hemsley’s cottage, out of the door and down to Austen’s Corner. He was dressed in light trousers, dark jacket and cap, and carried a bag over his back. “It was foggy.” At the same time she saw a man named Wickenden going in the direction of Austen’s Corner; Mr Barnes was there also. She told Anscombe this but was unable to say whether the first man was Skelton.

Charles Skelton, labourer of Wadhurst, said he was collecting rabbit skins at Woods Green that Monday; he passed the Stevens’ cottage but was not nearer than 40 yards to Hemsley’s Cottage. William Wickenden said he was on the road between Hodge’s Cottage and Hemsley’s house on the morning of December 11th. He saw Miss Hodge at the window of her house but did not see anyone near Hemsley’s gate but, on his way back afterwards, at about 11.15, he saw a man hurrying across the road into the twitten: he did not know who the man was. John Barnes, grocer of Sparrows Green, confirmed that he was on the road near the cottages that morning but had not seen anyone come out of Hemsley’s gate. That concluded the case for the prosecution and the Court adjourned for lunch.

Mr Dickens addressed the Jury for an hour, setting out the case for the Crown. He did not ask them to draw rash inferences or to strain the facts against the prisoner; drawing reasonable inferences they were not likely to go wrong. He did not think it was a strained inference to suggest that the murder could not have been committed by someone outside. It had been suggested that a wandering tramp with homicidal tendencies, having no grudge against the woman, went to the cottage for the purpose of robbery; nothing had been stolen. Nor was there any sign that the woman had been ravished.

Mr Wild then addressed the Jury for the defence. “His magnificent speech lasted nearly two hours.” He knew the Jury were aware that they were about to perform one of the most serious and grave duties that could be allotted to any citizen, for it was concerned with the solemn arbitrament of life and death. He was going to suggest that even if he had not asked a single question in cross-examination, if he had allowed the evidence to be given from start to finish, if every fact and every theory attempted to be deducted from those facts were accepted by them, that the case was not strong enough to justify a verdict of conviction, because the very farthest that the Crown had gone was to prove that the prisoner might be guilty, and he was going to ask the jury to say the Crown had not even proved that.

He invited the Jury to consider the lives of the two people living together—the mother and the love child. There was no suggestion that the prisoner was other than a filial loving son, not a suggestion that any lack of affection after the manner of people of that class, i.e. people who did not wear their hearts on their sleeves, and were not accustomed to indulge in extravagant expressions of affection.
There was not even the suggestion that the prisoner was the worse for drink on the day of the murder. It was true he had been to the public-house, which was the poor man’s club, on the day before, but he was perfectly orderly and sober. The prosecution said that Florence Hawkins passed the cottage at 7.30 and heard loud voices, as if quarrelling. Well, the Jury knew what that class of people were. They talked loudly, and Mrs Stevens was somewhat deaf. He put it to the Jury that, under the circumstances, Mrs Hawkins—thinking backwards—might have thought that the persons she heard talking loudly were quarrelling. He took the gravest exception to the statement made by his learned friend, who said that if the Jury thought the prisoner was the person quarrelling; then he was the murderer.

He then turned to the time of death. “Was there anything more difficult in life to gauge than time?” The only thing they had to go on, except the guessing of Stapley and Dunk as to the flight of time, was the reliability of Dunk’s watch. They knew the sort of watch Dunk would have, which was sometimes a quarter of an hour fast or slow. Then as to Stapley—”Would any of them like to convict any man of any crime on the evidence of a man like Stapley, who was perfectly honest, no doubt, but perfectly foolish as well, and who when he went to work that morning had to ask his brother the time.”

Mr Wild went on to argue that Stevens would not have had time to murder his mother before going to work and that there was every possibility that death occurred sometime before noon, when Stevens could not have committed the deed. There was Miss Hodge’s evidence that she had seen a man nearby at eleven o’clock; this should not be passed by with ridicule or without serious consideration. He then considered the lack of heavy blood stains on Stevens’ clothing—and dismissed the argument that the five tiny spots of blood were evidence of Stevens’ guilt. He called on the jury to vindicate the principles of British Justice, which needed absolute proof before any man could be convicted.

The Court was then adjourned until Friday. Proceedings that day were reported in the second edition of The Courier, which unfortunately is not available on microfilm. We can therefore only assume that proceedings began with a summary by Mr Justice Kennedy of the case against Stevens; whether he gave any direction to the Jury remains unknown. What is certain is that the Jury delivered a verdict of guilty and James Stevens was duly condemned to death by hanging on Tuesday March 6th 1906 …….