Double murder case that shook Victorian Teesdale, Teesdale Mercury

mong the records of happenings in the early part of the 19th century is an account of “a most diabolical outrage” which took place at Startforth in August, 1845. It is mentioned in a later editions of the book, “A Tour in Teesdale,” published by Richard Garland. 

The death of two dale residents caused outcry and the court case that followed was keenly observed. What follows is an abridged version of events described by Garland. 

On Sunday, August 10th, 1845, two young persons Joseph Yates and Catharine Raine, both of Barnard Castle, were suddenly missing from their usual places of abode, and as they had been with their associates the night before, various conjectures were abroad to account for their disappearance. Soon afterwards their bodies were found in the River Tees; Yates about four miles, and the girl Raine, about 20 miles down the river. Inquests were held, and the bodies being identified, verdicts were returned “Found Drowned.” Notwithstanding this, it was strongly suspected that the unfortunate pair had met their untimely end by foul means. The Parish of Startforth being within the district of the Greta Bridge Police, the late Mr Snowden, then Superintendent, undertook to probe the matter to the bottom. The result of his enquiries was such a weight of evidence, circumstantial and positive, as led a full bench of magistrates to commit George Barker, aged 19; John Breckon, aged 24; and Thomas Routledge Raine, aged 19; to the Castle at York, for the wilful murder of these unfortunate persons.

On Monday, December 14th, 1846, they were arraigned for the murder of Yates. The trial continued over Tuesday and great part of Wednesday, the principal witness, Ann Humphreys, swearing positively that she was present when the three prisoners robbed and maltreated Yates, and after that cast him over the wall (called the tram wall), into the river Tees, then greatly swollen by the heavy rains. The jury after eight hours and a half spent in deliberating on their verdict, acquitted the prisoners. The comments of the press were very strong on the subject of this verdict, public opinion being much against the prisoners.

For the murder of Catharine Raine the prosecutor declined to bring up any evidence; the witness Humphreys was a principal witness in this case also, she having deposed that on their way home, when crossing the Bridge, the girl Raine (who had been present at the death of Yates) threatened she would tell the police, upon which the three prisoners forcibly seized her and threw her over the wall of the Bridge into the river below, and that her own life was preserved only because she was sworn by the three prisoners never to reveal the horrible transactions of that night.

The most extraordinary part of this occurrence yet remains to be related – the three prisoners had not been indicted for the robbery which the witness Humphreys swore immediately preceded the murder; they were consequently remanded, and at the Yorkshire Spring Assizes, March 16th, 1847, Barker, Breckon and Raine, were arraigned on an indictment for the robbery accompanied with circumstances of violence.

The case created very great interest, and long before the time for the court being opened the entrance gates of the Castle were crowded by great numbers anxious to gain access.

The prisoners by their counsel put in a special plea stating that they had been tried and acquitted for the crime now laid to their charge, this plea being over-ruled the prisoners severally pleaded Not Guilty.

The speeches of counsel, and the examination of witnesses occupied the whole of the day, and was resumed on the following day until evening.

Baron Rolfe, in summing up the evidence to the jury, said that this was a case which required, on the part of the jury, no ordinary degree of care in its examination. The prisoners stood charged with having on the night of the ninth of August stolen from the person of Joseph Yates certain of the coins of this country. That was a grave offence at all times; but it was impossible to shut their eyes to circumstances showing that there was something in this case of a far more atrocious character, that though now the jury were called upon to say whether the prisoners were guilty or not guilty of committing the robbery, they would by implication come to the conclusion aye or no, that they committed two most barbarous murders of which they have been most unquestionably acquitted. 

In placing the whole case before them, he (the learned Judge) thought that the best course he could take, was, in the first place, to call their attention to the only witness who spoke to the robbery; viz, Ann Humphreys; for if for any reason they could not give credit to her testimony, there was an end to the whole case. Her statement was in the most respects coherent and probable, but there was one circumstance which might cause them to say how far she should be trusted – he referred to the fact that she had for a long time kept this dreadful secret in her bosom. 

In ten minutes the jury returned a verdict of guilty.

His Lordship, in sentencing the prisoners used the following emphatic language: “It is impossible for anyone who has witnessed the proceedings of this trial, not to feel that in your case you have been guilty of two of the most atrocious murders that perhaps the annals of crime ever furnished. 

“You have succeeded undoubtedly in defeating the ends of justice hitherto; and I presume that upon the former trial material circumstances that have now come out in evidence were not brought forward, either because they had not come to light, or were not known to exist; for I am perfectly certain that any jury who has heard what has been detailed on this occasion, could not have had the remotest doubt but that you barbarously (and not merely, I suspect, for objects of plunder, but for some motives of revenge) murdered that young man, and you followed that up with equal barbarity in murdering the young woman ; and I see enough to convince me that you formed the deliberate plan of murdering Ann Humphreys also. I confess I feel somewhat ashamed that the law is not able to reach you further than it is. But this I will say - although I will not use the expression I have the satisfaction of knowing for I will not harbour so barbarous a sentiment - that whether your lives shall, by the pleasure of God, be terminated early or be protracted late, you will live the objects of abhorrence and detestation even among the guilty associates among whom you will be placed, who will be ashamed and contaminated at being with you; and I hope that you will devote every instant of your lives, if you have wisdom or prudence to endeavour to atone and expiate, as far as you can, by the innocence of your lives, the horrible crime which you have committed. The severest sentence that the law allows me I shall pass upon you, and that is that you be severally transported beyond the seas, to such place as her Majesty, by the advice of her privy council, shall direct, for the space of 15 years.