Mexborough and Swinton Times February 4, 1898

A Denaby Scandal
A Medical Man Amours
Police Court Proceedings
Sensational Evidence

At Barnsley W. Riding Police Court on Wednesday before Messrs H Pigott  (in the chair) Doctor Holton, F Robinson and J Brown Hill, Thomas Gilchrist, surgeon, late of Conisborough was summoned to show cause why he should not contribute to the maintenance of the illegitimate daughter of Emily Smith, he being the alleged father of the same.

Mr Rideal appeared for the complainant and Mr Toye for the defendant.

Mr Rideal said the facts which he had to present to the court would be very brief. The defendant did not appear although he had been served with the summons, and he understood the facts were admitted.

The Clerk to Mr Toye: Do you admit the paternity?

Mr Rideal: Yes, we admit it

Mr Toye: Then there is the question of allowance to be settled, and you will have to give some corroboration.

Mr Rideal said the summons have been served according to statute.  They had the affidavit of a police sergeant at Conisborough in that county which had left it with Edward Langton Schofield, his landlord and his last known address at Denaby. The full name of the defendant was Thomas Black Addie Gilchrist. The complainant was a single woman living with her father in Rock Crescent, Monk Bretton. Defendant was a surgeon, and was until recently assistant in the employ of Doctor McCall of Conisborough, and was residing at the time of this intimacy with the complainant at a branch surgery at Denaby Main.

The child, the subject matter of the enquiry, a girl, was born on December 27, 1897. The complainant in February last was engaged as a nurse and servant by woman named Mrs Mellor, who resided in Denaby, and during the time she was in her employment she had occasion to go to the surgery of Doctor McCall where Doctor Gilchrist attended, and an intimacy was formed between the parties.

Afterwards, at Doctor Gilchrist invitation, when she had returned home she came to see him at Denaby and at Barnsley and he paid her railway to and from Monk Bretton.

The corroborated evidence he had was that of the caretaker, who had seen her frequently come and go to the surgery, and had nearly positive evidence of what had been going on. When they had first had their suspicions aroused, they made a practice of listening to what was going on with the girl in the surgery. This girl used to wait until all the patients had gone, and remained alone with a doctor in the surgery. He had been talking to his friend, who was for the defence, and he had consented to an order for two shillings and sixpence a week. He on behalf of the complainant agreed to that, as she had a child four years old, but not to this defendant.

Emily Smith, the complainant was then called. She said she was a single woman residing with her father at Rock Crescent, Monk Bretton. She had been confined of a girl, which was born in December last. Until February last year, she was employed by Mrs Mellor at Denaby.

Mr Rideal: Who is the father of your child? – Thomas Gilchrist

When did you make his acquaintance? – In February.

Of last year? – Yes.

Was he at the time assistant to Doctor McCall of Conisborough? – Yes.

When you were in the employ of Mrs Mellor you had occasion to go to the surgery of Doctor McCall? – Yes.

When you went to the surgery did ever an impropriety take place between Doctor Gilchrist and yourself? – Yes.

Can you tell me when? – In February first of all.

The Clerk: The first time he took liberties with you was in February 1897? – Yes.

The Clerk: Do you know the date – Mr Rideal: she can’t fix the exact date.

To witness: Did this intimacy continued during the time you remain in Mrs Mellor service – Yes

About how often? – About twice a week.

Always in the surgery? – Yes.

I think Doctor McCall’s surgery is two cottages formed into one – Yes

And in one cottage the caretaker resides while the other is the surgery? – Yes

Did you leave Mrs Mellor’s service in March? – Yes.

As you told Doctor Gilchrist you’re going home to Monk Bretton? – Yes.

Did he say anything to you about visiting him afterwards? – Yes, he asked me to come and see him.

Did you do so? – Yes.

And how often? – Once a fortnight.

Right up to August? – Yes.

Did you write him letters when you are coming? – Yes.

Did he write to you sometimes fixing when you are to come? – He used to answer the letters.

How many times did he write to you? – Three times.

Have you got those letters? – No.

Do you know where they are? – No, I don’t know.

Have you lost them? – Yes.

Did he give you money when you visited him? – Yes, fare and expenses.

How much each time? – Three or four shillings.

Has he paid you anything since the child was born? – No.

You have had a child before, some four years ago? – Yes.

Did he know that? – Yes.

When you visit the surgery there were other people about? – There were people in the waiting room.

Did you have to wait until they had all gone away? – Yes, he used to motion to me to stop.

Then he used to fasten the waiting room door? – Yes.

Mr Toye for the defendant, asked no questions.

Jane Schofield, wife of Edward Schofield of Wood View Denaby, was then called. She said she was caretaker at Doctor McCall’s surgery at Denaby. She had occupied that position about six years, and she had known the defendant, Doctor Gilchrist about four and half years during which time he had been assistant to Doctor McCall.

Mr Rideal: can you tell me when you first saw the complainant, Emily Smith? – In February of last year.

She came to the surgery? Yes.

Did you observe anything that aroused suspicions? – Yes, but not so much until March.

In March were your suspicions thoroughly aroused? – Yes.

Do you know that she continued to visit at the surgery after she had left Denaby – Yes.

Up to which? – Up to July I think.

Did you listen sometimes when this girl was in the surgery? – Yes.

Did you know Doctor Gilchrist was the only person in the surgery with her?

Continuing, the witness said from what she had heard and from other evidence she knew that impropriety had taken place between the complainant and Doctor Gilchrist. The defendant always fastened the waiting room door.

Mr Rideal proposed to next call Doctor McCall.

Mr Toye, for the defendant said he thought their worships would be perfectly satisfied with the evidence given. There was no need to labour the case.

The Clerk intimated that Doctor McCall had better give evidence.

Doctor Anthony McCall said he was a physician and surgeon practising at Conisborough and Denaby. The defendant, Doctor Gilchrist, was a qualified surgeon, and was witnesses’ assistant.

Mr Rideal: For the last four and half years he had been in your service at Denaby until the end of December last? – Yes.

What was his average salary? – I should say about £150, with free house, gas, coal and washing.

Does the complainant’s name appears in your books at Denaby as a patient?

No, it never has appeared.

I think you have identified some bottles she has as yours? – Yes.

The name on the label and the directions are in his handwriting? – Yes

I think you first saw the complainant in August when he was away on his holiday? – Yes.

She made a statement to you and having heard that you spoke to him? – Yes.

What did he say? – He denied the truth of it.

Did you tell him up what the girl had said to you? – Part of it.

The Clerk: What did you tell him?

I told him a girl said she had been in the habit of visiting him, and he had always paid her fare from Barnsley. He denied all knowledge of the girl and I said no more.

Mr Rideal: Did you know the girls name? – No, I did not know her name.

The Clerk: You accept this statement? – Yes, on the understanding that he was going to enquire into it, and I left it in his hands.

Mr Toye said on the whole he thought it was a very straightforward case. Owing to his client having left that portion of the country, he had not been able to obtain any evidence as a set off against the evidence given that day. He had therefore thought it best to consent to an order. Their worships knew that complainant had had a child before, and she had been going on as she had done, receiving money from the defendant, as they had heard in evidence, he was not altogether free from blame.

The Bench, after a few minutes consideration, made an order against the defendant for 2s 6d a week until the child is 13 years of age. They also ordered him to pay the costs and £1 incidentals to 80 Main.