Transcript

of

Remarkable Superstition at Exeter

In: Recent cases of supposed witchcraft in Devonshire.
Transactions of the Devonshire Association, 1875, Vol VII, pp. 262-267.

by

Paul Q. Karkeek

Prepared by Michael Steer

The paper was presented at the Association’s Torrington meeting in July 1875. This short article formed the second part of the author’s presentation. The paper’s witchcraft theme was developed to include cases from Ashburton, Exeter and Newton Abbot. His intent was to provide evidence that belief in witchcraft was still alive in rural Devon at that time. The article, from a copy of a rare and much sought-after journal can be downloaded from the Internet Archive. Google has sponsored the digitisation of books from several libraries. These books, on which copyright has expired, are available for free educational and research use, both as individual books and as full collections to aid researchers.

CONVICTION OF A FORTUNE TELLER

At the Exeter Guildhall yesterday Mrs. Arthurs, commonly known by the name of "Mother Arthurs," was brought up, in custody under a warrant, charged with unlawfully professing to Elizabeth Heacock that she could tell fortunes, and with using certain subtle means, and devices, and cards with intent to deceive the said Elizabeth Heacock. The defendant, who is a stoutly-built elderly female, was dressed in attire of many hues, principally scarlet, and was defended by Mr. Friend. Much interest was manifested in the case, and the court was crowded. Elizabeth Heacock said she lived at 7, Fore Street, and was a widow. She did not know the prisoner, beyond having gone to her to have "the cards put out” but she knew she resided in Nelson Place. Witness had a son, who for some months had been very ill, and had suffered fearfully. Her neighbours told witness that it looked as if her son was suffering from some witch's spell. Witness then went to the defendant, and the latter produced the cards, and told the witness that she saw "great confusion." This was after she shook the cards, and before witness had told her anything, but the defendant averred that she "saw it all in the cards." She immediately produced the cards on the witness entering her house, and said she saw a deal of trouble in store for her, and gave it as her opinion that there was someone working wickedness against her son. The cards were ordinary playing cards. The defendant shuffled the cards, and then witness had to shuffle them, being told at the same time to think on what she wanted to know. Defendant declared that the person working all this wickedness was no one belonging to witness, but a short, dark-looking, stout woman was the cause of all the mischief. Witness paid her sixpence for that; but this was not a charge made by the defendant, but only what she gave her. Defendant, on her leaving, told her to come the next day, when she would search out "the book" for her. The next day she went again, and the defendant said that she could see that her son was very ill, and if he lingered on until July or August nothing could be done (Laughter.) She then said "it would be very expensive," and when asked what "ex- pensive" would mean, the defendant answered £2. Witness then went home and consulted with her son, and the result was that she did take the money to the defendant the following day. The defendant said that she was sure she should not be paid for her time; for the medicine would be very costly. Witness then paid the woman the money, and the medicine was handed over to her. The directions were that the son was to take a tea-cup full three times a day; and witness was told she must give it to him warm. The medicine appeared to be sweetened with liquorice, and the whole being consumed by her son, the witness paid the defendant another visit She then gave the witness a smaller bottle, which her son took in quantities of two spoonsfull; but he did not approve of the mixture, for it made him very ill. Witness again went to the defendant, informed her of the effect the medicine had produced, and was then directed that she was to let the patient rest for a few days. When the defendant consulted "the book" the witness had to pay her two shillings for it, and then the witness asked her, "Do you think you could do my son any good if I got the £2?" and the defendant replied that while there was life there was hope. (Laughter.) When the defendant produced the cards she shuffled them, and witness shuffled them ; then they had to be cut, and witness was told to think on what she wished to know, and she did think accordingly. After the whole of the medicine was consumed witness once more went to consult the defendant She again produced the cards, but before anything was done with them witness asked if she would have to pay for that Defendant said, "Of course;" and upon that witness expressed her inability to pay anything further. When the defendant consulted "the book" she read out a great deal from one of the pages, much of what she uttered being said to herself; but the witness heard such things as this: If the son did not improve before July or August nothing could be done. Afterwards she said her son would live until 1876, but he would be a very great object (Laughter.)

The Clerk: Did she tell you what your son was suffering from?

Witness : Oh yes. She said that he had a bad cough, and suffered from discharge. She said also he could eat and drink well, and she told me everything so true that I was induced to go further. (Laughter.)

The Clerk: Did she say that when the cards were before her, or when you were telling her about your son ?

Witness: The cards were all placed out with their faces upwards. She could see great confusion with women and doctors. (Laughter.)

Mr. Friend: There is often considerable confusion with the doctors! (Laughter.)

The Clerk: Did she say anything about curing?

Witness: She said nothing about curing, but said there was confusion, and she would have to work hard for me. To the Bench: They do work by something, gentlemen, at twelve in the day, and at twelve by night. (Laughter.) She did not tell me downright that she worked at those hours, but that is what they do. (Laughter.) As far as I was concerned myself she said I could face my enemies. (Laughter.) Witness: She told me she had made wonderful cures with the deaf, the blind, and the lame. (Laughter.) She said she could see the poor fellow was very ill, and that his life hung on a thread. Witness told her she ought to have come and seen her son, but the defendant said that would have been useless. She said she could give her some more medicine, but that it would be very expensive, made of rum, &c, and that alder must be used. The first medicine the defendant said was composed of a foreign herb, and there were eighteen different ingredients in the first bottle. Mr. Friend: And your son is not cured yet. (Laughter). Witness: No; he was to rest a few days, and to take some cod liver oil; and after he took it he had a suspicion that there was some further wickedness at work, and that the defendant had done this to put him aside. Mr. Franklyn: Is he still living ?

Witness: Yes, and better than he was when taking her medicine. When she produced the cards I might cut up aces, spades, or trumps, you know. (Laughter). Mr. Friend: Is your son a married man ? Witness: Yes.

Mr. Friend: I think he is better off than most men - he has got a couple of wives I believe ?

Witness: Yes, his first ran away with a soldier. (Laughter.)

Mr. Friend: And that was the confusion you talked about?

Witness: I suppose it was, sir. The neighbours said his complaint seemed to be exactly like witchcraft, and that is why I went to the defendant; for I've been told she tells very true, and so she did. (Laughter.)

Mr. Friend : Did you tell her your son was very ill ? Witness: Not at all I never mentioned to her my son was very ill. (After a pause) Well, I can't say now that I didn't tell her my son was very ill. She said he had a very good heart, and a very good principle, and if she supplied him with her superior medicine she knew when he got well he would pay her. (Laughter.)

Mary Hertford, a washerwoman, said she went to the defendant five years ago when a friend took her there. Knowing her, therefore, she recommended the last witness to consult the defendant, and she accompanied her to the house, and asked the defendant to "cut the cards " for Mrs. Heacock. The defendant said there was great confusion in the cards, and Mrs. Heacock then prayed her to tell her what she saw there, "whether bad or good." Defendant wanted to know who Mrs. Heacock wanted to find out about, but Mrs. Heacock would not tell until the defendant had thrice shuffled the cards, and the defendant was still unable to ascertain who the person was. At length Mrs. Heacock said the individual was her son, and the defendant then proceeded, that there were two women in the case, one a dark, and the other a light woman, and one of them was a very bad woman. A sixpence was paid to Mrs. Arthur, but she did not name any charge, the witness and Mrs. Heacock understanding that that was her usual fee for "a cut of the cards."

Detective Skinner apprehended the defendant at her house On a warrant. He asked her to produce her cards, and she took out 33 from a box, these being of three different sorts. She said, "I assure you, Mr. Skinner, that I have cured hundreds, and am very clever." She produced a bottle of stuff she said she had prepared for "him."

Mr. Friend at first contended that a technicality arising out of a difference in the date of the warrant would cause the charge to fall to the ground, but he was asked by the Bench to proceed on the merits. He maintained at length that there had been no false pretence, but said that the defendant was a herbalist, and they knew it was true that herbalists often performed cures where surgical arts failed. Every thing the defendant said was true - that the disease was invariably fatal in its termination, and there was nothing extravagant in the defendant's assertion that the cure would be accompanied with much expense. Without the temptation and solicitation of Mrs. Heacock the offence would not have been committed, and the defendant was not to blame in having done as she had, after being sought out to have her devices put in motion.

The Bench, after considerable discussion, unanimously found the prisoner guilty, and sentenced her to two months' imprisonment, directing that the expenses of her maintenance should be defrayed from the £3 found on her at the time of her apprehension.

It is easy to see that when a white witch uses such commonplace ingredients as liquorice root and cod liver oil, that she must be an impostor; and consequently one is not surprised to find that there was "considerable confusion," and that the detective officer declined to accept the bottle of stuff which had been specially prepared for him, even though the prisoner asserted that she had "cured hundreds, and was very clever."