10:00am Saturday 20th March 2010
A hundred years ago, the village of Horton-in-Ribblesdale was at the centre of a very modern scandal.
The married, 43-year-old headteacher of the village endowed school been accused of an improper relationship with a young teaching assistant – a 23-year-old who had once been a pupil at the school.
Desperate to clear his name and save his career – not to mention his high standing in the village – he accused the source of the gossip of libel.
A letter had been sent by a villager and his wife to the school manager accusing the headteacher of the improper relationship and calling for him to be replaced. The couple stood accused of carrying on in front of children, of declaring their love for each other and chasing each other round desks.
At the ensuing Leeds Assizes court case, there were further accusations of improper dancing and loving slaps in front of children.
Headteacher William Edward Pitts, 43, denied all and accused the letter writers – Septimus, a village labourer, and Mary Capstick – of libel. And for four days, the court was packed as Mr Pitts sought to defend his reputation.
During the trial, it emerged the Capsticks claimed they had been prompted to write by the owner of one of the village hostelries. And it was further revealed that the same man had set up another school with the village vicar, who had fallen out with Mr Pitts over an argument about the headmaster’s organ-playing in his church.
There were also accusations of petty jealousies in the village.
At the end of the trial, during which many witnesses – including tearful and fainting children – were called to give evidence, the jury was unable to come to a decision and the case was dismissed.
But, for four days, the district was gripped and the case reported in lurid detail.
The case was heard at the civil court in front of judge Mr Justice Ridley and a jury.
Mr Pitts claimed damages for libel which the defendants had published in the form of a letter in relation to his profession, whereas the defendants claimed the wording of the letter was true in substance and fact.
The letter, which was read out in court, stated that Mr Pitts was “not fit to teach children” because of the way he carried on with teaching assistant Maggie Redmayne.
“They are a disgrace to the parish,” wrote the Capsticks. “There he is every day with his arms around her and then she is sat on his knee, and to crown all they were in a corner of a room in a disgraceful position and more worse behaviour the children come home and tell. There has never been such a scandalous going on connected with the school.”
Continuing their theme, the Capsticks accused Mr Pitts of awful behaviour to his wife and of believing his position made him immune.
“We can stand it no longer,” they wrote. “Please do something to stop this scandalous going-on.”
A fascinated courtroom heard Norman Craig, for Mr Pitts, say he had been headmaster at the school for more than 20 years and in all that time there had never been any criticism of his work. In addition to his position at the school, he was actuary at the local Penny Bank and clerk of the parish council. He had also been organist at the church, but had stopped following an argument with the vicar over payment.
The court was told the school authorities had carried out their own investigations and found the claims unproved.
But Mr Pitts was instructed by the education committee of West Riding to resign his post or take legal action to clear his name.
Under examination and cross-examination, Mr Pitts denied all accusations made against him. He had never asked Miss Redmayne, in front of children, whether she loved him, he had never chased her around a desk and he denied sitting on a desk with his arms around her waist.
He had certainly never been brutal to his wife, or argued with her over Miss Redmayne. And he had categorically not cancelled a planned trip to Leeds with his wife and son and gone to Skipton instead with Miss Redmayne.
Miss Redmayne, the court heard, had gone to the school as a child when Mr Pitts was already headmaster. She had then returned as a student teacher, under the instruction of Mr Pitts.
Questioned in court, she said there had never been any impropriety between the two and that their two families were very close. She believed children had talked because certain people in the village were jealous of her.
Lydia Fell, a supplementary teacher at the school, told the court she had never seen anything suspicious between Mr Pitts and Miss Redmayne.
And Martha Pitts, the headmaster’s wife, said the couple had an “affectionate” marriage and there had been no quarrels between them over Miss Redmayne.
But 11-year-old Margaret Capstick, daughter of the letter writers, said she had heard Mr Pitts ask Miss Redmayne if she loved him. She had also seen Miss Redmayne sitting on Mr Pitts’s knee – through a hole in the classroom door.
After cross-examination, the unfortunate Miss Capstick fainted and had to be carried out of court.
Fellow pupil Ann Heseltine, aged 13, had heard Mr Pitts question Miss Redmayne about her love for another man and had also seen the couple chase each other round a desk. After cross-examination, she also fainted. A minor sensation was caused when 12-year-old Ann Heseltine, whose father was behind the other school recently set up in the village, said her father had promised her 10s (50p) to go to Blackpool if she did well in court.
Mary Ellen Dinsdale, 11, recalled Mr Pitts asking Miss Redmayne in front of the class whether she loved him. When she replied ‘no’, he went on to ask him if she wanted another man, named Frank Smith.
Young Mary Ellen recalled Mr Pitts using “bad language”.
A servant employed by the Pitts told the court relations between Mr and Mrs Pitts were not good and she had heard plenty of arguments around Miss Redmayne.
However, Mr Craig, for Mr Pitts, talked about the discrepancies of the evidence given by the children.
“You only have to let a lie loose in Horton-in-Ribblesdale,” he said “and even the Ribble will never overtake it.”
In his summing up, the judge said he had heard more about the character of Horton than Mr Pitts.
He said the jury would have to decide whether the libel was true in substance and fact. After more than two hours of deliberation, the jury told the judge that it could not reach a decision and there was no chance of an agreement.
The then editor of the Craven Herald remarked on the case and chided those who spent too much time listening to gossip.
“Some people are too ready to assume facts instead of waiting until they are proved, and the result is that many an unfair judgement must have been formed and many a character unfairly damaged because of hasty and unwarrantable conclusions,” he wrote.
© Copyright 2001-2012 Newsquest Media Group
http://www.cravenherald.co.uk/trade_directory/