by Alison Bruce
Tebbutt was only 46 years old but had already retired from Bailey and Tebbutt, the brewing business he had inherited from his father. He had been actively involved in the business before selling it to Messrs Greene, King and Sons in 1928. He had also inherited £20,000. His total inheritance made him a comparatively wealthy man.
He occupied himself with the leisurely pursuits of shooting, playing golf and motoring. He was also a frequent visitor to the Cherry Hinton Constitutional Club where until February he had been on the committee.
Helen was 38. She had been born in Hearn City, California and her maiden name was Jenks. After arriving in England she had married a man named Walter Williams with whom she had had two children, Bryan and Elizabeth, known as Betty. By the mid-1920s she was estranged from Williams and had taken the children to live with her aunt and uncle in Chirk near Wrexham.
She later moved to Liverpool where her mother was then living in 1928, when Bryan and Betty were aged 13 and 8, she left Liverpool and moved to Cambridge to take up the post of hotel manageress. Her daughter stayed with her while her son remained with family. It is not known why Helen chose Cambridge; there is no evidence that she knew Herbert Tebbutt beforehand and was thought to have met him shortly after she took up her new position.
The relationship between Tebbutt and Helen Williams developed quickly, but not without complications. Tebbutt was also a married man but soon after meeting Williams, he bought her a house called Little St Bernard’s in Trumpington. He was open about the affair. His wife briefly attempted to save their marriage, but after discovering that Williams was pregnant she filed for divorce.
The divorce case was reported in the Cambridge Daily News of 5 December 1929 and stated: ‘in the Divorce Division yesterday, before Mr Justice Bateson and a common jury, Mrs Alice Tebbutt of Meads End, Hills Avenue, Cambridge petitioned for a decree nisi for the dissolution of her marriage with Mr Herbert Charles Tebbutt, on the grounds of his adultery with Mrs Helen Margaret Williams of Little St Bernards, Shelford Road, Cambridge, who intervened in this suit.
Both the respondent and the intervener filed answers denying the charge, but had now intimated that they would not contest the case further, and the suit came on as an undefended petition.
The parties were married in July 1913, the petitioner then being a widow of Ealing. They lived at various addresses and finally at Meads End. From 1921 to 1928 the marriage was unhappy and the respondent left his wife in April of that year.
Evidence was given by the petitioner and a private detective.
The jury found that the respondent and the intervener had committed adultery and his Lordship granted a decree nisi with costs.’
The decree absolute was granted on 3 June 1931. After the divorce Tebbutt found it difficult to regain possession of Meads End and its furniture from his former wife. This was eventually resolved and Tebbutt was ordered to pay her maintenance of £500 per year from his estimated annual income of £900. He appealed against this decision and the amount was reduced to £300 per year. Even with this reduction, his lifestyle and his family’s living expenses were still eating into his capital. Between the time of the divorce and Tebbutt’s death his solicitor, Mr Albert George Rickards Alexander, described the amount of alimony he paid out to his ex-wife as ‘a considerable amount’. Despite this Tebbutt was still in arrears by £250.
The finances surrounding his divorce seemed to anger Tebbutt rather than worry him, and he particularly objected to the section in the order that made provision for his ex-wife for her lifetime and meant that she would be paid from his estate in the event that he pre-deceased her.
Mostly, however, he focused his attention on his new family and was very fond of all three children and was often seen taking them out in his car. The family employed a gardener and two maids, Phyllis Henderson and Florence Southgate. Henderson lived in Oak Street, Cambridge but Southgate, who was a local girl, lived at the house with the rest of the family. She had been with the family for four years, while Henderson had been employed for the previous six weeks to help with the children.
Although Henderson was happy in her position she was due to leave as she needed to go into hospital. She hoped to return later, but in her absence the Tebbutts had hired a young girl from Downham Market named Olga Dudley.
In the weeks leading up to Saturday 28 May a few small and seemingly insignificant events took place. And certainly from the perspective of Henderson and Southgate nothing occurred that warned them about the fast approaching tragedy.
They perhaps thought it was strange that Dudley did not arrive on Wednesday 25 May, but then they had heard that her mother had telephoned and Tebbutt had jotted down the following message for his partner; ‘Olga ill, cannot come till tomorrow.’ Maybe they assumed Dudley was still unwell when there was still no sign of her by Saturday.
The two maids were unlikely to be privy to conversations that Tebbutt was having with his solicitor. Tebbutt had been ordered to leave securities to cover half of the annual payments due to his former wife and he had failed to do so. On that same Wednesday Alexander warned Tebbutt that a writ of judgment was about to be issued against him. Tebbutt promised to drop the securities off at the solicitor’s office on Friday, but never did.
Both the maids were aware though of the event which Southgate thought had distressed Tebbutt. He was keen on shooting and kept three dogs including a spaniel and a cross-bred retriever. He was particularly fond of the retriever, which he had owned for fourteen years, and that morning had asked Mr Bennett, a local vet, to put the dog to sleep. Bennett had come to Meads End and taken the animal away. Southgate was not absolutely sure that this had greatly upset her master, but noted that if anyone mentioned the dog being destroyed ‘tears came into his eyes and he could not speak for a few minutes’.
After the vet’s visit Tebbutt drove into town and settled bills at the Rock Hotel and D.H. Halls, the boot-maker, where he collected two pairs of shoes that had been repaired. He also dropped in to the Cherry Hinton Constitutional Club where he was described as ‘cheery as ever’ and had one drink, but refused a second that another member offered to buy.
The family were due to go to on holiday; Tebbutt had hired a bungalow on the golf estate at Gorleston-on-Sea and they planned to stay there for a few weeks. During the evening of Friday 27 May Tebbutt had telephoned to confirm that they would arrive at about 5 p.m. on Saturday 28 May. On the following morning he returned home at about 12.15, in time to drive the two maids to the station. It had been arranged that they would catch the 1.20 p.m. train while the family would travel to Gorleston by car.
Back at the house he found the children dressed, but Williams not yet ready to leave. He told the maids to wait in the car, which was still in the garage about 100 yards from the house. As Southgate left she remembered that the daughter, Betty, was upstairs and the two babies were in their prams in the kitchen while Williams was busy putting a telephone call through to the general post office.
She sat with Henderson for several minutes, and then they heard three shots, followed by a scream and more shots. At first they thought the shots came from the orchard but realising that the sound was too close Southgate said: ‘It’s coming from the kitchen. Surely he hasn’t shot the children.’
The distraught maid ran into the house via the back door and was faced with a scene worse than anything she could have imagined. Dick was in his pram; his legs were moving but blood was pouring from his face. Betty lay on the floor.
She ran back out and told her companion, ‘They have been shot. They are on the floor.’ Both girls re-entered the house and Henderson saw that ‘Betty was lying on the floor, her head in a pool of blood. Dick was in a perambulator. Michael was in another perambulator, their heads down. They were bleeding from the nose and mouth.’
As they did not know where the Tebbutts were and whether there was an ongoing danger they ran back from the house to summon help. They returned with a neighbour and the milkman, Joseph Allington from
Stetchworth Dairies. Several neighbours had heard shots but had ignored them as Tebbutt often fired at birds in the garden.
They found Tebbutt and Williams in the hall. Both were dead with bullet wounds to the head. The telephone receiver was hanging from its cable as if the shootings had occurred while the phone was in use. In fact the switchboard operator who had been connecting Williams’ call had heard the shots but had been unable to do anything to help.
Although the telephone was damaged Allington used it to call the police and, on seeing that the two younger children were alive, he rang a local doctor, Albert McMasters from Hills Road. At the inquest the Chief Constable, R.J. Pearson, publicly thanked him for his actions.
McMasters arrived shortly after 1.00 p.m. and found both boys still breathing. Sadly though he was unable to help them. One died five minutes later and the other survived for only another forty.
The story made the afternoon edition of the Cambridge Daily News under the headline ‘Five Dead in Cambridge Tragedy’ and also made the national papers with The Times carrying a small piece headed ‘Five Persons Found Shot’.
The inquest was held on Monday 30 May at the old Police Court in Cambridge’s Guild Hall and opened by the borough coroner, G.A. Wootten. W.B. Frampton, from Squires and Co. solicitors, represented the executors and relatives and Grafton Pryor represented Alice Tebbutt, Herbert Tebbutt’s first wife (he was the solicitor who had unsuccessfully defended Frederick Seekings at his 1913 murder trial).
The first witness called was James Scott who had taken photos in the hallway and kitchen of Meads End. Inspector Sharman also described the scene. Shortly before 1.00 p.m. on Saturday the police station had received an urgent call from Allington and Sharman had taken four officers to Meads End. He said in his statement that ‘they found a man lying face downwards, with his head in a pool of blood. The man had a bullet wound in the right temple and his face was bluish black. Quite close to the man lay the body of Mrs Williams, who had a wound on her left cheek, and her face was covered with blood.’
In the kitchen he had found the three children:
The girl was lying on her back, five feet from the door with a wound in one eye. Two feet from her head was a pushchair, and in that chair was the elder of the two babies who had serious wounds to the side of the head. Quite close to the pushchair was a pram containing a child of about eighteen months. That child had serious wounds to the left side of the head.
Williams’ brother, George Albert Jenks, identified his sister’s body. He worked as a grocer’s assistant at the Army and Navy Stores in Victoria Street, London and confirmed that his sister had still been married at the time of her death. Her husband was a Walter Williams, but the witness confirmed that Helen had already separated from him by the time he had last seen his sister. Jenks had last seen Betty when she was about 5 years old, but was able to identify her body positively.
Some of the most distressing testimony came from the two maids. Henderson was the first of the two to take the stand and, after confirming her personal and employment details, she identified the bodies of the two youngest children as Michael Charles Hazeldene Tebbutt Williams, aged 2 years and 10 months and Anthony Richard Hazeldene Tebbutt aged 1½. He was known by the family as Dickie and they were, as far as she was aware, both sons of Williams.
Terrible shooting tragedy in a Cambridge villa. (Police Illustrated News)
She testified that on Saturday 28 May she had risen at her usual time of 7.30 a.m. and had breakfasted with the three children and the other maid. Mrs Tebbutt (as she knew her) came down at 9 a.m. Just prior to that she had seen Mr Tebbutt, who was still in his pyjamas, come down to pick up his post before returning upstairs.
Henderson explained that the family were preparing to go on holiday and that she was expecting to be replaced. The coroner asked why she was leaving them to which she informed him that she was going into hospital.
‘You were not at all unhappy?’
‘Oh no.’
‘As far as you know, who was to take your place?’
‘Miss Olga Dudley.’
‘Should she have arrived earlier than this?’
‘Yes. She was to have come on the previous Wednesday, but she did not do so.’
‘Do you know if Mr Tebbutt sent a telegram to her?’
‘He said he had.’
‘He received a reply stating that she was ill and would come the following day?’
‘Yes.’
Henderson confirmed that she thought there had been a misunderstanding over the engagement of Dudley. She added that Williams had been annoyed about it, ‘but nothing more than usual. Between 9.30 and 9.45 Olga’s mother rang up and Mr Tebbutt answered her. Later, at about 10.30 a.m. Mrs Dudley rang up and Mrs Williams answered that call. Mrs Williams asked if Olga was better. She had to ask the question several times because Mrs Dudley did not seem to understand. She seemed surprised.’
The coroner asked: ‘Did Mrs Williams tell you that Mrs Dudley said she had received a telegram telling Olga not to come?’
Phyllis replied: ‘Yes’ and also explained that Williams had told Mrs Dudley that she still expected her daughter to start work but would not accept her unless she brought proof of the telegram.
It seems that Williams was not content to leave the matter there and was suspicious. She decided to ring the general post office for confirmation of the telegram’s existence and origin. It was no secret that she was placing a call to the G.P.O. and was on the hall telephone as Tebbutt instructed the maids to wait in the car.
Henderson had not been in Tebbutt’s employ for long and could not give the inquest much of an insight into the relationship between him and his lover. She had overheard one argument but thought that there was nothing about their relationship that pointed to anything but normal married life.
Southgate, however, had been at Meads End for four years and knew more about the family’s daily habits than her colleague. She explained that it would be typical of Tebbutt to stay up until 2 a.m. and often the couple would not take breakfast until between ten and ten-thirty each morning. Tebbutt would spend time in the garden in the mornings, or often go out, but arrive back in time for lunch at 1.30 p.m. After lunch he would often have a sleep before going out again. He would arrive home ‘at all hours’, but Southgate was sure that this caused no trouble and he would have another nap downstairs before retiring to bed at his usual time.
As far as she knew, Tebbutt’s activities outside the house consisted solely of shooting, golf and occasional visits to his club. She thought she had never seen him drunk but admitted that the week’s empty bottles would include two or three of his whisky bottles. She said that Tebbutt and Williams had quarrelled occasionally, most often at night-time. She described Tebbutt’s temper as ‘hasty’, but said their arguments were mostly little tiffs.
According to the coroner’s opening statement the inquest was going to hear ‘that the deceased man and woman frequently quarrelled’ but this was not borne out in the witness statements and there was no evidence to suggest that the couple were unhappy with the relationship.
There was nothing to indicate that anything in Southgate’s statement was played down through loyalty. She was clearly very fond of the family with whom she had lived at Little St Bernards before moving to Meads End. She said: ‘I used to love being there.’
On the subject of Dudley, her statement confirmed Henderson’s. She seemed sure that Williams felt that it was Dudley that might be the one being deceptive and not Tebbutt. She knew that her employer had asked the new recruit to prove that she had received the telegrams. Southgate had also overheard her employers discussing the matter and there was no sign of any annoyance.
She broke down when she described hearing the shots and the scream then finding the children in the kitchen. She was crying too much to answer questions for a short time.
The coroner asked her why she had said to her colleague: ‘Surely he hasn’t shot the children’ and she expl
ained that it was only her response to the scream and the fact that the shots came from inside the house. There was no other reason. In fact in her entire statement there were only two incidents that pointed to possible undercurrents in the Tebbutt household.
Southgate knew little of Tebbutt’s divorce from his wife but was present one day when Williams came out of the kitchen. She and Tebbutt had been arguing and she said that it was over nothing, but he was worried about the money he had to pay his ex-wife. According to Southgate, Williams then said that he ‘would rather shoot himself than she should have the money’.
The coroner raised the second point when he asked her what she knew of Tebbutt’s revolver. She stated that two or three times when she had made the bed she had found it under his pillow, and one night, when he was looking at it, Williams had said: ‘Don’t mess about with that’.
Inspector Sharman was called. After describing the state of the victims and their locations, which he and his officers had found on their arrival at Meads End, he explained how they had gone on to search the house. In the hall the telephone was on its hook, but the mouthpiece and the aluminium disc were missing. It was logical that the handset had been replaced in its cradle as it had been used by Allington to call for help. There was a bullet mark on the mouthpiece and the paper disc where the telephone number was written was also torn.
Inspector Sharman told the inquest, ‘I searched the body of the man and noticed a whisky flask full in the right hip pocket of his trousers. In the right trouser pocket I found a seven-chambered revolver of .22 calibre, fully loaded.’
‘On searching the body you had to be particularly careful in getting the revolver out?’ asked the coroner.
‘Yes’, Sharman replied. ‘It was necessary to cut the trousers before we could take the revolver out. Further examination of the body made it necessary to be very careful. The right arm was doubled up and the hand was not visible. From the position we suspected there was a weapon in the hand, and when the body was moved a German automatic pistol was found clasped in the right hand. The fingers were round the butt, and the thumb was on the trigger.’
