TOPIC:

Albert Brown's story was a remarkable one and that so much history can be found in one small medal never ceases to amaze me. What you read below provides the primary reason why I collect and research medals and their recipients:

Albert Edward Brown

Trooper, Cape Mounted Rifles
Trooper, Cape Police and Sergeant, Provisional Mounted Police (O.R.C.)
Troop Sergeant Major, South African Constabulary (S.A.C.)

- Queens South Africa Medal with clasps Cape Colony, Orange Free State and South Africa 1901 to 260 Tpr. A.E. Brown, S.A.C.

Albert Brown was born in Woolwich, England on 11 August 1871 the son of Peter Edward Brown, a Licensed Victualler and his wife Sarah.

According to the 1881 England census 9 year old Albert was a pupil at a school being run by Elizabeth Varley at 54 Manor Road in Deptford St. Paul, Kent. His extensive family, aside from his parents, consisted of George W. Brown (15), James E. Brown (13), William S. Brown (11), Alice Brown (10), Annie Brown (8) and Thomas Brown (4). Together with two servants the entire ensemble lived at The Terrace Hotel in Gravesend. Why it was that Albert had been shipped off to Boarding School is unknown.

What is even more of a mystery is what brought a 20 year old Albert to South African shores in 1890 (he claimed to be 20) which is where he enlisted at Cape Town with the Cape Mounted Rifles on 12th November of that year. Awarded the rank of Trooper with no. 2112 he set about his duties and was transferred to the Eastern Cape area of King Williams Town.

It wasn’t long before his name made the first of many appearances in the Defaulters Book, the first entry being on 6 December 1890, less than a month into his service. What was the offence? Leaving the Troop House for which he was fined 1 Extra Guard by Captain Cartwell.

On 15 January 1891 he was again in trouble, this time for being Late for Stables. Sergt. Varley was the witness and Brown was Admonished for his offence. Obviously slow to learn or defiant he was, on 26 March 1891 at Umtata, on the carpet for Leaving the Troop House. This brought him 2 Extra Guards awarded by Major Grant. Things went quiet for a while but, on 9 August 1893 at Sindwana, he was deprived of 1 days pay and 14 days Confinement to Barracks for Obtaining Leave under false pretences and making a false statement. Shortly afterwards Brown and the C.M.R. parted company and nothing more was heard from him until he completed the Candidate’s Paper for the Cape Police at King Williams Town on 30 August 1897.

Now 26 years of age Brown was five feet eleven inches in height weighing 12 stone. He had light brown hair, grey eyes and a fresh complexion and had a scar on his left forearm. He provided his previous calling as “Ex C.M. Rifleman” and confirmed that he had been in South Africa for 6 years. He could read, write and speak English and was conversant with “Colonial” Dutch. Still single he was accustomed to travelling on horseback and the use of firearms. His service with the C.M.R. had been with the exclusive Rinderpest Control Troop and he claimed to have purchased his discharge. As his next of kin he provided his brother Mr. J.E. Brown of 38 Albert Road, Plumstead, England. Brown was duly enrolled with no. 1313 and the rank of 3rd Class Trooper.

It would appear that he was in Pietermaritzburg at around this time as a Natal Government Telegraph was sent to him there from King Williams Town which read “Will enrol if single Standards and Character suitable”.

Brown like everyone else wasn’t to know that in less than 2 years time his neck of the woods was to be embroiled in a bitter conflict between Boer and Brit known as the Anglo Boer War.

Tiring, one can only assume, of the Cape Police; Brown completed the Form of Engagement as a Member of the Provisional Mounted Police Force of the Orange River Colony at King Williams Town on 23 September 1900, taking the Oath of Allegiance at Bloemfontein on 27 September. On the same day he completed the Orange River Colony Police Application. In this form he revealed that he could speak Dutch and Kaffir “slightly” and, interestingly, that he had been dismissed from the Cape Police for Drunkenness although he was “Time Expired” before his crime happened being given a £2 fine on his last day.

Having spent only five weeks with this body he attested for service with the newly formed South African Constabulary on 9 November 1900. Two days before, on 7 November 1900 he had written to Lieutenant Edwards of the Divisional Mounted Police applying for a duplicate of his discharge from the Cape Mounted Riflemen. This request provided insight into an incident which is recounted as follows,

“Sir, I have the honour to submit the following application for a duplicate of my discharge from the Cape Mounted Riflemen. The original discharge was taken by the Boers on the occasion of my being captured by them at Reddersburg on the 27th October; it was sewn up in the breast pocket of my tunic which they took. I joined the Cape Mounted Rifles in 1890 and was discharged in 1895 by purchase.

My number in that regiment was 2112 and the C.O. at the time of my discharge was Lt. Colonel Grant.

Trusting you will be good enough to forward this application through the proper channels to enable me obtain a copy of my discharge.”

This was forwarded to the O.C. Cape Mounted Rifles at Umtata with the request to kindly furnish a duplicate as a Special Case.

Things happened swiftly in those days – the reply, addressed to the Adjutant, 3rd Div. Mounted Police; Bloemfontein attached a certificate of service as “duplicate discharge certificates are not allowed”

Brown was enlisted into the S.A.C. with the immediate rank of 2nd Class Sergeant (no doubt on the strength of his previous service in this field) and No. 260 with E Division. By way of calling he claimed to be a Soldier and provided Miss L. Brooks of Knights Post No. 10, Brooklyn, East London, South Africa as his next of kin. This lady, as events unfold, will be seen to have played a pivotal role in Brown’s destiny in years to come.

Brown’s rise was meteoric – a week later he was promoted to Troop Sergeant Major of the 3rd Troop. Stationed at Danielskuil in the Orange Free State he was admitted to 10 General Hospital in Bloemfontein on 4 November 1900 with a fracture of the Left Clavicle – after treatment he was discharged to the Convalescent Camp on 2 December 1900.

All would appear to have gone well with Brown until, on 26 March 1901; he applied to Lieut. Rice-Hamilton, 3rd Troop, S.A.C. for a transfer. He wrote as follows, “Sir, I have the honour to submit the following application for your information. I beg to apply for a transfer either to the Reserve Depot or to any Troop forming there. My reason for applying is that I think I may better myself in another Troop. Trusting you will be good enough to forward this application to the proper quarters with your recommendation. I have the honour, etc.”

Rice-Hamilton forwarded the request to the Staff Officer commenting that, “His transfer would suit me. I therefore recommend it. I have a N.C.O. in the Troop who I consider will work better with me and with the men. T.S.M. Brown is a hard working N.C.O. and I have no doubt would get on well with another Officer” What did we have here? An officer who clearly couldn’t work with Brown?

Possibly unsure as to whether or not his initial request had been actioned Brown wrote again on 29 March to the O.C. Danielskuil on this occasion, “Sir, I have the honour to respectfully request that you will be good enough to recommend me for transfer to the Reserve Depot or any Troop now forming at the Depot. Since returning from furlough it is only too apparent to me that I can do nothing right for Lt. Rice-Hamilton who is in command of No. 3 Troop. I therefore think it my best course to apply for a transfer.

Trusting you will forward this matter for me. Your obedient servant etc.”

This galvanised the O.C. into action of a sort – he wrote to Rice- Hamilton stating that “I cannot refuse to forward this application but shall be glad if you will make whatever recommendation you think fit. I consider this to be quite a matter for the O.C. Troops”

Rice-Hamilton, in turn, wrote to the Staff Officer as follows, “I have already made a recommendation on a previous application. The application is dated a day or so back but as I was not sending in left it to today. I should like you to see Superintendent Spinks on this matter he can inform you that he is not at all a popular man in the Troop as a N.C.O. and that he has been the cause of many applications for transfer and also that in a Troop like this without a junior officer or a Supervisor the T.M.S. should be the right hand man of the O.C. of Troop. In this respect I do not consider he is up to the mark and since he has taken upon himself to write in the way he has done I should be glad if you can see your way to transfer him – Sergt. Morley I consider an excellent man to make a T.M.S. for my Troop – and T.M.S. Brown takes his chance in another Troop.”
As if this wasn’t enough to do the trick Rice-Hamilton attached a Confidential Report to his letter which read as follows,

“T.S.M. Brown – He has served in C.M.R. and Cape Police. I understand he was never a N.C.O. before he joined S.A.C.

At present he is not up to the mark as a T.S.M. He does not realise the importance of his promotion – he has on one or two occasions given himself away before the men – I find I have often to do work respecting discipline of the men and Sergts. and Corporals of the Troop which an efficient T.S.M. would do and consider it his first duty to do – but which T.S.M. Brown allows to escape his notice altogether – I have had repeatedly to check him – and he has not taken it with the best grace – I consider him thoroughly honest and reliable and I am sure he does his best and is keen to get on – he married when on furlough and is now a tea.... – I have see him on one occasion the worse for drink returning from Bloemfontein.

I think he will make a good T.S.M. in time especially over Colonials – In No III Troop there are many old soldiers – he was rather unpopular with many men. He is a very good man in the field and under fire from little I have seen of him.
I have no doubt many Troop officers would consider him a really good man. Personally I like him – and think he will become a good T.S.M.”

If the S.O was confused by this who could blame him? Rice-Hamilton, in what appears to be a sales pitch, demonises Brown on the one hand and builds him up on the other.

On 2 April 1901 the O.C. Danielskuil wrote a Confidential Memorandum to the Staff Officer as follows, “In compliance with your verbal instruction of yesterday I beg to report on T.S.M. Brown of No. III Troop.

Though naturally not seeing so much of T.S.M. Brown as the O.C of his Troop, I have not noticed any neglect of, or carelessness in carrying out his duties on his part.

Had I a vacancy in No. 1 Troop for a T.S.M., I should ask for Brown, as, in my opinion, he is a really good Sergeant Major.”

So there it was, out in the open, the O.C. III Troop was gunning for Brown all along – possibly professional jealousy? We will never know but it is obvious that he viewed Brown as a threat.

On 3 July 1901 a Board of Officers was assembled at Petrusburg in the Orange Free State by order of Major Apthorp for the purpose of trying Sergeant Major Brown (No. 260) of No. 12 Troop (there’s the evidence that he was transferred) on the charges of:

1. Drunkenness
2. Interfering with Refugees in camp.

The first called to give evidence was Lt. Hartigan of No. III Troop (Brown’s old Troop). He stated under oath,

“It was reported to me at 8’o clock last night the 2nd instant that S.M. Brown was up with the Refugee wagons, interfering with the Conductor who sent to S.M. Craigh to report it. S.M. Craigh came to report to me, I went and reported it to Major Apthorp, S.O. I got orders to arrest him, I went up to the wagons but he had left. I found him in his tent, quite drunk and unfit for duty. I had him arrested and placed in the guard room.”

Sergeant Major Little of No. 20 Troop was next, “A little after 9 p.m. on the 2nd instant I was ordered by Lieut. Hartigan to find an escort to arrest the prisoner (Brown). I found him in his own tent and took him prisoner with my escort; he was drunk, but was able to walk to the guard room without assistance. I handed him over to the Quarter Guard.”

The Board asked how it was determined that Brown was drunk to which Little replied, “I considered him drunk because he staggered and could not walk straight”

Brown, conducting his own defence, replied that “I think it possible for a man to trip and stumble on this rough ground without being drunk.” Little responded with, “I did hear you ask Lieut. Hartigan your crime and you spoke distinctly when asking him. I think a man can speak distinctly as you did when drunk. I think a man when drunk could get through wire entanglements as you did. I do not know what you were doing when I put you under arrest. The prisoner got through wire entanglements without any assistance.”

No. 288 Staff Sergeant Craigh was next, “About 7.30 p.m. on the 2nd instant Conductor Rose of Major Lyon’s transport reported to me that a Sergeant Major was up in his lines causing great disturbances among the refugees and he wished to complain to Major Lyon, so I went to enquire first. I found Sergt. Major Brown sitting round the fire with some women and I told him that a complaint had been made against him for taking the names of the Conductor, making a disturbance and ordering him away from his transport. He told me it was quite true that he had taken their names and had them in his pocket book and that if I did not F off quickly he would take my name too. It was not a Transport Camp but a Refugee Camp, and he had come up to them with medicine. I could see he was under the influence of drink and told him I would report him. He said Report be damned and I asked him to go quietly away but he did not move so I reported him to Major Lyon’s S.O. – I saw him arrested. He was drunk when arrested.”

Brown then put a question to Craigh which was answered thus, “You told me that one of the men had been impertinent and refused to go away on your order. You told me that you had been sent up by the C.O with medicine for a sick child – I did not add by the C.O. in my statement as I did not think it necessary to go into details. I told you not to make a Bloody Fool of yourself – you told me you were in charge of the place, not me, and I had no right to interfere. I saw you were drunk when you came out of the tent because you were staggering”

Conductor Frederick Charles Rose was the next witness for the Prosecution. He stated that, “At about 7.30 p.m. on the 2nd instant I saw the Prisoner Sergt. Major Brown standing at one of the wagons talking to the Refugee women, he took my name and said I had no business there; he then abused me, swearing at me, he was under the influence of liquor, so I reported it to Staff Sergt. Craigh” In response to a question by the Board he stated, “He had a bottle of medicine with him – he told me it was a refugee camp when I told him I was Conductor”

In response to a question posed by Brown, “I remember some singing going on and saw a Corporal standing near the wagons listening, I was not with him. I remember you telling him to go away, I don’t remember what his reply was. I gave you no cause whatever to use abusive language. I do not remember”

Trooper Mackenzie was next, “I was passing the convoy when I was halted by the Prisoner and asked for my number, name and Troop which he took down in a book – he told me to consider myself a prisoner, he could not stand up straight – he was intoxicated. While I was standing there he had words with the Conductor. He used abusive language and ordered me away and wanted to fight me. When I returned with the Staff Sergt. the Prisoner was sitting round the fire, with women and said that he had brought medicine up and this was a Refugee camp. He told the Staff Sergt. if he did not F off he would take his name as he was running the convoy”

In response to a question from Brown he stated, “I was not listening to the singing. I was with the man who belongs to my Troop, I left him and went with the Conductor to report. I was not impertinent to you, I did not say you had nothing to do with me.”

This last submission brought the Prosecution’s case to a close and it was now Brown’s turn to defend himself. His first witness was No. 394 Q.M.S. W.J.A. Young who stated as follows, “I saw you come home last night, you were under the influence of liquor, I should think you capable of doing duty.” In answer to a question by the Board Young stated, “Prisoner came into my tent at 9.10 p.m. He was arrested there.”

With Young not having much to offer it fell to the next witness, No. 184 Sergt. Major J.F. Doris of No. 3 Troop, to provide his version of events, “I saw you come into the tent I was in last night about 7.30 p.m. and take part in a game. You were not drunk, I considered you capable of conducting any business you had to do.” In answer to a question by the Board, “I could see the Prisoner was excited, but could not say if he had been drinking or not – He left my tent in about 20 minutes, I did not see him until about 9 o’ clock when he was arrested.”

The defence rested and Brown was called upon to make a statement as follows, “About 6 o’ clock on the 2nd instant when passing the Refugee Camp I heard a child crying, I went and had a talk with the woman, and told her that I would fetch her some medicine. I got the medicine from Corporal Sargeant and took it up – I found in the camp 3 S.A.C. men who I told to get out. Tpr. Mackenzie was impertinent with me and I told him it had Bugger All to do with him, two men with him tried to get him away, I took his name intending to report him to his Sergt. Major.

The Conductor who was there asked what the devil I had to do with it in a bullying way and told me to get out and not make a fool of myself – I said “I have only come to give this child medicine and there is nothing to report and if you want me any further you’ll find me in my tent.” – I went to No. 2 lines and had a game in Sergt. Cochrane’s tent for about half an hour, then went home and had my supper as Q.M.S. Young states.

Shortly after I was arrested on a charge of Drunkenness, I walked up to the Guard room and did not stagger – I asked Lieut. Hartigan what my crime was. He replied “Drunk”

In response to question by the Board Brown replied, “I have never been near the Guard Room before and did not know there was a barbed wire entanglement there. I had my issue of rum between 6.30 and 9 p.m.” and to a further question that was posed, “I produce the pocket book in which I wrote the following names, Rose, Transport – Mackenzie, Lyon’s. I swear that these names were written by me last night”

After what appeared to have been a lengthy session the verdict of the board was “Not Guilty on either Charge” – this let loose a storm of official protest. Colonel Ridley to whom the findings were referred had the following to say, “The Court should be reassembled and the following remarks seen by them. If the Court cannot reassemble this must be conveyed to them individually. The evidence of reliable witnesses is quite clear and the verdict is contrary to the evidence. The Court either been very.... or has shown great want of judgement.”

It wasn’t allowed to end there, Major K.P. Apthorp, Officer Commanding the S.A.C., Petrusburg District wrote to the O.C. Eastern Division on 3 July 1901 as follows, “Proceedings of a Board of Officers forwarded – In my opinion this N.C.O. has been found not guilty of the offences he was charged with in face of very strong evidence as to his guilt – The witnesses for the prosecution were all disinterested persons including an officer, whereas with one exception those for the defence all belonged to the Prisoner’s own Troop – A most discreditable case about Kaffir women with which Sergeant Major Brown was mixed up with another N.C.O. was brought to my notice about 10 days ago, these N.C.O.’s having brought women out from Bloemfontein on convoy wagons they were accompanying here and their conduct with them en route was reported by their O.C. Troops by Lieut. Palmer in charge of the convoy – Sergeant Major Brown on this occasion was given a chance, he having pleaded hard with his Troop Officer and Lieut. Gough reporting him as a good man in the field – I also understand S.M. Brown was dismissed from the Cape Police for drink – Putting aside the question of his innocence or guilt of these particular charges, I am quite satisfied that S.M. Brown is quite unfitted for the position he holds, and that his continuing to hold it can only have a bad influence as regards discipline in No. 12 Troop – The O.C. Troop, Lieut. Gough agrees with this.”

So the die was cast – despite being found not guilty by a properly instituted Board of Officers they were baying for Brown’s blood.

The Staff Officer, E Division was written to by Major Pack Beresford on 3 August 1901 as follows, “The Court Martial on S.M. Brown has been received – I share your opinion that there has been an absolute miscarriage of justice – Please inform the officers concerned and tell them the relative value of evidence.

Please send S.M. Brown to be dealt with here. I have retained the papers of the case”. This was followed by a postscript stating that “S.M. Brown has been ordered to proceed to Bloemfontein and report himself to you. He has left here from Petrusburg en route to Bloemfontein.”

What the outcome of Brown’s interview in Bloemfontein was is not recorded for posterity! At around the same time a somewhat cryptic telegram was received by Brown from East London (it is to be remembered that this where his wife was to be found) it read, “L 214 August 2nd Kindly communicate following to Sergt. Major A.E. Brown S.A.C. Hilda dies this morning.” Who Hilda was is a mystery.

The first indication that Brown had been severely dealt with after being summoned to Bloemfontein came in October 1901. On the 18th he penned a letter as follows, “I respectfully request to be allowed the privilege of purchasing my discharge on account of the ill health of my wife – certificate from Dr. Paley of East London attached – I may state that on the 27th of this month I shall have completed two years service in the field, and on the 7th of next month, one year’s service in the S.A.C., so would therefore in accordance with the terms of enlistment be entitled to my discharge. Trusting this application will be sent with your recommendation.”

Colonel Ridley added his comments to Brown’s request, “I recommend that this man be allowed to purchase his discharge on termination of his year of service. He was reduced by me from Troop Sergeant Major and he is not much use to us. He was enlisted for one year on 7.11.1900”

Brown had signed his discharge request as 1st Class Trooper and this is indeed the rank that he had been reduced to. Things started to move rapidly now and on 29 October 1901 Brown’s discharge papers were ready and he was “Paid up” with the comment, on 30 October, that “This man proceeds by train to East London tomorrow.”

This signalled the end of Brown’s fitful history in uniform. He was next heard from again in 1906 when memorandums were flying to and fro with respect to his Queens South Africa medal which, it was established had never been received for despatch to him. This was soon remedied and the medal with clasps Cape Colony, Orange Free State and South Africa 1901 was despatched to him on 25 September 1906 to 18 Murray Street, Southernwood, East London.

After what was a colourful military career Brown could have been forgiven for disappearing into the sunset never to be heard from again. But such was not his fate; you will recall that I mentioned the fateful role that would be played by Lily Brookes in his life. We already know that he had married this lass whilst with the S.A.C. and that they had made their home in East London.

They must have moved to Johannesburg sometime afterwards as it is here in the city of gold that Brown shot once more into prominence for all the wrong reasons. He might have been able to pull a Houdini act on the Board of Officers referred to above but, could he get away with a charge of Murder?

On 17 September 1910 Johannesburg woke up to a case in the Witwatersrand High Court of Rex vs Albert Edward Brown on the charge of Murder. Brown had been denied bail after being taken into custody and the case, before the Honourable Mr. Justice Curlewis was set down to heard on 11 November 1910. The plea entered for Brown was Not Guilty and the stage was set for an interesting trial which would, hopefully answer all the questions being asked by a curious media.

Who was the victim? None other than a Mr. Carl Fibiger (there are many variations of the spelling) who, it was alleged, had taken Brown’s wife as his mistress. First out of the starting blocks was a letter from Mr C.P. Perks of East London, dated 5 August 1910 and addressed to A.E. Brown Esq. 13 Tucker Street, Jeppes Extention, Johannesburg. It read as follows:

Dear Sir

Some days ago I received a letter purporting to be signed by L.M. Brown, presumably your wife, or her initials – this is dated 27 July from 123 Mordaunt Street, Fairview, Johannesburg – the writing, most decidedly, is not a lady’s handwriting and all details given are incorrect as to the amount borrowed, the date of the borrowing, the amount repaid and so on – I have not checked the articles required to be returned, as to whether they are in accordance with what was left – my initials and the spelling of my name are wrong, so on the whole I would like to know more about it.

The request is that I shall leave £8 remaining on the watch and chain.

Awaiting further communications.

Yours faithfully

Charles Perks

On 10 August the very same Phebiger (Fibiger) was sent a letter from J. George Quin, Attorney at Law stating, “I am instructed by Mr. A.E. Brown of this town to demand from you the immediate payment of £1000 sterling as and for damages sustained by my client by reason of your adultery with my client’s wife Lilian H. Brown.

Failing compliance herewith, and the payment of my costs by noon on the 12th instant legal proceedings will be taken.

The very next day Brown penned a letter to Fibiger’s wife at 123 Mordaunt Street as follows:

“Dear Madam

In case you should be under no misunderstanding as to the origin of the disturbance on Tuesday night which led to my wife going to your house, allow me to state the facts, I had had words with her over a letter received from Mr. Perks, and in an excited moment slapped her face. I went to work as usual but could not rest, so about 12 o’ clock I came to the house with the intention of asking forgiveness and trying to make it up. When I opened my wife’s bedroom door, I was surprised to find your husband sitting in the room with my wife and (in the dark) of course a disturbance followed, and she ran away.

The women in the house had not gone to bed and had not the slightest knowledge of your husband being in the house and do not know how he got in; what would you have done in similar circumstances? I am suing for divorce, but will stay proceedings if she will return to her children at once.”

We now turn to the newspapers for a more thorough account of the story as it unfolded:

The Star, on 3 September 1910, ran the following article

TRAGEDY AT JEPPES

Man Shot at the Station

Jeppestown was the scene of a sensational tragedy last night. A few minutes before 9 o’ clock a miner named Albert Ed. Brown shot, it is alleged, a man named John William Fibiger, with a Colt revolver. The bullet penetrated the right side of the abdomen, inflicting a wound from the effects of which Fibiger died in the Johannesburg hospital shortly after 12.30 this morning. The tragedy took place in the Jeppestown railway station, and created a painful sensation among the large number of people who were awaiting the arrival and departure of several trains.

After surrendering himself and the revolver from which the shot was fired to a Constable, Brown is stated to have gone over to his wife, who was kneeling beside the injured man in the parcels room, and asked her in a voice that betrayed little agitation: “Why did you do this? You see what you have brought me to and you see what you have brought him to. The little children are at home crying and you are running away with another man.” After the injured man had been removed to the hospital Mrs. Brown was taken to the Jeppes charge office for the purpose of making a statement, but after narrating a few details she fainted and the police were unable to get any further information for some time. Brown, who was taken to Marshall Square, never volunteered a word with regard to the tragedy. Owing to the enfeebled condition of the victim the hospital surgeons made no attempt to probe for the bullet. Fibiger, who was declared by a Doctor on Jeppe Station to be mortally wounded, gradually sank and died as stated three and a half hours after being wounded.

At the charge office in Jeppestown, when Mrs. Brown had recovered she made a statement to the effect that the deceased and his family were neighbours of herself and her husband. She alleged that when there were domestic differences between her husband and herself Mr and Mrs Fibiger had frequently to interfere. On account of those differences she (Mrs. Brown) left her husband a few days ago in order to pay a visit to a sister at Natal Spruit.

The further circumstances surrounding the tragedy are alleged to be: Yesterday Brown went to Natal Spruit to visit his wife, but found she was not there. He then returned to Johannesburg and met her at Jeppe Station in the deceased’s company.

When Detective Montague was lifting Fibiger into a stretcher on the station yesterday evening, he found a Webley revolver in his pocket.

Brown, who is 38 years of age, appeared in A Court this morning, and was formally charged with murder. He made an application that a sum of £9 found in his possession when he was arrested should be handed over to the Mother Superior of a Convent to be expended on the support of his children. The hearing of evidence was postponed to the 8th instant.

The case having continued The Star ran the following article on the 8th September 1910:

JEPPES TRAGEDY

STATION SHOOTING CASE

THE SUPPOSED MOTIVE

A COURT SCENE

The story of the tragic happenings on the railway station at Jeppestown during the evening of 2 September was today told to Mr. Lionel Gill, who held the preliminary examination in the case which involves a charge of murder against Alfred (Albert) Edward Brown, a miner of good appearance employed at the George Goch. His alleged victim was a man named John William Fibiger.

The Public Prosecutor was Mr. Shaw. Mr Quin defended.

Preliminary evidence as to plans of the station was first put in, and Dr. Francis Aitken made a statement as to Fibiger’s admittance to hospital. He was suffering from a gunshot wound in the side, was collapsed, had bled internally, and died a few hours later of loss of blood and shock.

The Station Foreman’s Story

Howell Davies, station foreman at Jeppes Railway Station, said that on the night of 2 September, at five minutes to nine, he was in the parcels office with porter Bruff. He heard a report which he took at the time to be the explosion of an air-filled paper bag. Then there was the sound of footsteps outside, and a man came forward holding his hand to his side and repeatedly saying, “I’m shot.”

The man knelt by a chair and stayed in that position.

At this stage the widow of the deceased man broke down and had to be led from court sobbing bitterly.

Proceeding, Davies said that the wounded man was followed by a woman and the prisoner, the latter still carrying a smoking revolver. Bruff asked for the revolver, and the accused said, “It’s alright; I don’t want to do anymore.” Bruff, however, took the revolver from the accused. All this happened more quickly than the time taken to tell, but the witness closed the doors to keep people out and Brown in, and after sending for a Constable, kept his eye on Brown, telling him that he was practically arrested pending the arrival of the police, and had better keep quiet. Brown asked permission to speak to his wife, and the pair shook hands, Brown saying, “Why did you do it? You see what it has brought to him and me too; there’s a little child at home crying for you.”

Constable Hearn arrived and subsequently Brown was taken into custody. Previously Brown had said to the wounded man, “Let this be a lesson to you to leave other people’s wives alone.”

Porter Bruff, who was also on duty when the events narrated by Foreman Davies occurred, gave much the same evidence. He added that the accused was excited, but appeared to be under control. He was apparently sober.

In reply to Mr. Quin, he said the noise of the explosion he heard came from the direction of the bridge outside the station buildings.

Police-constable Hearn, stationed at Jeppes, who was called to the railway station, told of finding Fibiger lying on the floor in an ante-room shot in the side, and apparently badly hurt. He saw the accused and his wife there also. The revolver handed over to him by Bruff contained three full rounds and one empty case. The accused was arrested by Sergt. Butlin, who had arrived. Dr. Alexander also attended and the ambulance took Fibiger to the hospital.

Two Revolvers

By Mr. Quin: He saw only one revolver that evening – the one taken from Brown – but he knew another revolver was taken from the other man.

Mrs. Mabel Fowler, living on the Minerva Gold Mine, said that Mrs. Brown, her sister, had latterly been staying at her house. On September2 last the accused cycled out to her house and asked for his wife. Mrs. Brown had gone to town that day. Brown asked why she did not go with her, and the witness replied that she could not go, but Mrs. Brown would be back by the mid-day train. Brown said she would not come back, he would meet her. Brown enquired the time of trains. He had a cup of tea at her house, and was sober.

Sergeant Butlin said that in answer to the charge Brown said: “I shot him; I found him in company with my wife; I have previously cautioned her about this man. I sent her to Natal Spruit away from him; I went there today to see her, but she was not at home. I returned to Jeppes and found her in company with this man on Jeppe station platform.”

In reply to Mr. Quin witness said that later in the evening at the police station Detective Montague showed him another revolver.

James Gordon Walsh, gunsmith, of President Street, gave evidence as to three bullets and an empty shell, fitting the Colt revolver, all these things being shown to him.

Detective Probationer Montague, of Jeppes, said that when sliding Fibiger into the ambulance he came across a Browning pistol in Fibiger’s back pocket. It contained four rounds. On the morning of the 3rd, after the death of Fibiger, he charged Brown with murder. Brown replied, “I have nothing to say.”

In reply to Mr. Quin witness said he found in one of Fibiger’s pockets a letter from Mr. Quin to Fibiger.

Humphrey Harold Lloyd, curator of the Government mortuary, said he assisted at the post mortem examination of Fibiger’s body. A bullet was found in the left side.

Charles Humphries, porter at the Johannesburg hospital, said the only letter in Fibiger’s clothing was the letter from Mr. Quin.

By Mr. Quin: There was no other letters in the clothing and no pocket book.

Charles Christiansen, carpenter of Jeppestown, said that between three and four o’ clock in the early morning of a day some weeks ago Fibiger called at his place. Mrs. Brown was with him. It was a very cold morning. They stayed in the shop until the break of day, when Fibiger went away and returned with some clothing, the lady being only partly dressed. The pair left about 8.30 a.m. The same couple called at his shop about 8 o’ clock in the evening of September 2 and stayed until a few minutes before nine, when they went to the station.

By Mr. Quin: Fibiger had been a great friend of his – both were Danes. He had received a letter at his place addressed to Fibiger, delivered to his letter box by hand, but could not say that the address was in a feminine hand.

The Widow’s Statement

Mrs. Ragnhild Fibiger, the widow of the deceased man, of 123 Mordaunt Street, Jeppes, said she and her husband lived next door to Brown and his wife in Tucker Street, Jeppes Extension, for almost a year until the 31 July last. During this period there was a lot of trouble between Brown and his wife. On one occasion when she went into Brown’s house Brown had Mrs. Brown by the throat. On the 28th July Brown left his wife and three children in the house, returning the following day and taking two children. At 20 minutes past eleven Mrs. Brown, who had been with her, left the house returning with Fibiger. When the Fibiger’s left their house to go into Mordaunt Street on the 31st July, Mrs. Brown was still living next door with one child. She saw Mrs. Brown, subsequently and was friends with her. On the 11th August Brown came to witness, shook hands with her, and asked him to make him friends with his wife. Fibiger and Mrs. Brown came in and Brown asked Mrs. Brown to come home as the child was sick. Mrs. Brown said she would not go back. On a subsequent occasion Mrs. Brown asked witness for forgiveness because she had written to Mr. Fibiger for help.
Mrs. Fibiger frequently broke down during her evidence. The Magistrate suggested that she was not in a fit state to give evidence.

The Public Prosecutor and Mr. Quin agreed the latter remarking that he had several questions, and was afraid the witness would break down.

Mrs. Fibiger said she would rather the case went on as she had to look for a situation and could not get it until the case was over.

The Prosecutor said the case would not finish in the Magistrate’s Court. The Magistrate did not think it fair to either side that Mrs. Fibiger should not give evidence in her present state.

The case was accordingly adjourned until Saturday, the 17th instant.

That Brown was supported in his quest was evident from the following letter which appeared in the same newspaper:

The Jeppe Tragedy

To The Editor of the Star

Sir, I shall be much obliged if you will insert in the valuable columns of your newspaper that a strong committee has been formed by the employees of the New Goch Gold Mines, Ltd., in order to provide funds for the defence of Mr. A.E. Brown (accused of murdering a man named Fibiger), and for the maintenance of Brown’s three little children – I am etc.

J. Baumann, Secretary to the Committee.

Box, 1096, Johannesburg, New Goch, 6 September

Brown having been remanded in custody had his day in court when the trial commenced in November - the newspaper carried the story in glowing detail:

The Star, Tuesday, November 15, 1910

Brown on His Trial

Evidence for the Crown

Albert Edward Brown was put forward at the Criminal Sessions yesterday afternoon, before Mr. Justice Curlewis, to stand his trial on a charge of murder. Accused is a tube-mill attendant, residing at Jeppes Extention, and it is alleged that on 2 September, at Jeppes railway station, he fired at and killed John William Fibiger.

Mr Tindall prosecuted and Dr. F.E.T. Krause defended.

Howell Davies, station foreman at Jeppe, said that about 9 p.m. on September 2 he was on duty in the parcels office when he heard a shot, and a man ran into his office. This man who was the deceased, said, “I am shot” Accused, who had a revolver in his hand, and Mrs. Brown also entered. A porter took the revolver away from him and the accused said, “I have shot him. He was going off with my wife.” Accused and his wife afterwards shook hands, and the former said to her, “Why did you do it? You see what it has brought you and me and him to.” He also made a remark about the child being at home crying. The police then arrived. At this stage the hearing was adjourned until this morning.

On the case proceeding this morning, Mr. Hearne said he was a Constable at Jeppe in September last. He was called to the parcels office at the station and saw Fibiger lying on the floor. The accused, Mrs. Brown and two station officials were also there. Witness was handed a revolver which was loaded in five chambers, one chamber being empty. Brown was arrested and Dr Alexander attended to Fibiger. Witness did not see a revolver in Fibiger’s possession.

Cross examined: There were, he now remembered, only three chambers loaded. Mrs Brown was supporting Fibiger’s head when he entered the office. At the charge office he saw Fibiger’s revolver amongst the corpus delicti.

Mr Brough, a porter at the station, said he was in the parcels office when he heard the report, about nine o’ clock, and just before the Cape train passed. A man came into the office saying, “I’m shot.” and immediately collapsed in the bicycle room. Close behind him Mrs. Brown and then Mr. Brown, who stopped in the parcels office. The accused had a revolver in his hand, which witness took from him. Accused said something to the effect that “he had done enough,” and asked permission to speak to his wife. He said to her “Look what you have brought him and me to.” He seemed to be sober.

Cross examined: He did not remember the exact words as he was naturally excited.
Accused as he entered, and when he said “Stop!” replied, “It’s all right. I won’t shoot anymore.”

Sergeant Butlin said he was called to the cycle office and charged Brown, who replied, “I shot him. I saw my wife going to him. I have previously cautioned her about this man. I sent her away to Natal Spruit away from him. I went out today to see her and she wasn’t there. I returned to town and found her in this man’s company.”

Cross examined by Dr. Krause: He was present when Brown spoke to his wife and shook hands with her. He wrote down what Brown said while the words were still fresh in his mind, and was very particular about them. He had cautioned Brown with the usual formal phrase. There was no-one in the parcel office when witness cautioned him. He denied that the conversation with Mrs Brown took place before he arrived and that the substance was communicated to him by the previous witness.

Dr. Krause said it was curious that the accused should have said the same thing to his wife in the presence of Brough and then in the witnesses presence subsequently.

Medical evidence showed that death was due to internal haemorrhage and laceration of the spleen and liver caused by a bullet wound. The bullet hole in the waist coat produced did not show traces of singing. The course of the bullet was slightly downward.

Mr Walsh, gunsmith, gave evidence as to the revolver and bullet produced. Fibiger’s pistol was a Browning. He said he did not know if such a pistol could fall out of a hip pocket when a man fell to the ground unless it had been half drawn out of the pocket. Having regard to the cut of the pocket in the trousers produced, it was not likely to fall out if the man was being lifted or carried horizontally, unless it was half drawn.

Detective Montague gave evidence as to the revolver handed to him, which smelt as if recently discharged. He assisted in the removal of Fibiger to the ambulance, and removed the Browning pistol from his hip pocket. After Fibiger died at the hospital witness charged Brown with murder, and he replied, “I have nothing to say.” Witness found a letter in the deceased’s pocket addressed to the deceased by an attorney, who wrote that he was instructed to demand £1000 for damages sustained by his client, Mr Brown, by reason of Fibiger’s adultery with Mrs Brown.

Mrs Fibiger’s Evidence

Mr Tindall asked that Mrs Fibiger, who had collapsed yesterday, might now give her evidence without the general public being in court. The Judge agreed and ordered the public to leave the court.

Mrs Fibiger, in her evidence, which was scarcely audible, said she and the deceased had been neighbours of the Browns. On the night of 11 August Brown came to the house, and said he wanted to ask her forgiveness. She took him in, and Brown said he was sorry for the trouble he had given her; he had turned his wife out of the house, and given her a smack, and was angry because a letter had turned up from a man in East London, of whom his wife had told him nothing.

Brown said, “You know yourself what the letter contains that was sent down to the man in East London.”

Brown referred to a letter regarding the pawning of some jewellery. He asked witness to make himself and his wife friendly. Before going to the house Brown had written to the witness apologising for the trouble that had occurred. He stated that he was suing for divorce, as he had found Fibiger sitting in the room with his (Brown’s) wife, but would take no steps if she returned to her children. At a subsequent interview Mrs Brown refused to walk in the street with her husband, and said “You told me to go.” Brown said “If you don’t want to go home with me, come and see the child; he’s sick.” But Mrs Brown again refused. The same day the letter arrived from the attorney; witness saw it before Brown arrived. She gave it to Fibiger in Brown’s presence. Fibiger said to Brown, “Do you think my wife did not know I had been to your place?” He questioned Brown as to the circumstances in which Brown had seen him and Mrs Brown. Fibiger said the attorney’s letter only meant the waste of a penny stamp, and threatened to take proceedings in regard to it. Brown said it was more than he could expect, and added that he had told the attorney not to write until he had seen his wife. Brown went away alone, and Mrs Brown walked with witness and Fibiger some of the way they were going. On the 22nd Brown told her that since the 12th his wife had been at the Black Reef. Brown told her that his wife had admitted misconduct with Fibiger, but Fibiger had denied it absolutely, and he (Brown) said that witness must not mention anything to her husband. Brown also said that he had sent the children to Potchefstroom, as his wife was not fit to look after them.

Witness said he was not fit to look after them either on account of the language he used. On the 26th she had shown Brown a letter his wife had written to Fibiger, and which witness had found lying about. It began “My own dear love,” and contained the following passages: “Do not forsake me.... I am half mad at times........ I am leaving to-day... In case I don’t see you I will give this to C.C., but may God bless and keep you for me.” Brown said: “This shows she’s been following your husband,” and added that she would watch for a chance to speak to Fibiger, whose habits she well knew. He said he was finished with his wife.

On the 22nd of September accused came to her house about 8.15, and asked where her husband was. She replied she did not know, and Brown said “If you’d like to see your husband, come along with me.” He said they could see him and Mrs Brown at Jeppe station, where Fibiger was seeing his (accused’s) wife off to Black Reef.

Witness declined to go to the station, and later accused said, “I have been an old soldier; I know how to handle things,” She told him to be careful and he replied, “I don’t care; the children are well looked after; I don’t care if I get hanged.” When she again declined to go to the station he said, “Well, I have warned you.” She identified her husband’s body at the hospital. He was in the habit of carrying a Browning pistol.

The Afternoon’s Hearing

After the lunch interval, Mrs Fibiger continued her evidence, and stated that when the Brown’s lived next door to her in Tucker Street they were on very bad terms and quarrelled a great deal. Witness went to the accused’s house and once saw Brown holding his wife by the throat while he threatened to kill her.

Cross examined by Dr Krause, witness said she had five interviews with Brown in August and September. She had remembered all he said. At the magistrate’s court she might have repeated less of the conversation, but she was upset, and fewer questions were asked than were now put to her. She never liked Brown after he spoke disparagingly of his wife. The latter suffered from fits, but she was not in a fit when witness saw Brown holding her by the throat. On the morning of August 10, Fibiger came home about 3 a.m. and went out at 8, saying that he was going to Mr Christensen’s place to get Mrs Brown; he asked witness if he could bring her (Mrs Brown) home to witness’s house, and she refused. On the 26th August she showed Mrs Brown the letter she had written to the deceased, and Mrs Brown said it was “only silliness.” She said she wasn’t going to trouble witness’s husband anymore. Witness produced the letter from her handbag, and asked Mrs Brown if it was right to write like that to a married man, and Mrs Brown said it was not. Mrs Brown said she was in trouble, as her husband ill-treated her, but later she became angry, and struck witness, who might possibly have bitten her. When she found the letter she knew it to be from Mrs Brown. She was not angry with her husband because of his relations with Mrs Brown, but she admitted that she had left him, and he had to trace her to her relatives. She did not want Mrs Brown to follow her husband. Her husband told witness that he would help Mrs Brown as long as she was in trouble, but both Fibiger and witness had told Mrs Brown while in Tucker Street that if Brown threw her out they (the Fibiger’s) would take her in. She denied that she threatened to go away from Fibiger a second time, or that she remarked that this was not the first time there had been trouble with married women. She denied that Brown left Tucker Street because Fibiger insisted on visiting Mrs Brown at that house.

Dr Krause produced two letters, the handwriting of which witness identified as that of the deceased. Counsel added that he did not propose to have them read at the moment. Proceeding witness admitted that Brown told her he found Fibiger in his wife’s room. Fibiger had gone to bring Mrs Brown and her boxes to witness’s house.

Had Mrs Brown asked if she could come to your place? – No, but she knew she could come to my house if she wanted to.

A Dramatic Episode

Witness went on to say that this happened just before Mr Brown asked her to try and make peace between himself and his wife. She still disliked Brown at that time.

And dislike him now? – Do you think I can have any feeling for him after murdering my husband? Witness at this stage completely collapsed and had to be helped out of the Court.

Mrs Fowler, living at Natal Spruit, and sister of the accused’s wife, said that the latter stayed with her at the end of August. She returned to Mr Brown for a few days and at the period of the tragedy Mrs Brown was with the witness. She left Natal Spruit at 7 o’ clock in the morning. Brown came to witness’s house about 6 o’ clock on the 2nd September and asked where his wife was. Witness said Mrs Brown had gone to Johannesburg and had promised to be back in the afternoon. He inquired about trains from Johannesburg, and witness said there was one from Jeppes at 9 o’ clock.

Cross examined: Witness knew why Mrs Brown was sent out to Natal Spruit. Brown’s marriage was happy till the Fibiger’s appeared on the scene. When Mrs Brown was in a fit it was necessary to hold her down. Brown was rather strict on his wife, who had she wished could have always found a home in witness’s house.

(Proceeding)

The Star the following day, 16 November 1910, gave a further detailed account:

The Jeppe Tragedy

Brown on His Trial

Evidence for the Defence

The trial of Albert Edward Brown on a charge of murdering John William Fibiger was continued late into the afternoon yesterday when evidence was given as to the accused borrowing a revolver on September 2nd. Accused stated to a man who obtained the loan of the pistol for him that he would be going out to Natal Spruit and would be returning late at night.

Mr Christensen said he knew Fibiger, who was in his shop on the evening of September 2nd in company with Mrs Brown. They all stayed in the room together until close at 9 o’ clock when Fibiger and Mrs Brown left to go to the station. Fibiger and Mrs Brown had been there together about three weeks before, arriving at about 3 o’ clock in the morning. He did not know who the woman was at the time.

Mrs Fibiger, who was now able to resume her evidence, stated in answer to Dr Krause that Mr Brown had said that he husband had taken a room for Mrs Brown at Dudley Chambers. The deceased had told her (witness) that he had done so.

Corporal Clarke said that when he was on duty at the Charge Office, on August 10, the accused called and said he wanted to charge a man named Fibiger with housebreaking and then said, “If you won’t deal with him, I will.” Accused was very excited.

That closed the case for the Crown.

For the defence, Mr Richardson, a greengrocer, was called, and said he knew the Brown’s. He had also spoken to Fibiger. The Brown’s stayed at this house. On August 9 Mr Brown went on shift at about 10 o’clock. Witness went to bed early. At about 12 o’clock witness heard shouts for help. He rushed out and found Brown and Fibiger struggling. Witness separated the men. He was under the impression that Fibiger had got in by the window. Re-examined by Dr Krause: Fibiger treated his wife very well indeed. He was kind to the children. Mrs Richardson corroborated this evidence.

To Day’s Hearing

When the trial was resumed this morning evidence was given by Tomas Kee, corporal in the Police, who said in September he was in charge of the police station at Jeppes Extention when Brown came there during August. He wanted a man to go to a house to which his wife had gone and wished her to be taken away. Witness told him to see if his wife would go voluntarily and if she would not he promised to send a constable. Witness thought Brown wished to have some means of keeping the peace; he (accused) mentioned the name of Fibiger.

Mrs Maclaren, caretaker of Dudley Chambers, said she knew the Browns, who came to the buildings about the 11th or 12th of August. Mrs Brown was staying in a room in the Chambers, whither she came with another man, who signed the book as “L. Grant, Benoni”; this was on the 10th August. She did not know if this was his correct name; it was not Mr Brown. The man introduced Mrs Brown as “Mrs Grant” Next morning she saw “Mr Grant” fastening her blouse.

Witness was handed a photograph by Dr Krause, which she could not identify as one of Grant. Mrs Grant was in the room all day, but Grant was absent till the evening, the room having been engaged in the morning. Grant engaged the room for a week, and Brown came to the place on the 11th or 12th and took Mrs Grant and her belongings away.

Mr Whitfield, an amalgamator at the George Goch, said he had known Brown for about a year; he also knew Fibiger by sight. Witness once lent Brown his revolver as the latter wanted some protection when he went out to the Black Reef to see his wife. The revolver was returned to the witness some days before the arrest.

Mr Knolly’s, compound clerk at the Comet, stated that he knew the accused and his wife. He knew about the trouble with Fibiger. When they were in Fawcus Street he had a conversation with Mrs Brown, in consequence of which he made a communication to Brown. Witness recognised two letters and a photograph, the latter being handed to him last night by Mrs Brown and the former some days ago.

Mr Tindall objected to the introduction of letters from Fibiger to the accused’s wife, who had not been called. There was no evidence that Brown had seen the letters or that they could have affected his evidence.

The Judge said it might be a question for the jury to consider; the question of provocation was always relevant. The accused could show that his wife and Fibiger had misconducted themselves, and if there was a defence Brown was entitled to the evidence.

The Letters

Dr Krause read two letters, one of which was dated “Monday morning” and the other “Wednesday.” The first began “My own darling Lily,” and contained the following passages: - “You can imagine how glad and pleased I was to see you, and be near you once more, my pretty little sweetheart, only the time we had at our disposal was so short and we had such a lot to speak of.... I can still feel your burning kisses on my lips and can always be ready for another consignment of the same kind and quality.... I have your heart as you accused me of having stolen. ..... I neither can nor will part with it on any terms whatever..... It was not stolen but given me..... You know I love you madly.” There were also references to Mrs Fibiger having found one of the letters addressed to him by Mrs Brown.

The second letter contained the following passages..... I can under no circumstances agree to part with you; nothing whatever shall come between us, and I will stand by you through all, through thick and thin ... You can trust me.... I will come to meet you at Germiston – you to appoint the date and time; I will be there.” The letter was signed “to my own Lily from her own W. Grant.”

Accused in the Box

The accused in the box said he was married in 1902 at East London, when he was sergeant-major in the S.A.C. He came to Johannesburg and worked as learner in the battery at the George Goch, where he became tube-mill attendant. His wife remained at East London at first, as he had to borrow money from a gentleman down there in order to come up to the Rand. His wife came up in August last year, when witness was earning £15 a month. The eldest of the children was three years old. His wife was subject to epileptic fits, which, of course, had caused a lot of trouble, but up to the time of arriving in Johannesburg the marriage was very happy. The Fibiger’s came to live next door to them, but he himself was not very friendly with them. He denied that he treated Mrs Brown cruelly, and that when he returned home on the occasion mentioned by Mrs Fibiger he found her in a fit. He had to hold her down on the floor. From the first day his wife came to Johannesburg he warned her against the Fibiger’s; he told her she could be civil to them, but not make close acquaintance with them. Mrs Fibiger cordially detested witness at all times. In the middle of July he gave notice to leave the house in Tucker Street in order to get away from the Fibiger’s.

Mrs Brown was always talking to Mrs Fibiger, and allowing the children to run about the streets by themselves. His suspicions were aroused about Fibiger, and he took a room at Mr Richardson’s, in Fawcus Street. About August 8th he received four letters, one from the gentleman in East London referred to. He spoke to his wife about it, and they had words. He boxed her ears in the violent quarrel that ensued. He was on shift that night, and determined to go home and make friends again. He got leave, and returned home. He saw lights in the windows, and went to the back door.

At this stage Mr Tindall said he wouldn’t object to the East London letter being put in. It informed Brown that the writer had received a letter purporting to be signed by accused’s wife, and addressed 123 Mordaunt Street. The details were incorrect, and the writing was not that of a woman.

Witness said that 123 Mordaunt Street was Fibiger’s address. Proceeding, he said that when he went into his room he saw Fibiger sitting in his armchair. The room was in darkness. His wife was standing at the foot of the bed. She was wearing a mackintosh over her nightdress. Witness said to Fibiger “What are you doing here?” and the deceased mumbled something about an explanation. Witness said, “Come outside and make this explanation.” There were no boxes being packed. Fibiger was loath to come out of the room, but eventually did so, and witness struck him and there was a fight. He recognised the photograph produced as that of Fibiger, who was a powerful man. Witness was pulled away from Fibiger by the Richardson’s, and when it was all over he found his wife had gone.

He found that she had taken nothing with her, and noticed that the window was wide open. He went to Jeppe Police Station with Richardson, and asked the Sergeant if Fibiger could be arrested for housebreaking, as he had obviously climbed in through the window. The sergeant said he could do nothing, and suggested that Fibiger had been there at the invitation of Mrs Brown. He denied saying, “If you can’t deal with him I will.” He returned to the house, and looked to the children. Next day he got Mrs Richardson to see if his wife was at the Fibiger’s, but he did not trace her until the 11th, when she came to the Fibiger’s house while he was there.

Fibiger came in and said to Mrs Fibiger, “You need not have let me walk in when he was there.” Mrs Fibiger, referring to Mrs Brown’s new dress, said to her husband “You can dress her even if you can’t dress me.” Some talk took place about the letter of demand sent to Fibiger by the attorney, but witness said he was there to try and persuade his wife to come back. She promised to do so later; refusing to go back home with him at that moment. Later she came back to the house in Fawcus Street. She seemed quite indifferent to the children. From what she said he knew where she had been – at Dudley Chambers. He went there to get her things and noticed the butt of a cigar on the candlestick. He took his wife out to Natal Spruit, and sent the children to the convent at Potchefstroom, the youngest going with his wife. He went out to see her every other day or so, riding out on a bicycle and borrowing the revolver as a protection.

Talking to Mrs Fibiger about the relationship between Fibiger and Mrs Brown, Mrs Fibiger said her husband had made trouble with other married women, who had also been neighbours. She told him that she had left her husband, but that he was trying to conciliate her, as a scandal might affect him with regard to some Masonic degree he was going to take. Witness told Mrs Fibiger that Mrs Brown had admitted misconduct. On the 26th August Mrs Fibiger showed him a letter addressed to her husband from Mrs Brown, and witness made a copy of it. He tried to get a job somewhere out of Johannesburg, and borrowed £10 with the object of sending Mrs Brown back to East London.

On September 2nd he went to look for a house at Elsberg, and later went to Natal Spruit, expecting to find his wife there. He returned to town, meaning to take her back to her sister’s. He asked Rackstraw for a revolver, and one was borrowed for him as he would be going to Natal Spruit late at night. He enquired for his wife at Richardson’s and then on the way to Jeppe called at the Fibiger’s. “I thought it would clear my mind” said witness, “if I found where Fibiger was and if he was not with my wife” He told a native to ask if Fibiger was in, and Mrs Fibiger came to the door. He told her what his suspicions were and also told her that he failed to find his wife at Natal Spruit. His wife had told him that Fibiger would know by Friday whether he had got a billet at Kimberley. That was a Friday and witness said he could think of nothing but that Fibiger and his (accused’s) wife were going to clear off to Kimberley by that night’s train. Mrs Fibiger said, “Oh no. He’s got her stuck far enough by this time. You won’t see them at the station; besides, he told me he’d be home by 10.30”

Part II

Witness replied that he was convinced he would find them, and asked Mrs Fibiger to go with him to the station. This was to show Fibiger that the game was up as he had hitherto succeeded in bluffing his wife. When Mrs Fibiger asked him to stop and not go to the station he said, “No, I want to meet this train.” Mrs Fibiger told him to be careful, and he thought she was alluding to the probability of Fibiger doing him an injury. He never said he did not care if he was hanged, but he did say that he could take care of himself. He knew that Fibiger carried a revolver, as on August 11 Mrs Brown was anxious to go back to Dudley Chambers to get a revolver she had taken from Fibiger. He (witness) was also warned by Knollys. Witness went to the station with the intention of taking his wife home to Natal Spruit, after which he intended to walk back to town.

Had you any idea that a tragedy would occur? – None at all.

He reached the station, witness continued, about 8.30, and looked about amongst the people waiting for the trains. Finally he went down to the subway and then returned to the station, intending to cross over by the bridge. He saw Fibiger and his wife coming from the direction of the booking office. He turned to them and took a couple of paces towards them. “Fibiger saw me,” said witness, and so far as I could see was in the act of handing something to my wife. Whatever it was he dropped it and made a motion of his hand to his hip pocket. In the face of the warnings I had had it flashed in my mind that he was going to shoot me. I drew my revolver and fired at him, intending to hit him in the shoulder and disable him. When the shot hit him he turned about and followed my wife to the parcels office, holding his hand to his side. I followed and went into the parcels office and put my revolver on the counter. Proceeding witness said he gave the revolver up to one of the officials. He told him he had shot the man and did not wish to do anymore.

If you had wanted to kill this man you had every opportunity of doing so? – Yes I could have killed him.

Witness said that he spoke to his wife in the parcels office and asked her “why she had done this,” and said she could see what she had brought him to. He added that the baby was at home crying. He spoke to Fibiger and said that he hoped it would be a lesson to him to leave other men’s wives alone. Witness thought Fibiger was in no danger at that time. This conversation was before Sergeant Butlin arrived. He denied having made the statement one of the police officers had sworn to. He would not have drawn his revolver had he not seen Fibiger motioning towards his own pistol. An instinct of self preservation that told him Fibiger was about to shoot him.

Cross examined by Mr Tindall, witness said that on the occasion of his holding his wife down Mrs Fibiger could see the reason of his action without any explanation.

Afternoon Proceedings

The cross examination was continued this afternoon, when the accused stated to Mr Tindall that he thought the letter to the man in East London was not a proper thing. He had borrowed money from the gentleman referred to , and given him some of his wife’s jewellery for security, and the letter, to his mind, (written in his wife’s name by Fibiger), appeared as if he (the witness) was trying to get back the jewellery without paying for it. He thought Fibiger wanted to get away with Mrs Brown, who, he fancied, was trying to get all the valuables she could before going.

He was very much annoyed with his wife about the letter; she denied that Fibiger had written it, and in the quarrel he struck her. When in a temper she had threatened to run away from him. Mrs Fibiger never spoke to the witness, who disliked the idea of his wife associating herself with her in any way; he disliked Mrs Fibiger on account of something he saw the first week he was in Fawcus Street. When he found Fibiger in his wife’s room she explained the circumstance by saying that Fibiger had come to remove her and her boxes to Fibiger’s house because of the quarrel with Brown earlier in the day. After getting the attorney to write to Fibiger he thought it over, and came to the conclusion that he should take his wife back for the sake of the children. Fibiger and his wife had no regard for each other, and if he was asked if the latter was now acting when she appeared to show great affection for Fibiger he would reply “Yes.” Witness wished to accompany his wife back to Black Reef on the 2nd September, as he never allowed her to go about alone, as she was subject to fits.

Proceeding.

The Star, Thursday 17 November 1910

The Jeppe Tragedy

Counsel’s Address

The Judge’s Summing Up

The evidence in the case of Albert Edward Brown, charged with the murder of John William Fibiger, concluded yesterday afternoon, and this morning Mr Tindall, who prosecuted for the Crown, continued his address to the jury. He maintained that Mrs Fibiger’s evidence, the majority of which was corroborated, must be taken in preference to that of the accused where the two testimonies clashed. After borrowing the revolver on September 2nd there was a whole hour unaccounted for before the murder took place, and he (Mr Tindall) suggested that the accused spent that hour looking for Fibiger. Although Brown said in the box that he was convinced that Fibiger was going to take Mrs Brown away, he only said to Mrs Fibiger if they went to the station they would see Fibiger seeing Mrs Brown off at the station. If Mrs Fibiger warned him, it was not against the deceased; rather it was a warning to the accused to do no violence to Fibiger.

The evidence of the accused as to the tragedy at the station was, he submitted, ridiculous. Had Fibiger really placed his hand towards his hip pocket he would have turned slightly aside and the bullet could not have entered his body where it did. Was it likely, even if the accused really saw the man clutching at his pistol, that he could have had time to produce his (the accused’s) own revolver, which was bulky and liable to stick in the man’s coat pocket. According to his own story, he had time to notice the position of the deceased and Mrs Brown, to see the former about to get his pistol and to think of “winging” the man by hitting him in the shoulder and yet managed to shoot Fibiger before the deceased drew his pistol. Counsel commented on the fact that the Brown’s married life was unhappy even before the Fibiger’s came on the scene, and that Mrs Brown was thrown into Fibiger’s arms by her husband’s ill-treatment.

Brown was worked up to the state in which he could commit a crime, and borrowed a revolver with the intention of injuring Fibiger. The jury had a duty to perform, not only to the accused, but to Mrs Fibiger and society. There was no law, written or unwritten by which a man in the accused’s position was justified in shooting another man. If accused only intended to wing the deceased or shot thinking that he was protecting himself they could find him guilty of culpable homicide.

Dr Krause’s Eloquent Speech

Dr Krause, in his address to the jury, said that human justice was not always perfect, and human laws were certainly not perfect. No man had the right to take the life of another and the forfeiture of life for life went back to the times before civilisation began. But there were times when a man was entitled to take a life, or if he did not, his own life would be taken. The law said it was culpable homicide to kill a man by negligence, and the killing of a man in war was justified; so it was not true in every case that a life must pay for a life. One exception was the law of self-preservation, the oldest law they knew; a law based on human instinct. He submitted the present case was one of those exceptions, in which a man, reasonably believing that his life was endangered, was justified in preserving his own life. It was impossible to know with certainty what was in the heart of the man, but there were circumstances to guide them in this regard. He did not ask for sympathy for Brown but for justice

Dr Krause sketched the accused’s career, and commented on his industry and honesty and, proceeding, said that a woman like Mrs Brown would be easily influenced by an unscrupulous man. Brown knew her character and tried to guard her from the association with the Fibiger’s. It was not to enjoy Mrs Fibiger’s society that Mrs Brown so often went to her house, but to see the man. The accused’s wife’s character and conduct towards her home and children perceptibly changed. The accused acted like an honest man in trying to break down the friendship; would not anyone else do the same? He was not seeking trouble but trying to avoid it all the time. Mrs Fibiger, who thought she was protecting Mrs Brown, was the innocent instrument of the guilty love of Fibiger and Mrs Brown. It was a psychological study. Why did Fibiger write to the man in East London in Mrs Brown’s name, asking for the jewellery if it was not to raise money with which to fly with her? After that letter had been brought to Brown’s notice he could see clearly into the future – could see the loss of his wife’s love and the ruin of his home.

After he had boxed his wife’s ears and then in regret returned to his house during the night, what must have been his feelings when in the bedroom with the sleeping children he saw Fibiger and his wife? He (the learned counsel) would leave the jury to picture the scene, followed by the flight of Mrs Brown with Fibiger. Had Brown harboured black thoughts about Fibiger he would not have waited till September 2nd to kill him; he might have assaulted him at the Fibiger’s when his wife and the deceased came into the latter’s house, Mrs Brown wearing the clothes Fibiger had bought her after staying at Christensen’s house subsequent to the trouble arising from accused finding Fibiger in his bedroom.

Mrs Brown had herself told Brown about Fibiger carrying a revolver, and he submitted that this was done so that deceased could protect his mistress from her husband. The fact that the accused asked the police officials to go with him to recover his wife and to prevent a breach of the peace showed the absence of any intention to do violence to Fibiger.

The action of Fibiger in putting his hand to his hip pocket could only be explainable to the accused’s mind in one way, more especially as the accused had been warned of Fibiger. Had he wished to murder him would he have allowed Fibiger to walk to the parcels office without emptying the other chambers of the revolver at him? Brown had done what the instinct of self-preservation dictated to him. Why was Fibiger carrying that revolver – not in his working clothes in which he walked to the mines but in his ordinary suit?

Dr Krause concluded by asking: “Are you going to protect that man (pointing to the accused), who shot down the scoundrel who had done the foul deed of taking away his honour and happiness?” The close of the learned counsel’s remarks evoked some applause in the Court which was at once suppressed.

The Summing Up

In summing up Mr Justice Curlewis dealt with the different degrees of the crime of culpable homicide. The first question was whether the accused shot Fibiger in self-defence. There was no defence of provocation, but it would be his duty to address some remarks to the jury which, if they did not find the shooting was done in self-defence, might induce them to bring in a verdict of something less than murder. Assuming the misconduct of the accused’s wife, were there extenuating circumstances why the accused should fire at Fibiger. If the provocation was too remote, and if the self-protection defence did not convince the jury they would have to bring in a verdict of murder.

Even after learning about the episode at Dudley Chambers the accused endeavoured to save his wife from Fibiger. One could realise his feelings when in spite of his efforts she still allowed herself to associate with the deceased; one could not but sympathise with a man in the prisoner’s position, but the jury had their duty to do and must do it honestly and conscientiously. Had he (the Judge) known the contents of the letters from Fibiger to Mrs Brown he would have insisted on giving her a chance of denying their substance or otherwise. When he allowed the letters to be read he thought the defence was to be one of provocation. He thought Mrs Fibiger gave evidence with the utmost sincerity.

His Lordship, dealing with the events on the night of the tragedy, said it was remarkable that a foreigner like Mrs Fibiger should have stated that the accused used a phrase like “I have been an old soldier and know how to handle things” unless he did say it. It would be a remarkable phrase for a foreigner to invent. That interview with the accused just before the tragedy bore on the state of mind of the accused, and if they accepted Mrs Fibiger’s statement they would have to look carefully at the accused’s plea of self-defence. Which account was the more probable? As to the events at the station, accused was the only witness as to the firing of the shot. Accused thought Fibiger was about to draw his pistol, and produced his own revolver and fired before Fibiger could get his hand to his hip or take his pistol out of his pocket. There was no-one to say the prisoner nay, but the jury were not obliged to accept everything Brown said. It was for the jury to say whether the circumstances justified them in believing Brown’s statement on the point. Was it more likely that Fibiger would be the aggressor or that the aggrieved person who had met the train who had led his wife astray would be the aggressor? What motive would Fibiger have had to shoot at the accused?

His Lordship dealt next with what took place in the parcels office, and whether what Brown said was consistent with his story that he acted in self-defence. As it was, although he had just shot a man in self-defence he was the most calm person in the office, and he never said a word as to Fibiger having a revolver. If he had shot Fibiger in self-defence, was it not reasonable to conclude that he would have said so when giving up his revolver to the porter and when told to consider himself under arrest? Accused, however, when charged made the statement about cautioning his wife about Fibiger and finding her in the latter’s company. One would have thought that when Fibiger died and Brown was charged with murder he would have stated that he shot him in self-defence. It would not have incriminated him or made his position worse. As a matter of law it was required that before a man acted in self-defence he must be satisfied that the danger was imminent and impending and must try to avoid it before so acting in protection of his own life. There must be a reasonable apprehension. It was his (the Judge’s) duty to explain the matter of provocation, even though this was not raised as a defence. If, when Brown found Fibiger in room on August 9 he had shot him in the heat of momentary passion no jury would have found him guilty of murder. It must, however, be done in the heat of the moment, and there was no evidence that Brown found evidence of misconduct on September 2 just before meeting Fibiger at the station.

The killing of a wife’s lover was murder if there had been time for recovering reason in the interval after the discovery of the misconduct. In this case the accused had, however, done his best to get his wife away from Fibiger’s influence and it was possible that he was much provoked to find his wife had left her sister’s house and had gone to meet Fibiger. If the sight of them together on the platform was sufficient to arouse a fit of uncontrollable temper the jury must take it as an extenuating circumstance. He had felt that there was a grave danger of a miscarriage of justice when a jury was faced with only two possible verdicts – guilty or not guilty – without the possibility of a verdict of culpable homicide. If they found Brown guilty they could add whatever recommendation they thought fit, though he (the Judge) could only pass one sentence.

The jury had not returned a verdict by the time of going to press.

With this the curtain came down on what was, for its time, a sensational trial which had captured the public’s imagination – readers were in two camps – those who felt drawn to Brown and his version of events and who sympathised with him as the victim of his wife’s infidelity and those who sided with Fibiger and felt that, no matter what the offence, it didn’t warrant his early demise.

The records show that Brown, having pleaded not guilty to murder was found guilty of Culpable Homicide with Recommendation to Mercy. What was his sentence? Six months without hard labour.

Brown had pulled another rabbit out of his hat!

One would have thought that once a free man he would have parted company with his wife, the cause of so many of his troubles. This was not to be – Brown was made of sterner stuff – he took her back into the fold and even fathered a fourth child with her, his namesake Albert Edward Brown.

After an eventful life Brown passed away at 121 Church Street, Turfontein, Johannesburg on 14 April 1926 at the age of 53 years and 4 months. He was still a Miner by occupation and was survived by Lily and his four children.

The Fibiger’s had no children and Mrs Fibiger passed away in 1920.

Thanks Rory.....

A Fantastic story thanks for posting it......

Mike

Ditto!

Patrick

I have only just started to read the account but thank you in anticipation Rory.

Rory

Yes, it could be a novel...

Thanks for posting, amazing what stories lie behind our medals!

Brian