Vere Thomas Saint Leger
Goold
Male
Ireland
1853-10-02
County Waterford, Ireland
1909-09-08
on Devils Island, French Guyana, Guyana
Vere Saint Leger Goold – A Tale of Two Courts
By Alan Little
On the morning of Tuesday, 6th August, 1907, the 5.38 a.m. train from Monte Carlo arrived at Marseilles. A man and woman alighted and made their way to the cloakroom where they deposited a trunk and a large handbag, giving instructions for the items to be forwarded to London. A porter, disturbed by a smell coming from the luggage, called in the police. When the trunk and bag were opened they were found to contain the dismembered remains of a woman.
The couple were taken into custody, where they put forward the story that the victim had visited them at their home in Monte Carlo to ask for a loan. During the discussion, they asserted, the woman’s lover entered the room and killed her. Not wishing to be implicated, they decided to dispose of the body.
During the following the days, certain facts came to light. He was Vere Thomas Saint Leger Goold, an Irishman whose noble family home was located at Old Court, County Waterford. He was born at Waterford on 2nd October, 1853, the younger son of George Ignatius and Clara Goold.
In 1866, his brother, James Stephen, aged 18, had emigrated to South Australia where, for many years, he led a hermit existence as a railway ganger at Gladstone. Apparently he ‘jumped ship’ on arrival in Australia, which may have led him to choose obscurity. On the death of his uncle, Sir Henry Goold, Baronet, in 1893, he became the 4th Baronet. There was also a sister, Frances, who never married.
In his early days Saint Leger Goold was in public service and at one time was Secretary of the Municipal Boundaries Commission in Dublin. Later he moved to London, where he met his wife. After a few years they emigrated to Montreal, Canada, but in 1903 returned to England and settled at Waterloo, near Liverpool. They started a laundry business, but after losing money on the venture, moved to Monte Carlo to try their luck on the gaming tables.
Mrs Goold was born Marie Violet, daughter of Hippolyte Girodin, of Château La Sone, near Saint Marcellin, Isère, France. Against her parents’ wishes she married a local young man but this did not work out and a week after the wedding she left him and went off to Geneva to work as a dressmaker. In 1870, she travelled to London and became a companion to an English lady. Sometime later she accompanied her to India where she married a Captain Wilkinson, her husband having died in the meantime.
Three years later, in 1886, she became a widow again and returned to London. She sold her jewellery and, with the proceeds, set herself up as a Court Dressmaker with premises at 22 Hereford Road. Around this time she became acquainted with Goold and eventually they married, at Saint Mary of the Angels Churche in Paddington, London, on 22nd August, 1891. Both gave their ages as 38.
Interrogation
After much interrogation, Goold confessed to the murder, but his wife protested her innocence. The British Consul at Marseilles requested that the case be transferred to Monte Carlo, and this was agreed after the authorities had established that Mrs Goold had lost her French nationality. News of the murder travelled before them, for when they arrived at Monte Carlo station, a large, hostile crowd chanted ‘Death to them!’
The trial, which lasted three days, commenced on 2nd December, 1907, before Presiding Judge Barod de Rolland, assisted by two assessors and three other judges. There was a large public attendance, and the approaches to the court were guarded by carabineers and police.
Among the thirty witnesses called was Mlle Isobella Girodin, niece of the prisoners, who had lived with them in Monte Carlo. She stated that Goold often drank and quarrelled with his wife. Goold claimed that his wife had been his accomplice, but she strenuously denied involvement in the actual killing. The murdered woman was Danish subject called Emma Liven, although at first thought to be of Swedish extraction. She had visited the Goolds to reclaim a loan but, during a furious argument, tempers rose and the woman was struck.
The prosecutor, Maître Allain, said that the crime took place on 4th August at the Goolds’ flat in the Villa Menesini, where they led a hand-to-mouth existence, frequently gambling at the casino. He added that the couple sank from makeshifts and borrowing to stealing and from stealing to murder. He produced evidence that the crime could not have been committed by one person and called for both to receive the death penalty.
Verdict
On 5th December, Goold was sentenced to penal servitude for life, while Mrs Goold was condemned to death. In January 1908, both unsuccessfully appealed against the verdicts, but Mrs Goold’s sentence was reduced to life.
During April 1908, the Goolds were transferred back to Marseilles to await destination. Eventually Mrs Goold was sent to Montpellier prison, while Goold sailed to Devil’s Island in French Guiana on 19th July. They never saw each other again, for just over a year later, on 8th September, 1909, a telegram arrived in Paris from Cayenne, stating that Goold had died at the convict settlement. He was 55 years of age. Mrs Goold died in prison during 1914.
So much for Goold’s criminal activities. In his younger days he was a lawn tennis champion. He placed his name in the record books for all time when, at the age of 25, he won the men’s singles title at the first Irish Championships, held in Fitzwilliam Square, Dublin, in 1879. Although the meeting commenced on Wednesday, 4th June, the first to two days were devoted to doubles events. On Friday the men’s singles, having an entry of 15, was started and completed in the day.
Goold easily overcame E. Noble, 6-1, 6-1, L. McDonnell, 6-1, 6-1 and John Jameson Cairnes, 6-3, 6-4, to reach the final, where he defeated Charles David Barry, 8-6, 8-6. Barry began well and stood at 5-2 before Goold recovered. Most spectators were of the opinion that Barry should have won the first set 7-5 when, at set point, a disputed call went against him and a let was played.
Barry rallied in the second set after trailing 5-2, but he could not sustain his effort. Goold’s outstanding backhand strokes gained the admiration of the crowd. The first prize was to the value of £20.00. Goold reached the semi-finals of the doubles with B. Phillips, but lost in the opening round of the mixed doubles in partnership with Connie Butler.
Only Appearance at Wimbledon
A month later Goold, encouraged by his Irish success, made his one and only appearance at The Championships, Wimbledon, then in their third year at the Worple Road grounds. He won his way through four rounds by defeating F. Durant, 6-1, 6-2, 6-3, James D. van Agnew, 6-2, 6-3, 6-1, Alfred J. Mulholland, 6-4, 2-6, 6-1, 6-4, and George E. Tabor, 6-2, 6-5, 5-6, 6-3, before receiving a bye into the All-Comers’ Final. About 1,100 spectators were present at the ground on 15th July to watch this match which, in the absence of the holder, Patrick F. Hadow, decided The Championships that year.
Goold’s attractive style had little impact on John Hartley, the Vicar of Burneston, North Yorkshire, who won, 6-2, 6-4, 6-2. In a playoff for second prize, Goold defeated Cecil F. Parr, 4-6, 6-2, 5-6, 6-4, 6-4.
In October of that year [1879] Goold crossed the Irish Sea again to compete in the first open tournament held at the Imperial Winter Gardens, Cheltneham. Play took place partly outdoors on asphalt and partly on a covered court. The meeting signalled the first public appearance of the Renshaw brothers, Ernest and William, and gave the latter his first singles title at the expense of Goold in a fiercely fought final. Goold led 4-1 in the fifth set before losing, 6-4, 6-3, 5-6, 6-5, 6-4.
Goold was in Dublin the following year to defend his Irish crown, but illness prevented him getting much practice and he easily lost to William Renshaw in the Challenge Round, 6-1, 6-4, 6-3. This is the last record of Goold playing singles. In 1881 he took part in the first unofficial lawn tennis match at Dublin between England and Ireland when, in partnership with William H. Darby, he brought off a notable win against Herbert Lawford and Alfred J Mulholland by three sets to one.
He continued to be a leading light at the Fiztwilliam Club for a number of years, and regularly competed in doubles events at the Irish Championships until 1883, without much success. Soon after, he disappeared, until the deed at Monte Carlo.
-----
The following letter, published in The Field newspaper on 1st November 1879, is probably the closest remaining reproduction of how Vere Goold's voice actually sounded. The letter in question touches on some of the topics that were debated in the early years of lawn tennis, before the rules had been definitively established.
--
Sir – As I have seen several letters in ‘The Field’ relative to the new method of ‘calling the score,’ perhaps you will allow me to a few remarks on the subject. K.T.L., who looks at the question from the spectators’ point of view, put the case against calling the winning score first with great force. From the player’s point of view the case is quite as strong. Let us suppose that the score stands at 15-all. A. places the next ball close to and outside the line, but, as he thinks, inside it. The scorer calls the game ’30-15’. A fondly imagines that the score is ’30-15, A. wins,’ and that the there is no necessity for asking the umpire, ‘How’s that?’
A. wins the next point, and the game is called 30-all. A. is naturally put out at what he considers a mistake in the score; and if he if is the unhappy possessor of a temper, he is not unlikely to lose his match in consequence. All this confusion and unpleasantness could be so easily avoided by always calling the server’s score first, that I cannot understand why the method was ever departed from.
While I am on the subject of scoring, I cannot help thinking that Mr Julian Marshall has not given the whist method of scoring a fair trial, or he would not have charged it with being too complicated. In practice games at the Fitzwilliam Club we often use this scoring, and no one has yet complained of its being too complicated. I may even go further, and say that any of our friends who have given it a trial prefer it to any other method of scoring.
We have tried sets of various lengths, and find that a set of twenty-one is the most satisfactory, as it corresponds in duration with a set of eleven games. The advantages of this system of scoring are, that every stroke has its value in the set, as well as in each game. Even when the score is 0-40, the player who under the old system of scoring would probably have given up the game, finds it to his advantage to turn the impending treble into a double, and afterwards the double into a single. Again, no matter how far behindhand one of the players may be, the chance of winning two or three trebles in succession keeps up his pluck if he is deficient in that commodity.
Although I commenced this letter with the intention of confining my remarks to the subject of scoring, I cannot resist the temptation of referring to another subject on which I feel strongly. The subject is, the height of the net at the sides in singles matches. Many people are of the opinion that a severe server has about 6 to 4 the best of it at present; that might, I think, be easily avoided by lowering the net at the sides, say six inches. By this means the striker-out [receiver] could return the ball with much more severity along the sides of the court, which I have always found a very telling stroke, even with the net at its present height; therefore I think that by lowering the net six inches (at the sides) the server and striker-out would meet upon more equal terms.
It would also have the advantage of making the game more one of ‘placing’ and ‘strokes’, which would be most desirable. Very few men could, with the lowered net, make volleying pay, as the ball could be so easily cut away from them along the sides. The result would be that both men would have to stay back in their courts and play at ‘long bowls,’ which I think would improve the game immensely. I know many will say ‘there would be too much ground to cover’; but with a little activity a good player, who can almost anticipate where the ball will be returned, can cover his twenty-seven feet of court.
There are one or two more points I should like to mention, but will hold them over until I have given them a fair trial.
Vere Saint Leger Goold
1877 - 1885
6
38
33
1880 - Waterford (Amateur)
1879 - Irish Championships (Amateur)
1879 - Earlsfort Terrace Tournament (Amateur)
1878 - Waterford (Amateur)
1878 - South of Ireland Championships (Amateur)
1877 - Waterford (Amateur)
Round 1
E. Teixeira de Mattos 1 *
Vere Thomas Saint Leger Goold
w.o.
Challenge Round
William Charles Renshaw 1 *
Vere Thomas Saint Leger Goold
6-1
6-4
6-3
Round 1
Vere Thomas Saint Leger Goold 1 *
William James Gallwey
6-1
6-0
Round 2
Vere Thomas Saint Leger Goold 1 *
bye
Quarterfinals
Vere Thomas Saint Leger Goold 1 *
Arthur Bourke
6-1
6-3
Semifinals
Vere Thomas Saint Leger Goold 1 *
Robert Hassard
6-1
6-5
Final
Vere Thomas Saint Leger Goold 1 *
Frederick William Knox
6-1
6-2
Round 1
Vere Thomas Saint Leger Goold 1 *
F. Durant
6-1
6-2
6-3
Round 2
Vere Thomas Saint Leger Goold 1 *
James David Vans Agnew
6-3
6-2
6-1
Round 3
Vere Thomas Saint Leger Goold 1 *
Alfred John Mulholland
6-4
2-6
6-1
6-4
Quarterfinals
Vere Thomas Saint Leger Goold 1 *
George Ernest Tabor
6-2
6-5
5-6
6-3
Final
John Thorneycroft Hartley 1 *
Vere Thomas Saint Leger Goold
6-2
6-4
6-2
Round 1
Vere Thomas Saint Leger Goold 1 *
E. Noble
6-1
6-1
Quarterfinals
Vere Thomas Saint Leger Goold 1 *
L. McDonnell
6-1
6-1
Semifinals
Vere Thomas Saint Leger Goold 1 *
John Jameson Cairnes
6-3
6-4
Final
Vere Thomas Saint Leger Goold 1 *
Charles David Barry
8-6
8-6
Round 1
Vere Thomas Saint Leger Goold 1 *
Arthur Thomas Myers
4-6
6-2
6-4
Round 2
Vere Thomas Saint Leger Goold 1 *
Captain J.C. Maltby
2
sets
to
0
Quarterfinals
Vere Thomas Saint Leger Goold 1 *
E.W. Burnett
6-4
6-2
Final
William Charles Renshaw 1 *
Vere Thomas Saint Leger Goold
6-4
6-3
5-6
6-4
Round 1
Vere Thomas Saint Leger Goold 1 *
A. Henry
?
Round 2
Vere Thomas Saint Leger Goold 1 *
Arthur Twistleton Polhill-Turner
?
Quarterfinals
William Gore Burroughs 1 *
Vere Thomas Saint Leger Goold
?
Round 1
Vere Thomas Saint Leger Goold 1 *
A. Taylor
?
Semifinals
Vere Thomas Saint Leger Goold 1 *
William Henry Darby
?
Final
Vere Thomas Saint Leger Goold 1 *
J.C. Roberts
?
Round 1
Vere Thomas Saint Leger Goold 1 *
F.N. Evans
6-2
6-1
Quarterfinals
Vere Thomas Saint Leger Goold 1 *
Heffernan Considine
6-1
6-3
Semifinals
Vere Thomas Saint Leger Goold 1 *
H.H. Elliott
6-1
6-3
Final
Vere Thomas Saint Leger Goold 1 *
William Henry Darby
4-0
6-4
Round 1
Vere Thomas Saint Leger Goold 1 *
A. Saint George
?
Quarterfinals
Vere Thomas Saint Leger Goold 1 *
Pierse Barron-Newell
?
Semifinals
Vere Thomas Saint Leger Goold 1 *
Henry Joseph Gallwey
?
Final
Vere Thomas Saint Leger Goold 1 *
John M. Brown
?
Round 1
Vere Thomas Saint Leger Goold 1 *
E. Rourke
?
Round 2
Vere Thomas Saint Leger Goold 1 *
William James Gallwey
?
Quarterfinals
Vere Thomas Saint Leger Goold 1 *
John M. Brown
?
Final
Vere Thomas Saint Leger Goold 1 *
H.H. Elliott
?