The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1888-01-21 00:00:00

THE CAMBERLEY POISONING

CASE
The trial of Henry Bowles at the Central Criminal
court, charged with murdering his wife and son by
po so n , at Camberley, on Sept. 22 last, has been con-
cluded before Mr. Justice Charles.
Mr. Besley and Mr. Horace Avory were for the
prosecution; Mr. H. C. Richards and Mr. Ernestßeard
conducted the defence.
After Police and other important evidence had been
taken, Dr. Stevenson, lecturer on medical juris-
prudence at Guy's Hospital, and analyst to the Home
Office, deposed to having examined the stomachs of
the deceased Hannah and Edward Bowles, and ana-
lysed their contents. In each case he found about a
third of a grain of strychnine, which proved that
they must have taken a large quantity of that poison,
which undoubtedly caused death. There was no
trace of any other poison. If they had taken anti-
bilious pills, as the prisoner stated, he would have
expected to find some trace of calomel; but of this
there was none. Several witnesses were called, who
testified that the deceased woman was quiet, and sober,
and not bad-tempered or violent. It was also proved that
about September 12 the prisoner made inquiries,
through some friends in London, about a housemaid
he had known in one of his situations, asking if she
was married, where she was now, and saying that he
loved her. He also told them that he had a very
comfortable place at Camberley, but the worst of it
was he had got an old housekeeper. Evidence was
next called to show that it was a common practice
for gainekeepers in Derbyshire to use strychnine for
the purpose of killing vermin, and a gentleman living
in that county, in whose employment the accused
once was as under-keeper, deposed that it was his
habit to supply his keepers with the drug to
destroy vermin, but he could not remember whether he
ever gave the prisoner any. The deceased woman's
life was insured for £2B, and within a week of the
deaths her husband was inquiring from the insurance
agent the best way to get the money, but was told
that it could not be given until the result of the in-
quest was made known. Various statements made
by Bowles were read, and in one of them he said that
his wife, while they were living in the country, once
got some strychnine from a neighbour to kill rats;
that he advised her to destroy it; that she was a
woman of violent temper and addicted to drink;
that she once accused him of corresponding with
another woman, and threatened to poison both him
and her, and did actually so destroy an old favourite
dog ho had.
No witnesses were called for the defence, but Mr.
Richards claimed an acquittal on the ground that the
prosecution had signally failed to make out their case.
No reasonable motive had been assigned for the crime.
In reality, the woman described as his wife was not
married to the prisoner, although they had lived toge-
ther for many years, and therefore there was no legal
obligation upon him to remain with her, whatever
there was of moral. No strychnine had been traced
to the possession of the prisoner since 1882. Altoge-
ther the chain of circumstantial evidence was so weak
that he thought the jury could not possibly convict.
After the judge had summed up the jury retired at
seven o'clock to consider their verdict, and deliberated
until nine o'clock, when they returned into court, and
the foreman informed the judge that there was not
the slightest chance of their agreeing.
Mr. Justice Charles said he could not discharge
them yet. They must endeavour by more discussion
to come if possible to a decision.
The Foreman: We have gone over the evidence
very carefully, and we do not see the slightest
chance of our agreeing. We are almost equally
divided.
Mr. Justice Charles thought he must really ask
them to retire and consider for some time longer.
They must be satisfied that guilt was clearly brought
home to the prisoner before they could convict him.
If they thought that the evidence was only sufficient
to developo suspicion against him they could not find
him guilty.
The jury then retired again, taking with them the
statement made by the prisoner before the magis-
trate and at the coroner's inquest. At ten minutes
before ten o'clock they came back into court and took
their seats in the box.
Mr. Avory, the Clerk of Arraigns, asked them if
they had agreed upon their verdict, and the foreman
replied that they had.
Mr. Avory: Do you find the prisoner guilty or not
guilty of murder?
The Foreman: We find him guilty.
Mr. Avery: And that is the verdict of you all?
The Foreman: It is.
The verdict having been recorded, Mr. Avory, in
the usual form, asked prisoner if he had anything to
say why sentence of death should not be pronounced
, upon him.
I The Prisoner: I have had a very unfair trial. I
have not been able to call witnesses. There should
have been four or five witnesses here to give evidence
for me, and I have not seen one. (As a matter of
fact there were half a dozen witnesses for the defence
in court during the trial, but prisoner's counsel did
not deem it expedient to call them.)
Mr. Justice Charles, having put oa the black cap
said: Henry Bowles, the jury, after a long and most
patient investigation, have found you guilty of
murder. I have no desire to aggravate by any ob-
servations of mine the awful position in which that
verdict has placed you. It is my solemn duty to tell you
that you must prepare to die. You have been convicted
of a cruel—a most cruel—murder, and you must not
hope for mercy in this world. His lordship concluded
by passing sentence of death in due form, ordering
the prisoner to be handed over to the Sheriff of Surrey
for execution. _ _

Bowles, who is a strong, wiry man, with black hair
and beard, and small, deep-sunk intensely black eyes,
manifested no emotion while sentence was being
passed upon him, and walked quietly downstairs to
the cells.