The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1875-10-09 00:00:00

.._

TEE STOURBRIDGE OBSERVER

ever that Mr. Frieake knew nothing of Harriet Lane, and
that his name was used without the slightest knowledge
on his part of the unfortunate woman. The letter, it is
evident, was written simply for the purpose of putting off the
friend of Harriet Lane from pursuing their inquiries. This
letter has a most important bearing in the case, and bears
heavily against the prisoner at the bar. The evidence given
on the main inquiry shows that Harriet Lane was last seen
alive on, as I have said, the 11th of September, 1874, and the
substantive charge is that she was murdered on that day.
This letter, id the handwriting of the prisoner at the her,
alleges that she was with him at Charing•crose Hotel three
weeks after the time when there is good reason to believe
that s' 'e was dead and buried, and therefore this letter con-
tales wilful fabrications for the purpose oi assisting to con-
ceal what had been done. This letter was saved and was
handed to the police; the persons who have charge of the
case set about to unravel who this second man in the affair
was, and I am now in a position to advance so far in this as
to ehew that the prisoner at the her, Thomas G. Wain-
wright, is the writer of this letter. He has been but a short
time in custody, and I do not intend to do more than lay before
you just sufficient evidence to justify you in remanding him.
I shall show you that he wrote this letter, which was re-
ceived three weeks after Harriet Lane's disappearance, and
then I shall show you that he had other connexion with the
prisoner, Henry Wainwright, in the matter upon which he is
charged. It was on the 11th of September in this year that
the two parcels containing the body were removed from No.
215, Whiteehapel-road, ant in those premises, when they
were searched, were found a shovel or spade Slid a chopper.
The spade was a new one, and had been b night for the pur-
pose of opening the grave in which this unfortunate young
woman was laid, and the chopper for the purpose of chopping
up the body, that the pieces might be packed into convenient
parcels for removing them. Now, Sir, there can be no doubt
whatever that the prisoner at the bar purchased that shovel
and that chopper, and handed them over to his brother,
Henry gainwright, on the very day when it is probable they
were used, the 10th of September last. There is even yet
another matter. You will remember that the remains of
the unfortunate woman were at the time of the discovery
placed by Henry Wainwright in the House known as the
"Hen and Chickens," in the Borough. At this house the
prisoner at the bar had carried on business, and he so
carried on business there until he was bankrupt in June
last. The key of these premises had been given up to Mr.
Lewis, who had a bill of sale on the property, but the
prisoner at the bar called at his place and induced Mr.
Lewis's office lad to give up the key to him. The prisoner
Thomas must have handed this key over to his brother,
for Henry had the key when he took the parcels in
the cab to the "Hen and Chickens," in the cellars of
which it was obviously intended to conceal these remains.
There has been found to be a hole in the cellars,- and if the
remains had been placed in that hole, which will at some
future time be described, they might not have been found
for years, and the discovery would not have been made
which has led to the present knowledge of the affair,
Taking these three facts only—that his was the hand which
wrote this letter dated from "Charing-cross Hotel," for
the purpose of misleading the friends of Harriet Lane, and
stiffing inquiry, that he bought the Instruments which were
used for the removal of the body, and that he obtained the
key for his brother Henry to abtain access to the "Hen and
Chickens," where the body was to be deposited—l think you
will say thet it was a right course to adopt for him to be
taken into :ustody. The prisoner appeared to think that he
was taken into custody only because he bought the axe and
spade, but that is a mistake on his part, for there is other evi-
dence. On the matter of the spade and axe, the prisoner,
while in the police-station, said he wished to make a state-
ment, and he was told he might write it. In the presence of
the police inspectors he wrote this, which I shall now read
to you. It is headed—
"Statement of Facts.
"I beg to state that on Friday, the 10th of September
act, at 12.30, I was with some friends at the "Black Lion,"
at Bishopsgate-street ; from there I called on my brother
Henry, at Mr. Martin's. He then asked me if I would go
and buy him a garden spade and chopper, he wanting the
chopper to chop wood with. I then went to Pettigrew's, the
Ironmonger's, in Whitechapel-road, and purchased the
articles, for which I paid 35., and I charged my brother ss.
I was with Mr. Pettigrew for half or three-quarters of an
hour, and we went and had a drink together, for which, I
think, he paid. I then took the parcel, which was in a sheet
of brown paper, to my brother at Mr. Martin's. We went
Into Clayton's, in Whitechapel-road, and had some sherry'
this would be about 2 30. From there I went to Gault's and
had my dinner; from there to the "Black Lion," in Bishops-
gate-street; from there to No. 1, Racquet-court, Fleet-
street, about 4.30; and from there to the Surrey Gardens,
and remained with at least a dozen friends until 10.45 p.m.
"Thos. G. WAINWRIGHT."
The Magistrate; And the date of the removal of the body
and of the arrest of the prisoner Henry was the 11th—the
day after this?
Mr. Poland: It was, Sir; and if you will examine this
statement and compare it with the letter I shall now put in,
as that received by Mrs. Wilmore, you will see that the
handwriting is the same, and so you have this additional
testimony to the handwriting. If it is established that the
letter was written by the prisoner—and there can be no
reasonable doubt about its being proved—it will be for con-
sideration if it could have been written, looking to the cir-
cumstances of the case, by an innocent man. Theu he at-
tempts by his statement to account for the purchase of the
spade and chopper, but it remains unexplained why he ob-
tained and delivered up the key of the place where the
body could have been so effectually concealed. Under these
circumstances, I shall ask you to remand the prisoner, in
order that he may be charged with his brother before your
colleague.
The Magistrate: Do you propose to call Mr. Frieake to dis
, own that letter?
: Mr. Poland: I did not intend doing so, but I will do so if
you desire it.
The Magistrate: Of course I cannot take cognizance of evi-
'deuce which came before the coroner, but only of that which
lyou place before me. Are you prepared to prove to-day that
:that letter is in the handwriting/of the prisoner?
Mr. Poland: I propose to prove the handwriting of this
letter in two ways—by the evidence of a witness who knows
the prisoner and knows his handwriting, and by comparison
of the letter with his written statement now put in.
Inspector M'Donald was then called and deposed.--I am
Chief Inspector of the H Division (Whitechapel). While in
the Inspector's Office of the Stone's-end Station about an
hour ago, the prisoner asked me—he having been arrested by
another officer—if he was to be taken before the magistrate
this afternoon. He said, to give his own words, "Am Ito
be taken across to the court to-day ? ' I replied, "Yes; and
you will be charged with being an accessory after the fact, in
the murder of Harriet Lane. We have found out that you
bought a spade and axe, and that will be proved." He said,
"I will tell you all about it." I replied, "you had better
put it in writing if you wish to sax anything." I provided
him with pens, ink, and paper, and he wrote the statement
produced. Inspector Fox and another Inspector were pre-
sent at the time he was writing—at least Inspector Fox, who
had been away on matters concerned in the case, came in
while the prisoner was writkig the statement
The statement was then formally read and placed upon the
depositions.
By Mr. Moody: I was not the officer who arrested the pri-
soner, but I was present when Detective-sergeant Forster
took him at Clerkeuwell Police-court this morning on this
charge. lie was arrested yesterday on a warrant for the de-
sertion of his wife and children. I have been engaged in the
investigation of this case concerning Harriet Lane. Before he
put his statement into writing I had informed him that there
had been letters found in his handwriting. I did not caution
him that anything he wrote might be used against him. He
voluntary wrote the statement, and before he did so he men
timed tne place where he purchased the shovel and axe. I
knew, as a matter of fact, that the place where he bought
them is the house of a neighbour, kept by a tradesman who
knew the prisoner and his brother well from living near
where they carried on business for years. The prisoner and
his brother are very well known in the neighbourhood.
Detective-sergeant G. W. Forster, H Division, deposed: I
took the prisoner into custody at Clerkenwell Police-court
this morning on this charge. I had previously arrested him
on another charge—yesterday morning, and on his being dis-
charged on that, I immediately re-arrested him on this. I
told him the charge—that of his being an accessory to the
murder of Harriet Lane, and on the charge being read over
to him by Superintendent Garforth, he said, "I have nothing
more to say than I have stated." While waiting at Clerken-
well Police-court to go before the magistrate, he said, I
suppose there is some other charge- to be preferred against
me."
The Magistrate: Had you said anything to him at that
time about any other charge?
Witness: I had not. He asked me, "Is there to be any
charge against me respecting that spade and axe ? " and he
added, I was not coming forward voluntarily to give evi-
dence against my brother; but, to save myself, I had better
speak the truth." I said, "I had better take it down in
'writing if you are going to say anything." I then wrote down
In this book his words, "I bought the spade and wood-chopper
'which have been produced, en Friday, the 10th of September,
for my brother, at Mr. Pettigrew's, 181, Whitechapel-road, for
which I paid 3s. and charged him sa. he having stated that he
wanted them for his house at Cliingford." I showed the
'entry in the book to the prisoner and asked him if that was
'correct, and he replied that it was. I then said to the pri-
soner, "I have seen Mr. Pettigrew and shown him the axe
and spade, and he says that you bought them, or some
similar to them" The prisoner said, "It is quite right,"
and we went to the house round the corner, and he had a
glass of brandy and I had a glass of stout.- I was not
at the inquest yesterday. I was away apprehending the
prisoner at Fulham. I arrested him under a warrant ssued
On Saturday afternoon, shortly before four o'clock, some time back for the desertion of his wife and children.
Thomas Wainwright, 30 years of age, described as an By Mr. Moody: I had no warrant with me; but it was
ironmonger, residing at The Rosamonds, Parson's- produced at the court this morning. I took him at Fulham
green, Fulham, was placed at the bar before Mr. before ten o'clock, but I did not see the warrant until later.
Partridge, at the Southwark Police-court, charged apprehended him solely on that warrant, and I Made no
with being an accessory after the fact in respect to the
charge against him in regard to this case, until he had been
discharged by the magistrate an that with which he 'was
wilful murder of Harriet Lane, dias King on or about charged. The warrant for his arrest on the other charge
the 11th of September, 1874, at 215, High-street, had been placed in my hands at this court before I took him
Whitechapel. The following account of the pro_ into custody. I saw it on the 13th of September, when the
ceedings is taken from Monday's Times : prisoner's brother was first charged at this court. Mr.
Pettigrew has been at Whitechapel for many years, and
Mr. Poland opened the case by stating,—ln this ease the knew the brothers Wainwright well. I believe the prisoner
priettner. Thomas G. Wainwright. is charged with being an was allowed to see his friends when taken; I did not prevent
accessory to the murderof liarnet Louisa Lane, otherwise him from doing so.
called "King," and I will briefly state, Sir, how it is that By Mr. Poland: After the inquest yesterday I received
the prisoner comes before you to-day. Yesterday, at the
coroner's Inquest, evidence was given that the prisoner's By
to take him into custody on this charge if he
should be discharged on the warrant on which he was then
brother, Henry Wainwright, who is remanded on the charge arrested.
of murdering this unfortunate young woman, had accounted
for her absence by stating that she had gone away with a Inspector M. Fox, M. Division: After the prisoner Henry
Mr. Frieake—sta'ing, too, that this was a Mr. Frieake, an Waiuwright was taken into custody I went to 215, White-
auctioneer. A Mr. Frieitee, an auctioneer, lives at Aidgate, chapel-road, and found there the spade and chopper (now
and the prisoner Henry Wainwright gave it out at one time produced). I found there the appearance of the grave
that Harriet Lane had gone to live with this Mr. Frieake at having been recently opened, and the chopper had been ,
Fulham. The friends of this unfortunate young woman recently used. It smelt offensively, and there were clear
could not be put off, and continued to apply to Henry Wain- indications of the body having been chopped up there very
wright, who still told them that Harriet Lane had gone with recently by that chopper. I was present at the inquest
Mr. " Teddy Frieake," accounting for her absence and silence yesterday, and Ellen Willmore was examined as a witness at
in this way. The inquiries of the friends and their applications vere great length, and the letter "E " (that headed " Char-
being so incessant, a letter was written for an evident par- ing-cross Hotel") was produced, referred to by her, and read
pose to Miss Wilmore, who had charge of the two children in evidence.
of the prisoner Henry Wainwright and Harriet Lane. Miss The defence had no questions to put to this witness.
Wilmore had been actively engaged with the friends in try-
ing to find Harriet Lane,mgd on her applications to the G. W. Rogers, living at 11, Teddington-terrace, Tredegar-
prisoner Henry WainwrigWshe had been informed that
Harriet had gone away with this man Frieake. Harriet Lane road, Bow, managing clerk to Hounsell Brothefrs, 142,
Minories, Admiralty contractors, deposed: I was ormerly
has not been seen since tip 11th of September, 1874, when in the service of the prisoner's brother, Henry Wainwright,
she left her children to go to the prisoner Henry Wainwright, and was in his service from August, 1873, until April of this
at 215, Whitechapel-road. Miss Wilmore applied to Henry year. I have been examined as a witness before the Coroner
Wainwright again and again for information, and the letter on this matter. I have known the prisoner for about twelve
I hold in my hands was received by Miss Wilmore. This months. He is the brother of Henry Wainwright I have
letter, Sir, I shall prove, is in the handwriting of the prisoner seen his handwriting.
at the bar, Thomas G. Wainwright, and it refers to Harriet Mr. Moody: Have you ever seen him write?
Line as being under his protection, he giving the name then The Witness: I have, many times.
of "B. Frieke," a similar name to that which the other
The letter marked " E " was then handed to the witness,
prisoner, Henry Wainwright-had -given as that of the man
who had gone away with Harriet Lane The letter is one who said,—This is in the handwriting of Thomas Wain-
wright, or very much like it. To the best of my judgment
maria din these proceedings as E. It is headed "Charing- and belief that Is in the handwriting of Thomas Wainwright.
cross Hotel, Sunday." Mr. Poland was about to hand the "statement" written
The Magistrate: I understand you to say that you will b the prisoner to the witness ; but Mr. Moody objected that
prove that letter to be in the handwriting of the prisoner at itywould give the witness an opportunity of comparing the
the bar, Thomas Wainwright? writing of the prisoner with the letter.
Mr Poland: Yea, Sir, it will be so proved, and it is conve- Mr Poland said he would not press to put the statement
nieut that I should now read it entire. It is : into the witness's hand at this point, but he would ask a few
'Charing-cross Hotel. Sunday. more questions of the witness for the magistrate's informa-
" Dear Miss Willmore,—l am very mach surprised at not tion.
1 receiving a reply to say last letter, in which I give you all the The Witness said: I knew the woman called Harriet Lane
particulars as to our arrangements. She Is now quite con- as Mrs. King, and last saw her alive in August, 1174, I think,
tent, and has solemnly promised never to see or speak to and I used to take money from Henry Wainwright to her,
King or any of her old friends or family again, as if she did I and I knew that Henry Wainwright used to pass as Mr. King.
told her we should have to part. If her promise is kept I All the people there employed knew it.
Intend to marry her in a few weeks. Mr. Poland: There is very much more to be stated, but I
" I distinctly tell you I will not allow her to see any of her think it is well to offer you, Sir, only a short story—just suffi-
old friends or acquaintances, as it would only cause an- dent, in fact, for you to grant a remand upon. I offer for
pleasantness. your own inspection the letter " E " and the statement, and
"With kind regards, I remain yours truly, you can make the comparison. I draw your attention to the
"B. FRDSKE. word "which "in the statement and the same word in the
"We are just eff to Dover." letter, and you will see that they are identical. There are
This letter was received by Miss Wilmore about three weeks other words and lettera which you will see clearly show that
after Harriet Lane disappeared from the eyes of her friends one hadd wrote the two.
and the obvious purpose of its being written is to make The Magistrate, after comparing the two papers (the letter
Harriet Lane's friends believe that she had gone away with and the statement) said,—Then, the witness having swern
the writer of this letter, the so-called "H. Frieke," and to that this letter is he the handwriting of the prisoner, and not
give reasons why she should not communicate with them, having been cross-examined upon that point, I don't see
she having promised, the writer says in the letter, "not to that anything more is necessary. Perhaps if you have Mr.
see or speak to any of her old friends or family again." The ' Frieake here, you will call him to say whether he did or did
letter, in a sort of postscript adds, "We are just off to not write this letter.
Dover," and' Henry Wainwright stated that the man Frieke , Mr. Moody said he did not decline 'to cross-exsiinfne the
had come intoomoileSe £ll,OOO being divided among, live Witness Rogers; he only reserved the cross-exact:o4oh.
brothers, and hei,tkeiither priisoner, thoweel"ii telegram to , eelinoi uiete it Jeslid if9l)l'
etkisa Wilmore Puryeetingilthat Ihad:ootitti freen;" e,
'lf& E. W. Frieiletliti'atiCtion'eer, c., of Coleman-street,
and Harriet Lane at Dover, saying "We are just off to Paris, City, and of Aldgate, stated: The letter E now handed to
and are going to have a lolly spree." Thusthis letter, which me was not written by me, and I know nothing whatever of
I shell show to be in the handwriting of the prisoner Thomas the writer of it. I never saw or heard of Miss Wilmore, to
at the bar, shown complicity with the action of his brother. whom it is addressed, before yesterday. This letter was
The letter was ;shown to Mr. Frieake, and he denied all shown to use by the young man whom I knew as Fowler, but
11;129w1t4al 01 ; Incloed; th9ll Gall be 110 @QM kWh* 1f11914 ee EOM Ia comonowe QS tin 'liquids

not think the letter or the telegram which Fowler had
shown to me prior to our going down Whitechapel to
Wainwright, was produced to Wainwright; but the fact is,
I was excited from the annoyance to which I had been sub-
jected by having my name unwarrantably mixed up with a
matter of the kind. Fowler went away and left Wainwright
au(' myself together, and I then again said to Wainwright,
"Harry, if you know anything of thin woman. why don't
you ease_ their mind and let them know?" He replied,

_
, Oh, Teddy, it is only a 'gut up 'to extort money from me;
r you'll hear nothing more about it." I went away. When I
first knew Wainwright I lived at Bow, and lived there 16
years. I think the hist witness, before he left, made an ap-
pointment with me because I could not speak during sale
time, and a few days after Fowler (Eeles) and I had
the interview with Wainwright. Mr. Lane and the last
witness came together. They spoke to me, and Mr. Lane
was mentioned as the father of the missing girl After
the interview with the last witness and Wainwright,
my recollection was brought .to the letter I had re-
ceiVed, signed "I; King." I, having told the conversa-
tion with Wainwright at _home, was reminded of the
letter. , I found it, and when Mr. Lane and Fowler came I
gave the letter to them, and they took it away. I gave the
envelope with it. On Monday, the 13th of September, I
saw an account of Wainwright's arrest, and I at once went to
Stone's-end Police-station. I gave my card, and said I was
ready to give any information on the matter, or answer any
question, telling them of the inquiries which had been
made. I have my diary of the 11th of September last year.
It is entered by me. From this I must have seen Wain-
wright in the morning of the 11th. He wanted a van or cart
to be at his place at six o'clock in the evening. The cart was
sent. He wanted to send some things, he said, for the sale-
rooms. The carman who went is in my employ, and is at
Aldgate.

Mr. Poland said it would be necessary perhaps to call the
carman, but he desired to say in Order that Mr. Frieake
might be disassociated with any disagreeable matter, that
that gentleman, on the very day when Wainwright's arrest
waspublished in the papers, went to Stone's•end Police-,
station and communicated all he knew to Superintendent
Garforth, and had shown himself desirous of assistinginstice
In every way.
The witness, cross-examined by Mr. Besley, said,—The
first occasion on which this was brought to my attention was
when Eeles ealled with the letter "E " and the telegram. I
was then annoyed because Wainwright had given my name
as an auctioneer, and as being the person who had gone
away with the young woman. Eeles hesitated before he
would show me that letter, and he was very suspicious in-
deed.

Ellen Wilmore, a middle-aged person, and very deaf, said:
I am a single woman, and was formerly a milliner and dress-
maker. I knew Harriet Louisa Lane, and she told me she
had been married. She had two children. One was born on
August 7th, 1872, and the other on the 3rd December, 1873.
I knew her latterly by the name of Mrs. King, I knew Mr.
King, and although I have not seen him in custody, I believe
him to be Wainwright. I first saw him in 1872 I took
charge of the children, and the money for their keep-255.
per week—was paid regularly every week Sometimes he
paid me at 84, and after the fire there, at 215, Whitechapel-
road I remember Harriet Lane going to live a 13, Sydney.
square. Previous to that she had been living at Peter.
street, Hackney-square. She went to live at Sydney-square
about May last year. I was then living with my sister at
Chelsea She took one child from my care in December,
1873, and the other was not then born. Up to the birth of
the second child I had £1 a week for the first child, and
when the second child was born I received 255. per week.
I have been with Harriet Lane to see Wainwright at several
places, generally at the back of the London HospitaL She
left my place on the 11th of September last year, and her boxes
were packed up by her and myself. She kept the keys. When
she went away on the afternoon of the 11th September she
was very neatly dressed. She kissed the children very
affectionately, "and wished them good-bye very much."
It was on a Friday, and I remember the day was very
wet. I took charge of the boxes. I removed to No. 6, The
Grove, Stratford, and I was asked to take care of the children
and boxes from that very afternoon. She said she would
come over to me on the Sunday, and that if she did not come
she should be with Percy King (a name by which she used to
call Wainwright). When she left she told me she was
going to 216, Whitechapel-road, to live there entirely.
She was well, and in very good spirits. She took a parcel
with her containing a night-dress, and she carried a new
umbrella. About 6.30 on the night of the 11th of Sep-
tember I went with the children and took the luggage
to The Grove, Stratford. She promised to dine with
me on the Sunday afternoon, but I never saw her alive
again. From Sydney-square to The Grove would occupy
about twelve minutes walking. On the Tuesday or Wednes-
day following I called to see Wainwright, as I was anxious
about her non-appearance, and he told me that he gave her
the money on Friday. I said that I thought it very strange,
as she had not a change of clothes, and he replied that she
had plenty of money. He gave me £2 to repay me for the
money I had lent her. That was to get her wedding ring
and keeper out of pledge. A few days afterwards I wrote to
Mrs. Taylor, and in the following week she called on me and
told me that she had been out of town. We went together
to 84, Whitechapel-road, saw Mr. Wainwright and Mrs.
Taylor said, "I have come about some unpleasantness, and
I want to know where my sister is ? " Wainwright said she
was all right, and at Brighton. He had given her plenty
of money, and he would get her address and write to
aa. About a week afterwards we both went again to .see him,
and in answer to enquiries as to Harriet he said, "I have
just found that she has gone off with my friend Frieake."
Alter some further conversation I left him, and he expressed
his determination to trace Mrs. King's whereabouts at any
cost or risk. About three weeks afterwards I received a
letter from him, which I showed to Mrs. Taylor. and we then
went again to see Wainwright, at No. 84, Whitechapel-road.
I showed him a letter, and he said he.had one just like it, and
he went and fetched a letter. He said, "It is just like
this," and he appeared to read it. He read, "I have the
lady under my protection, and I dare you or any-
body else to interfere." I also received a letter from E.
Frieake to the effect that he was surprised not to receive
a reply to his last letter as to the arrangements for the pro-
vision of the children, that Harriet had solemnly declared
that she would never again call on her friends or family, and
that it was his determination to marry her. The letter con-
cluded, "We are jest off to Dover." A few days afterwards I
received a telegram, which I showed him the next time I
called von him, and he said he had received one very much
like it. He fetched his own message, looked over mine,
and returned mine to me. I think it was in
October, 1874, I received the telegram. In the meantime
I took charge of the children, and Wainwright also ex-
pressed his wish that I should keep them. He paid me
regularly 253. per week up to June this year. Afterwards
when I called upon him he told me that a friend of his had
seen Harriet at Charing Cross Theatre and in Regent-street.
The only amounts I have had from him since June amount to
353. lie told use when he gave me small sums that he had
no more money, that he was very sorry he could not pay me
more, and that I must wait. I wrote to him several times
I received a letter through Mr. Martin's foreman in answer
to one of my applications for money. The last letter I re-
ceived from Wainwright was dated 10th September, 1875, and
was to the following effect
"I have told you I can do nothing foryou until November
I will then do as I have said, but if you give me this annoy
ance by calling and leaving letters I shall do nothing for you
You can make your choice, and all your threats are quite
absurd about 'it may be too late.' I can see you at seven
to-night if you like to be at the back of the hospital."

Witness added: There is no signature to that letier. I
went and saw Wainwright the same evening about 7.20, and
he told me ihat he would give me £lOO if I would wait until
November. He then gave me be. I had threatened pre,
viously to apply to the relieving officer. The rings produced
I identify as belonging to Mrs King, also the earrings and
boots. She wore large black jet buttons on her dress like
those produced. She wore her hair with a large pad at the
hack. The pad produced was bought in rolls. We (that is,
Harriet and myself) pulled them into pieces to make a large
pad, and that produced is the one we made. I have seen the
remains, and as far as I can say, I believe them to be those
of Harriet Lane.

Cross-examined by Mr. Besley : I have known Harriet
Lane about nine years. When I first knew her I was fore-
woman at Mrs. Bray's, milliner, Waltham-cross, and she was
apprenticed there. A gentleman did come to my house in
Sydney-square and asked for Mrs. King he gave the name
of Mr. Frieake. He was a tall, fair young man, with a light
moustache. The witness, Mr. Frieake is not the man who
called at my place, and I don't think I ever saw him before.
I cannot positively swear that the remains I have seen are
those of Harriet Lane.
-By the Coroner: The children were registered as Beatrice
Wainwright King and Marian Wainwright King.
James Kay, examined by Mr. Poland, said: I am a black-
smith, and work for Mr. Wiseman, coachbuilder, 216, White-
chapel-road. Last year I did some work for my employer to
a 4-ton van belonging to Mr. Martin. I was fitting a tyre on
one of the,frorit wheels, and between the hours of five and
seven in the evening [heard three very loud reports. They ap-
peared to me to be pistol shots fired rapidly, and seemed as
if they came over my head from Wainwright's premises. The
date was the 11th of September last year. it was a fortnight
ago that I first mentioned the occurrence of the shots being
heard to a newspaper reporter. It was eight days after I
saw the report in the paper that three bullets had been
found in the head that I went to the Treasury and gave in-
formation to the solicitor.

William Kay corroborated the evidence ot the last witness,
his brother.
The inquest was then adjourned until Thursday,
the 14th inst.

which were being made of me respecting llarrit Lane]or
Mrs. King, I saw the man Henry Wainwright, and hag a
long conversation with him, in the course of which I Ire;
pudiated all knowledge of the letter and of the perso4 it
referred to.

Mr. Poland: I now ask you, Sir, to remand the prisoner
until Tues,lay next, for him to be brought before your col-
league with Henry Wainwright, who is charged on the capi
tat offence.
The Magistrate (to Mr. Moody): You do not struggle
against a remand?
Mr. Moody said he did not anticipate having more t4an
the matter of the purchase of the axe and spade to meet, and
the other matters opened had taken him by surprise. He
asked that judgment should be suspended—that no coun-
tenance should be given to the statements of unofficial per-
sons ; and he added, on behalf of his client, that if he were
a guilty man he had shown a wonde•fal degree of blindness
in remaining here. His so remaining might be taken as a
conclusive proof of innocence. The evidence, after all, of
the letter, the purchase of the spade and axe, and the
transfer of the key could be shown to be consistent with
innocence of crime, and perhaps the learned magistrate
would admit the prisoner to ball,—there being good and
respectable bail forthcoming,—and he would answer the
charge on Tuesday.

nian I had taken to be Ftieake outside the door. The woman
Harriet was rather intoxicated that evening. The two gen-
tlemen rang the bell, and left her on the doorstep. In con-
sequence of that I gave her a week's notice to quit. The
notice expired on the Wednesday but I allowed her to re-
main until Friday. We parted on friendly terms.
Cross-examined by Mr. -Moody: The man did not come in
on the night of the disturbance, I was taken on Saturday
morning to the Leman-street Police-station, and saw several
men there. For the time I could not recognise any one of
them as the man I.thought was Frieake.
• By the Magistrate: At first I thought Mrs. King was a
married woman, but from the fact of Mr. King not coming
I began to think she was not married. She was visited by
her two sisters. I never saw the slightest impropriety be-
tfreen her and the young man who called. I saw her
slightly intoxicated on two occasions. I never knew the man
she called Teddy take her oat to a place of entertainment.
No other man called on Mrs. King. I do not recog-
nise the gentleman standing up (Mr. Frieske) as the man
who called as Ted Frieake. In fact, I can say that he is not
the man.

The Magistrate: The remand is a very short one, and I
must decline to entertain the question of bail.

-Mr. Moody then applied that a small suni of money taken
from the prisoner might be given up for the purpose of the
defence.

The Magistrate said he supposed the prosecution would not
object.
Mr. Poland replied that he did not, and the prisoner was
then formally remanded.

Previous to the above proceedings, on Saturday,
Thomas George Wainwright, 30, described as a com-
mission agent, of The Rosamonds, Fulham, Middle-
sex, was charged at the Clerkenwell Police-court,
before Mr. Hannay, the sitting magistrate, with
deserting his wife Caroline, and his three children,
Albert, aged seven; Stanley, aged four; and Daisy
Louisa, aged two, whereby they had become charge-
able to the parish of St. Pancras. Mr. Ricketts,
solicitor, was instructed to prosecute on behalf of the
Guardians. From the evidence of Mr. Wheatley, one
of the relieving officers, it appeared that this case first
came under the notice of the authorities of the parish
of St. Pancras on October 19, 1874, and the defendant
on being written to agreed to allow his wife and
family 18s. per week towards their support. He
kept his payments regularly for a short time, and
he was again written to. In November Mr. Wheatley
visited the defendant at Rosamond-villas, Parson's-
green•Tillas, and he again agreed to allow his wife
180. a week; and on behalf of the Guardians Mr.
Rick.itts, solicitor, drew up an agreement binding the
defendant to pay that sum. The defendant continued
to pay some money until May 26 of the present year,
when the defendant's wife again applied for relief, and
was at once allowed ss. per week and two loaves. That
relief had been continued ever since, the committee
sending it monthly. The defendant was continually
written to, and invariably the next day he would send
small sums of money. From February to July the de-
fendant had kept the "Hen and Chickens" in the
Borough, where he carried on business as a furnishing
ironmonger. Mr. Hannay inquired if the defendant
was apprehended on a warrant in the first instance,
and was informed that it was so. The warrant was
ordered to be obtained by the Guardians on the occa-
sion of the wife's receiving relief. Mr. Hannay in-
quired what the defendant had been doing since May.
Mr. Wheatley said he believed the defendant had been
on commission. He had been in business at the "Hen
and Chickens" in the Borough. The defendant said that
was not his business. Mr. Mason said he told the de-
fendant at Leman-street Police-station that his wife
was chargeable, and he said that he had sent his wife
as much money as he could. When he was taken into
custody he had over £1 in his pocket. The defendant
said that was true, but he had only received the money
the night before. Mr. Hannay said he would not deal
with the case criminally, and the defendant would
therefore be discharged. Mr. Wheatley said that when
he first saw the defendant he wired him the reason why
he did not live with his wife, and if he had any reason to
give why he did not do so. He replied that she was a
good wife, but he could not afford to live with her.

Ernest George Eeles, residing at the ofthes of the
Charity Organization Society, The Plain, Wandsworth,
who was requested by the Lane family to make inquiries
about their missing daughter, repeated the particulars he
has already given of his conversations with the prisoner
Henry respecting the absence of 'Harriet Lana, alias
Mrs. King. He (witness) gave his name and address as
Fowler, P. 0., High-street, Wandsworth The reason he
gave that name was that Harriet Lane knew his right name,
and it she was keeping out of the way he thought she was
more likely to communicate with a person whose name was
unknown to her.

Cross-examined by Mr. Besley : I have lived at the Plain
since last Christmas. lam in the habit of making inquiries
for my society, and I generally make memoranda after I
leave the person of whom I make inquiries. I made
no note whatever of any conversations I had upon
this subject, but I jotted down a few particulars when
Mrs, Taylor came to me about her stater. I was ft, school-
master at Stock, in Essex, and I knew Mrs. Taylor and her
husband. I saw Harriet Lane there once when she called on
me in company with Mrs. Taylor.

Mr. Edward 'William Frieake, auctioneer, 11, Cole-
man-street, City, denied all knowledge of the letter and
telegram purporting to come from him, and also all
knowledge of Harriet Lane. At the interviews witness
and Fowler had with the prisoner Henry he asked him
what he had done with the fair-haired girl he was with a
short time previous, and the prisoner replied that he could
produce her in a few minutes.
- -

At half-past five the prisoness were again remanded.

On Tuesday, at the Southwark Police-court, Henry
Wainwright, aged 36, brushmaker, was brought up
on remard before Mr. Benson for the wilful murder of
Harriet Lane ; and Thomas Wainwright, aged 30, his
brother, an ironmonger, was charged with his elder
brother with being an accessory after the fact.
The proceedings possessed more than the usual inte-
rest, irom the fact that this was the first occasion on
which the two brothers were placed in the dock to-
gether. Large crowds assembled both at the counsels'
entrance and at the gates of the court, in the hope of
obtaining a view of the prisoners, at a very early hour,
and by half-past ten the court itself was full. The
prisoners were, however, removed from the cells at the
station to the police-court shortly before eight o'clock,
and while there were comparatively few people about
the streets.

THE MAGISTERIAL INQUIRY ON WEDNESDAY.

Mr. Poland (instructed by Mr Pollard, solicitor to
the Treasury) appeared for the prosecution; Mr.
Besley defended Henry Wainwright; and Thomas
Wainwright was represented by Mr. Moody. Mr.
Superintendent Garforth, Chief Inspector McDonald,
and Mr. Inspector Fox, were the police authorities
present.
At twelve minutes past twelve the two prisoners
were placed in the dock. Both looked pale and
anxious.

Mr. Poland said that in consequence of evidence taken
before the coroner last Friday it was thought right that
Thomas George Wainwright should be taken into custody as
an accessory to the murder. The learned counsel said it was
at present difficult to form an accurate opinion as to
who was in communication with Harriet Lane with
reference to her removal from Sydney-square, and who
was the real Mr. Frieake The prosecution suggested
that Henry induced Thomas to write the letter to
Miss Willmore from Charing•cross, under the name of
Frieake, which letter he should prove was in the
handwriting of Thomas Wainwright. It was a remark-
able circumstance that Henry was removing the body to a
house formerly occupied by Thomas, and that the latter
gave up possession of the premises and the key to a gentle-
man who had a bill of sale on the goods. The prisoner
Thomas, too, obtained possession of the key only a day
or two before the removal of the body. He thought
that the fact of Thom,s purchasing the chopper and
spade was a matter of small moment, but it was in
consequence of the letter from Frieake being in the
handwriting of Thomas that he was taken into custody.
He did not wish to press the case unduly against
Thomas, and unless he could give some satisfactory ex-
planation of the letter he was placed in a very awkward
position, but one in which he should be placed in order
that this matter might be thoroughly investigated. The
charge against Thomas was being an accessory after the
fact of the murder, by assisting his brother in deceiving the
relations of Harriet Lane as to where she had gone.

The examination of Henry Wainwright, charged
with the wilful murder of Mrs. King, alias Harriet
Lane; and of Thomas Wainwright, charged with
being an accessory after the fact, was resumed on
Wednesday at the Southwark Police-court, before Mr.
Benson.
Mr. Poland appeared for the prosecution, Mr.
Begley for Henry Wainwright, and Mr. Moody for
Thomas Wainwright. Superintendent Garforth, Chief
Inspector M`Donald, and Inspector Fox watches the
case on behalf of the police authorities.
There was a large crowd outside the court to witness
the arrival of the prisoners, and the court itself was
full shortly after its being opened. Due order was pre-
served in the court by an efficient body of police, and
the convenience of those whose business compelled
them to be present was greatly facilitated by the ar-
rangements made by the second clerk, Mr. Martin,
and other officials.
Before the proceedings commenced Mr. Moody
applied that Mr. Pelham, the solicitor for Thomas
Wainwright, might have an interview with his client.
In answer to the magistrate, Mr. Garforth stated
that the prisoners were in separate cells, and the re-
quest was granted.
At twenty-five minutes past twelve the prisoners
were placed in the dock, and each of them seemed
paler than at the previous hearing.
Mr. Poland said that since last night a letter had been
handed him which fixed a certain date, and he would ask
Miss Wilmore one or two questions. _

Helen Wilmore said that she received a letter (produced)
from Mr. Fowler on the 21st January, and is purported to
come from Henry Wainwright. Two or three days after its
receipt she gave up the boxes of Harriet Lane. She
received a memorandum (produced) dated 28th January, on
the day she gave them up. Before that the boxes had been
examined by Mrs. Taylor and Fowler. She only received one
Letter signed E. Frieake. It takes about ten or twelve
minutes to walk from 3, Sidney-square, to 215, Whitechapel-
road

Thep evidence taken before Mr. Partridge on Saturday on
the arrest of Thomas Wainwright was then read.

Ellen Wilmore, called and examined by Mr. Poland, re-
peated the evidence given by her before the coroner on
Friday last. She identified the prisoner Henry as the man
she knew as Mr. King, and she first met him at Temple-bar
In 1872. Harriet Lane was with him, and she believed she
was then living near Bedford-square. That was after Harriet
Lane's first child was born. She (witness) used to see the
prisoner Henry from time to time. Harriet Lane's second
i child was born n Docember, 1873, at 70, Peter-street, South
Hackney-road. Witness was then living at Pimlico. Lane
went to live at 3, Sydney-square, Mile-end, about May, 1874,
and before that time witness had had one of the children to
keep, but she gave it up when the second was born. The
prisoner Henry paid Z 1 weekly for the keep of the child. He
used to come and pay me, and Harriet came to see the child,
but they never came together. On the 3rd of August, 1874,
witness went to Sydney-square to receive the children, and
remained there until the 11th of September. She never saw
the prisoner Henry there. It was arranged that she should
take care of the two children, and she removed with them to
the Grove at Stratford on the 11th September, 1874. It had
also been arranged that Harriet Lane should leave there on
that day. Witness assisted her to pack up her boxes, dcc.
About a week before she left witness saw a man pass in. Ile
was announced by the landlady as Mr. Frieake. Mrs.
King and witness were then in the room, and she (witness).
left the room. She had not seen the man before She lead seen
the prisoner Thomas before, but she could not say where.
The man announced as Mr. Frieake was a very young-looking
man, and had a slight moustache. He stayed only a short
time. On Friday, 11th September, Harriet went out about
four o'clock, dressed very neatly, and she took a small par-
cel containing a night-dress. Witness was directed to take
charge of the children and the luggage. She was in good
health and spirits when she went, and came back three times
to kiss the children. She said she was going—
Mr. Healey objected to the words being stated, and called
the magistrate's attention to the ruling in the case of the
Eltham murder trial, that such words so spoken could not be
given in evidence.
The Magistrate said he was of opinion that no statement of
Harriet Lane could be produced as evidence against the pri-
soner Henry Wainwright.
The point was argued, hut the matter rested here—Harriet
Lane's alleged last words in Sidney-square not being re-
peated.
Examination continued: Witness said she undertook to
keep the luggage until the Sunday following She left the
lodgings with the two children and the luggage about 6.30
the same evening, and went to the Grove, Stratford. She
fancied she saw Harriet Louisa Lane in a cab near the Bank,
about a month or six weeks afterwards. If it was not
Harriet, it was somebody very much like her. Harriet
never called once on witness re.; Stratford. Harriet
took the keys of her box .with her. Witness then
detailed the incidents of her interviews with the prisoner
Henry, and also those which the had with him when
she was accompanied by Mrs. Taylor (sister of Harriet
Lane), and which have been already fully reported.
She thought it was about three weeks later than the 11th of
September that she received the letter purporting to come
from Frieake. She took it to Mrs. Taylor and they both went
with it to the prisoner Henry. About two days after that she
received a telegram, also purporting to come from Frieake,
which she took to the same prisoner. He said on both
occasions that they were very much like those be
had received. On the 10th of . September this year she
received a letter marked F, asking her to meet Henry the
same evening, and she went to the back of the London Hos-
pital and had an interview with hint. The wedding-ring
worn by Harriet Lane was larger than the keeper. When
she saw the remains at the church she saw that the shape
of the feet was something like that of
,Harriet Lane. She
could not form any opinion as to whose remains they were.
She saw the decayed tooth, but of that she could not be cer-
tain.
Cross-examined by Mr. Besley : When I first saw the re-
mains I said I thought it was, and that I thought it was not,
Harriet Lane. I cannot recognise the upper part of the ear-
rings. The black buttons she wore were of the most
ordinary kind. , The young man admitted to see Harriet at
Sydney. square was rather tall and fair. I returned the
boxes to Mr. Lane.
By Mr. Moody: The fair young man called one evening
shortly after tea.
By the Magistrate: When Harriet went away she carried
a new umbrella, besides the parcel containing a night-dress.
I heard nearly all that passed between Mrs. Taylor and
Wainwright but not all, as I am so deaf. The buttons pro-
duced (and taken from the workbox of Harriet Vane) exactly
correspond with those found on the dress. I should have
followed the cab in which I thought I saw Harriet Lane if I
had not had one of the children with me.
Jemima Foster, of 3, Sidney-square, Commercial-road,
said: My daughter Lucy lives with me. I have lived there
since Christmas, 1873. I remember Mrs. King coming to
lodge with me about April, 1874. She came with two children
and a nurse. A Mr. King came and took the lodgings. I
identify Henry Wainwright as the gentleman who took
them. He engaged three rooms furnished at El a-week for
his lady two children and a nurse, and he said that very
likely he should not be much with them, as being a
commercial traveller his business ealled him away fre-
quently. He paid RI deposit. When the lady and chil-
dren came Mr. Rogers accompanied them. The nurse
stayed about seven weeks. Just before Mrs King went
away the prisoner Henry called again, and that was the only
time after his taking the lodeings.lSOme time after the nurse
left Miss Wilmore came to live there. Mr. Rogers called
frequeutlY with reesfiagee,frokble-,pii.,. A gte.leiaan,. who
f cinti ertifoilitt • 15fik, `de Teddy- Frielike,' cal led to
see her on two occasions. I could not swear that the prisoner
Thomas is the man, but he is very much of the size and
stature of the man. He came in in a hurried manner, and on
one ocsasion they had champagne taken up. I believe very
possibly he is the man I think the man had a rather light
moustaele. I opened the door to him. On one occasion
shtre was a disturbance between the prisoner Henry awl tin

---
George William Rogers (formerly foreman of the prisoner
Henry) said the body of the letter shown to Miss Wilmore
was not in the handwriting of that prisoner, but he believed
the signature to be that of Henry.
Mr. Benson read the letter as follows :
"January 21, 1876.
"Miss Wilmore,—l am quite willing that Mrs. King's
boxes should be given up to her father on your receiving a
guarantee in writing exonerating you from all further re-
sponsibility respecting thern.—(Signed) PERCY KING."
Witness (resuming): The letter and the signature appeared
to be written in different inks. Between July and November,
1874, the premises of No. 216, Whitechapel-road were used
as a place for packing goods. Witness and his family lived
In the upper part Of No. 215 from November, 1574, till the
end of April of this year. The keys were kept in a counting-
house at No. 84, Whitechapel-road, which was the shop and
factory, and Henry kept the key of that counting-house. In
1874 Henry lived at 40, Tredegar-square, Bow, with his wife
and five children. In February, 1874, witness first saw Mrs.
King, at St. Peter-street, Hackney-road. He went there at
Henry's request with a letter containing £5, and he was
Instructed to get a receipt for it, which he procured,
and handed it the next morning to Henry. Witness then
detailed the particulars of his interviews with Mrs. King,
both at 84, Whitechapel-road and at her different residences
where he went with notes and money. One one occasion she
called at No. 84 when Henry was out, and she left a message
saying that if he did not send her some money she should go
to Tredegar-square, where she had been before. That was
the last time he saw her, and he believed it was at the latter
end of August, 1874. She was then living at Sydney-square.
Witness went by his employer's directions and accompanied
Mrs. King and her two children in a cab from St. Peter's.
street to Sydney-square. On one or two occasions Wain-
wright told witness to say that he could not send any more
money to Mrs. King until he had settled his business with
his partner, Mr. Sawyer. He took her a sum of £2 once,
and she threw it on the table saying it was no use, as she
had to pay her rent. Witness told Wainwright, who said
he would see to it. On the 19th June she showed
witness a telegram, and some conversation took place
between them, which he related to Wainwright. The
telegram purported to state that she had gone out of
town with ..EVigers (meaning witness) Witness said it
was false, but the prisoner treated it with levity. In
August, 1874, he saw Wainwright and Mrs. King talking to-
gether, and they appeared excited and quarrelsome. In Sep-
tember, 1874, he went to Baylis's shop to inquire the price of
chloride of lime, the:prisoner stating that he required a half
hundredweight for a customer at Southend. He saw a box
which smelt of chloride of lime in the passage of 84 the same
evening, but it had disappeared on the following morning.
While living at No. 216 he noticed a disagreeable smell,
which he attributed to the accumulation of ashes, and Wain-
wright directed him to have them removed. The letters now
handed in (produced) were written by Henry Wainwright.
One letter, referred to in the evidence given by Mrs. Taylor,
was as follows :
"Dear Madam,—Since I wrote you yesterday I have heard
news of her. I will see Miss Willmore at once, and let you
know all about her.—Yours, P. KING."
That bore no date. Another letter, addressed to Mrs.
King, was as follows
"Dear Pet,—E. F. is coming down at 7 to-night. He will
give you a call, with a message, &c., from ma—Yours, P. K."
Mr. Poland proposed to have a telegram read, but Mr.
Begley objected, as he contended the agency had not been
established, and what was necessary to be produced was the
original copy.
The Magistrate held the objection to be valid.
Cross-examined by Mr. B,esley : I never Heard the report
of pistol shots from Pinch's premises, next door to No. 215.
By the Magistrate: I did not know of the relations that
existed between Wainwright and Mrs. King until after I
accompanied her to Sydney-square. Wainwright never told
me of the relations between them, nordid he ever say that he
was the father of her children. I understood that the reason
of his interest in the family was that he was a friend She
told me the nature of their intimacy. When she visited Mr.
Wainwright at No. 84 I never heard any part of their
conversation. I occupied that part of No. 215, White.
chapel-road, which bordered on the road. The warehouse
runs a long distance back towards Vine-court. The ashes
were carried down towards the end of and through the ware-
house. I think it must have been a month or two after I
went there that the smell became offensive. There is nothing
In the trade of a brushmaker requiring the use of chloride of
lime. The box I saw in the passage was just large enough to
contain a half hundredweight of chloride of lime.
Jane Rogers, wife of the last witness, said that early in
September, 1874, she was living with her husband at 84,
Whitechapel-road. They occupied the upper part of the
house. Early in the month she heard loud talking between
Mr. Wainwright and Mrs. King, but could not hear what
they said. She was rather affected by it, as she expected her
confinement, which took place on the 12th of that month.
On the night of the 10th she smelt chloride of lime, and
mentioned it to her husband. She had been shown some
hair by Inspector Fox, and it was of the same colour as Mrs.
King's and as frizzy. She had seen Mrs. King on several
occasions, had noticed the earrings she wore, and they were
similar to those produced. She knew Miss Wilmore, and
saw her at No. 84 frequently after the baby was born, and
before her removal to No. 215. She heard Miss Wilmore ask
Mr. Wainwright where Mrs. King was, and he replied that
he did not know, and that he was as anxious as she was
to ascertain her whereabouts. That was in the beginning
of October. She never heard Miss Wilmore ask Mr. Wain-
wright for money at No. 84.
Cross-examined by Mr. Healey: 1 went four or five times
with my husband when he took money to airs. King, at St.
Peter's-street and Sydney-square. I waited at the door with
her landlady until Mrs. King came home. I have been in
her company several times, but not for more than a few
minutes at a time. I think !have seen Mrs. King a great many
times. I saw her frequently in the shop No. 84, as that was
the only mode of egress from the house. It was in the latter
part of August or beginning of September that ,the distur-
bance was, because I was very much upset. After the birth
of my child the remembrance of the disturbance passed my
memory. lam certain that Mr. Wainwright and Mrs. King
were the persons who were talking loudly. The remembrance
of the disturbance did not return to my memory until
after Mr. Wainwright was in custody. I talked to my hus-
band about being upset The first time I went to have my
evidence taken down in writing was on the 18th September,
at the Home Office, and up to that time I made no statement
about this affair. My husband accompanied me. Before
that I was asked by the police if she wore earrings, and I
said "Yes, and they were fringed." The police then showed
me ft pair of earrings and some hair, and they resembled the
hair and earrings worn by Mrs. King. I saw my husband's
evidence in last Sunday's paper.
-•- - -

Re-examined: I described the hair to the police before I
was shown any of it I recognise the photograph (produced)
as that of Mrs. King. . _ . _ _

-
By the Magiatrate : The first time I knew Mrs: King was
a few months after my husband entered Wainwright's ser-
vice. I never had any particular private conversation with
Wainwright, and none about Mrs. King. I admired the ear-
rings because I thought they looked so good. I have seen
the prisoner Thomas at No. 84 on previous occasions. Ile Is
much altered, and he wore rather a long moustache. I never
saw him there when Mrs. King was there_

By Mr. Moody: Thomas came to No. 215, and I have not
seen him since then until I saw him in the dock. It was
about, two or three months since I saw him last.
Charles Tietjen, 48, Berners-street, Whitechapel, now in
the employ of a firm at Stratford, said: I was formerly a
porter in the service of Henry Wainwright, and went about
the same time as Mr. Rogers. l remained with him until July
of this year. I remember going to Bayliss, oilman, in White-
chapel-road, and took a cAse there to get some chloride of
lime. I took it from 84, and left it there, saying that I
came from Wainwrights, and was told " all right.' I
can't say exactly what day it was, but I know it was in
September last year. I did not see the case again. I used
to go to No. 216 to pack there, and I remember Mr. Rogers
going to live there. I noticed an unpleasant smell there
about a month before I left Wainwright's employ. It ap-
peared to come from the ashes from the Vine-court end, and
I spoke to Mr. Wainwright about it. I bought two separate
halfpenn yworths of chloride of lime:and threw it over the
ashes some days before they were removed, Since the fire
at No. 84 I saw the door at the end of the warehouse opened
once to allow of the removal of the fixtures.
Cross-examined by Mr. Bosley: I noticed no smell after I
had put the chloride of lime on the ashes, and I never no-
ticed any more smell. The ashes hart not been removed
when I left the •service in July.. Fokter,*. a detective, came
and asked nie about the case yesterday week, and I told him
that I took the case to Mr. Baylis. I married a detective's
daughter. I went to the Treasury eight days before I saw
Foster. I did not remember having taken the case to Baylis
until Foster asked me about it.
- - • - - - - - - - -

- -----
Re-examined by Mr. Poland: I told the people at the
Treasury all I knew about this ease, and what I have said
t,o-daY.

Charles Sawyer, brushmaker, Southwark-bridge-road,
said: I know the prisoner Henry Wainwright, and I entered
into partnership with him on the Ist of November, 1873, and
we carried on business at 84 and 216, Whitechapel-road
Neither of us resided on the premises, but I had a private
office on the first floor of No. 84. Mr. West, a clerk, lived
at No. 215 until July, 1874, and no one lived there until
November of that year. I took proceedings in Chancery to
dissolve the partnership in January, 1874. I obtained a
decree on the 12th of that month, and I was appointed
manager and receiver. In that capacity I took possession
of the keys of both premises. I examined the property
and cleared out the desks in the private office— both
Wainwright's and mine. I found a small square packet
of bullets in a drawer in the desk, of which we both had
a key. They did not belong to me. To the best of my
recollection they were such as would be used in a re-
volver. They were conical. I drew Wainwright's at-
tention to them, and asked if they were his. He ad-
mitted that they belonged to him, and I believe he took
them with him Toe partnership was solvent when I left
Wainwright went into liquidation in June, 1874, on his
private account. I was receiver up to the 13th of July, 1874,
and an arrangement was made that he should keep the stock
and the lease of the two houses, and I took the book debts.
After that I had nothing further to do with him. I do not
know Thomas 'Wainwright at all.

Cross-examined by Mr. Besley : The matter was taken out
of the Chancery Court by mutual arrangement. The police
came to me about the pistol which Wainwright had alleged I
had sold him, and I said that I had not sold him a pistol, but
that I once handed him some bullets.

By the Magistrate: The bullets I found in the desk were
larger than those I used in my revolver. I never saw a
pistol or revolver there which passed into Wainwright's
hands.

James Kay, a journeyman blacksmith, said that on the
11th of September, 1874, he was repairing a van on his
master's premises adjoining No. 215, Whitechapel-road, and
he heard three distinct and rapid reports of pistol shots,
which appeared to come from the next door—Wainwright's.

Cross-examined by Mr. Besley : I remember the icircum-
stance of the shots from the fact that we had a very heavy
job to do on a waggon, and I made an entry of the work
done in a book which I produce, and which is generally
kept hung up at the back of the door of the shop. After
Wainwright was taken into custody there was great
excitement in the neighbourhood, and I heard that
the surgeons had found three bullets in the head. A
gentleman from a newspaper asked me if I heard any
shots, and I said, "No." My brother William and Mr. Wise-
man, jun , were working with me on the van, and William
was the first who reminded me of the reports having been
heard. Sergeant Foster called on me on Monday, the 20th
September, produced his card, and took down my state-
ment. Last Monday week, the 27th September, I went to
the Treasury.
William Kay, wheelwright, corroborated the evidence of
his brother. When he heard the reports he ran and opened
the gates in Vine-court, but saw no one. He looked through
the keyhole in Pinell's yard, and he could not see any one
there. After that he returned to his work.

Cross•examioed by Mr. Besley : Since I saw the report of
Wainwright's arrest my brother and I have talked over the
matter, and each has reminded the other of different cir-
cumstances connected with the job on the big van.
James Wiseman, son of the wheelwright in whose employ
the Kays were, corroborated their evidence generally.
Cross-examined by Mr. Bosley: I had heard Pinell shoot-
ing, but I have not heard him shooting for the last six
months. One of the men in my father's employ asked me a
week ago if I remembered a shot being fired, but at first I
did not remember it.

By the Magistrate: Th shots from Mr. Pinell's pistol did
not produce so loud a report as those I heard while on the
job of the big van. I have never heard more than one shot
tired at once, with the exception of the evening on which we
were engaged en the van.

Frederick Pettigrew, ironmonger, 181, Whitechapel-road}
said: I have known both of the prisoners. About the 10th o,
September last I sold Thomas a spade and an axe. I canno"
say on what day it was, but I think it was ons Friday. It was
about noon. He came into my shop and paid 3s. for the two
articles. To the best of my belief the articles produced are like
those I sold him. He said he had an order for a spade and
an axe for a customer. I did not know where Thomas was
then living It was about a week after Henry was in custody
that I heard of it.

By Mr. Moody: I knew Thomas by name. I cannot fix
the exact date of the sale of the spade and axe.
By the Magistrate: I knew Thomas Wainwright well,
having been in the habit of seeing him for the past eight
years. When I have seen him I believe he was always the
same as he is to-day. I don't remember that he ever had a
moustache. The last time I saw him was about six months
previous to my selling him the spade and axe. I never knew
Thomas Wainwright by any other name.

Mrs. Elizabeth Taylor (sister of Harriet Lane) recalled and
examined by Mr. Poland, said; I mentioned that I saw a
telegram which was brought to me by Helen Wilmore.
Fowler (Mr. Eeles) had it at one time, but I never got it back.
I went to examine Harriet's boxes at Helen Wilmore's.
Fowler went with me, and he took charge of them until they
were sent down to Mr. Lane at Waltham. I have seen them
there On Monday I gave the envelopes (produced), one of
them containing a letter, to Sergeant Foster. I received
them on Saturday last from my brother-in-law (Mr. Allen),
who, I believe, brought them from home. The witness next
spoke to the mark on the right leg of her sister.
Cross-examined by Mr. Begley; The mark was on the
outside of the leg. I think I spoke of the mark to the
medical gentlemen.
The inquiry was again adjourned.

CHILD SEIZED BY A PANTHER.
The Houston (Texas) Telegraph gives the following:
—" Last Monday morning (September 13) a man and
wife, who live about nine miles east of Willis, left
home on business, leaving their house in charge of their
eldest child, about twelve years of age. Toward noon
the girl heard the infant, age fourteen months, which
had been laid while asleep on a bed in an adjoining
room, utter a horrid screech, upon which she imme-
diately ran to its relief Upon opening the door she saw a
huge panther with the babe in its mouth leaping from
an open window immediately over the bed. Like a
true heroine she sprang upon the bed and then out of
the window, screaming at the height of her voice, and,
upon being joined by the other children about the house,
pursued the panther at her utmost speed. They fol-
lowed about forty rods, to a pair of bars that separated
the clearing from the forest, at which place the girl
states that she approached to within fifteen or twenty
feet of the panther, when it relinquished its hold of the
child, leaped the bars, and made its way into the woods.
The infant was picked up much strangled from its rapid
movement through the grass and sand, which had filled
its mouth and eyes, but soon recovered, and is now
well, save a few scratches about its body, which have
the appearance of having been made by the panther's
teeth. These marks are very plain, and there are
several blood blisters where the teeth in slipping came
in contact. The girl states that the panther dropped
the child once before arriving at the fence, and it is
supposed the giving way of the clothing was the cause,
as it was much torn."