The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1875-12-04 00:00:00

twenty to twenty-five or twenty-six years of age. If the
wisdom tooth was only just appearing over the gum I might
be of opinion that the remains were those of a woman not
more than twenty-four.
By the Lord chief Justice: There would probably be a

shrinking of the body twelve months after death.
Mr. FREDERICK GEORGE AIIBIN also gave the result of an
examination of the rems.ins opposed in certain points to the
medical evidence called for the prosecution.
Mr. EDWARD MARTIN,
_replying. to Mr Straight, said: I

carry on business at 78,, New-road, Whitechapel is a corn
merchant, and was conducting business there in September,
1574. In that year I had two vans for the purposes of my
business—one was big, the other was a small van. I was in
the habit from
.time to time uf baying my repairs done at
Mr. Wiseman's. By referring to my book I find an entry
in September with reference to the van. It is to the effect
that the small van being completed, there was paid by me
to Wiseman, on the 4th of September, £3 10s. on account.
Then there was another payment on the 9th of September,
of £7 lOs , of which £5 10s. was for the small van and
Ll 15s. for the large. These small payments are always
cash—f always tell Wiseman, if he don't get it then he
will-not get it at all. Referring to my day-book, I find
on the le th of September, 116 bags of rice were fetched
from the mill at Wapping in one load. That was a load
which would require the large van, besides which there are
two entries for the small van of 358 bags and 22 bags. On
the 11th of September there is one entry of three tons of rice
sent to Queen's wharf, which the one-horse van could not
have carried. It, therefore, went by the large van, and
would occupy half a day. Mr. Pollard came to me from the
Treasury and examined my books. Henry Wainwright
entered my service in May or June, 1875, and was in my
employ at the time he was taken into custody. He acted as
manager. During that time he was very regular and well
conducted. He came at eight in the morning and left at
eight in tile evening. On the 10th and 11th of September
he was engaged at my place of business. I knew his father
for thirty years, but I have only known him about two years.
He always bore the character of ktender-hearted, humane

Mr. MoodY.:. Yeur attention havine been celled to the 10th
nf'Sentemte,r, did you f, es Thomas Wainwright on that day?
Ncs;ldon't think I have seen him for more than twice alto-
gether, and certaiely not on that day.
Cros.s•examined by the Attorney-General: I knew old Mr.
Win Wright well. He was the first man who spoke to me in
Wnitechapel thirty years ago. I live, at Carlton-villa,
Clapton. I generally leave the shop by the ten minutes to
eight or five minutes to nine tram. I have only two, places
of business, the rice mill and the corn. The brush-making
business was done more for his benefit tati for mine. He
had about £3 a week. He managed ere brush business,
giving orders for £lOO or £l5O a year. It was his business
practically. When I carried it on it was at the upper
part of 78, New-road, and the brushes were made at
105, opposite. It was a profitable business. He was manager
from May or June to the time when he was arrested. I
intended to carry on the business till I recovered the £3OO
or £4OO that I had advanced, and then the business would
have been his. My principal object was to benefit him.
The brush business was apart from the corn business, though
.both were carried on on the same premises. When Mr.
Pollard came I showed him my cash-book, and said I would
find the bilL I afforded every assistance I could to him.
[Bills produced.] That bill of the 29th of August, 1874, is
for the sm di van. lam sure there was not another bill due
to Wiseman then, or I should have paid him at once. I
never take credit. I think I have paid on account before the
work is delivered. [The witness produced his cash-book,
and some time was taken up in putting questions to ascer-
tain whether he sad not left £2 standing of an account of
£5 10a. due to Mr. Wiseman for repairing a large and a
small van.]

The Rev. JoHN TEMA.% examined by Mr. Straight, de-
posed: lam an Independent minister. I have known the
prison t r Henry Wainwright about eighteen years, and dur-
ing all that time he has borne the character of a humane and
kind-hearted man.

WILLIAM THOMAS GOODE deposed: I reside at 313, White-
chapel-road, and am a tailor. I have known Henry Wain-
wright about sixteen years, and during all that time he has
borne the character of a humane and kind-hearted man.

After Mr. Munroe, a member of the Metropolitan Board of
Works, Mr. Myerscroft, Mr. Lacy, chemist, Mr. Ludbrooke,
Mr. Bnrdon, ma/ringer of chemical works in Whitechapel,
and a number of other witnesses to character had been
called, mostly tradesmen of Whitechapel and Mile-end, all
of whom replied, after stating the number of years they had
known the prisoner Henry, in the affirmative to the question
put to them by Mr. Straight, "Has he always since you have
known him borne a high character for humanity and kind-
ness of disposition."

Mr. Beeley asked to have his Lordship's assent to a pto-
posal to rum up his case before the evidence in the case of
Thomas Wainwright was taken. He desired to do so, he
said, lest he should be tempted to depart from his true line
of duty—namely, to sum up his case utterly regardless of any-
thing which might be said with regard to the case of the other-
prisoner.
The Lord Chief Justice raid if the learned counsel thought
that the most convenient course he mightiadopt it. He was
anxious that both learned counsel for the defence should
manage their case in the way they thought best. It would
be better, therefore, that the course suggested should be
taken. Ile could, therefore, sum up his case when all the
witnesses has been taken, and Mr. Moody would do the
same. He was afraid, however, that when that was done,
and when Mr. Attorney-General had replied, they would
have gone too far into Monday for' him to sum up the case.
It was necessary for him to have full time to consider it
in all its bearings. He was afraid, therefore, that they
(addressing the jury) would not only be kept to Monday,
but into Tuesday. In taking leave of them to Moaday
morning the_onlx thing be would say was to suggest to them
that tilt they had heard the witnesses for the other prisoner
( l'homas Wainwright), until they had heard the addresses
of all the learned counsel on both sides, and until they had
heard also -what he had to say, the less they discussed the
matter the better, Ihey had not yet the whole cage before
them, and if they talked much about it among themselves
they might be apt,to get impressions which it might be diffi-
cult 'afterwards to remove. With the exception, therefore,
of talking over matters connected with the trial, he hoped
they would make themselves as comfortable as possible till
Monday morning.

The jury were then escorted back to their. quarters
at the Cannon-street Hotel, and the Court adjourned
until Monday morning,

On Monday morning the Court resumed at half-past
ten o'clock, when the foreman of the jury said to the
judge that the jury- desired to thank his lordship and
the sheriffs and unclersheriffs for the arrangements
that had been made for their comfort during Sunday.
The Judge was glad to hear of their comfort, for
which they were entirely indebted to the under-
sheriffs.

Mr. BESLEY, in summing up the evidence for the defence
of Henry Wainwright, said of course the jury did not anti-
cipate tht,t he was about to.address them again on the many
topics included in his speech of Saturday. It would be no
compliment to themi I he were to assume that the attention
which they had bestowed on his remarks was of so ephemeral
a character that it would he necessary to go over the same
ground again. When the Legislature gave to counsel for tt e
prisoner the power of summing up, the object was that when
evidence for the defence had been put before the fury, it
might be desirable that the prisoner's counsel should make
some remarks upon it.
•

The *Judge said the intention of the Legislature was to
entitle a prisoner's counsel to treat a case at this stage as one
open to his observation from beginning to end. The jury
had, however, given the most marked attention, and there-
it might be ur.necessary for the learned counsel to go through
the entire case; nevertheless, he begged Mr. Besley to con-
sider himself under no restraint as to the length of his obser-
vations.

Mr. Besley raid he felt that there would be certainly a pro-
bability of a cobtrast being made—a contrast not justified—
tetween the mode of treating the same subject on Saturday
and on Monday morning, and it was not from mere vanity
on his part that he did not propose to go over the same
ground as he had gone over on Saturday, except so far as the
ground was affected by the nz,ve evidence that he had adduced
at the close of his address on that day. One remark he would
repeat, that in a case depending so much upon circumstantial
evidence it was necessary that every link of the chain should
be complete, and if one of those links snapped it was the duty
o! the jury to pronounce that thst part of the case was
doubtful, and it being thus incomplete it was their duty
to give the benefit of the doubt to the prisoner. In one par-
ticular respect did he maintain that the chain of evidence
adduced on behalf of the prosecution was incomplete, and
that was in reference to the day upon which,it was alleged
the death hail taken place. The prosecution had endeavoured
"to prove that this occurrence most have taken place on
the 11th September, and the evidence rested upon the date
at which it was said three shots had been heard by two
of Mr. Wiseman's workmen and his son. These three
witnesses had fixed the date by the circumstance of their
having the 'big van belonging to Mr. Martin to repair.
But against this statement they bad the evidence; of
Mr. Martin himself that on the 11th September, 1874, he
sent three tons of rice to the docks, a load which no single
horse could have drawn. The learned 'counsel then com-
mented at some length upon the evidence of Mr. Meadews
with reference to the examination of certain parts of the
body, and the deductions he had drawn from it: That gen-
tleman had not endeavoured to conceal from the jury the
• difficulties of his inference, but he had said that his mind
was inelined to the belief that the remains he had examined
were those of a woman who had not been a mother. Dr. Mea-
,dows had also given impartial evidence with reference to the
hair. Chloride of Bane was a bleaching agent, and thedury
would expect, and they ought to have expected, that, with a
bleaching agent acting for a long period of time on the hair,
the colour would become lighter. A fter adverting to Mr.
Aubin's evidence, the learned counsel said that with regard
to the hair, some of it had been produced which had
not J)een subject to the combing and cleaning process,
and it was not in the state at all like that which had
undergone those processes. This vfashing and cleans-
ing of the hair were necessary to produce appear.
ances in the hair like those of Harriet Lane. All
her friends saw the hair which had not been washed and
brought to that condition, and singularly enough there was
not one that recognised it, but said'it was like the hair of
Harriet Lone only a little darker. If that were clear, the
hair of the human remains was that of a body which had
lighter hair than that of Herriet Lane. Again, was there any
appearance of waviness or frizziness in the hair produced
from the body, and which it had been contended-was that of
Harriet Lane, and which the witnesses had stated was a
characteristic of that person's hair.
The Lord Chief Justice remarked that the witnesses had
used the expression that her hair was frizzed.
Mr. Besley then went on to deal with the question of age,
and he contended that the evidence given on this point by the
prosecution was very unsatisfactory, the age being fixed at
25 years solely in consequence of the condition of the
wisdom teeth, which really afforded no sufficient test. As
to the decayed tooth, he would not repeat on that point
the arguments which he' had used on Saturday,
and with referenee to the height of the figure, he
-insisted strongly on the fact that the remains were
those of a woman of less stature than Harriet Lane,
and that Let alone would be sufficient to prove that
no kentity could be established. The elder prisoner's
character had been spoken to as that of a kind and
humane man, and it was not likely that he would for-
feit the character of a lifetime by so terrible an
•a 4 as that with which he now stood charged. In
conclusion, Mr. Healey reminded the jury that when they
retired they would have to ask themsdves whether this was
a case of murder at all ; add secondly, were the remains which
had been found the remains of Harriet Lane. He had
touched in his opening speech upon the respontibility of the
Jury. He deeply felt Ids own, and he hoped that, however,
imperfectly he might have discharged his duty, he would at
all events be credited with having discharged it seriously
and honestly. Ile implored the jury to remember the awful
Issues which such a trial involved, and to remember, also,
before they condemned a living man to death, that their ver-
dict was one from which there was no appeal.

Mr:. Moody then addressed the Court on behalf of
Thoinas Wainwright, of which the following is an out-,
line t • ' • " • ' . .
The jury Wonld remember, he add, the earnest and touch-
ing words of his lssrned friend (Mr. Begley) as to toe solemn
nature of the duty devolving upoti all engaged in the trial.
His learned friend had" treated the subject so well that he
(Mr. Moody) could add but little to What he had
salt; end to travel over the ground again would
be superfluous. Ile thew proceeded to point out that if the
jury shodikthink-the emains found were -mot those of
ilarriet.Lene,.Thelie, would of course, be an end of the charge
against Thomas Wainwright, as what had been called the
Frieake incident wouldttease to have any weight or im-
poi Lame. Bat Lithe jury considered that they Were Harriet
Lane's remains they must bear in mind that the plot which
it was sought to establish for inducing the woman to dis-
appear involved a mass of contradictions and improbabilities
which it was difficult to reconcile with any reasonable
theory. .:Assuming for a -moment even that Thomas Wain-
wright had visited Mrs.. King at Mrs. Wells', and that he had
assumed the name of Frieake, it the contention of the prose-
cution were worth anything it was that there was a design to
murder Tfarrlet Lane so far back as January, 1874. The only
ground that the prosecution alleged for this act was that Henry
Wainwright had become wearied of her ; but did his conduct
show this? He (Sir. Moodv) contended, on the contrary,
that the conduct of Henry Wainivright had_ not shown that
any such aversion existed'. It was alleged that there
was a plot between the brothers to murder Harriet Lane, but
if this were to would Thomas be likely to take the name of a
person so well known as Mr. Frieake, who was regarded
almoit. as. a public character. He thought he should be able
to show to the satisfaction of the jury that the evidence as to
Thomas. Wainwright's share in a design—if such a designthere
W5-$O murder Harriet Lane, was proved by the prosecution