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

of the takings on the 10th of September that Thomas was
in the shop on that day.
Witness: [ should think Thomas was there all day. By
the slicet I bliould almost imagine that Thomas was there on
that day his takings were almost double those of the other
men. Witness did not know that prisoner was living at
Fulham.

Re-examined: His place of bminess was about ten or
twelve minutes' walk from Baker-street, and the Aletropodtan
Railway would then take him only to *Moorgate-street
Station.

CHARLES GEORGE GROVER, solicitor, said Thomas Wain-
wrigbt. consult, d him about opening the Hen and Chickens
in Februsry, 1875, sad the heads of a deed of partnership
between him mid Mr. Moore were prepared The lease and
the partnership deed, however, were never executed. After
the failure thomas consulted witness as to the surrender of
the premises, the time being about the 9th or 10th A,Uguat. He
was spoken to about the surrender for the first tire at the
beginning of that month.
Cross-examined: He knew Thomas Wainwright for the
first time in January, 1875, but he did not know !where he
then lived.
Do you know where he lived th August, 1875 ?—Yes; he
was then living at the Rosamond, Fulham. By his directinn,
I was to communicate with him at Fulham if I wanted to
write.

lie-examined: He did not know that Thomas lived there
of his oivn knowledge, but only because Thomas told him
to communicate with him (Thomas) there.
Mr. Moony then proceeded to sum up his case.' He said
he had now called two witnesses who had establiihed very
clearly that it could not have been present to the mind of
Thomas Wainwright that his premises at the "Hen and
Chickens" could have been made the place of deposit of
human remains when he was about to surrender them. In
the course of a very few mouths the landlord would have
been very glad to have the premises surrendered, and in
case any person entering should make alterations, and any
thing wrong should be found, who would have to answer
for it but the last occupier? Mr. Arkell was not bound to
Thomas by any ties of interest, and had no reason to say
anything but the truth. The jury had heard from him
that from March to September, 1874, a period covering the
whole time of the Frioake incident, Thomas was in his em-
ployment, that there was no cbauge in his face, and that
he wore a full moustache of a dark colour. if, then, Mr.
Arkell was to be believed, during the whole of that time
Thomas Wainwright could not have answered to the de-
scription given by several witnesses. The light whisker of
Mrs. Forster, the slight fair moustache of Miss Wilmore,
and the very little one of Miss Stanley all went. If that
were so, he would ask the jury to acquit Thomas Wain-
wright of any guilt whatever in connexion with the letter,
the chopper, and the spade. If Henry Wainwright wanted
to have a letter written, the last thing he would do
would be to say to his brother, "Come, take a share in the
infamy of this proceeding." Neither Mrs. Taylor, Miss
Wilmore, nor Mrs Allen expected Henry Wainwright,
and why should his brother? Things that might be un-
reasonable to suspect from other men might reasonably
be expected from a brother, and the writing of the letter
under the circumstances, he had shown was nothing
more than might be done by one brother for another. It
should not be forgotten that the charge was that, without
any adequate reason, Thomas Wainwright had made himself
a partner in a scheme of blood, and that he willingly
worked out and in every way aided and abetted the
scheme against a woman who had never injured or annoyed
him. The jury would say that such a charge ought to be
fully and inadequately supported by evidence beyond sus-
picion; but the evidence adduced was in one part open
to grave suspicion, in another it had been overthrown.
That Thomas Wainwright had not the kind of moustache
described by the witnesses for the prosecution was evident,
and the key was of too common a kind to have it sup-
posed that he would have given it to his brother for the
purpose alleged. Then there remained only the letter
marked E, and ho trusted the jury would fled that it was
written without any guilty knowledge. It would be their
duty and pleasure then to say that he was not guilty of either
of the charges preferred suainst him. And, whatever the
result to Henry Wainwright himself, it would be a great de-
light to him to hear :a. verdict of "Not Guilty" with regard
to Thomas ; it would be a consolation to him to know that
he had not involved in a dreadful fare a brother with whom
he had lived in the same house, and in whose welfare he had
always taken a warm and brotherly interest.

The Attorney. General, at the suggestion of the Lord
Chief Justice, deferred his summing up until the fol-
lowing day.

The Lord Chief Justice having taken his seat at a
few minutes past ten o'clock on Tuesday morning, the
eighth day of the trial,

Mr. BESLEY said his lordship had intimated yesterday
that he (Hr. Besley) might refer subsequently to any part of
the evidence which would justify the description he had
given of the hair as frizzy or curly. He had looked at the
depositions, and although a question elicited from one wit-
ness that the general term "frizzy" was that consistent with
the statement of Hiss Wilmore of the frizzing of the hair
over a pad, the evidenceeef relatives went to justify the
description he (Hr. Besley) had given of the hair being both
curly and ftSzzy.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL then rose to reply on behalf of
the Crown, of which the following is a condensed report :
He stated that he should deal with the arguments ad-
duced for the two prisoners in the order in which they
had been presented to the jury by the counsel for the
respective prisoners. Taking the defence advanced by NIL
Besley on behalf of Henry Wainwright first, the Attorney-
General raid he understood it meant that the case for the pro-
secution was incomplete and unsatisfactory, that taking some
of the evidence in detail it was weak, that it was open to grave
suspicion, that taking it in the mass it was not con-
elusive. Mr. Besley had specially commented on the
identity of the remains, and assumed that they were not
those of Harriet Lane. No doubt remains were found
in the possession of Henry Wainwright, but it was suggested
that they were not those of Harriet Lane, hut of a woman
who had received some wrong at Henry Wainwright's hands,
end who had caused her own death. Against the theory
the the woman had committed suicide the learned Attorney-
General proceeded to areue, showing that had the woman
attempted to kill herself with a pistol she would have aimed
at the heart or the forehead, whereas the contention of the
defence was either that she had fired into her hair pad
after lodging two bullets in her brain, or that she had
done what was most improbable, and that the last thing
a person attempting to commit suicide would do, com-
menced by trying to kill herself by firing the first
shot at the back of her head. The very suggestion that the
woman had so csmmitted suicide was an outrage upon the
common sense of the jury. Then, if they discarded the theory
that the woman had committed suicide, what explanation
had been given for the possession of the remains? If it were
not suicide, it was murder, or at least it must have been foul
play. It had been complained for the defence that the career
of Harriet Lane had net been traced Irene the time she left
home until her disappearance ; but it was unnecessary to do
so. They had her history from the year 1872, at which time
she was Henry Wainwright's mistress, he was keeping her
children, and in the places she lodged!ne was believed to be
her husband. What would it avail to tell the story of what had
taken place previously, and how the oonnection commenced
which culminated in those relations being established.
It was clear that in the year 1874 -Henry Wainwright was
in embarrassed circumstances, and at this time it was -ap-
parent that Mrs. wing was in consequence in difficulties.
With regard to the Freake episode, there was no other con-
clusion than that the person who called upon Iffrs.King under
that name was Thomas Wainwright. Assuming, for the
moment, that he was not, and that there was another
Frieake who had disappeared, why should Mrs. King have
gone away with him. All her ties would keep her in London,
and was it conceivable that she should go away with a man
who was almost a stranger to her, and make no communica-
tion with her children, of whom it had been shown that she
was very fund? Again, Henry Wainwright, it was proved,
was on terms of close intimacy with this Frieake, but
he had brought no evidence forward to show where he
had gone, or, indeed, anything to show that he was a
different person to Thomas. The evidence that Thomas
Wainwright was passing as Frieake was conclusive. The fact
that Thomas had visited Mrs. King on the sth September,
1874, was disputed, but Mr. Humpheeys, the proprietor of
the "Princess Alice," in Sydney-square, who had known
Thomas for years, was certain that he was in his house on the
afternoon ef that day, and that he took champagne to the
residence of Mrs. King, where it was shown he had passed as
Frieake. The evidence of Mr. Arkell had gone to confirm this
statement, because it was clear from the money-sheets that wit-
ness had produced that'Thomas Wainwright bad on that day
made scarcely any sales as compared with those of his fellow-
countermen, the deduction being that Thomas was away and in
the public-house in Sydney-square as stated by its landlord.
Referring to the evidence against Henry Waiuwright, the
Attorney-General said the evidence showed that that prisoner
had bought a quantity of chloride of lime, but it had not
been shown that it had been disposed of in any other way
than to cover the body. The men who had been called to
testify to the firing of the three shots showed, he thought, by
their demeanour in the box that they were anxious to tell
the truth. That the shots were fired at one time or another
was clear, and he asked the jury whether, in all probability
they were not fired on the 11th of September, 1874.
But if they even discarded the evidence of the
men who heard the pistol shots, and asked themselves
whether the body was that of Harriet Lane, could
they doubt that she met her death on the 11th Sep-
tember, and by the discharge of three pistol shots.
Assuming, again, that Harriet Lane had gone away with a
real Frieake, why should Henry Wainwright get his brother
to write a letter as from the Charing-cross Hotel on the 17th
September. Could the letter and the telegram w loch fol-
lowed it have been sent with any other object than to throw
people off the scent. Roger's reticence with regard to the
contents of the letter to Mrs. Wainwright must be attributed
to his long connection with the prisoner, and to his wish not
to say more against his old master than he was obliged, but
he was evidently a witness of truth. The fact that Henry en-
gaged Stokes to carry one of the parcels had been adduced
as a proof of innocence, but was it conceivable that a man
engaged in a wicked transaction should never make a
mistake. Again, ssith regard to the presence of Alice Day
in the cab, might not that have been done to divert sus-
picion from what he was doing. The prosecu-
tion said the remains were those of Harriet Lane, and
founded their contention on the fact that the large number
of distinctive features which were known to exist in regard
to that person were found with only one exception in the re-
mains. If there had been a correspondence in one or two
particulars alone it would not have been so strong a point,
but the distinctive features currespondedgin every respect but
one. With regard to that one point—as to whether the re-
mains were these of a woman who had been a mother—the
evidence was as much in favour of the theory of the prosecu-
tion as that of the defence. It was possible thattenore than one
woman might have some of these distinctive features, but it
was utterly incredible that any woman other than Harriet
Lane could possess them all. The most terrible fact
In the case, however, was the possession by Henry Wain-
wright of the mutilated remains of a dead woman, who had
evidently met her death by foul play. If the remains were
not those of Harriet 'Lane whose remains wero they, and
where was Harriet Lane scow? If Harriet Lane still lived,
could it be believed that she would have refused to come
forward to save the prisoneee life? Tier presence was de-
manded by justice; it was demanded by the love she bore her
children ; it was demanded for the honour of her children,
which was at eteke ; and for the life of the prismeer, which was
in jeopardy, and still she did not come forward? Why was
she silent? Because she was dead ! These, then, were the
msterial points which he wished to lay before the jury. As
for an adequate motive for the crime—God forbid that he
should call it an adequate, but at all events a conceivable
motive for the crime—was it not plain that Henry Wain-
wright was in embarrassed circumstances, and that Harriet
Lane was constantly importuning him for money? Was
it not also plain that the prisoner had got tired of these
Importunities? The murder was accordingly committed
and the body buried, but there came a time when it was
necessary to remove it, and In the dead of night, probably,
it was taken out of the grave in wlalch it had lain for a year,
chopped up, and packed away in two parcels, to be re-buried
in the house in the Borough. The Attorney-General was then
commencing to deal with the case against Thomas Wain-
wright, when

The Lord Chief Justice suggested that this would be
a convenient opportunity for wijourning for luncheon.
On the reasEenibling of the Court,

The Attorney-General resumed his address, and said he had
had an opportunity during the adjournment to look at the
shorthand-writer's notes of the evidence of Mr. Bond, the
surgeon, and he felt bound to call attention to it in reference
to the alleged discrepancy between the height of the remains
when pat together as compared with what was believed to be
the height of Harriet Lane. That evidence showed, not that the
bones had shrunk, but that there had been a contraction of the
ligaments, and a drying of the intervertebrat cartilages. This,
the Attorney-General continued, had caused the remains to '
be- shorter than the body had been in life, and
had produced the difference of an inch which there was
between the body and the sister of Harriet Lane,
who was alleged to be the same height. The learned gentle-
man then passed on to the case against Thomas Wainwright,
repeating at the outset his former opinion that the charm>.
tett of the evidence against each was essentially different.
That prisoner had been defended in a speech of great ability,
and scarcely a point that could be adduced in his favour had
beers left untouched. In the case against him, he (the At-
torney-General) began with the allegation that Thomas Wain-
wright, for some reason or other—it might be from affection
for his brother, or only a desire to serve him, it might be from
some less worthy motive, a motive which had its origin in
some advantage to himself—the accusation was that he had
lent himself to a plot which had been instituted by his
brother, and that he passed himself off as a man named
Frieake ; as, in fact, the person named Frieake who lived in
Coleman-street, and was a friend of Henry Wain-
wright. That Mrs. King believed she was addressing
the Frieake of Moorgate-street was clear by the fact
that she had written to a person of that name at that

:•.j •
,rt,)i4:14"i..-,1