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

address. It was clear that Thomas Wainwright had altered
his appearance, and several people had expressed their
belief that he had called upon Mrs. King as Frieake. The
Attorney-General was referring to the call made by Thom,us
Wainwright and the discrep.mcy between Mr. Humphrey's
evidence and that of the landlady as to the date of the
occurrence, when
The Lord Chief Justice suggested that it was by no means
Impossible that Mr. Humphries might have made the entry
in the book when the glasses were returned, instead of when
they were lent.
- • -

. -
The Attorney-General said there appeared to be some mis-
take as to the actual date, but about the beginning of Sep-
tember, 1874, it was clear that Thomas called on Mrs. King
in Sydney square under the name of Frieake. Shortly after
she disappeared, and inquiries were tel on foot, Thomas
commenced writing letters to her friends in the name of
Frieitke, saying that she had gone away with him. The
letter to Miss Wilmore conveyed the impression that Harriet
Lane was to separate from her friends and her children.
When Thomas Wainwright was asked to write it, was he an
innocent man? If he were asked to write such a letter in igno-
rance of what had been done by his brother, he would have in-
quired what Henry's motive was in askipg him to pen such a
communication--he would have asked to be satisfied that
she was still alive before he would write such a letter. There
could be no doubt that Thomas had bought the spade and
chopper at the very time when, according to the theory of
the prosecution, Henry was making preparations to remove
the body, and on the morning that it was taken away he was
seen in conversation with his brother. Did Henry Wain-
wright cut up the body alone and unaided? If he did it in
the evening of the 18th September he had only a short time
at his disposal, as the days were short. He durst not
have a light on the premises. He could not have the
gas, for the fittings had been removed; and he durst not
have a lamp, for attention would have been thus called to his
presence there, and he was not entitled to possession. He hasi
now laid the case for the prosecution before the jury, and it
rested with them to say whether Thomas was or was
not an accessory before the fact. There was a second
charge of being accessory after the fact which they
would also consider. Both charges were of the gravest
description, and they would never dream of convict-
ing the prisoners excepting upon the most clear and
convincing proof, as, indeed, they would not do in regard to
any other crime. He asked them whether the explanation
given by the counsel for the prisoner was or was not the
explanation that could be given by reasonable men, aud
whether it was Consistent with his innocence; if it were,
then they were entitled to the verdict of the jurj, if not, then
the prisoners must be found guilty of the charge brought
against them.
On the conclusion of the learned Attorney-General's
address, which lasted till three o'clock, the Lord Chief
Justice said the Attorney-General had not occupied
one minute more than the magnitude and importance
of the case-required ; but it was now so late in the day
that he should not be able to do justice to the case if he
commenced the summing up at once. He should therefore
reserve it until the following day.