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

THE JUDGE'S SUMMING UP.

The Lord Chief Justice took his seat on the bench
on Wednesday morning (the ninth day) at a few
minutes past ten o'clock. The court was crowded in
every part, and all the approaches were BO thronged
with people vainly seeking admission that it was a
very difficult matter save for those who had business
there, to obtain admission. It was remarked that the
prisoners were very little changed from the appearance
they presented at the commencement of the trial.
When the Lord Chief Justice commenced his charge
to the jury, the extreme silence which was maintained
in the court was very impressive, and his lordship's
opening sentences were marked with great solemnity
of tone and manner.—The following is a condensed
report of his lordship's summing up :
His lordship, after remarking on the close and unflagging
attention which the jury had given to the case, said they
started with a fact of primary importance—that on the 11th
of September the prisoner Henry Wainwright was found in
possession of the mangled remains of a body that had been
severed by some rough instrument, that those remains
had been recently taken from a grave on the prisoner's
premises, and that the death of the person whose remains
they were had been occasioned by pistol shots. The jury
would have to inquire whether the life thus taken by foul
means was taken by the prisoner. Thera could be no doubt
In this case that the life was taken by violence; the
question for the jury was whether it was the prisoner by
whose hands that life was taken. Incidentally, another
point was as to the identity of the person murdered; for,
although the law held a man responsible who had taken the
life of the veriest stranger, yet if the identity was established
then the existence of some motive for the crime became
essential. The question, therefore, whether the remains in
this case were those of Harriet Louisa Lane was of very
great importance. The evidence to establish the identity
was twofold—partly direct, consisting of marks on the miss-
ing woman and portions of her clothing, and partly circum-
stantial, consisting of the facts and history of the case.
Every event in the case was important, and he would now
trace the circumstances that had been proved.

Considering, first, the narrative of Harriet Lane's associa-
tion with henry Wainwright, her bearing children to him,
going by his assumed name as his wife, and living at lodgings
which he took for her, he (the Judge) found that everything
appeared to have been comfortable between them up to May
20 of last year, when the story entered a new phase. On that
date Harriet lane pawned her wedding ring, and from that
time until September she parted with ever) thing she could
dispose of. It did not eels( ar that the prisoner hart ever an
intention of deserting the weinan, and they must look for the
cause of the change that occurred early last year in the altera-
tion that had taken place In his circumstances. Up to the cud
of 1873 Henry Wainwright appeared to have carried on a suc-
cessful business. Whether from extravagance or from those
losses which would occur in trade, he was pressed by his
creditors and obliged to have recourse to siquidation. On
May 15 a meeting of creditors took place, and it was re-
solved to accept a composition of 123. in the pound in three
instalments, the first, of 65., to be paid within one week. The
papers showed that the amount of his debts was £3,250,
besides a considerable debt to his brother William. The first
dividend was net paid until July, and the prisoner was,
therefore, in a state of great pecuniary difficulty. He had
to keep up his own establishment in Tredegar-square,
where his wife and five children lived, and, moreover, he
had to keep the unfortunate Harriet Lane, who,
having before been maintained by his liberality, or
it might be extravagance, in a condition of comparative
comfort upon an allowance of £5 a week appeared to have
had no disposition to have recourse to her own industry to
support herself and her children. The prisoner, in these
difficulties, apparently did not go near Harriet Lane from
May to September, although he sent to her; but she knew
his place of business, an was there, according to 31,5.
Rogers, more than twenty times. Scenes of auger and re-
crimination occurred between her and Wainwright. Rogers
and his wife spoke to one remarkable time when an alterca-
tion ended in the prisoner writing a letter threatening to
commit suicide, and Mrs. King fell fainting on the floor.
The defence suggested that those witnesses had committed
perjury : but he (the Judge) saw nothing to show that the
Rogerses had committed such an atrocious crime, and,
accepting the story as true, it proved the unfortunate
position of the two parties. There could be no doubt that
Harriet Lane was a heavy burden to him, and that she was
in his estimation a constant source of danger. Ile had not
enough to satisfy her • she was clamorous and apt to bu ill-
tempered. He was, therefore, living on the edge of a vol-
cano both in respect to his domestic life and his public life.
Whether all these circumstances afforded anything like an
adequate motive for taking the life of the unfortunate
woman was a point upon which the jury must exercise their
judgment. Undoubtedly in August, or early in September,
the prisoner desired to get her out of the apartments at
Mrs Foster's and place her somewhere else—to make some
arrangements which might pacify if they did not satisfy her
This (his lordship remarked) introduced a curious episode,
which had been called this Frieake episode. [ln the course
of his comments at this stage of the case, his lordship com-
mented on the marked ability with which the defence had
been conducted, and also on the great fairness which had
characteris.d the proceedings of the Attorney-General in
leading the prosecution. As the Attorney-General was not
now in court, he (the Lord Chief Justice) might take the
liberty of saying that he had conducted the prosecution in a
manner altiegther worthy of the high office he held]. With-
out throwiTlFlßiey reflection upon Mrs. Foster (continued his
lordship) she did not appear to be the most intelligent wit-
ness they had had. But Humphreys proved that the pri-
soners were at his house on the sth of September, when
Thomas Wainwright took out two bottles of champagne.
This was the same night that Mrs. Foster borrowed cham-
pagne glasses because "'Mr. Frieake ' had called to see
Mrs, King. It was also that night in the week, (Saturday),
when Thomas Wainwright would have least difficulty in getting
away from business early. Whoever "Mr. Frieake " was, he
had been introduced to Mrs. King by Henry Wainwright, and
the latter's letter of September 5 said, "E: F. would call
upon her that evening." What was the motive of this intro-
duction of Mr. Frieake to Mrs. King? This was one of the
most mysterious parts of the case. The prosecution suggested
that, having resolved to murder the woman, and fearing he
would be thought responsible for her disappearance, he had
concocted a plan which would lead her friends to suppose
she had gone off with another man. Was no other theory
admissible? He (the Judge) thought there was. Henry
Wainwright might have desired to assist her by some scheme
whereby she might obtain her future subsistence, and she
might have required some substantial guarantee that she
would be aid( d—for instance, in a millinery business, until else
could carry it on alone. If Henry proposed his brother as
such guarantee she would have laughed him to scorn ;
but she would have been satisfied with the name of Mr.
Frieake, whom she knew to be a respectable man, and a
friend of Henry Wainwright. Another hypothesis was that
Henry might have got his brother to assume this name, with-
out any incention of carrying out his promise of help to her,
but merely to pacify her for the tune. Her letter to Mr.
Frieake led him (the judge) to the conclusion that some
scneme had been proposed to her, to which she had not been
willing at first to accede, but, having well considered it, she
wrote that if he and " Harry " would come again, "things
might be satisfactorily arranged." Was this scheme proposed
Sons] fide, or with the intention of deceiving her, but to
pacify her for the time? Either theory was consistent with
the evidence. Some scheme was surely contemplated, for, if
Mrs. King was going into any business she would want to be
somewhat free from the children, and on the 3rd of
August negotiations were opened with Miss Wilmore
by Henry Wainwright to take a house jointly with
Mrs. King. Miss Wilmore declined to tio that, but
undertook the charge of the children. At that time could
thejary suppose a plan had been formed for a murder to be
committed, and for Thomas Wainwright afterwards to cover
her disappearance in the name of Frieake? If not, then the
charge against him of being accessory before the fact failed.
The disturbance in the street led to Mrs. King receiving
notice to leave her lodgings. She could not go on
September 9, when the notice expired, because she had not
paid what she owed; but on the leth Waiuwright had gut
some money and given it to her, wilts which she redeemed
her things out of pawn, paid her bills, and bought, among;
other things, some buttons for her dress, of which two re-
mained over, arid were put in a et iy-box. When she left
B:they-square on the 11th with a nightdress only she un-
doubtedly thought she had some future, if not
a brilliant one, before her. She mint have told Miss
Wilmore what her prospects were : but unfortunately
our rules of evidence, which sometimes sto, d sadly
in the way of the inveetie ation of truth, prevented
it being stated what she had said. They could infer, how-
ever, what she did not say. It was clear that she was not
going a long distance, and that her stay was not to be pro-
tracted ; she could not have hell going to Brighton, for Miss
Wilmore's exclamatien on hearing the story was, "Why, she
has got no clothes." What became of her? Undoubtedly a
body was buried on Beery Wainwright's premises, which cor-
responded in many particulars with Harriet Lane, a body
which by a singular coincidence the prisoner exhumed and
removed on the anniversary of the day that Harriet Lane
disappeared. Between those two dstes came 'the inquilLs
by Miss Wslmore and Mrs. King's friends as to what had be
come of her. Henry Wainwright first said he had given her
money for an outfit and she had gone away, and yet only just
before he had found it difficult to proves° her with mousy
enough to leave Sidney-square, sioce she lied to borrow
£2 worn Miss Wilmore. Subsequently his story was
that she had gone away with Isis friend Edward Frieake.
Then followed the letter. in that name, which was un-
doubtedly written by Thomas Wainwright. It was a craftily
devised letter, for it not only sought to put off Miss Wilmore
from making further inquiries, but also gave en apparent
reason why she should acquiesce in Mrs. King's future
silence. To the letter succeeded a telegram from Dover
stating that they were off to Paris; and Henry Wainwright
told the women that he had received both letter and tele-
gram corresponding with theirs. It did not much matter
who sent the telegrams ; but, whoever wrote the letter and
sent the telegrams, whether one person or two, were clearly
carrying out a scheme intended to deceive those who were
anxiously inquiring tor Mrs. King.
The interviews between Eeles and Mr. Lane with the
prisoner and with the real Mr. Frieake came next for re-
view. Unquestionably, said his lordship, the prisoner's
statements were contradictory—that the woman had gone to
Brighton, that she was with Teddy Frieake, a friend of his,
and an auctioneer, and when Mr. Frieake confronted him,
that it was another man called Frieake. Was that man
reality? If he was the prisoner could have produced him,
or some reasonable explanation to account for Isis absence.
His representations had their effect; the inquiry was
baffled; no one suspected any foul play. Yet all the time
there lay in a small shallow grave at the back of Wain-
wright's premises, undergoing the gradual decey
which was the destiny of the human substance when
life had fled, the body of a woman corresponding in many
If not in all particulars with the missing woman. The in-
quiries ceased, and meanwhile, from the prisoner's pecuniary

lembarrassment, there came the necessity of offering the
lease of his premises for sale. Inasmuch as the accidental
discovery of the body by a new tenant would have been an
I awkward thing for the prisoner, he made up his mind to re-
move it from its hiding-place. In the Borough were .some
empty premises, the "Hen and Chickens," which had
been in Thomas Wainwright's possession, and which in-
cluded two cellars, the inner one having no door, but
being entered by a hole under the wall. If the remains
could be passed through the hole and covered with
the loose earth that lay in the inner cellar, if not safe—
for no place was safe in such a case—yet they would have
beeLsafer. than at No. 216. To remove the body to this
• cellar, as Henry Wainwright resolved, it was necessary to
- cut it up.' An entire dead body could not be carried through
the streets of London without attracting the attention of the
police. For this purpose he needed materials to dig up and
cut up'the body, to pack and tie it Accordingly, oh the 10th
of,September last he purchased Ametican cloth and string,
and Tlibmas bought a chopper and spade. . The reniains were
made up in two parcels, which Stokes assisted him to remove
to a cab. His lordship then reviewed the circumstances con-
nected with the arrest of Henry Wainwright, and the inade-
quate reason he gave for the possession of the body. Fol-
lowing on this came the search of the premises at No.
215, Whitechapel-road, the discovery of the grave, of the
chopper, and of the other articles found on the premises,
and the various other incidents of the cake down
to the final committal of Henry Wainwright, together
with his brother Thomas. The grave found at No. 216,
was unquestionably the grave in which the body had been
buried, and from which it had been recently exhumed.
Taking all the circumstances into account, no doubt could
De left on the mind of any one that the body had been dis-
interred between the 10th and 11th September, and that it
had been chopped up. .
The Lord Chief Justice next invited the jury to consider
how the woman whose body was discovered camp by her
death. He reviewed the evidence on the point, andtcleciared
that no doubt could exist fn the mind of any one that the
woman had been deprived of life by the bullets found in the
brain. One of those bullets took the life, and the 'other
was fired while life was ebbing and all bnt gone
It was probable that the 'murderer came up from
behind and fired his first shot—the .. one fduud 'hr
the hair pad —at the liaok of the head i but
the bullet was prevented - from penetrating by the
mass of hair and the pad. Finding that that shot had
not taken effect, the murderer fired again just behind the
right ear, and then, not certain that that would answer the
purpose and at once destroy life, he fired a third time some-
what further towards the trout. Then the throat was cut,
but it was quite possible that it had been inflicted after
death, and that there had been no bleeding from it be-
cause the circulation had stopped. They started with
the fact that by those pistol shots or by the cutting of
the throat, combined or separate, life was taken; the
question now arose, by whom was that done, and was
the prisoner the guilty party? The body had been
found in his possession, and had he given a satisfactory ac-
count of it? There was a state of things analagous to it in
other cases tried in a court of justice, the possession of stolen
property. If a man were found, for example, in the posses-
sion of a watch it was a fair assumption, if he could not ac-
count for it satisfactorily, that he had taken means to acquire
it that other circumstances showed were felonious. If they
found a man removing a body from one place to another,
the presumption might fairly be that the man who re•
moved it must have been the man who put it in the hiding
place, and it they found him dealing with it, and having
recourse to concealment, there was still further reason why
he should give a satisfactory accomit of how he became pos-
sessed of it. It was only reasonable and in accordanee with
common sense to say, when a man concealed the body of a
woman who had been murdered, "What is your motive for
concealment? Are you the murderer?" He (thei Lord
Chief Justice) had listened with the greatest pains to the
address of the counsel for the prisoner to see if
he could offer any satisfactory explanation of the i
conduct of the prisoner in taking up the body,
in order to transfer it elsewhere, the transfer being made for
the purpose of concealment. The only explanation offered, ,
however, was the vague and wild one that the woman I
had committed suicide. Such an explanation, how-
ever, stopping where it did, was obviously absurd It
might have been different it there had been anything
which tended to show that the woman had in some moment
of frantic passion taken her own life in the presence of the
prisoner, for then those things which pressed heavily against
him now might have been capable of an explanation consistent
with his innocence. lithe theory of suicide had been possible,
it might have stood the prisoner in good stead, but in the
form in which it had been suggested on the prisoner's behalf,
it was not possible, and there was the fact that the prisoner
had a dead body in his possession, and was] endeavouring se. '
cretly to conceal it, and of the possession of that body he
could offer no such explanation as the circumstances would
warrant. It was far more reasonable to suppose that the
shots were tired from behind with the intention that they
should penetrate the skull, and by some one who ap-
proached from behind, than by a person who endea-
voured to commit suicide, and he would nibt be likely
to fire a shot into the mass of hair behind her head. Is
was for the jury, looking at all the circumstances of the case,
to consider whether this was a murder or suicide. Now he
approached a very important part of the case. They had it
established that death had probably occurred through the
firing of a pistol bullet; but were the remains thoise of
Harriet Louisa Lane? The body had been buried about the
time she had disappeareld, and although the features :were
unrecognisable, the- age would appear to have cor-
responded. • His lordship then reviewed the evidence
given by the various witnesses as to the identification ,
of the remains, and left it to the jury , to
determine if there was sufficient resemblance between the
remains and the description of Harriet Lane given by her
relatives to satisily there upon the question of identity.
Turning next to the question of dress, the Lord Chief
Justice dwelt on tbe peculiarities of that known to have been
worn by Harriet Lane, and the fragments found in the grave
at Ao. 215. Leaving the question of dress, like that of
personal identity, to the jury, his lordship, having concluded
the direct evidence in the case, turned to the second branch
of it, the indirect or cireumstantial evidence, and the facts
or history of the case itself. First, as to the disappearance of
Mrs. King. She was, as he had already mentioned, attached
to her relatives, and, to a certain extent, to her children ,ii and
she had since her disappearance never inquired what' had
become of them Where was she? The question was verypro-
perly asked, for unless it could be ptoved that she was some-
where and in hiding, it was impossible to believe that she
would allow the man whom she had loved and to whom she had
borne children, to suffer. It was impossible to conceive con-
duct so unnatural. Wily should she not come forward if she
were in existence? So long as she could be supposed to have
gone away with Frieake, and that she had agreed not
to communicate with her friends upon the condition that he ,
should keep her in comfort and affluence, it could be under- ,
stood that wordly interest might predominate over other
desires, and that she had yielded to his request ; but when it I
was found that Frieake had vanished, that he was a delusion,
and that there never was such a man to insist upon any
such conditions, any supposed motive which could have
operated upon her mind was gone. Against this was
to be set the fact that Miss Wil more had stated that
she believed she had seen her. But what was
that? Miss Willmore was passing through a crowded
thoroughfare, and she saw a lady and gentleman in a gab,
and the lady she thought was Harriet Lane. She saw, besides
a passing resemblance, the colour of the hair. But that
colour would not have been confined to Harriet Lane. Could
It be believed that that passing impression of the moment had
any reality? What struck Miss Wilmore most was
the colour of the hair, but that was common to hundreds of
people besides Harriet Lane. It would be for the jury to make
up their minds on all these matters. If the body buried in the
Whitechapel-road premises was not the body of Harriet Lane
whose was it? It it was not the body ox Harriet Lane,
why should the prisoner have been disturbing it and taking
it up and transferring it to another place? The body
was found on Henry Wainwright's premises, and the
natural inference was that he had buried it, awl if he
burled it the natural inference was that he did so
because he had killed it, because if it had been killed
by some one else the prisoner would not have put him-
self to the trouble which he had taken about it. There
was reason to believe that the death of the woman was
brought about by the act of Henry Wainwright, and
strong evidence on that point was afforded by the previous
purchase of the chloride of lime in which the body vi,as
afterwards buried. The evidence as to the purchase of
the chloride of lime was conclusive, but the 'counsel for
the prisoner contended that the account given of it by
the prisoner was true—namely, that it had been bought
for a purchaser at Southend. But, if that were the case,
what had become of the purchaser? Surely it would
have been easy to prove that the chloride of lime had
been sent on to Southend, but not a particle of evidence
was forthcoming on. the subject. The proof that Henry
'Wainwright had a revolver and cartridges in his pos-
session showed that he had the means of killing the woman
in the way in which she appeared to have been killed, and
the evidence as to hearing the three shots fired was another
strong feature in the case. The jury had to ask themselves
were the remains those of Harriet Lane? Had the prisoner
a motive for killing her? Was she killed by shots from a
gun? Did the prisoner kill her? If the body found was
the body of Harriet, Lane, Harriet Lane perished by the
hands of an assassin. All the facts of the case pointed to
the fact that the body was murdered by somebody, If the
jail entertained any reasonable doubt in the case, it was
their (Pity to give Henry Wainwright the benefit of that doubt
—if the doubt were one which would fairly arise in their
minds as reasonable, thinking men. But if the facts taken for
and against brought them irresistibly to the conclusion that
the woman fell by Henry Wainwright's hands, then, sad and
painful as the duty Might be, the jury, by the oath they
had taken well and truly to try between the Crown and
the prisoner, must do that duty sternly and thoroughly;
The Lord Chief Justice, in conclusion, dealt with the case at
it affected the younger prisoner on the charge of being ati
accessory after the fact. The theory set up by the counsel
for Thomas Wainwright was ingenious and it might be true
—namely, that he had acted at the instigation of his brother
without being at all aware of what were the real facts. The
Lord Chief Justice carefully summarised the evidence on tile
point, and told them that to find that prisoner guilty of
being an accessory after the fact of the murder they must be
satisfied that in e hat he did he was aware that a murder had
been committed, and intended to assist hia brother in the{ ,
concealment of the body. Finally, at a quarter to four',
o'clock, the judge left the case in the hands of the jury, hay.:
big occupied five hours and a quarter in the delivery of his
charge. i
The Lord Chief Justide's exhaustive summing-up wasi
followed throughout with the closest and most absorbing;
interest. At its close, at a Quarter to four o'clock, the.
jury retired in the custody of a sworn officer of the
court, and the prisoners were removed from the bar..
For nearly an hour the spectators in court waited in I
anxious expectation for the return of the jurymen, and I
a general buzz of conversation prevailed, in which
many speculations were hazarded as to the view the
jury would take.
The jury returned into court at twenty minutes to ,
five &clock, and their names having been called over, I

The Clerk of Arraigns said: Gentle-men, are you agreed
upon your verdict?
rhe Foreman : We are.
The Clerk Do you find the prisoner Henry Wainwright
guilty or not guilty on the first count of the indictment
which charges him with the wilful murder of Harriet Louisa
Lane?

The Foreman: We do.
The Clerk: You say that he is guilty?
The Foreman: Guilty.

The Clerk'; Do you find Thomas George Wainwright guilty
or not guilty of being an accessory before or after to lid t
murder?

The Foreman : Not guilty of being an accessory before, but
guilty of being an accessory after the fact.
The Clerk: Then you say that Henry Wainwright is guilty
of the murder of Harriet Louisa Lane, and Thomas George
Wainwright is guilty of being an accessory after the fact?
The Foreman: We do

The Clerk: And that is the verdict of you all.
The Foreman : It is.
The Clerk, addressing the elder prisoner, said: You have
been indicted for murder, and you have put yourself upon
your country; your country has found you guilty, and you
now stand convicted of the crime of wilful murder. Have
you anything to say why the court ought not to proceed to
pass judgment of death upon yen?
The officer of the court having proclaimed silence, the
Lord Chief Justice assumed the black cap, and was about to
proceed to pass sentence, when
The prisoner Henry Wainwright, interrupting, and speak-
ing with great calmness, in low, deep tones said: I would
like lo make one or two observations, my lord, before sen-
tence is passed. I have first to express my deep obligations
for the untiring energy and ability of my counsel during this
protracted trial I thank him and all wno have assisted him
deeply. My thanks are also due to the many, many friends
who have with such prompt alacrity come forward and given
rue their valttable and substantial assistance. I have not
been able to reply to them personally—
The Lord Chief Justice: Prisoner, I cannot allow a speech
to be mad,.

The Prisoner; I will simply
Prisoner: 11 o speech, my lord.
The Lora Chief Justice : The only question asked of you
is whether you have anything to say why judgment of death
should not be passed upon you?
Bay, standing—as I now do--
upon the brink of eternity, in the presbnce of that God, be-
fore whom lam shortly to appear—I swear lam not guilty
of the murder of the remains found in my possession. I
swear that I have never in my life fired a pistol : I swear
also that I did not bury those remains. The proof that I
did not exhume or mutilate them has already been given by
witnesses. I have been guilty of a great immorality, and I
have been guilty of many indiscretions, but as to the crime
of which I have been brought in guilty, I leave this dock
with a calm and a' quiet conscience. My lord, I thank you
for your kindness and your patience in giving rue these few
words:
The Lord Chief Justice then said : Henry Wainwright, you
opinion on the clearest and
have been found guilty, in my