The Express.
London, England, 1867-05-03 00:00:00

MANSLAUGHTER BY A GAMEKEEPER.

On Wednesday night an inquest was held at the
Chesterfield and North Derbyshire Hospital, Chesterfield,
on the body of the man, ned 80 years, named John Clarke.
who had come to his clath under circumstances which, as
will be seen below, have resulted in • verdict by the corp.
ner's jury of " manslaughter" against a garnekesper,under
Mr. Arkwright, named Frederick Biddy. The facts
of the case, as detailed in the lengthy evidence
before the coroner, are these. Clarke was an old man
who had recently come to reside with his daughter
at Seymour-terrace, Steveley, near Chesterfield. On
Monday last he got up in apparently good health and
went out for a walk. About ten o'clock be was seen by
the witnesses walking in a field near • new branch line of
colliery railway at Seymour, with a small dog at his heels.
The keeper went up to him, and after some words, whirl
were not beard by the witnesses (whose names are Samuel
Downing and Frederick Houck), who were standing on the
new line of railway about 160 yards from the keeper and
deceased the former struck the old man three blows,
knocked him down, and fell on him. One witness swore
the blows were given by the keeper's right hand, whilst
the other positively swore that they were given by the
left, and that the keeper had a gun under his right arm.
The keeper, having got up, pulled up the old man and
took him across two field.; and the next thing spoken
to by the witnesses was that they heard some dogs making
a great noise, and on going in the direction they found the
old man lying insensible on the ground, bleeding from an
abrasion of the skin on the top of the head, and another
(slight) on the cheek. The keeper came to the spot shortly
afterwards with a hone and cart, and the old man was put
into the latter and taken to the Chesterfield Hospital,
where he lingered until 12 o'clock p.m. on Tuesday night,
and then died, never having been conscious from
the first. When the keeper took the deceased to
the hospital he was followed by a large crowd,
who would certainly have maltreated him tt be had
not been protected, and who notwithstanding hooted
and yelled to • great extent, and publicly charged
Kiddy with killing the old man. The next step in the
case was the arest of Kiddy, on Tuesday, under a warant
granted byMr. E.G. Maynard,buton Tuesday afternoon he
was brought up, and there being no evidence ready against
him, he was discharged by the same magistrate without
any remand. The relations of the deceased man, how-
ever, instructed Mr. Cutts, town clerk of Chesterfield, to
watch the matter on their behalf, and by his exertions
two medical gentlemen (Messrs. Bluett and Foulds) were
present at the past-mortem examination of the body
ordered by the coroner, which examination was made by
Mr. W. A. Stamford. M.8.C.5., house surgeon, in the
presence of Mr. G. C. B. Hart, one of the honorary sur-
geons to the institution.rhe medical evidence was to the
, effect that tbere were no marks of external violence to
' account for death, but that the deceased bad had disease
of the brain of some standing, and there was no
doubt that any exciting cause, such as an assault upon
him by the keeper, would produce apoplexy, from an
attack of which he had died. The gamekeeper (for whom
Mr. T. Shipton appeared) was examined by the request of
Mr. Shipton, and denied striking the deceased at all, the
old man, according to his statement, having beenseixed by
an apoplectic fit on his ing up to him and charging him
with poaching. The coroner expressed his opinion that a
man of 80 was not likely to be poaching, and it was as-
serted by Mr. Cutts that deceased was picking cowslips.
Ultimately, after an investigation which lasted four hours
and a half, the jury found a verdict of " Manslaughter"
against Frederick Kiddy, and he was committed for trial
at the next quarter sessions.

THE MURDER AND AITZNPIND SIIICIDZ IN lAN-
neris.—Mr. Win. Carter, the Surrey coroner, held an in-
quiry yestereday at the Ship Tavern, Fore-street, Lambeth,
respecting the above cue. The Coroner said th►t the cue
was a very serious one. and it having been alleged that
the deceased bad been killed by his soother, he could not
take any evidence tendered by the father of the child, for
a man could not give evidence against his own wife. Seve-
ral witnesses having deposed to the fasts slreody reported,
the Coroner summed up. He said that be believed from
the evidence that the mother had cut the child's throat
before she had cut her own. If another person had at-
tacked her, the probability was that she would have called
out. The jury returned a verdict of "Wilful murder"
against Elisabeth Belcher.