The Northern Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1856-05-01 00:00:00

MURDER IN RICHMOND STREET

duced the injuries which on examination presented. There
was no chronic disease to caue death.
Coroner : Could the injuries be caused by a party jumping
on her.
In the last two impressions of this journal we have published np,,.
iv ttness es.

COMMITTAL OF THE ACCUSED

certain facts connected with the murderous assault committed
upon a poor old woman; named Isabella Brew, who lived at
No. 18, Great Richmond-street. The name of the accused is
Robert Hudson Jones, who is a cousin of the deceased, and
lived in the same house. From the reports that were given at

the coroner's court, prior to the inquest, it appeared that the

accused went home on Saturday evening, and, without any
cause or provocation, attacked the deceased in a most frightful
manner, and, after kicking and beating her, left her for dead•
This took place on the Saturday evening, but no intimation
was given of the occurrence to the police until the following
day (Sunday), when Mr. Divisional Saperintendant Ride,
being informed of the occurrence, visited the house, and, after
taking down the statement of the injured woman, procured the
assistance of a medical gentleman, Dr. Evans, but she gra-
dually got worse, and expired on Monday evening. Prior to
her death, however, a magistrate attended to take her dying
declaration, but it was then found that she had sank so low

as not to be able to make any further statement,

A Juror : if proper medical aid had been taken to the
woman before she had been removed, would that have pre-
served her life ?
Witness: Very little chance—l am afraid no chance what-
ever, as there were two fractures in the ribs, and her lungs
were very much lacerated.

TIDE INQUEST,

Police'-constabie-420, Thomas Povall, spoke to the appre-

hension of the wan Jones, at a beeihonse i❑ 01ley-street, on
Saturday night. He was taken to Rosehill bridewell, where
ho was charged with violently a=saulting the deceased, with
intent to do some *grievous bodily harm. Jones made no
reply. He then spoke to an interview between the deceased
and the accused, which had been related by a previous witness.
Mr. Walter then addressed the jury, in the course of which
he said, it appeared that the evidence all went one way—he had
tried to find a motive for this act, but he had failed, but that
would not exculpate the accused, and he regretted to say, as
lie had no doubt but that they would bear from the coroner,
that the whole of the evidence went to prove the crime of wiful
murder.
The coroner then recapitulated the facts brought out in the
evidence, and, 6fter referring to the ruling of the judges at the
late assizes, with regard to the girl who had had her throat cut,
and to the Chissenhale-street case, which he thought were
cases of wilful murder, and so he thought in this case, as the
acts of the man showed implicit malice. He left it to the
jury to say whether the offence was murder or manslaughter.
The jury, after a brief consultation, returned a verdict of
" wilful murder" against James Hudson Jones, who was
accordingly committed on the coronet's warrant to take his

On Tuesday the coroner summoned a most respectable jury
to enquire into the case, and, after having viewed the body, the
enquiry was further adjourned in order that a post morte m
examination might be made of the body.
Yesterday the jury again assembled, when the coroner said
we will now proceed with the adjourned inquest, which was
commenced yesterday and adjourned, under the circumstances
I then mentioned, until to-day. The person charged will not
be brought before you. In consequence of this I wrote a letter
to the public prosecutor, Mr. Walters, informing him of the
fact. The usual course will be materially altered by this pro 7
cedure of refusing to allow the prisoner to be brought here. I
believe that he will, however, attend to cond►ict the case; if
not, I shall do so in the usual way.

trial at the next assizes.
The hearing of this case lasted upwards of four hours.

kr. Walters, the public prosecutor, then said he appeared
before the jury under rather an unusual circumstance. He
understood that the stipendiary magistrate, before whom a man,
named James Hudson Jones, had been taken, charged with
the assault, and as that case had now merged into a felony, and
the magistrates had refused to allow him to be brought there.
In law, there was no doubt but that the magistrates was
correct, and therefore he (Mr. Walters) had thought it right
to attend, to see that justice was done, under the circumstances.
After hearing the witnesses, it would be for the jury to say
whether the person accused was guilty of murder or man.

slaughter.