The Sun.
London, England, 1860-04-19 00:00:00

THE DOUBLE _MURDER NEAR

_MANCHESTER.

Mr. Butter, county coroner, continued the inquest
upon the bodies of William and William Edward
Scholes, at the Packhorse-inn, Irlams-o'-th'-Height,
on Tuesday.
Mr. James Ashburner, surgeon, of Pendlebury,
said that, with the assistance of Mr. Birks, another
surgeon, he had made an inspection of the bodies of
William Scholes and William Edward Scholes. He

found them laid on their backs in a bedroom upstairs,
and life appeared to have been extinct not less than
eight hours. On the neck and face of each there
were marks of violence. He first proceeded with
the examination of William Edward Scholes, and
he found some indentations on the back of the left
hand, breaking the skin, as if done by the firm
grasp of a person with the nails ; and there were
similar marks on the chin and left side of the face.
Under the left angle of the jaw there was a punc-
tured wound, apparently made with a penknife,
about an inch in depth. It had not injured any
main artery, but had wounded a vein. He also
found a similar stab wound in the right eye ball,
and a clot of blood at the back of it, as large as
the eyeball itself; and between the scalp and the
skull, on the back part of the head, there was a
slight extravasation of blood, about the size of a
shilling, caused most likely by a blow or a fall.
The brain was somewhat congested, and the veins
contained air, which was the immediate cause of
death. The lungs were congested. There was no
other internal diseaso. The wound in the neck was
the cause of death. He next examined the body of
William Scholes, the father, and found that there
were marks of violence upon the throat. The face
was livid, and blood oozed from the ears. The
brain and lungs were congested. The cause of
death was strangulation, producing suffocation.
When he first went in the morning he found Sarah
Eliza Scholes in bed in the same room in which the
bodies lay. She was struggling a great deal, and two
men were holding her down. By his directions she
was removed from the room to the workhouse.

Mr. E. B. Birks, surgeon, Pendleton, corroborated
the evidence of Mr. Ashburner, and said that for
upwards of -20 years he had frequently attended
Sarah Eliza Scholes for epilepsy, which had so
weakened her mental faculties as to render her of
unsound mind. He had seen her in many of those
attacks, and sometimes she was very violent. She
was sometimes very difficult to manage after a fit.
Mr, Scholcs was a very infirm old man—asthmati-
cal and dropsical—and a very little in the way of
suffocation would destroy life in him. He had
generally to stop on going up stairs to take breath.
The son was a very delicate man, with a large tumour
on his throat, and incapable of much resistance.

County Police-sergeant Lee, of Pendlebury, gave
evidence of facts which have already been published.
He said the knife which he found on the mantel-
piece had three small blades and one large one.
The larger and one of the smaller ones appeared to
have blood on them. He also found on the bed a
nightcap belonging to Sarah Ann Scholes, the
strings of which had been broken, and there was
blood about the cap. He examined the bedroom
door, in consequence of Joseph Scholes's statement,
and found that it had been broken open, and that
there were marks of violence on the inside. The
key of the bedroom was missing, and he was
searching for it when Mr. Birks found it in an old
ie-disl•l on a chest of drawers. On Sarah Scholes's
' dress there were several spots of blood.
Police-constable Dixon said he took Sarah Eliza
Scholes to the Stafford workhouse in a cab in com-
pany with one of the Stafford police. It was as
much as they could do to keep her from hurting
herself or them. He remained with her till ten
o'clock the same night, when he was relieved by
another officer. About three o'clock in the after-
noon she appeared very sensible, and, recognising
him, said " You are the policeman from Peadle-
' bury. I have seen you pass our window many times."
He replied " I was by your house last night between
eleven and twelve, and I neither saw nor heard
anything ;" and she answered " Yes, it was done
about twelve o'clock. They came home about
eight o'clock and caused a disturbance, and I went
up stairs into my bedroom. After a while they
came up and they got on to my bed ; then I got up,
and they thrashed me with a stick. I seized my
brother by the throat, and he fell down • then I
seized my father, and he fell on him, and then I
fainted, and fell on the top of them both." She
seemed quite collected whilst making her statement.
Mr. Charles Smethurst, of Ellor-street, Salford,
said that he saw Joseph Scholes being taken along
Chapel-street to the Salford Town-halt on the even-
ing of Wednesday last, and knowing him, he fol-
lowed. It was about 7 o'clock: He had a cut on
the head. He (the witness) promised Mr. Superin-
tendent Taylor that he would call at old Scholes's.
It was 20 minutes to nine o'clock when he arrived at
Irlams-o'-th'-Height. He knocked at the back door,
and no one answered, and he then opened the door
and stepped inside. He called out three or four
times, and then Sarah Scholes answered, " Who's
there ?" from up stairs. He asked to see William
Edward, and in a very excited hoarse voice she said
he was not in. Shortly afterwards he saw her at
the back door, and in the same kind of voice she
asked what he wanted, and said again that William
Edward was not in. She seemed excited, but when
she saw who he was she became milder. He had
known the family from a child, and William Ed-
ward
had told him he had been obliged to be severe
with his sister because of her stupidity, and that
he had to thumi? her.
The Coroner, in summing up, told the jury that
if they believed the story of the woman, that she
acted in self-defence, then it seemed to be a case of
manslaughter, though he could not advise them to
say that she acted in self-defence ; but to be a case
of murder it required that there should be delibera-
tion, and it did not appear that there was any de-
liberation in the case. It mattered little, however,
which verdict the jury returned, because in either
case the woman would be put upon her trial.
There would be sufficient cTidence, he thought, to

convince a jury of her insanity, and then she would
be kept in custody during her Majesty's pleasure.
After some deliberation the jury considered there
might have been provocation, arid returned a verdict
of manslaughter against Sarah Eliza Scholes.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE-April 18.

MANSION-HOUSE.—John Nagle, recently a
clerk in the service of Messrs. Perrin and Bremner,
of Rood-lane, colonial agents and sugar brokers,
was charged, on remand, with embezzling the sum
of £2O 95., belonging to his employer.
On the previous examination a witness proved
the payment to the prisoner of the sum referred to,
on account of the prosecutors, and Mr. Bremner
proved that the money had not been accounted for
by the prisoner, who afterwards absconded, and a
warrant was obtained for his apprehension. He,
however, remained at large some weeks, until Mr.
Bremner received the following letter :
" Sir,—Being at last left without resource-,, and
having no means of obtaining employment, I have no
alternative but to surrender myself, I ask only that
as little exposure as.possible may be made, and to
further that end, I shall feel obliged by your ad-
dressing a note containing the necessary instruc-
tions to Henry Clarence, 76, •Strand, which will
reach me in due course. I am, &:e.,
" D. Bremner, Esq. " JOHN NAGLE."
This note was given to detective Jarvis, who re-
paired to 76, Strand (a public news-room), and there
apprehended the prisoner, when he called for Mr.
Bremner's answer. The warrant was read over to
the prisoner, who said he supposed it was all right,
only the amount was more likely to be £520 9s.
than £2O 9s.

Mr. R. Newall, a grocer in Fetter-lane, now de-
posed that on the 24th December last he paid the
prisoner on account of the prosecutors, £29 ; on the
31st December, £2l 10s. 3d.; on the 7th January
£l2 10s. 9d.; and on the 21st January, £l7 95.11 d.
Mr. Rainsbeck, grocer, proved the payment to
the prisoner in the same way of a sum of £l5 9s.
9d., and produced three receipts for other sums
given by the prisoner paid on his behalf to the pri-
soner on account of the prosecutors.
Mr. Elliott proved that on the 10th September
last he paid to the prisoner a cheque for Lis ls. on
account of Messrs. Perrir and Bremner, and that
the cheque had since been returned as paid by his
bankers.

Mr. Dugald Bremner was again examined, and
deposed that prisoner had accounted for none of the
sums referred to by previous witnesses. He added
that the total amount of the prisoner's deficiencies
was £432 16s. 2d.
Jarvis, detective, said the prisoner himself gave
the exact amount as being £5lO 18s. sd.
The prisoner, who had nothing to say, was fully
committed for trial.

GUILDHALL.—SamueI Hookey, an elderly man,
apparently in a very bad state of health, was placed
at the bar before Alderman Humphrey, charged
with embezzling. £6O and other sums, the total of
which has not yet been ascertained, the moneys of
his master.

Mr. Humphreys, jun., of the firm of Humphreys,
Son, and Morgan, appeared for the prosecution, and
stated that the evidence in support of the charge
against the prisoner would be somewhat of a com-
plicated character in consequence of the system of
falsification of the accounts which had been resorted
to by the prisoner to cover his defalcations. At pre-
sent they were only prepared with evidence for a
remand, but upon a future occasion every informa-
tion would be forthcoming.
Mr. James Weston, cement manufacturer, Earl-
street, Blackfriars, said—The prisoner has been in
my employ as confidential cashier about five or six
years, and it was his duty to receive from the col-
lectors all money paid to them during the day, and
having entered the amounts in a rough cash-book,
to pay the amounts into the bank, and afterwards
to carry out the entries in the rough( book to the
ordinary cash-book. He ought to have paid the
money in daily, or whenever he had a sufficient
sum in his possession for that purpose.
Alderman Humphrey—What would you have
considered a sufficient sum to pay in? Was the
minimum £2O ?
Mr. Weston—No, sir ; for he was entitled to hold
a certain amount to meet payments on the petty
cash account. I find that an entry has been made
in the rough cash-book, under the date of the 20th
July last, of £2O received from Mr. Bell, and that
amount is carried out on both sides of the cash-book
of that day. I have seen Mr. Bell, and ascertained
that the amount he paid on that day was £3O Bs.
10d.

Alderman Humphrey—Was that amount paid in
cash, or by cheque ?---because if he received a
cheque it would be necessary to find out he got it
cashed.

Mr. Weston—l am not prepared to state in what
manner it was paid.
Mr. Humphreys said he should be able to prove
that on entering the sums received the amounts in
the first instance had been represented as consider-
ably less, and after the totals had been made up,
the difference between the sums received and those
entered had been entered by the addition or altera-
tion of a figure, generally in the pounds column,
but the totals were left sadly at variance with the
addition of the amended entries.

Johi Mark Bull, detective officer, appre•
hended the prisoner this morning in the prosecutor's
counting-house, and told him the charge was for
embezzling £6O during the month of August last,
which had been received from Mr. Palmer, Mr.
Powell, Mr. Brown, and Mr. Hale. He said it was
quite correct, and he must throw himself upon his
master's mercy, as his health was very bad. He
said he had had a deal of trouble, and did not think
he should live long. He gave up a balance of about
£BO which he had recently received for his master,
and I found on him besides about £lO more.