Stockton Herald, South Durham and Cleveland Advertiser. — 1889-01-05 (Stockton-on-Tees, Cleveland, England)

SUNDAY TRADING RTYR " AND HIS WIFE. SINGULAR CASE AT WEST RTLE.  had  14r  lOr  Wontner  IMIUre VI yarn, nester, Middlesex. Mr St. John diseasa presented the police. Margaret r. For widow, identified the body as report her daughter. She was 1.6 years red by Witnees told deceased had been num. Witness saw deceased on is in during the week before Christmas. until ma not know the deceased here • Hying. She left witness two the Elizabeth Usher, no 4 the '.re deposed that reuvignillea &I that of , ,ed institution. was a. hi wow,- t child in recalled,  WM "Is  "Whei.  A sylum, _ _ •  one day She  -did for  years ago.— nurse at Stepney Sick at she had seen the body and at of a former inmate of the She was admitted as a single woman. She had a child seven years of age. --Sergeant Golding, recalled, produced a hand. kerchief which was found round the deceased's throat, also the jacket worn by deceased. There was a post in the well near which deceased was found, and witness's impression was that deceased on leaning against the wall had fallen in a swoon and died. The earth was soft where the bociy was found, and if there had been a struggle it would have been clearly shown. —George James Harris, surgeon, deposed that be saw the body of the deceased in the position in which it was found. He also assisted Dr. Brownfield at the pmf-morleris examination. There was a mark round deceased's neck which might have been produced by a piece of string. In his opinion it was not possible for the collar of the jacket to produce it. There were signs of finger marks on the neck. In his opinion the cause of death was suffocation, produced by strangulation. He thought the strangulation was effected with a piece of string similar to that with which soap is cut.—To Mr Wontuer : He did not see the mark on the neck the first time he saw the body, and thought then that death was due to asphyxia from drunkenness, or some other natural cause. The eyeballs and tongue did not protrude. In his opinion the appearance showed that strangulatmn had been rapid.—Dr. Pond, of the Sanctuary, Westminster, said on the 22nd of December e•note was sent to his house by Mr Anderson, Assistant Commissioner of Police, asking him to examine the body of the deceased. He examined the body on the Monday following, and his colleague, Mr Hibbard, who had previously made an examination, supplied him svith his notes. Mr Hibbard and himself and the other medical men agreed, except as to the marks On the throat. When he II W the body the mark described as made by a cord had disappeared, but those marks described as linger•rnarks remained. He agreed with the deductions of Doctors Brownfield, Hibberd, and Harris that the deceased died from strangulation, but his opinion was that it was not murder, for the reason that the amount of vio• lence required to strangle an able-bodied woman would leave a mark which would not disappear during five days. He thought the woman fell while in a state of drunkenness, and that the larynx was compressed against the neck of her jacket. Ile believed the mark on the mirk was due to the collar of the jacket. He might say his colleague, who was a very experienced man, did agree with him. He agreed with Dr Brownfield that this was a critical case. A tablespoonful of the contents of deceased's stomach had been analysed and found to contain a teespoonfui of whiskey. -Mary Smith, 18, George-street, Spitalfields, said deceased lodged with her for three months. Deceased was locked up on one occasion for five days. She was oftener drunk than sober. She went to Poplar every night.-After sonic further evidence of an unimportant character, showing the habits—Of the deceased, it nag decided to adjourn the enquiry for a week.