npedrazzini/19thc_murder_suicide_news huggingface dataset:
The Sun. — 1844-07-06 (London, England)

LORD CHANCELLOR—Then now enunciate your second. Mr. PEACOCK proposed on this point to show that the verdict on this count found Mr. O'Connell, Mr. Barrett, and Mr. Duffy, guilty of the premises, and found the other five defendants not guilty.of conspiring with the former three. The verdict in that respect, therefore, was repugnant. The verdict was bad on account of its ambiguity, and as being argumentative, finding three persons guilty of conspiring with six others, when four of these others were found not guilty of conspiring at all. The rule of law was this, that if a party is once put on his trial for an offence, the verdict must be such a ono as to prevent that person from being put on his trial again for that same offence. The verdict must be such an answer on the judgment, that on a second trial the prisoner shall be able to plead either previously convict or previously acquit. He cited thz case of " Hunger ford in 2d East, 518," in which the prisoner was indicted for burglariously entering a house, and stealing to the value of 6/. The verdict found him not guilty of the burglary, but guilty of the stealing, and sentence of death was passed. The case was reserved fur the consideration of the judges, who held that the finding was sufficient to warrant the judgment, but said the entry should have been "not guilty of breaking open by night," as that would have been more distinct. It appeared to be the constant course in indictments for murder, in which there was a verdict of guilty of manslaughter, to enter the finding as not guilty of the murder and guilty of the manslaughter, or of killing and slaying, although the charge of murder included the killing and slaying ; therefore, though the finding of the jury might warrant the officer in entering judgment, still lie did not enter up the judgment so as to appear distinct. Now the question was, what was the meaning of the words—‘. Guilty of the premises ?" Daniel O'Connell, Duffy, and Barrett were found guilty, with other persons, to do several things. They were found guilty of the premises—that was, guilty of conspiring with each other. If one person was indicted for conspiring with another, and divers other persons unknown : say that A and B were indicted for conspiring with each other, and divers others unknown, and that B Has acquitted ; A might be found guilty, but the entry of that verdict would be, that A was guilty of conspiring with persons unknown, not that he was guilty of conspiring with B and persons unknown, and therefore the entry of the verdict would be, that A was guilty of conspiring with persons unknown, B not guilty. But the verdict here was " guilty of the premises," that was to say, guilty of conspiring the other way. Whether it was that the jury found the eight guilty of conspiring together, though they found four not guilty, or whether they meant to find the whole eight guilty, he did not know. The
The Sun. — 1844-08-14 (London, England)

CHARGE OF STABBING.  On Monday Emma Maria Gregory, a middle-aged female, residing in Caroline-place, Hammersmith, was brought up in the custody of the police, before Mr. T. Paynter, the sitting magistrate, at Hammersmith, on a charge of having stabbed her husband. Thomas Gregory deposed that, on Saturday evening, be went, accompanied by his wife (the prisoner) to the house of Mr. Rogers, their next door neighbour, to spend the evening. They were all very comfortable for an hour or two, and enjoyed themselves much, when all at once he was surprised to see his wife go and seat herself in the lap of a strange man who was present, but whose name he did not even know. On seeing her do so be immediately walked out of the room, followed by his , wife, whom he asked the reason of her doing so, but she refused to give him any, and went to the bottom of the place, and stood there some time. He then went into his own house, but eventually went down to the prisoner, and again questioned her as to her conduct ; when she used very bad language, and pushed him away from her. He then returned home, followed by the prisoner ; and after a little while he again mentioned the subject to her, when she instantly seized upon a pair of scissors and stabbed him in the face, the scissors passing right through the under lip. He bled profusely from the wound, and, taking the scissors from her, 'went out and fetched the police, into whose custody Ee gave her. 135, Mr. Paynter—Had been married eleven years, and bad one child. The prisoner had been drinking. Had generally been up to this occurrence a well-conducted woman.  The prisoner, in answer to the charge, said she was at the time rather excited by what she had drank, at the pressing solicit of her husband. He had repeatedly ill-treated her, and it was only a week ago that he had given her a black eye,and beat her until she could not lift her arm up. He also struck her several times on Saturday night, when, having the scissors in her hand, she accidentally struck him with them, in warding off his blows. Mr. Paynter asked the husband ifG her wished to prefer the charge against the prisoner ?—Gregory replied that to know he had no desire to do so. He onlyegwTheic,ib whether his wife was to obey him or her neighbours The prisoner said her husband had brougght9nlisll on himself by beating her and setting her the example, going with bad women. She would not, she declared,Peby live with him again, and begged the magistrate to sepa_ rate them. Mr. Paynter told the prisoner he had no power to do so, Her conduct had been very bad, and it was most fortunate for her that she did not stand at the bar on the charge of murder. As the husband, however, did not wish to press the charge, he should, under the circumstances, discharge her.—They left the Court together.
The Sun. — 1844-08-14 (London, England)

CLE RKEN WE L L. Monday,' William Wyatt, aged 22, George Walton, aged 14, Alexander Agar, aged 17, William Lincoln, aged 14, and William Carter, aged 13 years, were charged with destroying their clothes in the llolborn Union workhouse.  The prisoners looked more like savages than civilized beings, and their hair hung in filthy matted locks over their faces, which were begrimed with dirt, and they were, with the exception of a threadbare party-coloured rug that each of them wore, perfectly naked. Barlow and Mundy, the porters at the Holborn Union workhouse, proved that when the prisoners were admitted into the destitute ward of the workhouse, on Saturday night, between nine and ten o'clock, they had some sort of clothes on. In the morning, at nine o'clock, "having heard a great noise among the destitutes," as Barlow swore, he went into the ward and saw the prisoners standing there perfectly naked, having torn their clothes into small shreds, which lay strewn about the ward  Wyatt, in answer to the Magistrate, with tears in his eyes, declared that his clothes were so ragged that a policeman was going to take him into custody on Saturday for indecently exposing his person ; they were besides covered with vermin. He was a native of Cornwall, and had been wandering about for the last six weeks without being able to obtain employment. Walton said, he did not know his parish ; had been at sea; his clothes were ragged, and covered with vermin ; had been going about the streets for the last month, night and day. Of the other three lads two were natives of Ireland, and stated that they had subsisted upon mendicancy. Carter declared his clothes were alive with vermin. Lincoln, a native of Liverpool, said he had been equally filthy and equally destitute. Mr. COMBE sent the prisoners to the house of Correction for fourteen days each, for which they thanked the worthy magistrate. Two men, named Cokeley and Foley, were charged with violently assualting Mary Began, and police-constable 74 E.  The constable deposed that on the previous evening he was alarmed by cries of murder, and on running into Lamb's-court, Bloomsbury, saw Foley beating Mary Regan violently. The woman was laying on the ground bleeding profusely. Witness immediately seized Foley, who at once knocked him down, and both struggled on the pavement. At length witness got upon his legs, but had no sooner done so than Cokeley ran over and felled witness with a blow. Both prisoners then attacked him, and he would have been injured severely had it not been for the immediate arrival of other constables. The woman Regan, either from illness or fear, declined to come forward. The constable seemed to be severely injured. Waddington, the gaoler, said Cokeley had been convicted at this court 19 time; and Foley 15. Cokeley was familiarly termed " the Jack of Clubs" by his vagabond associates, and he was the terror of the neighbourhood in which he lived.  Mr. ComnE sentenced the prisoners to seven days' imprisonment in the House of Correction, without the power of releasing themselves by the payment of fine.
The Sun. — 1844-07-05 (London, England)

LORD CHANCELLOR—Then now enunciate your econd. Mr. PEACOCK proposed on this point to show that the verdict on this count found Mr. O'Connell, Mr. Barrett' and Mr. Duffy, guilty of the premises, and found the other five defendants not guilty of conspiring with the former three. The verdict in that respect, therefore was repugnant. The verdict was bad on account of l': ambiguity, and as being argumentative, finding three persons guilty of conspiring with six others, when foul of these others were found not guilty of conspiring al hat all. The rule of law was this, that if a party is once Pa on his trial for an offence, the verdict must be such a 0.1)1 as to prevent that person from being put on his tried again for that same offence. The verdict must be such an answer on the judgment, that on a second trial trt prisoner shall be able to plead either previously cowrie or previously acquit. He cited the case of " Hunger ford in 2d East, 518," in which the prisoner was indicted for burglariously entering a house, and stealing to t,bi, value of 61. The verdict found him not guilty of wi burglary, but guilty of the stealing, and sentence e' death was passed. The case was reserved for the COlr v 1 sideration of the judges, who held that the finding ",; sufficient to warrant the judgment, but said the eotr,', should have been "not guilty of breaking open ,'' night," as that would have been more wi tinct. It appeared to be the constant course 1 in indictments for murder, in which there was a verdieot of guilty of manslaughter, to enter the finding as 11, guilty of the murder and guilty of the manslaughter, ' of killing and slaying, although the charge of murder ill' °,l eluded the killing and slaying ; therefore, though finding of the jury might warrant the officer in enterig judgment, still he did not enter up the judgment so 0, to appear distinct. Now the question was, what was the meaning of the words—" Guilty of the premises 1 Daniel O'Connell, Duffy, and Barrett were found goittP with other persons, to do several things. They We'„ found guilty of the premises—that was, guilty of COl. spiring with each other. If one person was indicted D'i, conspiring with another, and divers other persons air known : say that A and B were indicted for conspiri with each other, and divers others unknown, and that, was acquitted ; A might be found guilty, but the cot'', of that verdict would be, that A was guilty of conspiriaa with persons unknown, not that he was guilty of CO spiring with B and persons unknown, and therefore cube entry of the verdict would be, that A was 0311 of conspiring with persons unknown, B °of guilty. But the verdict here was "guilty f the premises," that was to say, guilty conspiring the other way. Whether it was that tP, jury found the eight guilty of conspiring togethe" though they found four not guilty, or whether the/ meant to find the whole eight guilty, he did not know• The
The Sun. — 1844-05-08 (London, England)

ALDERSON.) THE MURDER AT MARYLEBONE. At ten o'clock this murniag the prisoner, William Crouch, who was described in the calendar as " a groom, aged 28, remanded from last session, standing indicted for the wilful murder of Frances Elizabeth Crouch," was placed at the bar. The prisoner is rather boyish in his appearance, with a somewhat pleasing expression of countenance. Mr. Parry prosecuted, and Mr. Clarkson defended the prisoner. Mr. Parry having stated the case, called Mrs. Elizabeth Haynes, who said, I am the wife of Samuel Has nes, who resides at Chesterfield-street, Marylebone. I have known the prisoner since September last, at which time he resided in the same house that I did. His wife was residing with him. I remember the morning of Saturday, the 30th of March last, and saw the prisoner on that morning between seven and eight o'clock. He went out that morning- about half-past ten. I saw him again about four o'clock the same afternoon, when he came home with a man. I went outside the door to him. I asked the prisoner If he had seen my husband, and he said he had not. He then left the house again and returned in about an hour afterwards. He was alone then, and I told him he had been drrnking, but he denied it. His appearance was that of a drunken man. He sat down in the room and said, "It must be done—it must be done—l can't wait." I said, " What is that, Mr. Crouch, are you in a hurry ?" and he repeated the words three or four times. He then fell asleep, and I said nothing further to him. He was asleep for some time. When he woke up, I told him that Mrs. Lynes had sent his clean clothes ; and he said, " I shall never want them ;" and he got up and opened the bundle of clothes, and, pulling out a shirt which was torn, said, " There is a pretty thing for a fellow to put on his back." He said it had been lying in the box for six weeks, and " she " was too lazy to mend it, or sew any buttons on it. I told him I could sew buttons on it before the morning, and he said he should never wear it any more He sat down for a few moments, and then get up and looked for a pair of stockings, and, not finding them, he said, " I have not had a pair of stockings for these six weeks." He said, " Why the b— h— could she not mend my stockings?" He remained for a few moments, and then left the room, and went into my bed-room, where his own box was placed. He unlocked the box, and locked it again and then came into my room, and put the box key into his waistcoat pocket. He sat down for about five minutes, and then left the house. I did not see him again until seven o'clock, when an alarm was given, and on looking out of the window I saw him running. The prisoner's wife had left him about a fortnight before. Until that time she had lived with him, and after that time she used to come backwards and forwards. The night the prisoner's wife left he said, "I will lie wait for her, and give her a good hiding ; and if I had her here I would cut her throat with a razor." Cross-examined by Mr.
The Sun. — 1844-12-12 (London, England)

TER ASSIZES. MIDLAND CIRCUIT.—Derby, Dec. 11. (Before Mr. Jnstice Parrs:sox.) Sarah Reeks stood indicted for hating, at Whitwell, in this county, on the. 23d of July last, unlawfullr and mali'ciousl'y cut and wounded John halt, with the iaistit to murder, to-do grievous bodily harm, Sce. The prism-14er, *4 usual in such -cases, was variously indicted ; but the Lepried Judge remarked, in his charge to the grand jury at, on opening of the assizes, if in the present case death had ensued the offence would have amounted to nmr:ler. Mr: Wildman conducted the pro§cem.ion ; the; prisoner was undefended.  The case was similar in some respects to many which have occurred during the present circuit. Wakes constitute an annual joyous day or festival in the rural districts of this part of the country, and it unfortunately happens that the recurrence of these festivities is usually accompanied with some brutal atrocity. On the 23d of duly last, Whitwell Wake took place, and amongst other persons who were guests at a public-house kept by a person named Green, were Hall, the prosecutor, a man named Ellis, another narnea Sparrow, the woman Reeves (the prisoner), and various other parties. According to custom drinking and dancing was the order of the day and the night, and the prisoner was among the party so early as three in the afternoon. At nine„ according to the evidence of the police, the prisoner, a married woman, whose huslrand resided in the neighbourhood, was quite drunk. About two o'clock in the morning, the party having then left the house, wrestling and larking commenced in the road opposite. Ellis and Sparrow were wrestling together, when Hall, apparently for the purpose of parting them, in a friendly spirit laid hold of Ellia's arm. From what motive did not appear, but during this apparently very amicable encounter, the prisoner plunged a knife into the side of the prosecutor, Hall ; but, most fortunately, the intestines were not penetrated, or death must have ensued. He was the principal witness fur the prose. cation to-day. It turther appeared that during the same morning and within a few moments of the time the prisoner committed this murderous assault upon Hall, she also stabbed Sparrow and others enjoying the festivities of the wake. The prisoner was afterwards apprehended at another public-house by Holden, the constable of the district, and when taken said (producing a clasp knife), "This is what I did it with." The facts of the case were undenied, the prisoner's defence being that she was so drunk she did not know what she was about.  The jury returned a verdict of Guilty with intent to inflict grievous bodily harm (not finding with the intent to murder), and The Learned JUDGE deferred the sentence. David Gosling and Georre Hall were indicted for burglar'. ously breaking into the house of Samuel Cooke, at Ludworth, on the 7th of August last, and stealing various articles of wearing apparel. The two prisoners were old offenders. The jury found them Guilty, azd The Learned JUPGH sentenced them to 15 years' transportation.—Hall immediately threw his hat into the body of the Court.
The Sun. — 1844-12-12 (London, England)

MIDLAND CIRCUIT.D C'"ie ,7-rfiov ,-(Before 3,1 r. Justice l'Arr o_ .) ''''- 1 "'" ~., Sarah Reeves stood indicted for having., tikt WAN, 1411° this county, on the 23d of July last, unlawfUllVand maliciously cut and wounded John Hall. with the iaisiat to murder, to do grievous bodily harm, &c. The prisoner, se usual in such cases, was variously indicted ; but the I4karyied Judge remarked, in his charge to the grand jury at tini openin, of the assizes, if in the present case death had ensued the offence would have amounted to murder. Mr. Wildman conducted the prosecution ; the prisoner was undefended.  The case was similar in some respects to many which have occurred during the present circuit. Wakes constitute an annual joyous day or festival in the rural districts of this part of the country, and it unfortunately happens that the recurrence of these festivities is usually accompanied with some brutal atrocity. On the 23d of July last, Whitwell Wake took place, and amongst other persons who were guests at a public-house kept by a person named Green, were Hatl, the prosecutor, a man named Ellis, another named Sparrow, the woman Reeves (the prisoner), and various other parties. According to custom drinking. and dancing was the order of the day and the night, and the prisoner was among the party so early as three in the afternoon. At nine, according to the evidence of the police, the prisoner, a married woman, whose husband resided in tlie neighbourhood, was quite drunk. About two o'clock in the morning, the party havieg then left the house, wrestling and larking commenced in the road opposite. Ellis and Sparrow were wrestling together, when Mall, apparently for the purpose of parting them, in a friendly spirit laid hold of Ellis's arm. From what motive did not appear, but during this apparently very amicable encounter, the prisoner plunged a knife into the side of the prosecutor, Hall; but, most 'fortunately, the intestines were not penetrated, or death must have ensued. He was the principal witness for the prosecution to-day. It further appeared that during the same morning and within a few moments of the time the prisoner committed this murderous assault upon llall, she also stabbed Sparrow and others enjoying the festivities of the wake. The prisoner was afterwards apprehended at another public-house by Holden, the constable of the district, and when taken said (producing a clasp knife), "This is what I did it with." The facts of the case were undenied, the prisoner's defence being that she was so drunk she did not know what she was about. The jury returned a verdict of Guilty with intent to inflict grievous bodily harm (not finding with the intent to murder), and The Learned JUDGE deferred the sentence.  David Gosling and Georr— e Hall were indicted for burglar'. ously breaking into the house of Samuel Cooke, at Ludworth, on the 7th of August last, and stealing various articles of wearin, apparel. The two prisoners were old offenders. fhe Jury found them Guilty, and The Learned JL•DGE sentenced them to 15 years' transportation.—llall immediately threw his hat into the body of the Court.