npedrazzini/19thc_murder_suicide_news huggingface dataset:
The Sun. — 1846-08-03 (London, England)

NSLAUGHTER.— Thomas Pallet, aged 42, was charged with manslaughter, in killing his wife, Maria Pallet. The facts were shortly these :—The prisoner and his wife and their family lived at Loughborough, but the man and his wife were upon very indifferent terms. On the evening of the third•of june.last they were heard to be quarrelling by a neighbour who had a right of road through their garden. He heard a female scream, and the sound of blows. Some short time after, on going through the garden, he saw the prisoner's wife, and observed one of her eyes to be very much discoloured. Later in the evening of the same day heard more quarrelling, and the son say, " Oh, father, don t. There was a blow and a fall. The prisoner then said to some one, "Go to bed with yeu." All was still for about twenty minutes, when the son came in and said his mother was dead. The prisoner stated to one of the witnesses his wife had fallen out of her chair and never spoke since. It was ' proved, however, that she was not a person subject to fits. The evidence of the medical men went to show she had re- I ceived blows upon her head which might have caused a concussion of the brain, of which she died. The prisoner ad • mitted he had struck his wife. The jury returned a verdict of Guilty.—Sentence deferred. August 1. Porsorrma.—Elizabeth Clarke, a respectable-looking woman, aged 48, was charged with having, on the 14th of September last, caused to be taken by one Ann Richmond, her husband and child, a quantity of arsenic, with intent to kill and murder. It appeared from the evidence that prisoner and her husband lived in a lodge belonging to a Mr. Holmes ; that the prosecutrix, her husband and child, lived under the same roof, but in different apartments; both men were in the service of Mr. Holmes, as farm labourers. On the Easter eve but one, Mrs. Richmond borrowed some oatmeal "of Mrs. Clarke to make gruel, her husband and herself were sick and ill after taking it ; that in August last the prisoner borrowed of the prosecutrix three quarters of a basin of flour, and returned the ✓same quantity with her own hand on the 11th of September, and it was put in a jar where flour was kept, there being a small portion therein at the time. Mrs. Richmond noticed its dark colour, but took no further notice, and, on the 14th, it was made into a pudding, of which the three partook, and all were taken seriously ill, exhibiting symptoms common to those who have taken arsenic. The remains of the pudding was analysed, and arsenic found therein. No ascribable motive could be urged for the commission of the deed, save that Mrs. Clarke had expressed herself dissatisfied with the Richmonds coming to live there, as she had to give up an apartment. On the other hand, it was shown the two families lived very neighbourly together, that the prisoner was very fond of Mrs. Richmond's child, and was proud of showing it to strangers. Several witnesses of great respectability spoke of her in high terms as being a most humane person. The jury returned a verdict of Not Guilty.
The Sun. — 1846-02-12 (London, England)

CITY OF LONDON.—NOTICE.  " At the next meeting of the Board of Guardians, on Tuesday, the 10th of February, the Vice-Chairman and Mr. Conder will call the attention of the board to the subject of the asylum districts for the houseless poor." He confidently hoped that an asylum would be raised, which would not only be adapted as a temporary accommodation, but would be a model for all the places of the description built upon the principles of humanity. The delay which had taken place would be an excuse for taking more troublo in providing for the afflicting exigencies which daily appeared.—(Hear, hear.) It was part of the cruel operation of the poor-law, that the poor, who were condemned to the neglect and scorn to which he had adverted, had no person to whom they could make any appeal. They are growled at, and told to walk off to Peckham, and it was in vain they looked to a magistrate to abate the harshness of the judgment. It was disgraceful that they could not appeal to the humanity of a magistrate. If a miscreant committed three or four murders, the language ready for him was that he had been instigated by the devil, and he becomes at once an object of compassion ; but here were hundreds of individuals who had no crime but that of poverty, which society (judging from the present position of the law) appeared to look upon as the most unpardonable of all offences.—(Hear.) Alderman COPELAND most willingly seconded the motion. For a series of years, since the poor-law had been enacted, poverty had been considered, and persecuted, as a crime. His opinion of the treatment which the poor received at the hands of the authorities obliged him to say that the law was very harshly administered ; and he trusted that the day had arrived when complaints of inhumanity and insensibility to the sufferings of the destitute would be made upon all sides. constantly and loudly.—(Hear.) As the law of settlement is under discussion in the House of Commons, he hoped an opportunity would be taken to make such alterations as would ameliorate the condition to which the crowds of poor, who had nothing to look to but the poor-law, were reduced. He was quite aware of the difficulties which presented themselves, but it was impossible to allow things to remain as they are.—(Bear.) Sir P. LAURIE approved of the motion. Alderman WILSON said that whatever might be the result of the labours of the Committee, he was sure ttie discussion which hadt taken place would do infinite good. —(Hear.) He was sorry that the City of London Union was so late with its benevolence, but he hoped it would make amends for the long delay. He had witnessed cruelties to the poor in many different shapes, and he had recently seen it exercised in the collection of rates, and the refusal to assist the family which paid those rates for numbers of years, because the house was not rated at 101. a-year.--(Hear.) The motion was unanimously carried. EXPORTS from
The Sun. — 1846-11-27 (London, England)

ACQUITTAL OF M. JEUNE.  The trial of M. Jeune or Yung, of the Rue Montmartre, for the murder of M. Jay, took place on Saturday, before the Court of Assizes. On the witnesses' bench was Madame Jay, covered with a black veil, and holding a handkerchief to her face, in order to conceal it and stifle her sobs. The prisoner, on being brought in, was at first calm and self-possessed, but on seeing his wife, who was in a retired part of the court, burst into tears. The indictment stated all the circumstances of the case, with the greater part of which the public are fully acquainted. It appeared from it that Jeune had for some time suspected Jay of having improper intentions towards Mme. Jeune; he hesitated, at first, to forbid him his house, on account of the advantage he gained from him as a customer, but, at length, provoked by his too flagrant conduct, desired that he would never eater the door again, and told him that if he did, he would find him, Jenne, armed to receive him. Jay replied that he too carried arms. Notwithstanding this, Jenne soon afterwards was informed that Jay came to his house while he was absent, and he thereupon determined, on August 17, to pretend to go to Senlis on btminess, but remain at home concealed with a pistol. Ja7, about eight o'clock, came, and was heard by Jenne Conversing with his wife, who seemed to resist his advances, but was at length induced to go into the bedroom. Upon this Jeune came from his hiding-place, and finding the two parties in an unequivocal position, fired at Jay, but though the powder singed his left eyebrow, he was not wounded, and it was doubtful whether the bullet, if Jeune put one in the barrel, had not dropped out. Jay turned upon him, and struck him with a knife, and at the same time kicked him. Upon thin Jeune drew his own knife, and stabbed Jay through the heart and lungs, and killed him. The indictment not ices the rumour of Jay having been entrapped to the hoi tie by Madame Jeune, in concert with her husband, bu't declares that there was no evidence to give proof or crisdence to this supposition. After the indictment was read, and the witnesses had been called and sworn, the court was cleared of the audience, and the doors closed. 'The details of the evidence, therefore, cannot be given. At half-put five, the doors were re-opened and the public admitted. It had been expected that the widow sud son of Jay would come forward and sue for damages, but no such claim was made. The jury, who remained in deliberation only a very few minutes, came Into court, and pronounced a verdict of not guilty, and the prisoner %vas thereupon immediately discharged. On hearing the result, the wife of the prisoner, who had again entered tLie court, fainted. She was removed into the open air, witere she recovered, and was taken to her husband, who was then at the Conciergerie, but at liberty.—Paris Paper.
The Sun. — 1846-11-27 (London, England)

ACQUITTAL OF M. JEUNE. The trial of M. Jeune or Yung, of the Rue Montmartre, for the murder of M. Jay, took place on Saturday, before the Court of Assizes. On the witnesses' bench was Madame Jay, covered with a black veil, and holding a handkerchief to her face, in order to conceal it and stifle her sobs. The prisoner, on being brought in, was at first calm and sell-possessed, but on seeing his wife, who was in a retired part of the court, burst into tears. The indictment stated all the circumstances of the case, with the greater part of which the public are fully acquainted. It appeared from it that Jeune had for some time suspected Jay of having improper intentions towards Mme. Jeune; be hesitated, at first, to forbid him his house, on account of the advantage he gained from him as a customer, but, at length, provoked by his too flagrant conduct, desired that he would never enter the door again, and told him that if he did, he would find him, Jeune, armed to receive him. Jay replied that he too carried arms. Notwithstanding this, Jenne soon afterwards was informed that Jay came to his house while he was absent, and he thereupon determined, on August 17, to pretend to go to Senlis on business, butt emain at home concealed with a pistol. Jay, about eight o'clock, came, and was heard by Jeune conversing with his wife, who seemed to resist his advances, but was at length induced to go into the bedroom. Upon this Jenne came from his hiding-place, and finding the two parties in an unequivocal position, fired at Jay, but though the powder singed his left eyebrow, he was not wounded, and it was doubtful whether the bullet, if Jenne put one in the barrel, had not dropped out. Jay turned upon him, and struck him with a knife, and at the same time kicked him. Upon this Jenne drew his own knife, and stabbed Jay through the heart and lungs, and killed him. The indictment notices the rumour of Jay having been entrapped to the house by Madame Jeune, in concert with her husband, but declares that there was no evidence to give proof or credence to this supposition. After the indictment was read, and the witnesses had been called and sworn, the court was cleared of the audience, and the doors closed. The details of the evidence, therefore, cannot be given. At half-past five, the doors were re-opened and the public admitted. It had been expected that the widow and son of Jay would come forward and sue for damages, but no such claim was made. The jury, who remained in deliberation only a very few minutes, came into court, and pronounced a verdict of not guilty, and the prisoner was thereupon immediately discharged. On hearing the result, the wife of the prisoner, who had agai❑ entered the court, fainted. She was removed into the open air, where she recovered, and was taken to her husband, who was then at the Conciergerie, but at liberty.—Paris Paper.
The Sun. — 1846-11-11 (London, England)

THE LAST DYING WORDS AND CONFESSION OF EUGENE ARAM. We (Manchester Guardian) have had a curious printed paper placed in our hands for inspection, being no other than the halfpenny sheet hawked about the streets on the execution of the notorious Eugene Aram. It is entitled, " The last dying words and confession of Eugene Aram, who was executed at Tyburn, near York, on Monday, the Gth day of August, 1759, for the murder of Daniel Clark, of Knaresborough, about the 7th February, 1744." Beneath this heading is an impression from an old and well-worn woodcut engraving, curious. as representing the mode of hanging at that tlmo. The gallows has only one upright in this form I, and there does not appear to be any scaffold, and the " Tyburn cart" has apparently done its business, for a man is represented as hanging from a rope, carried over the end of the horizontal arm of the beam, whilst "Jack Ketch" is upon the ladder placed against the upright, or " the gallows tree." Below are seen the crowd, and mingled with than the " javelin men," with their halberts preventing the crox d from approaching too close. There are rude representatious of three houses, all the windows filled with faces, as if gazing on the spectacle. Beneath this woodcut is the brief notice of the murderer's biography—" Eugene Aram, aged 43, was born at Ripon, the son of Peter Aram, who wrote the excellent poem on Studley Park." The last dying words " bear internal evidence of their being fabricated for the purpose of b• ing hawked about the streets. As this document is believed to be unique, veinsert a literal copy of the speech or confession put into the mouth of the wretched man:— My Father, etho had some loose Thoughts of the Power of Almighty God, which he continued too long, hurt my tender and young Principals in Religion ; I thank God I am thoroughly convinced of his Error, ad am in Hopes through the Mediation of my blessed Sariour.Jesus ;Christ to be saved. I confess the Justness of my Sentence, but was not apprehensive try Accomplice would have dealt so perfidiously with me, for I cannot help taking Notice to the World (as it does expect I should say something) that he was forsworn upon my Tryal, as I have solemnly declared to a reverend Divine ; he also was more active in conveying poor Clark away, than myself, likewise in burning his Cloaths, and attempting to persuade me to murder:my poor injured Wife. I hope the Lerd will pardon me for the Wrong I have done my dear Wife, whose honest Counsel I always disdain'd, depending on my own, as I thought, superiour Judgment, which I find, but now too late, hath brought me to this untimely End. I desire Forgiveness of all the World, particularly, my poor, dear, and injured Wife, and of all others whom I have injured in the Course of my wicked Life, begging their Prayers for my poor departing Soul, and that my Accomplices may take Warning by this my woeful End ; for tho they are clear'd by Man, they know, before God, they are as guilty as myself. Ido heartily desire they would make Restitution to all those whom we have injured, which is the last Words and sincere Wishes of the unfortunate
The Sun. — 1846-06-08 (London, England)

ANOTHER LAFFARGE CASE.  A trial for murder by poisoning, which bears a strong resemblance to the celebrated Laffarge case, has just occupied the Court of Assize of Montpellier. It lasted for several days, and the verdict was pronounced on Thursday last. The circumstances may be etated briefly as follows :—ln August, 1844, M. Malaret, a gentleman farmer of Beziers, died suddenly, and a few months afterwards his widow, a young woman of some beauty and good education, married a young man named Berdet, with whom she had become acquainted by visiting the school where her son was placed, and at which Berdet was a teacher. This acquaintance ended in a criminal intercourse, which reached the knowledge of her husband, also a young man, and remarkable for his kindness to his wife, and led to a serious quarrel between her and her husband, as also to the dismissal of Berdet from his situation, but the husband still retained his wife in the conjugal domicile, and appeared disposed to forgive her. Berdet, who is stated to be a man of very dissolute habits, fell into great distress, but received, it is supposed, pecuniary assistance from Madame Malaret, and whenever an opportunity offered, their criminal intercourse was renewed. The death of M. Malaret took rlace after repeated attacks of illness, which there is no doubt now were the result of a series of at tempts to destroy him, but at length, and at a moment when his health was considered by his friends to be reestablished, he fell ill and died. During his last illness all the servants were sent out of the way by his wife, and she alone attended him. Suspicions were entertained in the neighbourhood, but nothing, even in the way of rumour, reached the ears of the authorities until several months after the marriage between Berdet and the widow had taken place, when their attention was excited by the receipt of an anonymous letter, and an inquiry was instituted. The body was exhumed and a large quantity of arsenic was found in it. Monsieur and Madame Berdet were then arrested and brought to trial on the charge of murder. The evidence against the female was very strong indeed—the adulteries between her and Berdet during the life-time of Malaret were clearly established, and many facts were proved showing that Madame Malaret must have administered poison to her husband frequently, and that finding his constitution triumphed over the administration of arsenic in small doses, she had at length resolved to give such a quantity as to render deathcertain. It was proved that, during the last illness, she had prevented the servants from approaching the room of the victim; that she alone had prepared his food, and that she had refused to call in the aid of a physician. The case as against Berdet, however, was far from conclusive, and he was acquitted. Madame Berdet was found guilty, but with extenuating circumstances, and sentenced to imprisonment, with hard labour, for life. She evinced during the trial great selfpossession, and in very energetic terms protested that she was innocent, but when the verdict was given she betrayed great emotion.
The Sun. — 1846-07-09 (London, England)

POTTER. )  BARLOW V. BROWN-RESPONSIBILITIES OF EXECUTORS,  This was an action brought by the plaintiff who is a clerk in the London and County Joint-stock Bank, at Bishop's Stortford, against the defendant, who resides at Manchester, to recover the sum of 61. 17s. 6d. for money had and received to and for the use of the plaintiff, under peculiar circumstances. It appeared, from the evidence, that the plaintiff and others were entitled to shares in a legacy left by a Mr. Grantham, of Hind, near Wigan. A Mr. Oddy was appointed one of the executors, but he being, from some unexplained cause, unable to attend to the duties of the office, spoke to his son-in-law to carry out the object of the testator. It further appeared that the defendant did so, and the question now arose whether he had any claim against the legatees in obtaining evidence of their rights. It was contended by Ur' PETERSDORFF that the executor was bound to make all those inquiries at the cost of the estate, and that he could not delegate his duty to an agent, so as to render the legatees liable to the agent. The SECONDARY was of the same opinion, but a verdict was taken for the plaintiff on the point of law.  CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT COILLIAM (Before Baron ALDERSON, gr. JU Robert Burke, aged OLD waso counterfeit shillings, and it was proved that he had beenu!tviT.cioe convicted lVd of utteringsand two the LORD BlAyou). before convicted of a similar offence, and that he had also been charged a number of times at the police offices with uttering base coin. Mr. Justice WILLIAMS said that after what had been stated, I he considered it was hopeless to expect that the prisoner could come to any good in this country, and the sentence therefore necessarily was, that he be transported for ten years. Henry 'talky, 34, chairmaker, was indicted for feloniously cutting and wounding-Lucy Harley, with intent to murder her. It appeared that the parties were man and wife, but they had separated, and on the day mentioned in the indictment, the prisoner went to the house where the prosecutrix was staying, and, apparently without any Provocation he seized a carving knife and stabbed her in the lower part of her person, inflicting a dreadful wound three inches deep. For the defence some witnesses were called to make out a case of insanity. The evidence, however, merely went to show that the prisoner, in one bis versions, had made use of some absurd and incoherent expressions. Mr. Justice WILLIAMS having left the case to the jury, they deliberated a short time, and then returned a verdict of Guilty. The Learned JUDGE inquired of the jury whether they were of opinion that at the time the prisoner committed the act imputed to him, he was perfectly aware of its quality and the consequences likely to result from it. The jury replied that they believed he was •quite.sane when he committed the offence. The Learned JrDGE then ordered the sentence of Death to be recorded.  NE E W
The Sun. — 1846-03-30 (London, England)

JUDGE—She died from the loss of blood produced by the wounds. Examination continued—After the infliction of the blows  on the head, she was in the state of a person in a At of apoplexy. She might have opened her eyes after the blows on the head. Cross examined—The wounds on the head would not have caused instant death. I have seen instances in which injuries to the head had been greater, and the parties had recovered.  Mr. W. S. Oatchpole, solicitor, Yarmouth, deposed—On the night of the murder the prisoner occupied a part of my louse ; the prisoner's wife was my housekeeper, and the prisoner was a shoemaker, and had a room for that purpose. On the Saturday I told Mrs. Yarham that I was going to dine at the Angel on the Monday, and the prisoner took my dress boots to the Angel. I went home about half-past one o'clock. I rang the bell, and the prisoner opened the door directly; the prisoner was dressed. I had a Scotch terrier in my house, which was a very watchful animal. When I went back the dog was. with the prisoner. There was a light in the passage ; there was scarcely time for him to have lit the candle before he opened the door; the pri sonar assisted me off with my boots, but did not say anything ; the prisoner afterwards came and called me up, as the police had just rung the bell. I was in the Black Swan between five and half-past five, when the prisoner went in, and I sent him to my room for my snuff-box and some money. When he returned the prisoner said his wife was frightened, as there was somebody up the chimney; the chimney was searched and nobody found. The prisoner repeatedly said he was quite awake, and never heard any noise. The next morning I went back to the house. The prisoner and his wife were conversing about it. The wife said she had been twice into the shop f)r candles for him at night, and had not heard or seen anything. Cross-examined—The prisoner and his wife have lived in my service from July. They were recommended to me by a tradesman in Yarmouth, to whom the prisoner was foreman. I placed confidence in him, and he never abused that confidence ; he was an honest and very industrious man. George F. Knights, private watchman to Mr. Harvey's tan-yard. On the night of the murder I was on duty, and heard a row about twelve o'clock. I went towards the spo,, and saw two men going in the direction of Beverley's Mill. From thence they crossed to a sand hill. One stooped at a sand hill, and then they both stooped at another sand hill. They were about forty yards from me. The moon was going down. One man was taller than the other. The prisoner was not one of those two men. I got upon the hinges of the gate to see what they were doing, but could not. Their arms were moving. Hooked towards the bleach pales, and saw a man going towards the north, which would lead towards the Market-gates. At that moment 1 heard a noise, and could not see anything. I returned, but saw no more of any of these parties. I could not say who the single man was, but ho was about the height of the prisoner. By the