npedrazzini/19thc_murder_suicide_news huggingface dataset:
The Sun. — 1850-04-01 (London, England)

NOLAN V. PETTIGREW. In this case his Lordship had just commenced summing up last night when our report was forwarded. •.  WS LORDSHIP proceeded to say, that during the ten years and upwards which he had had the honour of sitting upon the bench he did not think that he ever had to come to the consideration of a case 'so painful in every particular as the present. The action was brought by Edward Henry Nolan, called Dr. Nolan, a Dissenting minister, against the defendant, Mr Pettigrew, complaining of a slander uttered by him, and contained in Ford's evidence, which his Lordship read. Dr. Nolan complained of the charge as a scandalous reflection upon his character, that he had committed adultery and fornication, and endeavoured to cloak it from the eyes of the world by giving a prescription to one of his victims to procure abortion, whereby she had been caused intense suffering: The answer of Pettigrew was, first, that he did not say it ; secondly, that he was justified in saying what he did, because Dr. Nolan did commit fornication with two persons, namely; with Elizabeth Towneley and Mary Gilchriit. It had been said that this was no defence ; but it was a complete defence to one part of the charge, that he had committed adultery ; it did not purport to answer the charge of procuring abortion. To sustain the action the jury must not only be satisfied that the words were uttered, but that they were uttered maliciously against the plaintiff. If he said of a man that he was a thief and a murderer, the presumption was that he was actuated by malice ; but even then the words uttered might not sustain the action, as it might be what was termed in law a privileged communication. For instance, if he asked, " Do you know such and such a man ? He has applied to me to come into my service ; he lived with you—what was his character ?" and the person addressed was to reply, " I believe him to be an abandoned thief," that would be, no doubt, a gross slander—still the interests of society required that people should have the liberty of answering questions of that sort without being liable to an action ; and that was what was called a privileged communication. So he took it to be clear that if the members of a Dissenting congregation entertained doubts as to the moral conduct ct their pastor, and one said to another, " I really believe he has committed a felony, and endeavoured to procure abortion"— if that was said merely with the view of putting the other on his guard, he thought it was perfectly lawful ; but still privileged communications were not to be made the medium of malicious slander. The Learned Judge concluded—You have now the painful anexpression se of an whole case before you, and I must end as I began, with hcase, bee opinion that it is a most years the has minister been foro f you must come to one of two conclusions—either that a man who has been for many a large congregation in Manchesteryears (for we cannot shut our eyes to the fact that if the plaintiff is guilty in tbe,t wo
The Sun. — 1850-09-25 (London, England)

DEATH FROM SMOKING.-011 Tuesday Mr. Pruen, the county coroner, held an inquest at Cheltenham, on the body of a boy named George Hill, aged ten years, the son of John Hill, of New-street. It appeared that on Saturday last, being in his usual health, he purchased some tobacco and commenced smoking, boasting that he could smoke better than any other boy in Cheltenham. He smoked two full pipes, but did not at the time appear to :Lifter any illeffects. About one o'clock he went home to dinner, and shortly after sitting down ho complained of a pain in his head, putting his band at the same time to his right temple He then fell uff the chair to the ground, exclaiming, " Murder ; mother, God bless you, I am going to die;" and immediately after became insensible. Mr. Gregory was called in, and prescribed the proper antidotes, but deceased died in the course of the same day. Mr. Gregory, in his evidence before the jury, said he found the boy in a state of collapse, and evidently suffering from some narcotic poison. The symptoms were just such as would lee produced by over smoking. The jury returned a verdict in accordance with this evidence. The pipe which this boy had used on the morning of his death, was stated to hold more than four ordinary pii es. PAYMENT or THE POSTPONEDDUTY Or 1848.—The collection of the remaining moiety of the hop duty of 1848 (for which bonds were taken by the officers of inland revenue, due on the Ist of October) will commeace at Battle, on Monday, Oct. 14, terminating, so far as relates to that district, at Tonbridge Wells on Friday, the 18th. The collection for the Lewes district will not take place till Friday, Nov. I.—Kentish Gazette. Some time ago, whilst Madame de Caumont Laforce, a lady of property, of Paris, was in the conntry, one of her domestics, aided by two other persons, caused the whole of the splendid furniture of her hotel, worth nearly 80,000 f., to be taken to the Hotel des Commissairespriseurs, and sold by auction. The price realised was only 6,000 f. With this sum, added to a large sum in gold, a quantity of jewellery, and other valuable objects, the three thieves, George Dehen, Nicholas Veremetre, and a young woman, named Francois Bernard, took their departure from Havre, on board the St. Nicholas, for New York. As soon as the robbery was known, warrants were issued for their arrest, but they did not reach Havre until after the departure of the ship. Directions were, however, immediately forwarded ria England, to the French consul at New York to arrest the thieves, on their arrival in that city. These instructions reached New York by the English steamer before the St. Nicolas. The French consul immediately hired a steamer to go out to meet the St. Nicholas, and the three thieves were captured, to their profound astonishment, at some distance from the land. They are to be brought to France for trial. Part of their booty will be restored to the owner.— Galignani.
The Sun. — 1850-03-26 (London, England)

MART ANNE PARSONS. Oa the postmortem examination be discovered " another bruise on the back part of the head,' and there was considerable extravasation of blood ; the membranes of the brain were considerably congested, and at the base of the brain there was also extrae x ,v,asation of blood." lie considered that the injuriescod notof form ermhaeand opinionwere thheowcause a f death,terna l nithat but violence bad been inflicted." And on cross-exatnination be stated that " the appearances in the head were the same as in eases of apoplexy." This testimony led to the acquittalof the • prisoners. There was abundant evidence to show that both had flogged and cruelly beaten the child; that they had inflicted the injuries on the other parts of the person, but nothing to bring the fatal blow home to either. Deeply as we regret that such infamous conduct. should be perpetrated with impunity, fully as we participate in the just indignation of the bystanders who gave utterance to the remonstance—" What ! are these persons to go entirely without punishment ?' we cannot dissent from the view of the case taken by the accomplished and amiable Judge who presided on the trial. He was sworn to administer justice equally and impartially, to hold the scales with an indifferent hand between our Sovereign Lady the QUERN and the prisoners at the bar. 1-1 e could not sutler any personal feelings of horror and disgust to influence him in the discharge of the important trust confided to his charge. The prisoners were unquestionably morally guilty. No doubt could remain that through their inhuman conduct the miserable girl had been brought to a cruel and untimely death; but, unfortunately, there was not the legal evidence of their guilt which the law and society require. Far better that such criminals should escape unscathed than that the law itself should  be strained and violated, and a precedent established of the most formidable character. If the strict letter of the law could be disregarded, in order to bring offenders like the BIRDS or MART NEWTON to punishment, there would be no protection for British subjects, the " trial by jury" would be a vain and useless ceremony. The Irish jury, who found a man guilty of murder because he stole a mare belonging to the foreman, for which he could not be convicted, would have acted in a manner worthy of imitation. None perhaps in the community would feel a more intense horror of the crime, and a more lively detestation of the criminals than Mr. Justice TALFOURD, but he had a higher duty to discharge. His was not a " maudlin sympathy" with the offenders, but a strong sense of justice that compelled him, however unwillingly, to give even to such persons the benefit of the strict letter of the law. Their crime might have been punished, and justly punished, under a despotic government, but better that they should escape than that the rights and liberties of Englishmen should be endangered.  MONEY and
The Sun. — 1850-11-01 (London, England)

GUILDHALL.  Arthur Conlin, a ruffianly-looking fellow, well known to the police, was brought up, charged with an assault under the following circumstances : City police-constable 368 stated, that about halfpast 12 o'clock o❑ Wednesday night he was on Holborn•hill, when he heard the screams of a woman calling for assistance. On proceeding to the spot he saw the prisoner grasping the throat of a woman, while she and another were crying out " Murder" as loud as they could. As soon as the prisoner saw witness he turned round and ran away. Witness found one of the women crying bitterly, and, on examining her with his lantern, saw the marks of great violence about her face and neck. The two women were servants from a part of Islington, and they promised to appear and give their evidence, provided they could obtain the permission of their respective mistresses.  The prisoner, in answer to the charge, said that the two women in question were in company with a young man, and they were all of them drunk. They stripped themselves from their feet up to their shoulders, and in that state were capering about, and presenting a most indecent and disgusting exhibition. He was hastening home, and, in endeavouring to avoid the obscenity of their pranks, he met one of the women running towards him as if she were mad, screaming in a most hysterical manner, and he believed that the reason the cry of "Murder" was raised was merely to indulge herself in her partiality for hysterics. As she was passing him, he put out his hand to stop her in her mad career, and at that moment the policeman came up. He never ran away when the policeman arrived, he was only hurryicg away from the vile scene that was presented to his gaze. Springate, the gaoler, here said that he had known the prisoner for several years. He was not considered exactly right in his head, and whenever he was in prison he went by the name of the "Poet." The governor of the prison had on several occasions found it necessary to set a watch upon every movement of the prisoner, on account of his violence. He would sometimes remain perfectly quiet for 6evtral days together, and then, after such intervals of quiescence, break out suddenly in a most violent manner, and strike everybody that came near him, until he was put under restraint.  The first witness here stated that what prisoner had said was entirely false, as the girls had had neither time nor opportunity to make such an indecent display, even if they had felt so disposed. lle felt quite assured they were respectable girls. Alderman HUNTER said, as it did not appear likely that the persons who ought to prosecute in this case would be able to attend, he would deal with it in a summary manner, on the testimony of the officer, and he would. therefore inflict upon the prisoner a fine of 205., or, in default of payment, order him to be imprisoned for 14 days
The Sun. — 1850-12-11 (London, England)

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.  NORTHERN ClRCUlT.—Lzverpool, Dec. 10. Ann Ball was indicted for having at Southport, on the 24th of July last, attempted to murder her new born male child, by suffocating it in the sand. Mr. Joseph Pollock and Mr. Sowler prosecuted; the prisoner was undefended. The prisoner had been indicted for murder at the last assizes, but after the evidence of the surgeon had been given, the Learned Judge who tried the case directed an acquittal, and ordered her to be detained in custody, that she might be indicted for an attempt to murder at these assizes. It appeared that on the day in question an old man proceeding across th© sands at Southport, thought he saw the sand move. On going to the place he found that it was caused by a child, who was partially buried in the sand. [having procured the assistance of Mr. Mercer, who lived close by, and fearing that the child would die, they took it to the Roman Catholic priest, Mr. Newsham, and had it baptized by the name of James. On the Saturday following the child grew worse, at♦d eventually died on the Monday morning. The unfortunate woman had been observed by a witness to have been in an advanced state of pregnancy for some time previously to the day the child was found, and on making some observation respecting the propriety of providing clothes for it, the prisoner replied, "It will come naked into the world, and it shall go out naked." And she then went away crying. Shortly before the child was found, the prisoner was seen by a witness named Berland to come out of a petty with something in her apron, which moved about, and he thought he heard a cry like the cry of a fowl when-it is being killed. Subsequently she was seen to go towards the spot in the sand where the child was discovered. The police, having been informed of the circumstances, went widi Dr. Barron to the prisoner's house, end it was then discovered that the prisoner had been delivered of a child in the course of the day. This, however, she stoutly denied. continuing her work, which was that of brushing the floor, and asked the officer if she looked as if she had been delivered of a child that day; and then walked with him to the lock-up, which was about a mile and a half off. She, however, afterwards confessed at the station that she had been confined, and that the child was born alive. A post mor. tern examination was made, and it was discovered that the child had died from inanition and exposure in the sand. The prisoner, on being called on far her defence, briefly denied that she had said that the child should go out of the world naked as it had entered. The Foreman of the jury said that he was at Southport at the time, and he had heard that the prisoner was insane.  His
The Sun. — 1850-09-20 (London, England)

LAMBETH.  Daniel Good, a smartly-dressed youth, the son of the notorious Daniel Good, who was executed a few years since for the inhuman murder and burning the body of Hannah Jones, at Roehampton, was brough t before Mr. Elliott, on a summons charging him with misconduct as an apprentice. Mr. James Wheeler, a ladies' shoemaker, deposed that on the 28th of October, 845, the defendant had been bound to him as an apprentice.by the officers of the parish of Lambeth, to learn his trade. For some time the youth went on exceedingly well indeed, until he had acquired an excellent knowledge of his business ; but latterly his conduct became intolerable. It was his custom to leave his (Mr. Wheeler's) house soon after he left off work, at 8 o'clock at night, and proceed to a public-house, and remain there until 11 or 12 o'clock drinking and smoking, and when he remonstrated with him on such conduct he became very insolent. The complainant mentioned Monday morning last as the particular occasion on which the defendant had misconducted himself, and said that on that morning he visited the public-house. The defendant said that on the morning last spoken of he was suffering from a severe affection of the chest, which was brought on by the number of hours which he was kept working for his master, and had gone to the public-house for something to relieve him. He worked, he said, early and late for his master, but finding that his health had become injured, and that the hours which he worked were too much for him, he agreed to allow his master 12s. a week out of his earnings, and this he regularly kept up, but his master was not satisfied with this, and wanted 14s. a week, and his (defendant's) non-compliance with this was the sole cause of the present complaint. The complainant in reply to the questions of Mr. Elliot, admitted that he had agreed to let the defendant work his own time, on the understanding that he was to allow him 12s. a week out of his earnings but added that he was quite capable of earning at least a guinea a week, if he chose to work. Mr. ELLIOTT remarked that, according to the complainant's own showing, he had agreed to the defendant's working at any hours that suited him, provided he paid him the 12s. a we k, and asked how many hours he wished the defendant to work? The complainant replied that from six i❑ the morning until eight at night were the usual hours in the trade, and those he should require.  Mr. ELLIOTT renalktd that fourteen hours were too many. Twelve hours were quite as many as an apprentice should be asked to work, and, in fact, they should not be more.  The defendant said the whole grievance, as he had before stated, was in his not allowing his master 14s , and not 12. a week ; but he was willing to allow even the former sum, provided his master in the first instance permitted him to get an additional suit of clothes.  It was, however, ultimately arranged that the 123. should be paid, and the defendant was advised to keep away from the public-house and abstain from late hours.
The Sun. — 1850-09-20 (London, England)

LAMBETH.  Daniel Good, a smartly-dressed youth, the son of he notorious Daniel Good, who was executed a few years since for the inhuman murder and burning the body of Hannah Jones, at Roehampton, was brought before Mr. Elliott, on a summons charging him with misconduct as an apprentice. Mr. James Wheeler, a ladies' shoemaker, deposed that on the 28th of October, 1845, the defendant had been bound to him as an apprentice.by the officers of the parish of Lambeth, to learn his trade. For some time the youth went on exceedingly well indeed, until he had acquired an excellent knowledge of his business; but latterly his conduct became intolerable. It was his custom to leave his (Mr. Wheeler's) house soon after he left off work, at 8 o'clock at night, and proceed to a public-house, and remain there until 11 or 12 o'clock drinking and smoking, and when he remonstrated with bim on such conduct he became very insolent. The complainant mentioned Monday morning last as the particular occasion on which the defendant had misconducted himself, and said that on that morning he visited the public-house. The defendant said that on the morning last spoken of he was suffering from a severe affection of the chest, which was brought on by the number of hours which he was kept working for his master, and had gone to the public-house for something to relieve him. He worked, he said, early 'and late for his master, but finding that his health had become injured, and that the hours which he worked were too much for him, he agreed to allow his master 12s. a week out of his earnings, and this he regularly kept up, but his master was not satisfied with this, and wanted 14s. a week, and his (defendant's) non-compliance with this was the sole cause of the present complaint. The complainant in reply to the questions of Mr. Elliot, admitted that he had agreed to let the defendant work his own time, on the understanding that he was to allow him 12s. a week out of his earnings ; but added that he was quite capable of earning at least a guinea a week, if he chose to work. • Mr. ELLIOTT remarked that, according to the complainant's own showing, he had agreed to the defendant's working at any hours that suited him, provided he paid him the 12g. a we€k, and asked how many hours he wished the defendant to work ? The complainant replied that from six in the morning until eight at night were the usual hours in the trade, and those he should require. Mr. ELLIOTT remarked that fourteen hours were too many. Twelve hours were quite as many as an apprentice should be asked to work, and, in fact, they should not be more.  The defendant said the whole grievance, as he had before stated, was in his not allowing his master 14s , and not 12a. a week ; but he was willing to allow even the former sum, provided his master in the first instance permitted him to get an additional suit of clothes.  It was, however, ultimately arranged that the 12s. should be paid, and the defendant was advised to keep a way from the public-house and abstain from late hours. •
The Sun. — 1850-02-05 (London, England)

THAMES. Ann Maclean, Margaret Willis, and Ann Miller, three audacious and expert thieves, the eldest only eighteen years of age, were charged with assaulting and robbing William Doyle, an Irish tailor, of I, Batty'sgardens, St. George's-in the-East. The prosecutor, a great simpleton, said he had a good deal of money in his pocket, and was drinking rather freely on Sunday evening, and in the course of his rambles n ent into the Blue Pig in St. George's-inthe• East, where lee met with the prisoners, and treated them all with liquor. In return for his kindness they promised him a night's lodging, and he went home with Maclean. He had not long gone to bed in her room when Willis entered the aeartment, and came into the same bed, and put the light out. Miller next entered and told him he would not be allowed to remain in the house unless he gave the landlady Is. 6d. He agreed to do se, and called her up-stairs and took a half-crown from a purse which contained eight more, five half-sovereigns, and some other moneys. He gave the landlady a half-crown, and told her to fetch some beer. She had no sooner quitted the room than the three prisoners attacked him and endeavoured to obtain possession cf his purse and its contents. He held it fast in his hands and said he would not part with it, on which Maclean swore she would bite his hand off, and seizing his fingers with her teeth lacerated them severely, and made him drop the purse. The other prisoners got him down while his fingers were between Maclean's lips, and tent him severely. He lost his purse and the whole of his money, and was ejected from the room and forced downstairs into the passage, where he called out as loud as he was able for the police. James Matins, police-constable 99 K, stated that, at a late hour on Sunday night, he heard cries of " Murder," and " Police," which proceeded from a man in the house, No. 2, Victoria-place, Shadwell—a place solely inhabited by the most depraved characters. He hastened to the place, and saw the tailor, who said he had been robbed and ill-used by three girls. Witness found the prisoners in an upper room, and upon telling them they were charged with stealing eight half-crowns and five half-sovereigns, they all declared their innocence. Maclean handed him one half-crown, and said the prosecutor gave it to her. Willis gave him four more, which she said the tailor took out of his pocket and gave to her. Miller denied having any money until she was on the point cf leaving the house, when she handed him six half-erowns, and said a young man gave them to her on Sunday night. The parse and half-sovereigns were not found. Mr. YARDLEY asked if the prisoners were known, and he was answered in the affirmative. They were all very clever thieves, and Miller, the most dexterous of the party, had been lately in custody for stealing a captain's watch and money. Mr,