Beverley and East Riding Telegraph. — 1895-05-11 (Beverley, Humberside, England)

THE BARNET TRAGEDY.  INQUEST AND VERDICT.  Mr. R. W. Brabant, coroner, resumed the inquest, at New Barnet, touching the death of the child Lydia Hills, the daughter of a Barnet gardener, whose body was found in a fieh,l on the 18th ult. The evidence already given showed that the girl had been shockingly ill-used. Mr. Sweeting, solicitor, appeared for the labourer, Thomas Osborne, who had been arrested on suspicion,. and the prisoner was brought to the court from Holloway Gaol in charge of two warders. Sub-divisional Inspector Doughty watched the case for the police.—P.s. Jewell, recalled, said I the opinion he had formed was that the body had been carried to the field where he saw it. There were foot-marks near the body. Osborne here held up his feet, showing he had tips on the toe of his boots as well as the heels, and Sergeant Jewell said there were no impressions of such tips on the ground. The marks were so small I and indistinct that he had a difficulty in seeing his I own footprints. In consequence of what he heard he I had prisoner arrested, and found two bloodstained ' handkerchiefs on him.—Mr. Sweeting : Did you warn prisoner ?—Witness: No.—The Coroner: Had you time ?—Witness: No, sir. Prisoner stated that he found one of the handkerchiefs in a cell at High Barnet police-station, and it was bloodstained then. Witness's opinion was that the murder was committed between half-past 8 and half-past 12 on the night of the 17th; there was rain that night.—Maggie Clayton, a servant girl, said she saw prisoner on the night of the 17th with a number of children. He was putting on a pair ' of boots, throwing an old pair away. The children were " chaffing " him.—The Coroner. read a telegram which had been received from the Public Prosecutor, in which he asked that the inquest should not be finished in order to allow of an analytical examination of the prisoner's clothes. —The foreman of the jury said they were unanimously of opinion that it was most desirable to complete it that day. Their duty was to find out ! the cause of death, not who caused it.—Mr. Sweetm ! • ! g pointed out that the prisoner was being kept in custody all this time. The articles to be analysed had been in the possession of the police for a fortnight.—Dr. Roughton said death was due to suffocation. There was nothing on the prisoner's clothing or person that would connect him with the outrage.—The jury found a verdict of wilful murder against some person or persons unknown. On Monday morning Osken.ne was again brought before the Barnet Bench. The Treasury, who have taken up the prosecution, asked for a formal remand, and intimated that on the further adjournment they would be ready to proceed. At present they were waiting for the analysis of certain clothing.—Mr. Edward Sweeting, solicitor, who appeared for the accused, protested against these repeated remands without evidence, and asked that bail might be accepted. He urged that the accused had been three weeks in custody, and not a shred of evidence had been given against him, and the coroner's jury had by their verdict declined to connect the accused with the outrage. Indeed, there was no evidence forthcoming to justify the retention of the accused in custody. Under the circumstances, he hoped that reasonable bail would be accepted. It was monstrous that a man should be kept in custody for so long a time without some substantial evidence against him.--After further discussion the Magistrates refused bail.