The Warwickshire Herald. — 1888-01-19 (Birmingham, West Midlands, England)

POISONING A WIFE AND SON.  At the Central Criminal Court, Henry Bowles, 53, has been tried for the wilful murder of Hannah Bowles, said to be his wife. In opening the case for the prosecution Mr. Besley said that the prisoner was a gardener to Dr. Wooler, at Camberley, near Farnham' Surrey. With him lived his wife, and a youth of 17, known as Edward Bowles, who passed as his nephew, but it was well known that he was really his son. This youth met his death at the same time and in the same way as the woman. Prisoner had been under-keeper with Lord Egmont, Lord Wanta„o-e, and others, and persons of his occupation knew the properties of strychnine, that poison being the one by which it was contended that the woman and the young man came by their deaths. Strychnine was extensively used by gamekeepers, particularly in Derbyshire, where the prisoner had lived, for the destruction of stoats and other vermin, which preyed ott.i)o game. Bowles and his wife had not -been on terms ate one time, but at the time of good death and for some time previously they lived together affectionately. An assistant-gardener saw them together at 4 in the afternoon of the day of the tragedy, and from that hour until midnight they knew nothing of what took place, except from the mouth of the prisoner. About 12 o'clock the prisoner went for a neighbouring doctor, saying his Wife had a tit, and was dying. On the doctor arriving he found the poor woman lying on the floor, and she died in three minutes. During this time the boy was in bed up stairs, crying out as if in great pain. On the doctor going upstairs the boy said he had taken nothing except bread and inns for supper, and after that an antibilious pill. The symptoms of both were those of strychnine. The doctor went to his surgery to get chloroform. On his way through the kitchen he saw a pill-box on the mantel-piece ; on his return the pillbox was missing. The post-mortem confirmed the opinion that it was a case of poisoning from strychnine. Bowles, it would be shewn, had made the acquaintance of a young woman whom he wanted to make his wife.—Dr. Thomas Stevenson, M.R.C.P., official analyst to the Home Office, deposed to finding strychnine in the stomachs of the deceased. Both mother and son must have taken a large dose of strychnine, and they undoubtedly died from its effects. It was not difficult to make up strychnine in pills that resembled ordinary antibilions pills.— Mrs. Deverell, a friend of the family, said that when she went to the house on the night Mrs. Bowles and her son died, the prisoner seemed greatly distressed, saying, "Oh, my poor boy, and my poor wife, to have suffered so much." Bowles and the deceased always seemed to be on good terms. According to other witnesses, the prisoner had often spoken of Mrs. Bowles' heart being diseased. Her life was insured in the Prudential Assurance Company for £2B 4s. The agent had proposed that a policy should be taken out for young Bowles, but prisoner had declined. The coachman of the house stated that the morning after the occurence Bowles told him he thought his wife and son must have been poisoned with mushrooms, and took him to a mushroom bed in the grounds of Cromby House, where he said there might be some fungi. —The sister of the deceased woman said she thought Mr. Bowles was her second husband, but she had now learned that they had never been married, but had lived together since 1882, and had had two children. It was also proved that the prisoner made inquiries, through some friends in London, about a housemaid he had known in one of his situations, asking if she was married, where she was now,and saying that he loved her. He also told them that he had a very comfortable place at Camberley, but the worst of it was he had got aa old housekeeper.—After an address from Mr. H. C. Richards, for the defence, and Mr. Justice Charles's summing up, the jury retired to consider their verdict, and two hours afterwards said there was no chance of their agreeing.—Mr. Justice Charles declined to discharge them, and they again ietired, returning shortly before 10, finding the prisuaer guilty.—He was sentenced to death.