npedrazzini/19thc_murder_suicide_news huggingface dataset:
The Express. — 1853-07-12 (London, England)

WORSHIP-STREET. John Bird, a tall muscular men, was charged before Mr. Hammitt with a murderous assault upon Elizabeth Domeney, the wife of a tradesman in Britannia street, Cityroad. The complainant, who was in such a state of suffering and exhaustion that she fainted while being led into the court, and was scarcely able to give her evidence, stated that for the last nine months the wife of the prisoner, who had been compelled to separate from her husband, in con• sequence of his repeated acts of brutality towards her, had resided in her house with her female child, and commiserating her unhappy position. witness had been the means of providing her with sufficient employment for their comfortable subsistence. She had been subjected, in consequence, to incessant insults and annoyances on the part of the prisoner, who was in the habit, every time he met her, of spitting in her face, and assailing her with the coarsest invectives. About nine o'clock that morning she was &meditate at her street door, when the prisoner suddenly presented himself, and demanded, with an oath, that his child should be delivered up to him. On telling hint that she was unable to comply with his request, as she had no controul over the child, the prisoner instantly struck her a terrible blow under the ear, which felled her to the ground. On recovering her feet she retreated back into the shop, and was endeavouring to escape from further illtreatment, by secreting herself beneath the counter, when the prisoner hastened after her, and grasping her by the back of the neck, commenced beating her about the head and face with all his force. The prisoner continued the same brutal course of violence, without a moment's intermission, for at least a quarter an hour, and she felt satisfied that he would have carried out his threats to murder her on the spot, but for the timely interference of several persons who forcibly dragged him away, and ultimately gave him into custody. The evidence of the injured woman was fully corroborated by one of her neighbours named Eliza Casher, and police constable Hayward, 0 212, stated that having received information from a gentleman on horseback, who overtook hint in an adjoining street, that murder was being committed at the house in question, he immediately proceeded there, and the prisoner was given into his custody. Oa entering the shop he found the complainant, supported in the arms of two women, in a state of partial insensibility, and so dreadfully injured that a considerable time elapsed before she was in a condition to be conveyed to the station to prosecute the charge. On being called on for his defence, the prisoner said that his only motive in going to the house was to get possession of the child, and that he had used no more violence than he considered necessary to accomplish that object. Mr. Hammill said that it was a most brutal and aggravated case, and he had no hesitation in ordering the prisoner to be committed to the House of Correction and to be kept to hard labour for the full term of six mouths.
The Express. — 1853-04-12 (London, England)

APRIL 11.  Barmen Ma. Juries Wieurnsx. THE GODLEY Mraixa. Horrid Thornlev and Robert Thornky, were charged II with poisoning James Brookes, at Godley. Mr. Davison and Mr. Swetenharn conducted the prose- i cution ; Mr. Mackintyre defended the prisoners. This murder was alleged to have been committed in February, 1847. The deceased James Brookes lived with his wife, the female prisoner, at • farm, at Godley. near Ashton-under-Lgne. Ile was • collier, working chiefly in a coal mine, at Dunkirk, but for a short time previous to his death be had worked at Pendleton, near Manchester. He used to leave home for Pendleton on the Monday morning, and return home on the Saturday evening. During the hay harvest of 1846 he had employed the prisoner Thorneley on his farm, and discharged him at the latter end of the year. An attachment sprang up between Thorneley and Brookes's wife, and Mrs. Brookes had frequently been heard to say that she would rather have Robert Thoruely'a little finger than her husband's whole body. Thorneley had been heard by several parties to threaten the life of Brookes, and he entertained a resentment against the deceased fur having discharged him. Belden)* was given to prove that an adulterous intercourse had been carried on between the two prisoners before the death of James Brookes. Oa the 27th of February, James Brookes died after being ill for a few days, and suffering from frequent vomiting'. An inquest was held upon his body, but as he had recently been wounded in the coal mists it was thought that his death had resulted from the wound which was received on the temple. H., was buried, and in the May following the prisoner Thorneley married Brookes' widow. They continued to litre together until the summer of 1851, when they quarrelled. Thorncley told off the furniture, and separated from his wife. In May, 1852, Thorneley went to a Lancashire police-officer, named Thune, and stated to him that in February, 1847, he had purchased poison for the purpose of procuring the death of James Brookes • had given it to Harriet Bro,,kes, who administered it to her husband. This statement war thought to be the result of a strange fancy, and no notice was taken of it. On the 22nd of December last Thorneley made a similar statement to another police-officer named Leash. That was taken no notice of, and on the 27th December the prisoner volunteered the same statement to the superintendent of police at Staleybridge. It was then committed to paper, signed by the prisoner, and he testified to its truth on three or four', successive occasions when examined before the magistrates. In consequence of this Thorneley was taken into custody, the coffin of James Brookes war exhumed, its contents analysed, and the presence of 94 grains of arsenic discovered in the remains of the tissue, glandular, and ligamentous portions of the body. The cue for the prosecution being closed, Mr. Macintyre addressed the jury, going through the whole of the evidence, and contending that, as respected Harriet Thotneley, the ease was very slight. The learned counsel was proceeding with his address when our parcel was despatched.
The Express. — 1853-05-04 (London, England)

TURKEY.  The Augsburg Gazette publishes the notes exchanged by the Austrian Special Envoy, Count Leiningen, and the Turkish Minister of Foreign Affairs, during the mission of the former in February last. These documents, although belonging henceforth exclusively to history, deserve notice here as the first official data, on a subject which has been carefully surrounded with mystery. From these notes it results that Austria did not pretend to call in question the Sovereign rights of the Sultan over Montenegro; but expressly disavowing such intention based her demand for explanations, concerning the extent and object of the armaments, upon the allegation that the notice usually given iu such cases had been omitted, and that the conflict was assuming the character of a holy war. The second Austrian demand relates to the political refugees in the military service of Turkey, and their removal is required. the third article concerns the tongues of land called Kleck and Suttorina, but the substance of the demand is not stated, reference being made to a former communication. The last demand requires satisfaction for a number of claims asserted by individual Austrian subjects against Turkey. To this note Fuad Effendi replied that the intention of the war had been stated most particularly to the Austrian government in official notifications which he names ; that if the force sent to Montenegro seemed large, this was in order to diminish the chances of resistance by the display of an overwhelm. ing force; that in any case a powerful state like Austria had no grounds for apprehending aggressions ; and, as for the suggestion of a religious war, it was completely obviated by the fact that more than half the troops sent against Montenegro were Christians. The Austrian government having acknowledged again the sovereign rights of the Sultan over Montenegro, the Sublime Porte is free to explain that the expedition to those mountains was ordered only for the purpose of obtaining guarantees against the repetition of the murderous sallies of the Montenegrins into the neighbouring provinces. In a second note Fuad Effendi gives the following assurance:  Considering the important interests common to both states which are in question, and haying regard to the friendly counsel of the Imperial Austrian government, the Sublime Porte declares, without prejudice and with full reservation of its sovereign rights, that it entertains no purpose of effecting a change administrative or territorial in the argue quo of Montenegro, such u it elided before the illegal movements of the mountaineers. It will accordingly recall its troops from the districts which they now °neap]. and UAL *ILL lb. briefest practicable delay. _ _ . _  With respect to Kleck and Suttorina, the Porte will not be surprised into aoy negotiation, but will consent to maintain the status quo, in the hope of coming to a friendly understanding with tho imperial government. The claims of the subjects of Austria are admitted, and immediate payment is promised, and the military refugees will be employed in a service remote from the frontier.
The Express. — 1853-07-05 (London, England)

WORSHIP-STREET. Samuel Delphian, a well dressed man, was charged with a series of brutal assaults upon his wife. The complainant, a delicate looking young person, whose eyes were shockingly blackened, stated that she car vied on business as a milliner, in the Bethnal-green-road, and had been married for some years to the prisoner, who was addicted to drunken and dissolute habits, and had compelled her for a long time past to support him in idleness. On the night of Thursday last she was sitting in her shop awaiting his return home, with her infant in her arms, when the prisoner entered with a can of beer in his hand, and, without the slightest provocation, commeaced assailing her with the most opprobrious epithets. After drinking the beer, the piiaoner hurled the empty can at her head with all his force, but fortunately missed his aim, and struck the glass globe of a lamp immediately behind her with the missile, which shivered it to pieces. The prisoner then rushed upon her, and declaring that he would murder her at once, struck her a terrible blow under the ear, and knocked her out of the chair. On hearing her cries for assistance, her nurse, who was in an adjoining apartment, hastened into the shop, and after picking up her infant, which had been dashed upon the floor, endeavoured to assuage the fury of the prisoner, but he flung her aside, and renewed his attack with increased brutality. After knocking her down a second time, he continued beating her until the blood streamed down her face and both her eyes were closed up and so dreadfully bruised that she was completely deprived of sight for upwards of twenty-four hours. She managed at last to escape into the street, and obtained refuge in the house of a neighbour, under whose protection she had since remained, but she was still suffering extreme pain in the head and different parts of her person from the ill-treatment she had received. On being asked if he wished to say anything in answer to the charge the prisoner, who had repeatedly interrupted the witnesses with the coarsest invectives, insolently exclaimed, "What is the use of my saying anything? I know you mean to convict me, and shan't waste my breath about it." Mr. Hammitt said that in all his experience he never met with an instance of such savage ruftlniam, and he felt that he should be wanting is his duty if he did not impose upon the prisoner the utmost punishment be was empowered to inflict under the act which had been recently passed for the ' better protection of women. He should order him, without imposing any pecuniary penalty, to be committed to hard • labour for six months in the House of Correction ; and at • the expiration of that sentence he must find two responsible I householders to be answerable ter his good behaviour for , the farther term of six months. The prisoner, who appeared utterly staggered and con, founded at the severity of the sentence, was then removed by the gaoler.
The Express. — 1853-08-18 (London, England)

WILBQM. Lao, who, it may be presumed, looked upon the mw of surrounding spec. I tators as a knight of old upon enemiesl who had not earned their spare ; or as a modern spsle■sa upon sparrows and crows while he is on the basest for " birds," felt his martial ardour excited at the sight of a policeman. Upon being civilly asked by Wasox to retire, he refused, and, on being taken into custody, threw the unfortunate man down with great force, and kicked him repeatedly upon the Ina mad other parts of the body. Another }albumen same to the rescue in the shape of Sergeant Moons, 98 8., who was also kicked and hit severely. The prisoner then promised to p quietly with the °Steers, if permitted to he released from their hold, but, upon his request being granted, saidsnly made off. He was ultimately captured, aid after much resistance handcuffed, strapped down upon a stretcher, and conveyed to the station-house. The defence was that the policemen had exercised improper and unnecessary violence. This, bowmen was disproved by the evidence of respectable witnesses, who declared that no more violence was used than what, under the circumstances, was actually necessary. The principal witless, who hoped that the cue might be summarily disposed of, as it would be inconvenient for him to attend upon a future occasion, professed himself ready, mention of personal trouble, to owns forward in the event of the man being committed for big Mr.  decision on this case appears to I be less intelligible than any decision of the kind which we have read for some time. He stated in the first place that he should take into account that the prisoner had been injured by being struck with the truncheon. Why, in the name of common sense—not to talk of law—was the policeman the executioner of a legal sentence P Were the blows he inflicted a portion of any penalty which the law has instituted? Was Lane under his hands receiving legal chastisement? If not, what had the blows of the truncheon adminietend in self-defence to do with the punishment for the offence for which he was about to take the prisoner into custody ? Is not resistant* to legal authority generally considered an aggravation of a crime? The capture of a murderer has often been effected only by using a considerable portion of violence ;--hasthepain he suffered ever been considered as forming a claim for exemption from punishment ? It this principle of Mr. BacovonTote's were universally recognised, we should have our future TnuirreLto appealing to the good feelings of their judges in such terms as these : " There is no denying that I murdered Mr. WZAill in cold blood, but you can never be so hard-hearted as to record a sentence of death against me. Look what I have suffered at the bands of your policeLooh at the black-eye I received in the scuffle with A 1 before I managed to fling him down and 'sample won him. Look at this eta a all that is
The Express. — 1853-07-21 (London, England)

CHIRON OP )(ORDER.  Sarah Smith, 43, was indicted for the wilful murder of Stephen Smith. Mr. HOlll. and Mr. Attu, conducted the prosecution. Mr. Hurst defended the prisoner. It appeared that the deceased was a shoemaker, and the prisoner was his wife, and they occupied a small room in a ! place called Harrow's Mews, St. Leonard's. The evidence'! went to show that they were both given to drink, and that! they frequently quarrelled. On the evening of the 17th of May, which was Whit Tuesday, they were together at the Queen Adelaide public-house at Hastings, and left about eleven o'clock at night, and at this time they appeared to be on friendly terms, but were both to some extent in, liquor. On the following morning, about one o'clock, a lodger in the house named Cook was awoke by the prisoner, who begged her, for God's sake, to get up, as she said she bad stabbed " Steen," meaning her husband. Mrs. Cook immediately got up and went into the prisoner's room, where she saw the deceased man sitting in a chair, with a wound in his breast, from which the blood: was flawing. He was alive, but unable to speak, and! be was holding an apron to his breast, while the prisoner was walking about the room trying. Mrs. Cook, seeing the state of the deceased, went out to fetch Mr. Gardner, • surgeon, and upon their returning together to the room! they found the prisoner still these crying ; and upon her seeing Mr. Gardner she exclaimed that she had stabbed the deceased with a knife used by him in his trade, which she I had thrown out of the window; and upon a search bang made the knife was found in the yard of the house, covered with blood. The unfortunate deceased was found to have been stabbed completely through the heart, and he died minute or two after the arrival of the surgeon. While Mr. Gardner was examining the deceased the prisoner appeared to be very excited, and said that she and her husband had been out together, and that upon their leaving the:public-house to go home she gave her husband the slip, and when she got hems he abused her, and reproached her for leaving him, and in the course of the altercation that took place between them afterwards she threatened him with some violence, upon which be opened his shirt, and said, " Do it," or words to that effect, and she immediately snatched up the i knife and plunged it into his breast. It appeared that the prisoner had never attempted to deny that she had caused the death of her husband, and on her being taken to the police station, she said to the constable, " I have often !taken up • knife to him, but this time I meant it." Mr. Hurst addressed the jury for the prisoner, urging that under the circumstances of excitement and liquor in which the prisoner was at the time of the melancholy occurrence, they would be justified in taking a merciful view of her conduct, and acquitting her of the crime of murder, and find her guilty of manslaughter only. The Lord Chief Baron, having summed up, the jury, after a short deliberation, found the prisoner guilty of manslaughter. She was sentenced to be traneported for ten years.
The Express. — 1853-12-16 (London, England)

JAMES 1., that a law was passed to exempt the gentry from the infliction. Would a custom so universally prevalent at one time have almost utterly vanished, unless time had shown its thorough worthlessness? Cruel punishments make • cruel people. Depend upon it that if the populace is once more to be accustomed to the exhibition of bleeding backs parading through the town, as Sir It. CARDEN proposes, at the cart's tail, the public taste will become more bloodthirsty. If Mr. BARRETT were to be whipped at a cart's tail—by the hands. as Sir It. CARDEN suggests, of MARGARET TUBAS, the poor woman whom he maltreated,—in the very spot where the crime took place, there would be at least as many sympathisers with the suffering criminal, as approvers of the punishment. In addition to this, there would be the terriblo evil of encouraging a taste for bloodshed. No criminal was ever deterred from committing a crime by witnessing the execution of one condemned for committing the crime. Public executions are bad enough : do not let as add to the sin they engender by the public exhibition of torture. It may be suggested, en passant, to Sir It. CARDEN that the spectacle of a woman taking the law in her own hands by permission of the law itself would fortify in the minds of the lower orders that feeling of the right to vindicate one's own injuries which is at the bottom of half the acts of brutality that are committed. The second objection is that all methods have not been tried. The crimes of such men as Batmen stop but little short of murder, and the Legislature has a right to adopt any measures, however extraordinary, to diminish the crime or to reform the criminal. Six months' imprisonment is an absurd trifling with a crime like this. The criminal is a ferocious beast, and be must either be locked up for ever or tamed. If all the imprisonments experienced by atairrr,which have been spread over twelve years, had been united into one, time might have been afforded him to experience the benefit of reformatory discipline. Servitude in a colony away from all women would at least have prevented the exercise of his peculiar brutality. His mind might have been worked upon. He might have been tamed. In cases where the prisoner is charged with habitual ferocity he must either be shut out from all opportunity of venting his evil passions or they must be subdued. It is absurd to suppose that six months' imprisonment will suffice for this. However, as it is not our present object to propose any favourite remedy for one of the most perplexing aced melancholy of our social evils, we would simply enter our protest against hastily turning back to old pretended remedies, which have totally failed. In the meantime, the only true remedy is the increasing intelligence and morality of the people. If they are taught, they will not need to be punished. Prevent crime, and we shall not need to avenge it. In this respect Cowena's remarks on London are as applicable now as when they were written :  TO