npedrazzini/19thc_murder_suicide_news huggingface dataset:
The Sun. — 1862-06-12 (London, England)

WESTMINSTER.  UNFOUNDED SERIOUS CRAEGE.—Catherine Foley, John Wainwright, and Ellen Coventry, were charged with highway robbery, under the following circumstances : Samuel Jones, an old man, who described himself as a general dealer, said that at a little after twelve last night he was proceeding through Strutton's-ground, Westminster, on his way home, when the two female prisoners came in front of him and put themselves in fighting attitude. He endeavoured to avoid them, and begged of them not to illuse him ; but they commenced striking him, and after they had given him several blows, the male prisoner came behind him and kicked his heels up, and he fell on the ground when the women fell upon him and pinched his throat. He called out " Murder," and " Police." Foley then put her hand into his waistcoat pocket and took six shillings from him, although he made a strong resistance. The. male prisoner then kicked him on the head and caused a severe wound. They tben left him, and he immediately gave information to the police.  -- Mr. Arnold asked if he had ever seen the prisoners  before. "Prosecutor replied that he had, and was well acquainted with their persoas by sight, although he had no intimacy with them.  The female prisonErs said they had previously met the prosecutor at a public house, where he had taken out a knife and threatened their lives, and afterwards trumped up a false charge against them. The male prisoner denied all knowledge of the transaction. Mr. Arnold asked the prosecutor whether there was any truth in the women's statement. Prosecutor declared in the most positive terms that there was not, and solicited the magistrate to have inquiries made. _ _  Prisoners were ordered to be put back while the proprietor of the public house was fetched. On his arrival he stated that the prosecutor was drunk in his house sitting upon the floor, that he charged the women with robbing him, and in fact, did exactly what they had stated and ho had denied. Mr. Arnold said he was perfectly-unworthy of credit, and it was a shame that the accused had been deprived of their liberty. They were discharged.  The Africain, of Constantine, states that as a woodcutter was lately proceeding from St. Charles to Gastonville, he suddenly saw crouched in the road before him an enormous lion. Seized with terror ho turned round and ran off, when the lion pursued and went past him, and on reaching a certain distance in advance again lay down as if to await the man's approach. The man again turned round and went back, the lion once more rushing beyond him and lying down. This manceuvre was repeated by the animal several times, when the man at length fell to the ground, exhausted by fright and fatigue. The lion then approached him, and, after examining him from head to foot, walked off with a friendly roar, as if expressive of its pleasure at the trick it had played him. The man was confined to his bed for some days after
The Sun. — 1862-06-12 (London, England)

WESTMINSTER.  UNFOUNDED SERIOUS CHARGE.—Catherine Foley, John Wainwright, and Ellen Coventry, were charged with highway robbery, under the following circumstances : Samuel Jones, an old man, who described himself as a general dealer, said that at a little after twelve last night he was proceeding through Strutton's-ground, Westminster, on his way home, when the two female prisoners came in front of him and put themselves in fighting attitude. He endeavoured to avoid them, and begged of them not to illuse him ; but they commenced striking him, and after they had given him several blows, the male prisoner came behind him and kicked his heels up, and he fell on the ground when the women fell upon him and pinched his throat. He called out " Murder," and "Police." Foley then put her hand into his waistcoat pocket and took six shillings from him, although he made a strong resistance. The male prisoner then kicked him on the head and caused a severe wound. They then left him, and he immediately gave information. to the police.  Mr. Arnold asked if he had ever seen the prisoners  befo►e.  Prosecutor replied that he had, and was well acquainted with their persons by sight, although he had no intimacy with them.  The female prisoners said they had previously met the prosecutor at a public house, where he had taken out a knife and threatened their lives, and afterwards trumped up a false charge against them. The male prisoner denied all knowledge of the transaction. Mr. Arnold asked the prosecutor whether there was any truth in the women's statement. Prosecutor declared in the most positive terms that there was not, and solicited the magistrate to have inquiries made.  Prisoners were ordered to be put back while the proprietor of the public house was fetched. On his arrival he stated that the prosecutor was drunk in his house sitting upon the floor, that he charged the women with robbing him, and in fact, did exactly what they had stated and he had denied. Mr. Arnold said he was perfectly unworthy of credit, and it was a shame that the accused had been deprived of their liberty. They were discharged.  The Africain, of Constantine, states that as a woodcutter was lately proceeding from St. Charles to Gas. tonville, ho suddenly saw crouched in the road before him an enormous lion. Seized with terror he turned round and ran off, when the lion pursued and went past him, and on reaching a certain distance in advance again lay down as if to await the man's approach. The man again turned round and went back, the lion once more rushing beyond him and lying down. This mancouvre was repeated by the animal several times, when the man at length fell to the ground, exhausted by fright and fatigue. The lion then approached him, and, after examining him from head to foot, walked off with a friendly roar, as if expressive of its pleasure at the trick it had played him. The man was confined to his bed for some days after.
The Sun. — 1862-11-15 (London, England)

JESSIE INPLACHLAN—  having asserted, in the first instance, that upon the night of the murder she slept in her own bed, in her own room, at some distance from Sandyford-place— was shown by the evidence of more than one reliable witness to have not done anything of the kind, but, on the contrary, to have been mysteriously absent from her lodgings during the whole of that very night upon which the murder of her in timate friend was perpetrated. Yet this is the miserable criminal, the justly pronounced sentence of death upon whom has been shamefully commuted into a sentence of penal servitude for life I How-under which unwonted circumstances—we all know but too well ! After a secret investigation into the case before an unauthoritative tribunal—and in defiance of two noteworthy facts, that ought, both of them, in reason to have been taken very seriously into canal aeration. Firstly, the fact that the, verdict of the jury—of a cautious Scotch jury—was simply, bluntly, and without any reservation or modification whatever, one of Guilty Not a whis per being heard from the jury-box recommending the prisoner upon any,even the feeblest, plea to mercy. That was the first circumstance attendant upon the close of the four days' trial of JESSIE NPLACHLAN that ought to have commanded from the Home Secretary the most serious consideration before the right hon. baronet ventured to interfere with the verdict delivered by those twelve cautious and conscientious jurymen! As we have said, however, there _is yet another fact noticeable at the termination of this public trial  at Glasgow sufficient of itself, one might have imagined, to deter any Home Secretary from acting rashly in setting aside as valueless or :erroneous the Verdict of Guilty delivered against the prisoner by the jury, and the Sentence of Death pronounced upon her by the Judge. This second and especially notable circumstance being the unusual emphasis with which that learned judge prefaced his formal sentence of the criminal to undergo the last penalty of the law—avowing  hit own absolute and complete belief that the wretched woman before him was guilty of the crime of which she had been accused, of which she had, after a patient and prolonged investigation there in open court, a trial presided over by himself, been convicted! In flagrant defiance of all which, the Home Secretary has swept aside all considerations of this kind! And aided by a hocuspocus in a back parlour, before two or three ex-official examiners—as judicial authorities unrecognisable in any way whatever by the law of the land—Sir GEORGE GREY has commuted the sentence of death pronounced upon JESSIE *LACHLAN, and has himself sentenced her, during the rest of her natural, or, in one sense, one might almost call it, unnatural life, to penal servitude ! It is an illogical decision—a wholly inconsequential commutation. Yet scarcely has the Right Hon. the Home Secretary acted thus by JESSIE WLAcHLAN than he hesitates to interpose in any way beween SAMUEL GARDNER and his fate! This misee able prisoner—now under sentence of death in the condemned cell at Newgate—unlike
The Sun. — 1862-09-24 (London, England)

TRIAL OF YHE .RAO SAHIB AT CATVIV PORE.  The Bombay journals received by the last mail give details of the trial of the Rao Sahib, nephew of the Nana Sahib, at Cawnpore, before the sessions judge, Mr. Pearson. The prisoner, it would appear, was arraigned on two distinct charges, one of which was for the murder at Bithoor of the toll-keeper of Sheorajpore and his family. The more atrocious crime, however, charged against him referred to the murder of European officers at Cawnpore during the period of the mutiny. He was also charged with aiding and abetting the rebellion. The trial of this man excited great interest in the Mofussil. The witnesses who were chiefly natives, deposed that Rao Sahib offered a reward to the sepoys and sowers, if they brought the heads of the European officers. After hearing this, the horsemen all went away, and, as one witness said, at evening they brought the heads of the officers. The prisoner was at that time standing in his balcony or ballakhana. The rebel officers showed him the heads; the prisoner then ordered them all to stay in the Rothee of Man Sain Sahib, and told them that the next day they should be rewarded. Next morning the prisoner inspected them all, and instructed them to obey their officers, and gave them four months' pay in advance and some reward. This force consisted of 300 horsemen and two companies of infantry. Twelve witness in all were examined for the prosecution, and three or four witnesses were called on behalf of the prisoner. With respect to the charge of murdering the toll-keeper _ acted and his family, the evidence went to show the), arut killed by order of the Rao Sahib, who authority Bithoor on behalf of the Nana, and in that position was fully recognised. On thiswh latterwhose has been he was acquitted, but on the heavier indicrtina, he has b" tioning the murder of three European officers, The case has been convicted, and sentenced to be hanged. and there is little sent for confirmation to the Sudder Court, mail we have re doubt it will be confirmed. By the seatsfpoorga Mooyre and o,charge ceived an account of the execution of fl,O, 28th ult., in front of tooccauqrrueeds: Aimed Shaik, on the morning coThvicted of the murder of the common jail. They had been they belonged. The the havildar of the regiment to whichvl3FBd:ener:airlindfliulohgosgwweedirt. He subtcioonnvpicuttDtoohorimgainMroeoferryeenteoeldcirh. ea. g that it happened through h the malice of his enemies statement, and asserted that he The other man confessed his sequently retracted tithisrunugt. people to forgive him. The other belhadonbgienegg guilt, and prayed ceremony laving been got ready by the pertcoontrilectedrer two criminals were launched into sons in attendave" . Doerga Moorye died almost instanparts; of tThehecutrihte eternity. and without a struggle; the other convict being tane°ls ht man, suffered more, but the medical officer a veryt LaAce declared ed life extinct' in three minutes after drop fell. Their bodies were delivered to their friends and relations at the expiration of one hour after their death, as is the custom in ouch cases.
The Sun. — 1862-09-24 (London, England)

TRIAL OF 7ILE .RAO SAHIB AT CAWN PORE.  The Bombay journals received by the last mail give details of the trial of the Rao Sahib, nephew of the Nana Sahib, at Cawnporc, before the sessions judge, Mr. Pearson. The prisoner, it would appear, was arraigned on two distinct chirges, ono of which was for the murder at Bithoor of the toll-keeper of Sheorajpore and his family. The more atrocious crime, however, charged against him referred to the murder of European officers at Cawnporo during the period of the mutiny. He was also charged with aiding and abetting the rebellion. The trial of this man excited great interest in the Mofussil. The witnesses who were chiefly natives, deposed that Rao Sahib offered a reward to tho sepoys and sowers, if they brought the heads of the European officers. After hearing this, the horsemen all went away, and, as one witness said, at evening they brought the heads of the officers. The prisoner was at that time standiag in his balcony or ballakhana. The rebel officers showed him the heads; the prisoner then ordered them all to stay in the Kothee of Man Sain Sahib, and told them that the next day they should be rewarded. Next morning the prisoner inspected them all, and instructed them to obey their officers, and gave them four months' pay in advance and some reward. This force consisted of 300 horsemen and two companies of infantry. Twelve witness in all were examined for the prosecution, and three or four witnesses were called on behalf of the prisoner. With respect to the charge of murdering the toll-keeper and his family, the evidence went to show they were killed by order of the Rao Sahib, who acted at Bithoor on behalf of the Nana, and whose authority in that position was fully recognised. On this latter charge he was acquitted, but on the heavier indictment of sanctioninge the murder of three European officers, he has been convicted, and sentenced to be hanged. The ease has been sent for confirmation to the Sadder Court, ilLx and there is doubt it will be confirmed. By the same mail we have ceived an account of the execution of Doorga Mnoo3,7!_enittn:t. Aimed Shaik, on the morning of the 2Sth uolft the common jail. They had been convicted • h they be the havildar of the regiment to which it occurred, t-hoieg 'le diur. r" d er Theof convict Doorga Moorye told Dr. Wilson, in put to him in reference to the murdi!, ieTa ogged. e sub that it happened through his having iinadlb.noswwer to a ques of his enemies heir man sequently retracted this statement, and asserted that he had been convicted through tho other man confessed his belonging to the regiment. readyhini. byThtheeotherguilt, and prayed the people:titter got te perparts of the ceremony sons in attendance, the aioorye died almost two were launched into the other convict being eternity. The culprit Dosetr7iggie ; but the medical officer taneously, and wi t_ a very slight mallii?°Sudullelardebd eTtirnee' t in three minutes alter in attendance declared the drop fell. Their bodies were delivered to their friends and relation/ at. L__ the expiration of one hour after their obtcm94, death, ie the Glatera
The Sun. — 1862-07-01 (London, England)

THE RECENT 21.81BUNGEER.  FORDINGBRIDGE, MONDAY. This day George J. Gilbert, the ticket-of-leave who is charged with the murder of a young lMary Ann Hall, under circumstances oa°flaltiltinjeicaoed st revolting nature, at a place near Fordingbridge, in the county of Dorset, was brought up on remand, at the Fordingbridge Police-station, before Mr. Coventry, one of the county magistrates. It will be remembered that this murder, which was perpetrated in broad daylight, only a short distance from the house in which Miss Hall resided, took place on the morning of Sunday se'nnight, while the victim was on her way to church, and from the state in which the deceased was found, coupled with the evidence of the medical gentlemen who were examined at the inquest, there is but good reason to believe that the murder was not committed until after a desperate but ineffectual attempt at violation. The information of the finding of the body was given by Gilbert himself; and it was from various discrepancies in the statements which he made, taken in conjunction with his previousi bad character, that he was suspected. It s stated that Gilbert has only recently left the em 7 ployment of Mr. Hall, the father of the deceaseerd lady, by whom he was engaged as a. farm labournet; and there is a further rumour that in conseq of the manner in which he had conducted heLixinetscell7.f. on previous occasions towards Miss Hall shere__ tamed some suspicion of him. Since his asioaPter" 1 and sion the prisoner has been in a very there is a general impression that w bset excitement murder his guilt. The affair has created in the neighbourhood, and the scelierons. Owing has been visited by thousands of.: sons, has was thought low ill confess his first examinato the excited state of the p.eopel desirable that Gilbert, who 81 V ncChester gaol, should tion has been confined 'asstle to Fordingbridge. be taken as privately (15 Pved thither during Divine greeof the He was consequently.- reliron, to be in readiness fur service yesterday titian his examination to- Y da.to believe that the prisoner There is good rea''elf-iiestruction, as a rope made has contemplatedbe: nadndwith a noose read fastened upon him in the gaol. As the been obtained since Monday evidence wilticconsidered sufficiently matured, it was from his one iesn lid e,,l:d ectirl,loo7s last 'vas anSvisable that a further remand should be and on the application of the police the pPt brr itelonliertd 'Ns a s further remanded this morning for a week. One of the new facts that will be spoken to is that the soil found upon the clothes of the prisoner is of the same description as that of the gully in which the body was discovered.  It may deserve the notice of qur social reformerg (sass the Liverpool Post) that on Saturday was in this town an unprecedented amount of druunsktoedrayiesby No fewer than 161 persons were taken int° double the the police for druntennes.9, which is about night therse %wage,
The Sun. — 1862-07-01 (London, England)

THE RECENT MURDER AT FORDING. BRIDGE.  FORDINGBRIDGE, MONDAY.  George J. Gilbert, the ticket-of-leave conlviiicst, day who is charged with the murder of a young lady named Mary Ann Hall, under circumstances of the most revolting nature, at a place near Fordingbridge, in the county of Dorset, was brought up on remand, at the Fordingbridge Police-station, before Mr. Coventry, one of the county magistrates. It will be remembered that this murder, which was perpetrated in broad daylight, only a short distance from the house in which Miss Hall resided, took place on the morning of Sunday se'nnight, while the victim was on her way to church, and from the state in which the deceased was found, coupled with the evidence of the medical gentlemen who were examined at the inquest, there is but good reason to believe that the murder was not committed until after a desperate but ineffectual attempt at violation. The information of the finding of the body was given by Gilbert himself ; and it was from various discrepancies in the statements which he made, taken in conjunction with his previous bad character, that he was suspected. It is stated that Gilbert has only recently left the employment of Mr. Hall, the father of the deceased lady, by whom he was engaged as a farm labourer, and there is a further rumour that in consevese,, of the manner in which he had conducted bin 2 I'.phen• elonaye e, previous occasions towards Miss Hall she t tamed some suspicion of him. Since his yr tate, and sion the prisoner has been in a very lowwisn confess there is a general impression that bet excitement his guilt. The affair has created g - reoaf the murder Owing in the neighbourhood, and the scene r ons. has been visited by thousands ofi to the excited state of the P Pe% ehis first examinadesirable that Gilbert, who Atrlchester gaol, should Pits was thought tion has been confined in vs.ilbie to Fordingbridge. be taken as privately as to be in readiness fur o P° -es d thither during Divine He was consequently reni service yesterday afternoon, "doano believe that the prisoner his examination to There is good rea:cif. _destruction, as a rope made and with a noose readytastened fhraosm his contemplated bed upon him in the gaol. As the at one end .ere found been obtained since Monday evidence which „ considered sufficiently matured, it was last was - °t'sable that a further remand should be thought ads.' leot_houesnd d and on the application of the police the further remanded this morning for a p TC , was rrioscouner P 1,- One of the new facts that will be spoken to wee..• is that the soil found upon the clothes of the prisoner is of the same description as that of the gully in which the body was discovered.  It may deserve the notice of our social reformers (says the Liverpool Post) that on Saturday night was in this town an unprecedented amount of drunennebss. dou No fewer than 161 persons were taken into custody ble the h the police for drunkenness, which is about there average.
The Sun. — 1862-05-14 (London, England)

CRIMINAL COURT-THIS DAY.  OLD COURT. (Before Mr. Justice Willes.) John Haines surrendered to an indictment charging him with the manslaughter of Thomas Mitchell. The Judge said he did not think there was evidence to bear out the charge. The Jury therefore at once returned a verdict of not guilty, and the defendant was discharged. ATTEMPTING TO MURDER, lnbnitrer, cged 40, ,as indicted for feloniously attempting to murder his wife. There was also a second indictment, charging him with assaulting her to do grievous bodily harm. The prisoner pleaded not guilty. From the evidence of the wife it appeared that the prisoner had been drinking to excess for two or three weeks, and been unable to go to work, as he Ras suffering from delirium tremens, and labouring under the delusion that people were in his room. He continued in this state during the Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday. On the evening of Thursday the 30th of April the wife went to bed about 10 o'clock, but got up at half-past 12 to give the prisoner his medicine. He then urged her to come into bed, and immediately she did so he thrust a file used in sharpening a saw into her stomach. She got the file from him, Veen he got out of bed and seized an axe, which was lying among some firewood, and struck her some blows on the side of the head, inflicting several very severe wounds. She got away and ran down stairs, when the prisoner threw the axe after her. The wife was afterwards taken to St. Mary's Hospital, and the prisoner was conveyed to the station-house. The police-constable said, when he asked the prisoner why he had injured his wife, he said it was a good job she got out of the way, or it would have been worse for her. Dr. Brown, of Kensal.green, said when he examined the woman he found two incised wounds on the head—one over the right ear three inches in extent, and one over the left about an inch. Such an instrument as an axe would produce the injury. On the abdomen he found a number of bruises, and also some wounds, as if from a pointed weapon—a file, for instance. At the station I saw the pri sonar, and found him labouring under delirium tremens, and he said he was jealous of his wife with a Jim Cockwell. A person suffering so severely from delil ium tremens as the prisoner would, to a great extent, render him incapable of knowing right from wrong. The learned Judge, in summing up the evidence, said he must impress upon the jury that drunkenness must not be considered as any excuse for crime. The jury found the prisoner guilty of unlawful wounding. Mr. Bibton said the prosecutrix wished to recommend the prisoner to mercy. The learned Judge said that was invariably the case ; the person injured always being most anxious that the offender should escape punishment. He then sentenced the prisoner to 18 months' hard labour in the House of Correction.