npedrazzini/19thc_murder_suicide_news huggingface dataset:
The Sun. — 1850-07-12 (London, England)

JAMES'S MAGAZINE. Edited by J.  Bernard Burke.  In reading the account of the trial of James Stewart, of Clan Stewart, of Appin, in the year 1752, at Inverary, for the murder of Colin Campbell, of Glencow, which appears in the present number of St. James's, we were much struck with the description and the cause of the murder as detailed in the following evidence—  " Mungo Campbell, writer in Edinburgh, deposed that he set out from Edinburgh on the 7th of May last, in company with the deceased, Mr. Campbell, of Glenure, to assist him in ejecting some of the tenants upon the forfeited estates of Ardshiel and Lochiel, over which the deceased was factor; which tenants, it was apprehended, would not remove till legally ejected; that they went to Fort William, and, in their return, they arrived on Thursday, the 14th of May, at the ferry of Ballachelish, proposing next day to eject some of the tenants of Ardshiel. The deceased, after waiting about an hour, and communing with some of the tenants, crossed the ferry between four and five in the afternoon. Glenure and the deponent entered the wood of Lettermore, and coming to a part where the wood was pretty thick upon both sides, so that the murderer could have easily concealed himself in the bushes, and where the road was so rough and narrow that they could not ride conveniently two horses abreast; the deponent went foremost, and might have been about twice the length of the courtroom before the deceased, when he heard a shot behind him, and heard Glenure repeatedly cry out, Oh! lam dead.' The deponent immediately returned to Glenure, alighted from his horse, and also took the deceased off his horse; then run up the hill from the road to see who had shot him. He saw, at some distance, a man with a short dark coloured coat, and a gun in his hand, going away from him; and there was so great a distance between them, that the deponent thinks he could not have known him although he had seen his face. As the deponent came nearer he mended his pace, and disappeared by high grounds being interjected between them." Substitute the name of Mauleverer for that of Campbell and the account would read as that of the most recent Irish murder. In 1750 Scotland was in the same unsatisfactory social state that Ireland is in 1850, and the necessary conclusion is, that if in 1850 we adopt precisely similar measures with regard to Ireland, which in 1750 we adopted with regard to the Highlands of Scotland, we shall have Ireland in the same orderly, happy, industrious, and prosperous condition as Scotland. We commend the attentive study of the measures, so successfully adopted for the regeneration of Scotland a century since, to our legislators. The series of the " Heroines of the Peerage" is continued, and the Countess of Salisbury, in honour of whom Edward 111. instituted the Order of the Garter, is the heroine of this month. Among the miscellaneous contents of the St. James's Magazine of July, we should select as worthy of especial commendation "The White Knight's Vow, a Tale of the Desmond Wars."
The Sun. — 1850-07-12 (London, England)

LAMBETH.  A respectable-looking young woman, dressed in deep mourning, waited upon Mr. Norton for bis assistance in recovering property detained by Mr. Meddle, which belonged to his unfortunate housekeeper, who was found dead in the kitchen of his house, the particulars of which extraordinary occurrence must be fresh in the memory of our readers. The young woman stated that she was the daughter of the murdered woman, and had frequently applied to Mr. Maddle for her mother's clothing, and what little money she might have left. He refused to give them up, and a short time ago he attended at this court before Mr. Elliott, and promised to give up all her property to her brother, who resides at Ipswich. She (applicant) had received a letter from her uncle authorising Mr. Meddle to give her the property, and he st 11 refused. She now, therefore, wanted his worship's advice and assistance. Mr. NORTON said that, if she was the daughter of the deceased woman, Mr. Meddle ought to restore the property to her, and not to her brother. Saunders, one of the summoning officers, informed the Magistrate that the applicant was an illegitimate child, and when Mr. Elliott was informed of that he agreed with. Mr. Middle that he had better give the property up to the deceased's brother, or his order, as Mr. Maddle resolutely refused to give it to the applicant.  Mr. NORTON asked the latter whether she had the authority of her uncle with her ? She replied that she had a copy of it, which she produced. It clearly authorized Mr. Meddle to give the property up to the deceased's daughter. Mr. NORTON asked her whether she had applied to Mr. Meddle with the original note ? Applicant replied that she had, and bad left it with him. He still refused to give up her mother's property, which mostly consisted of wearing apparel, which might turn out useful to her in her present position. Mr. NORTON said it was most extraordinary conduct on Mr. Maddle's part to refuse giving up the property to the daughter, especially after his promise to Mr. Elliott on the last occasion when he attended at this court. He thought some officer had better go with the young woman and see him about it. Saunders said that would be almost useless. Mr. Meddle would not give it up unless compelled by law. Mr. NORTON said the young woman had the authority Mr. Meddle required, and he ought to keep his word and give up the goods. As he so often refused he would see what a summons would do. His worship directed a summons to be served upon him directly to attend at this court and. answer for his conduct.  The young woman thanked the magistrate for his kind interference, and left the court. The summons was instantly made out and placed in the hands of Saunders for service.  [The following appeared in our Tnird Elition:of 'ast night :—]
The Sun. — 1850-07-12 (London, England)

LAMBETH.  A respectable-looking young woman, dressed in deep mourning, waited upon Mr. Norton for bis assistance in recovering property detained by Mr. Meddle, which belonged to his unfortunate housekeeper, who was found dead in the kitchen of his house, the particulars of which extraordinary occurrence must be fresh in the memory of our readers. The young woman stated that she was the daughter of the murdered woman, and had frequently applied to Mr. Meddle for her mother's clothing, and what little money she might have left. He refused to give them up, and a short time ago he attended at this court before Mr. Elliott, and promised to give up all her property to her brother, who resides at Ipswich. She (applicant) had received a letter from her uncle authorising Mr. Maddle to give ber the property, and he still refused. She now, therefore, wanted his worship's advice and assistance.  Mr. NORTON said that, if she wag the daughter of the deceased woman, Mr. Meddle ought to restore the property to her, and not to her brother. Saunders, one of the summoning. officers, informed the Magistrate that the applicant was an illegitimate child, and when Mr. Elliott was informed of that he agreed with Mr. Middle that he had better give the property up to the deceased's brother, or his order, as Mr. Maddle resolutely refused to give it to the applicant.  Mr. NORTON asked the latter whether she had the authority of her uncle with her ? She replied that she had a copy of it, which she produced. It clearly authorized Mr. Maddle to give the property up to the deceased's daughter. Mr. NORTON asked her whether she had applied to Mr. Maddle with the original note ? Applicant replied that she had, and had left it with him. He still refused to give up her mother's property, which mostly consisted of wearing apparel, which might turn out useful to her in her present position. Mr. NORTON said it was most extraordinary conduct on Mr. Maddle's part to refuse giving up the property to the daughter, especially after his promise to Mr. Elliott on the last occasion when he attended at this court. He thought some officer had better go with the young woman and see him about it. Saunders said that would be almost useless. Mr. Maddle would not give it up unless compelled by law. Mr. NORTON said the young woman had the au thority Mr. Maddle required, and he ought to keep his word and give up the goods. As he so often refused he would see what a summons would do. His worship directed a summons to be served upon him directly to attend at this court and answer for his conduct.  The young woman thanked the magistrate for his kind interference, and left the court. The summons was instantly made out and pliced in the hands of Saunders for service.  [The following appeared in our Third Elition:of [ast night :—]
The Sun. — 1850-04-30 (London, England)

MURDEROUS ATTACK. —Daniel Donovan, blacksmith and pugilist, was charged with a murderous attack upon his wife early on Sunday morning. The prisoner has been repeatedly charged with drunken and disorderly conduct at this court, and was lately bound over to keep the peace towards Blundell, the summoning officer, whose life he had threatened. The prisoner's wife has been also frequently before the magistrates; both having led for years past a life of dissipation. Mary Burt, who lodged with Donovan and his family in the same room, at 19, Short's-gardens, deposed that she found the prisoner and his wife drunk and quarrelling on returning home shortly before one o'clock on Sunday morning. Their children, a little boy and girl, were both in the room ; the former sitting up in the bed, which was upon the floor. Witness told the wife she had been drinking, and begged her not to answer the prisoner, knowing what his temper was, She made no reply, but went on "jawing," and called him a filthy name. The prisoner then rushed towards her and knocked her down with his fists, kicking her after she was upon the floor. Mrs. Donovan called to witness to save her, but the prisoner said if she interfered he would serve her so too, at the same time calling her by a bad name and pushing her against the wall. Witness ran out of the room, and was followed by Catherine Donovan. They stood at the door about a quarter of an hour, hoping they would " quell ." but the quarrel continued, and they heard the wife exclaiming, " Oh, murder police ! I am a dead woman !" After a time witness walked towards Long-acre, looking for a policeman, and as she was returning she saw several constables and a mob running towards Short's-gardens. She knew something had happened, and consequently followed the police. There was a mob outside the prisoner's door, and witness was told that the prisoner had thrown his wife out of window. Witness afterwards saw him in custody. Witness had often seen the Donovans quarrelling and fighting before. She had seen the prisoner strike his wife with a poker repeatedly. He was nearly always drunk. She was fond of a " little drink," but upon the whole witness considered her a sober woman By the prisoner—About five weeks ago all of us (witness and the Donovans) were "in the drink" for two days. Witness had never heard Mrs. Donovan say that she once threw herself out of a window in Bedfordbury. Mr. Wood, the house-surgeon of King's College Hospital, stated that Ann Donovan was received into the institution, on Sunday morning, insensible. She had a depressed fracture on the right side of her forehead, the eyes were closed up, the face much bruised and swollen and covered with blood ; the left kneepan was also fractured. She became sensible in a few hours, and remained so throughout the day, complaining of pain in her side and stomach. Witness had very slight hope of her recovery, considering that her life was endangered by the fracture of the skull, which was occasioned by a fall or a violent blow with a hard instrument. Mr. HALL remanded the prisoner for a week.
The Sun. — 1850-04-30 (London, England)

THE MURDER IN THE WANDSWORTH-ROAD. Last evening Mr. T. Higgs held lan inquiry at the Nag's Head, Wandsworth-road, touching the death of Sarah Snelling. The jury having been sworn, proceeded to view the body, which lay in the front kitchen of the house. It did not present the slightest appearance of violence, with the exception of the face, which showed 'indications of strangulation. The first witness examined was Mr. John Charles Parrott, the surgeon, who made a post mortals examination of the body. Ho said, a little before two o'clock yesterday afternoon I was sent for by some person, and told that a woman had ;been found dead in a gentleman's house in the Wandsworth-road. I went imme• diately to Claremont. place. The deceased was lying in the front kitchen. I cannot say whether she had bees moved. She was on the floor, on her back, with her head resting on some pieces of carpet. She was in, her day dress. One of her shoes was off. .Her clothes did not appear torn, or to have been disturbed. I did not see any blood about her. Nothing, as far as I could see, had issued from her mouth. A small basin of water was lying by her side on the floor. I noticed a coil of rope at her feet. The police bad not been there before I arrived. I then inspected the budy. It was warm, except the neck, which was wet. I did not then form an opinion as to how long she had been dead. I had the body stripped. I did not find any marks of violence upon it. The eyes and mouth were doted. There as not any discoloration on any part of the body. I then left the body in charge of the police. This afternoon I (veiled and examined the body. My father and other medical men were present. I have not been able to ascertain the cause of her death. I should think she had been dead an hour when I first saw her, but ft is almost impossible to say with any degree of certainty. I did not discover any smell as if she had taken poison. I found all the organs of the body in a healthy state, with the exception of the stomach, upon laying open which there were very distinct marks of recent and active inflammation having taken place. The stomach contained about two table spoonfuls of digested matter. The remaining viscera and abdomen were in a healthy condition. The heart was very healthy indeed. The lungs were slightly adherent to the ribs. The brain was _very bea!thy. The contents of the stomach I have not yet analyzed. By a Juror—Did you observe anything to induce you to suppose that she did not die from natural causes? Witness—Only the inflammation in the stomacb. Juror—lf a person had been taken suddenly ill, would they have laid themselves in the position in which the deceased was found? Witness—l should say, certainly not.
The Sun. — 1850-04-30 (London, England)

MURDEROUS ATTACK. —Daniel Donovan, blacksmith and pugilist, was charged with a murderous attack upon his wife early on Sunday morning. The prisoner has been repeatedly charged with drunken and disorderly conduct at this court; and was lately bound over to keep the peace towards Blundell, the summoning officer, whose life he had threatened. The prisoner's wife has been also frequently before the magistrates; both having led for years past a life of dissipation. Mary Burt, who lodged with Donovan and his family in the same room, at 19, Short's-gardens, deposed that she found the prisoner and his wife drunk and quarrelling on returning home shortly before one o'clock on Sunday morning. Their children, a little boy and girl, were both in the room ; the former sitting up in the bed, which was upon the floor. Witness told the wife she had been drinking, and begged her not to answer the prisoner, knowing what his temper was. She made no reply, but went on "jawing," and called him a filthy name. The prisoner then rushed towards her and knocked her down with his fists, kicking her after she was upon the floor. Mrs. Donovan called to witness to save her, but the prisoner said if she interfered be would serve her so too, at the same time calling her by a bad name and pushing her against the wall. Witness ran out of the room, and was followed by Catherine Donovan. They stood at the door about a quarter of an hour, hoping they would " quell -" but the quarrel continued, and they heard the wife exclaiming, " Oh, murder ! police ! I am a dead woman !" After a time witness walked towards Long-acre, looking for a policeman, and as she was returning she saw several constables and a mob running towards Short's-gardens. She knew something had happened, and consequently followed the police. There was a mob outside the prisoner's door, and witness was told that the prisoner had thrown his wife out of window. Witness afterwards saw him in custody. Witness had often seen the Donovans quarrelling and fighting before. She had seen the prisoner strike his wife with a poker repeatedly. He was nearly always drunk. She was fond of a "little drink," but upon the whole witness considered her a sober woman By the prisoner—About five weeks ago all of us (witness and the Donovans) were "in the drink" for two days. Witness had never heard Mrs. Donovan say that she once threw herself out of a window in Bedfordbury. Mr. Wood, the house-surgeon of King's College Hospital, stated that Ann Donovan was received into the institution, on Sunday morning, insensible. She had a depressed fracture on the right side of her forehead, the eyes were closed up, the face much bruised and swollen and covered with blood ; the left kneepan was also fractured. She became sensible in a few hours, and remained so throughout the day, complaining f pain in her side and stomach. Witness had very slight hope of her recovery, considering that her life was endangered by the fracture of the skull, which was occasioned by a fall or a violent blow with a hard instrument. Mr. HALL remanded the prisoner for a week. M A RL B
The Sun. — 1850-04-30 (London, England)

CHESTER CUP. 8 to 1 agst Peep-o'-day 12 to 1 agst Miss Ann Boy 30 to 1 apt Roland, 10 tp 1 ligal gal adarivis  Tho next witness called was Mr. John Meddle, who said, I reside at No. 14, Claremont-place, Wandsworthroad. lam an independent gentleman. The deceased had been in my service for 12 years. She was servant and housekeeper. She was, I believe, 33 years of age. She .1% as generally healthy, but her constitution was not .trong. She was a very sober woman. She was a servant in the stricte)t sense of the word. I took her from consclcatious motives. The deceased and myself were tt e only persons in the house. Yesterday morning, about 25 minutes before eleven o'clock, she let me out to go to church. She appeared cheerful enough. I left her in the house alone. She locked the gate of the house, as I desired her to do; at least if she d d not it was her neglect, as I always ordered her to do so. After the church service was over I came home. I suppose it was about twenty minutes or half-past one o'clock. Upon reaching my house I knocked et the gate for some time, and afterwards I discovered that the side gate was open, which was a very unusual thing. I was prei.aring to jump over the gate, and then I found it was not fastened, but only the latch. I then went hastily down, fur I suspected that something was the matter. I went into the kitchen, and there I found her. She appeared as if she had been dragged from the kitchen to the position in which she was found. Her head was l,y ing on a heap of carpet. The carpet was not in the kitchen when I went out. I then ran out of the house and gave an alarm. When I returned I went up stairs, and I discovered the frightful con• sequences of the state she was in, and I am satisfied she was murdered. I found every place broken open; all my papers, deeds, bankers' receipts, and other things, were all thrown about the place. I missed a gold watch, about three or four pounds in money, and a coat. I cannot say what I have missed yet, as I have been so excited by the matter. I cannot say whether she had much money by her, but I think she had a pound or two. When I had paid her wages. about a week before, I paid her 21. 10s. Ido not know that she had any followers; I did not allow her to have any; I did not object to her friends coming if she did it openly. An sttempt was made to break into my house about two months ago. When I went out I ordered the deceased to prepare a dinner. There was no appearance of any attempt when I came home; there was no fire. At:this state of the proceedings it was suggested to the Coroner by Mr. Superintendent Bicknell that it would defeat the ends of justice if the inquiry was proceeded with at present. The Coroner then adjourned the inquiry till Monday week. In the meantime an analysis will be made of the intestines.  TO
The Sun. — 1850-12-28 (London, England)

BURGLARS AND THE POLICE.  Sir,—ln your paper of this day, under the head of " Clerkenwell," there is an account of a man seized by a constable, between two and three o'clock in the morning, and on whore person was found the most complete set of instruments used by thieves ever seen, and near the spot where ho was captured two life-preservers (query, life destroyers?) and some gags. The above man was captured atter a desperate struggle, in which he nearly choked the constable. The result statt d is, that he was committed to prison for three months only. May I, as one of the public, inquire why the man referred to could not have been committed for trial for attempting to murder the police-constable; and then, probably, he would have been transported; whereas now he wilt be let loose on the public in three months' time. Is it not better to get rid of such a fellow before robbery or murder ensues, or must the public again wait until a robbery or murder is effected? And, again, is it likely the police will continue to risk their lives in securing these fellows when they see such results as the above? Won't they say themselves. " On, let them break in first, else they will get hardly any punishment?" And who of us would like these burglars w break in first (and perhaps gag or strangle us before the police can aid), in order that they may get the required punishment? I have omitted to mention in the above account that the fellow referred to was recognised by the police as being the companion of the ruffians recently transported for the burglary at Mr. Holford's, in the Regent's Park I am, Sir, yours respectfully, Monday, Dec. 23.  IL F.  A man of the name of Wooles, who kept the Blue Bowl Tavern, Totterdown, Bristol, was accidentally killed on the evening of Christmas-day, under very distressing circumstances (a brief account appeared in our paper of yesterday). Tie had had a trifling quarrel with his wife, and in his anger inflicted a blow on her mouth; one of his sons interfered, when the deceased seized a stick to chastise him; unfortunately, however, the young man took up a fowlingpiece to defend himself, not knowing that it was loaded, apparently with no other intention than to use it as he might use a bludgeon or any similar means of defence; but the gun went off, and wounded the old man in the groin, an injury which soon terminated in death. The evidence on the in' quest went to show that the unfortunate youth did not lire at the deceased, and never had any intention of doing so, or any knowledge that the gun was loaded, or any recent quarrel with his father. That such was the opinion of the deceased himself is evident from the fact that in his will, made after he received the wound, he bequeathed the residue of his property, amounting to about 4,000/., in equal portions to his sons, of whom the unhappy cause of his death was one. The coroner's jury brought in a verdict of " Accidental death."