Stockton Herald, South Durham and Cleveland Advertiser. — 1875-12-04 (Stockton-on-Tees, Cleveland, England)

WEDNESDAY. HENRY SENTENCED TO DEATH.  THOMAS SENTEMED TO SEVEN IEARS' PENAL SERVITUDE.  The prisoners Henry and Thomas Wainwright weie again placed in the dock at the Central Criminal Court on Wednesday morning. To court was densely crowded. The Lord Chief Justice took his seat on the beneh preeisely at ten o'clock, and imine,Eately commenced his summing up. After complimenting the jury on the attention they had paid to the case, the learned Judge said that they must start with the fact that the remains of a woman were found in the possession of the prisoner Henry. There could be no toubt that the life of the deceased was taken by violence. If the jury had arrived at the conclusion that the person whose remains had been* found had been murdered by the prisoner Henry then conviction must follow, although the identity was not established, the evidence establishing that the identity was of a twofold character, direct and indirect or circumstantial. After alluding to the early life of Harriet Lane, his Lordship said that it was not clearly proved where she lived during the first part of her intimacy with Henry Wainwright. The removal of Mrs King from the house of Mrs Wells to that of Mrs Foster opened up a new phase of the case. It was evident that as early as 1873, Henry Wainwright was in pecuniary difficulties. Mrs King pawned various things, including her rings, and no doubt a woman in her position cold be continually pressing Henry for money during the p-rod of her stay at Mrs Foster's. The prisoner Henry did not visit her, but Mrs King came frequently to the shop in the Whitechapel Road. On one occasion a quarrel arose there between the two, as was proved by the evidence of Mrs Rogers, who found Mrs King lying insensible on the floor. If the evidence of Mrs Rogers and -of her husband was true, and he saw no reason to doubt it, it showed that at that time a sad state of fee ling existed between Henry Wainwright and Mrs King. Ihe explanation of the fainting fit must be that Henry Wainwiight, embarassed on all sides, had threatened to destroy himself with the revolver in his desk, hence the cries of " Dont," " Dont," and the expression in the letter to Mrs ainwright, "I cannot survive the di-grace, you will never see me anymore." It remained with the jury to decide whether this state a things afforded anything like an adequate motive for tne crime. With regard to the champagne incident, the important point to consider was whether Thomas Wainwright. who it was proved took away the champagne, was the visitor at Mrs Foster's who required the champagne glasses. The letter written by Mrs King to Frieake the auctioneer clearly proved that some arrangement was pending, and it might be that Frieake's name had been introduced to pacify Mrs King for a short time, until Henry Wainwrght's pecuniary difficulty was removed. The Jury would have to decide whether the letter was part of a deep laid schemefor getting rid of Mrs King, and to which Thomas Wainwright was an accessory. The crisis was brought about by the disturbances outside Mrs Foster's house. Notice to quit was given, and Mrs King, after receiving £1.5 from the prisoner Henry, left the house. Before leaving, a dress was made for her trimmed with jet buttons, two of which were not required. The luggage was left with the children in charge of Miss Wilmore. From that dtiy, the 11th September, 1874, until the preseet nothing, had been heard of Harriet Lane. Inquiries were made shortly after the 11th of September of Henry Wainwright, who stated that she had gone away with a Mr Frieake, an auctioneer. This was followed by the Charing Cross letter, signed Frieake, undoubtedly written by Thomas Wainwright. Then came the Dover telegrams ; and afterwards the real Frieake, the auctioneer, was brought face to face with Henry Wainwright, who then said, "It was another Teddy Frieake who had gone away with her." It must not be overlooked that on the occasion of the first enquiry, Henry said he had gone to Brighton, and that he had furnished her with £lO, in addition to £l5 on the previous day, although it was proved that he was about at that time in very embarrassed circumstances. His Lordship pointed out that in common sense they must take it, the person in possession of the remains was the murderer, unless presumption to the contrary was shown. The summing up, which occupied over five hours, was listened to with rapt attention from beginning to and.