npedrazzini/19thc_murder_suicide_news huggingface dataset:
The Sun. — 1860-12-27 (London, England)

RAILWAYS IN FRANCE.  The Miuister of Public Works has just addressed the following circular to the eugiuetrt, iu clikf charged with the control of the railways, calling their attention to different measures calculated to secure passengers against such dangers as that of which M. Poinsot was lately the victim. " Sir,—The act committed on the 6th inst. on the Eastern Railway has caused the most painful and the most legitimate emotion. The public has seen in this frightful event the revelation of a danger, the existence of which appears to have been never suspected. Doubtless, if we reflect on the criminal audacity required t I accomplish such a crime, and if we think on the co-operation of circumstances, which could alone allow the murderer to escape the surveillance of the agents on the line, and the very dangers of that attempt, we shall be led to see in this deplorable event only one of those exceptionable facts which are beyond all calculation Nevertheless it toiffices for such a crime to have been committed, for it to be the duty of the administration to scrupulously seek, with the co-operation of the railway companies, for the proper means of preventing its recurrence, and of tranquilizing the public feeling. Among these measures, that which first presents itself to the mind, and which in fact appears the most effectual, would consist in organizing the control of the train in a permanent manner by means of the circulation of agents on the footboards of the carriages, properly arranged for that purpose: This system which has already been in practice on the Northern and Southern lines, is, I am aware, not much approved by the public, who complain of the frequent derangements which it occasions. Considerations of general security must, however, evidently give way to simple questions of convenience. This control of agents of the trains, effected at any period during their journey, appears to be a serious guarantee which ought not to be neglected. It would be well to examine whether, in order to complete this control, it would not be possible to place at the disposal of the passengers in every compartment a visual signal, which could be hoisted above the carriage, and which would call the guard placed in the front part of the train. This signal might be lighted at night by means of a reflector placed above the lamps. There has been also suggested as a useful measure, the establishment in the carriages of glazed pannels, forming acommunication between each compartment; this system also merits examination. Lastly, as a malefactor could not escape from the train except when its speed had somewhat slackened, either on coming near stations or crossings, it is important that a special surveillance should be exercised at those points. I call your particular attention, sir, to the different measures which I have just pointed out. Be kind enough to examine them, in concert with the company the control of which is confided to you, and let me know as soon as possible the result of that examination.
The Sun. — 1860-12-27 (London, England)

RAILWAYS' IN FRANCE.  The Minister of Public Works has just addressed the following circular to the engineers in chief charged with the control of the railways, calling their attention to different measures calculated to secure passengers against such dangers as that of which M. Poinsot was lately the victim.  " Sir,—The act committed on the 6th inst. on ! the Eastern Railway has caused the most painful and the most legitimate emotion. The public has seen in this frightful event the revelation of a danger, the existence of which appears to have been never suspected. Doubtless, if we reflect on the criminal audacity required to accomplish such . a crime, and if we think on the co-operation of circumstances, which could alone allow the murderer to escape the surveillance of the agents on the line, and the very dangers of that attempt, we shall be led to see in this deplorable event only one of those exceptionable facts which are beyond all calculation Nevertheless it suffices for such a crime to have been committed, for it to be the duty of the administration to scrupulously seek, with the co-operation of the railway companies, for the proper means of preventing its recurrence, and of tranquilizing the public feeling. Among these measures, that which first presents itself to the mind, and which in fact appears the most effectual, would consist in organizing the control of the train in a permanent manner by means of the circulation of agents on the footboards of the carriages, properly arranged for that purpose; This system which has already been in practice on the Northern and Southern lines, is, I am aware, not much approved by the public, who complain of the frequent derangements which it occasions. Considerations of general security must, however, evidently give way to simple questions of convenience. This control of agents of the trains, effected at any period during their journey, appears to be a serious guarantee which ought not to be neglected. It would be well to examine whether, in order to complete this control, it would not be possible to place at the disposal of the passengers in every compartment a visual signal, which could be hoisted above the carriage, and which would call the guard placed in the front part of the train. This signal might be lighted at night by means of a reflector placed above the lamps. There has been also suggested as a useful measure, the establishment in the carriages of glazed pannels, forming acommunication between each compartment; this system also merits examination. Lastly, as a malefactor could not escape from the train except when its speed had somewhat slackened, either on coming near stations or crossings, it is important that a special surveillance should be exercised at those points. I call your particular attention, sir, to the different measures which I have just pointed out. Be kind enough to examine them, in concert with the company the control of which is confided to you, and let me know as soon as possible the result of that examination. " Roumm."
The Sun. — 1860-01-04 (London, England)

THAMES.—Capt. Thomas Anderson, master of the American ship Devonshire, one of the regular packets trading between London and New York, who was accompanied by Mr, Massey, agent for American shipping and outfitter, of Upper East Smithfield, opposite the St. Katharine Dock, came before Mr. Yardley fcr the purpose of refuting the statement made on the previous day by a Mr. Cole, of York-street, Illackfriars-road, that his relative, James Matthew. Humphreys, a seaman, had been ill-used by the second mate of the Devonshire, and cast off the riggings by him and drowned. Mr. Yardley said there was a statement made that a man named Humphreys had been ill-used and cruelly murdered on board the Devonshire. That statement affected the second mate of the vessel. Capt. Anderson said that he was also accused of kicking the man on the first day he came on board the ship at New York; and that was not true, and he wished to make a full explanation. Mr. Yardley said, as an ex parte statement had gone forth to the prejudice of Capt. Anderson and one of his officers, he felt bound to hear all he had to say.  Ca-pt. Anderson said the deceased, Humphreys, worked his way out to New York as cook of the American ship Southampton, of which he (Captain Anderson) was chief officer. He was afterwards appointed to the command of the Devonshire, and upon mustering the crew on the day he sailed from New York he was very much surprised to find Humphreys among them, and was still more astounded on hearing from the chief officer that Humphreys had been shipped as an able seaman. He said to Humphreys, " You know you are riot a seaman at all," and he admitted he was not, and that he had imposed upon the agent who shipped the crew. There was no alternative but to take the man to London, because the ship was under way, but he gave particular directions that Humphreys should not be allowed to go aloft, or do anything that would expose him to danger. Nothing particular occurred until the Bth of December, when it was blowing very hard, and the men were reefing sails. Notwithstanding he had forbidden Humphreys going aloft, he got upon the topsailyards, went over the backstays, fell overboard, and was drowned. Mr. Yardley—You mean to say that owing to his want of skill he tumbled overboard accidentally and was drowned.  Captain Anderson—That is so, sir. It is not true that he was cast-overboard from the rigging, and that no attempts were made to save him from a watery grave, as stated yesterday. A life buoy was thrown over to him by the chief mate, the ship was brought to, and everything possible done to save him, but the wind was blowing a gale at the time, and the ship had great weigh on her, and it was impossible to save him. He had been before the American consul, and satisfied him no blame attached to any one as regarded the man's death, and that he went aloft against express orders to the contrary. . .
The Sun. — 1860-01-04 (London, England)

THAMES.—Capt. Thomas Anderson, master of the American ship Devonshire, one of the regular packets trading between London and New York, who was accompanied by Mr. Massey, agent for American shipping and outfitter, of Upper East Smithfield, opposite the St. Katharine Dock, came before Mr. Yardley fcr the purpose of refuting the statement made on the previous day by a Mr. Cole, of York-street, Blackfriars-road, that his relative, James Matthew Humphreys, a seaman, had been ill-used by the second mate of the Devonshire, and cast off the riggings by him and drowned. Mr. Yardley said there was a statement made that a man named Humphreys had been ill-used and cruelly murdered on board the Devonshire. That statement affected the second mate of the vessel. Capt. Anderson said that he was also accused of kicking the man on the first day he came on board the ship at New York, and that was not true, and he wished to make a full explanation. Mr. Yardley said, as an ex parte statement had gone forth to the prejudice of Capt. Anderson and one of his officers, he felt bound to hear all he had to say.  Capt. Anderson said the deceased, Humphreys, worked his way out to New York as cook of the American ship Southampton, of which he (Captain Anderson) was chief officer. He. was afterwards appointed to the command of the Devonshire, and upon mustering the crew on the day he sailed from New York he was very much surprised to find Humphreys among them, and was still more astounded on hearing from the chief officer that Humphreys had been shipped as an able seaman. He said to Humphreys, " You know you are lot a seaman at all," and he admitted he was not, and that he had imposed upon the agent who shipped the crew. There was no alternative but to take the man to London, because the ship was under way, but he gave particular directions that Humphreys should not be allowed to go aloft, or do anything that would expose him to danger. Nothing particular occurred until the Bth of December, when it was blowing very hard, and the men were reefing sails. Notwithstanding he had forbidden Humphreys going aloft, he got upon the topsailyards, went over the backstays, fell overboard, and was drowned.  Mr. Yardley—You mean to say that owing to his want of skill he tumbled overboard accidentally and was drowned.  Captain Anderson—That is so, sir. It is not true that he was cast overboard from the rigging, and that no attempts were made to save him from a watery grave, as stated yesterday. A life buoy was thrown over to him by the chief mate, the ship was brought to, end everything possible done to save him, but the wind was blowing a gale at the time, and the ship had great weigh on her, and it was impossible to save him. He had been before the American consul, and satisfied him no blame attached to any one as regarded the man's death, and that he went aloft against express orders to the coritrary.
The Sun. — 1860-01-06 (London, England)

SUSPECTED MURDER IN GLASGOW.  Between eleven and twelve o'clock on Tuesday a woman, named Isabella Irvine, residing at 116, Back Wynd, Glasgow, was found dead, under circumstances which warrant the suspicion that she met her death by foul means. Between the hours named a girl entered the huckster's shop which was kept by the deceased, for the purpose of purchasing some tobacco, and found her lying along the front of the fireplace with her face besmeared with blood. The girl immediately informed the policeman on the beat of the circumstance, who proceeded to the shop, and found the woman quite dead. Under her head was a pool of blood, and blood was still oozing from the wounds. There was also a poker found lying transversely beneath her neck. On the back of the head was found a severe wound—indeed, the skull is believed to be fractured in this part. Above the left temple is another of almost equal extent, and there are also bruises on the left eyebrow and on the upper lip. Under the counter of the shop was found a stool of antiquated shape and construction, with only two legs, the remaining two having been discovered lying in another direction. On one of the legs of the stool are seen marks of blood, as if from a hand, and on the seat is a quantity of hair attached to clotted gore. The investigations of the police, so far as they have gone, have resulted in learning that a man was seen to leave the house at about nine o'clock in the morning, and, on being interrogated, he stated that he had slept in the same bed with the deceased during the night, and that he left her in bed in the shop, a girl kindling a fire in that apartment at the time. Above the shop is a room in which are three beds, and it is said by the neighbours that the house was one of accommodation, and that, of course, deceased was of loose character herself. The only hypothesis for the cause of death, except that of foul play, is that she had fallen out of bed in a state of intoxication, and received the injuries in that manner, but it is destroyed by the assurance of the man who was with her that she was perfectly sober when he left, and also from the fact that the wound on the back of the head would of itself have stunned her and rendered it impossible for her to rise, so that she could not fall again and receive the others. The circumstances also of the stool lying under the counter with blood marks on the leg, and of the position in which sho was found, excite equally strong suspicions that the blows were administered by the hands of another. Meantime, however, the police are making the most searching investigations, and it is to be hoped they will succeed in clearing up the mystery.—North British Daily Mall.
The Sun. — 1860-03-13 (London, England)

CROWN COURT. (Before Mr. Justice Willes.) EXTRAORDINARY CASES OF BlGAMY.—William Brightman, alias William Brighton, was indicted for having, on the 11th July, 1842, at Beeping, St. James's, feloniously married Sarah Wanty, his former wife, Martha Brightman, being then alive. The prisoner, who is 47 years of age, on being placed in the dock, was accommodated with a chair, he being exceedingly ill. He is a farm labourer, and when called upon to plead he pleaded guilty. The learned Judge, in passing sentence upon the prisoner, made some very severe remarks on the prosecution. He said it appeared from the depositions that the prisoner was first married in 1838, and in consequence of a quarrel which arose between the prisoner and his new wife, they separated by mutual consent, having never cohabited together. On the 11th of July, 1842, the prisoner married again. Since then eighteen years had elapsed, and one might have thought that after that lapse of time no one who had the commonest feelings of humanity would have ever ventured to prosecute. He (the judge) found that the prisoner had been sent for trial by order of the clerk to the Spalding board of guardians, he having applied to the board for parish relief in consequence of indisposition. The prisoner was then taken before the magistrates, and committed for trial. The prosecution was a most cruel one. The prisoner might say he was sent there and of excessive cruelty ; he might ere for te purpose of bein staruylyhoohnatdhhe eseehorseehot tortured ; and he might say heh had been sent there thanf o for the eptuhrep prosecutorose of b e i in the position of any prisoner in the calendar. The prosecution was no such thing, it was persecution ; being gh e murdered. (the judge) ln short, rather would stand d and the sentence upon the prisoner would be one imprisonment, inasmuch as the prosecution was what he had described it. M. Brightman,: who was the first wife of the prisoner, was then placed in the dock, and she pleaded guilty to an indictment for having married at Spalding, Michael Brown, Nov. 19, 1858, her former husband (the abovenamed male prisoner) being then alive. The sentence of the Court was that she be imprisoned for one day. The learned Judge said he should disallow costs of prosecution in both cases. The cases were more fitted for a romance than a criminal court of justice and they ought never to have been sent there. He had received from the minister and others of the parish in which the female prisoner had lived, a requisition praying that the Court would deal leniently with her ease, as she had for nearly 20 years been married to a man, and had tried to conduct herself respectably. He had already made some observations on the male prisoner's case, and he must say that he adhered to them. The committing magistrate was not in fault. It was the indiscreet, the ill-informed, the most harsh unfeeling person who instituted the prosecution that was to blame for all.
The Sun. — 1860-08-02 (London, England)

POL Z-C 2,, IN TBLLIG ENCB,  WORSHIP-STREET.—James Barker, a powerful raan, dressed in a smockfrock, and described as a labourer, was chargeil with the following extraordinary outrage ; Mrs. Jane Twocock, landlady of a roadside tavern at Bow, called Clay-hall, stated that she securely fastened up her house at 12 o'clock the night before, and as her husband was out upon business, she and her niece seated themselves in the bar p?.rlour to wait for her husband's return. In this way they sat till two in the morning, the lights being out, when she heard the garden gate opened, heavy footsteps advance to the side door, at which there was next a; reat noise, and the next instant the door, which had been secured with two bolts and a spring lock, was burst open, and the prisoner, who was a perfect stranger to both of them, came in, walked round the bar into the parlour where they were, and, grasping her niece by the hair, forced her down, exclaiming, " If you call out I will murder you." Witness pushed him aside as well as she could, and, hastening to the front door, opened it, and screamed " Murder !" and " Police!" A neighbour named Johnson fortunately heard her cries, and hurrying to the house with an inspector, who also fortunately happened to be near, they seized the prisoner, who was standing in front of the bar when they entered, and did not attempt to escape, and she gave him into custody. The niece said she was much hurt and alarmed when the prisoner seized her, but, on hearing the cries of " Murder !" raised by her aunt, he released the witness, and ran out of the parlour. Inspector Kerrison deposed to finding the prisoner as descried ; he had a common pocket-knife about him, but that was all, and, though the door might have been fastened, he did not think it had been strongly fastened, as only one bolt seemed to have been shot ; there appeared to be nothing the matter with the lock, but the staple looked as if it had come off easily, and he produced it. He thought the prisoner was sober. _ _  The prisoner, who seemed bewildered at his position, declared that he was not sober, or he should .not have acted in the way he was described to have acted. He was a workman in that neighbourhood, and could have one of the best of characters seven years long. The inspector said that, from what he had heard, ho believed this to be a fact, and that this was the first offence of any kind he had been known to  Mr. Mansfield said he was willing to take all t his into consideration ; but, drunk or sober, the prisoner had been guilty of very gross conduct in Y reaking open a door at such an hour and seizing Fl young woman in that way, He should order 'him to pay a penalty of 10s., ',)r go to the House of Correction for 14 days. The prisoner was locked up in default.
The Sun. — 1860-08-21 (London, England)

LEICESTER-Auo. 18. b • 't with regard to Portsmouth and y this bill to act upon i uld not say • but in whatever direction they went, . . . h d t b bl likely to take art in the e • orb d the Downs. wo * all fatal to civilliberty and destruc- would not say that the bill in question a no een a y 13 struegle .-Northern Light, Sir -gir. . y wine seven and Mr. Temple) appeared for the rosecution ; and seen the prisoner :preparing bread and butter for There was a moderate supply of wheat to-day, in fair Digby Seymour, Q.O , Mr. Fenwick, and Mr. Mrs. James, and that while doing so Winslow took Plymouth, but not with regard to T ay aid alteratioeus Would be.equ. y . William, Grenadier, Wildman, The Prophet, Upperhand, condition, and prices ls higher. White wheat 65s te 68s b.' h h d But it was not only on account of the alterations wic a tive of the free institutions which a ma h d de us what we dra -indeed, it stood out in favourable contrast with Little for the defence. . from his pocket a paper out of which he took some- red, 60s to 64s per 36 stone• , a moderate'in • f . taken. place in. navigation and gunnery that it was desirable were. (Cheers.) the measure which emanated from the present Govern- and Vanquisher. The former, for his success in the .Am • In opening the case Mr. Bliss said that the • pri- thing between his thumb and. finger and sprinkled barley, grinding, 33s to 34s ; malting, 36s to 44s qer q:r hat he had Port Stakes, will have to carry a 31b penalty consequently s er 24 stone Beans-old 50 P t 52' ; that this meas•are should be proceeded with. He went beEarl DE GREY and RIPON said there were one or two ment. (Hear, hear.) He confessed, however, t , saner was charged with the crime of wilful murder it over the bread and butter. When asked by oats, 338 to 36 p . , s o sa h 11 t S• W'll• de before. ewi mee ir i lam on the same terms as at Liver- new 46s to 48s per 38 stone. d that He voted for this measure most willingly, bey= • points of the noble earl's speech upon which he felt it his never heard of a charge of this kind being ma 001, when a head onl r ted th • by means of antimony, which it was alleged he had Maguire what this was, Winslow said it was " fine Fin fl 45 I S d 43 I Thi d 41 20 t e our, s econ s, s rs, s per s one. ehe entertained that thorough distrust of the French duty to make a few observations. The chief point was the The principle was altogether objectionable, as it trans- P. y seps a e pair. On this occa- administered in small and repeated doses. The self," though. there was plen.ty. of salt in file. house, f Parliamen•• mon, however, 1 hardly think the contest between them i GOT nt which Lord John Russell had frankly told the . ernme omission of Woolwich from the scheme of fortifications ferred from the Government officials to a firm e . "ch he mi ht have used if it as re unite In c eceased, Ann James, died on the 24th of June last, will g W q • ,