npedrazzini/19thc_murder_suicide_news huggingface dataset:
The Sun. — 1861-06-14 (London, England)

URDER.  A dreadful tragedy took place on Monday night at the Hawkcliffe toll-bar near Steeton, about two miles from Keighley, on the Kendal and Keighley road. At the toll-house there resided a person named John Holdsworth, about 37 years of age, 1 his wife, Elizabeth Holdsworth, about 40, and his daughter, Philias, about 16 years of age. On 1 Monday a brother of Mrs. Holdsworth, a man named 1 Joseph Snowden, keeper of the toll-bar at Foul- I ridge, near Colne, visited Holdsworth for the purpose of endeavouring to remove his sister to his own I house. There have been some differences for some time past, and Mrs. Holdsworth has suffered bad treatment at the hands of her husband. Some say that he has exhibited symptoms of aberration of mind. Snowden had, about a quarter before six o'clock cn Monday evening, succeeded in getting his sister, Mrs. Holdsworth, from the house, immediately after there had been some difference between Holdsworth and his wife with regard to the payment of some toll by a passing drover or farmer. He observed his wife and brother go off, and went to the door and called her to come back. She refused ; she and her brother went on their way ; and Holdsworth went into the chamber and deliberately fired a loaded gun at his wife through the glass, shooting her dead on the spot. She was taken up quite dead, some of the contents of the gun having been lodged in her heart. Hex brother, Snowden, was also wounded by some portion of the contents entering various parts of his body, including his face, head, and breast, and he bled profusely. Two persons, a man named Thomas Shires, and a youth named Charles Garforth, who were fishing at the moment of the dreadful act, heard the report of the gun, and saw the poor woman instantly fall dead. Holdsworth had no sooner done the dreadful deed than he left the bar house. A policeman had passed a few minutes before, and on his attention being called to the dreadful murder he started in pursuit of Holdsworth. He found that he had gone in the direction of the hill behind the bar house. He pursued him five miles over the hills and moor to Heyden, and there found him at his father's house. He charged him with the murder of his wife, and took him into custody. The prisoner replied—" Well, I have shot her, and you may hang me where I am." Sergeant Macdonald took charge of the toll-house, and found double-barrelled gun, one barrel being loaded and the other having been apparently recently discharged. The prisoner was brought the same night to Keighley, and lodged in the lock-up. On Tuesday he was brought before Mr. J. G. Sugden, and remanded till Friday. An inquest was opened on Wednesday morning at ten o'clock, at the Old Star Inn, Steeton, beforean adjournment till evening, a verdict of awilful Mr. T. Brown, of Skipton, coroner, and was returned against Holdsworth. The dreadful circumstance has created great sensation in the that the district, but the prevalent opinion m is prisoner is insane. He looks well, and manifests the greatest indifference. Holdsworth be brought . before the magistrates on Friday. afterurder  and medicine invariably ag.
The Sun. — 1861-01-29 (London, England)

ELLIOTT V. ELLIOTT.  This was the petition of Mary Ann Elliott, and prayed for a divorce, on the ground of her husband's cruelty and adultery, and there was no appearance by the respondent.  - Mr. Collier, Q.C., and Mr. Daly, were counsel for the petitioner.  It appeared that the parties were married in 1829, the:petitioner at the time being a teacher of music and the respondent a chemist and druggist. They lived at Bristol for about two years and a half, when the petitioner's business failed in consequence of his intemperate habits, and he same to London to seek employment, leaving his wife and child at Bristol. For some time subsequently to his departure Mrs. Elliott maintained herself by her professional exertions, but heating that her husband was leading a profligate life, she gave up her tuitions and came to London with the intention of reclaiming him if possible. Afterwards they both accepted engagements at theatres in Scotland, the lady being employed as an actress and her husband as a pyrotechnist. They then returned to Bristol, and took a public-house called the Hole-inthe-Wall, where they lived for six years, during whiell period she gave birth to three children. The conduct of the respondent was most immoral,.and the alleged ill-treatment continued from the time of the marriage. In 1840 they settled in London and took a cigar shop in Drury-lane, and Mrs. Elliott again resumed her theatrical engagements. She was employed at several of the minor theatres in London, and though her husband was engaged at Astley's and other theatres occasionally, the support of the family devolved on her, In addition to the ordinary ill-treatment he insulted her while she was performing, crying out in the theatre, " Ladies and gentlemen, look at that lady; is she not a --. She fainted, and had to be removed from the stage. In 1845 the respondent's conduct became so bad that Mrs. Elliott found she could not cohabit with him any longer, and they separated. He had since lived with a female, by whom he had four children, and he had not contributed anything to the support of his wife. Mrs. Elliott, the petitioner, was examined, and confirmed the preceding narrative. She stated that the acts of cruelty consisted of pinching and shakily, her violently, threatening to murder her and the children while pretending t o be insane. He also threatened to stab her with a spear, and during her confinement with her last child he came home late at night and dragged the clothes off. The consequence was that she and the infant suffered severely..  Catherine Atkinson corroborated the statement as to, certain acts of violence by the respondent to his wife, and to the latter having bruises on her person, which she said resulted front his brutal violence.  Sir C. Cresswell considered that the evidence relative to the ill-treatment was scarcely sufficient to establish cruelty in the legal sense, which requires that the acts complained of should be of a character to render cohabitation dangerous to life or health. Judgment deferred.
The Sun. — 1861-01-29 (London, England)

ELLIOTT V. ELLIOTT.  This was the petition of Mary Ann Elliott, and prayed fur a livnrea, on the ground of her husband's cruelty and adultery, and there was nu appearance by the respondent. Mr. Collier, Q,C., and Mr. Daly, were counsel for the petitioner. It appeared that the parties were married in 1829, the:petitioner at the time being a teacher of music and the respondent a chemist and druggist. They lived at Bristol for about two years and a half, when the petitioner's business failed in consequence of his intemperate habits, And he came to London to seek employment, leaving his wife and child at Bristol. For some time subsequently to his departure Mrs. Elliott maintained herself by her professional exertions, but hearing that her husband was leading a profligate life, she gave up her tuitions and came to London with the intention of reclaiming him if possible. Afterwards they accepted engagements at theatres in Scotland, the lady being employed as an actress and her husband as a pyrotechnist. They then returned to Bristol, and took a public-house called the Hole-inthe-Wall, where they lived for six years, during whieli period she gave birth to three children. The conduct of the respondent was most immoral, and the alleged ill-treatment continued from the time of the marriage. In 1840 they settled in London and took a cigar shop in Drury-lane, and Mrs. Elliott again resumed her theatrical engagements. Sho was employed at several of the minor theatres in London, and though her husband was engaged at Astley's and other theatres occasionally, the support of the family devolved on her. In addition to the ordinary ill-treatment ho insulted her while she was performing, crying out in the theatre, " Eadies and gentlemen, look at that lady; is she not a -." She fainted, and had to be.removed from the stage. In 1845 the respondent's conduct became so bad that Mrs. Elliott found she could not cohabit with him any longer, and they separated. He had since lived with a female, by whom he had four children, and he had not contributed anything to the support of his wife.  Mrs. Elliott:, the petitioner, was examined, and confirmed the preceding narrative. She stated that the acts of cruelty consisted of pinching and shaking her violently, threatening to murder her and the children while pretending to be insane. He also threatened to stab her with a spear, and during her confinement with her last child he came home late at night and dragged the clothes off. The consequence was that she and the infant suffered severely. Catherine Atkinson corroborated the statement as to certain acts of violence by the respondent to his wife, and to the latter having bruises on her person, which she said resulted from his brutal violence. _ _  Sir C. Cresswell considered that the evidence relative to the ill-treatment was scarcely sufficient to establish cruelty in the legal sense, which requires that the acts complained of should be of a character to render cohabitation dangerous to life or health.  Judgment deferred.
The Sun. — 1861-01-01 (London, England)

MURDER I.LV GLASGOW.  About one o'clock on Sunday morning a fight seems to have been going- on on the west side of High-street, Glasgow, a short distance from the Cross, between two men, one named Wm. Clark, alias Neil Coyle, the nano e of the other being unknown. Coyle was knoe ked to the ground once or twice, and a young man r lamed John Gall, who does not appear, from anything we have been able to learn, to have been. in cor apany with either the one party or the other, but :merely one of the crowd, stepped out to take Coy le's part, saying it was a shame that he shel aid be so used, and that he was not getting► fair pl. ay. He then turned to Coyle, and putting his ha nd on his shoulder and clapping him advised him tc )go home. Coyle, without any previous notice, tui •ned abruptly round, and, lifting his hand, was seen by the bystanders to strike Gall with considerable force about the belly. Gall immediately doublect up, and cried out, "I am stabbed; for God's sake go I )r a doctor !" He then, with his hand on the wouuc 1, ran down the street, through the arch under tb., e Cross steeple, and catching a lamp-post at the co rner of the street, swung round it once, and thou i ;fell flat on his face. The aid of Drs. ChaltutArs and Finlayuon was promptly procured, and these gentlemen immediately ordered the wounded man to ) be removed to the Royal Infirmary, where he expired about four o'clock on Sunday morning. It was found that deceased had received a blow with a sharp instrument in the groin, which had severed the femoral artery, and resulted in his bleedling to death. Immediately after dealing the fatal blow Coyle made off down Saltmarket, followed by a number of the crowd. He ran up close No. 18 ,o f that street, where his further progress was obstructed by an iron gate, which was locked, and he was then. apprehended by two eonstables. The close was afterwards searched, and a clasped knife, much stained with blood, was found within a yard or two of the spot where Coyle was arrested. He is a returned convict, and has only been at liberty some three months after having undergone seven years' penal servitude. His character and nature may be guessed when we state, that while he was undergoing that sentence he was the terror of all in any way brought into contact with him, both wardens and fellow prisoners. Since his apprehension Coyle has maintained a dogged silence, not dropping one word either as to his guilt or innocence. The deceased, who was 23 years of age, was an engine-fitter to trade, and was a quite, sober, inoffensive youth, and not given to interfering in street brawls. He resided in Clyde-street, Anderston, with a widowed mother, of whom he was almost the sole support.—. North British Mail.  THE EXTRA ORDINARY Al
The Sun. — 1861-12-30 (London, England)

CHILD,NUI?DER NRAR ABER YSTII7.I7H  On Saturday, a young woman, named Eliza Davies, but who was more generally known in the neighbourhood by the nickname of Crug-y-Wheel, was charged before the sitting magistrates, Messrs. John C. Hughes and Thomas Jones, on suspicion of having wilfully murdered her infant child. It appeared that on the previous Tuesday, a lad named David Woolcoek, while on his way to school at Llanbadarn, was met by a woman, who told him that there was something in the water. Just before he had got to that point he met the prisoner on the bridge, at about 100 yards distance. On his looking into the pool he saw something wrapped up in a bundle, and half under water. The witness gave nitice of what he saw, and soon afterwards a gardener, named David Davis, and a man named John Davis, brought the bundle on shore, and found that it was tightly wrapped up. The bundle was wrapped in an old shawl, and there was a large stone in the bundle, which had evidently been introduced for the purpose of sinking it. The police, on being informed of the discovery, took possession of the body, and caused it to be submitted to the examination of Mr. John Rowland,surgeon,of Aberyst wit h, who found that it was a full-grown male child. It was evident that it had breathed, and that it had been placed in the bundle without receiving the attentions shown to infants whose births are properly attended to. The police having made inquiries respecting the occurrence, their suspicions fell on the prisoner, will is the mother of four other illegitimate children, and who had been observed by the neighbours to be in the family way. Upon her being arrested she solemnly denied that she had been pregnant or had given birth to any child ; but upon her being subjected to a medical examination by Mr. Rowlands and Mr. Jacob Roberts, surgeons, it became evident to both gentlemen that she had been confined within a comparatively short period. Evidence was adduced of the prisoner having been seen wearing a black shawl without any fringe or border, and precisely answering the description of that found on the dead body of the child. A woman named Mary Williams, the wife of Jenkin Williams, who occu pies a cottage adjoining that in which th 3 prisoner resides, was amongst the witnesses who spoke to the fact of the prisoner having been enciente, and she also stated that she had seen the prisoner with a handkerchief which she believed to be that found in the bundle, although there was no particular mark on it by which she could swear to it positively. The magistrates having consulted, said they con sidered that a case had been made out calling on them to send the prisoner before a jury; and the prisoner, who declined to say anything in her defence, was fully committed to take her trial for wilful murder at the next assize for the county. The matter, as may be supposed, has given rise to a great deal of excitement iu the neighbourhood.
The Sun. — 1861-04-01 (London, England)

EXTRAORDINARY MURDER OF TWO CHILDREN.  SUDBURY, SATURDAY.  A painful sensation has been created in Suffolk by the murder of two children by their mother, at Edwardstone, near Sudbury. The name of the wretched murderess is Harriet Salmon, and she is the wife of •a coal carter residing in the village. The victims are Elizabeth Salmon, a child of five years, and. Susannah Humphrey, an illegitimate child of the woman's, three years older. The children were taken by her, together with an infant, a distance of half a mile, to a thick wood where there is a large pond 10 feetor 12 feet deep ; and here the two eldest appear to have been forcibly held under water till they were drowned. The infant was destined for the same fate, but some bows stretching ixto the wider below its little person, supported it, and it was not sufficiently submerged to have its existence terminated. The woman herself then walked into the water up to.her neck, and taking • the children ;oat laid them on their faces on the grass by the side of the pond, She then went home and told a neighbour that her three children were drowned, but that she believed one was still alive. At first it was supposed that the children had met their deaths accidentally ; but the woman herself subsequently made the following statement to the police constable who was called in I took the little girl (the youngest and surviving child) and threw her into the pond, but she could not sink because she hung on the boughs; and as soon as I had done that I saw the other two other little dears in the pond, and I rushed in after them. As soon as I had got into the pond the cold water struck me, and I came to my senses and dragged the two children now lying dead out. The little one I took out last. When I got it out I saw it breathe." She also said she did not know which way she went to the pond, or which way she came home, adding :—" If I did do it, I don't know anything about it." It will be seen from this that the poor creature's language and demeanour is incoherent, and she has been, it seems, in a high state of nervous excitement for the last six months, imagining herself, without any definite reason, to be labouring under various diseases. ne youngest of the two dead children had a contusion on the forehead, and the arms appeared to have been squeezed; there were no contusions' on the other one, but similar marks were observable on the arms as if they had been pressed or nipped. The facts stated above have been investigated by Mr. G. A. Partridge, the local coroner, and a verdict of "wilful murder" has been returned against the weman. - A warrant for her committal to the county gaol at Ipswich has been made out, and she now awaits her trial at the Suffolk summer assizes. •  ;,.  J`' ~ y
The Sun. — 1861-08-08 (London, England)

BOW-STREET.  John Samms, a young man about 20 years of age, was charged with assaulting the police and threatening the life of his sister. Police-constable 14S said—l was sent from this court about half-past four to No. 5, George-street, Bloomsbury, yesterday, by Mr. Henry, to caution the prisoner relative to his ill-using his sister. On entering the house the prisoner left it by the back yard, but I eventually saw him in a public-house. I told him what the magistrate said, when he attempted again to assault his sister, who was with me, and pointed the prisoner out to me. He became very excited, and while I was again cautioning him he spat in my face.  Prisoner—On my solemn oath I never did so ; it was meant for my sister.  Mr. Hall—Well, I must say that was a very strange way for you to conduct yourself towards your sister. Prisoner—She's always aggravating me ; she wants to get me away from home. Mr. Hall—What are you ?  Prisoner—l aint any trade. Ido nothing. I was going away to the north of Ireland this morning if I had not been taken into custody. I've got my clothes all ready to go. My sister's the most aggravating woman born. Her game's clear.  I The sister of the prisoner, a very respectably-dressed young woman, here stepped forward. She said the prisoner for the last eight or nine months had been guilty of acting in the most cruel manner towards her. Their father lived in the country, and she managed the lodging-house he had in George-street. The prisoner was a great trouble to his family, as he was an idle, dissolute young man. He Jiad a room in the house in George-street, and his father allowed him Is. a day to spend, but immediately the money was gone, he was in the habit of coming home and conducting himself in a most violent manner. He had already been in prison for fifteen days for kicking her, and no later than yesterday he again assaulted her. The assaults, although painful, she could endure, but of late he had so often threatened to murder her that she felt afraid he would one day carry out his threat.  Mr. Hall—How long ago is it since he threatened your life ?  Witness—Yesterday, sir, he took up one of the table knives, and said he would do for me before he left London. Prisoner—She's the most bloodthirsty woman on the face of God's earth, but I don't wish her any harm. Mr. Hall—Oh, no, of course not. Your late observation lets us see what sort of person you really are. I shall fine you 10s. for the assault on the officer, and call upon you to enter into your own recognisances for £4O, and to find two respectable sureties of £2O each, to keep the peace towards your sister for three months, and if you fail in that you will be detained in prison for that period. The prisoner was locked up.  2} 171 161  fiHIRD
The Sun. — 1861-09-25 (London, England)

ALLEGED MURDER.  John Speller, aged 19, described as a sailor, was indicted for the wilful murder of William Dixon, on board the American ship Bosphorus, on the 6th of September. Mr. Orridge having briefly addressed the jury on the part of the prosecution, called his evidence. Thomas Porter, a seaman on board the Bosphorus, said that vessel arrived off the Commercial Docks on Friday, Sept. 6. The mate ordered all hands on deck, and witness went down to the forecastle to tell the men who were there. The prisoner war. one of them. Prisoner said he would not go until witness went, upon which witness caught him by the collar and tried to pull him out. They both fell, the prisoner being underneath. The prisoner ran away, and witness jumped on a chest. The man Dixon was coming in at the time, and attempted to take from the prisoner a knife which he had in his hand. Dixon was stabbed, but witness did not see the blow, although he saw the knife in the prisoner's hand. The prisoner had his right arm up when Dixon caught hold of him. Police-constable 264 M produced a large clasp-knife with which the assault was said to have been committed. Examination continued—Dixon died within three minutes after he was stabbed. There had been quarrels between witness and the prisoner during the voyage, bat not on the day the assault on Dixon took place. Cross-examined by Mr. Thomson—Dixon and witness had been on shore in the morning, and had been drinking. Witness had two glasses of gin. All the sailors in the ship. carried knives in their belts.  Re-examined by Mr. Orridge—Witness was not altogether sober when he had the struggle with the prisoner, nor altogether drunk.  James Galbraith, a seaman on board the Bosphorus, gave a similar version of the quarrel. He saw the prisoner strike Dixon a back-handed blow with the knife. lhe prisoner then threw the knife away. He had heard the prisoner and Dixon quarrel in the morning about money. The prisoner said, "I will have my money, or I'll see for why."  A police-constable said that when he took the prisoner into custody he said be was very sorry that Dixon was dead. He meant it for the other' Man (Porter), who had very cruelly used hi'm on the voyage..  Medical evidence was given that the wound received was sufficient to account for death.  Mr. Sleigh (who, with Mr. Thompson, appeared for the defence) made a very able speech to the jury on behalf of the prisoner, suggesting that there was no motive for the committal of murder, and that the offence was nothing more than manslaughter at the most. He thought that the jury would be still safer in acquitting the prisoner on the ground of the blow by which Dixon met his death being unpremeditated and accidental.  The judge left it to the jury to say whether it was murder, manslaughter, or accident.  The jury found the prisoner guilty of manslaughter, adding that he had received provocation which mitigated the offence.  Mr. Justice Byles said he would take time to consider the sentence.