The Nuneaton Times. — 1875-12-04 (Nuneaton, Warwickshire, England)

THE TIMES, SATURDAY, DECEMBER 4, 1875.  tainted the evidence as to the enquiries made for the meeting woman by her relaldous, and of the attempt to show that she had eloped with the man she had known ise Frieeke. The eorreepondence and telegraintwhieh followed. were craftily devised to mislead, and to prevent the real truth being known, and it was evident that a portion of the deception was conducted by the prisoner Thomas. 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 time until Henry Wainwright's pecuniary difficulty was removed. The crisis was brought about by the disturbance outside Mrs. Foster's hone,. Notice to quit was given, and Mrs. King, after receiving £l5 , from the prisoner Henry. left the house. Before leaving a dress was made for her, trimmed with jet buttons, two of whioh were not required. The luggage was left to the ohildreu in the charge of Miss Wilmore. From that day, the 11th Sept., 1874, to the present nothing had been heard of Harriet Lane. Enquiries 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, undoudotibtedly written by Thomas Wainwright. Then canna the Dover telegrams, and afterwards the real Frteake, the auctioneer, was brought face to face srith Henry Wainwright, who then said it was another Teddy Frieake who had gone away with her, it must re t not be overlooked that on the occasion of the first enquiry Henry said she bad gone to Brighten, and that he had furnished her with £lO., in addition to the £IS. On the previous day, although it was proved that he was at the time iu very embarrassed circumstances. With regard to the champagne incident, the important point to ow:wider was, whether Thomas Wainwright, who, it was proved, took away the champagne, was the visitor at Mrs. Foeter'a who requirtd the champagne glasses. He left it to the jury to say whether the second Edward Frieske was a real personage, a word from whom would we far to exculpate a man whose life now trembles in the balance, or whether he had uot bees introduced as part of a scheme of stratagem and falsehood, planned for the purpose of tonce-Iment, or to paeifv 'deceased and her friends until Wainwright'e difficulties were over. The court than adjourned for luncheon. When the court re-assembled, the Lord Chief Justice described the circumstances which led to the detection of the minder, and the conduct of Henry when arrested by the police with the Mutilate i corpse in his possession. He pointed out that it was not until Henry Wainwright's pecuniary difficulties rendered the removal of the remains necessary that the discovery ensued. The learned judge then repeated the now-familiar details'eonnected with the removal of the remains and the arrest of the prisoner Henry and Alice Day, and contended that by the purchase of the axe anti shovel they plainly proved that the remains had been exhumed and sut up by the prisoner Henry within the previous twenty-four hours. Coming to another branch of the subject. there could be no doubt that the woman whose remains had been found had been deprived of life by shots fired into the skull. In his opinion, the murderer came up from behind and tired the first shot, which lodged in ..the'pad of the hair. In all common sense they must take the presumption to be that he who took the remains from the grave laid them there, unless reasonable explanation was given to the theory of suicide. The only explanation offered by Henry Wainwright's counsel was untenable. The medical teistime,ny showed that the woman had come to a violent death, and the natural presumption, in the absence of any reasonable explanation to accoun: for the possession of the remains, was that the person in whose possession they were found was himself the murderer. He had listened in vain for any explanation of the possession by Henry Wainwright of the body. The suggestion that it might be a suicidwas manifestly absurd, because suicides did not bury themselves He 'pointetl atilt that the .defence relied on three Wings : thee. evidence WAS conflicting as to childbearing. the absence of any trace on the slim finger of the deceased of the wearing of a wedding ring, and the scar on the left leg, which, it was a !nutted, might be the result of decomposition. Adverting next to the question of identity, he pointed out the concurrence of testimony as to stature, smallness of make, personal peculiarities, and the scar and decayed tooth, and asked the jury if they, cold reasonably arrive at any other conclusion than that these were the remains of Harriet Lane.  "The Lord Chief Justice finished his summing up at 3.45, when the jury retired to consider their verdict.