The Express. — 1866-12-11 (London, England)

THE SUPPOSED MURDER AT ROMFORD.  Mr. W. H. Clifton, the coroner for the liberties, opened an inquiry on Friday evening at the Rising Sun Tavern, Render& into the circumstances touching the death of Simon Godfrey, whose body was found on the preceding morning in the river Rom, under circumstances that gave rise to suspicion of the deceased gentleman having met with foul treatment. The jury having viewed the body, Rowland Gregg Godfrey, son of the deceased,was called, and deposed to the identification of the body as that of his father. lie lived at 209, City-road. He was a boatbuilder. Witness last saw him alive on Wednesday night, at his own house, about a quarter-past 7 o'clock. At that time the deceased appeared as usual, namely, in very good spirits ;he was ordinarily cheerful. Witness said ho knew nothing whatever—either pecuniary, domestic, or otherwise - that could have induced his fatherto commit suicide. The deceased left home with the intention of taking ',walk. He was not in the habit of staying avray from home all night without first of all making his family acquainted with his intention to do so. Witness did not think that his father intended staying out all night, from the fact of uis taking the latch-key with him. He had some money when he left, but witness could not say how much. He also wore a great coat. Deceased lived with his family, and had not been in any occupation e urir.g the past three months. Three months ago he worked for a boatbuilder, bet he had means independent of work. His habits were regular. He was a particularly sober man. William Henry Barlow, • labourer in the employ of the Great Eastern Railway Company, said that as he was going to his work on Thursday morning, about half-past five, he saw s. hat and umbrella on the embankment of the river. The hat was much besmeared with blood and dirt. The umbrella was also very muddy. Witness could not say how far the umbrella lay from the hat, but certainly not more than four or five feet. Witness did not see any great coat, nor any wearing apparel whatever. Robert Gregory, who was in company with the foregoing witness, corroburated in detail the evidence adduced by him. William Dennis, the police-constable who found the body, having deposed to receiving the hat and umbrella produced from the last witness, went ou to state that he and Sergeant Gilpin found • large quantity of blood on the rails of the bridge ovet the river, and • small quantity on the footway of the bridge itself. The body was subsequently found in the river, and conveyed to the Sun Inn. Witness subsequently went to London, and found that the deceased lodged at the address which was written in his hat, namely, "'lO9, City-road." Witness saw nothing of the greatcoat thc deceased was said to have had on when he left home. When the deceased was taken out of the water his pockets were turned inside out. George Sbee, sergeant of police, said that be searched the cloth.s of the deceased. In the waistcoat pocket he found four halfpence, a latch key, a pair of spectacles and case, and a small piece of pencil. In the cost pocket a pair of gloves and a pocket handkerchief. The waistcoat was nut unbuttoned. Mr. Levey, surgeon, at Romford, deposed that he had viewed the body of the deceased. In the throat there was a large transverse wound between four and five inches in length, exposing the upper part of the windpipe, which was notched in front with two parallel notches, but not penetrated. None of the large vessels of the neck were severed, and no structures of importance so injured as to constitute the cause of death. Upon carefully examining the edge of the wound witness found that the division of the skin had not been effected by one, but by repeated cuts, the notches in the edges of the skin showing at least eleven strokes of • cutting instrument. Such • wound would not only be insufficient to cause death, but it would not cause sufficiently copious and sudden flow of blood to speedily induce faintness. Witness examined the bead, neck, hands, and wrists of the deceased, but found no traces of contusions. He also observed that there was no cut in the neckcloth or band of the shirit. The deoeased, he said, was a man of powerful build and large muscular development. He further stated that the distance from where the deceased's body was found to the river side was so short that • man with such a wound in his neck would have had no difficulty in walking it. In witness's opinion the wound was self-inflicted, and death was produced by drowning. He then went on to say that during the infliction of the wound the head and neck must have been steadily kept in one position, receiving at least eleven strokes of the instrument with which it was done, and the chin must have been raised. Those two reasons, in his opinion, strongly controverted the idea of murder, for he believed it would be impossible to keep • man of the powerful build of the deceased sufficiently quiet during the infliction of so many strokes of the knife as that all these strokes should be in the same straight line of wound as in the case of the deceased. Moreover, a man defending himself from the attempt to cut his throat would instinctively bring down the chin towards the cheat, which would make It extremely difficult, if not impossible, to iniliet just molt a wound es that in the threat at the