British Miner and General Newsman : — 1862-11-08 (London, England)

LORD CHIEF BARON.) THE MURDER IN THE CITY.  Santice/ Gardner, aged 38, a sweep, and Elizabeth Huntbler,l9, a married woman were charged with the wilful murder of Elizabeth Gardner, the wife of the first-mentioned prisoner. Mr. Poland and Mr. Edward Beasley conducted the prosecution on behalf of the Corporation of the City of London; Mr. Ribton and Mr. Orridge defended Gardner; and Mr. Sleigh and Mr. Taylor appeared for the female prisoner. Mr. Poland, in opening the case to the jury, said it was unnecessary for him to remind them that the case would require their most serious and attentive consideration, because the evidence upon which it was sought to fix the crime upon the prisoners was entirely circumstantial, and consisted of a variety of minute circumstances, all of which it would be contended on the part of the prosecution tended to establish the fact of the crime having been committed by one of them. The learned counsel then proceeded to enter into a minute detail of the facts he proposed to give in evidence, and he intimated in the course of his observations that it was his opinion that there was a very slight case indeed against the female prisoner; but still he said he did not feel himself justified in withdrawing from the prosecution so far as she was concerned, but thought that the better course would be to go on with the charge against both the prisoners, in order that the whole of the facts might be brought before the jury. The Lord Chief Baron then left the court to consult one of the other judges upon the point, and when he returned he said that the Recorder concurred with him in opinion that the proper course to be taken was not to offer any evidence against the female prisoner. Mr. Poland said that after this intimation from the Court he would at once adopt the course that was suggested, and a verdict of Not Guilty was taken with reference to the prisoner Elizabeth Humbler. The learned counsel for the prosecution then proceeded to state that the principal points relied upon against the prisoner Gardner were that he had attempted in the first instance to make it appear that ,his wife had destroyed herself, and that her death was the result of suicide, which he should prove was not the case, and that he had subsequently endeavoured to induce the police to believe that the deceased had been murdered by the girl Humbler; and after what had taken place he should feel it his duty to call her as a witness; the jury would hear her statement in reference to the transaction, and his learned friend would have an opportunity of cross-examining her. Mr. Sequeira, surgeon, of I, Jury-street, Aldgate, said he had known the prisoner six years. He knew Humbler, who came to him a few minutes before eight o'clock, on the morning of September 15. She had a child with her. She said, "Oh, do come immediately Mrs. Gardner has cut her throat." He went with her to Northumberlandcourt, and into a room on the first floor. The body was lying on the ground. The windows faced the door, and on the right hand was the bed. The foot of the bed faced the window. The right-hand side of the bed was against the wall. Mrs. Gardner's feet were close against the door-post. She had only a flannel vest and a chemise on. He placed his hand on the thigh, and found it was quite cold. The lower part of the trunk was warm, but the upper part was quite dead. His opinion was that she had been dead about four hours. The left hand was on the chest, with the fingers, a little contracted, towards the throat. The right hand was also on the chest, holding the knife. There was a sooty impression on the left elbow, and also on the left wrist. There were sooty finger-marks on the wrist, but the mark on the elbow was irregular. The throat was cut, and there was a pool of blood under both sides of the throat. There was no blood below the collar-bone. The wound on the throat was about 21 inches in length. It was 11 inch in depth, deepest near the shoulder. He afterwards saw a knife. Such a wound might have been inflicted by it. The woman could not have inflicted such a wound with her right hand. After he and Humbler had been there some time the prisoner came in. He said, "What's this ? " And he then stooped down and took the knife out of the deceased's right hand. (The knife, a common table-knife, smeared with blood was produced, and identified by the witness.) The prisoner did not touch the body in any way before he took the knife out of her hand. The knife left the hand quite easily. The back of the knife was to the palm of the hand, so that on being lifted up the back of the knife would have been to the throat. If the woman had committed the act, the hand would have been firmly grasped. The prisoner, looking at Humbler, said, "You wretch, you have done this." Humbler fell down on her knees' and called God to witness that she knew nothing about it. Gardner then left the room, and took the child with him. Humbler showed her hands to the police in his presence, but there was nothing on them but dirt. Her hands did not appear to have been washed for some time. The sheet on the bed appeared to have been dragged down, and a portion of it was lying underneath the body. He examined the walls. Afterwards several marks of blood on the walls were pointed out to him, but they were not there when he first examined them. There were cuts on the left hand, and on one finger a cut had gone through to the bone. There were two slighter cuts. They appeared to have been caused by grasping the knife. On the right hand there were several slight cuts. Altogether there were five cuts on the left hand, and six on the right hand. On the right thigh there was the impression of the palm of the hand and a thumb. He could distinctly trace the marks of blood pointing' down. The hand was broader than his own before He saw the mark on the thigh he touched it. • The Lord Chief Baron: There was no blood on your hand P—Witness : No. The blood on the knife was dry. Elizabeth Humbler called: She said: I am the wife of John Humbler, a Painter and am 19 years of age. My name was formerlY Clark. I have known the prisoner since I was eleven years old ' and acted as servant. I lived with him in the house. He Was married. He had one child, nine or en years of age. An improper intimaoY then took place between me and the -prisoner. Mr, and