The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle. — 1869-07-31 (Stourbridge, West Midlands, England)

TRIAL OF A FARMER FOR WIFE MURDER. At the Lewes Assizes the Lord Chief Baron tried Jeremiah Stubherfield, a farmer, who was indicted for the murder of his wife at Ashburnani in May last. This was an extremely painful case, as it rested on the evidence of a child of the persons concerned. According to his account, when he awoke in the morning he saw his father kneeling over his wife and squeezing her throat. The child stated that he said, "You'll hurt her," and that his father said, "You hold your tongue." The poor woman was found to be dead. The prisoner appeared to have lived on affectionate terms with her, and, so far as appeared, there was no motive for such an act. Insanity seemed to have been hereditary in the family, for the prisoner's father was some years ago sent to a lunatic asylum, and his grandmother committed suicide. Ttie prisoner himself had, however, shown no particular signs of insanity, but having been for some months much depressed in spirits, his friends had been on the alert, fearing that his mind might become deranged, as his father's did. After a few witnesses had been called, the jury found him "not guilty on the ground of insanity."  In connection with the above sad case, the Daily News, with a desire to prevent a similar tragedy by arousing attention to premonitory admonitions, remarks:— It is very painful to note an increase of cases in which verdicts are given upon grounds of insanity. At Lewes Assize on Friday a farmer was charged with the murder of his wife in May last. It appeared from the evidence that the prisoner had lived on "affectionate terms" with the poor woman who was strangled by him in a sudden fit of madness. Then there was that , sad occurrence at Rottingdean, where a child was thrown over a cliff by a nurse only recently liberated from an asylum. It is hard to believe that these people did not exhibit premonitory tokens of their terrible privation of reason. There is, we know, the strongest prejudice in certain classes against even recognising this visitation, and it is appalling to think with what recklessness men or women of this order will intermarry with a full knowledge of consequences, including perhaps a series of ferocious homicidal paroxysms. The question of interference is one, of course, that should be cautiously raised, but it would be well if in some manner a healthier tone of feeling on the subject prevailed. There is no story in literature more pathetic than the tale of Lamb's care of Bridget Elia, and yet with all his care we know the desperate affliction which fell upon them both. Dr. Winslow and others have registered many of the warnings which precede madness, but it should be remembered that an hereditary taint is not alone a warning to those who have reason to fear it in themselves but a misfortune which may involve responsibilities necessitating an austere self control. The Rottingdean case has another moraL Should latients from lunatic asylums be given the charge of children, especially when it is notorious that in seasons of cerebral excitement their conduct is vicious and hysterical; and when a calamity occurs through want of thought and judk,ment in this way, who is morally in part acnaintable for it?