Insane Father Shoots Wife and Son

A man who shot his wife and son dead in 1841 as he believed they faced financial ruin was cleared of murder on the grounds of insanity.

William Jenner was a cotton broker living in Portland Place with his wife and two teenage sons. He had always been an affectionate husband and father and although finances hadn't been as good recently as he would have liked, he was sufficiently well off to employ two servant maids.

In April 1841 the Jenner family were due to move home but early in the morning on the 27th of that month, as the maids slept at the new premises, an awful tragedy unfolded in Portland Place. At around 6am George Jenner was woken by the sound of a gunshot. He woke to see his father standing by his brother William's bed holding a pistol in his hand. George leaped out of bed and tried to take the pistol from his father but could not do so. He then ran downstairs to try and get out into the street but could not unfasten the door and then heard another gunshot.

When George went into the parlour his father was there and this time he did manage to seize two pistols from him. He then went to his parents' bedroom but his mother was not there. Soon afterwards, George heard the sound of crying from the kitchen and on going there he found his mother lying on the floor with blood coming out of her head.

George managed to get out of the back door and told his father he would throw the pistols away and look for a surgeon and policeman. Within ten minutes both Dr Ackerley and a policeman had arrived, to be told by Jenner that a Mr Roberts had ruined him. The pistols were recovered from the midden and a police inspector was sent for. A search of the house took place and receipts for the pistols were recovered, as well as laudanum and powder. Jenner said he loved his wife and had two fine boys, but they would all be better in the grave.

While in the custody of officers Jenner asked George to kiss him but he was too afraid to. Jenner said that because of Mr Roberts the family would be in poverty and that he had intended to shoot George too.

Mary Jenner was still alive and sensible. She was taken to hospital where she gave a deposition which stated that she just felt a sensation and thought she was taking a fit. The ball was removed but her condition worsened and she died on 6th May.

On 24th August Jenner appeared at the assizes, where his demeanour was much calmer than it had been in the immediate aftermath of the killings. Opening the case for the prosecution, Mr Starkie told the jury the main question they had to consider was whether Jenner was of sound mind at the time. George bravely recounted the events and stated that his father had at other times been in states of excitement and red faced, and had been known to take prussic acid.

Dr Ackerley gave evidence as to his dealings with Jenner, saying that he had complained of being deranged just days before. He said that he did believed Jenner was suffering from a monomania, which meant he reasoned very oddly over a particular circumstance. A gunsmith from South Castle Street testified to having sold two pistols to Jenner the week before the atrocities. Throughout the hearing, Jenner sat still and occasionally cried when his wife and son were mentioned. The judge also granted any requests he made for water.

On behalf of Jenner, Mr Lewin told the jury there was no motive and that it was inconceivable that he would have committed the act if in sound mind. He then explained that Jenner was originally from America and came to Britain in the early 1820s, going into partnership as a cotton broker with a Mr Roberts from Manchester. However this had failed by the end of the decade and ever since Jenner had maintained that he had unknowingly been induced into committing frauds and perjury to save Mr Roberts' financial reputation.

One of the maids, Mary Bainbridge told the court she had been in service to the family for three years and that Jenner was often in a melancholy state of mind. The death of a third child effected him greatly and he always alluded to a Mr Roberts from Manchester. However, she said she had never seen a more affectionate family and described Jenner as a good employer. She clarified that the house to which the family were moving was cheaper than the one in Portland Place.

A man named James Baines who had been employed by Jenner as a clerk in the 1830s said that he could be incoherent at times and act irrationally, but that he was always friendly with his family. A merchant from Manchester called John Hurst told the court that eight months before the killings he encountered Jenner in a street in Liverpool appearing confused and believing he was in Glasgow. Three local cotton brokers described how Jenner had acted irrationally in many of his business dealings of late and was afraid to go to the Exchange News Room. 

Jenner's physician described how for the last five years he had often attended to him and found him to be gloomy and melancholic. He had several asthma fits and also blamed Mr Roberts for his troubles. Two doctors who had examined Jenner after his arrest were both of the opinion he was of unsound mind, being wild eyed, hot flushed and agitated. 

After just fourteen minutes deliberation, Jenner was cleared on the grounds of insanity. He was then ordered to be detained at Her Majesty's pleasure. 

Killing of a Brothel Keeper

A man who stabbed a brothel keeper after being turned out of the house was found guilty of manslaughter and transported for twelve years.

On 12th June 1841 James White took a female into a brothel in Preston Street that was run by William and Bridget Crummer. Shortly after they retired to an upstairs room a cry of 'murder' was heard, leading to Bridget running up to investigate. She heard the female say she would return White's sixpence if he let her go, which he did so when he realised Bridget was there.

White then followed Bridget downstairs and tried to hit her, leading to thirty year old William telling him that it was not a manly thing to do. White said he would hit William instead and did so after being told to go about his business because nobody wanted conversation with him. William then took hold of White and threw him out of the front door.

After disappearing for a moment White came back and stabbed William in the stomach, causing his bowels to fall out. Bridget bravely ran after White and managed to grab his coattails for long enough before a passing police constable took him into custody. A surgeon named Dr Cripps was sent for and sewed the wound, but also informed William that he needed to prepare to face Almighty God. 

William was able to give a deposition to a magistrate in which he identified White as the man who stabbed him. He died at 5pm on the Sunday and when White was informed by the Bridewell keeper of William's death he replied 'Then I am an unfortunate man'. An inquest took place before the Coroner Mr P F Curry on 16th June. Bridget gave evidence, William's deposition was read out and Dr Cripp described the wound as 'of great extent' and caused by a sharp instrument. After hearing all the facts the jury returned a verdict of wilful murder.

At the assizes on 27th August Bridget and some others who had been at the house at the time gave evidence. White's defence counsel Mr Wilkins pointed to the fact that the knife was never recovered and said that the witnesses as of 'the worst description of human beings.' Two cabinet makers then gave forty one year old White excellent character references, describing him as someone of 'honesty and humanity.'

In summing up, the judge said that the jury had to decide whether White had used a knife with the malicious intent of causing death. After retiring for about ten minutes, they returned and gave a verdict of manslaughter.

White was told by the judge that he had committed a manslaughter of the most aggravated character given he had been excluded from the house then returned with a knife. He was then sentenced to be 'transported to such a place beyond the seas as Her Majesty by the advice of her Privy Council, may direct and appoint, for a period of twelve years.'

Four Months for Wife Killing

In 1841 a man whose wife died after he kicked and beat her about the head was sentenced to a lesser term of imprisonment than someone who stole a horse.

At around 6pm on 31st May that year thirteen year old John Nickson returned to his home in a cellar in Norris Street, off Scotland Road. Neither of his parents were there but about half an hour afterwards his father Edward came back in a drunken state and told John to go and look for his mother.

As John prepared to go out his mother Margaret came down the cellar steps holding his six month old baby brother. She told John to start boiling a pan to make some mussels and sat down, but without provocation Edward got up out of bed and started slapping her. When Margaret fell to the ground and shouted for John to go for the police, Edward threatened to do the same to his son. He then kicked Margaret in the back and abdomen as she still held the baby.

Edward's brutal assault continued and he dragged Margaret up then threw her down again, causing her to hit her head on the cellar steps. She got up and complained of pains, only for Edward to pull her gown and cause her to fall again. This time she didn't get back up.

At the inquest on 2nd June John told the coroner how his parents weren't married and that his mother's  name was Margaret Robinson. He recalled the events of two days earlier with great composure and described his mother as someone who was very sober but abused by his father.

A surgeon named Richard Yates Ackersley said he had carried out a postmortem but there were no marks of violence on the back or belly. He did confirm though that the skull was fractured, that there was effusion on the brain and that death was as a result of blows to the head caused by violence. The jury returned a manslaughter verdict and when asked if he had anything to say Edward claimed that Margaret was as drunk as she was as they had been drinking together all day.

The following August Nickson appeared at the assizes before Mr Justice Wightman where he was found guilty of manslaughter and sentenced to four months imprisonment, to be served in solitary confinement. At the same assizes, a man convicted of stealing a horse was sentenced to two months more.

Horror at Princes Dock

There was a terrible scene at Princes Dock in 1841 when a ship's crew member was stabbed to death by a passenger who was later declared to be insane.

On 1st June that year the United States arrived at Princes Dock after a voyage from New Orleans that had lasted six weeks. As passengers prepared to disembark Patrick Cahill, who had been in steerage class, began to argue with a steward named Eli Robinson over some tobacco. Second Mate Robert Deakin observed Cahill threaten to kill Robinson and then chase him to the starboard side of the ship. Once there, Cahill struck him in the neck and then plunged a knife into the abdomen two or three times.

Deakin managed to use a rope to tie Cahill to a mast and he then turned his attentions to Robinson, who was bleeding heavily. Fifty five year old Robinson was rushed to the Northern Hospital where he was dead on arrival. Assistant house surgeon Edward Parker carried out a postmortem and found five wounds in all, one of which had pierced the heart.

At the inquest the following day Deakin described how Cahill had been a quiet and sober passenger throughout the crossing. It was only when the ship reached Holyhead that his mood changed and he began pacing the deck all night. Other witnesses  said that they had seen Cahill use the knife and Dr Parker said the wound to the heart as the cause of death. 

After a verdict of wilful murder was returned, the borough coroner made out a warrant for Cahill's trial at the next assizes and the twenty eight year old was taken to Kirkdale Gaol.

When Cahill appeared before Mr Justice Wightman on 25th August the first witness was a woman called Sarah Barrow. She had been stood on the dockside and said that she saw Cahill run after Robinson with a knife. One of the Liverpool pilots told how he boarded the United States as Cahill came out of a cabin carrying a knife and appeared sober at the time. Under cross examination, the second mate Deakin admitted that Cahill had talked of little men dancing on the bow the night before the ship reached Liverpool.

Cahill's defence counsel argued  that he had carried out the act under mental aberration and had no motive. The fact that there were so many present, it was argued, showed that Cahill was the slave of some supernatural agency as he had no hope of escape after carrying out the stabbing. Cahill's Irish father gave evidence as to his background, stating that his son had fractured his skull in 1838 at a fair and gone to America unexpectedly. He visited his son in gaol and been told that the devil was from Yorkshire, leading him to believe him of unsound mind.

The Governor of Kirkdale Gaol, Mr Amos, described Cahill as odd, singular and troublesome since he had been committed there. Without having to leave the box, the jury acquitted Cahill on the grounds of insanity and he was detained at Her Majesty's pleasure.

The Boiling Porridge Murder

An Italian musician convicted of murdering his compatriot by pouring boiling hot porridge over him was sentenced to death but reprieved and transported instead.

In the late 1830s two travelling pianists, Girolome Capello and Antonio Tuscani, arrived in Liverpool and went into partnership. They lodged at a boarding house ran by an Italian named Luigi Ginnochio in Thurlow Street, off Richmond Row in Everton. The two men performed together, but Capello was the senior partner, handling all the finances and effectively paying a salary to Tuscani.

There seemed nothing untoward on the night of Monday 12th July 1841 when Capello and Tuscani went to bed in their lodgings, where they shared a room with an Italian married couple. At around 1am the lodging house keeper went to bed, having made up a fire ready for the following morning. However by doing this, he had provided Capello with the means to put together an improbable murder weapon.

At 4am the occupants of the house were woken by Tuscani's screams. He was running naked down the stairs shouting 'I am burnt I am dead' and covered in white floury powder. Ginnochio went to see what was going on and saw that his torso was badly scalded. Capello then appeared, but he was fully clothed except for his hat and on seeing the others he ran out of the door as fast as he could. Mrs Ginnochio did what she could to treat the burns while her husband went to find a doctor. On returning within ten minutes, he found that his wife had put a shirt on Tuscani and helped him to another bed.

Ginnochio went to the room where the two men had slept and found that there was a white flour mixture on the bed, similar to what Tuscani had been covered in. A bucket that was normally kept in the kitchen was next to the bed, having clearly contained the mix, while in the kitchen the fire that Ginnochio had made up earlier had been re-lighted. A pot which he had cleaned the night before had now been used, while Capello's hat was on the kitchen table.

Tuscani was taken to the Infirmary in the morning and when Ginnochio visited him he stated that he was sure he would die. In giving his depositions, he said that there had been a falling out the day before the incident as a result of them failing to agree the terms of a £12 debt which he owed to Capello. Despite his landlord's belief that he would recover, he slipped away on 25th July from exhaustion as a result of the scalds.

Two days later an inquest took place with the coroner Mr P F Curry describing it as an extraordinary case. A verdict of wilful murder was returned leading to Capello, who had been apprehended soon after the incident and remanded on a charge of wounding, now being committed for trial on a coroner's warrant.

Capello appeared at the assizes on 26th August before the Lord Chief Justice Denman. At his barristers request the jury consisted of three Italians and an interpreter was also made available. Under cross examination, Ginnochio admitted that the two men had been on good terms right up to the night of the killing and that Capello had always been honest and good natured. The defence counsel then suggested that the mixture was not porridge at all but instead plaster, a claim that was swiftly denied and it was reiterated that it was steaming.

Luigi Gasparino, who had known Capello for nine years testified to his good character but did give evidence about the argument that had taken place between the two men on the Sunday before the killing. He explained how the two had a discussion away from others but he could see that it ended by the two of them each making a finger gesture of contempt. A fellow musician Carlo Rabbiotti told how Cappello had asked him to keep his organ for him overnight on 12th July and said that he would be collecting it the following morning. When he arrived shortly after 4am, he was wearing no hat and asked Rabbiotti for a loan of one. 

Capello's defence counsel argued that due to his previous good character and lack of premeditation he should only be convicted of manslaughter. It was suggested that he could have made the porridge with the intention of eating it, but had a quarrel and threw it over Tuscani in the heat of the moment. In summing up though the judge said there was nothing in the evidence to have the charge reduced to manslaughter or justifiable homicide and that by leaving his organ with Rabbiotti earlier in the evening it suggested Capello was planning an escape.

The jury took just a few minutes to find Capello guilty of murder, but did recommend mercy on account of his previous good character. Lord Chief Justice Denman then agonisingly deferred sentence until the following morning.

The next day Capello walked firmly into court but was looking anxiously for an interpreter. When asked if he had anything to say he seemed resigned to his fate, replying 'I can only beg a favour, that some time may be granted to me to reconcile my mind, that I may repent myself.' The judge described it as a 'carefully secured, deliberately cruel murder'. Dismissing the jury's recommendation for mercy he went on to say 'It would have given me great pleasure to comply with that recommendation if I thought it consistent with my public duty, but it is necessary that examples are made when such horrible crimes are committed.' He then pronounced sentence of death.

Despite the judge's views, the Home Secretary did act on the recommendation of the jury and commuted the sentence to transportation for life. On 25th July 1842 he landed at Van Diemen's Land (now Tasmania) along with 299 other convicts on the ship Susan.