Police Officer Cleared Over Mans Death

A police officer charged with murder after a man he arrested for being drunk died was later cleared of any wrongdoing in connection to the death.

In the early hours of 25th January 1864 John Houlsham was found lying on the pavement in Great Crosshall Street and taken to the Bridewell by four policemen, where he was booked in for being drunk and for his own safety. The following morning he was discharged by the magistrate and said nothing of any ill treatment by police officers.

Two days later Houlsham admitted himself to the Toxteth Park workhouse, saying that the bruising on his arms and bloodshot eye had been a result of ill treatment by the police. He also claimed that two sovereigns had been taken from his pocket at the time of his arrest. Houlsham died the following Monday, leading to an inquest taking place at the Woodcroft Inn on 4th February before the coroner Mr Driffield.

Dr Wall, visiting surgeon at the workhouse, told of the postmortem that he carried out on Houlsham's body. In addition to the bruising he also found effusion on the brain, as a result of a blow to the head. He could not say however whether the head injury was as a result of a blow or a fall, but did conclude the arms were bruised as a result of violence. 

Houlsham's brother James said that when he saw John at the workhouse, he was asked to find out which policeman had assaulted him. Mary Newport, a soapboilers wife in Great Crosshall Street, told the coroner that the police officer concerned, who she knew as 'Little John', had kneed Houlsham in the back, hit him on the arm with a weapon and then pulled him up by the neckerchief. She then claimed that there was blood where Houlsham had been lying, which was backed up by a woman named Sarah Canning.

Newport and Canning's evidence was contradicted by Bernard Sands, a cab driver who was in Great Crosshall Street at the time.  He said that Houlsham struck a police officer and no violence was used against him, a statement that was backed up by two constables. The bridewell keeper also said that Houlsham made no complaint of maltreatment when he was admitted.

Inspector Penlington from the police stated that he had told Newport to make any complaint of police violence to the Chief Constable and said how it was common in 'low neighbourhoods' for officers to be accused of wrongdoing. He did admit however that one one of the officers concerned in the arrest, Constable John Rennison, had twice been accused of hitting people in the street. 

The jury returned a verdict that Houlsham had died from his injuries, but there was no evidence to show how they occurred. Despite this, Constable John Renison was charged with murder, perhaps to offer assurance to the public that the police were not above the law. However when his case went before the Grand Jury at the Liverpool Assizes on 21st March, the bill was thrown out and he was discharged. 

Norwegian Beaten to Death in Toxteth

In 1885 a Norwegian lodging house keeper was beaten to death by in an attack by three men in Toxteth.

Sever Olaf Janssen was the forty year old keeper of a lodging house in Langley Street, which he ran with his wife. In the early hours of 2nd January that year a female resident returned with a male named John Taggart but Janssen refused to let him in, leading to the two men scuffling in the street. 

Taggart left but soon returned with two other males and punched Janssen to the ground. One of his companions, Arthur Kavanagh, then began to beat Janssen about the head and body with a belt, while the other James McNamara threw a bottle. Some of Janssen's lodgers tried to help him but were injured themselves and their screams drew the attention of two policemen in Mill Street. They quickly ran to the scene, where an insensible Janssen was being carried back into the house.

An ambulance took Janssen to the Southern Hospital but despite the best efforts of Dr Dixon he died soon after admission. The two police officers then went to Prince William Street and arrested twenty three year old Taggart, forty year old Kavanagh and twenty three year old McNamara, who was Kavanagh's stepson. Taggart claimed that he had been assaulted by Janssen, while the other two denied any knowledge of the matter whatsoever.

On 3rd January the three men appeared at the police court in Dale Street where Ruth Clarke, who had taken Taggart back to the house in the first place, said that Kavanagh and McNamara were  the main aggressors in the case. Mary Jones, another lodger of the house which was described by the Liverpool Mercury as 'one of ill repute', claimed that in the assault Kavanagh used a belt and Taggart a bottle, while McNamara did nothing. The stipendiary magistrate Mr Raffles then remanded all three prisoners for a week pending the outcome of the inquest.

The inquest took place on 6th January before Mr Aspinall at the police buildings in Dale Street. The first witness was Janssen's wife Amelia. She explained that he was previously a seaman but they had opened the lodging house together after getting married early in 1884. She acknowledged that it was of 'ill repute' and stated that they had four lodgers. In her opinion, the disagreement was as a result of an incident earlier in the day when her husband refused to loan some beer to Kavanagh, himself a lodging house keeper.

Ruth Clarke and Mary Jones told the coroner that Janssen did nothing to provoke the attack and said that he was sober. Clarke described how in the previous fortnight Janssen had only drank on Christmas Day and how he begged for mercy during the attack given he was outnumbered. Two other lodgers of the house, Margaret Brown and Elizabeth Ward, said they saw an assault on Janssen but could not identify the assailants.

Dr Knight, who carried out the postmortem, said that the cause of death was concussion of the brain. He stated that the internal organs were healthy and that there was no trace of alcohol in the body. However solicitor Mr Madden, representing the three accused, then called another medical expert, Dr Whitford. He was of the opinion that Janssen's main blood vessel from the heart was diseased due to seven or eight years of heavy drinking and that death was a result of shock rather than the assault itself. Questioned by the coroner, Dr Whitford admitted that he would not know what to put on the death certificate if he had been required to write it.

After a deliberation lasting ninety minutes, the jury returned a verdict of wilful murder against all three prisoners. They were committed for trial at the next assizes and Janssen was interred in a public grave at Toxteth Park cemetery three days later.

On 9th February the three men appeared before Mr Justice Day charged with murder. Medical opinion was again divided, with Dr Whitford believing none of the wounds could have resulted in death, but Dr Dixon and Dr Knight saying that the blows to the head were the direct cause. For Kavanagh, Father Goethals from St Patrick's Church said he had known him for twenty years and that he was of good character.

The jury found the prisoners guilty of manslaughter leading to Justice Day describing the attack as a 'brutal and cowardly outrage.' However, he acknowledged that the defendants could not have foreseen that death would result and as such sentenced them to twenty one months imprisonment with hard labour.

The Walton Poison Tragedy

A Walton man who poisoned a woman and baby and then tried to commit suicide was convicted of murder and saw his death sentence commuted to life imprisonment. 

In early 1914 Charles Farrow, a bookkeeper and dispenser to two doctors, began living with an old childhood flame Jane Bruce at 86 Chirkdale Street in Walton. In January 1915, thirty nine year old Jane gave birth to a baby girl who they named Mary.

After falling ill and being prescribed stout, Jane took a liking to the drink and began to take it alongside spirits, sometimes drinking a bottle of whisky a day. This led to several quarrels between the couple and in March 1916 Farrow hit out at Jane, kicking her.

Farrow responded to Jane's drinking by gambling heavily and he lost £30 (equivalent to over £2,000 today) on the Epsom Derby. When Farrow failed to turn up for work at Dr Unsworth's surgery in St Anne Street on 5th June 1916 the alarm was raised and police broke into his home. They found him semi-conscious in bed with Jane, who was already dead. Mary was in a bad way too and they were both taken to Stanley hospital. 

After being transferred to Mill Road hospital for further treatment, Farrow was discharged on 15th June and arrested by Detective Sergeant Range. He was charged with murder, attempted murder and attempted suicide and taken to appear before the Stipendiary Magistrate. He responded to the charges by saying that Jane was a drunken woman who gave him provocation and that he then 'felt it better to finish the lot of us.' He admitted giving Jane three ounces of morphia, Mary one ounce then taking four ounces himself. Mary had made a full recovery and been handed over to the care of Jane's sister Mary Kelly.

Farrow was then remanded pending the outcome of the inquest that was scheduled for  Mrs Freeman from number 89 told the coroner that she had witnessed Farrow kick Jane and that her habits had deserved it. Jane's sister said she had visited from her home in Durham the previous Christmas and that the couple seemed comfortable together and fond of their baby girl. Dr Mildred Powell said the postmortem showed that Jane's liver was damaged by alcohol but that death was a result of poisoning. This led to the jury returning a verdict of wilful murder.

On 4th July forty one year old Farrow was committed for trial at the next Manchester assizes, which were about to start. His trial for the murder of Jane took place on 12th July and he offered no defence. Instead Farrow counsel suggested that he had fought a steady fight against Jane's drinking habits for two years and that his mind was disordered due to two years of brainstorm. 

In summing up, the judge Mr Justice Low was not favourable at all to Farrow, pointing out that death by poison was premeditation and that the killing had not been as a result of a sudden impulse. The jury found Farrow guilty, but recommended him to mercy. Farrow was sentenced to death by the judge, but two weeks later this was commuted to life imprisonment by the Home Secretary after representations by his solicitor Dr Geddes.

Knotty Ash Husband Cleared

When a Knotty Ash woman was found dead in her home with a head injury, her husband was charged with killing her but cleared as it couldn't be proved that he had struck a blow on her.

In the early hours of 2nd August 1858 police were called to 110 Thomas Lane in Knotty Ash after 55 year old Mary Charnock, the wife of a tailor named Thomas, appeared to have died in her sleep. However due to some bruising, police had suspicions and kept Thomas in custody while further inquiries were made.

On 4th August an inquest took place before the Coroner Mr C E Driffield. An 82 year old lady called Elizabeth Lyons told how she had been passing the Charnock's home with her son around midnight and heard screams. She continued that her son went in there and witnessed Mary continue to scream, despite being told by her husband not to do so. 

Mrs Lyons went on to say that the husband and wife were screaming at each other and Thomas went to strike his wife, but he didn't see him do so. They then left, at which time Mary was in a cold sweat and not in a good way. Mrs Lyons' son James then repeated his mothers testimony, but admitted he had been worse for liquor at the time so couldn't recall every detail.

A neighbour named Mary Ashcroft said she did not believe Thomas had been violent towards his wife. However Thomas's daughter, also Mary, gave evidence that was somewhat contradictory. She said that she brought her father home from a club and he was drunk, but his mother was sober even though she had been drinking wine. Eleven year old William Charnock, son of Thomas and Mary, recalled returning home at 2am to find his mother quite cold, having been dead for some time. 

A local surgeon Dr Fitzpatrick said he had known Mary for nine years and that she suffered chronic asthma. However, he stated that he had found a mark at the angle of the jaw consistent with being struck with a blunt instrument. He also found effusion of the brain which he believed could not have been caused naturally but instead by concussion caused by a fall or violence. He did accept though that the condition of Mary's heart meant that death from an injury was more likely than if she were a healthy person.

The last witness was the police officer that had taken Thomas into custody, who said he maintained that he had never touched his wife. In summing up Mr Driffield said that the case was definitely not one of murder because if they were satisfied that a blow was struck, it had been in the heat of passion. The jury returned a verdict that death was a result of injuries inflicted, but did not determine on how they came about.

The Coroner was not happy with the verdict, but said he was bound to record it. He told the jury that they were not determining on Thomas's guilt, merely on whether there was sufficient evidence to warrant sending the case to the assizes for further investigation. The foreman of the jury responded by saying the only evidence they considered was that of Elizabeth Lyons, who had seen no blow struck. Mr Driffield then said there was circumstantial evidence to show a blow was struck and ordered that Thomas be detained by police and placed before the magistrates.

On 20th August 56 year old Thomas appeared before the assizes, where daughter Mary gave evidence in his defence. She said that her mother had fallen asleep and they did not realise she was dying. With doubts raised over Mary's health due to her heart problem and nobody able to say they had seen Thomas strike any blow, he was found not guilty and discharged.

Fatal Assault on a Gamekeeper

A Friday afternoon trip to a pub in Aintree for some of the Earl of Sefton's workers ended in tragedy when one of them was beaten with a belt and later died.

On 28th March 1884 three gamekeepers employed by the Earl of Sefton at Croxteth Park went drinking at the Blue Anchor inn in Aintree. They heard a disturbance in the taproom and on investigating saw the landlord struggling to deal with a labourer called Patrick Kearney.

When the gamekeepers tried to get Kearney to leave he lashed out at them with a leather belt, striking one of them, William Sutton, with the buckle. Sutton fell down but was helped back up by one of his friends and as Kearney was being put out of the inn, he again tried to hit Sutton with the belt.

Sutton was not concerned with what had happened and the three gamekeepers remained drinking until 10pm with nobody informing the police. However the next day he began to feel unwell and sought treatment at the Royal Infirmary, leading to Kearney being taken into custody on 5th April charged with cutting and wounding. Sutton remained at the infirmary there until 19th April when he passed away due to his injuries. 

The inquest took place on 21st April before Mr Driffield and evidence was given by Sutton's two friends, Robert Hill and George Clay. They said that Kearney had the belt wrapped around his hand and was using the buckle as the weapon. This evidence was backed up by a blacksmiths apprentice named Joseph Brownbill.

The landlord of the Blue Anchor, William Pye, stated that he had been putting a number of men out after he saw four or five on top of Kearney. He went on to say that he did not see Kearney commit any assault, but that when he left the pub, he did have a belt in his hand.

The jury returned a verdict of manslaughter and Kearney was committed for trial at the Liverpool assizes. On 20th May he was found guilty and sentenced to eighteen months imprisonment.

Cholera, Murder and Attempted Suicide

A grief  stricken man whose wife and daughter died of cholera killed his two other children before attempting suicide himself.

Patrick Culkin was a schoolmaster from Carlow in Ireland who like many others, fled the famine in the 1840s and settled in Liverpool with his wife and three children. Unable to find work, thirty four year old Patrick fell upon hard times and was forced to seek parish relief to feed his family.

On the morning of Wednesday 1st August 1849 seven year old Sarah Culkin died of cholera at the family's home in a court off Oriel Street, Vauxhall. The following day Mrs Culkin died of the same disease. A neighbour named Jane Kane did what she could to help, but Patrick said he could not live without his wife and refused to even accept a cup of tea.

On the Friday afternoon Jane went to see how Patrick was and found the door locked. With the help of neighbours, she got in through a window and found Patrick lying on the bed with his arm around the body of his wife. He was barely alive and on another bed were the dead bodies eight year old James and eleven month old Catherine, their throats cut.    

Patrick was taken to the Northern Hospital in a state of semi consciousness, calling out on the way to God so that he could be taken to his wife and children. The four bodies were examined by a local surgeon, Dr Kilner. Sarah and her mother had been laid out as if for burial, while the two other children had been dead for some hours, their throats cut from one end to the other.

The inquest took place on 6th August before the borough coroner Mr P F Curry. Mrs Cain told how Patrick had been a loving husband and father but his mood changed immediately with the death of his wife and he said he would never again eat meat in this world.  Dr Kilner said that the throat wounds could not have been self inflicted. 

Another neighbour Ellen Bent recalled how on the day of his wife's death Patrick had said he could not live any longer and that she should not be alarmed if she read anything bad about him on the papers. On the morning of the killings, Patrick told her how he had been to the Harp pub on Vauxhall Road and been given wine and brandy by the landlord as charity.

Mr Lea from the parish recalled that on the Thursday he had gone to the house and saw Sarah's body lying on the table and Patrick and his two remaining children on the bed next to the corpse of his wife. Mr Lea told him to get up as it was dangerous to lie next to a dead body and that he would arrange for the interment. When he returned that evening with some food, Patrick said that he was awaiting some money from his sister in the Isle of Man and would arrange the burials himself. Mr Lea told the Coroner that he did not fear for Patrick's welfare and apart from the ordinary dejection resulting from his loss, there was nothing unusual in his manner.

As Mr Curry was about to sum up, a female stepped forward to say that Patrick was a friend of her husband and had visited their house in Hanover Street on the Thursday night. She was ordered to give her evidence on oath and testified that Patrick had told them he had lost two of his closest friends and if he said more it would lead to astonishment. The female said she was of the opinion Patrick was of unsound mind at the time.

The Coroner told the jury that they were unable to determine on Patrick's state of mind, that was for the assizes to decide. Referring to it as a 'most frightful case' he said that the only verdict they could return was one of wilful murder against Patrick, who was described by the Liverpool Mail as of 'superior attainment' and well respected in his neighbourhood.

The assizes were due to start just two days later but with Patrick still in hospital under police supervision his case could not be heard. It was another month before he was discharged to Kirkdale gaol to await his trial which took place on 14th December. On being asked to enter a plea, he replied 'I am not conscious of having done it, surrounded with death as I was, my poor wife and daughter - my favourites.' A plea of not guilty was recorded and as was customary at the time, Patrick was tried only for the murder of one of the victims, his daughter Catherine.

For the prosecution, Mr James described the case as 'the most heartrending and painful'. He told the jury that he would simply relay the facts and let them decide as to Patrick's state of mind. Patrick was described as someone of 'kindness and affection' who had fallen into 'extreme destitution'. Mr James went on to say that the cholera had taken many in Liverpool and the Kingdom that autumn and this led to Patrick telling others he could not survive his loss. He told the jury that the only decision they had to make was as to the state of mind of Patrick at the time of the killings.

Jane Cain and Mrs Bent were both called to give evidence about the events in the immediate aftermaths of the deaths of Patrick's wife and eldest daughter. Jane said that Patrick had been talking to the corpses as if they were still alive and even opened Sarah's eyes. Mrs Bent described him as deranged and a doctor from the Northern Hospital felt he was not of sound mind from the time of admission.

Mr Justice Wightman summed up by saying that this was one of the most lamentable and painful that had ever come before a court. He asked the jury to set aside feeling and instead decide if Patrick could distinguish between right and wrong at the time of the killings. If they believed that the distress of mind, coupled with lack of sleep and food, had made the mind so unsettled then a verdict of insanity could be returned. On the other hand, if they felt that Patrick was sane then they would have to find him guilty of murder, no matter how painful that could be.

It took just a few minutes deliberation for the jury to acquit Patrick on the grounds of insanity. He was then detained until Her Majesty's pleasure be known.

Improper Liaison Leads to Killing

A woman who received a sexually transmitted disease after her husband committed adultery was convicted of manslaughter after seeking revenge.

On 18th February 1840 Elizabeth Brown got into a row with Margaret Farrell, who kept a cooperage in Queen Street, off Old Hall Street roughly where the Liverpool Echo offices now are. When Mrs Farrell pushed Brown away, she was struck on the neck by Brown's husband and went inside to get a poker. 

After being struck several times by the poker, Brown fought back leaving Farrell on the ground. This led to Farrell's daughter Mary going back into the house and fetching a customer William Dunn to assist. Dunn saw a man named James Lynch about to strike Farrell with a piece of wood and shouted at him to stop, raising his arm to take the blow himself.

Farrell returned home and Dunn went to his lodgings opposite, but when he came back outside Brown threw a half brick at him, which bounced off his forehead. Lynch then punched Dunn in his wound and kicked him as he fell on the floor. Dunn was taken to a surgeon and had his wound dressed, while Brown and Lynch were charged with assault and fined twenty and forty shillings respectively.

On 2nd March Dunn developed lockjaw and died in the Northern Hospital. A postmortem by Dr Arnott concluded that this had developed specifically as a result of the head wound. Brown and Lynch were then charged with manslaughter and appeared  at the assizes on 27th March. Under cross examination, Farrell admitted having had an 'improper liaison' with Brown's husband, which led to 'a certain disease' being transmitted between all three of them. Lynch claimed that he had taken a knife from Dunn's hand but another man named Fitzgerald said that this was not the case.

Dr Arnott was challenged by the defence counsel over the lockjaw, with it being suggested that Dunn had not looked attended to his wound properly. The jury took half an hour to find both prisoners guilty of manslaughter, leading to Brown receiving one years imprisonment with hard labour and Lynch two years. The judge ordered that both also had to serve a weeks solitary confinement at the beginning and end of their sentences.