Others Named Mary Jane

AN OBJECTIONABLE LODGER.

An elderly man named Charles von Raspe, a native of Saxony, engaged apartments at a house in Liverpool in the occupation of Miss Mary Jane Owen, and on the pretence that he did not know the time obtained one of her watches to hang in his room. He represented himself as having been a lieutenant-colonel in the German Army, with a pension of 18s. a day. The watch was shortly missed and Raspe said it was at a jeweller's. He did not return the watch and was given into custody, when he said, "She gave it to me as a present, because she loved me so." The watch had been pawned. It was stated that the prisoner had been doing the same thing in Glasgow, Edinburgh, Leith, and Brighton. He had been borrowing money in Edinburgh from a Royal Artillery lieutenant, and owed about 20 pounds in that city for board and lodgings. He was wanted in Edinburgh when the magistrates had done with him in Liverpool. Prisoner was fined 5 pounds, with an alternative of two months' imprisonment, and was ordered to repay the money for which the watch was pledged.

Source: The Putney and Wandsworth Borough News, Saturday April 16th, 1887, Page 7

I found this item very interesting - it mentions the Wainwright brothers, who were charged with murdering Harriet Lane in 1878.

WORSHIP-STREET.

THE CHARGE OF DESERTING A WIFE. - Alfred Raper, stated to be treasurer to an operatic entrepreneur of Her Majesty's theatre, appeared to an adjourned summons charging him with having deserted his wife, Mary Jane Harriet Raper; and to show cause why he should not contribute towards her support. - The facts of the case were reported last week, and it may be remembered that the defendant alleged that his wife had been guilty of adultery with Thomas Wainwright, one of the two brothers concerned in the murder of Harriet Lane in 1878. He had not made his wife any allowance since that time, but he admitted that until 1880 he had been in the habit of sending 1 pound weekly, which was for the benefit of a girl he and his wife had adopted. - The wife said that the money was for her support. - The case had been adjourned to enable the wife to call rebutting evidence as to the alleged adultery, and to show that the payments were made to her by production of the Post-office vouchers. As to the latter, Mr. Llewellyn said the Post-office authorities had destroyed the vouchers; but a man named Jackson was called to state that he had cashed orders for the wife, being told that the husband had sent them. - Mr. Ogle said that he was prepared with further evidence on behalf of the husband, and he called John Jamieson, ex-inspector of police, who said that he had known Mrs. Raper for about six months, but she had been introduced to him as Mrs. Filder by a man whom he knew to be Mr. Filder, solicitor; and the couple occupied apartments at 50, Clifton-road. - After some further evidence, Mr. Bushby asked if Mr. Filder was to be called, remarking that he was now in the position of a co-respondent in a divorce suit. - Mr. Llewellyn admitted that the evidence had taken him by surprise, and that Filder was not in attendance. He would call him if the case were adjourned. - Mr. Ogle thought the evidence for the defence overwhelming, but Mr. Bushby said he would afford the wife every opportunity, and ordered a further adjournment for a week.

Source: Lloyd's Weekly London Newspaper, July 17, 1887, Page 12

A SAD LOCAL TRAGEDY.
SUICIDE OF MR. PICKERSGILL'S BROTHER.

On Monday evening Mr. Wynne E. Baxter held an inquiry at the Vestry Offices, Church-street, Stoke Newington, into the circumstances attending the death of Robert Pickersgill, aged 45, lately residing at 125, Manor-place, Walworth, who was found dead near the Stoke Newington Station on the Great Eastern Railway line last Friday morning. The deceased was the husband of the unfortunate woman Mary Jane Pickersgill, who was found last Thursday evening lying on the floor of her apartments with her throat cut. The former was suspected of being the perpetrator of the dreadful deed. Chief-Inspector Chisholm and Inspector Chamberlain, L Division, watched the inquiry on behalf of the Commissioners of Police.
Mr. Edward Hare Pickersgill, M.P. for the South-West Division of Bethnal Green, and a barrister, living at 110, Farleigh-road, identified the deceased as his brother. Deceased was a clerk in the Newington Vestry. He had been an inmate of a lunatic asylum more than once, and on the last occasion came out in 1875. Up to five weeks ago he had been at work, but of late witness believed he had performed his duties very inefficiently. Witness last saw him on Thursday night, about half-past seven, at his residence in Stoke Newington. When he (witness) reached home he saw the deceased in the hall with his sister. Witness said, "Hullo, Robert, why are you here?" Witness's sister then told him that deceased wanted her to go to Walworth with him, and that she thought there was something wrong. They left the house together, but later on he heard the deceased talking in the kitchen. Witness was surprised, thinking he had gone to Walworth, but he did not go down until about twenty minutes after, when he found the deceased had left the house. About midnight witness's sister returned in company with two inspectors of police. She then told witness she had found deceased's wife with her throat cut and quite dead at 125, Manor-place. Witness certainly thought that deceased's mind had been affected since November 28.
By the Coroner: Deceased had had a month's holiday, and the month was up last Wednesday. He and his wife and family were to have passed Christmas with witness. He was in a very depressed state of mind, but seemed to improve during the past week. There were no symptoms of homicidal tendency.
Miss Mary Ann Pickersgill, sister of the deceased, who resides at 110, Farleigh-road, stated that he left the house on Wednesday morning and returned about half-past six on Thursday evening. He seemed in a state of despair, and asked her to accompany him to Walworth. She asked "Why?" and deceased answered, "To look after the place." Witness said, "Why can't you tell me a little more? Are the children all right?" He replied, "Oh, yes." Witness added, "And your wife?" He seemed to hesitate, and then witness decided to go with him. She accompanied him as far as the car down Stoke Newington-road. Deceased went back to the house in Farleigh-road. Witness went on to 125, Manor-place, and found his wife dead.
The Coroner: And apparently murdered?
Witness: Yes. She did not see him again alive. He had never threatened to take his life or murder his wife.
Alice Archdeacon, who said she was staying on a visit at 110, Farleigh-road, stated she remembered the deceased returning on Thursday evening while his sister was going to Walworth. He walked straight into the sitting-room on the ground floor, but made no remark for some time. He asked for some tea, saying, "Be quick; I want to go out." His mother was in the room while he took tea. When witness came into the apartment, after an absence of about twenty minutes, she found that he had left the house.
John Kempton, a platelayer's ganger at the Stoke Newington Railway Station (Enfield Branch), Great Eastern Railway, said that on Friday morning between six and seven he was walking through the tunnel beneath Stamford Hill when he discovered the deceased, lying in the six-foot-way with one foot on the rail. This was about twenty yards from the beginning of the tunnel. Deceased was lying in two pools of blood. There was no evidence of the body having been dragged along the rails. It was still warm, but seemed quite dead. The last passenger train down the line on Thursday was at 12:30 a.m. The first passenger train next morning was about twenty minutes to six. A goods train passed about an hour earlier.
Robert Harvey, a porter at Stoke Newington Station, said he saw the deceased walking on the up platform shortly after the 5:53 train. Witness said to him, "This is not the down platform," and deceased replied, "Oh, this will do for what I want." Witness saw no more of him until he was told that a dead man was lying in the six-foot way.
Dr. Millice Culpin, of Church-street, said that he found the deceased lying on his left side in a crouching position. He was crushed about the legs, and blood was issuing from the mouth and nose and ears. Witness thought he must have been struck by the buffer of an engine.
Mr. T. Wild, station-master at Stoke Newington, said he had searched the engines supposed to have knocked down the deceased, but no trace of blood could be found. It was a very dark morning.
Dr. Frank Reid, of 304, Walworth-road, said he was called in by Mr. Pickersgill, M.P., to see the deceased about a month ago at Manor-place. Another medical man had found him in an excitable state, and witness certified that he was suffering from great mental depression owing to excessive work, and should be placed under restraint and treatment. Mrs. Pickersgill told him that her husband had been overtaxed with work, and had knocked her about.
Mr. Pickersgill, M.P., called the attention of the coroner to the fact that the certificate signed by Dr. Reid was invalid, in not certifying that the deceased was either a lunatic, an idiot, or insane. On the certificate being signed his sister undertook to look after him, as she had great influence over him. Witness thought he would be quite safe with her.
The Coroner, in summing up, said the family were evidently actuated by the best motives in not putting the deceased in a lunatic asylum, but it would undoubtedly have been better had they placed him under stronger restraint.
A verdict of "Suicide whilst insane" was then returned, the jury expressing great sympathy with the friends of the deceased.
The remains of Mary Jane and Robert Pickersgill were interred at Manor Park Cemetery yesterday afternoon, in the presence of a large number of persons. The body of the murdered woman was conveyed to the mortuary at Stoke Newington at a late hour on Tuesday evening, and the funeral cortege started from the house of the coroner's officer, at Church-street, at one o'clock. Mr. E.H. Pickersgill, M.P., was the chief mourner.

Source: The Hackney Mercury and North London Herald, Saturday January 1, 1887, Page 5

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

THE WALWORTH TRAGEDY.

Mr. E. Baxter held an inquest on Monday in Stoke Newington on the body of Robert Pickersgill, aged 45, late of 125, Manor-place, Walworth, who was found dead upon the Great Eastern railway, near Stoke Newington, on Friday morning, after murdering his wife on the previous afternoon, at their residence in Manor-place.
Mr. E.H. Pickersgill, M.P., said he was a barrister, residing at 110, Farleigh-road, Stoke Newington. He identified the deceased as his brother. The latter had been mentally afflicted, and had been in more than one asylum. He came out of the last asylum in 1875. He had been acting as clerk at the Newington vestry for about 12 months, but had done his work inefficiently. He had been staying for the last five weeks at the house of his father at Farleigh-road, and had had a month's holiday. That expired last week, and on Wednesday he returned to Walworth to see his employers. It had been arranged that he and his family should spend the Christmas at Stoke Newington. On Thursday night, about seven o'clock, witness reached home, and was surprised to see the deceased and his sister, Mary Ann, about to leave the house together. He gathered from the latter that she feared there was something wrong, and so thought she had better go, as she could get nothing definite from Robert. They left together, but shortly afterwards witness heard the deceased talking in the house, and later on found that he had come back and gone away again. At midnight witness's sister returned from Walworth, accompanied by two police inspectors, and then they heard that the deceased's wife had been discovered dead, with her throat cut, in her room. Robert had been much depressed lately, and unable to work; but he had never shown any homicidal or suicidal tendencies.
Mary Ann Pickersgill, the sister, said the deceased appeared to be in a despairing state when he came to their house on Thursday, but he urged her to go to Walworth, giving as his only reason that he wanted her to look after his children. In reply to her, he said they were all right, and he appeared as if he wanted to say something about his wife, cut could not. He saw her off by a tram car in the Kingsland-road, when he left her. Witness never feared any violence from him, but his mental condition was very low and depressed.
Alice Archdeacon, a visitor at Mr. Pickersgill's, said Robert returned to the house and asked to have some tea, which he wanted sharp, as he said he must go out. He was very quiet then, and paced up and down the room. He had his tea, and left the house about half-past eight p.m., while witness was absent from the room.
John Kempton, a ganger platelayer, said he found the deceased's body on Friday morning at six o'clock about 20 yards inside the tunnel, by Stoke Newington station. His head was in the four-foot way, and there was a pool of blood there; one leg was lying crushed in the six-foot way. The body was coiled up and quite warm. Witness gave information, and the body was removed to the mortuary.
Edward Harvey, a porter, said he saw a person like the deceased on the Stoke Newington station platform, wandering up and down, after the 5:23 a.m. train had left. Witness saw nothing of him afterwards.
Medical evidence was given to show that, among other injuries, the deceased had received a fracture at the base of the skull, which was the cause of death, and he had received the blow while in a standing position.
Mr. Frank Reid, of 304, Walworth-road, said he was called to see the deceased a month ago, at 125, Manor-place. He had been seen the night previously by a medical man, and had been found to be a lunatic, in an excitable and depressed condition. Witness was called by Mr. E.H. Pickersgill, and as the result of his examination he certified that he ought to be placed under control. The deceased said he was afraid he should do something to someone.
Mr. E.H. Pickersgill, recalled, said the certificate of Dr. Reid, which he produced, was not a valid certificate. He removed the deceased to Stoke Newington, and his sister Mary Ann undertook to look after him, as she had great influence over him, and they thought that would be as good as putting him away. - The coroner, in summing up, thought the family had done what they did with the best of intentions. - The jury returned a verdict of "Suicide whilst insane."

On Tuesday Mr. William Carter held an inquest at the Queen's Head, Amelia-street, Walworth, on the body of Mary Jane Pickersgill, aged 42 years, of 125, Manor-place, Walworth, who, it was alleged, had been murdered by her husband, Robert Pickersgill. - Inspector Dunleavy, L division, deposed that on Thursday, the 23rd ult. he proceeded to 125, Manor-place. He there met a Miss Pickersgill, and they went upstairs and entered the kitchen, where he found the body of the deceased woman lying on the floor in front of the fireplace with an Inverness coat lying over her face. On removing the coat witness found that the woman's head was nearly severed from her body. There was some blood about, which had evidently been attempted to be wiped up. A packing-case hatchet covered with blood, with some long hairs adhering to it, was found in a cupboard; and a table-knife (produced), which was also covered with blood, was found at the woman's feet near the fender. Witness sent for Dr. Reid, who pronounced the woman to have been dead some hours.
Mrs. Jane Douglas Starling, 123, Manor-place, stated that she knew the deceased and her husband, who lived in the next block of the building. Witness last saw deceased alive on Thursday morning, when they met at witness's door, and in conversation Mrs. Pickersgill said she was afraid of her husband, as he was very strange, and he felt she would do her an injury. She cried bitterly, and appeared in terror of her life. Witness had never heard deceased's husband threaten her, nor had witness ever seen him ill-treat her. - The jury returned a verdict of "Wilful murder" against Robert Pickersgill.
The remains of Mary Jane and Robert Pickersgill were interred at Manor-park cemetery; on Wednesday.

Source: Lloyd's Weekly London Newspaper, January 2, 1887, Page 4

Summonses Settled.

Ada Burgess, barmaid at the Castle public-house, Putney Bridge-road, was summoned for assaulting Mary Jane Collins. Edwin Dare, landlord of the Castle, was summoned by the same complainant for an assault and with detaining her clothes. - Mr. Haynes said he appeared for the defendant, but he was informed that Mr. Dutton, who supported the summonses wished to withdraw them. Of course he had no objection. - Mr. Dutton said he was instructed that day, and he thought it was advisable to withdraw the summonses. - All the summonses were withdrawn.

Source: The Putney and Wandsworth Borough News, Saturday February 19th, 1887, Page 3

Mary Jane McEwan, a Glasgow widow, was told to take her medicine in teaspoonful doses. She instead drank the full contents of a four-ounce bottle. Death was the result.

Source: The Echo, Wednesday April 6, 1887

MARYLEBONE.
THE ROBBERY AT HYDE-PARK-MANSIONS.

Ann Adams, 32, a wardrobe dealer; Dora Harford, 13; and Loftus Harford, 12 (mother and children), were charged, on remand, with stealing, since September 20, a quantity of house linen and some carpeting, to the value of 10 pounds, the property of Mrs. Mary Jane Foard, occupying a flat at Hyde-park-mansions. There was a further charge of the elder prisoner being in possession of at least 60 pounds worth of property. Detective-serjeant Ricord now gave some additional evidence. He saw the boy (a small, well-dressed lad, of intelligent appearance) in the Marylebone-road, and subsequently arrested him. When told the charge the boy said his sister Dora came to him one day when he was home from school, about three weeks ago, and asked him to go with her to Hyde-park-mansions. He went with her the next evening, and saw one of the box-rooms open. They went and took some of the things in it, and conveyed them home. The following night he went again, and broke open Mrs. Foard's box-room door, and took some of the property. From time to time he had broken into other box-rooms under the direction of his mother and sister, and he and his sister had conveyed property home. His sister put him up to the way he was to get into the different flats. He was to enter one flat, go through a trap, walk along a roof to another part of the mansion, and thus get into another flat. - Serjeant Ricord asked for a further remand, as he said there was a great deal of property which had not yet been identified. - The application was granted.

Source: Lloyd's Weekly London Newspaper, October 16, 1887, Page 4

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A NEW WAY OF ROBBING FLATS.

Dora Harford, 13, and Ann Adams, 32, a wardrobe dealer (mother and daughter), both of 113a, Edgware-road, were charged with stealing, since September 20, a large quantity of house-linen and some carpeting valued at 10 pounds, the property of Mrs. Mary Jane Foard, a widow lady, occupying a flat at Hyde-park-mansions. There was a further charge of being in possession of a considerable quantity of property, valued at 30 pounds. - William Page, chief porter at the mansions, said there had been complaints about property being stolen from the establishment. He saw a parcel in the box-room of No. 4 on Wednesday, and about half-past six on the same day he saw the younger prisoner leaving the premises with the same parcel by the No. 3 staircase. Witness took the girl to the Molyneux-street police-station. - Detective-serjeant Record, D division, said at first the girl gave her address as 120, Edgware-road, but it turned out to be 112A. Accompanied by Detective Webb he went there, and met the prisoner Adams on the staircase. Witness told her he must examine her rooms, and in a back room he found four large bundles, not very tightly tied up. He looked at their contents, and found it consisted of valuable ladies' wearing apparel. There were other bundles in another part of the room, and that was all the woman said her daughter had brought home. He also found seven pawntickets relating to jewellery. On going into the first floor room he discovered more property. He then took the prisoner to the station, where, at the suggestion of the elder prisoner, the girl made a statement to the effect that her brother had from time to time gone into Hyde-park mansions, entered by one flat, and having gone through a trap, walked along the roof to another flat, and had got into the box-room and taken the contents of the boxes, &c. He conveyed the property to another flat, and hid it by her direction. She had fetched it out subsequently. - The prisoners were remanded.

Source: Lloyd's Weekly London Newspaper, October 9, 1887, Page 4

SUSPICIOUS DEATH AT SOUTH HACKNEY.

Mr. Wynne E. Baxter held an inquest at the Palmerston, Well-street, Hackney, on Tuesday last, relative to the death of Mary Jane Dudley, aged 19.
The case excited considerable interest owing to rumours that deceased's death was due to ill-treatment, but this was not borne out by the evidence. The woman, although so young, was married, and the mother of two children.
Henry J. Dudley, a young man, who described himself as a boot-finisher, said he was deceased's husband. On the previous Tuesday, about one in the afternoon, witness left deceased to go to a funeral. She was then ill, but was in charge of her mother.
Coroner: You are not bound to answer this question, lest it should incriminate you. Did you ever kick your wife?
Witness: I beg pardon.
Coroner: Didn't you hear my question - did you ever kick your wife?
Witness: No, sir; I did not. I returned home at half-past eight. My wife was then dead. She was taken ill at half-past four that morning, and I went for her mother; otherwise I would not have left her. Deceased went to her bed about eleven o'clock. She never charged me with having injured her. We lived happily together. There was no quarrelling whatever between us.
Mrs. Kent, deceased's mother, deposed that the couple lived with her until about ten weeks ago, when they took apartments at 66, Wick-road, in consequence of witness not being able to pay the rent for the whole of them.
Coroner: Have you ever seen him strike her?
Witness: I have seen him hit her, but not seriously, I have noticed them "jangling." She was never a strong girl. I was called by the last witness on Tuesday. He said she was very bad, but I did not know what was about to happen. When I got there I saw she was very ill, and in premature labour.
Coroner: Why did you not send for a doctor at once?
Witness: He insisted on my sending for his mother, which I did, and she said deceased would be all right in a day or two, and told me to get a bottle of medicine from the dispensary. I went, however, to Dr. Boyd, and he attended my daughter, who was confined prematurely that evening. My daughter never made any complaint to me about ill-treatment.
Dr. Boyd stated that he found deceased in premature labour. She was losing a deal of blood, and he delivered her. He was called to her again and found her dying. He noticed no marks of violence. Cause of death was syncope, resulting from premature confinement.
The Coroner said in the ordinary course there would be no occasion for an inquest after medical testimony, but in consequence of rumours he deemed it right to hold a public enquiry. Up to the present there was no evidence to show that the death was attributable to violence. The rumours, no doubt, had originated in gossip, and, he believed, from one of the witnesses who had been before them. But when it came into a public court the mystery was cleared, for people then hesitated to perjure themselves. They were, naturally, afraid to state on oath what they had no hesitation in spreading about among their neighbours.
Other evidence was called similar to that previously given, and it transpired that deceased had a fall downstairs about a fortnight before her death. A verdict was returned in accordance with the medical testimony.

Source: The Hackney Mercury and North London Herald, Saturday June 4, 1887, Page 3

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ALLEGED SUSPICIOUS DEATH IN WICK ROAD.

On Tuesday afternoon at the "Palmerston," Well-street, Hackney, Mr. Wynne E. Baxter and a jury were engaged in investigating the circumstances under which Mary Jane Dudley, aged 19, the wife of a boot finisher, came by her death, the inquiry being rendered necessary by the fact that rumours had been freely circulated that death was due to ill treatment. Henry James Dudley, 66, Wick-road, boot finisher, said the deceased was his wife. He left home on Tuesday at about ten minutes to two in the afternoon to attend the funeral of his brother's child, his wife was then in bed in charge of her mother, whom he had fetched, as his wife said she was very bad. There had been no disagreement between himself and his wife. He had never kicked his wife and the deceased had never charged him in his hearing with having injured her. They lived together happily and there was no quarrelling between them whatever. Mrs. Hannah Kent, 22, Elgin-street, stated that the deceased was her daughter. Mr. and Mrs. Dudley had lodged with her until the last ten weeks. They used not to agree. She had seen Mr. Dudley strike deceased, but not seriously. The husband called her to attend the deceased last Tuesday morning. She called in Dr. Boyd, as she saw the deceased was seriously ill and he attended. She afterwards left the husband's mother in attendance. The deceased never complained to her at all. Dr. Boyd, 255, Victoria Park-road, deposed to being called to the deceased on Tuesday, and found it was a case of premature labour. He left the deceased fairly well, but he was called about five o'clock with a message that deceased was dying, and went at once and found her dying. He did not notice any bruises, and he did not look for any. He certified the cause of death as syncope after premature birth. Margaret Dudley, 300, Wick-road, deceased's mother-in-law, testified that there were rumours about, and that she was being threatened very much. There were, however, no grounds for the rumours that the husband had ill-treated his wife. The jury returned a verdict in accordance with the medical certificate.

Source: The Hackney Express and Shoreditch Observer, June 4, 1887, Page 3

TERRIBLE FALL OF A BRICKLAYER.

On Monday morning Mr. George Collier, deputy coroner, held an inquest at the Shoreditch Town Hall, concerning the death of George Stevens, aged 34, a bricklayer, in the employ of Mr. Hawkins, of the Improved Industrial Dwellings Company. Mary Jane Stevens, the widow, said her husband left home to go to his work on Friday morning last at half past five. He was a man of sober habits and was at that time in excellent health. At about 12 o'clock the same day she was informed that he had met with an accident, and in consequence of the information she came to the mortuary. Edward Keene, Gordon Club, Fulham, said he was foreman of some work that was proceeding at St. Agatha's Buildings, Mark-street. On the 19th inst. the deceased was at the top landing of the buildings standing on an iron palisading fixing a new length of guttering, the length being supported by a screwdriver at one end and a gimlet at the other. At about a quarter past seven he went up to the deceased and said to him - "George, do have a rope round you; we have plenty." The deceased who was always very venturesome simply smiled and answered, "You are always thinking about danger." "Well," replied the witness, "it looks dangerous." "Give me a hammer," said the deceased, and as the witness turned to get the hammer he was shocked to see the deceased fall. The distance to the ground was, he thought, rather over 60 feet. The witness ran down and found him on the ground, his eyelids just quivering. Scaffolding had been hired on the day before on purpose for the job, but the deceased would not use it, and took it back the same day. Police-constable 324 G deposed to being called to St. Agatha's-square, and finding deceased on the pavement. The deceased was insensible and bleeding from the ear. Witness at once sent for Dr. Lathbury, who came and pronounced life to be extinct, and the body was removed to the mortuary. The jury returned a verdict of accidental death, and added that they were of opinion that the foreman of the works ought to have insisted upon the precaution which he suggested being carried out.

Source: The Hackney Express and Shoreditch Observer, August 27, 1887, Page 3

SAD SUICIDE OF A COMMERCIAL TRAVELLER.

On Thursday afternoon Mr. Wynne Baxter, coroner for East Middlesex, held an inquest at 15, Osbaldeston-road, Clapton, relative to the death of Richard Purkiss Strangways. Harriet Catherine Bennett, of Eastwood Inn, Rotherham, said the deceased was her brother; his age was 47 years, and he was a commercial traveller. Mary Jane Peck, 15, Osbaldeston-road, said she had acted as housekeeper to the deceased, who was a widower, since November last. He had given way to drink, but for five weeks he had been staying at a "Retreat" at Westgate-on-Sea, and he returned home about three or four weeks ago. About two months ago, he threatened to commit suicide, but he had not since repeated the threat. When he went to bed on Sunday night he appeared more cheerful than usual, and gave orders for breakfast for the following morning not later than half past seven. About half past six she was proceeding to call the servant, but noticing his door open she called to him and got no answer, and on looking in found he was not there. She called the servant and afterwards found him hanging by a cord, which had been fastened to a peg, and passed over the top of a cupboard door in the nursery. Dr. Wallace was summoned and he pronounced him dead. Deceased was going to a fresh situation on Monday. The Coroner observed that though there was not evidence of insanity the deceased having given way to drink had doubtless had this preying on his mind. The jury returned a verdict of suicide whilst temporarily insane.

Source: The Hackney Express and Shoreditch Observer, February 12, 1887, Page 3

The girl Mary Jane Hicks, who was the victim of the Mount Rennie outrage, is at present in New Zealand. She arrived in Wellington by the Tekapo, from Sydney, and proceeded by that vessel to Christchurch, where it is understood she purposes entering a convent. Her friends hoped to keep the poor girl's whereabouts, for her own sake, secret.

Source: The Colonies and India, April 1, 1887, Page 14

A COUNTER ATTRACTION.

Harry Portlock, bill inspector at the Prince of Wales Theatre, Birmingham, and Mary Jane Faulconbridge, whose husband keeps the Compasses Inn, near to the theatre, are in custody at Birmingham charged with stealing a quantity of wearing apparel and jewellery, of the value of about 100 pounds, the property of the husband of the female prisoner. The male prisoner has been in the habit of frequenting the Compasses, and paid marked attention to Mrs. Faulconbridge, who is a good-looking woman about 26 years of age. On Good Friday Mrs. Faulconbridge told her husband that she was going to visit a friend, and she went away from the house. As she did not return, Mr. Faulconbridge had his suspicions aroused, and investigation showed that all his wife's clothes had disappeared, together with a large quantity of jewellery and a cashbox, the amount of the contents of which he did not exactly know. Inquiry also revealed the fact that Portlock had left the theatre. A warrant was obtained, and the other night the guilty pair were arrested at a house where they were living under the assumed name of Mr. and Mrs. Gardiner.

Source: The Putney and Wandsworth Borough News, Saturday April 30th, 1887, Page 3

GENERAL RICHARD HUSSEY VIVIAN'S WILL.
REMARKABLE CASE.

In the Probate Division, today, Sir James Hannen and a Special Jury had before them the suit of "Vivian v. Kenelly and Others." It had reference to the testamentary dispositions of the late General Richard Hussey Vivian. - The plaintiff, as widow, the sole executrix, propounded the will, dated the 10th April, 1886, and probate was opposed by the defendants, who alleged unsound mind, undue influence, and non-approval of the contents; further, it was pleaded that the deceased died a bachelor and intestate, and that the marriage was null and void by reason at the time that it was contracted he was of unsound mind.
Mr. Inderwick, Q.C. (with whom was Mr. H.B. Deane), who appeared for the plaintiff, said that the testator died on the 25th June of last year, at the age of 50. He was an Irishman by birth. His father was an officer in the cavalry, and held an appointment in Ireland at the time of his birth. The deceased was sent to school, and in 1852 he passed a competitive examination, and succeeded in getting a commission. He went through the Crimean War, afterwards served in New Zealand, and retired from the Service in 1880, as Brevet Liet.-Colonel, with the honorary first rank of Major-General, on the very modest half-pay of 300 pounds a year. He was an officer of some considerable distinction. He had the Crimean clasps, and wore the Order of Medjidie. He was always an odd, peculiar kind of man. He was brought up amongst horses, and all through his life he dearly loved what had been described as "the rattle of a hack." He was fond of buying horses, and perhaps he would rather buy a bad horse than not buy a horse at all. (Laughter.) Notwithstanding his odd ways, he was very popular, although "jerky" in manner, both in speaking and in writing. He was of great saving habits, and had accumulated about 1,400 pounds, which was invested in some securities in New Zealand. After he retired from the service, he went to live in Devonshire, where he led a lonely life, apart from the pleasure he took in the chase, and he then undoubtedly contracted habits of drinking. At Dunster he made the acquaintance of the plaintiff, who was then in service, and after a time she, at his request, acted as his housekeeper. He pressed her to marry him, but she at first objected by reason of their different stations in life and disparity as to ages. Her uncle and aunt advised her to accept him, and they were ultimately married at Naas, near Dublin, on the 27th of April, 1885. The following September they came over to this country, and lived at Vernon House, Southampton. On the 10th of April, 1886, he executed the will now propounded, which was opposed by his married sister, Mrs. Kenelly, and by Mabel Patience Vivian, who appeared by her mother as guardian, on the grounds stated.
Mrs. Mary Jane Vivian, the plaintiff, deposed that her late father was a farmer at Alcombe, Devonshire. She was now 25 years of age. She was brought up by her uncle, and at the age of 16 she went into service. At Dunster she made the acquaintance of General Vivian. He was very fond of whiskey. (Laughter.) Before her marriage he was taken to an asylum near Exeter, and was confined there for six months. She subsequently agreed to marry him, and, at his request, the marriage was kept secret from his family. On the same day, and prior to the ceremony, she had to make an oath to the effect that there was no impediment and that she was of full age. There was a breakfast and a dance after the marriage. She and the General afterwards lived together as man and wife for six months, when she came to England, not being very well, and left her husband in Ireland.
In cross-examination, the plaintiff said that she had been out with General Vivian before marriage. She might have told Mr. Ponsford, a solicitor, that the General had promised to marry her, but had never said that he tried to assault her. She denied that previous to the marriage she had led an immoral life. She had heard that he had proposed marriage to other women besides herself, and that he had sent them presents. At times he was irritable. The case was adjourned.

Source: The Echo, Thursday June 30, 1887, Page 4

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

GENERAL HUSSEY VIVIAN'S WILL SUIT.

In the Probate Division, today, Sir James Hannen and a Special Jury resumed the case of "Vivian v. Kenelly and another." It had reference to the testamentary dispositions of the late General Richard Hussey Vivian, a retired officer of the army. The plaintiff, the widow of the deceased, propounded the will, dated the 10th April, 1886, and probate was opposed by the defendants on the usual grounds; and also they plead that at the time the marriage was contracted the deceased was of unsound mind.
Mr. Inderwick, Q.C., and Mr. H.B. Deane appeared for the plaintiff; and Mr. Bayford, Q.C., Mr. Barnard, and Mr. J. Fishbourne for the defendants.
Mrs. Mary Jane Vivian, the plaintiff, again went into the witness-box, and her cross-examination was resumed. She stated that she was staying at the house of Miss Keogh, at Naas, before the marriage. Miss Keogh was present at the ceremony, but had not been now subpoenaed as a witness. She did not remember that at Dorchester-place the deceased carried a quarter of a hundredweight of coals in a sack into the house on Sunday morning, and put the coals down on the hearth-rug in the dining-room. She had never threatened to put him in a lunatic asylum. She did not remember a conversation to that effect. He did not do anything eccentric or absurd. She did not remember his heaping the fender and the fire-irons in the middle of the room; and she had never locked him up in a room, or taken hold of him by the shoulders and shaken him. He was fond of Irish whiskey. She had written to a former servant telling her not to answer any inquiries in regard to General Vivian.
Re-examined - In answer the servant wrote that she could not say anything against the General, as he "was as right as any other gentleman, but that he was very fond of Irish whiskey." (Laughter.) Witness went into service at the age of 17, at her own wish. At Dunster she first saw General Vivian. There was no pretence for saying that she had ever led an immoral life. When the General first proposed to her he came to her bedroom; she ordered him out of the room. He again proposed to her later on, and apologised for his conduct. There was never any impropriety of conduct between them. She had never told Mr. Ponsford that the General had assaulted her, or had she ever produced to him a written promise of the General to marry her. When she went over to Naas to be married, the deceased sent her a remittance of money. It was her desire to have an open marriage, and it was put off for a few days, owing to it being Passion Week. She took lodgings at a house. A lady kept up a correspondence with him, although she knew he was married, and witness had remonstrated with him. She never intended to have a separation from him.
The Rev. Mr. Burnett, curate of St. David's, Naas, who married the deceased and the plaintiff, gave evidence as to the sound, mental condition at the time of the ceremony. His manner was that of a perfect gentleman.
Mrs. Burnett gave corroborative evidence. In cross-examination, she was asked whether Mrs. Vivian showed any great anxiety to be married.
His Lordship interposed, and said that there was nothing in that, as most ladies were anxious to be married. (Laughter.)
Mrs. Davis, who formerly lived at Minehead, said that she had known the plaintiff since she was a child. She knew of her contemplated marriage with General Vivian, and they appeared to be very much attached to each other. The deceased told witness that he intended to marry the plaintiff, in spite of his family.
Captain James Dwyer, a brother officer of the deceased, said that General Vivian was eccentric and "jerky" in his manner, but witness always considered him of sound mind. He was a careful, sensible man, and at all times he used to talk rationally.
A number of other witnesses were called, and gave testimony to the same effect.
At the close of the evidence on behalf of the will, Mr. Bayford, Q.C., addressed the Jury for the defence. He said there was no doubt that the deceased took to drink, and, after he left the Army, he was an altered man, losing his self-command. It would be given in evidence that at Naas he applied to marry another young woman, and that in fact he was suffering from paralysis of the brain; and, taking all the circumstances into consideration, he was not competent to transact any business. The case was again adjourned.

Source: The Echo, Friday July 1, 1887, Page 4

GREENWICH.
A PRISONER OBJECTING TO THE WITHDRAWAL OF A CHARGE.

Ellen Moriarty, 16, servant, of 11, William-street, Woolwich, and Mary Jane Summers, 16, servant, of Leyland-road, Lee, were charged with being concerned in stealing ferns, value 15s., from a conservatory at 199, Hither-green-lane, Lewisham, the property of Frederick A. Smith. - Prosecutor asked to be allowed to withdraw the charge on account of the prisoners' youth, and the magistrate consented; but the prisoner Moriarty's brother objected on the ground that his sister's character would not thus be cleared. - Prosecutor then said that on July 14 he and his family left home for a holiday, and returned on August 25. They left the house in the care of a Mr. and Mrs. Pike, and the prisoners, who were in his service at the time, were to leave his employ on July 14. He gave no one permission to take the ferns. After making inquiries he gave the prisoners into custody. - Mr. Montagu Williams said the reason he had, at the prisoners' request, let the case proceed was that, if they were falsely charged, the prosecutor was liable to an action at law. - Summers's employer suggested that the case as far as it concerned her might be withdrawn, and the girl assenting, that course was adopted. - Jas. Pike said he had charge of the house. When the girls left they took the ferns, saying Mrs. Smith had given them permission to take them. - Elizabeth Roberts, laundress, said she gave no one permission to take the ferns, but said a lady was coming for some. - Mrs. Smith said she expected a lady to fetch some of them, but gave no one else permission to take any. - Serjeant Joyce said that when he arrested Moriarty she said, "Mrs. Roberts told me that a lady was coming for some ferns, and that I might as well have some too, as the family were not coming back." - Prosecutor said he had given notice to leave the house on September 29, but did not intend to do so. He had given notice every quarter for a year, as he was looking for another house. - Mr. Williams said he did not believe for a moment that the girl contemplated a dishonest action, and discharged her, saying that in his opinion she would leave the court without a stain on her character.

Source: Lloyd's Weekly London Newspaper, October 2, 1887, Page 12

STRANGE BREACH OF PROMISE CASE.

At Liverpool Assizes, on Tuesday, before Mr. Justice Grantham, Mary Jane Wilkinson, of Bedford Leigh, sued a butcher named Hampson, of the same place, for breach of promise of marriage. The parties became acquainted at the end of 1882, when the defendant was thirty and the plaintiff twenty-six. In February, 1883, the plaintiff's mother asked the defendant what his intentions were, and he said that he intended to act honourably and marry her daughter on the first opportunity. The plaintiff subsequently accompanied him to Manchester to see a pantomime, and in June, 1884, went with him to Southport. In April, 1885, she had a child at Uttoxeter, the defendant paying all the expenses. She then visited Southport, and while there again met the defendant, who promised to marry her in three weeks. He did not keep his promise, and ultimately told her he preferred to remain single. The plaintiff, in reply to Mr. Addison, said that the defendant told her he was worth 600 pounds a year. In cross-examination by Mr. Shee, the plaintiff stated that the defendant was the father of a child before he became acquainted with her. He never told her that he received 30s. a week as an assistant to his father. The defendant had a married sister, and his father was aware that he was keeping company with the plaintiff. In further cross-examination, the plaintiff admitted that a Mr. and Mrs. Radford, of Pytchley, near Rochdale, had adopted the child for 40 pounds, which sum was paid by the defendant, and by an agreement, which was drawn up and signed by both plaintiff and defendant, the child was to be sent to school, properly clothed, and taken care of, and to be brought up as a member of the Established Church, and to attend church twice on a Sunday. Also, that a photograph of the child should be sent once a year to the plaintiff and the defendant. The plaintiff said the terms of the agreement were not read over to her, but she knew the agreement was to take the child away. The document was signed by her three months before the child was born. She signed the agreement, although she did not want to part with the child.
His Lordship: Then why did you part with it? - Because the defendant told me I could have the child back at any time.
His Lordship (to Mr. Shee): There is no doubt that that agreement would not hold water for a moment if she wanted the child.
Mr. Shee: Oh, no; of course not.
Mr. Shee (to plaintiff): Why did you not force him to redeem his promise after you had had a child? - Because I did not wish to force him.
Re-examined by Mr. Addison: The defendant had told her that when they were married they could have the child back. Mrs. Wilkinson, the mother of the plaintiff, said that when the defendant first came to her house, and told her that he was keeping company with her daughter, she told him that she did not approve of him. He was not a respectable man, for he had sown a deal of wild oats in his time, and she did not want him to sow any at her door. When she told him he was not a respectable man he replied, "You need not fear me, mother." She said, "Don't mother me"; and he replied, "I intend to marry Mary Jane." He afterwards said he would marry the plaintiff, no matter what happened. The defendant had proved a rascal to her daughter from beginning to end. At this point Mr. Shee said he could not dispute that a promise had been made and broken; the only question he had to address himself to was one of damages. He asked the jury to consider the question whether the promise of the defendant was that sacred and honourable promise to marry such as to enable the plaintiff to come into court and claim heavy damages. Mr. Addison, addressing the jury, said that he never remembered a case in which there was more shocking cruelty shown to a respectable family than the defendant had been guilty of. His lordship, in summing up to the jury, observed that he certainly could not understand how anyone in the position of the defendant, a respectable man so far as his position was concerned - honest and respectable to all appearances - should have allowed his solicitor and counsel to be under a false illusion when there was not the slightest defence. The jury found for the plaintiff, and assessed the damages at 600 pounds. His lordship, in giving judgment for the amount of the claim, remarked that such an agreement as that which had been put in during the hearing of the case, by which free and undisputed possession of the child was given to the Radfords, could not be tolerated for a moment. It was perfectly intolerable that such an agreement should be made or should be considered binding.

Source: Weekly Dispatch, June 6, 1886, Page 5

IRELAND.
(FROM OUR OWN CORRESPONDENT.)

BELFAST, THURSDAY NIGHT.

The excitement in Belfast continues to be to some extent maintained by the adjourned inquest as to the deaths of those killed during the riots, and also by the hearing of charges against rioters before the magistrates. This afternoon the adjourned coroner's inquest on the body of Mary Jane MacAlister, who was shot at the corner of Moscow-street on Wednesday night, the 9th inst., was resumed in the Recorder's Court before Professor Dill and a jury. A great deal of evidence was given as to the rioting and the firing of the police. It was largely a repetition of that already produced. The jury returned a verdict to the effect that Mary Jane MacAlister died from the effect of a gunshot wound inflicted by a policeman, name unknown. Some persons were today before the magistrates charged with taking part in the riots.

Source: Daily News, June 18, 1886, Page 6

COUNTRY NEWS.
A GALLANT ACT.

Mary Jane Partridge, the young woman whose clothes caught fire, and whose life a Cheshire farmer made an heroic attempt to save by leaping with her into the Shropshire Union Canal, has succumbed to her injuries. At the inquest on Monday, at Wardle, before Dr. Churton, the coroner, it was stated that the young man was unable to swim, and had suffered severely from burns and shock from protracted immersion. The coroner highly eulogised his great courage.

Source: Weekly Dispatch, April 4, 1886, Page 16

AWFUL BOATING CATASTROPHE.

On Tuesday afternoon the fishing boat Go Lightly, with 13 persons on board, left Dunbar Harbour with the view of going to the Tyne Sands to gather bait. They had just got out beyond the entrance to the old harbour, with the sail set, when a strong gust of wind capsized the boat. Only four persons were saved. The following were drowned: - Alexander Huntly, skipper, James Huntly, Archie Huntly, Matthew Brown, Catherine Smith, Helen Frater, Ann Huntly, Mary Jane Mackay, and Catherine Robertson. The sad event has cast a deep gloom over Dunbar.

Source: News of the World, July 18, 1886, Page 3

DIVORCE CASES.

LEWIS V. LEWIS - THE QUEEN'S PROCTOR SHOWING CAUSE.

This was a case in which Mary Jane Lewis had obtained a decree nisi for the dissolution of her marriage with Charles Alfred Lewis, a cabinet-maker, on the ground of his adultery and cruelty. The decree was pronounced by Mr. Justice Butt on the 6th July, 1885, and soon after information reached the Queen's Proctor on which he filed a plea as cause against the decree. Mrs. Lewis took issue on the plea. - It appeared that the petitioner and her husband had lived together in Alkham-road, Stoke Newington. A domestic servant, named Alice Fordham, swore that in 1884, while Mr. Lewis was absent from home, a man named Plummer stayed in the house with Mrs. Lewis for a fortnight in circumstances which would have established the Queen's Proctor's plea. Mr. and Mrs. Lewis separated in January, 1885, and there was the evidence of two police-sergeants to show that after the separation different men entered the house in Alkham-road at very late hours with Mrs. Lewis. A laundress and other witnesses gave evidence to establish a case of intimate relations between Mrs. Lewis and Plummer, and the laundress testified as to familiarities between the petitioner and a man named Woodhouse. - The petitioner was examined by Mr. Tatlock, and said that Woodhouse was a friend of her father's, and that by her father he was brought to her house. Plummer, she said, was a friend of her husband's, and Mrs. Plummer (now dead) had visited her. Mrs. Lewis denied emphatically the incriminating evidence of the girl Alice Fordham; and she swore that she had not committed adultery with Plummer, or Woodhouse, or a man named Dunkley, who had been mentioned by one of the witnesses for the Queen's Proctor. - Walter Plummer, who described himself as a butcher who attended horse races, denied that he had committed adultery with Mrs. Lewis, and swore that the girl Fordham's evidence was untrue. - George Woodhouse, an omnibus conductor, swore that he never had committed adultery with Mrs. Lewis. He had, he said, sat with her from half-past 11 at night till 1 o'clock in the morning. Miss Blanchard Bell gave evidence to the effect that she lived in the same house with Mrs. Lewis after Mr. Lewis left it, and that she had never observed any impropriety in the conduct of Mrs. Lewis, of whom she had seen a good deal during the last seven years. - Mr. Justice Butt was very unwilling to find that the petitioner had committed adultery; but the evidence obliged him to come to the conclusion that the Queen's Proctor had established his plea. If the evidence of Alice Fordham stood alone he should not act on it, but it received strong corroboration in the testimony of the laundress and some in that of the police-sergeants. The decree nisi must be rescinded, and on payment of the Queen's Proctor's costs, the petition must be dismissed.

Source: News of the World, April 11, 1886, Page 7

ILLEGAL DISTRESS.

At West Ham, on Wednesday, John Wickers, of 6, Westward Ho Cottages, Thornhill-road, Leyton, was summoned by Mary Jane Smith, the wife of Thomas Smith, of 39, Colton-street, Hermit-road, Plaistow, for that he as the broker of Thomas Adams, the landlord of 39, Colton-street, had been guilty of an irregularity and excess in respect to a distress levied on May 11. The evidence showed that in January last Mrs. Smith engaged the house, 39, Colton-street, at a rental of 5s. per week. The defendant collected the rent, and on May 11 there was a sum of 19s. due. In the afternoon of that day, the door of the house being open, a bricklayer's labourer entered the front parlour, and when he was asked what he wanted he said something about some repairs to be done in the kitchen, and soon afterwards he handed to Mrs. Smith a little piece of paper. Before she had time to see what it was, however, the defendant entered the place, and, snatching the paper from her hands, he said it was his. He then asked if she could pay the money due, and when she said she could not the defendant told the bricklayer's labourer to stop there, and he would come back soon. In about an hour he returned, and as she had not the money he said he should distrain, and he thereupon took away two bedsteads, a mattress, a washstand, a toilet glass, a fender, and two pictures, of the value of 3 pounds. All this was done without the presentation of a warrant, and no inventory was left, except a small piece of paper, and no notice was given as to where the goods were removed to. Mr. Palmer, for the defence, said that the landlord in this case had acted with great leniency, and gave a fortnight in which the complainant could redeem the goods; and he (Mr. Palmer) held that no notice of distraint and no warrant was necessary. Mr. Phillips said he did not see why cases of poor persons should be placed in the hands of land sharks, and he thought all distraints should be the same as those issuing from police-courts, wherein the goods were left on the premises for five days. He should hold this was an illegal distress, on four grounds - there was no notice of the distraint given, no warrant shown, no inventory given, and no notice supplied of the place where the goods were to be taken. He should order the goods to be returned to the complainant on payment of the rent due, and the defendant to pay the costs - 1 pound 11s., in all, including solicitor.

Source: Weekly Dispatch, May 30, 1886, Page 11

AWFUL MURDER AND SUICIDE IN WALWORTH.

On Thursday night a discovery of a most shocking character was made at Newington, the particulars of which leave but little doubt that a determined and deliberate murder has been committed. It appears that for some time past, Robert Pickersgill, a clerk in the employ of the Newington Vestry, together with his wife, Mary Jane, and their four children, have occupied a suite of rooms at 125, Manor-place, Surrey Gardens Estate, which is a large building let out in tenements. For some months Pickersgill has been somewhat strange in his mind, and has been treated by Dr. Frank Reid, who gave a certificate to the man's friends that Pickersgill was of unsound mind, and should be detained in a lunatic asylum. The certificate for some reason was not acted upon. On Thursday at noon Mrs. Pickersgill was seen by another female lodger, and she then appeared in her usual health. About seven the same evening Pickersgill presented himself at the house of his sister, Miss Pickersgill, Farleigh-road, Stoke Newington. He then appeared very strange, and talked wildly. He proceeded to hand the keys of his lodgings to his sister, and asked her to go and see to his home. Miss Pickersgill questioned her brother, but was unable to elicit anything definite from him, and he having wished her good bye left the house. The sister, surmising something was wrong or that something serious had happened, lost no time, and proceeded to Walworth, to her brother's apartments, which she found to be locked. Having the keys she entered, and on going into the room, used as a kitchen or living room, she was horrified at finding the lifeless body of her sister-in-law, Mrs. Pickersgill, lying in front of the fireplace on the floor in a pool of blood. She at once communicated with the police, and Inspector Dunleary and Branwhite arrived, and sent for Dr. F. Reid, who on his arrival stated that the unfortunate woman, whose head was nearly severed from her body, had been dead several hours. The police found in the room an iron-handled hatchet covered with blood, in a cupboard, and a table-knife covered with blood was found in the fender. - Dr. Farr, the divisional surgeon to the police, who was called upon to examine the body of the woman, discovered beyond the injury to the throat a number of other cut wounds all over the body, which could not have been self-inflicted. A description of the husband was telegraphed all over London and the provinces by the police, and a warrant for his apprehension was issued. The poor children returning from school on Thursday, finding the front room door locked, took refuge in another lodger's rooms, and have been taken care of by the same person. After the discovery of the tragedy, Chief Inspector Chisholm and Inspector Chamberlain arrived, and ascertaining that the husband of the woman was last seen at Stoke Newington, they, with Miss Pickersgill, proceeded thither to arrest him. Search was made in all directions, and the man traced from place to place. The officers, however, could not come up with him. On Friday morning he was found lying upon the railway at Stoke Newington, dead. He had evidently been run over by a train.

Source: News of the World, December 26, 1886, Page 5

THIS DAY'S POLICE.
THE MISSES PHILLIPS AND McCARTHY.

Elizabeth Phillips, 25, and Mary Jane McCarthy, 20. These were a pair who attracted a good deal of attention in the Thames Court today. - James Lyons, a sailor on board a vessel in the West India Docks, went to a house in the neighbourhood. His reception was not hospitable. A man commenced beating him, and McCarthy, so he says, took 5s. from his pocket. He resented this so much that he got a constable, to whom he gave McCarthy into custody - an attention she rewarded by striking the officer, and, when a second officer appeared, by resisting the pair of them. The first officer (39 SR) received a blow in the mouth, had his whiskers pulled, and had to resist Miss McCarthy's endeavour to bite him. Phillips, seeing her plight, sought to rescue her. In this she failed, although she left the marks of her fingers on the face of Constable 315 S. "The pair altogether," said this officer, "acted like mad women." Today Phillips received seven days' hard labour and McCarthy a month. McCarthy was rather elated than otherwise. "You are an old toff, Mr. Saunders," she exclaimed to the Magistrate.

Source: The Echo, Wednesday January 9, 1889, Page 4