John Batchelor, Solicitor

As has been reported in various UK and US newspapers, Grande (not Legrand) and Batchelor were private inquiry agents (hence why they were seeking information from Matthew Packer and others. I have found 2 articles in which the name Batchelor is mentioned:

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
THE CHARGE AGAINST A SURGEON.

At Marylebone, on Monday, William Turnbull, a surgeon, of 146, Hampstead-road, was brought up by Detective-inspector Banister for final examination on a charge of causing the death of Mrs. Mary Ann Burton, whose husband resides at 6, Churchill-road, Highgate, by an alleged unlawful operation. Mr. Batchelor, from the office of the Public Prosecutor, conducted the case, and Mr. Besley was for the defence. Last week the prisoner and a woman named Mary Nottage were fully committed to take their trial on a similar charge, in which the person who died was named Charlotte Louisa Clifford, lately a barmaid at the Boston Tavern, Highgate. Mr. Batchelor called some witnesses, who gave evidence which in effect was the same as that given in the former case, and has already been reported. The prisoner having elected to reserve his defence, Mr. De Rutzen committed him to take the stand.

Source: Weekly Dispatch, January 10, 1886, Page 10

ENDOWED SCHOOLS ACT, 1869, and AMENDING ACTS. - In the MATTER of the FOUNDATION known as Sir WILLIAM BOREMAN'S NAUTICAL SCHOOL at Greenwich, in the county of Kent, and now managed under a scheme made under the Endowed Schools Act, 1869, and Amending Acts. - The Committee of Council on Education have approved of a SCHEME for the future management of the above-named FOUNDATION, and Notice is Hereby Given, that unless within two months after the first publication of this notice a petition is presented to her Majesty in Council, in pursuance of Section 39 of the Endowed Schools Act, 1869, or a petition is presented to the Committee of Council on Education, in pursuance of Section 13 of the Endowed Schools Act, 1873, such Scheme may be approved by her Majesty without being laid before Parliament. Copies of the Scheme, price sixpence each, may be obtained from Mr. John Batchelor, solicitor, Croom's-hill, Greenwich; or from the Secretary, Charity Commission, Whitehall, S.W. This Scheme may also be seen, without charge, at the said office of the Charity Commission.

PATRICK CUMIN, Secretary
Education Department, 27th May 1886

Source: Daily News, June 7, 1886, Page 4

THE CHARGE OF WHOLESALE CORRUPTION OF GIRLS AT CLERKENWELL.

At Clerkenwell, on Wednesday, Thomas Gibney, forty-eight, describing himself as "independent," and still refusing his address, was brought up by Detective-inspector Peel, and charged, on remand, with a criminal assault upon Louisa Brand, aged fourteen, in December last; and further, with attempted assaults of a like nature upon Louisa Emily Penfold, aged ten, and Alice and Ada Smith, aged twelve and ten respectively, at Clerkenwell-close and Red Lion-street, Clerkenwell. These four were the only offences that the prisoner was formally charged with, but complaints against Gibney of indecent behaviour to more than forty other girls have been made by their parents to the police. At the last hearing, nineteen girls were present in court ready to give evidence. Mr. Batchelor, who prosecuted on behalf of the Treasury, said the first charge against the prisoner would have to be abandoned, as under Section 5 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act proceedings in reference to offences against girls between thirteen and sixteen years of age must be taken within three months. More than three months had elapsed since the committal of the offences in connection with Louisa Brand, and the information had not been laid in time for the prisoner to be charged in that case. He (Mr. Batchelor) would, however, call as a witness Clara Payne, a girl who was then under the age of thirteen, and to whom the section did not apply. Clara Payne was accordingly called, and gave evidence against the prisoner, and in support of the charge. Louisa Brand, aged fourteen, gave corroborative testimony. Dr. Alexander Miller, divisional surgeon, was also examined. Some further evidence having been given, the prisoner was again remanded.

Source: Weekly Dispatch, May 23, 1886, Page 11

THE POLICE COURTS

WORSHIP STREET. - THE CHARGE AGAINST A MEDICAL ASSISTANT. - Absolom William Head, aged 38, an unqualified medical assistant, of East-road, Shoreditch, was charged on remand with the manslaughter of Henry Hibberd, aged 65, of Bookham-street. - Mr. Batchelor prosecuted for the Treasury, and the prisoner was defended by Mr. Morris. - The deceased died on the 25th March last from an overdose of sleeping-draught, and at an inquest subsequently held the jury returned a verdict of gross negligence against the prisoner, who had supplied the draught, and who was then committed to custody on the coroner's warrant. The proceedings at this court have extended over three occasions, when evidence has been given showing that the deceased man suffered from sleeplessness, and was attended by the prisoner, who had been an assistant to Dr. F. Money, of Pimlico and East-road. On the application of the deceased's wife the prisoner had promised to prepare a draught which he verbally directed her to administer in doses of one half the quantity, but the original intention being altered, the prisoner placed on the bottle a label which directed one-third of the quantity only to be given. The woman, however, not being specially warned of this alteration, conformed with the verbal instruction, and her husband consequently died from an overdose of chloral, morphia, etc. The alleged negligence of the prisoner was in the fact that he had not specially warned the woman of the alteration in the dose to be allowed. - Dr. Money and other witnesses were examined to show that the remedy provided by the prisoner was a proper one under the circumstances; but Dr. Bagster-Phillips, the police surgeon, was of a contrary opinion, and thought that a skilled person could have previously discovered the fact that the deceased suffered from a weak heart, on which the effect of chloral, etc., would be pernicious. Under those conditions the prescription of the prisoner was in itself highly indiscreet. He also thought that even the smaller dose prescribed on the label was an excessive one. The doctor added that the dose in question would perhaps have caused death were the man perfectly healthy; but the effects were uncertain. - The case being completed, the solicitor for the defence submitted to the Court that there was nothing in the case for the prosecution which would justify the prisoner being committed for trial. - Mr. Bushby, however, said that he could not withdraw the case from a jury after the evidence of the police surgeon. On the evidence of Dr. Money, the prisoner's employer, the case would be different, but the testimony of Dr. Phillips put a serious complexion on the matter, and he should therefore commit the prisoner for trial.

Source: Daily News, April 30, 1886, Page 2

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

THE ALLEGED FRAUDS.

At Southwark, on Tuesday, Mr. Slade resumed the investigation of the charges of fraud and conspiracy preferred against John Seymour Fowler, solicitor, and William Henry Edwards, manager of the Legal and General Mercantile Creditors' Protection Association (Limited), 23, High-street, Borough. Mr. Batchelor asked that the case should be sent to the sessions. Mr. Thompson said that if that course was adopted it would entail on the defendants the additional expense of an application to the Court of Queen's Bench to have the case transferred. Mr. Slade acceded to the application of the Treasury, and granted bail, fixing the amount at two sureties of 500 pounds each, with twenty-four hours' notice to the police.

Source: Weekly Dispatch, April 4, 1886, Page 10

SOUTHWARK.

THE WINDOW BREAKING IN THE WESTMINSTER BRIDGE-ROAD. - William Graham, 24, grocer's assistant, residing at a common lodging-house in the Borough, was brought up for final examination, charged with riotously assembling with diverse other persons in Westminster Bridge road, and wilfully breaking the windows of several shops there, causing damage to the extent of 40 pounds and upwards. - According to the evidence of the police, the prisoner was one of a mob of some 2,000 people who, on their way from the Social Democratic meeting in Hyde-park on Feb. 21, smashed the windows of several buildings with stones. In Westminster Bridge-road they broke the windows of Messrs. Atkinson and Co., and other tradesmen, and the prisoner was pointed out to Inspector Chamberlain as one of the persons who threw stones at the prosecutors' windows, and he was taken into custody, but the man who pointed out the prisoner was not known, and the learned counsel expressed a hope that he would come forward as a witness, and thus assert the cause of justice. On being apprehended the prisoner, who declined to give any information as to his antecedents, was found in possession of several Socialistic pamphlets and a purse containing about 30s in small coins. - After calling some witnesses testifying to the amount of damage caused by the rioters, Mr. Batchelor asked that the prisoner should be committed for trial under the 12th section of the Malicious Damages to Property Act (24th and 25th Vic., cap. 97). - The prisoner submitted that no evidence had been given to show that the persons assembled in Westminster Bridge-road on the day in question were acting in agreement to break windows. - Mr. Slade said that would be a question for the jury. What had he to say to the charge? - Prisoner: I was at the meeting of unemployed because I was out of work. I came away from Hyde Park with the crowd. I had no stones in my pocket, and did not break any windows, I am quite innocent of this charge. - Mr. Slade committed the prisoner for trial at the next Surrey Sessions.

Source: News Of The World, March 21, 1886, Page 7

Note: Now this article is very interesting to me since it mentions Mr. Batchelor being involved in a case with Socialists who met in areas of London. Could Batchelor, solicitor and Charles Grande, private investigator have been poking around the Socialist Club in Berner Street because they possibly knew or could easily discover who might have been with Liz Stride on the night when Matthew Packer saw Liz with her male escort?

THE SOCIALISTS AT BOW STREET.

At Bow-street, Police-court, on Wednesday, John Burns, H.M. Hyndman, H.H. Champion, and John E. Williams again appeared to answer the charge of uttering seditious speeches and inciting numbers of her Majesty's subjects to insurrection, riots, tumults, and breaches of the peace. Mr. Poland and Mr. Mathews, instructed by Sir A.K. Stephenson, the Hon. H. Cuffe, and Mr. Batchelor, prosecuted on behalf of the Treasury. Mr. W. Thompson defended Burns and Williams. For their own convenience the defendants elected to sit in the dock, instead of standing in front of it, as is usual in cases where persons appear in answer to a summons. Before the case was resumed. Mr. Hyndman said he wished to call attention to certain matters that have been going on while the case was under jurisdiction, and a few words from the magistrate would prevent a recurrence of what might damage the defendants in the eyes of the public. He complained that Punch had published a cartoon of a disgraceful character, representing them as being hanged, and among other things had stated its own views. He also referred to a letter in the Morning Post, said to be signed by a naval captain, assuming also that they had been guilty of the offence, and recommending that they should be flogged. The Home Secretary had also stated in the House of Commons that they were the instigators in the matter, and had nothing to do with the unemployed. A young member of Parliament, named Mr. Baumann had attended at a constitutional club and said they were entirely responsible, for all that occured. He (Hyndman) ventured to think that, under the circumstances, such statements as these were gross and abominable. They were entitled to the same amount of justice as a costermonger. Statements had gone forth sanctioned by her Majesty's Ministers, and he claimed the protection of the magistrate. Sir James Ingham said he had no power in the matter. Mr. Thompson said he was about to make a similar application, and since the last occasion he had applied for the issue of an attachment against Punch, a paper which shielded itself in a former reputation for satire and wit. Sir James Ingham asked the learned counsel as a lawyer to produce an authority to show his (Sir James's) power. Mr. Thompson said he did not wish to ask Sir James to deal with the case. He only asked him to express an opinion on the matter. Sir James Ingham said any expression of opinion on a matter not before him would be a gross act of misconduct. He should decline to say anything on a matter not before him. If any of these gentlemen were damnified in the public Press, they had their remedy, as he (Mr. Thompson) as a lawyer must know. Mr. Thompson said he was aware of this, but a poor man could not avail himself of this remedy. Sir James Ingham did not know that. Before him these men were equal. Whether they were rich or not he did not know, they had certain powers of redress, and if they were poor he could not help it; but he presumed that they could take action in forma pauperis, and Mr. Thompson, as a lawyer, should know that. Mr. Thompson suggested that it was the practice of magistrates to express an opinion to prevent a recurrence of such matters. Sir James Ingham said he should say nothing. Mr. W.E. Barling, recalled, in answer to Mr. Poland, deposed: The copy produced is a correct transcript of the notes I made, and which were read on the last occasion, of the speeches delivered by the defendants. Cross-examined by Mr. Thompson: The crowd in Trafalgar-square was lively and excited, and there was a great deal of horseplay going on. He saw a red flag displayed. He did not see any missiles thrown at the crowd from the Carlton Club, nor did he hear any jeering on the part of the members of the club. The windows were broken before he arrived. He did not see Burns and Williams in the crowd. He went through the Green Park to Hyde Park Corner, and as he was going through the Green Park he saw that the roadway was full of people, but did not observe any policemen. When he got to Hyde Park Corner he found that he was pretty well up with the advanced section of the crowd. A rush was made for the Achilles statue by a section of the crowd. The other portion of the crowd did not hesitate in smashing carriages. The witness obtained assistance to get up on the stonework of the statue from Mr. Williams and, he thought, from Mr. Burns, but he was not sure. The first sentence the witness heard was, "We have shown them today what we can do." He had a squabble with some men in the crowd, and lost the rest of the sentence. In answer to an observation from the crowd, "Now's the time," he heard Burns say, "It is all very well for hot-headed men to say "Now's the time," etc. Mr. Champion followed, and he told the crowd that they had no right to go through the streets breaking windows, and that aiming bricks at coachmen was not the work of men who wanted to upset a system. He advised the people to return to their homes. Mr. Thompson then formally put to the witness the various appeals that the defendants made to the crowd to go home peaceably, and which were given in Mr. Barling's transcript. These he again affirmed. In answer to further questions, the witness said that while these proceedings were going on at the Achilles statue he saw a mounted policeman ride up. He did not see any police at Stanhope-gate. The witness followed the crowd to South Audley-street. During the hour which elapsed between leaving Trafalgar-square and reaching South Audley-street he only saw one mounted policeman and two or three at Hyde Park-gate. The mounted constable had a rough time of it. The witness did not remember in the course of his experience every having noticed such an absence of police on such an occasion. Cross-examined by Mr. Champion, the witness said that he was able to swear to the accuracy of the notes taken after he climbed on to the stonework. He saw some people leave the meeting and go where the carriage-smashing was going on. He reached South Audley-street about five o'clock, and saw the first damage done there. The first check the crowd received was at Marylebone-lane, where there were four or five constables who assumed a threatening attitude, and drew their truncheons. After this no more damage was done. The greater part of the damage was done by the advanced section of the crowd. The witness was cross-examined at some length by Mr. Hyndman, but he adhered to his statements. Mr. John While, recalled, and examined by Mr. Poland, said that since his previous examination he had carefully compared the transcript produced with the notes he read last week, and found it was perfectly correct. Cross-examined by Mr. Champion, Mr. While said he had his own reasons for asking the reporters to suppress his address last week. He had been in the habit of visiting Scotland-yard for the last twenty years; but not more frequently in 1870-75 than usual; the frequency would be measured by the occurence of great crimes. He had never attended a meeting of foreign Socialists in Soho. He heard Mr. Champion refer to dynamite as an illustration of the rapidity with which legislation could be carried through the House when it was necessary to protect "the miserable lives" of the present Government. Pressed to say whether there was anything inflammatory in the speech of Champion not to be found in his (witness') report, he said there was nothing that he thought it his duty to report. Cross-examined by Mr. Hyndman, the witness said he had never given information to the police before. The police had asked for notes in a former case; but he had refused, saying that he would stand by his report in the Times. The cross-examination of Mr. While having been concluded, his depositions were read over, and the Court adjourned at two o'clock for half an hour.

On the reassembling of the Court, Edgar Windett, examined by Mr. C. Mathews, stated that he saw all the defendants in Trafalgar-square on the day of the disturbances. Burns had a red flag in his hand. He heard Burns say that unless something was done for them the next time they would ransack the bakers' shops; and that they would have to do the same as in other countries, mentioning France, where the people were laughed at when they went in their thousands to the Government to demand bread: but two years afterwards the heads of the laughers were stuck on lamp-posts. Burns, on finishing speaking, said, "Now let's march round the West-end," and the crowd went up Cockspur-street. At the statue of Achilles he heard Burns say, "We have shown them today what we can do with stones." He accompanied the crowd to Oxford-street, and saw the damage done. In cross-examination, witness said he was prepared to swear to the quotations given, although he did not take the words down at the time. He had volunteered his evidence to Scotland-yard because he was disgusted with what had happened. The riots injured trade, which was quite bad enough already. The speeches he heard appeared to excite the crowd when they were delivered. He did not expect to be paid for giving evidence. Mr. Poland said the Treasury did not propose to offer any further evidence. He therefore asked for the committal of the four defendants for the offence stated in the summons, and not for treason-felony, although some of the language used might have justified the higher charge. Mr. Thompson asked for the adjournment of the case, as there was a mass of evidence to be considered. The magistrate said he would certainly commit the defendants for trial. Perhaps, therefore, the learned counsel might think it desirable to reserve the defence. Mr. Thompson said he desired to urge that no case had been made out against the defendant Williams. Almost every day language infinitely stronger than that used by Williams went forth from public platforms and from the Press. In proof of this they had only to look to the speeches of our leading public men, in which marches on London were suggested, and the example of Foulon with the bunch of grass in his mouth was held up to the admiration of an applauding audience in a Midland county. Demonstrations to force the House of Lords to pass various measures which the people demanded were approved by the highest authority in the State. If Williams were punished for the language he had used, no man would be safe; and the law of sedition would become a terrible weapon in the hands of those who desired to use it harshly. The prosecution was a panic prosecution, designed to shield the authorities - an object to which one gentleman who had a long and honourable career in the metropolis had already been sacrificed. It was a prosecution to shield the Home Secretary and the authorities. The report of Mr. Childers's Committee showed that the police were in such a state of dire disorganisation that for hours the head authorities at Scotland-yard were unaware that a mob was looting in the West-end of London; and nobody could for a moment believe that if the police had been alive to their duty any riot would have occured. Simply on account of the failure of the police to understand their duties or to be on the alert, men were brought up in order to make scapegoats of them in order to satisfy a passing panic. In order to quell a clamour that had arisen in the public mind men were brought up for words many of which had been uttered over and over again by other speakers in the country without notice being taken of them. Mr. Champion said he hoped to be able to show that his part in the West-end meetings was but a continuation of a legitimate agitation with which he had been associated for two years, and that he had done his utmost to repress the violence of the mob. Mr. Hyndman, who said that for many years he had endeavoured to arouse the people to stand up for their rights, protested against the magistrate's decision to commit for trial before hearing the whole of the evidence. The magistrate observed that it was his duty to come to a conclusion on the evidence before him. The Right Hon. Joseph Chamberlain, President of the Local Government Board, was the first witness called for the defence. Examined by Mr. Thompson, he stated that on the day after the riots he received a communication with the names of the defendants attached to it. Mr. Poland submitted that this was not evidence, but after some discussion the right hon. gentleman proceeded to detail the correspondence, already published, between himself and the defendants.

Mr. Thompson: Mr. Chamberlain, as a Minister of the Crown and the President of the Local Government Board, and some authority on the subject, is it a fact that the distress is exceptionally severe at the present time? - I have no doubt that it is very severe and exceptional.
Is it within your power to state whether the Government intend to take any measures to alleviate the present distress?
Mr. Poland: I think my friend has gone sufficiently far.
Mr. Thompson: I am only asking this question, which Mr. Chamberlain surely can answer.
Mr. Poland: I submit that this is not evidence.
Mr. Thompson: I am asking Mr. Chamberlain whether it is within his power to state -
The Magistrate: It would be contrary to public policy, and to the rules regulating the Courts of Justice.
Mr. Champion said he wished to put a question to Mr. Chamberlain as an expert in political agitations. He understood that Mr. Chamberlain was in favour of a revolution in the system of land tenure in this country.
Mr. Poland: How is that evidence? We are trying the issue whether the defendants did something on the 8th.
The Magistrate: The question is not whether Mr. Chamberlain ought to be indicted, but whether you ought to be indicted. There may be a hundred other persons who ought to be indicted, but they are not before me. Mr. Chamberlain is not before me as a criminal, but as a witness.
Mr. Chamberlain said he was in the position of a doctor who administered a wrong medicine, and who, when the patient died, proposed to call expert evidence as to that medicine.
The Magistrate: Do you suggest that Mr. Chamberlain is an expert in revolution? (Laughter.)
Mr. Champion: That he is an expert in political agitation, both as a Minister of the Crown and as a leading member of one of the great parties.
The Magistrate: Mr. Chamberlain may act rightly or wrongly, but I do not think it bears on this case.
Mr. Champion: Then you will not allow me to put the question at all?
The Magistrate: No, I will not.
Mr. H.W. Primrose, examined by Mr. Thompson: I am principal secretary to Mr. Gladstone. I remember having an interview on the 12th inst., at the residence of the First Lord of the Treasury, with the four defendants. They wanted to see the Prime Minister, but he was otherwise engaged, and sent a message by me asking the defendants to transmit what they had said to him in writing. They then wrote out a communication, which I produce, asking whether the Government had determined to commence relief works. I had a conversation with them, and told them that I thought what they had to say would be more properly addressed to the Home Office or the Local Government Board.
The Court adjourned until Saturday, at half-past ten o'clock, the same bail as before being accepted.

Source: Weekly Dispatch, February 28, 1886, Page 4

Here is the continuation of the case in which John Batchelor, solicitor, was prosecuting the case of a surgeon who had caused the death of two women on whom, he had committed illegal operations:

THE CHARGE AGAINST A SURGEON.

On Wednesday, William Turnbull, M.R.C.S., and Mary Nottage, an accoucheuse, both of 146, Hampstead-road, were brought up again at the Marylebone Police-court by Detective-inspector Banister, S Division, charged with having caused the death of Charlotte Louise Clifford, a young woman, aged eighteen, by an alleged illegal operation, on or about November 20. Mr. Batchelor appeared to prosecute; and, on the case being called on, he reminded the magistrate that the case was adjourned a fortnight ago for the attendance of an important witness, Mrs. Burton. Since then, however, she too had died, and he would hear from witnesses that her death was the result of an alleged operation. The facts of the two cases were very much interwoven, and he proposed to recall the witnesses. About the end of October Miss Clifford called on Mrs. Burton, and they went out together. Dr. Weathers would state that two women called on him at his house, which was next door but one to that of the prisoners. In consequence of what they said he did not advise or prescribe for them. Afterwards he saw the body of Mrs. Burton at the mortuary, and to the best of his belief she was the same person who called on him. On October 31 Mrs. Burton went out to make some purchases, and was brought home by a friend suffering from what was thought to be cramp in the stomach. She was put to bed, and never got up again. Dr. Turnbull attended Mrs. Burton up to the time of his arrest, and the medical man called to attend her afterwards found that she was in a serious condition. A post-mortem examination of the body of Mrs. Burton had taken place, and that the cause of death was peritonitis following the operation. Having read over the evidence, he should ask that the male prisoner should be committed on the two charges of wilful murder, and Nottage for the death of Miss Clifford. Mr. Besley objected to evidence in regard to the death of the two women being given while both prisoners were in the dock, when it was admitted that there was no evidence to connect Mrs. Nottage with the case of Mrs. Burton. In reply to Mr. De Rutzen, Mr. Batchelor said he had not yet entered the second charge against Dr. Turnbull, and Mr. De Rutzen remarked that he should require it to be done before the evidence was tendered.

Mr. George Weathers, a surgeon, of 144, Hampstead-road, said that on or about October 29 or 30 two women called on him, and he had some conversation with one of them. He only saw one to speak to. She would be about a little over thirty years of age. The other woman was younger. He neither prescribed or advised them, and they left. He afterwards saw Mrs. Burton in the St. Pancras mortuary, and to the best of his belief, it was she who called on him at his surgery.
Cross-examined: He had never seen the women before they called on him, and he only saw them for a few minutes. He was unable to describe the younger woman.
William Thomas Nichols Burton, of 6, Churchill-road, Dartmouth Park, said his wife's name was Mary Ann, and her age was thirty-five on March 15 last. He knew the deceased woman Clifford by the name of Louie, the barmaid at the Boston Tavern. About October 28 or 29 she called at his house in the evening, and she and witness's wife went out together, and remained out for two hours, the latter returning alone. On the Saturday following his wife went out about seven o'clock in the evening, taking with her, to his knowledge, about 7s. She returned about eleven o'clock, accompanied by Mrs. Reardon. Mr. Batchelor was proceeding to question the witness as to the condition of his wife when she returned, when...
Mr. Besley objected to evidence relating to Mrs. Burton being introduced into the case.
A discussion on the point took place, and in the end Mr. De Rutzen ruled that no further evidence than the fact that Mrs. Burton went out with Miss Clifford on a certain night could be imported into the case.
Dr. Pepper was recalled, and gave the result of his examination of certain stains found on various articles discovered in the prisoners' house. The accused, who elected to reserve their defence, were fully committed for trial. On the application of Mr. Besley, Mr. De Rutzen consented to admit Mrs. Nottage to bail, in two sureties of 500 pounds each. Mr. Batchelor then proceeded to call evidence on the second charge against Dr. Turnbull, that of causing the death of Mrs. Burton. The husband of the deceased, recalled, said he remembered his wife going out on October 31, and her returning between ten and eleven in the company of Mrs. Reardon. When she left home she had nothing the matter with her but a slight cold, as far as he knew, but when she returned she was in a helpless state, and appeared to be in great pain. She said she had cramp in the stomach. She took to her bed, and her illness proved fatal. Dr. Rayner had been their medical attendant for some years. On November 3 Dr. Turnbull came to attend his wife, and continued to do so until arrested. He said she was suffering from rheumatic gout, and her wrists and the ankle of her left leg were very much swollen. Dr. Turnbull advised the parts being rubbed with whisky, and subsequently laudanum and turpentine. The deceased became totally blind, but the sight of one eye returned. Until Dr. Turnbull was arrested he had no knowledge that his wife was pregnant. Dr. Rayner attended the deceased during the last part of her illness, up to her death on December 17.
Cross-examined, the witness said he was married to the deceased in 1872, and, after some hesitation, said he had lived happily with her some part of the time. He was on good terms with her just before her illness. They had, however, no mutual confidence, and he knew nothing of what she did. They had lived together in the same house, but for the past two years had not occupied the same room. Dr. Rayner had attended the family for nine years, but his wife latterly refused to see him, and made some excuse about the expense, and afterwards said that if Dr. Rayner was sent for she would get up and walk out of the house. He had no suspicion of his wife's condition.
Ellen Reardon, of 6, Churchill-road, spoke to meeting the deceased on October 31. She appeared to have been drinking, and witness took her home. She complained of cramp.
Cross-examined, the witness said that the deceased told her that she had taken some stuff in rum.
Dr. Rayner, of 138, Camden-road, said that on November 26 he was called to see the deceased, and attended her until her death. In his opinion the cause of death was pyaemia, consequent on an alleged recent operation. Other evidence having been given, Mr. De Rutzen again remanded the case.

Source: Weekly Dispatch, January 3, 1886, Page 7

LAW AND POLICE.
THE WOOLWICH MURDER.

Sarah Burch, aged twenty-nine, was charged last Tuesday at the Woolwich Police Court with causing the death of John Williams, fireman on board the steam-transport Kinsembo, whilst loading at Woolwich for Egypt. Peter Cain, 9, Collingwood-street, Woolwich (the man whom the prisoner accused of complicity in the murder), said he had formerly lived with the prisoner but left her in February, 1883. He went away, and did not return till February this year. He did not renew the acquaintance with the prisoner. He did not remember seeing her on the 14th ult., and had no quarrel with her or the deceased. Mr. Batchelor said that there was another man named Connor, whom the prisoner had accused of committing the murder, and who was now in prison for another offence. He (Mr. Batchelor) had applied to the Secretary of State for Connor to be brought up as a witness. He had received a reply that the application should be granted; but for some reason or other Connor had not been sent down. The prisoner was then asked if she wished to make any statement. She said: "I and the man were quarrelling in the fore part of the evening. He struck me, and I struck him back. When he struck me again, I put on my hat and ulster and left the room, my face bleeding at the time. I have nothing else to say." Mr. Balguy then committed the prisoner to take her trial at the next Sessions of the Central Criminal Court for the wilful murder of John Williams.

Source: The Penny Illustrated Paper And Illustrated Times, Saturday April 11, 1885, Page 235