|
Morning Post 27 July 1844.
SUMMER ASSIZES.
George Plummer, 50, was indicted, on Thursday, for the manslaughter of
his wife, by having neglected to provide for her support, and causing
her to be exposed to the inclemency of the weather without proper
sustenance. There were several counts in the indictment, varying the
form of the charge.
It will be recollected that the prisoner was indicted at the winter
assizes, 1843, but, from some cause or other, no one attended to
prosecute, and the prisoner was consequently discharged by proclamation.
A bill was subsequently preferred against him, and he was now brought up
to take his trial.
Mr. Bodkin appeared for the prosecution; the prisoner had no Counsel.
Mr. Bodkin, in stating the case to the Jury, explained that by law a
husband was bound to support and maintain his wife, and the charge
against the prisoner was that he had neglected to do so, and that by
reason of that neglect and the refusal of the prisoner to receive his
wife at a time when she was in a destitute and almost dying state, he
had caused her death, and was thus amenable to the present charge. The
Learned Counsel went on to say that the prisoner had filled the
situation of gardener to a nobleman in the neighbourhood of Sidcup, and
had been separated from his wife for some time before her death, and had
made her an allowance of half-a-crown a week. She became, however, in a
most destitute and miserable condition, and was found by a policeman
late at night, to whom she stated that she had no home to go to. He took
her to the prisoner's house, and asked him to admit her, but with
offensive language, he refused to do so, and the decease, very shortly
afterwards died, and from the medical testimony there could be no doubt
that her death was occasioned by her state of destitution and want of
nourishment. The Learned Counsel went on to state that it would appear
that directly before the death of the deceased, a medical gentleman, who
would be called before the Jury, had given her a letter to take to the
relieving officer of the district, requiring him to give the deceased
relief, but it would appear no attention was paid to the request. He
(the Learned Counsel) had no hesitation in saying, that if this letter
had been received by the relieving officer, he had grossly neglected his
duty in not attending to it. Every destitute person was entitled to
relief, and if any relieving officer, under such circumstances,
neglected to perform the duty that devolved upon him, there was very
little doubt that he would be liable to have a charge of a similar
nature to the present preferred against him. The Learned Counsel then
called the following witnesses Hannah Riley deposed that she lived at
Foot’s Cray, and knows the prisoner, and the deceased, hit wife. The
deceased died on the 23d of November, 1843, and on the Sunday before her
death she had asked witness to give her a lodging for the night. She
remained at witness’s house three or four days, and during that time she
appeared to be very ill.
Thomas Mumford, an illegitimate child of the deceased’s previous to her
marriage with the prisoner, deposed that he saw his mother on the 19th
of November, when she appeared very ill, and complained of great pain.
Prisoner and his mother had not lived together for some time before
this, and he used to allow her half-a-crown a week, which she generally
received on Sunday, and he believed she did so on the week previous to
her death.
Cross-examined by the prisoner:— Witness was not aware of the reason of
their being apart.
Mary Anne Mumford, wife of the last witness, spoke of the miserable
state of the deceased a short time previous to her death. She also
proved that the prisoner and his wife had been separated for four years,
and that he used to allow her half-a-crown a week.
Mr. T. Pritchard, surgeon, of Sidcup, deposed that he knew the deceased,
and had noticed her particularly for several days before her death. On
the 21st of November, two days before her death, she came to his
surgery, and at that time she appeared to be in a dying slate, and he
told her that she was not in a condition to go about, and indeed he
considered that she was hardly able to go away from his surgery. He gave
her a letter to the relieving officer of the district, in which he
described her condition, and requested him to relieve her. Shortly
afterwards he heard the was dead, and by the direction of the Coroner,
he made a post mortem examination of the deceased. He found the stomach
and bowels perfectly empty, the liver was diseased, and there was also
an extensive ulceration of the lower part of the body.
By the Court:— Witness had no doubt the death of the deceased was
accelerated by the want of proper nourishment and clothing.
William Earl, a police constable, stationed at Sidcup, deposed that on
the Wednesday previous to the death of the deceased person he saw her,
and had some conversation with her, during which she complained of the
conduct of her husband. She appeared very ill at this time, and he
persuaded her to go to the relieving officer. He saw her again at eleven
o’clock at night, and she was then very wet, and in a miserable state.
She went towards the house where the prisoner lodged, and witness heard
her ask him to take her in. Witness told the prisoner, who was at the
window, that his wife was in a miserable state, and wished him to let
her in. The prisoner replied that he had no lodging for her. Witness
told him that he was her husband and ought to provide for her; to which
the prisoner replied, that she was a nasty ——, and he should not get up,
or trouble himself about her, and he then shut down the window. After
this witness took the deceased to the house of the prisoner's father,
who also refused to receive her, and he then offered to give her a
shelter in the station house, but the deceased would not accept it, and
walked away. About three o'clock the next morning he found her in an
outhouse, and she was then wet through, and very ill. Witness got some
beer for her, which she drank, and he did not see her any more alive.
Sarah Coomber deposed that, at the time in question, her husband kept
the "Black Horse" public-house at Sidcup. On the Thursday before the
death of the deceased she came to witness’s house and wished for a
lodging. She appeared to be very ill and in a most destitute condition.
The prisoner was in the house at the time, and witness told him the
state of his wife, when he replied that she was no wife of his, and had
not been for many years. She allowed the deceased to remain in the house
during the night, and she was put to bed. The next morning she was
insensible, and died shortly afterwards.
A servant in the employ of Mrs. Coomber proved that she accompanied the
deceased to her bedroom, and she appeared so weak as to be hardly able
to stand.
Another witness deposed that a day or two before the death of the
deceased she came to her house, and, seeing her miserable condition, she
sailed to the prisoner who was passing at the time, and asked him to
take her away, when he replied, "Turn her out, I won’t have her."
Mr. Pritchard was re-called, and, in answer to questions put to him, he
said that the deceased would no doubt have lived for some time if proper
care had been taken of her. Diarrhoea was the immediate cause of death,
and he was of opinion that the death was hastened by her exposure to the
weather on the Wednesday night.
The prisoner, in his defence, said that he and the deceased had mutually
agreed to separate, and he allowed her half a-crown a week, which was
all he could afford. She had come to him several times in a most filthy
condition, and it was impossible that he could live with her.
Mr. Baron Gurney then addressed the Jury, and said there could be no
doubt that in law a husband was bound to provide for and support his
wife, and if by neglecting to do so, he caused her death, he would
subject himself to a charge of manslaughter. The present case, however,
presented some peculiar features. It appeared that the parties had
agreed to separate, and that the prisoner undertook to make his wife an
allowance of half-a-crown a week, and there did not appear to be any
proof that at the time the application was made to the prisoner to admit
his wife into his house on the night when the exposure to the weather
was said to have caused her death, that he was at all aware she was in a
dying condition. The Learned Judge then went through the evidence, and
left the case in the hands of the Jury.
After a short deliberation they returned a verdict of Not Guilty.
|
)