Mrs Gilpin was so badly hurt that she could not stand up. She crawled on her hands and knees to the door of Mrs Ward’s house. Her cap had been torn off her head and she had two wounds, one over each eye where she had been kicked. Blood was pouring down her face and she was crying. Mrs Gilpin told Ann and her mother, ‘Lord have mercy on my soul, for I am a murdered woman and I shall never get better again.’ Gently she was lifted to her feet and lay on the sofa at Mrs Ward’s house, whilst Ann ran to fetch a doctor. A surgeon who lived nearby, Mr Nelson, attended to her injuries and gave her something to sooth the pain. Later that night, Mrs Ward escorted the dying woman back to her own house at 10.30 p.m. Ann, who could see that the poor woman was in a bad state, elected to remain in the house with her. Mrs Gilpin had a daughter and two sons who lived with her, but none of them were in when the incident happened. On Sunday 28 October, the poor woman died of her injuries.
The police had been called in and had taken statements from Ann, her sister and mother, and from Mrs Gilpin. As a result of this, Gilpin was apprehended later on the night of the attack. He was seen in Vandyke Street, which was about half a mile’s distance from Bull and Bell Yard. The night constable George Hall, who knew him, approached and said, ‘Joseph I have come for you.’ Gilpin replied, ‘Yes I expected that someone would come for me and I didn’t go to bed.’ He told Hall the reason why he had attacked his wife. It seems that the couple had separated a few months before, despite the fact that she was pregnant with his child.
Gilpin said that his wife had sent him a note a week earlier, asking for £10 to get one of their sons apprenticed. He showed Hall the note and he read it, before asking Gilpin to come to the courthouse, where he was taken into the charge room and arrested by the Chief Superintendent, Mr William James. When asked why he had attacked his wife in such a ferocious a manner, Gilpin told him that this was not the first time his wife had asked for money. He made a statement saying that earlier in the summer she had written him a note asking for money to get both lads apprenticed, and she had promised that if he gave her £30 she would not bother him again. The latest note asked him to take the two boys to live with him, as she was having problems managing one of them, James. Gilpin had gone to the house but she told him that if he didn’t give her the money to get James apprenticed, then she would get him taken into prison for failing to maintain his children. The prisoner stated that he had then got angry and hit her and kicked her, but he never thought it would be her death stroke. He blamed it on the fact that he had been drinking for the past three days, but confessed that he had intended ‘going to her house to give her a right walloping’. Gilpin told the arresting officer that while he was there, he intended to ‘do the job right’ because he didn’t want to be sent to the Wakefield House of Correction again. It became apparent that he had served sentences for violence to his wife twice before.
Gilpin was charged with the attempted murder of his wife and, the next day, was brought into the magistrates’ court. When the Chief Superintendent, who had arrested Gilpin, heard five days later that his wife had died, he re-arrested Gilpin for murder. The magistrate asked if the man had been intoxicated when he was found. The Chief Superintendent replied that he thought that Gilpin might have been slightly intoxicated, but not so much that he did not know what he was doing.
Evidence was given by Mrs Ward, Ann Greenwood and the surgeon. The jury took just half an hour to return a verdict of guilty of manslaughter, and sent him to take him trial at the next Assizes. The inquest on Mrs Gilpin was heard on Wednesday, 7 November 1838, when once more the evidence was given by Mr Nelson, the surgeon, Jessie Ward and her daughter, Ann. Ann told the court that she had visited her neighbour a few times after the attack, but she didn’t like to go in as her face made her feel ill. Mr Nelson gave an account of the several conversations he had held with the woman before she died. He told the court that she had received a severe beating at Gilpin’s hands five months previously, and that was the reason she left him. He gave his opinion that death was caused by the injuries inflicted on her by Gilpin on the night of 24 October 1839.
The coroner then adjourned the inquest until the following Wednesday, in order that further enquiries could be made. At the resumed inquest – before Mr Hopps, the deputy coroner for Leeds – Gilpin was present. John Hall, the brother-in-law to Gilpin, gave evidence that he had seen Mrs Gilpin sat in an armchair in Mrs Ward’s house after her husband had attacked her. She was bleeding profusely from the wound on her head. He asked her what had happened and she told him that her son James had been ‘rude’ to her, so she had applied at the workhouse to have him put out as an apprentice. They told her that her husband must do it and this was the reason that she had sent him the note. Hall said that he helped the poor woman to her bed, where she repeated that she was a ‘murdered woman’. The night watchman, George Hall, gave evidence about the night that he had arrested Gilpin. The jury took only five minutes to return a verdict of guilty of wilful murder, and the magistrate sent him to take his trial at the next Assizes.
Gilpin appeared at the Assizes on 9 March 1839, in front of the judge, Mr Baron Alderson. Mr Baines and Mr Hill were for the prosecution and Sir Gregory Lewin defended the prisoner. The first person to give evidence was Ann Greenwood. She told the court about the attack on the pregnant woman and how her mother had bravely gone to stop the attack. She said that Gilpin had used much violent language, both to herself and her mother, and had threatened to come back and finish them off. Her sister, Mary, and her mother corroborated the evidence. Mr Garlick, a surgeon of Leeds, told the jury that on Tuesday 30 October, he had conducted a post-mortem with Mr Nelson. He had found that the deceased had wounds over each eye and swelling on the right side of the face, extending down the neck as far as the breast. Mr Garlick told the jury that whilst examining the cavity of the head, he had found that the brain was much congested with blood. He said, ‘External violence has been applied with the greatest severity on the face and the right side of the jaw.’ One of the jury asked what Mr Garlick thought would cause such injuries; he told him that a violent kick by a strong boot would produce such injuries. The judge asked him to give his opinion on how long the injuries could have been inflicted and he told him that it had been done within the week. Mr Garlick concluded that, in his opinion, death was caused due to the extreme violence suffered by Mrs Gilpin. Mr James, the Chief Superintendent, told the judge that when Gilpin was brought in to the police station, he had confessed to giving her ‘a damned good walloping’, and added that he had ‘not half done it’.
The judge summed up the evidence for the jury, telling them that they had to distinguish whether this was a case of murder or manslaughter. He asked them ‘Did this man go to his wife’s house with the intention of killing her?’ He told them that if he had just intended to give her a severe beating, and as a result of that she had died, then they would have to find him guilt of manslaughter. He almost seems to have been defending the prisoner when he said:
In the first place the prisoner did not use a weapon. He certainly used great brutality, but it does not necessarily follow that he intended to kill her, but only that he intended to give pain. His behaviour was very wicked and improper, but perhaps the crime only amounts to aggravated manslaughter. He acted upon impulse and gave her two or three unlucky blows, which ended in her death.
The jury took little time to find Gilpin guilty of manslaughter. In a seeming reversal of attitude, the judge then made his abhorrence of domestic violence clear when he addressed the prisoner. He told him that it was a most aggravated case and said, ‘You went to see your wife, who was far gone with child, and in an inhumane and brutal manner caused her death.’ He pointed out that Gilpin had shown no remorse whilst confessing his crime to the two police officers, and he had also shown great violence to the women who had tried to defend his wife from him. His Lordship stated that the prisoner was a strong, athletic man and that his wife, because of her condition, could not have withstood his assault
. The prisoner, at this point, said to the court that he did not intend to kill her. The judge ignored him and stated that, in order to deter other men from committing the same offence against their wives, the offender would be transported for ten years.
The Leeds Mercury reported that Gilpin was a man of dissolute habits and, by his own admission, had reduced himself to a more or less permanent state of intoxication – almost to a state of madness. This insanity had been demonstrated a few months previously, when had been so desperate for money for drink that he had sold a legacy of £80, which was payable in a few months, for the sum of £40. On 6 May 1839, it was reported that Joseph Gilpin had been sent from York Castle to the Justitia hulk at Woolwich, to await transportation. Records show that Gilpin was transported on the convict ship Layton, on 9 July 1839, to begin his ten-year sentence in Van Diemen’s Land, which is now Tasmania.
Drink was a key factor in this case. Many philanthropists in Leeds tried, without success, to curb licensing laws and to introduce the Temperance Movement to the people. But the reality of it was that working-class men and women enjoyed the social life in the many pubs and beer houses of the city, and needed an escape from the rat-infested slums in which they were forced to live.
Case Four
Was it the Salt Man?
The Mystery of
Christopher Winder’s Death, 1841
The next case is an unsolved one, where the judge took the decision to stop proceedings as there was just not enough evidence to convict the prisoner, Thomas Millett. Nevertheless, a man had been killed on the highway, under some very curious circumstances indeed, and the convicted man acted very suspiciously. Both men were intoxicated and Millett appeared to have been so drunk that he lost his horse and cart. Had the prisoner, Millett, got away with murder?
There was some consternation on Friday, 6 June 1841, when the body of Christopher Winder, aged 53, was found on the turnpike road between Leeds and Stanningley, at almost 11.30 p.m. The body was found by two men named Robert Grayshon and Joseph Gaunt, who had been travelling down the road in a cart, when Gaunt said to his companion that there was a body behind them in the road. The road was under repair and, as a consequence, there were piles of stones of all shapes and sizes all over the surface. They stopped the cart and had a closer look. They discovered several marks of violence on the man, who was laid on his back. Around his head and shoulders were a number of large stones, some of which had blood and hair on them. The man lay in a large pool of blood and had severe bruising all over his face.
PC Goodson from Bramley was called and went to the scene immediately. He asked the two men if the cart could have possibly gone over the body, but the two men denied having felt anything at all until Gaunt looked behind him and saw the body. PC Goodson then helped the two men take the body to the Barley Mow Inn, at Bramley. Winder had earlier been seen at a public house, the Rose and Crown, run by his nephew, Samuel, who made a statement that his uncle was wearing a blue smock and a blue cap when he came into the pub for a drink. By trade Christopher Winder was a slubber, but he had been out of work for more than two years. He went to the Rose and Crown around 2 p.m. and stayed until about 7 p.m. When he left, he carried a bundle which contained two silk handkerchiefs and some bread.
In the pub at the same time was a 30-year-old man called Thomas Millett, an Irishman who came from Halifax, but was well known in the area as an itinerant dealer in salt. It was reported that he had been in the pub from 5 p.m. until 10 p.m. and he had put his horse and cart into a nearby shed. Samuel Winder told the police that both men had been in the tap room and there had been no quarrel that he was aware of, but that both men were a bit ‘worse for wear’, although he judged that they were able to walk properly. There was a lot of distrust against Irish people at that time, so when Millett was leaving the landlord told two men to ‘make sure that he got out of town safely’. The two men returned after about a quarter of an hour to say that he had gone on his way. Millett was next seen by William Binns, a toll keeper employed at the Cocksbutt Lane toll bar. He asked Binns if he wanted to buy any salt, but the offer was turned down and Millett became abusive – nevertheless, he paid the toll fare of 4½d. Binns watched him walking behind his horse and cart, and noted that he seemed to be quite drunk. The toll keeper then retired to bed and the only interruption to his sleep was a man on another horse and cart, which passed through the toll bar around 1 a.m.
Landlord Francis Scott kept the Fleece Inn and had served Christopher Winder at around 9 p.m. the same night. Winder had left the pub at approximately 10 p.m. and Scott saw him walking towards Armley. He later told the police that he did not hear any quarrelling or noise for the remainder of that night. The first thing he knew about the murder was when he was told that a man’s body had been found further down the road. Meanwhile, Samuel Winder had closed up the Rose and Crown and was in the bar area with his wife and her elderly father, around midnight. So he was surprised when someone started kicking at the pub door. He went to the locked door and shouted out to ask who it was, and Millett replied, ‘It’s the salt man damn you.’ Winder opened the door and Millett demanded a bed for the night. The landlord told him that there were no beds available and advised him to return back to his horse and cart as he shut the door. Millett then craftily went round the back of the pub and entered by a back door which had been left open. Once again, he demanded a night’s lodging, stating that he could pay. He threw down a sixpenny piece, but offered to pay up to 2s. He did not say anything to the landlord and his wife about being robbed. Samuel Winder told him that he had to go and, showing little sympathy, threw him out after about ten more minutes.
An inquest was held on Monday, 7 June 1841 at the Barley Mow Inn, before the coroner, John Blackburn Esq. Samuel Winder told the inquest that when Millett returned back to the Inn to demand a bed, he was wearing the blue cap which had been worn by the deceased earlier that evening. The cap, which was produced in court, was made of blue serge material and it was examined by the jury. PC Joseph Goodson told the coroner that he had been awakened on the night of the murder by two men who had knocked at his door at around 11.45 p.m. The men told him that there was a horse and cart in front of his house. He examined the cart to find a quantity of salt and some weights and scales in the back. It was whilst he was putting the horse and cart into a shed that Gaunt and Grayshon arrived, telling him that they had found a body in the road. He told the coroner that he had brought several of the stones from around the body and produced them at the inquest. The stones weighed between 1½lbs and 11½lbs, and many had blood and hair sticking to them. Goodson said that he had returned back to the scene of the crime later that night, around 3 a.m., and found a blue cap, a small key and a pencil near to where the body had been found. Searching further, he found a bundle with some bread in it and two handkerchiefs.
Goodson then returned back to the Barley Mow public house, where he had examined the body, and found the waistcoat pocket on the right side had been turned inside out. He also noted that clothes on the body were covered in dust, as if the deceased man had put up a struggle. The key on the body was later found to fit a locked box the dead man had kept at his sister’s house. When Samuel Winder had been shown the bundle, he identified them as belonging to his uncle. In answer to a question from one of the jury, Goodson said that both Grayshon and Gaunt were sober on the night they found the body.
The next to give evidence was George Aveyard, the toll keeper at Stanningley, who told the coroner that the man known as Millett had appeared at his toll gate at 3 a.m. on the Saturday morning, looking for his horse and cart. He told him that he had been travelling down the road when he had been attacked by an unknown man; he showed the toll keeper the scratches and bruises which had been made on his arm by his assailant. The toll keeper formed the impression of a man that had been out all night and who had been involved in a fight. Millett told them that his attacker had taken about 25s, leaving him with just 6d. He told Aveyard that he had gone into a pub that
evening for something to eat and had set off at dusk. Then he had seen the man who robbed him of his horse and cart. Aveyard asked him if he was drunk and he agreed that he was rather ‘fresh’.
Another toll-bar keeper, from the Calverley Moor turnpike road, spoke about Millet looking for his horse and cart around 4.30 a.m. on the Saturday morning. He asked the toll keeper to hold onto the horse and cart for him if he found it. He also commented that Millett’s clothes appeared to be covered in dust, as if he had rolled in the road. Another witness, Richard Robinson, spoke about himself and a friend passing the Leeds to Stanningley road on the Friday night at around 10.30 p.m., and seeing two men in the road. One was lying on his back whilst the other was kneeling over him. The man kneeling said to the passing men, ‘Gentlemen, will you help me to make this man be quiet.’ Robinson ignored the comment and proceeded past him, and then heard a sound which could have been a blow or a body falling. He told the coroner that he did not know either of the men.
William James, the Chief Superintendent, took his place and told the coroner that after hearing from all the witnesses, he had gone to Bradford and arrested Thomas Millett. He also took two constables – James Winder and Daniel Roberts – with him. Millett was charged with the murder of Christopher Winder, the night before at Bramley, and Millett replied that he knew nothing about it. Mr James then took him to the White Bear pub, where his clothes were examined and he was found to have bloodstains on the right knee of his trousers. Millett maintained that the blood on his trousers had come from a cut knee sustained in the struggle with the man on the night of the murder. Bloodstains were also found on his waistcoat and his shirt, and the wristband of his shirt on the left arm had been torn off. Later, when Millett was locked in the police cells, Mr James examined the trousers more carefully and found the blood was only on the outside of the knee. Millett again repeated his story that he had met a man on the road who had robbed him of his money. He claimed that the man had beaten him so savagely that he had been forced to retaliate, feeling that it was a case of ‘kill or be killed’.
Murder & Crime Leeds Page 3