Dowie was put on the stand once again and re-questioned about exactly who had fetched her from the ‘house of ill-fame’ on Union Street. She told them that it was actually Scholes who had fetched her, but his wife was with him and had said to her, ‘Come away home with us lass.’ She gave that as the reason for the resumption of their strange domestic arrangements.
Two more neighbours were called to the stand, who gave evidence as to the state of mind of Mrs Scholes on the day of her death. Both stated that they saw nothing unusual in her manner. Dowie was called back once again to explain discrepancies in her statement but ‘nothing material developed’. The coroner then told the jury that they had three questions to consider. The first was how the woman came by her death – and of this he thought that they could have no doubt. Secondly, by whom the poison was administered – whether by other persons or by herself. Thirdly, if she administered it herself, they had to identify her state of mind at the time. He then asked the jury if they had enough evidence to bring in a verdict, or if they would like to adjourn the inquest until further evidence could be sought. The jury opted for the latter and the inquest was adjourned until the following Thursday at 5 p.m.
On Thursday 22 December, the adjourned inquest was continued. Some additional information had been laid before the coroner, but it was apparently ‘of little use’. Finally, after summing up all the evidence, the jury brought in the following verdict: ‘The deceased died from the effects of poison; but how, or by whom administered, there is no evidence to determine.’ The jury requested that the coroner severely reprimand the couple for their conduct, which in their opinion had led – if not directly then certainly indirectly – to the poor woman’s death. A great many persons from the Scholes’ neighbourhood were waiting to hear the verdict and he requested the protection of the police, as he was afraid of being assaulted.
Case Six
Death of a Young
Sweetheart
The Execution of Thomas Malkin, 1849
Traditionally young people met and fell in love either at church or at work; but in the next case, it is unclear where the two young people originally met, as they attended the same church, as well as working for the same employer. However, they were only going out with each other for just over a year, before the affair ceased. It was then that what should have been an innocent episode of young romance escalated into cold-blooded murder.
Esther Inman was only 15 years of age when she started work at the flax-spinning mill of Messrs W.B. Holdsworth and Co. of Hunslet, near Leeds. At the same time, she attended and sang in the choir of the Primitive Methodist church at Hunslet. It was at this point that she met Thomas Malkin, aged 17, who was a wood turner by trade and employed at the same spinning mill. The liaison was accepted by her family and friends, and the young couple enjoyed each other’s company for over a year. So it was to everyone’s surprise when Esther told Malkin that she didn’t want to see him any more. Instead of accepting the situation gracefully, he became more and more obsessed with her refusal.
On the morning of Sunday, 8 October 1848, Esther and Malkin had attended church separately and later that night, he arrived unexpectedly at her house. Esther had been to see her younger sister, who was in service at Kirkstall, and had returned home at around 9.50 p.m. She lived at the house of her stepfather, Thomas Watson, a tailor of Hunslet, along with her mother and elder sister. The family also had other visitors at the house that night; a mother and daughter, Ann and Mary Ann Smith. As Mary Ann left the house, she saw Malkin hanging around and he told her that he wanted to see Esther for a moment. Esther had already taken off her boots, prior to retiring, but she patiently put them on again and went outside to talk to him. At the same time both Smiths left the house and Thomas Watson saw them off, all three clearly seeing Esther talking to Malkin at the back gate. Esther had only been outside about five minutes when her stepfather heard her cry out and, rushing outside, found her laid prostrate on the garden. He picked her up in his arms and carried her indoors. She cried out, ‘Lord help me!’ and ‘Lord have mercy on me!’ Laying her down, he saw that Malkin had cut her throat in two places and she had defence wounds up her arms. Indeed, one of the blows to her arm had been so vicious that Malkin’s dagger had broken, and the point of the blade was still embedded in her flesh. In the folds of her right-hand sleeve was also found another dagger. Several witnesses reported seeing Malkin talking to Esther by the garden gate and hearing her cry out as he run out of the garden. A surgeon was called and arrived at the same time as the police constable; however, within the hour she was dead.
A search was made for Malkin, but nothing more was seen or heard of him that night. PC Stead later told the magistrates that he had looked for Malkin at his home, at his sister’s house, at his brother’s residence and in other places, but he had been unable to find him. It was thought by the police that he had probably committed suicide by throwing himself into the River Aire.
News of the murder had spread throughout Hunslet and Leeds, and the following evening the murderer was spotted. Mr John Dudley, of Greenwood Street, saw Malkin in Vicar Lane, Leeds, at around 10 p.m. He went straight to the police office and informed Inspector Child. Immediately, Child and Dudley went to the area and found Malkin. They asked him his name and he replied that he did not know. Child took him to the police station, where he was arrested for the wilful murder of Esther Inman. When asked if he had anything to say, Malkin just shook his head. The next morning he was brought before magistrates – including the mayor, Mr F. Garbutt Esq. and J. Holdforth Esq. – charged with the murder. He was remanded to the following day, until the inquest could be heard. Several witnesses gave evidence to the coroner, confirming that the couple had been seen together before the attack.
On Wednesday 11 October, Malkin was brought before the magistrates at Leeds, and the witness’ testimony was heard once more. The magistrate summed up the evidence and, within the space of half an hour, the jury found him guilty, and the magistrate ordered him to take his trial at the next Assizes. Malkin appeared before the Leeds Assizes on Wednesday, 20 December 1848, in front of Mr Baron Platts. The courtroom was crowded, as much interest had been raised in the case. Malkin was heard to plead ‘not guilty’ in a firm tone of voice. One witness, John Raynor, told the court that he saw the couple move away from the gate and further into the garden. He stated that when he saw them, Malkin had his left hand on the breast of the young woman and his right hand in his pocket, as if he was about to strike her with his dagger. He called to Malkin, telling him to leave Esther alone, and she re-assured him that everything was alright. At this point he walked away. Within a few seconds, he heard the girl scream and cry out ‘murder!’ at which he quickly returned to see another witness by the girl’s side. He watched helplessly whilst Malkin ran out of the gate and towards his parent’s house. He then saw Malkin’s mother come out of her own house, as she ran to the house of the dying girl.
The next person to give evidence was the stepfather of the dead girl, Thomas Watson. He told the court that he had married Esther’s mother about twelve months previously. The girl had been 16 years, 6 months and just a few days old at her death. According to Watson’s account, Esther had tried to remain on friendly terms with Malkin and always appeared willing enough to talk to him when he turned up at the house. Watson told the judge that he had seen them together at 11 p.m. on the night before the murder. On the fateful day, he described how his stepdaughter had gone out after dinner to see her sister: ‘She was at that time more cheerful than I had ever seen her,’ he lamented. Watson described the night’s events, only being interrupted by Superintendent James producing the murder weapon for him to identify. The weapon was described as resembling a narrow, pointed chisel. He said that his daughter also had a dagger, which was produced in court. This dagger was much shorter than the weapon that caused the murder. Watson explained that he had taken the smaller dagger away from her about five or six weeks previously. He had not said anything to his st
epdaughter about it, but had merely locked it away in a drawer. When questioned, Watson revealed that the drawer was sometimes locked and at other times left open.
A surgeon, Mr Richard Pullen of Hunslet, gave evidence on what he had found in the post-mortem of the girl’s body. He commented that her organs were in an extremely healthy state and gave his opinion that the cause of death was from the wounds she had received.
Both the Smiths gave evidence to corroborate the events already outlined. Mary Ann described how Malkin had questioned Esther about where she had been but, as far as she could hear, this was done in a friendly manner. She said, ‘Esther came out readily to see Malkin and he seemed pleased to see her.’ Esther’s sister, Elizabeth, spoke of how she had seen Malkin at the chapel on the evening of the murder, although he did not stay until the end. She spoke of her sister being called outside by Malkin and hearing her cry out, ‘He has stuck me!’ Elizabeth was the one who found the smaller dagger in her sister’s pocket prior to the attack, and had given it to her stepfather for safekeeping.
William James, the Superintendent of Leeds Police, described the search for Malkin on the night of the murder. It had extended to lodging houses and derelict sheds, but the following evening he was informed that Malkin was in custody. He went to the police cells to interview him, but the prisoner refused to respond to his questioning. Soon after, Mary Ann Smith came in and, going up to Malkin, stated, ‘That’s Thomas Malkin!’ and the prisoner replied, ‘Yes, I know her.’ When she accused him of the murder and the encounter beforehand, Malkin denied it, saying, ‘I did not send you to fetch her out. I was not there at all. I know nothing about it.’ Superintendent James told the court that the prisoner had tried to act ‘stupid’ at first, but had dropped that act when Mary Ann Smith challenged him.
Another witness, John Watson, said that after the murder, he saw Malkin go to his own father’s house. Being an acquaintance of the family, he followed him inside, where he saw Malkin’s father, mother and brother in the house. He described Malkin as ‘white looking in the face’. His brother said to him, ‘Tom, what’s thou been doing?’ and he first replied, ‘Nay, nowt,’ but then admitted, ‘Yes I have, I have done her job at last.’ His mother cried out, ‘Tom, thou surely haven’t, has thou?’ He answered, ‘If you won’t believe me, you must go and see for yourself.’ His mother quickly got her shawl and went out.
Later, as Watson left Malkin and his brother in the house, he saw Malkin’s mother coming back to the house. She held her arms out wide and her hair was dishevelled down her shoulders; she was crying and screaming. A workmate of Malkin’s, Joseph Hobson, said that six months before Esther died, he had said to Malkin, ‘Tom you and Esther have been fratching [quarrelling] haven’t you?’ Malkin had replied, ‘Aye and I will kill her.’ When the magistrate asked Hobson what his response to this had been, he stated that he didn’t take it seriously and thought no more about it.
Another workmate, Thomas Wylde, told of Malkin asking him for a piece of steel to use as ‘a picker’ at his work, about three months before Esther’s death. After this, Malkin brought it back and asked him to flatten it for him, which he did. When the murder weapon was produced in court, he identified it as the piece of metal he had flattened, but he noted that it had subsequently been ground at the edges. Two other witnesses claimed to have seen Malkin with this piece of steel, which he had sharpened himself.
The defence counsel, Mr Overend, rose to make his speech on behalf of the prisoner. He described the relationship between the two lovers. They had been in constant communication with each other right up to the night before the murder. Malkin had been described as a boy of respectable parents and not ‘an abandoned character’, as had been reported in the newspapers. Mr Overend asked the jury, ‘Is it possible that such a young man of such good character and of such habits should wish to kill the object of his love?’ Overend stated that the way in which the girl had met her death was a mystery and it was merely circumstantial testimony that framed Malkin as her murderer. There were no witnesses who had actually seen Malkin strike the girl with the weapon. From the evidence, he suggests, it might have been a case of self-destruction, as there was clear verification that she had carried around her own dagger. He told the jury, ‘The prisoner is entitled to a verdict and the jury must think long and hard about it. If you truly believe that an attack was carried out by this young man in the heat of the moment, then you should return a verdict of manslaughter.’
The judge summed up all the evidence for the jury and they brought in a verdict of guilty, but with a recommendation for mercy due to Malkin’s very young age. The judge put on the black cap and speaking very solemnly told him:
Thomas Malkin, you have been convicted by a jury of the crime of murder. Yours is a case certainly exciting great commiseration, if a man committing so heinous a crime could be commiserated with; but that is impossible. Murder is of such diabolical malignity, that it is necessary to be punished when a party is convicted, and it is improper that mercy should be extended to those who have committed it. It is quite impossible for me to hold out any hopes of mercy to you. It seems to me that your case, although it has moved all who have heard it, is not one to which I can extend any hope. It is true you began life with respectability – but you forgot to curb that malicious tendency of the human heart which, if not curbed, leads to every kind of malignant mischief.
Throughout the trial, Malkin had seemed indifferent to his fate and showed no signs of contrition. Two days before his execution, on Thursday 4 January, he confessed to the prison chaplain that he had in fact murdered his sweetheart and that the verdict was just. When asked to justify himself, he spoke of being angry when she had rejected his advances. Malkin told the chaplain that he had, indeed, been plotting to murder Esther for four or five weeks before he plucked up the courage to do it. Although he was unable to explain why he was so determined that she would die, Malkin displayed to the chaplain true signs of penitence and a spiritual awareness of his position. He was brought out onto the scaffold on Saturday, 6 January 1849. There was an audible gasp from the crowd because he looked so young, and a vast concourse of faces watched him as the executioner pulled the bolt. After a few moments he was dead. At Armley Gaol, his body would have been removed through a gateway before being buried in the paupers’ graveyard, which is now under the car park.
The death of both these young people was a tragedy, as neither appeared to have possessed the good judgment that comes with maturity. However, there do seem to be some factors that still need explaining. Why did Esther carry a knife around with her, for example? Had Malkin threatened to kill her? If that was the case, why did the couple appear to be on such friendly terms after the break up? She had been described by her stepfather as a ‘short-tempered girl’, which the defence used to their advantage in trying to prove that she killed herself. As with so many of these cases, we will never know.
Case Seven
Solved by a Pawn Ticket
The Case of Charles Normington, 1859
During the nineteenth century, it was common practice to pawn items of clothing, jewellery or furniture in order to obtain money, until the item could be redeemed. Pawnshops could be found on almost every corner of Leeds’s streets, and it was common practice amongst the working classes to pawn items at the beginning of the week to redeem them after payday. In some cases, if the item was a valuable piece of jewellery or a watch, the pawn ticket itself was sold for a small sum and the person buying it would then redeem the item, hopefully making a small profit out of the deal. In August 1859, such a transaction led to a brutal attack on an old man.
On Saturday, 6 August 1859, Mr Richard Broughton left his home to go into Leeds town centre to conduct some business. The gentleman, who was a retired porter, was aged 67 and lived at Rose Cottage Yard, Roundhay. He was later found beaten so badly that he died the following day. Before he died, Broughton stated that he had been robbed by two men. Two boys found the body and one of them repor
ted seeing a man wearing a blue smock, leaning against a fence, just before they found the body. When the boy attempted to speak to the man, he ran away. Broughton’s stolen watch had been pawned on the day after the murder at a shop owned by Mr Barras of Dyer Lane, in Leeds. A description of the seller was given to the Leeds police. Two men, William Appleby and Walter Bearden, were apprehended after the robbery, named as being the two men who had been seen in a field shortly after the body of Mr Broughton had been found.
On Saturday 3 September, the magistrates found that there was not enough evidence against Appleby to further detain him, and so he was discharged. On 6 September, a report was heard that a man, James Smales, had tried to redeem the watch belonging to the murdered man; he was then arrested and taken before the Chief Constable at Leeds, where he claimed to have been given the ticket by Charlie Normington for 5s at Castleton, a few days previously. A description of Normington, who was only 17 years old, was given and a £25 reward was offered for his arrest.
Whilst at Castleton, Normington had lodged with a woman named Mrs Dixon, and she told the police that she had seen him washing a handkerchief and a shirt which appeared to have blood on it. He had left the shirt behind when he disappeared from his lodgings the same day. A stick found near the body of the murdered man was, when examined, found to have blood on it and was identified as being one which Normington had owned for several weeks before the murder. The next day, Normington was arrested in Sheffield by Leeds’ Chief Constable Mr English, who had disguised himself as a collier. He was brought back to Leeds and charged with the murder of the old man. Normington claimed his innocence and stated that he had bought the pawn ticket the day after the murder, on 7 August, from an Irish man he had met at Hunslet toll bar, who had walked part of the way with him. He had bought the ticket for sixpence.
Murder & Crime Leeds Page 5