The evidence in this case is very unclear from the start. Certainly the doctor’s character had been dissembled throughout the trial, when it was proved that he had lied on several occasions. Mrs Hobson also lied and it was never made clear how a so-called ‘respectable’ doctor made the acquaintance of a brothel keeper – to such an extent that he was able to procure lodgings for a patient at short notice. Four doctors gave their opinion that a miscarriage had been spontaneous, but they made this judgment on hearing the evidence alone. The doctor who had undertaken the post-mortem, and therefore witnessed the issue at first hand, surely should have been given more credence than he was. These are several very puzzling issues in this case, which indicate that perhaps the law wanted to remove the blame from a member of an honourable profession.
Case Twelve
A Lethal Attack
The Case of Samuel Harrison, 1890
Many Jewish people were attracted to Leeds because of the rapidly expanding clothing and shoemaking industries, and the fact that conditions in these sweatshops were better and wages were higher than in other towns such as Manchester or London. Nevertheless, the Jewish immigrants faced prejudice from many people in Leeds, and from the nation as a whole. Leeds was a city of opposites; as the burgeoning industrial revolution saw an influx of wealthy entrepreneurs who would stay in the luxurious hotels of the city making lucrative business deals, the immigrants had to make do with the poorest, most overcrowded housing and basic sanitary conditions. In a report on immigration undertaken in 1888, it was reported, ‘Over the previous twenty years, there has been a steady influx of Polish and Russian Jews, whose only word of English was “Leeds”.’ The distrust of the Jews is shown in the following case, when neighbours of a dying Jewish woman refused to let her into their house.
On Saturday, 9 May 1890, the Jewish community in Leeds heard of a diabolical murder by a Russian Jew of his wife and child. The name of the man, which was probably anglicised, was Samuel Harrison, aged 30. He had lived for some time at Back Nile Street, Leeds, with his wife Dora and his 2-year-old son David. The couple did not live in harmony together, as a year previously he had been sent to gaol for a month for attacking a young boy. It was reported that his boy was one of a crowd that gathered around his house whilst he was assaulting his wife. When he had been sent down for this crime, he told the magistrate, ‘You better keep me in prison or when I come out I will kill her.’
Neighbours reported that when he came back to Leeds, there were frequent quarrels. On Friday 8 May, he attacked his wife and child with a shoemaker’s knife (he was a shoemaker by occupation) at about 6.30 p.m. The woman’s screams attracted the attention of the neighbours and also of PC Pimblott, who was on duty nearby. He rushed over to the house and ran up the stairs but found the bedroom door locked. Putting his shoulder against it, he managed to get the door open and found Mrs Harrison in a corner, holding her little child; both were covered in blood. No doubt in an attempt to hide his crime, Harrison had lit fires at either side of the bed and the room was full of smoke. The constable put some handcuffs on Harrison and handed him over to a civilian, instructing him to hold him until help came. Another neighbour took the child to the dispensary, whilst Pimblott carried the poor woman out into the street and away from the smoke-filled bedroom. Neighbours refused to have the woman in their house, so she lay in the street bleeding while Pimblott blew on his whistle for assistance. A surgeon, Mr Musgrove, approached urgently after hearing it. With great difficulty, because of the large crowd, he managed to make his way to the poor woman’s side, where he found her bleeding profusely.
By now, the two fires had been put out in the bedroom and, with the assistance of another police constable, the surgeon managed to get Mrs Harrison back into her bedroom. Using just rags and any clothes he could find, the surgeon bound up her wounds. On her neck, breast and shoulders there were six long gashes and numberless smaller cuts. The furniture in the bedroom had been smashed to pieces and the floor was saturated with blood. By this time, an ambulance had arrived from the infirmary and the injured woman was taken there in haste. Harrison was now marched off to Millgarth Street police station. A reporter described Harrison as:
… an insignificant looking little man, with a pale face, a restless pair of eyes, a reddish-brown beard and he has little of the Jewish characteristics in his appearance. When arrested he was wearing a close fitting cap, a loose coat and check trousers, which in places were soaked with blood. He showed little concern for the crime.
The child was treated for his wounds by Mr Smeeton, but it was reported that little hope could be held out for his survival. The child’s mother was in a dying state and it was arranged that she would have a deposition taken from her. Accordingly, Mr John Thornton, the magistrate’s clerk, and Alderman Sir Edwin Gaunt, who was the nearest magistrate, were sent for and they proceeded to the infirmary. They arrived to find Superintendent McWilliams and Detective Officer Slingsby there with the prisoner, who was still in handcuffs. Harrison appeared unconcerned about the condition of his wife and child. Mrs Harrison was unable to speak any English, so another woman, Mrs Schalk, acted as interpreter and told the following harrowing tale:
I am suffering from some wounds which my own husband inflicted on me. He did them with a knife and I was in my own house when he did it. No one else was there and it was today, but I can’t say when. I do not know why he did it, and I do not know how it began. I had not done anything to him. He did it with the knife that he works with. He carries that knife about with him. It is a shoemaker’s knife. He struck me with the knife twice, but I had no quarrel with him. He is a man that is mad, but I don’t know what makes him mad. I had my child with me who is 2 years old. He is a madman and I don’t know what it was for.
The statement was about to be read back to her for confirmation, when the poor woman fainted and had to have medical help. In the meantime, Harrison was taken away and put into one of the many cells underneath the Town Hall. Mr Thornton and Alderman Gaunt also retired to the Town Hall, instructing the infirmary to notify them if her condition improved, as they needed to get the dying woman’s signature. However, a later message from the infirmary stated that both the mother and child were sinking fast. The murder knife was later handed over to PC Lockhart, which was described as being a knife with a short blade of only 3ins long, but sharpened to that of a razor and covered in blood. The ferocity of the attack was indicated by the fact that the tip of the blade was broken, presumably from contact with a rib or a shoulder blade.
Mrs Harrison died at 6 a.m. the following morning. Her son was reported to be in a precarious state but it was thought that there might be hope for his recovery. PC Pimblott, on hearing the news, charged Harrison with wilful murder. When asked if he had anything to say, Harrison stated, ‘Yes Sir, I did kill her.’ He was taken into court before Mr Bruce (the stipendiary magistrate), Mr John Rhodes, Mr James Walker and Sir Edwin Gaunt. The gallery of the court was crowded with people, many of whom were Jewish, whilst others congregated in the corridors of the Town Hall building. PC Pimblott told the court of the night’s events, and stated that he had asked Harrison three times to hand over the murder weapon. On all three occasions Harrison denied having a knife. The knife was eventually found and handed to him by Dr Musgrave. Harrison said that the attack started because there was a crowd of people in the street who were trying to get into his house. It was unclear why they were trying to enter, although Harrison told them it was a common occurrence.
The magistrate asked Pimblott if there had been a lot of people in the street and he told them that there had been about 2,000 men and women. The prisoner was remanded until the following day. The inquest on the murdered woman was also heard on the same day, where the surgeon of the infirmary told the coroner, Mr J.C. Malcolm, that when Mrs Harrison had been admitted she had over seventeen wounds in her body. The most serious injury had been one on the right side of the chest. The surgeon, Mr Bernard Musgrave, gave his evidence and also commented
on the huge crowd around the woman. When he first saw her, he thought that she was dead. To a shocked coroner, he told him that several people had refused to allow the injured woman to be taken into their house. PC Pimblott spoke about breaking down the door of the house and securing the prisoner with handcuffs to the bed whilst the room was on fire. The coroner, after hearing the evidence, agreed to send Pimblott for trial at the Assizes.
On Tuesday, 5 August 1890, Harrison was brought into the Leeds Assizes before Mr Justice Charles, charged with the murder of his wife. Once again the court was crowded, but when asked his plea, Harrison refused to speak and just hung his head. He seemed to ignore what was being said. It was stated that he had been mute for the last fortnight, and His Lordship asked for a medical examination to be carried out to ascertain if he was mute by malice or by ‘the visitation of God’.
After examining him, the medical officer said he was shamming, and the judge ordered that a plea of not guilty be put against him. The medical officer of Armley Gaol, Mr John Edwards, stated that the prisoner had been under his care and said that at first he was very communicative, but after a lapse of ten days, he refused to speak or answer any questions. He had examined him that morning and was convinced that Harrison understood what was going on. The defence maintained that he was insane at the time of the incident and witnesses were called to prove that several of his relatives had been inflicted with insanity. Despite this, the jury returned a verdict of guilty. His Lordship then put on the black cap and gave the sentence of death. Harrison was led from the court, seemingly indifferent to the excited crowds around him.
On Friday 14 August, it was reported that Baron de Rothschild was heading a movement to petition the Home Secretary, to allow a further medical examination of Harrison. It seems that since his sentence, he continued to show no emotion and preserved a silence, even when spoke to by his Rabbi. He was sharing the condemned cell with a man named James Harrison, also sentenced to death for beating his wife. On Saturday 16 August, it was announced that the date set for the execution was 26 August, and the hangman would be Billington. On Tuesday 19 August, his solicitors Messrs Dunn and French received the following letter.
Whitehall, 16 August 1890
Gentlemen,
With reference to representation you have submitted regarding Mr Samuel Harrison who was sentenced to death for murder, I am directed by the Secretary of State to acquaint you that after a medical enquiry resulting in the convict being certified to be of unsound mind, he has advised her Majesty to respite the execution of the capital sentence with a view to remove the convict to Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum.
I am gentlemen your obedient servant,
GODFREY LUSHINGTON
Samuel Harrison was removed to Broadmoor the following day. In this case, there seems to be much evidence that the man was insane, but that doesn’t explain the crowds of people who collected around his home and the unwillingness of neighbours to let a dying woman into their house. There was plenty of prejudice in the nineteenth century – Jewish people, Catholics and Irish natives were some of the groups on the receiving end. As the town expanded and became the city we know today, the prejudice finally alleviated and it became known as the City of Sanctuary. On 11 November 2, a movement was launched to celebrate supporting immigrants coming to Leeds to seek safety – a far cry from the city described in these pages.
COPYRIGHT
First published in 2012
The History Press
The Mill, Brimscombe Port
Stroud, Gloucestershire, GL5 2QG
www.thehistorypress.co.uk
This ebook edition first published in 2012
All rights reserved
© Margaret Drinkall, 2012
The right of Margaret Drinkall, to be identified as the Author of this work has been asserted in accordance with the Copyrights, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
This ebook is copyright material and must not be copied, reproduced, transferred, distributed, leased, licensed or publicly performed or used in any way except as specifically permitted in writing by the publishers, as allowed under the terms and conditions under which it was purchased or as strictly permitted by applicable copyright law. Any unauthorised distribution or use of this text may be a direct infringement of the author’s and publisher’s rights, and those responsible may be liable in law accordingly.
EPUB ISBN 978 0 7524 8209 5
MOBI ISBN 978 0 7524 8208 8
Original typesetting by The History Press
Ebook compilation by RefineCatch Limited, Bungay, Suffolk
Murder & Crime Leeds Page 10