Halifax Read online

  ‘If the child does not die,

  I will give her some stuff to make it so’

  * * *

  Emma Heywood then gave evidence and said that she had lodged at the house for about two months and that she had always seen Atkinson deal with the child in a kind manner. She told the jury that Betty had been ill for all of the time that she had lodged at the house, and it was generally known that Betty had problems with her chest and had not been expected to live for much longer. She proceeded to tell them about the night that Atkinson had brought home the bottle and how the child had reacted when she had read out the label. Witnesses assembled in the courtroom heard how she had tried to reassure the child by consuming about half a teaspoon of laudanum, roughly the same quantity that she saw Atkinson give to her daughter. However, she claimed that the liquid was given on a teaspoon and not in tea as the previous witness had testified. Elizabeth Holgate was recalled and stated that although Emma Heywood had taken the laudanum by teaspoon, Atkinson gave Betty the laudanum in a cup of tea, which she particularly remembered seeing on the table.

  Mr Benjamin Wood, the druggist of Northgate, stated that he remembered the prisoner coming into his shop and asking for the pennyworth of laudanum, which was approximately two drachms (approximately 120 drops). He described how he had labelled the bottle ‘Poison’, and he brought a similar one with him to the inquest for the jury to see. He told them that after he had enquired what she needed the laudanum for, he instructed Atkinson to give her daughter just five drops, and not to exceed ten drops. He stated that when he had examined the remainder of the laudanum which was left in the bottle, he discovered that, out of the 120 drops issued, 30 drops had been used.

  Atkinson then gave her evidence and sobbed bitterly throughout. She told the court that a friend had recommended giving the drops to Betty and that when she got home she intended throwing the bottle away. However, her landlady, Martha Booth, had urged her not to throw it away and to give the child some in order to ease her breathing and the constant pain in her chest. Sobbing, she told the coroner that she had always done her best for the child and had starved herself to make sure that Betty had all the medicine she needed.

  Mr Lawrence Bramley, the surgeon, was called and was asked to give his opinion on how much laudanum Betty would have ingested. He informed the court that, allowing for the amount taken by Emma Heywood, he judged it to have been around 15 drops. He also reported the results of the post-mortem, which had revealed that Betty had been very emaciated, but there was little sign of decomposition. There were signs of recent inflammation of the lower bowels, as well as signs of older inflammation. The stomach contained about an ounce of what he described as gritty fluid, but apart from that the stomach was very healthy. There was extensive disease of the right lung and he had no doubt that the child had died from an effusion on the chest. He also told the coroner that, in his opinion, he had been surprised that Betty had lived as long as she had and that the laudanum could have had no effect on the cause of death. The coroner thanked Mr Bramley for the clarity of his account before he proceeded to tell the jury that they needed to keep this in consideration when deciding their verdict. Without leaving the room the jury returned a verdict of death by natural causes.

  It seems, in this instance, that this case was the result of a gossiping neighbour, Elizabeth Holgate, who seemed determined to vilify Leah Atkinson. Her supposed comments about wanting to be rid of Betty were not corroborated by other lodgers in the house, who had clearly stated that the child had been ill for a long time. Modern medicine now finds it astonishing that laudanum was acceptable as a soothing medicine in the Victorian era, but it was widely given to even the youngest of children; it was used extensively during teething to enable the child to have a good nights’ sleep. The inaccuracy of measuring the drug was also an issue; what is an acceptable drop to a chemist might not be the same for a mother of a distressed child.

  CASE THREE 1857

  ‘I CAME TO

  MURDER HIM

  AND I HAVE

  DONE IT’

  * * *

  Suspect: John Ackroyd

  Age: Unknown

  Charge: Murder

  Sentence: Penal Servitude

  * * *

  In 1857, a shoemaker named John Ackroyd went to live at the house of Jonathon Houldsworth, a fellow shoemaker, following the breakdown of his marriage. Houldsworth, aged seventy-one, was in receipt of parish relief and took in lodgers at his house in Trafalgar, near Halifax, to make a little extra money. When Ackroyd took up lodgings with Houldsworth, he was informed that Houldsworth would be shortly giving the house up and moving elsewhere, but that he could lodge there until he moved out. Ackroyd had difficulty finding somewhere else to live and as a consequence remained in the house for some weeks once the old man had moved. Meanwhile, Houldsworth took the tenancy of another house and found himself a lodger by the name of Mrs Ann Thomas.

  Once Ackroyd had moved out, Houldsworth returned to the house in Trafalgar, only to find that Ackroyd had taken some of the smaller items of furniture with him to his new lodgings. Houldsworth challenged him, claiming that he had no right to take furniture that did not belong to him. Even when Ackroyd moved to more new lodgings the two men continued to argue. Matters became worse when Ackroyd heard that Houldsworth was making sexual remarks about his wife. He claimed to have heard Houldsworth saying that his wife wanted to sleep with him.

  The argument between the two men came to a head on Friday, 17 July 1857 after Ackroyd had been drinking in a public house at King Cross. A man named Simpson started up a conversation with him and noted that Ackroyd was already quite drunk by 6.30 p.m. Ackroyd told him the story Houldsworth had been spreading about his wife and he became very angry, shouting about what he would do to him when he next saw him. Simpson told Ackroyd to calm down and to not entertain such foolish notions about revenge. That was when Ackroyd declared he would cut off Houldsworth’s head that very night before he went to sleep. After trying unsuccessfully to placate him, Simpson recalled Ackroyd telling him, ‘The next time you see me it will be at York Castle, where I shall be hanged.’

  Ackroyd went back to his lodgings, where he picked up two sharp knives; he then went to Houldsworth lodgings, arriving there about 9.30 p.m., and told the lodger, Mrs Thomas, that he ‘wished to speak to the old man’. Houldsworth, who was eating his supper by the fire, shouted through, ‘Take yourself off John Ackroyd; I have nothing at all to say to you.’ Without speaking, Ackroyd rushed up to Houldsworth, drew out one of the knives and made a slash at his throat, inflicting a dreadful wound. Houldsworth did not see it coming as he had his back to his attacker. Ackroyd then stabbed him on the cheek and, with his left hand, grasped the old man by the throat in order to slash it again. Mrs Thomas bravely seized Ackroyd and tried to pull him away; but he still kept hold of Houldsworth. Ackroyd continued to try to drag the old man out of his chair and succeeded in drawing the sharp knife across his victim’s throat. Mrs Thomas continued to struggle with Ackroyd and, seeing the blood coming from Houldsworth’s throat, she screamed out ‘Murder!’ At this point, several neighbours arrived and broke up the struggle. Before leaving the house Ackroyd addressed the crowd, which had begun to assemble outside, stating: ‘I have come to do it and I have done it.’

  York Castle – site of the gallows.

  * * *

  ‘Seeing the blood coming from

  Houldsworth’s throat, she screamed

  out “Murder!”’

  * * *

  Two surgeons were called to attend to the injured man, who had two very serious cuts across his throat. Indeed, the wounds were considered so bad that the surgeons stayed with Houldsworth for the whole night. On Saturday morning, Ackroyd was arrested and taken before the Halifax magistrates, charged with cutting and stabbing with the intent to kill Houldsworth. The magistrate, Mr G.B. Browne, thought that given the precarious state Houldsworth’s life was in, it would be advisable to take his dying deposition a
nd, accompanied by his clerk, the whole of the jury and the prisoner, he went to Houldsworth’s house for that purpose. But one of the surgeons attending the injured man said that he had suffered so much from the wounds that they could not allow him to speak. That afternoon, Houldsworth rallied a little and made a statement to the magistrate, in which he said:

  I am seventy one years of age and live at this house. Last night at 9.30 p.m. the prisoner came and asked to see me. I was sat downstairs and was quite well when he came in. He came across the floor towards me and seized me by the throat with his left hand. I did not see then that he had a knife but he drew something across my face and cut me. Ann Thomas seized him and tried to pull him away; he still kept hold of me and tried to drag me out.

  When asked if he had anything he wished to ask Houldsworth, Ackroyd said he wanted to know why he had circulated such scandal about his wife. Houldsworth replied, ‘I never said any scandal about her.’ The deposition was then signed and Ackroyd returned back to the Magistrates’ Court and he was remanded until the following week.

  On Friday 24 July it was reported that Houldsworth’s condition was getting better. The following day, at noon, Ackroyd was once again taken before the magistrates. Superintendent Pearson started the case, stating that Ackroyd was a married man but that some time ago, as a consequence of some trouble at home, he had gone to lodge with Houldsworth. He said that Houldsworth had moved into new lodgings, which sparked the argument about the missing furniture – his new lodger, Mrs Thomas, was in need of certain items which Ackroyd had taken, so Houldsworth went to his house demanding that he return the property. Pearson told the court that Ackroyd, at this point, started to abuse the old man and threatened to kill him. Pearson then continued to say that while in the prison cell, Ackroyd had confessed to a fellow prisoner that he had gone into the pub at King Cross to purchase a glass or two of rum to give him the courage to carry out his task. He had also confessed to going to Houldsworth’s house with the clear intention of stabbing him. Ackroyd told the other prisoner that he had intended to make the attack so sudden that none of the lodgers would be able to interfere and stop him.

  King Cross, where Ackroyd had his last drink.

  One of the surgeons, Mr W. Nowell, praised Mrs Thomas for her quick action, without which, he told the court, Houldsworth would have died very quickly as his wounds were so deep. He described them, stating that, ‘One cut was exactly across the throat and almost three inches long and a quarter of an inch deep. The other commenced at the right side of the mouth extending beneath the chin and severed all the structures down to the lower jawbone.’ He then told the magistrate that, ‘There were four serious arteries severed; two in each wound required ligatures. By the time I reached the house, Houldsworth had lost at least a quart of blood. The windpipe was slashed, but thankfully not severed.’

  Halifax Magistrates’ Court, where Ackroyd was tried.

  The jury found Ackroyd guilty and the prisoner, who appeared to be very calm and collected, stated that he would reserve his defence. He was committed to York Castle for trial at the next assizes. The local newspaper reported that, ‘Since Ackroyd has been in custody, the prisoner has said to other prisoners that he wished he had used his other, sharper knife, as he should then have succeeded in cutting Houldsworth’s head off.’ As to the outcome of the trial, the same newspaper reported that, ‘He appears very careless of the outcome, remarking only that he wishes to die.’

  On Saturday 5 December, Ackroyd was brought before the assize judge, Mr Justice Williams. Mr Blanchard and Mr Gresham were for the prosecution and Mr Price defended the prisoner. The witness, Simpson, took the stand and told the court about his conversation with Ackroyd in the pub at King Cross. He described him as being very excited and appeared to be drunk, but gave the opinion that Ackroyd seemed to know perfectly well what he was doing. Mrs Thomas then spoke about the night of the attack, explaining how, as Ackroyd lunged at Houldsworth for the second time, she struck the hand which held the knife but was unable to prevent him slashing it across Houldsworth’s throat.

  Ackroyd’s defence stated that he admitted he had purposely gone to the house with the intention of hurting Houldsworth, but that he had no intention to murder him. Mr Price then asked the jury to acquit him of the more serious charge and substitute the lesser charge of inflicting bodily harm. However, the prosecution told the jury that Ackroyd had clearly made a statement about his intentions, not only to the crowd gathered at Houldsworth’s house, but also repeated it to the arresting sergeant. The sergeant recorded in his notes that Ackroyd had said, ‘I went on purpose to kill him and I hope that he will be dead before morning.’ No doubt in an attempt to rectify this, the defence presented a witness who gave Ackroyd an excellent character, stating that he was a quiet and peaceable man for most of the time. However, because of his statements to various witnesses about his intention to kill Houldsworth, the jury had no option but to find Ackroyd guilty. When asked if he had anything to say against this judgement, Ackroyd replied that he hoped his Lordship would have mercy on him as in his sober moments, he did not intend to murder Houldsworth. The judge contradicted him, saying that there was no reasonable doubt that he fully intended to murder the old man and for that crime his life was forfeited to the law. He then placed the black cap on his head and sentenced him to death.

  * * *

  ‘I went on purpose to kill him

  and I hope that he will be dead

  before morning’

  * * *

  Judge with black cap.

  On 15 January 1858, it was recorded that the Secretary of State had intervened and directed that Ackroyd’s death sentence be reduced to fifteen years’ penal servitude.

  CASE FOUR 1858

  MURDER IN

  A NEWSPAPER

  OFFICE

  * * *

  Suspect: William Blackburn Dawson

  Age: Twenty

  Charge: Murder

  Sentence: Penal Servitude

  * * *

  In 1832, the Halifax Guardian made its debut as a weekly newspaper informing the people of Halifax about events which were happening both locally and nationally.

  On Wednesday, 5 May 1858 the newspaper offices were crowded with people. There was a lull during the lunchtime hours, but by 2 p.m. many of the workers had returned to work. Some of them went into the news office on the second floor, which overlooked George Street, whilst others went through the news office and into the jobbing room behind it. In the middle of the jobbing room were two press frames, placed back-to-back. James Edward Jacobs, aged thirty-four, worked at one and at the other was an apprentice named William Blackburn Dawson, a youth aged about twenty, who had worked at the Halifax Guardian for six years.

  Dawson went into the news office and asked the other workers if any of them had some snuff for Jacobs. After he had been given a box, he returned to the jobbing room. No words were exchanged between the men, and Dawson picked up one of the dumbbells in the office – owned by another apprentice named John Crosley – and started to exercise with it. As the dumbbells were regularly used by the men, no one thought anything of it. Suddenly, and without any provocation, Dawson began to beat Jacobs over the head with the dumbbell, knocking him to the ground. Dawson then grabbed an axe that had been placed near the fireplace and hit Jacobs over the head, felling the poor man forward onto the press. Then, emitting an unnerving shriek, he continued to club Jacobs over the head with the axe. Three other men working in the room went to interrupt the attack but Dawson turned on them, once again emitting a fearful shriek. He drove them out of the jobbing room and into the news office before locking the door behind them and continuing his attack on the, by now, dead man. Men from the news office desperately tried to break the door down, as they could hear what could only be described as a desperate beating noise as Dawson continued making the high-pitched shriek. Peering through a gap in the door, they saw Dawson take up a press pin – a piece of metal which was five or six feet in len
gth – from the machine and continue to attack his dead victim. Two men named Bates and Tiffany began beating the door, trying to break it down. When it finally gave way they found Jacobs body on the floor and Dawson standing nearby; a bloody press pin in his hand. He attempted to escape, but was prevented by the men who were now crowding into the jobbing room.

  Advertisement for the Halifax Guardian.

  Jacobs body was lying face up, surrounded by a pool of blood with brains and other matter splattered across the floor and walls. The deceased man had been powerfully built and in a proper fight, it was said, he could defend himself well, but with the speed with which Dawson had hit him he had not stood a chance. The fatal injuries were confined to the front part of the head and both legs had been attacked; the wounds penetrating down to the bone.

  Dawson appeared somewhat wild and savage looking, and his shirt sleeves and trousers were covered with splattered blood and brains from the dead man. The police were called and Dawson was arrested and taken to the police station. Upon his arrest, he told them that he hadn’t finished the job as he had wanted to cut Jacobs head off and throw it into George Street.