Macdonald's District: North East Middlesex

[Dave O]

Hi Hunter, hope you're well.

Yes, looking at those low figures in Spitalfields, we ought to think about the impact of the movement of bodies upon the inquest. It's good question to ask--how often did inquests bleed from Spitalfields into other parishes like Whitechapel and Shoreditch, because of the location of the body? Like you say, mortuaries had a big impact on the Chapman and Kelly inquests, leading to a change in jurisdiction for Chapman's, and then a conflict at Kelly's. There are also other circumstances: Louisa Ellesden's double inquests were caused by economics, throwing the cost of burial back onto Whitechapel.

Here's a near case: one of these Spitalfield cases involved a little girl who had been very badly burned at 50 Hanbury Street. Her parents took her to London Hospital. She received no treatment there, so she was taken back to Hanbury Street. A doctor was summoned, unfortunately she died at home. Her body remained in Macdonald's district, but if this girl had died at London Hospital, the body would have stayed there, and this inquest would have been one of Baxter's cases.

The sad thing about Baxter's inquest in the newspapers is that those press accounts must be only the tip of the iceberg. For every inquest covered, there are probably several that weren't.

I continue to hold out hope that some of Baxter's records may still be out there somewhere. I feel that it's likely that before Francis Baxter handed the bulk of his father's records to the London County Council in 1921 (which later went on to destroy them), it's probable that he peeled off the cases that were funded by the county of Middlesex--these would be the records from the time of Baxter's election at the tail end of 1886 through March 1889.

No documentation of that for Baxter yet, but this was the practice that had developed by the time of his death, and what you see other executors of estates or heirs doing. They sorted records. Pre-March 1889 stuff, the Middlesex records went to Middlesex County Council, who weren't destroying all their records--this is why the LMA's got what it has of Macdonald's cases. All of Macdonald's surviving records were funded by the County of Middlesex.

So it seems reasonable that somewhere there ought to be a few bound books for Baxter for the same period up to March 1889, something like 1500 inquests, maybe more (of course I'm estimating). I don't know how many books that would be. On the dark side, we're probably dealing with the discretion of several individuals over the course of decades over what to keep and what not to keep.

Dave

[Hunter]

Hi Dave,

I agree. There still may be some records somewhere, either original or maybe duplicate. Baxter was in a protracted lawsuit at the time, first with the County of Middlesex and then with the County of London, over the terms of his salary. All parties would have had a vested interest in the records kept due to the nature of the litigation. It may just be a compiled register giving the dates, names of the deceased, reasons, and location of the inquest and expenses thereof, or there might be more detail. But something may yet be tucked away somewhere.

It is appalling how much rich history is lost because documents are misplaced or destroyed. We only consider the importance of our history when it truly becomes history to us. Until then, it is useless clutter that is in the way or it falls victim to the ravages of man or nature. What is lost is lost forever once living memory is no longer there. If someone doesn't have the forethought of placing essential documents into a central repository their chances of survival diminishes greatly.

Each of us have many things that are important to us. Yet, as soon as we're gone, it is dispersed or destroyed. A few items might be kept for one more generation... maybe two...and even then, it is because we have children who may cherish certain things. But even that is fleeting as time passes and the emotional ties diminish.

[Dave O]

Hi Hunter,

Ironically, the reason the LCC sent its Public Control Department hunting the records of deceased coroners was to ensure their survival. They were pretty hot to get them because they didn't think they were safe otherwise.

There's a funny story in some of the correspondence about them sending their coal officer with a cart round to the house of one coroner's daughter (she had inherited her father's records). There's no one at home, but apparently her blind and infirm sister was someplace nearby, whom the officer subjects to "a good deal of enquiring." He found out that the daughter he's looking for worked. So he turned back up at the house early the next morning and caught her, but she tells him the records need to be sorted. You get the sense that she was hopping mad at the intrusion because immediately afterwards, the Public Control Department got a sharply worded letter from her solicitor, a kind of "don't call us, we'll call you" type of thing, telling them to dispense with the "undue haste", and give his client time to sort through all the records (and please give some notice before you turn up again).

Ultimately, the LCC's Public Control Department did its work too well, they've got all these old records coupled with the records of sitting coroners, tons of paper. By the time Baxter died, they've gotten very tight on storage, and Baxter's son is proposing turning over a tremendous amount of records--my impression is that it's the LCC wondering what to do with Baxter's records that leads to the development of the 15 Year Rule.

Then the war came, and now they're tight on paper and manpower. During wartime, there's one deputy coroner trying to do research with some old records, but the LCC puts him off because they don't have anyone to dig the stuff out!

I take some encouragement that it's not because of short-sightedness that they're destroying coroner's records--they seem well aware that they have historical significance, even a legal significance that could last decades after the death of the person concerned. There were just too many records in London, and not enough storage and manpower to deal with it all. So they've got to destroy some stuff, which is a pretty bleak prospect, but here's a bright spot: they don't do it in isolation--there's conferring with the Home Office and with coroners, there's a process they follow.

Best,
Dave

[Dave O]

Here's Mary Ann David, LMA/MJ/SPC/NE, Box 5 Case 62. I have a soft spot for this one. It might be the missing persons bill or the image of her standing in her yard one cold morning wrapped in a urine-soaked sheet that does it, it's hard to say.

Mary Ann went out on January 24 1889 and never came back.

[Dave O]

On February 19th, Mary Ann's body was found in the Regent's Canal, near her home. Here are the front and back of the request for an inquest.

[Dave O]

The inquest was opened on February 23rd. I'm sure I've made errors with my transcriptions, so please excuse!


Samuel James David a silk weaver of 24 Sidney St: the deceased Mary Ann [Ruth?] David [no occupation] aged 17 years was my daughter and left home on January 24 and I had not seen her since untill [sic] she was found dead in the regents canal. I am separated from the mother of the deceased. I made enquiries as to her whereabouts. Detective [crossed out] I thought she was at her mother’s. Detective Preston told me that a woman that lives directly opposite her mother’s told him that she saw her there last Tuesday fortnight. I caused bills to be circulated for the discovery of my daughter. The bills were posted quite close to where I thought she lived. The mother told me on the night she was missed that I could not demand her as she was over 16 years of age. I had no quarrell with my daughter before she left me. She lived with me all the time. I don’t know whether she was in the habit of visiting her mother.

George [Millstead] of 279 Green Street on Tuesday February 19 I recovered the body of deceased from the regents canal. On Tuesday last about 5 P.M. I was at work barge building at [illegible Napiers] yard. One of the steersmen who [went by] in a barge said there’s a dead body over there. I got the drags and after a third barge passed I got the body ashore. The body was dressed. Had no shawl or hat on.

PC 499 Owen Davis. I was called by last witness on Tuesday to Twig Folly Bridge and found a body of a female that I was told had been taken out of the water. The father came up directly and identified it. He lives close by. I took the body to the mortuary.

Mary Ann David of No 4 Salisbury Street. I am the mother of the deceased. I have not seen deceased since the 22nd Jan. I have not spoken to her for 8 years. I hear she had [not] been ill-used.

[Dave O]

Another version of the father's testimony, very close to what was given before.

Samuel James David [having been sworn upon the day and year and at the place above mentioned, deposed as follows:--I reside at] 24 Sidney Street, Bethnal Green [I am] a Silk Weaver. Deceased is my son [crossed out] daughter Mary Ann David aged 17 years of no occupation. Deceased left home on the 24th January and did not again see her until after she was found dead in the Regents Canal. I am separated from my wife the mother of Deceased. I made enquiries as to her whereabouts. I thought she was at her mothers. Detective Preston told me that a woman who lives directly opposite to her mother told him that she saw Deceased there last Tuesday fortnight. I caused bills to circulate in the district for the discovery of my daughter. The Bills were posted quite close to where I live. The mother told me on the night she was missed that I could not demand her as she was over 16 years of age. I had no quarrel with my daughter before she left me. She lived with me all the time. I do not know whether she was in the habit of visiting her mother.

[Dave O]

Some of the cases I've seen of drowning don't have any medical evidence and don't adjourn, but this one does. Court rose again at the Whittington & Cat on March 4.

Ann Mason wife [illegible] a weaver of 22 Sydney Street. I saw deceased’s father [crossed out] father’s paramour beat deceased repeatedly violently. I have remonstrated with her several times for doing so. She gave me no answer. Deceased seemed frightened to speak to any one about the matter for fear she would be beaten again. I never saw the father beat her. I once saw a [mark in her] face after being beaten on a Sunday in summer. The last time I saw her beaten was when it was alleged she broke a glass which she said she did not. The girl cried when she was being beaten and the father must have heard her if he was in the house.

Anna [Hannah] Perriman wife of Chas a bricklayer of 6 Mace Street Green 87. I knew deceased. She never told me about being ill treated at home. I never saw her beaten by anybody. The last time I saw deceased was at Sydney St. [Congregationall] Chapel seven or on the [?th] of January. She told me she was all right. When I lived next door four years ago I repeatedly heard screams from . . .

[Dave O]

[Perriman continued] . . . her through the wall when she was being beaten. The [so called] mother in law said the girl hollered before she was touched. I never saw any marks of violence on deceased. She did not seem miserable when I saw her.

Mary Jacobs wife of David a porter of 31 Norton Street. I knew deceased. I never saw any body hurt her. She never spoke to me but twice. One Sunday her father was out at a funeral. She told me her mother had hit her and [kicked] her. She was out in the yard and remained there half an hour.
Eliza Barber fancy hose maker of 14 Sydney Street. five doors of deceased. I lived [next] door seven months ago. I often spoke to deceased. She never told me she was beaten. There was a quarrel between the families. I often heard her beaten through the wall at all [struck out] 6 or 7 [A.M.] and 11 at night occasionally. I was out at work all day. I did not hear my mother say it went on in the daytime. I never [used] to know who was beating the deceased. I never saw any marks of violence on her body. About four years ago before 8 A.M. I saw deceased standing in the corner of the yard with a sheet round her. I did not speak to her then. The morning was very cold. The sheet was wet. She seemed to have urinated on it.

George Bragg a labourer of 4 Salisbury Street. I am no relation of the parties. I didn’t know deceased. I live with the mother of the girl deceased. I did not see deceased since [Xmas?]. . .

[Dave O]

[Bragg continued] . . . She never entered my door. I never spoke to her.

Sarah Argent wife George a labourer of 9 Salisbury Street. I am no relation. I did not know deceased. A detective came to see me one night to make enquiries. My little girl told me there was a strange girl at Mrs. [?] in the same house.

Priscilla Dennison a mantle maker of 16 Sydney Street. I know the deceased. I never saw any marks on her face. I never heard she was being beaten. I often talked to her. She told me one Sunday evening before [Xmas?] that I was to tell nobody but her father had been whacking into her again. She did not tell me why. I told my mother.

Maria Bragg of 9 Harrold Street wife of Matthias a labourer. I knew deceased two years ago. Lived at the back of her. I never saw any marks of violence on her face or body. I heard her cry frequently as if she was being beaten but I made no enquiries as to who did so.

David Jacobs a [?] of 31 Norton St. I am no relation of the parties. I knew the deceased. I last saw her two months ago. I am always at home in the daytime. My yard adjoins the deceased’s. I was nearly always in my yard. [Might] have heard the girl crying in the yard in the day time but I never heard her [word dropped?] She could not be beaten often without my knowing it.

[Dave O]

Harry [William Suckring] a silk manufacturer of 39 Cranbrook Street. I knew deceased. I [saw] her last on the 24th of January. I promised to give her employment. She was a very jocular high spirited girl. There were no marks on her face. I employ her father. She was not afraid to come to work where her father was working. The father asked me to give her employment.

[Thomas] Henry Conner an undertaker of 31 Sydney St. I knew deceased and was in the habit of seeing her mostly every day for 8 years or more. I never saw any marks of violence on her face or body. I frequently talked to her. She never made any complaint to me or my children of being ill used. The father is a hard working man. He never annoyed me or any of the neighbours I know of. I can see from my window into his house. I could not hear a noise in deceased’s back yard because we were fronting the house.

Julia [Ison] of 13 Alma Rd. wife of Joseph a labourer. I knew the deceased. I work for her father washing & [darning] for the last six years. I was in the house every day. I never saw deceased beaten nor [scared] of it. I was in the house the day the girl went away from there to seven. I never saw the step-mother behave other than kindly to the girl. She seemed very lively all the day she went away. The deceased was of dirty habits in bed for the last few years. . .

[Dave O]

[Ison continued] . . .The girl was fed as well as the rest of the family. There was one child of the paramour’s. They lived well.

Fannie [Bott]. I live with the father of the deceased. I was not in the habit of beating deceased. She was as big as me. I could not beat her. I was not in the habit of beating her in the yard. I have boxed her ears some time ago. She was of dirty habits in bed sometimes. I tried to learn her better. I do not think she could help her habits. She never screamed in the yard to my knowledge so that neighbours could hear. All the statements made in respect thereof are false. The neighbours have an ill feeling against me. The deceased screamed before she was touched. Her brother and she used to fight very much. His age is eleven. He made her cry out and she made him. I brought deceased up from the age of 8 years. The girl never threatened to hurt herself. There was no unpleasantness between her and me the day she left. She went out without my knowledge. I worked to support [David] and his family while he broke his leg. There was no young man in the habit of coming to the house. It is not true that the girl was out in the yard any morning in a sheet.

John Preston 84 J. Division detective. The father came to the station to report the disappearance of deceased on January 24th.

[Dave O]

[Detective Preston continued] . . .I was ordered to take up the enquiry. I did so. I could find no trace for a fortnight. I was informed by the witness Mrs. Argent that she thought she saw the girl there two or three times. The father and I went to the house and failed to find her. We were not obstructed in any way. We got no information till the body was recovered. The father seemed very much distressed over it. He made application to a magistrate about her.

Samuel James David. The deceased was my sister. Mary Ann and me used to fight. I sometimes made her cry out. I struck her with a stick sometimes. I saw my stepmother beat Mary Ann sometimes. She used to box her ears. She used to cry out then. My stepmother did not tell me what to say here. My father used to threaten to stop her pocket money because she was so long gone on errands. I never saw my father box her ears. We had always plenty to eat. Mary Ann ate more than I did. I sleep up stairs. My sister slept down stairs in the kitchen.

[Dave O]

Apologies, I can't make out the credentials for the medical witness.


John W. Moore L.R.C.P. & S. [credentials not clear “E or I L.A.H.?”] Registered of 158 Brick Lane. Was called to see the body of Mary Ann Davis [sic] and to make [of] Post Mortem examination of said body. I did so on the 25th day of July 1889 and found as follows
External appearances. The body was in a very advanced stage of decomposition, there were no marks of violence, nor any sign that the deceased had been violated. On opening the body I found the brain congested, very soft as a result of decomposition. Otherwise normal
The Lungs healthy. Heart healthy left side empty and contracted right side full of black blood stomach congested, healthy [crossed out] but normal & nearly filled with fluid consisting of water & the products of decomposition there was no sign of food Liver normal, [gall] bladder empty, spleen normal, [bowels] nearly empty but normal, kidneys congested, bladder normal nearly empty.
From the appearance of the body I give it as my opinion that deceased has been in the water for three or four weeks. In my opinion the cause of death was drowning.

[Dave O]

This finishes up (and thanks to the LMA for allowing me to post my photographs of their material). The jury returned their verdict, which was basically "Found drowned". Cause of death proved, but the circumstances were not, despite what looks to me like some pretty good police work, the evidence of some twenty lay witnesses, and an autopsy. I can't say that I would have found any differently than this jury did.

Good inquest or bad inquest? I think drownings were difficult things.