Henry/ Harry Buckley

[seanr]

This might be his court appearance? He was acquitted of wounding.


January 1889 at Clerkenwell, Middlesex

It could be. From what I can gather from references online, he was acquitted in January 1889. Either found 'Not Guilty' or some suggest Patrick Manning dropped the charges - . Would the record be 'Acquitted' if Manning dropped the charges? - I don't know the exact legal proceedings in a case of this kind, would he have been acquitted if the charges were dropped?

I don't have the records, but a post on the JTRforums claims the case was tried at Worship Street Police Court. Would that be in the Clerkenwell records? - Worship Street is in Shoreditch.

I'd be interesting to know for sure if Manning did drop the charges. The newspaper report suggests the wounding was serious and from circumstances it sounds as though Buckley was caught red handed.

[seanr]

again, great find seanr!!

Thank you, although I don't feel like I found him myself. I'm just connecting the dots found in other people's research.

[MrBarnett]

It could be. From what I can gather from references online, he was acquitted in January 1889. Either found 'Not Guilty' or some suggest Patrick Manning dropped the charges - . Would the record be 'Acquitted' if Manning dropped the charges? - I don't know the exact legal proceedings in a case of this kind, would he have been acquitted if the charges were dropped?

I don't have the records, but a post on the JTRforums claims the case was tried at Worship Street Police Court. Would that be in the Clerkenwell records? - Worship Street is in Shoreditch.

I'd be interesting to know for sure if Manning did drop the charges. The newspaper report suggests the wounding was serious and from circumstances it sounds as though Buckley was caught red handed.

Henry Buckley, a shopman aged 36, was committed for trial at the Clerkenwell Assizes by a magistrate at Worship Street Police Court on 16th Jan, 1889. He had been received into custody on 26th December, 1888.

Buckley appeared at the Assizes on 23rd January, 1889 charged with maliciously wounding Patrick Manning and was found not guilty.

[seanr]

Henry Buckley, a shopman aged 36, was committed for trial at the Clerkenwell Assizes by a magistrate at Worship Street Police Court on 16th Jan, 1889. He had been received into custody on 26th December, 1888.

Buckley appeared at the Assizes on 23rd January, 1889 charged with maliciously wounding Patrick Manning and was found not guilty.

Thank you, MrBarnett. Where is this report from?

From the sounds of things, it is clear he was found not guilty by a jury and not because Manning dropped the charges.

[MrBarnett]

Thank you, MrBarnett. Where is this report from?

From the sounds of things, it is clear he was found not guilty by a jury and not because Manning dropped the charges.

Hi Sean,

You’re welcome. Buckley is a very interesting character, almost certainly McCarthy’s ‘muscle’ at the the time.

The info is from the Clerkenwell Sessions court calendar.

Gary

[seanr]

So, another little odd thing. The Clerkenwell Court calendar gives his age as 36.

When Mary Cox was asked what she thought the age of the man was she said ‘six-and-thirty’. Which has always seemed a little odd to me, in that when guessing an age people tend to say ‘about 35’ or ‘between 35 - 40’. It also looks to be the correct age for Buckley.

[Abby Normal]

So, another little odd thing. The Clerkenwell Court calendar gives his age as 36.

When Mary Cox was asked what she thought the age of the man was she said ‘six-and-thirty’. Which has always seemed a little odd to me, in that when guessing an age people tend to say ‘about 35’ or ‘between 35 - 40’. It also looks to be the correct age for Buckley.

yes i noticed that too-odd maybe she did know him.

but is he 36 or 31? jerry and gary posted earlier 31

[Harry D]

Local characters like this definitely require more enquiry, rather than the pages and pages of drivel spent on the likes of Sickert, Maybrick, Prince Albert etc.

[Sam Flynn]

Does Mary Cox explicitly state that she did not know who he was?

Perhaps she did know and she withheld that information.

Maybe, but why did she give such a good description? ("Sorry to trouble you again, Mrs Cox but, when you gave your statement earlier, did you mean the short, stout 36 year old man with the billycock hat, blotchy face and full, carroty moustache who just came out of that door over there?")

[seanr]

yes i noticed that too-odd maybe she did know him.

but is he 36 or 31? jerry and gary posted earlier 31

31 would be based off of his age in the 1881 census. 36 is the age for him given directly in the Clerkenwell Sessions court calendar (assuming Gary copied the wording exactly, I haven't seen the document myself). So which is the more accurate?

I don't know but I've seen for myself how ages can be unreliable in the census. What we might be able to say that the court calendar is the more contemporary document to 1888, having been recorded in January 1889. The age in the court calendar might represent the age Buckley gave himself when asked for his personal details?

I don't know if we can be sure of Henry Buckley's exact age. We may be able to say though that the age in the court calendar exactly matches the specific age Mary Cox gave for the man she saw.

[seanr]

Maybe, but why did she give such a good description? ("Sorry to trouble you again, Mrs Cox but, when you gave your statement earlier, did you mean the short, stout 36 year old man with the billycock hat, blotchy face and full, carroty moustache who just came out of that door over there?")

So, there are two points in answer which may be worth considering.

1) If Mary Cox was afraid or avoiding given away information she did not wish too, perhaps she answered truthfully the questions put to her but didn't offer any more information than she was asked. I'm not sure quite exactly the behaviour of witnesses are when they believe themselves to be under direct threat or do not wish to divulge information but only giving a few truthful details is a somewhat plausible strategy, psychologically.

2) Let's assume for a moment Mary Cox's man wasn't Henry (or Harry) Buckley but Stephen Kendall-Lane's opinion that the description fits for him is based on an accurate view. We still end up with Mary Kelly's next door neighbour being a man who fits the description of the man seen by Lawende, the man in Mrs Fiddymont's pub and Ada Wilson's attacker. The same neighbour being known for potentially being violent with a knife and maybe, just maybe having a door into Mary Kelly's room.
It'd still be interesting to me, even if we can dismiss Mary Cox's man.

On a related note, do we have information on what happened to Mary Cox after 1888? - do we know if she stuck around in Miller's Court for a long time after November 1888?

[seanr]

Presumably though, when the police interviewed everybody at Miller's Court in November 1888, Henry Buckley was among those interviewed and the police were able to dismiss him from their inquiries?

Then when he was arrested about a month and a half later in Dorset Street itself, charged with malicious wounding and assuming he did match the description of a man they were seeking in relation to the murders, this was picked up on and questions asked in relation to him? He literally was Mary Kelly's neighbour. If he didn't feature in the police investigation at all, that'd raise interesting questions.

[seanr]

His address on his death cert was 27, Dorset Street. On the 1881 census there was a Henry Buckley living at that address who was described as a ‘shopman (general shop)’.

In 1901, Billy Maher, who seems to have been Ann McCarthy’s minder, was also described as a shop assistant.

I've been wondering about this. Mostly to figure out if he was staying at 27 or 26 Dorset Street, as it's generally thought 26 Dorset Street contained 'the shed' where McCarthy kept costermonger's barrows and above that was Elizabeth Prater's room, 20 Miller's Court. Yet his address is variously recorded as 26 Dorset Street, 26/ 27 Dorset Street and 27 Dorset Street. Might there have been rooms in 26 Dorset Street aside from 20 Miller's Court at the top?

Also Buckley is in the 1881 census at 27 Dorset Street and his death certificate in 1892 states he lived at 27 Dorset Street. But he's not listed in the 1891 census?

[Sam Flynn]

There was no other door into Kelly's room, by the way.

[MrBarnett]

I've been wondering about this. Mostly to figure out if he was staying at 27 or 26 Dorset Street, as it's generally thought 26 Dorset Street contained 'the shed' where McCarthy kept costermonger's barrows and above that was Elizabeth Prater's room, 20 Miller's Court. Yet his address is variously recorded as 26 Dorset Street, 26/ 27 Dorset Street and 27 Dorset Street. Might there have been rooms in 26 Dorset Street aside from 20 Miller's Court at the top?

Also Buckley is in the 1881 census at 27 Dorset Street and his death certificate in 1892 states he lived at 27 Dorset Street. But he's not listed in the 1891 census?

There were 5 households at 26 in 1881, so presumably the upper floors were inhabited.

I haven’t find him on the 1891 Census (so far).

The age on the Court Calender is definitely 36, so it looks like the 1881 census is wrong in that respect, or there were two Dorset Street shopmen with the same name.