Bath Chronicle, 12th October 1893.

Bath Chronicle and Weekly Gazette, Thursday 12^th October 1893.

The Hampton Rocks Mystery.

The Coroner’s Inquest.

Accused Remanded by the Magistrates.

The inquest on the remains of the woman found in the cave at Hampton Rocks, it will be remembered, was opened at the George Inn, Bathampton, on the 26^th Sept., before Mr. S. Craddock, Coroner for North Somerset. After several witnesses had been examined, the Coroner adjourned the inquiry until the 25^th October, in order that the police might have ample opportunity to establish the identity of the deceased, as on the 26^th ult. It was not known whom the poor woman was. Now that there can be no question as to the identity of the deceased, the Coroner has resumed the inquiry. On Friday the Coroner and jury sat at the Parish-room, Bathampton, and further evidence was taken.

Superintendent Rutherford, of the Somerset constabulary, was again present, and Mr. E.B.Titley, solicitor, watched the proceedings on behalf of the young man Arthur Coombs, who has been arrested on the charge of murdering Elsie Luke, alias Wilkie.

The Coroner, in addressing the jury, said the reason of his having called them together earlier than the 25^th inst. was that, contrary to expectation, matters in connection with the death of the deceased woman had developed more rapidly than they were led to anticipate originally, more particularly with reference to the identification of the deceased as well as in other particulars. They were aware, probably, that since they last met a certain person had been taken before the magistrates on suspicion of being connected with the death of the deceased. He earnestly impressed upon the jury not to consider that circumstance at all; let it be as it were banished from their minds that anybody had been apprehended on suspicion. He wished them to enter into that case in a perfectly unbiased manner, not only with reference to this man but also with reference to all the evidence. The two courts were totally different, and although the evidence taken before both was very similar he had to impress upon them that they were absolutely independent, and they must arrive at a conclusion upon the evidence adduced before them entirely within those walls.

Mr. Titley said he appeared to watch the case on behalf of the person arrested, to whom they had referred. He proposed to give the Coroner the names and addresses of the witnesses whom he suggested the prosecution should call before the magistrates. He had had no official notice of that inquiry, and it had been impossible to have them present that day, but he understood the hearing would be adjourned.

The Coroner said it was very likely the inquest would be adjourned two or three times. It stood in a very different position from the magisterial investigation. They could go on adjourning from time to time if they thought the circumstances justified them in so doing.

Mr Titley: I intend to give you the names of the witnesses I referred to for the purpose of being called before this jury.

The evidence given at the previous hearing having been read over, William Henry Dill added to the deposition taken on the 26^th ult., by stating that he was now sure of the time when he discovered the blood-stained cuffs and handkerchief. The Volunteers were in camp from August 1^st to August 8^th, 1891, and he was with them at Devizes. He was helping in the quartermaster’s department, under the Rev. C. W. Shickle, the chaplain, who conducted the stores. It was either on Tuesday, the 11^th, or Thursday, the 13^th August, he picked up the articles, as those were the only days of the week on which class firing occurred, and on which his services would be required at the butts.

Mr Titley said he proposed to ask the witness some questions. The Coroner said Mr Titley had attended inquests held by him frequently. He always liked to give him as much latitude as possible, but the questions should be put through him as far as possible. Mr Titley: You can stop me when you like. The Coroner: I shall not hesitate to do so.

In answer to Mr Titley, witness gave the names of persons with whom he slept in the store tent at Devizes Camp – Dutton, Mendum and Hayward. There were about five in all. He kept the watch in his possession from August, 1891, till January or February, 1892, because he was looking for a reward. He was not hard-up at the time.

Mr. Titley: Why did you keep the watch and chain and not inform the police?

Witness: I suppose you would do the same.

Mr Titley: No, I should not.

Witness: What would you do?

Mr Titley: I should take it to the Police-station.

Witness said he was not hard-up at the time. His means of living then were the same as they were now – he was an accountant. Some weeks he earned 30s. and others 10s.

Mr Titley: Do you still adhere to the statement that you told the constables of finding the cuffs and handkerchief?

Witness: Most emphatically. Two of them.

Mr. Titley: Have you said in connection with this case—“I suppose I shall be hanged over it.”

Witness: No. I never said sauch a thing.

Mr Titley: Haven’t you said anything of the kind? I don’t attach any importance to it.

Witness: I have never said anything of the kind. Most emphatically “No.”

Frederick Field, assistant marker at the Volunteer Rifle butts on Hampton Down, repeated the evidence he had given before the magistrates as to his making search with Dill after he had been shown the blood-stained cuff Dill had picked up. He did not remember the things being shown to the police by Dill, or of the constables being told of the discovery. Nothing of the kind happened in his presence.

By Mr Titley: He gave the cuff he picked up in the quarry to Mr Dill. There was no link or stud in the cuff he found nor was there one in the cuff he was first shown.

By a Juror: The cuff seemed to be wet with dew and not with blood.

Field mentioned that although the finding of the blood stained articles was not stated to the police by him he was aware the police were told of it.

Mr Titley: That is the point. Did anyone sleep in the markers’ hut?

Witness: Dill used to sleep there occasionally.

Frank Clark, a youth employed as a clerk at the office of Messrs. Rooke and Coker solicitors, Queen-square, proved finding a woman’s black straw hat trimmed with black and cream material on the 7^th August, 1891. It was picked up near the opening of the cave in which the body was subsequently discovered.

By Mr Titley: He was on the Down on the preceding Bank Holiday, August 3^rd, 1891, with his brother Arthur, who was a clerk at Messrs. Copestake and Co.’s corset factory, in the Upper Borough-walls. There was a picnic party. His attention was attracted by a man who was only partly dressed. He had no coat, hat, or waistcoat on. He seemed to be a little surprised; he was walking about by himself. Witness’s brother, Arthur, spoke to him and asked what he was doing there in that condition. He said he had been bathing in the river and some one had stolen his clothes.

A Juror: It is a mile from the river.

The Coroner: Did he say how he would get home?

Witness: He said he would wait till dark and then go home.

The Coroner: What was about his age?

Witness: He appeared to be about 25 years of age. He was of medium height, about 5ft. 6in. He had a thin light moustache, and I should describe the moustache as brown in colour. Witness and his friends left the Down at about seven o’clock, and they left the man in the wood.

By jurors: He saw no traces of blood about the man. He had only a shirt and a pair of socks on. The man appeared to be in his right mind. He first saw the man about 100 yards away from the cave.

A Juror: Should you be able to recognise the man if you saw him now?

Witness: No.

Joseph Beaton, a superannuated Inspector of the Bath Police force, deposed that on August 7^th, 1891, at 9.25p.m. he made an entry in the police book of a female’s hat having been found on Hampton Down.

By Mr Titley: They had never, to witness’s knowledge, received any intimation from the county police of the cuffs or handkerchief being found on the Down.

A Juror: They would not have been asleep all that time if they had heard of it. That’s where I consider the others were wrong.

Mrs. Kerry, of Cheriton-house, Oldfield-park, repeated the evidence given before the magistrates as to the identity of the prisoner.  The small silver brooch found in the bedroom of the prisoner Coombs was produced by Superintendent Rutherford. Witness said she had no recollection of the deceased having worn the brooch produced. She remembered that Wilkie did wear a brooch but witness could not swear to it.

Elsie Marguerite Kerry, daughter of the previous witness, said she remembered deceased as having been cook at Cheriton-lodge in 1891. She remembered having addressed letters for Wilkie to “Arthur Stevenson Coombs.” They were addressed to Kingsmead-terrace but witness could not remember the number.

Mr. Titley: I submit that this is not evidence.

The Coroner: I’m perfectly aware of it but I’m allowed greater privileges than they are in magisterial inquiries.

Witness, in answer to questions, said the deceased never gave her any reason for asking her to address her envelopes. She did not direct more than three.

A Juror: Couldn’t she write well?

Witness: I don’t know. I never wrote a letter for her.

Supt. Rutherford: How long before she left did you address her last letter?

Witness: I don’t remember at all.

A Juror: Were the letters addressed to Arthur Stevenson Coombs or to A.S. Coombs?

Witness: To “Arthur Stevenson Coombs.”

Questioned by Supt. Rutherford: She did not remember the brooch produced.

George Malpass, manager at Mr. Oliver’s boot shop in Westgate-street, said he could swear to the boots produced (those found in the cave) as he had only two or three pairs of the kind in stock when they were purchased in 1891. He knew the deceased from her having called with respect to shoes for Mrs Kerry. She purchased the shoes in July, 1891, and she was to pay when they were delivered, but as a matter of fact they were not paid for. On sending to Mrs Kerry a few weeks afterwards he was told the deceased had left, and he regarded the transaction as a bad debt. He remembered the transaction well as the deceased was rather difficult to please. When the boy called at Mrs. Kerry’s, he was told Mrs Kerry did not know her whereabouts. The price of the shoes was 5s. 6d.

Timothy Cotterell, a carver at the London Dining Rooms, formerly landlord of the Exeter Inn, Southgate-street, deposed to the raffling of the gold watch at that house. When Dill showed him the blood-stained cuffs and handkerchief witness took no particular notice. Dill produced them and said “I picked up these dirty old things on the Down.” Witness then had not the slightest idea that Dill had found a gold watch and chain.

Mr Titley: Did he give you any reason for keeping these “dirty old things?”

Witness: No. He took them from a little black bag he generally carried.

A Juror: It was a sort of trade to him then?

Witness: It seemed like it.

The Coroner called Dill’s attention to the fact that this witness stated that when he (Dill) put the watch  up for raffling he said his sister had given it to him.

Dill: Yes, it is perfectly correct.

A Juror: You had to get behind a subterfuge to pass it?

Dill: I don’t know what you mean by a subterfuge. I didn’t want everybody to know I had a watch to dispose of.

The Coroner: It is only fair for me to call your attention to the fact and you say it is perfectly correct you told him so.

Dill: Yes, certainly.

Mrs. Hayman, of 11, Kingsmead-terrace, deposed to having seen the deceased as late as five o’clock on the afternoon of Bank Holiday, August 3^rd, 1891. Deceased, after talking to a woman at the bottom of the terrace, walked along the side of the river towards the city.

The Coroner: Did she make a confidant of you at all?

Witness: She told me something about herself.

The Coroner: What did she tell you?

Witness: She used to talk to me about Arthur Coombs a great deal.

The Coroner: Was she engaged to him?

Witness: Yes, she was engaged to him. She told me so.

Mr Titley: I suppose you rule this as admissible? It is only the girl’s statement.

The Coroner: Yes. It is admissible to me.

Mr Titley: Very well, sir. It would not be so before the magistrates.

The Coroner: I’m aware of that. (To the witness): Had she been engaged long?

Witness: From what she said I should think she was engaged for some time.

The Coroner: Did you ever see them together?

Witness: Yes, frequently.

The Coroner: Could you fix any date – up to what time did you see them together?

Witness: I saw them together on the Sunday before Bank Holiday.

The Coroner: On the 2^nd August, 1891?

Witness: Yes.

The Coroner: Where were they then?

Witness: Nearly at the top end of the terrace, at the Kingsmead-square end. It was about five o’clock.

Supt. Rutherford: Did you notice anything the matter with Coombs’s hand that day?

Witness: No, nothing at all.

Supt. Rutherford: Could you see his hands?

Witness: Yes. He was holding the railings with one hand and in the other he had a pair of gloves.

The Coroner: You took notice of him?

Witness: I looked at him several minutes.

The Coroner: How long were they talking together?

Witness: About five minutes. I left them there and went in. I came out again soon afterwards and Coombs passed me coming up the terrace to his home. When I was going to chapel later on I saw her again and asked her if she was going to chapel and she said “I’m waiting for someone, then I shall go to New King-street.”

Witness also said she knew the deceased had a gold watch similar to the one produced. On the Saturday before the Bank Holiday Wilkie was wearing a brooch of exactly the same pattern as that produced.

The Coroner: Did you see the deceased in the week between the 25^th July and the 1^st August?

Witness: I noticed her on the terrace on the Sunday (the 26^th July).

The Coroner: Where was it you saw her then?

Witness: Very near Coombs’s house?

Mr. Titley: That is a very invidious way of putting it and shows some amount of feeling. Couldn’t she say opposite “Number so-and-so.”

The Coroner: On the Saturday before Bank Holiday did she tell you where she had been during the week?

Witness: She told me she had come straight from Mrs Kerry’s, and brought me a bunch of roses from Mr Kerry’s garden. She also told me what they had had for dinner that day – roast beef and Yorkshire pudding. She seemed very dull and depressed at the time.

The Coroner: Was she generally down-hearted?

Witness: No, she was a very bright girl.

A Juror: Did she tell you anything?

Witness: She told me she was enceinte, and had been for three months, and really I should think she looked it from what I saw.

The same juror: Did she say who by?

Witness: Yes, she told me.

The Coroner: Did you tax her with it?

Witness: No sir, I didn’t.

The juror repeated the previous question.

Witness: She said it was by Coombs. She said “I suppose you know,” and I said “No, I’m very sorry to hear it.”

Supt Rutherford: When she came to you on the Saturday did she give any explanation of wanting lodgings as she was in a situation?

Witness: She said Mrs Kerry had given her a holiday from then until Tuesday morning.

Questioned by Mr. Titley: She had stated she first became acquainted with the deceased in May, 1891. She fixed the date as she knew it was before the Railway Mission outing to Conkwell Woods, where she saw Wilkie and Coombs together. Coombs had never been in witness’s house; he was a young man she never spoke to.

Mr Titley: When you were before the magistrates on Tuesday last you did not say anything about seeing Coombs’s hands on the Sunday.

Witness: The question was not asked me.

The Coroner: A very good answer indeed.

Mr Titley: She did not mention what Wilkie told her to the Coombses because she did not know them.

The Coroner: You are not on visiting terms?

Witness: No.

After the adjournment for luncheon, the first witness called was Lucy Hayman, daughter of the last witness and cook to Mrs Peacock, Brindley-villa, Prior Park-road. She said she knew the deceased as Elsie Adeline Wilkie. She saw her on a Friday about three weeks before the Bank Holiday, in July 1891. Deceased used to meet witness at her mother’s and they generally went for a walk or to the Mission Hall. Occasionally on Friday evenings she saw Wilkie at the Hall with Mr Arthur Coombs. She could not say what month in 1891 it was when she saw them together at the Hall. Wilkie did not seem to trust anyone with her secrets; she was very bright until towards the last and then she did not seem so cheerful.

The Coroner: Can you account for her lack of cheerfulness? –No, I cannot. Did you notice her figure alter at all during the time you knew her –No.

By Supt. Rutherford: In June she told me she thought she was enceinte.

The Coroner: Do you recollect the outing to Conkwell wood? – Yes, I went to the outing; it was sometime in June. – The deceased was there? – Yes, she was there with Mr Coombs who spoke to me saying, “Good afternoon.” I think the outing was in 1890.

Mr Titley: You think the outing was in 1890?

Witness: That’s my impression.

Mr Titley: Do you know Miss Mary Sheppard? –Not to speak to. – Have you seen him with Miss Sheppard? – Yes.

Witness added that in July 1891, about the third week, she was talking to Wilkie outside her mother’s door when Coombs came by from work. He stopped and spoke to Wilkie who walked away with him towards his home. She did not know when the engagement between Coombs and Wilkie was broken off.

A Juror (Mr Norris): When she made the communication to you you have mentioned, did you inquire as to the author?

Witness: No. She could not remember the brooch produced; she had never seen Wilkie wear a silver brooch. She had a gold brooch with a stone in it, two rings, a gold watch and chain, and a bracelet.

A question arose as to what witness should be called next. Mr Titley suggested that Mrs Dillon might be called, but Superintendant Rutherford objected. Mr Titley: I suppose she is not favourable to your theory.

Annie Cox, house and parlourmaid at the the house of Mr R.A. Dykes, said she knew the deceased by the name of Wilkie as a cook to Mr Dykes when he lived at 3 Norfolk-crescent. She was there for seven months and left in 1890. Before Wilkie left witness gave her a silver brooch. The Coroner (pointing to the brooch found at Coombs’s): Is that the one? Witness: If that’s not the one it’s one quite like it. After examining the brooch witness said it was the one produced to the best of her belief. When she gave it to the deceased the pin was missing. She saw deceased several times after she left Mr Dykes’s, but could not say what was the last occasion. Wilkie went to Mrs Doveton’s after she left Mr Dykes’s.

Annie Poole, wife of a solicitor’s clerk, living in Kingsmead terrace, said she had seen Wilkie on the terrace. On one occasion her attention was drawn to deceased who was knocking at a door because the people would not let her in. It was at Coombs’s door, which eventually was opened, and Wilkie went in. Several people were outside. Wilkie was crying and had been passing remarks to people. Witness did not see her come out of Coombs’s. She had seen deceased speaking to Mr Coombs on the terrace, but had never seen them walking together.

By Mr Titley: This was the only occasion on which she had seen the deceased at Coombs’s.

Witness stated that she saw the deceased on the Sunday before the August Bank Holiday, 1891; she saw her come out of Dillon’s in the afternoon, and go down the steps at the bottom of the terrace. Within five minutes after Arthur Coombs came out of his house and went in the same direction. On two previous occasions she had seen the same thing happen.

By Mr Titley: The nearest way to Melrose, Wells-road, where Mary Sheppard lived, would be down the steps and along the river. She had seen Mary Sheppard repeatedly at Mrs Coombs’s but could not say it was before August, 1891.

The inquest was adjourned until yesterday.

Resumed Magisterial Inquiry.

At the Weston Court-house on Monday, Arthur Stevenson Coombs, aged 20, coachbuilder’s apprentice, was brought up on remand charged with having murdered Elsie Luke, alias Wilkie, on Hampton Down, in August, 1891. The prisoner was brought from Horfield Gaol by the Midland train reaching Weston at 8.25, and a curious crowd assembled at the railway station to witness his arrival. The officers in charge, however, disappointed the morbid throng, by quickly passing into the Weston hotel, which is close to the station. Here they remained with the accused until the crowd dispersed, afterwards removing Coombs to the cell at the Court-house, the gates of which were besieged quite an hour before the proceedings commenced. Owing to the crush the police only admitted many people into the Station-yard as would fill the Sessions Court and thus the unseemly rush of the previous Tuesday was avoided. Mr. Murch (Mayor of Bath) presided and there were also present Mr. E.T.D. Foxcross, Mr A. E. Pole, Lieutenant-Colonel A.Thrale Perkins, Colonel Inigo Jones, Mr S.F.G. Bythesea, and Mr. G. Woodiwiss. Mr Cannings Collins again appeared for the prosecution and Mr E.B.Titley was for the defence.

When prisoner had been placed in the dock Mr Titley said before the prosecution proceeded with their case he had to apply for a subpoena for the attendance of Miss Mary Williams, of 33 Green Park, Bath, the lady who conducted the Railway Mission Hall. The document which he wanted her to produce, was her diary showing the dates, among others, of the excursions to Sidmouth and Conkwell. He saw her that morning and she objected to come willingly. He made an attempt to agree upon the facts with his friend, but he found it was impossible, and therefore he had to ask for a subpoena. The Deputy Clerk (Mr. F. Glover): To appear at once? Mr Titley: Yes, unless the prosecution will agree as to the dates. She will speak to dates which are of immense importance, and I am surprised that the prosecution has not got her here. Mr Glover suggested that the necessity of the witness should be attested on oath. Mr Titley offered to be sworn, and after the oath had been administered he was asked by the Deputy Magistrates’ Clerk whether he considered Miss Williams an important witness. He replied that he considered her to be absolutely necessary.

The Magistrates’ Clerk (Mr I Williams): Mr Collins, will you give the date of the outing to Sidmouth?

Mr Titley: I want more than that. I not only want the date of the outings to Sidmouth and Conkwell but also the last time the deceased girl was seen at the Mission service.

Mr Pole suggested that the application should stand over until after lunch, when they would see how far they had proceeded.

Mr Collins: I am not able in a criminal matter, as Mr Titley knows, to make any admissions whatever. If, however, in the course of the case it becomes necessary to call Miss Williams, I will undertake, on the part of the prosecution, to get her here.

Mr Titley: Very well; it will fix the dates on reliable evidence.

Annie Cox, domestic servant, in the employment of Mr R.A.Dykes, 43, Grosvenor, Bath, who was examined before the Coroner, at Bathampton, on Friday, was the first witness called by Mr Collins. She proved that while the deceased girl Wilkie was at service with Mr Dykes, who then lived at 3, Norfolk-crescent, between January and August, 1890, she received visits from the accused. Prior to August, 1890, witness gave Wilkie a brooch. If the brooch produced (that found in prisoner’s bedroom) was not the one she gave Wilkie it was one quite like it.

Cross examined by Mr Titley: When she gave the brooch to Wilkie it had no pin. She never saw the deceased wear it. After deceased left Mr Dykes, she went to Mrs Doveton’s in Green-park and to a lady’s in Burlington-street. She did not know if the deceased was out of service for sometime. By the Clerk: She did not see the deceased when she was at Mrs Kerry’s.

Mrs Kerry was recalled at the desire of Mr Titley and said she never recollected seeing Wilkie with the brooch produced.

The Clerk: She might have had such a thing without you seeing it?

Mrs Kerry: I should think it was very possible.

Annie Poole, of 27, Kingsmead-terrace, wife of Charles Poole, clerk to Messrs. Maule and Robertson, solicitors, also repeated the evidence given at Bathampton on Friday. Mr Titley objected to what he alleged to be leading questions on the part of Mr Collins as to dates, and a brief argument ensued between the solicitors upon the point. Witness spoke on seeing Coombs and wilkie on the terrace (Kingsmead) in June 1891. On the Sunday morning before Bank Holiday she saw Wilkie sitting in Mrs Dillon’s garden reading a book before going to church.

The Clerk: How was she dressed when sitting in the garden?

Witness: I can hardly say. I know she was wearing a white apron and white cuffs.

The Clerk: And white cuffs?

Witness: Yes. She also saw deceased go out on the Sunday afternoon, and pass down the steps at the bottom of the terrace. Shortly afterwards the prisoner went out in the same direction.

By the Clerk: A person going out of Mrs Dillon’s would not pass Mr Coombs’s house to go down the steps. A person sitting in the front room at Mr Coombs’s would see anyone leave Mrs Dillon’s house, but Mrs Coombs let her front rooms to a lodger.

Walter Clare, of 8, North Parade-buildings, cellarman in the service of Mr. Stewart, wine merchant, deposed that he knew the prisoner. He used to go to school with him. He also knew the deceased girl Wilkie. She came to stop at the house where witness was living, 7, North Parade-buildings, kept by Miss Gadd, in May, 1891. He thought that was the date.

The Clerk: Are you sure it was in May?

Witness: I would not be certain. She stayed there for a fortnight or three weeks. He last saw her in the wood leading from Warminster-road to Hampton Down in July, 1891. She was with the prisoner.

The Chairman: Can you tell us whether it was early or late in July?

Witness: I could not. It was on a Sunday morning. They were walking up the wood towards Hampton Down. He had not seen the deceased since. Alfred Phillips was with him.

Mr Collins: Did either of you speak?

Witness: No. We were within two or three yards of them.

The Clerk: How were they walking?

Witness: Side by side.

The Clerk: Were they touching each other?

Witness: No.

By the Clerk: The spot where the body was found was half or three-quarters of a mile from the wood where he saw prisoner and Wilkie. He would not be certain where deceased went after leaving his lodgings. He knew she was in lodgings before she went to Oldfield-park.

Cross examined by Mr. Titley: It was about two months after leaving the lodging-house that he saw the prisoner and Wilkie in the wood. He fixed the date by knowing it was about two months afterwards.

Re-examined: When you say May is that to the best of your remembrance?

Witness: Yes.

Alfred Phillips, of 11, Angel-terrace, Wells-road, clerk in the office of the Kingswood and Parkfield Colliery Company  at the Midland Railway station yard, said he also went to school with the prisoner at Bathforum School, and had known him ever since. He knew the deceased girl Wilkie, who visited at the house of his friend – the former witness. He was present with his friend Clare when they saw Wilkie and Coombs in the wood leading from the Warminster-road to Hampton Down. Witness and Clare were sitting up in a tree when deceased and witness passed. It was between 11 and 12 in the morning. He nodded and the girl looked back and smiled as if she knew him. He should fix the day as the last Sunday in July. He went away on the following Monday week. He went to Shepton Mallet.

By Mr Pole: They were sitting on the first bough of the tree about three yards from the ground. Wilkie and Coombs were bound to pass under the bough to go through the gate.

Cross-examined: There was a Flower Show at Shepton Mallet on the day he went there; he was with his brother and a friend named Goodall, the printer on Westgate-buildings, at Shepton Mallet.

Mr Collins said that concluded the evidence which the Crown were able to present – Supt. Rutherford, interrupting, said there was another witness present. This proved to be George Malpass, the manager of Mr Oliver’s boot shop in Westgate-street, who proved that the shoes found in the cavern were those purchased by Wilkie from witness in July, 1891.

Mr Collins said that concluded the evidence which the Crown was able to put before the magistrates up to the present. The Coroner’s inquest was still open, and the police were still pursuing their investigations with reference to the case. The question was whether their worships would not think it right under the circumstances that there should be a further remand. Of course, the difficulties in the way of the investigation were enormous, having regard to the time which had elapsed since the crime was committed, and it could not be pretended that anything like an adequate investigation had taken place. There was a great number of matters which ought to be investigated, but which had not been simply because time had been short. He must say in fairness to their worships that he was aware of no immediate prospect of the discovery of material evidence connecting the prisoner with the crime beyond that which was before them. He said that in order that he might not be misunderstood when he suggested to their worships whether in their discretion they did not consider a further remand might be justifiable.

The Chairman (addressing Superintendent Rutherford): You are aware of the questions which are still unsolved of the points which we have all been anxious to ascertain. I should like to know whether you consider there is any ground for a continuance of your investigations?

Superintendent Rutherford: Well, Sir, those last two witnesses we only heard of this morning.

The Clerk: They were sent for from the Court.

Supt. Rutherford: I hope to get further evidence.

The Clerk: I ust confess that this last young man seems to be the most important witness I have heard.

Mr Titley opposed the application. The prosecution had had the most ample time for obtaining evidence if evidence were forthcoming connecting the prisoner with the crime, and the reason they had not been able to obtain such evidence was because it was impossible to get it, as the facts did not exist. Mr Collins had given them the very best reason why they should not grant any further remand, why they should not allow the prosecution to fish for something further by which they hoped to connect the prisoner with the crime. He had told them that the Coroner’s jury was sitting. That inquest might be adjourned from time to time. If further evidence were forthcoming that evidence might be laid before the jury, and the prisoner might be committed upon the verdict of the Coroner’s jury upon such further evidence. On the other hand the prosecution, he submitted, had had ample time. He thought it was the 22^nd or the 23^rd September when the discovery was made, and he believed he was right in stating that the prisoner had been under arrest since the 26^th September [Coombs was apprehended on Thursday, the 28^th ult.] The prosecution had thus had a full fortnight, they had had at their disposal the whole of the resources of the constabulary at Weston, and since the case arose they had had the services of Detective-Sergeant Smith of the Bath police, who had done nothing since then but continue his investigations. For fourteen days his client had sustained long drawn agony, the agony of appearing there in Court and the agony and hardship of prison life of which up to the present time he had known nothing. If their worships had thought for one moment that the prisoner had not had to suffer the hardships of prison life he could assure them it was not so because he did suffer them. He asked the magistrates to dismiss the charge against the prisoner. Upon the question whether there was prima facie evidence he should wish to be heard if they thought it was necessary, if they thought the prosecution had made out any case at all. The accused had not the resources of the police at his disposal, and in common fairness, after the admission of Mr Collins that they had no hope of further evidence, he asked them to discharge the prisoner.

The Chairman: Mr Collins said no “immediate hope”. Mr Titley asked whether it was not a most dangerous precedent to establish; was it fair to the prisoner that after the prosecution had had what was usually considered to be ample time for the investigation of that case that he should be detained in prison with that charge hanging over him in the hope, or rather, after the admission of Mr. Collins, without any hope, of evidence forthcoming. Was he to be kept in gaol just because it was suggested on the part of the prosecution that the possibility existed of something further being brought forward? The ends of justice would not be defeated if further evidence did arise, for, as he had said, that further evidence could go before the Coroner’s jury. He was told by Mr. Craddock he did not intend to conclude the inquiry for a month. If that evidence were forthcoming the prisoner might be sent for trial on the Coroner’s warrant.

Mr Pole: That has nothing whatever to do with us. This is a totally separate inquiry.

Mr. Titley said the Clerk had alluded to the evidence given that morning, but they knew from Mrs Kerry that the girl was in her service during the month of May, 1891. It just showed how evidence was misleading. Persons’ memories could not be trusted as to dates, and the prisoner might be seriously prejudiced, and evidence might be allowed to be given which might appear to be against him when really there was a mistake in the dates. It was only in accordance with the rules of the court that the prisoner should be discharged, if the evidence offered by the prosecution did not appear sufficient to send him for his trial. It was not in accordance with any precedent or with justice that a prisoner should be detained because it was suggested there was a possibility of further evidence being given about him, and he asked that he might be discharged – (applause in Court.)

Mr Pole: You have not touched the middle course- the question of bail.

Mr Titley: Could you give bail in such a case?

Mr Pole: Undoubtedly.

Mr Titley: I would sooner take your worships’ ruling on the question of a remand.

The Clerk pointed out that the lodging-house-keeper in North-parade-buildings ought to be called to prove the date at which the deceased stayed there. Mr Titley contended that the prosecution should have called her. The Clerk said there was no opportunity of getting her. Mr Titley said on the point of dates it was proved that the deceased was with Mrs Kerry from April until August, 1891. Miss Williams would correct in prisoner’s favour altogether certain dates given by previous witnesses for the prosecution. There could be no excuse as to Miss Williams being there as Mr Collins’s clerk saw her last week. The magistrates then retired.

On their return, the Chairman said they had considered very seriously both the statements of the solicitor for the prosecution and the application of the solicitor for the accused. They had gone into the matter very carefully and they had come to this conclusion. That was an exceedingly grave case, one of the greatest gravity which had been known within the experience of many of them. That being so they were bound to take every step they possibly could to arrive at the truth. They considered the fact that two years had elapsed since the murder was committed was rather an argument for the continuance of the investigation than otherwise. After so long a time doubts and uncertainties might have arisen which could not be solved quickly, and all the pains that could be possibly taken ought to be taken to arrive at the truth. They also thought that it was in the interests of the prisoner as well as in the interests of justice that there should be a thorough investigation. If the matter closed that day it would be said “If the thing had been continued his innocence would have been made more clear than it is now.” Therefore upon all these grounds they considered they were bound to remand the case, and the time they had fixed for the remand was Tuesday week (the 17^th inst).

Mr Titley applied for bail. He had not the slightest doubt that the prisoner would be liberated on the next occasion. He had already suffered severe and cruel punishment (applause). The Bench refused the application for bail, but in answer to a suggestion by Mr. Titley said they had no doubt that Mr Collins for the prosecution would intimate to Mr Titley at the end of the week whether further evidence was forthcoming in order that the defence might be saved the expense of bringing witnesses there again in case no more evidence was to be given.

The Adjourned Inquest.

At the Parish-room, Bathampton, yesterday, Mr Craddock resumed the inquest. Mr E.B.Titley again watched the proceedings on behalf of the accused, Arthur Stevenson Coombs. James Robinson, miller, living at 6a, Herbert-road, Oldfield-park West, stated that he knew the deceased as Elsie Wilkie. He last saw her on the second Sunday in July, 1891, when she was standing at the garden gate. She called witness over and asked him to take some flowers home. She gave him a bunch of flowers which she picked and also some fruit.

The Coroner: You did well then. Witness said during the conversation Wilkie asked of him if he knew that Arthur Coombs and she had made it up. She said they had, that they were going to be married in two or three weeks, and that Arthur was going to leave home unknown to his parents. Deceased added that they were going to get married near London, and told witness to ask his wife to call upon her to have a cup of tea and that she would tell her all about it.

By the Coroner: Wilkie lodged at witness’s house, 24, Oak-street, in December, 1890, and they had a party on Boxing Day, at which Wilkie was present with Coombs.

The Coroner: Did you see the deceased out with any other young man?

Witness: No, I never knew her to have another young man.

A juror: When she told you they were going to be married, did she say if the banns had been published? Witness: No.

The Coroner: She seems to have told you a great deal for a rather casual acquaintance.

By another juror: After Christmas, 1890, Coombs walked out with witness’s wife’s sister once or twice, but it was only friendship.

By Mr. Titley: The folowers were picked out of the garden and the fruit the girl got from the kitchen. She told him she had Mrs Kerry’s permission to have friends in.

Mr Titley: Did you tell Coombs’s parents of what she said?

Witness: No. She was a girl I never took a great fancy to.

A juror: She seems to have taken a fancy to you!

Witness: I was not taking on.

Mr Titley: We must be serious. You have answered a question by the Coroner whether the deceased ever had another young man. Did you ever hear of a Mr Evans at Dr Barnado’s Home?

Witness: No.

Mr Titley: Do you know Mrs Morement who used to live at 13, Wood-street, Bath, and who is now in Sheffield?

Witness: Yes, I knew her.

Mr Titley: Did you hear of a young man meeting Wilkie at Mrs Morement’s house?

Witness: I never heard of it.

By a Juror: The deceased did not appear to be a fast girl at all. She was never out late at night.

John Edwards, fishmonger’s assistant, living at 8, James-street west, said he knew the deceased, but he could not remember the last occasion on which he saw her. He saw Wilkie and Coombs together at the Railway Mission excursions to Conkwell and Sidmouth. D.S.Smith: Did you ever meet Coombs on another occasion? –Yes, I did.

Well, then, tell the Coroner what took place. – I met him in New-street, but I don’t know when it was or what we were talking of. I remember him saying “She ought to be dead or killed.”

The Coroner: Who did he refer to? Witness: I don’t know.

The Coroner: Was he excited when he said it? Witness: No, I never saw him cross.

A Juror: It is remarkable you should remember the expression.  Witness: They are rather remarkable words.

Lewis Vigis, chemist, of Chapel-row, repeated the statement he made before the magistrates as to Coombs coming to his shop on August 5^th, 1891, for a wound at the base of the thumb and forefinger. He dressed the wound and as the young man came again the next day he advised him to poultice the wound, and gave him some crushed linseed.  He could not remember wether Coombs told him how he came by the wound, but he recollected him saying he was not at work.

Mrs Harriet Dillon, of 26, Kingsmead-terrace, deposed that the deceased girl Wilkie came to her house on the Saturday preceding August Bank Holiday, 1891, and asked for board and lodging until the following Tuesday morning, saying that Mr and Mrs Kerry, of Cheriton House, where she was cook, were going away for a holiday, and they would pay for her keep. However, in the evening Wilkie offered her a sovereign or half a sovereign to pay for what she had, but witness told her to let it stay until she left on Tuesday. She told witness she had just seen Mr and Mrs Kerry off to London at the Great Western Railway Station. On the Monday morning Wilkie went out saying she meant to go to Turleigh, and witness did not see her afterwards.

By the Coroner: She used to say she knew young Coombs next door and Mrs Hayman. She never saw Coombs and deceased together. She remained in the house a good bit on Sunday morning, and she knew she was sitting in the garden for some time, and ran out to Mrs Hayman’s once or twice. In the evening she was sitting in the garden when witness went out at about seven o’clock, she had her hat on and said she thought about going to chapel. Wilkie did go out on the Sunday evening, but she did not say where she had been. As deceased did not return on the Tuesday evening, witness sent Wilkie’s nightdress back to Cheriton House thinking she had returned there. She had on a gold watch and chain.

By Mr Titley: She had no recollection of the deceased having worn a brooch like the one produced. On the Sunday morning Wilkie wore a new light dress for which she said she had given £2 10s.

By a Juror: Witness did not see the deceased with a purse.

By Mr Titley: The date on which Mrs Poole saw the deceased at Coombs’s door was the second week in February, 1891.  The Coroner: Can you tell me the reason you know this? Witness said she knew it because at the time she had some theatrical people lodging in her house. A Mr. And Mrs Hanham wanted some ink, and witness sent her little girl for it. Witness went out to wait for her, and saw a young woman ringing Mrs Coombs’s bell violently. She said “I will go in, I will be let in. They shall hear me.” She had a girl about 13 or 14 years of age with her. She rang about twice , the door was opened, and she went in.

The Coroner: Can you swear that was the deceased? Witness: No, I cannot. It was a dark miserable night. By a Juror: The little girl remained outside. The woman was not crying. D.S.Smith: Did you state to Sergt. Edwards and I --- Mr Titley: That is cross-examination. It is most improper.

The Coroner: You must not cross-examine the witness. Mr Titley: He has no right whatever to do it. I even cannot do it.

Kate Bullock, servant to Mrs Nethercott, 17, Paragon, Bath, said she was in service as nurse at Mr Kerry’s in the summer of 1891. Elsie Wilkie was her fellow –servant. This witness adhered to the statement that Wilkie left Cheriton-house in the afternoon of the Saturday before Bank Holiday. Mr and Mrs Kerry had not gone to London. She fixed the date of Wilkie’s departure as witness had a friend come to see her on that day. The Coroner: You had a gentleman come to see you? Witness: No, I didn’t say a gentleman, a friend (laughter). Mrs Kerry told her she could go out on the Sunday afternoon or on the afternoon of Bank Holiday. Wilkie left at a little before four o’clock, and took a small parcel with her. She gave no instructions as to her box. She said she was going to sleep in Kingsmead-street that night. Witness did not see her alive after this. A young man came to see deceased frequently. The week she went away he came two or three times.

The Coroner: What was he like? Witness: Short, rather fair, and light complexion.

The Coroner: Was he thin or stout? Witness: Thin.

The Coroner: About what age? Witness: I should not think he was 20.

The Coroner: Was he 19? Witness: About 19 or 20.

The Coroner: Where did he go in the house – in the kitchen? Witness: Not in the kitchen – downstairs.

The Coroner: Where downstairs? Witness: In the cellar.

A Juror: Any beer there? (Laughter). The Coroner: Was it a beer cellar or a coal cellar? Witness explained that it was a cellar in which odds and ends were kept. There was a room adjoining the cellar.

The Coroner: Did more than one young man come? Witness: I only saw one young man.

The Coroner: Did she ever tell you that she had had a disturbance with her young man, and that the engagement was broken off? Witness: No, sir.

The Coroner: Did she ever tell you she was going to be married? Witness: No, sir.

The Coroner: When she told you she was not coming back to Cheriton-house, did she give you any reason for not returning? Witness: No. Wilkie told her Mr Kerry had given her half-a-sovereign for being so kind to her mistress and showed the witness the half-sovereign.

By Mr Titley: She stated before the magistrates that the young man who visited Wilkie had a light moustache.  The Coroner: Was it a big one? Witness: No. It was a small light one. A Juror: Was it crisp? (laughter).

Mr Titley: I believe when you were before the magistrates you were pointed out the accussed and did not recognize him? Witness: No.

By Mr Titley: It is not true that deceased saw Mr and Mrs Kerry off by train on the Saturday afternoon? Witness: No. I saw Mrs Kerry wish her “Good bye” at Cheriton House.

In answer to a juryman witness described how Wilkie handed parcels of clothes over the garden wall to a young girl who was standing in Cedar-walk. She asked deceased what she was doing and she replied, “Mind your own business.” She occupied the same bedroom and the same bed as Wilkie, but never knew that she was in trouble.

The Coroner: Did the deceased receive letters? Witness: I don’t know. I never saw any.

Frederick Lace said he was a house surgeon at the Royal United Hospital in August, 1891. He found in the surgical out-patient register in his handwriting the following entry under date August 7^th:-- “Coombs, Arthur, age 19, residence 25, Kingsmead-terrace, disease bit of thumb (human).” He was the first out-patient attended to that morning. The patient must have told him that the bite was human.

After the luncheon interval, a fresh witness was called in the person of Emily Alice Clare, who said she lived at 8, North-parade-buildings, Bath. She knew the deceased as Elizabeth Wilkie. She last saw her in Westgate-street in 1891. It was during the summer, but the exact date she could not tell. Witness added: I knew her at the Reformatory, Limpley Stoke, where my aunt was needlework matron. Deceased after she left the Reformatory used to come and see my aunt where I am staying. She stayed at the house of my aunt Miss Hull. I know she was there on the 16^th March.

The Coroner: How do you know? – I know she was there on that day by the fact that I was confirmed on that day. I could not say how long she stayed after that. When she left she did not say where she was going. At the time she was staying at my house I know she kept company with Arthur Coombs. She didn’t keep company with him on the 16^th March. She told me it was broken off then because he heard she had been in the Reformatory. She was upset very much about it. I have never seen Coombs. I do not remember seeing the girl Wilkie wear any jewellery at all.

Mr Titley: Did she lodge at North-parade with you? – She did not pay the first time, but she went to Clifton with Mrs Bicknell and when she returned and stayed for the second time she paid. It must have been February when she came first.

Mr Titley: Then when your brother said before the magistrates it was in May it must have been in March? – Yes, sir; he did not know exactly what time it was, but I had a date to go upon.

Alfred Phillips said he was certain that he saw Coombs and Wilkie together in the wood leading to Hampton Down on the last Sunday in July, 1891. He was sure as to the date as he was in training for sports at Shepton Mallet on Bank Holiday. Questioned by Mr Titley: He had only been just fetched from his work when he appeared before the Bench on Monday.

Walter Clare, cellarman, corroborated Phillips as to seeing Coombs and Wilkie together in the wood, but he could not swear to the month. It was in the summer. He fixed the time by knowing it was about two months after Wilkie was lodging at his aunt’s house, but he would not be certain, it might be two or three months. He knew his friend Phillips at the time was training for gymnastic sports at Shepton, but he could not say whether the sports were close at hand or not.

At this stage the inquest was adjourned for a fortnight – until October 25.