Bath Chronicle, 19th October 1893.

Bath Chronicle and Weekly Gazette, Thursday 19^th October 1893.

The Hampton Rocks Mystery.

Coombs Again Before The Magistrates.

Miss Sheppard Examined.

Acquittal of the Accused.

At the Weston Court-house on Tuesday, before Mr Murch (Mayor of Bath) in the chair, Mr A.E.Pole, Mr S.F.G.Bythesea, and Mr G.Woodiwiss, Arthur Coombs, aged 20, coachbuilder’s apprentice, was charged on remand with having in or about August, 1891, murdered Elizabeth Luke alias Wilkie, on Hampton Down. The Court was again densely crowded and despite the heavy rain which fell hundreds of people waited outside the courtyard gates in hope of obtaining admission. Mr Cannings Collins again prosecuted for the Crown, and Mr E.B. Titley defended. Mr Collins said on the last occasion he undertook that he would call Miss Williams with reference to the dates at the Mission Hall and he would now do so.

Miss Mary Rose Williams, of 33, Green-park, Bath, hon. Secretary and treasurer of the Bath Railway Mission who affirmed as she objected on religious grounds to be sworn, said the Mission Hall was moved from Monmouth-place to Monmouth-street on 28^th January, 1890. The last time she remembered seeing Wilkie there was on Sunday, 22^nd March, 1891. She believed she was alone. She knew the prisoner and the deceased. Both were attendants at the Mission, but not members. They were together at excursions in connection with the Mission to Conkwell on June 18, 1890, and to Sidmouth on August 19, 1890. By Mr Titley: She had no recollection of seeing Coombs and Wilkie together at the Mission after January 1891. By Mr Pole: She remembered the date March 22, 1891, as on the previous Friday the deceased girl had a fit. She attended the hall once after that. By Mr Collins: She could not swear Wilkie and Coombs were not together at the hall after that. Mr Pole: Were they constantly together? Witness: Occasionally. The Chairman: Did you know that Wilkie was missing? Witness: No. Therefore I made no inquiry.

P.S. Edwards said he recently visited Hampton Down with Frank Clark, the youth who found the woman’s hat on Hampton Down on August 7^th, 1891. The spot where Clark said he saw a man half naked on August Bank Holiday 1891, was in the wood and would be quite a quarter of a mile away from the cave where the murdered woman was discovered. The spot where the hat was found was 40 or 50 yards away from the cave.

Frank Clark gave corroborative evidence. He visited the locality on October 6^th with Sergeant Edwards. Questioned by Bench: Witness said he could not recognise the man he saw without his clothes; he had a light moustache.

Emily Alice Clare, of 8, North-parade-buildings, fixed the last date on which Wilkie stayed at that house as March 16^th, 1891. Once while deceased was there Coombs came to the door.

Alfred Phillips, re-called, said on August 3^rd, 1891, he performed as a gymnast at a show at Shepton Mallet. Witness produced a programme of the entertainment on which he appeared in his professional name –Eugene Walfred. He generally performed with his friend Clare, but Clare had not trained for this particular event. When he saw Wilkie and Coombs together in the wood leading to Hampton Down, Clare was not training. He believed the date on which he saw them in the wood was Sunday, 26^th July.

By Mr Titley: He was always training.

Mr Pole: He is the clown; he would require special training (laughter).

Edwin Dyke, of 33, New King-street, Bath, coach body-maker, in the employment of Mr. Swaffield, formerly an apprentice at Messrs. Fuller’s factory, said he left there in August, 1892. While at Fuller’s he worked in the same loft as Coombs. Witness was a Volunteer in 1891, and he remembered the camp at Devizes that year. They went to camp on August 1^st. To the best of his recollection Coombs was working on that Saturday and he saw nothing the matter with his hand. By Mr Titley: There were twelve men working in the loft.

Harry Jones, of 37,  New King-street, who said he was in Messrs. Fuller’s employment in 1891, gave similar evidence.

Dyke, re-called, said Coombs was a Volunteer now, and was a Volunteer in 1891. He did not go to camp in that year. He believed his father wanted him at home.

Mr Collins said it had been suggested that there had been a disturbance at the Liberal Fete in 1891. He proposed to call the police who were on duty there to say there was no disturbance. Mr Titley submitted that such evidence was not relevant. Mr Collins said the evidence was clearly admissible. Mr Titley had said the prisoner’s hand was injured at the Fete, and that complaint was made to the police. Mr Titley did not remember having made that statement. Mr Glover (Deputy Clerk): You distinctly said so, and said complaint was made to a constable.

The Bench decided to allow the evidence. P.S. Ricketts said he was present at the Liberal Fete at Larkhall, on July 27^th, 1891. Six constables were present with witness. No complaint was made as to a disturbance. It was the duty of the constables to report to him if any disturbance happened. Ex-P.C. Stone, P.C.’s Barter, Coombs and Vowles gave similar evidence.

Mr Collins said that was all the evidence on the part of the Crown which he was now in a position to present to the Court. He had carefully considered statements of other persons, but he did not think at that point of the inquiry it would be proper to call them. Their evidence, it seemed to him, would not carry the matter any further. Having regard to the evidence before their Worships, he did not think he should be justified in asking them to commit the prisoner for trial upon it. He need hardly remind the magistrates that if the prisoner went for trial and the evidence proved insufficient, the matter would be closed for ever, whereas if a different course were taken and important evidence were discovered at any time, prisoner could be called upon to answer the charge again. At present, however, on the part of the Crown, he could carry the case no further.

Mr Pole, one of the magistrates, said that he and his colleagues had carefully considered the question of examining Miss Pollie Sheppard, and they had decided to do so. He would briefly give the reasons why they came to that conclusion. Mr Collins proposed to put in as evidence letters written by a third party to the prisoner, to establish a theory as to the motive he might have in committing the crime of murder, without calling the writer, who was in Court, and was tendered by the solicitor for the defence to prove the handwriting. He had gone carefully into the point and he was of the opinion that the letters were evidence against the prisoner, in so far as they were found in his possession, and that they would raise the presumption that they had been opened by him and that he knew the contents. In order to establish the theory of motive the prosecution were bound to adhere to the golden rule, that the best evidence that can be must be produced, and in this case it was the writer. They went further and said the prosecution were bound to lay before the Court all the available facts and evidence that could assist them in coming to a right decision, and they should not suppress or refrain from calling witnesses who might throw some light on the case. Under those circumstances the Bench would call Mary Sheppard.

Mary Louisa Sheppard, examined by Mr Pole, said she had been a servant to Mrs Titley, Melrose, Wells-road, for five years. She knew the prisoner first in Feb. 1891; she received an engagement ring from him in March, 1892. She knew the deceased in 1890, and it was through Wilkie she became acquainted with Coombs. In 1890 he was walking with Wilkie, but she did not think he was engaged to her. Wilkie was then at Mr. Dykes’s, in Norfolk-crescent. She had a quarrel with Wilkie in 1891. It was after February. Up to that they had been pretty good friends. Wilkie followed her about and shouted at her when witness was by herself. She had given no reason for this, but witness put it down to her walking with Coombs. Wilkie actually struck her and she complained to D.S. Smith. This occurred in James-street. She was annoyed that Coombs had left her and gone to witness. When witness was struck by Wilkie Coombs was not present. On February 3^rd, 1891, she wrote to Coombs, and also February 5^th. Letters produced were written by witness.

Mr Pole: In a letter you say “Don’t think any more about her, she’s a beast of a girl. Can’t call her anything else. Of course it is not true what she told you because it is six months since she left Dykes’s. She left in August. If she had told you of it before you would have seen before this time.” Has that reference to anything she said to the prisoner? – No.

What has it reference to? – What Wilkie said to prisoner’s parents.

What was that? – She went down and made up a noise. I was not there.

Did you hear it from the prisoner? – Yes.

Did she make a complaint that he had ruined her? – I can’t say whether she said “ruined her.”

What has this sentence reference to? What would he have seen? Was not the suggestion made that he had ruined her? – Yes, sir.

Was not the reference that he would have seen her state in six months if it had been true? – Yes.

Further on you say “Annie always thought if anything occurred between you and her she would go home.” Has that reference to the same fact? – Not to the trouble – if they parted that she would go home.

Who is Annie? – The young girl who lived with her- Annie Cox.

In March, 1891, you say the baker told you he heard Wilkie and Coombs were going to be married. Were they walking together then? – No.

You evidently had an unpleasantness with him and you wrote him an angry letter. Had that unpleasantness to do with Wilkie? – No.

Didn’t you try to persuade him on many occasions to give her up? – No, because I knew he was not walking with her. I never knew him to have anything to do with the girl after he went with me.

Up to July, 1891, was not that girl worrying you? – Yes.

Continually? – Yes, sometimes once a week.

During that time did you not know as a matter of fact that Coombs was keeping company with her? – No.

That he was associated with her? – No, I never heard so.

In answer to further questions, witness said once or twice Coombs told her he had seen Wilkie in town, but he did not say she had said anything to him.

May I take it generally that she was doing all she could to break off this match between you and Coombs? – Yes. That’s what I thought she was doing.

Mr. Pole read a letter from witness to Coombs in which she accused him of being underhanded and two-faced, but Sheppard stated that had nothing to do with Wilkie. She had heard he had been out with another young girl. She didn’t know who it was but had since learnt.

Was it Miss Thorne, living at 41, Lorne-road, Twerton? – That was not the one that time.

You had a serious misunderstanding with him. Did you consider he had deceived you? (No answer was given). In the same letter you say “You had no excuse, she did not follow you on Sunday, she nodded to you as she passed on the terrace.” Has that reference to Wilkie? – Yes, I was told she nodded to him.

Had not the charge of being underhanded and two-faced reference to Wilkie too? – no, I had never once heard he had gone out with her since I knew him.

Did he on other occasions make a complaint or an excuse that he could not meet you because he had met Wilkie? – It may or may not have been so.

You have had answers to these letters from Coombs? – To some of them.

Have you the answer to the letter of the 19^th July? – I have not looked over them. Mr Titley had them.

You know Coombs was in correspondence with Wilkie?-- No.

But he was. – I never knew it.

Did Wilkie write to him? – I never heard so.

Did you never see any of Wilkie’s letters? – No.

Did prisoner never give you any letters from Wilkie? – No.

Did you never burn the letters Wilkie sent him? – Sent him?

You know very well what I mean. Did you ever burn any of Wilkie’s letters? – No.

You are perfectly certain of that? – Yes.

You have never seen them and never burnt them? – No.

Did you burn any letters at all given you by Coombs? – No, I have not.

Listen to this (reading from a letter): “The longer you live, the more you learn. It was something I wanted to know rather bad. I am satisfied now; she influenced me a little on different things. I must tell you when I return – something to talk about. Well, dearie, I burnt all those letters last night. I wish I hadn’t said anything about them, as I know it upset you. But Arthur you writing is so dear to me. I could not help reading them. You didn’t know her faults then?” – Those were letters he wrote to her.

Where did you get them from? – She sent them to my home.

Who did? – Wilkie.

Mr Murch: You say you saw Wilkie nod to the prisoner on the 19^th of July. Did you see her after that? – I did not see her nod to him. I was told she did.

Did you see her on that day? – Yes.

Afterwards? – I cannot remember.

Had you any communication with her at all? – No.

Did you hear that she was missing? – I missed her from Cheriton House. I cannot remember whether it was in July or not.

Did you make any inquiry about her? – No, I heard she had gone away.

Mr Pole: Did Coombs ever say anything about her?  -- No, he did not say any more than that he judged she had gone away. We heard she had stolen some things and that the detectives were after her.

There are letters found at prisoner’s house up to July 22, but none between that date and the 13^th of August. Can you give any explanation? Did you write to him between those dates? – I could not say.

Replying to Mr Collins, she said she had no conversation with Coombs about the disappearance of the girl beyond that she said she supposed the deceased had gone away. She saw Coombs every Sunday and once in the week.

In July you are writing to him; he is apparently neglecting you. Up to the end of July you are constantly in your letters discussing this girl, and as soon as she disappears you have no conversation with him about it nor is any reference made to it in your subsequent letters? – I suppose as she was away I thought nothing more about her.

Witness was next questioned as to her advice to prisoner to see “that person who me and Annie went to.” She admitted it was a fortune teller to whom she referred. Witness had consulted her.

Is it not a fact you advised Coombs to go there for the purpose of ascertaining whether the girl was in the condition in which she said? – No.

Was not the deceased always coming between you and Coombs? – She insulted me generally when I was by myself.

Right up to the time you missed her was not she constantly coming between you and Coombs? – At intervals.

And he was very much upset about it? – He told me not to notice it.

By Mr Titley: She was engaged to prisoner and they were to be married soon after he was out of his apprenticeship. She hoped to be married to him (applause).  On August Bank Holiday, 1891, she went with prisoner to the Bath Theatre to see “The Dancing Girl.” Prisoner called for her between five and half-past. His thumb was done up in rag and he said he had injured it at Kensington, where there had been a little fight.

I suppose you have found him like other young men of between 18 and 20, led away occasionally by other young ladies of good looks, eh? – Yes (laughter).

And you were like most other girls, a trifle inordinately jealous? – Perhaps.

In answer to the Clerk she said she could not remember much about “The Dancing Girl,” she did not take much interest in it.

Mr Titley said he proposed to call his wife who would prove she saw Sheppard at the Theatre on this night.

Kate Bullock, re-called, admitted she told the police she thought the girl who took Wilkie’s clothes over the wall was Mrs Dillon’s daughter – the same girl who brought back her night dress to Cheriton-house.

After an interval for luncheon, the Chairman said: The magistrates  have availed themselves of the adjournment to consider the present position of this mysterious case. The solicitor for the prosecution has stated that he has no further witnesses to call. All we can say with regard to what he has done is that he has made out a strong case of suspicion; still we cannot consider the evidence sufficient to convict the prisoner (cheers in Court). We are bound to say that much as has been said with regard to the matter there certainly is no evidence sufficient to convict him. Therefore we consider we are not justified in keeping him under restraint any longer, and the case is dismissed.

The announcement was received with deafening cheers in Court. Coombs got up from his seat and embraced his father, and many friends eagerly shook hands with him.

The Bench, in answer to Mr Titley, said they could not make an order as to Coombs’s goods in the possession of the police.

A large crowd waited to see Coombs leave the Court. As he drove off home in a cab with his father, mother, sister, sister, and Miss Sheppard there was some cheers and a few antagonistic exclamations.

Bath Chronicle and Weekly Gazette, Thursday 19 October 1893.

Bath and County Notes.

The Hampton Rocks mystery is still a mystery, so far as the perpetration of the deed is concerned. That a ghastly murder was committed, and that the victim was poor Elsie Luke (or Wilkie) there is no doubt. That the police had grounds for apprehending the young man Coombs, the girl’s former sweetheart, few, we suppose, will deny who have read the evidence adduced before the magistrates. It was clearly a case of strong suspicion, but, as it has turned out, nothing more. The Crown solicitor having confessed his inability to carry the case further, the magistrates had nothing to do but discharge the accused. We have reason to believe that the patience and industry of the police are not exhausted. They will still pursue their inquiries, and the Coroner’s inquest will afford another opportunity for presenting any further evidence they may succeed in discovering. As we said at the outset of the inquiry, difficult though it may be, it ought not to be impossible to bring home the crime to its perpetrator.