Home Crime Crime Other Fatal Quarrel Between Women At Bolton – Inquest Resumed

Fatal Quarrel Between Women At Bolton – Inquest Resumed

September 1884

Sheffield Daily Telegraph – Tuesday 02 September 1884

Fatal Quarrel Between Women At Bolton – Inquest Resumed

Last evening, at the Montagu Arms Hotel, Mexborough, Mr. Coroner concluded the inquest upon the body of Elizabeth Bodes, wife of a collier, who died last Thursday evening through having struck by a stone thrown by a neighbour, named Kate Bean, during a quarrel. Mrs. Beau was immediately afterwards apprehended, and was present during the inquiry in the custody of the police. Mr. Hall, of Wakefield, appeared on her behalf, and Superintendent Sykes, of Doucaster, was also present during the inquiry.

Mr. W. M. Barman, surgeon, Wath, said bad made a post-mortem examination of the body of the deceased. There was abrasion of the skin on the left side of the neck, and that was the only outward mark of violence found. There was little effusion of blood under the abrasion, and also a slight effusion under the skin behind the left ear. On removing the skull he found effusion blood pressing on the brain where joins the spinal cord, and the brain at that point had been lacerated. This no doubt was the cause death, and not the effusion. The laceration would cause death by stopping respiration and circulation. The laceration most likely had been caused a violent blow from a heavy substance, not necessarily sharp-edged. He thought it could scarcely have been caused by a fall, as the shoulder would be in the way. He found all the other organs healthy.

By Mr. Hall: Excitement would not be likely to cause death, though it might cause the brain to be more easily lacerated. He thought the woman would not live long enough for much extravasation, for there to be any swelling. The outward mark would be about an inch and a half long.

The Coroner remarked that he had long ceased to pay much attention outward marks. (To witness) Did you ever hear of a blow one side the head causing a man’s skull be cracked the other?

The witness replied that he had known of such a case. (Laughter.)

ln reply to a juryman, the witness further said that the laceration could only arise from a blow on the head. The result might have been the same if she had fallen on to a large stone.

By Mr. Hall: The deceased was not enceinte.

This concluded the evidence, and Mr. Hall that he did wish call any witnesses.

The Coroner, summing up, remarked that the jury knew both the women, and they might take into consideration any facts with regard cither of them with which they were acquainted, but in coming a conclusion in a very serious matter like their best plan was follow implicitly the oath which they had taken, and to bring in as near as they possibly could a verdict according to evidence. There was doubt that it was a quarrel between the two women, and from words they got to blows, not by means of fists, but by means of stone-throwing, and it was in evidence that the deceased woman threw the first stone. To that extent she must have been the original offender and the aggravating party. The stones seem have been thrown backwards and forwards between them until at length, and unfortunately, Mrs. Bean picked up a stone which, according to the evidence, had been previously thrown at her door by the deceased woman (Mrs. Eccles), and Mrs. Bean threw the stone with such precision that it struck Mrs. Eccles and led to her death.

Proceeding to explain the law upon the subject, the Coroner remarked that both the women were committing an illegal action, and the law was that if a person in the commission of an illegal action caused the death of another person was guilty of manslaughter. The provocation which Mrs, Bean received was beyond their sphere entirely. If they were of opinion that Mrs. Bean throw the stone in protection of her own life, then they must return a verdict of justifiable homicide.

The jury considered their decision in private, and in about ten minutes returned a verdict to the effect that Mrs. Bean was acting in self-defence, and that the case was one of justifiable homicide.