White Lion Beer House, Barton Street, Gloucester

Edmund Curtis, aged 29, was charged on the coroner’s inquisition with the manslaughter of his wife, Hester Curtis, in April last. Mr. Macnamara prosecuted; Mr. Cooke defended the prisoner. The facts of this melancholy case, our readers will remember, were briefly these :—On the evening of Saturday, the 5th of April last, the prisoner was in the kitchen of the White Lion beer-shop, in Barton-street, drinking ; his wife appeared, some words ensued, they left the house together, but had only got into the garden when violent screams were heard, and the prisoner was found with his fist violently striking his wife, who was bent over some railings; he was removed, and shortly afterwards she expired. The following witnesses were examined:—

Mrs. Wilks: I am the wife of John Wilks, of the White Lion, Barton-street; I knew deceased, who was the wife of the prisoner ; I employed her occasionally as a charwoman ; on the 5th of April I had so employed her; prisoner was at the house on the afternoon of that day; the deceased came afterwards, and desired the prisoner to go home and he refused; she telling him he was spending money while she had to work hard to earn it; some words ensued, and they left the room. The prisoner did not appear to be particularly angry. About three minutes afterwards I heard a violent shriek went out and found the deceased lying across some iron railings in my garden; the prisoner had hold of her left shoulder with his left hand and was striking her with his clenched fist. I told him he would kill her if had not already, and called assistance, when Kirkland came, and pulled the prisoner away from deceased, who fell down apparently lifeless; she was put into chair; she never spoke afterwards, but fetched three sighs, and almost immediately afterwards died.

Cross-examined: I did not see the prisoner kiss the deceased after she was dead. I had some dispute with the prisoner as to what I was to pay him for work he had done for me in the garden. I did not hear any dispute which he had with his wife, nor see her catch hold of his collar in the garden; she had brought something to me, and then sent for the prisoner to come and settle with me.

Mr. Clarke, surgeon, said he was called in to see deceased on the 5th of April; she died about ten minutes after his arrival. He made a postmortem examination of the body, and found a bruise on the skull externally, and internally a large effusion of blood upon the brain and spinal marrow. A violent blow with the fist might have caused such injuries.

Cross-examined: The prisoner was going to make a statement to me immediately after the death of his wife, but I referred him to the police. The effusion of blood was the immediate cause of death. I do not think such extensive effusion of blood as there was in this case could have been produced by the efforts of the woman in a passion; it could only have been caused by some external violence; the skin was not broken; there was a bruise under the left eye, but that was not the cause of the effusion of blood.

Mr. Cooke said that in the face of such medical testimony it was useless for him to endeavour to prove that manslaughter had not been committed. He, therefore, submitted to a verdict of guilty; he had, however, been requested to state that the deceased upbraided the prisoner for being in the public-house; that words ensued, and that she struck him, and seized him by the collar; that he defended himself; that in the scuffle she got across the rails, and the melancholy result followed which caused her death.

The jury then returned a verdict of guilty. In reply to his lordship, the prisoner stated that he had one child. His Lordship, in passing sentence, said the learned counsel had acted most properly in at once submitting to a verdict of guilty. Addressing the prisoner, his Lordship said, the facts showed that he had indulged in a very violent degree of passion, not at all justified by the circumstances. There might have been some violence on her part towards him, but that could not justify him in striking her in the barbarous manner he had. Nothing could justify a man in raising his hand to a woman. He did not believe he had the intention of killing her, and he doubted not he afterwards lamented exceedingly the fatal result. He could not, however, pass a very light sentence, for people must be taught to restrain their passions. His Lordship then sentenced him to six months’ imprisonment.