Whybrow, Harriet Emily

Hertfordshire Mercury, 4th July 1914



At Cheshunt Police Court, George Anderson (59), a labourer, was charged with the wilful murder of Harriett Emily Whybrow by cutting her throat at Eleanor Cross Road on June 30th.  The Court was crowded for the hearing.

Detective Inspector Davis said that, initially, he only intended to call sufficient evidence to justify, at this stage, a remand.

Police Constable Darlington said that at 4:15pm on 30th June, he was on duty in Eleanor Cross Road when he received information from a lad, as a result of which he went to the Moulders Arms Public House where he saw the prisoner in the public bar.  The Constable said to him “What have you done?”  The defendant replied “She has been aggravating me for some time.  I don’t care if I hang.  Is she dead?”  The witness thereupon said “I arrest you for cutting a woman’s throat”, but the accused made no reply.  Whilst the witness was proceeding to search him, the accused handed him a large wooden-handled pocket knife (produced in court).  He then called a cab and conveyed the accused to Cheshunt Police Station where he was detained.

Inspector Davis said “That is all the evidence I propose to call today.  We shall be prepared to go fully into the case shortly”.

The Clerk asked the accused if he had any questions for the witness but the accused had a very dejected appearance, made no reply, and just shook his head.  He was remanded to Brixton prison.

The tragedy had occurred in Waltham New Town shortly after 4:00pm on the Tuesday afternoon as a result of which Harriett Emily Whybrow (31), wife of Joseph Whybrow, a labourer employed at the Royal Gunpowder factory, Waltham Abbey, succumbed to injuries inflicted upon her by her stepfather, George Anderson.  Both parties had been living at 213 High Street, Waltham Cross.  It appears that about a month ago, Anderson had lost his wife, who was the mother of the deceased.  Since then, there had been repeated domestic differences.  It is alleged that the parties had been on very intimate terms with one another, whilst Anderson had also been heard to make peculiar statements regarding the deceased woman’s character.  A short time ago, the deceased’s husband had told Anderson that he would have to leave the house, but the latter refused to quit.

On the Tuesday, Anderson and the deceased were seen to leave the house together in the morning, but their movements up until about 4pm were not known.  At that hour, they were seen in Eleanor Cross Road having a quarrel.  It is stated that Anderson was seen to take a knife out of his pocket.  He then seized the woman by the back of the neck and drew the knife across her throat.  She fell on her knees, whereupon Anderson closed the knife and placed it back in is pocket.

Mrs Hicks, of 130 Eleanor Cross Road, outside whose house the tragedy was enacted, heard the woman scream and, on going out to assist, heard the woman say “You are satisfied now you have cut my throat?”  Anderson then walked away in the direction of Waltham Cross Station.  He walked across the road and entered the Moulders Arms and ordered some drink but, before he was served, Police Constable Darlington, who had by this time been alerted, appeared on the scene and took him into custody.

Dr Halsted was called to the scene but, on arrival, pronounced the woman to be dead.  The wound inflicted was a terrible one on the right side of the neck, severing the jugular vein.  The principle witness to the tragedy was to be a youth from Edmonton who was selling bananas in the immediate vicinity at the time.  Divisional Detective Inspector Davis and Detective Sergeant Bishop were quickly upon the scene and continued making enquiries up until a late hour.  The scene of the murder was visited in the evening by a large crowd of people.

At the inquest, the coroner and the jury conducted an inquiry into the circumstances leading to the woman’s death.  The prisoner was not present and he was not represented.

Joseph Whybrow (31), the husband of the deceased, said that he had last seen his wife alive at 7:25am on the Tuesday.  He had then left her at home as he had to go to work.  At about 5pm, when he had left the factory, two police sergeants had told him that something had happened to his wife.  He went with them to the mortuary and it was there that he had seen her body.  He noticed the wound to her throat.

George Anderson and his wife had been living with them as lodgers.  Mrs Anderson had died on 9th June and since then Anderson had lived with them up until the Saturday when he had smashed the furniture about.  Anderson had told the deceased to get off a chair and that, if she did not, he would knock her on the head with the chopper that he held in his hand.  The witness took this from him and threw it on one side.

Anderson had left the house, and Mr Whybrow went to the police who advised Anderson to quit the house quietly.  He left the house on the Saturday, but on the following Monday he had followed the deceased and her husband up towards the Cross.  Mr Whybrow did not, then, know there was anything wrong with the relationship between his wife and the accused.

Philip Henry Rodwell (14), of Edmonton, said that he had been in Eleanor Cross Road on the Tuesday selling bananas when he had seen a man and a woman having a quarrel.  He saw the man fetch out a knife, open it, hold the woman by the back of the neck, and draw the blade across her throat.  The woman had screamed.  The man had gone into a beer shop, and the witness had told a constable who had been nearby.  He pointed the man out to the constable who then arrested the accused.

Police Constable Baker said that he had seen the woman lying in the front garden of 130 Eleanor Cross Road.  She had had her throat cut.  He had called for Doctor Halsted who had pronounced life extinct.  The body was conveyed to Cheshunt Mortuary.  On the Wednesday, PC Baker had conveyed the accused to Stoke Newington Police Station and, whilst waiting for a train at Cheshunt railway station, Anderson had said “I wish it had never happened.  Sure, I shall get hung for it.”

Mrs Emma Whitbread, of 211 High Street, Waltham Cross, said that she had known the deceased for over 5 years.  She had lived next door to them.  She had seen Anderson every day for the last month.  He had only worked one day.  He had been drinking heavily.  She had frequently seen Anderson and the deceased in the house together after Mr Whybrow had gone to work.  She had seen them “very close together”.  Mrs Whybrow had told her on the Saturday that there had been a serious quarrel in the house.  Anderson had grabbed her by the neck.  When Mr Whybrow returned home, he took up the matter, and also advised the police.  Anderson had got hold of the chopper and had said that if they did not get out of his way he would “do for” them both.

Anderson had slept that night in the back garden where he had remained quietly all day on the Sunday.  On the Sunday and Monday nights, he had slept in the neighbours’ wash-house, but it was on the Tuesday morning, at about 8am, that he had gone into the Whybrows’ house and from where they could not get rid of him.  Mrs Whitbread identified the knife (produced in court) as the one that Anderson had lent to her husband about a fortnight previously.  A juror asked if Anderson had been quarrelling with the deceased before the death, and Mr Whybrow said “Yes, he was a nuisance to the neighbourhood”.

Dr Halsted confirmed that he had attended at the scene of death, that he had certified death, that there had been a large wound to the neck, and that there had been a lot of blood about.  He confirmed that the wound was about 6-7 inches long, and had been the reason for the haemorrhage, the cause of death.

The coroner, in summing up, said that it was a very serious case but not one on which it was difficult to come to a decision upon as the evidence was very plain and direct.  The jury were unanimous in returning a verdict of ‘wilful murder’ against George Anderson who was then committed to stand trial at the next Hertford Assizes.

At the following Assizes hearing, Mr Pashney, who appeared for the Director of Public Prosecutions, characterised the crime as a deliberate and well thought out one.

The evidence previously given by both P.C. Darlington and Mrs Emma Whitbread was read over.  Mrs Whitbread added that Mr Whybrow, going to work at about 7:00am, always returned at about 6:00pm.  Mrs Whybrow remained at the house with the prisoner.  She had seen them “very loving together”.  On Saturday 27th June, between 11am and 12 noon, she had seen the deceased sitting on his lap.  Mr Whybrow, however, came home on that day at about 1pm and, during the afternoon, there had been some fighting and quarrelling.  Between 5pm and 6pm she had been standing outside the Whybrows’ house looking into their kitchen.  She had been about a yard from the door. Both the prisoner and the Whybrows were in the kitchen.  She saw the prisoner strike at Whybrow with his hand and she heard the prisoner say “I will kill the pair of you if I get hold of you”.  He then picked up a chopper from the floor, but Whybrow snatched it out of his hand and threw it back to the floor.  Mr Whybrow then picked it up again and handed it to the witness asking her to take it away.  She did take it away, but returned and again saw the prisoner striking at Mr Whybrow, to whom she had said “You had better fetch a policeman”.

The prisoner slept that night in the lavatory in the Whybrows’ back garden, but she saw the prisoner again on the Monday morning, in the Whybrows’ house, at about 8:30am.  He was seated on a chair with Mrs Whybrow on his lap.  She saw them again on the Tuesday morning, in the house, drinking some beer together, out of the same glass.  On the same day, at about 1:00pm, she had heard the sounds of a scuffle.  At about 1:30pm, she heard more noise, and then something banged against the wall that separated their respective kitchens such that all the glasses in her cabinet then shook.  She went back to the Whybrows’ kitchen door and saw both the prisoner and the deceased in the kitchen.  He was pushing her about.  The witness said “Whatever are you doing of?” and Mrs Whybrow replied “My life is a fair misery to me”.  The prisoner did not speak.

At about 3pm, she had walked past the Whybrows’ kitchen door again, and had seen the prisoner lying, on his side, on a couch with Mrs Whybrow lying on the same couch facing him.  At that same time, Mrs Dennis passed by and made a remark about it.  Shortly afterwards, Mrs Whybrow had come to her kitchen and the witness had brushed her dress down.  The prisoner was still in the Whybrows’ house.

Mr Whybrow went out at about 3:30pm leaving Anderson behind in the house.  The witness spoke to Mrs Burton who lived at No 215 who had heard the prisoner “sharpen something”.  She had also heard Anderson say “That’ll do nicely”.  She later saw Mrs Whybrow walking towards Waltham Cross with the prisoner following behind her, and that was the last she saw of them.

Joseph Whybrow confirmed the the prisoner’s wife had died on 9th June and that since then he had been on the drink.  On 27th June, a quarrel had taken place between the prisoner and the deceased.  The witness had been present and had heard the prisoner accuse his wife of having been “amongst the show people”.  There was a fair taking place at the time in a field close to the cottage.  The accused had said to her “You can go along with the show people”.  He had picked up a chopper, and had also taken hold of a chair to take it outside to break it up.  It was a home-made chair.  The accused returned indoors and asked Mr Whybrow to get off a chair that he was sitting on at the time.  He had said “If you don’t get off that chair, I’ll kill you with this chopper”.  The witness took the chopper away from the accused and then went for the police.

He returned with a Constable, but the accused was then quiet and was thus not put into custody.  The witness refused to have the accused in his house anymore and helped to put his furniture outside.  He saw the prisoner next at about 7:30pm on the Monday evening as he and his wife were leaving the house.  The prisoner had followed them and had said “I am sorry I have done all this”, to which the witness repied “It’s your own fault”. That was the last the witness saw of the accused.

Dr Clark, the police divisional surgeon, said that he had gone to the Cheshunt Mortuary, had seen the body of a woman, and had made a partial examination only of the body because it was clothed.  On the throat, there was a wound extending from behind the angle of the right jaw and forward to a position about 1.5 inches across the middle line of the larynx.  The right jugular vein was almost divided.  The cause of death was loss of blood.  It was possible that the knife (produced) had caused the wound.  On the same evening, he had gone to the Police Station where he had seen the accused who had been drinking but was not drunk.  The prisoner had said to him “I would rather not speak”.

Phillip Rodwell (14), of Edmonton, reiterated his evidence.  He also confirmed that he had picked the knife out from a number of knives displayed at the police station.

Mrs Charlotte Hicks, of 130 Eleanor Cross Road, also reiterated her earlier evidence.  She said that she had run into her front garden and had seen the accused in the process of closing a knife.  She had seen a woman with her head down, leaning against a gate, who had said to the prisoner  “You are satisfied now that you have cut my throat?”  The witness said “You beast, see what you have done”.  The prisoner had then walked away, but the witness had seen him later with a constable.

P.C. Baker confirmed his earlier evidence about conveying the prisoner to Stoke Newington.

Divisional Detective Inspector Thomas Davies, of Stoke Newington, said that on 30th June he had proceeded to Cheshunt Police Station where he had sent the prisoner.  He charged him with the wilful murder of Harriett Emily Whybrow.  The prisoner had sighed deeply and had said “Oh, dear”.

This was the case for the prosecution, and the prisoner was committed to stand trial at the next Assizes for the County of Hertford in November.  The prisoner, who had a most dejected appearance, was brought from Brixton prison by Warrant Officer Pearce and Police Constable Lambert.  He seemed to take little interest in the proceedings and when asked if he had any questions to put to the witnesses, he remained quite indifferent.

He was subsequently removed to St Albans prison.

At the following County Assizes, on the Saturday morning, George Anderson (59), of Waltham Cross, a nursery hand, stood trial for the murder of his step-daughter, Harriett Emily Whybrow, a married woman, 21 years of age, by cutting her throat with a pocket knife in Eleanor Cross Road on Tuesday, 30th June.  When asked to plead, Anderson said “I didn’t do it intentionally”.  In his speech for the prosecution, Mr Jones told the jury that they would find that the facts of the case were hardly in dispute.  Anderson was charged with the wilful murder of a daughter of his wife by a former marriage.  On 9th June, when his wife died, the Andersons had been living with the Whybrows for about 2 years.  Anderson remained on in the house with his step-daughter and her husband.  After his wife’s death, Anderson appeared to have been engaged in no occupation, but to have given way to drink and on divers occasions having been seen the worse for liquor.

The Whybrows lived in the centre house of a block of three where, on either side, the partitions admitted the sounds being heard in the adjoining houses.  The Whybrows occupied no 213 High Street, Waltham Cross, and the tenants of No 211 were a Mr and Mrs Whitbread.  (At this point, plans of the houses were handed in, with copies being passed to members of the jury).  Mrs Whitbread would say that she heard sounds of a quarrel between Anderson and Mrs Whybrow on the morning of the murder.  It would be seen from the plans that it was quite possible for anyone to watch what was taking place in No 213 from the position that Mrs Whitbread would say that she took up.  A few days previously, Anderson had been turned out of the house by the husband, but he continued to sleep in a nearby out-house, and to see the woman during the day when Whybrow was at work.  On 30th June, after having had several drinks, Anderson and Mrs Whybrow went out for a walk in the afternoon, and it was then that Anderson was seen by a boy to take out his pocket knife and cut Mrs Whybrow’s throat.

Police Constable Alfred Land gave evidence to having prepared the plans referred to.

Joseph Whybrow, an employee in the Royal Gunpowder factory, Waltham Abbey, husband of the deceased, said that on the Saturday before the murder, the prisoner acted in such a violent manner in the house that he fetched a policeman to pacify him.  Later, the witness told Anderson that he must “..clear out” and take his things away.  The trouble had been caused by the prisoner taking one of his own chairs into the grden and breaking it up with a chopper, afterwards returning to the house and waving the chopper in a threatening way.  The witness had not seen Mr Anderson all day on the Sunday, but on the Monday evening the witness went out with his wife and noticed that the defendant was following on behind.  In reply to a question, the witness agreed that the prisoner had been drinking heavily since his wife’s death.

Mrs Emma Whitbread, a neighbour, described the events of the morning of the murder.  Anderson visited Mrs Whybrow, and he stayed with her until they went out at about 2:30pm.  For some time they appeared to be quarrelling and were very noisy.  Several times, one or the other went out to get beer and, on one occasion, at their request, the witness fetched them a pint of beer.  The witness had a good view of them in the room together.  Later in the morning, they appeared to be on affectionate terms.  Shortly after the dispute, the witness heard Anderson sharpening a knife on a stone but she could not see the instrument to describe it.

Phillip Henry Rodwell, of St Marys Road, Edmonton, said that he was hawking bananas from door to door in Eleanor Cross Road at about 4pm on 30th June, and noticed the prisoner standing face to face with a woman with whom he conversed.  The witness could not hear what was said but, as he passed behind the pair to enter the gate of a house, the prisoner took out a pocket knife, opened it behind his back, seized the woman by the back of the neck with his left hand, and drew the blade across her throat.  The woman sank to the ground, and cried “Fetch the police”.  The prisoner walked away, and entered a public house where later, in company with a policeman, the witness identified him.

Mrs Charlotte Hicks, of 130 Eleanor Cross Road, said that she saw Mrs Whybrow lying against the tree by the gate of her house and heard the deceased say “You have cut my throat.  Now are you satisfied?”  The prisoner had made no reply, and had walked away.  The witness led the woman into the garden and rendered her assistance.

Police Constable Darlington gave evidence as to arresting Anderson, who had said “I don’t care if I hang.  Is she dead?”  At this point, the defendant’s counsel added “The prisoner had had drink, but was coherent”.

Police Constable Frank Baker said that he escorted the prisoner from Cheshunt to Stoke Newington and, in a waiting room, Anderson had said to him, “I wish I had never done it.  I suppose I’ve got to hang for it.”

Dr.Clarke, Divisional Surgeon, Cheshunt, said the wound in the throat was from 1 inch to 1 and a quarter inches in length, on the left side.  The larynx was uninjured, but the jugular vein was three parts severed.  When the witness said to Anderson “This is a bad business”, he replied “I don’t want to think about it”.

Divisional Inspector Thomas Davis said that when charged at Cheshunt, the prisoner had said “Oh dear”.

This concluded the evidence for the prosecution.

Mr Bernard, the defendant’s Counsel, said that he would call the defendant only.  Thus, in the course of his evidence, Anderson said that on the Tuesday morning Mrs Whybrow and he had had about 5 pints of beer between them and, after leaving the house, they had called at two public houses and both had half a pint of beer at each.  As they were walking along the road, the deceased had said to him “I want you to pawn that suit of clothes on Saturday”.  Upon his refusal, the deceased had abused him, and he had said to her “I’m going to turn back if you keep on like this”.  They continued their walk, but the deceased frequently nudged him with her elbow.  The witness had been cutting a cake of tobacco with his pocket knife and was about to fill his pipe.  To free himself from her attentions, he swung round to get out of her way, and the knife caught the woman’s throat.  The witness did not see the boy, nor could he remember what followed, until the policeman spoke to him in the public house and, as he heard people saying that the woman was dying, he asked “Is she dead?”

The judge said “He was too dazed to go to the woman’s assistance.  He had no recollection of walking away”.

In the course of his speech for the defence, Mr Bernard laid stress on the fact that according to the medical evidence, although the wound was capable of having been inflicted by the clasp knife as produced, the doctor agreed that the single blade was not keen, and that this did not bear out the theory of the prosecution that the knife had been sharpened expressly to commit the murder.  The fact that the act occurred on a much frequented street with houses on both sides likewise discountenanced the theory of premeditation.  The evidence of the young boy was not clear as to the actual position in which the defendant and the young woman were standing when the act was committed, and the prisoner’s plea that the affair was an accident received some support from this.  As to the prisoner’s behaviour after the act, a man in such a state of mind as he could hardly be expected to regulate his conduct in the most approved manner.

The judge, in summing up, said that although young people might often fancy they had actually seen what they felt sure must have happened, yet at other times they could portray events with an almost photographic attention to detail.  It was not possible to state with certainty the nature of the relations between the prisoner and the deceased.  Whatever his state of mind, it was clear that the prisoner walked away and left the woman to die like a dog, without attention or care of any sort.

After 20 minutes, the jury returned a verdict of wilful murder.  In sentencing Anderson to death, the judge told him that he had been found guilty on the clearest possible evidence of the murder of a young woman whom it should have been his duty to protect.   The murder had been carried out in a heartless and brutal manner, and that no excuse could be found for him.

Throughout the trial, Anderson, a strongly built man, with grey hair, had gazed straight ahead.  He had been given a chair and, after leaving the witness box for the remainder of the trial, had leaned forward in the dock in such a position that he was hidden from view.

At the beginning of December, on the Monday, in the Court of Criminal Appeal, Justices Darling, Lush and Atkin heard the appeal of George Anderson, a labourer of Waltham Cross who, at the Hertfordshire Assizes, was sentenced by Mr. Justice Lawrence to death for murdering his step-daughter, Harriet Emily Whybrow, at Cheshunt on 30th June last, by cutting her throat with a knife.  The appeal was against conviction.  The prisoner was not present in court.  Mr Bernard, counsel for the appellant, was proceeding to relate to the history of the crime when Mr Justice Darling interposed with the remark that counsel could take it that they had carefully read all the evidence for they had had before them the shorthand notes of what transpired at the trial.

Continuing, Counsel said that one of the principal witnesses for the prosecution was a neighbour, a Mrs Whitbread, who said that one day she had heard a noise as of a knife or razor being sharpened.  The judge had attached considerable importance to that evidence, and had pointed out to the jury that he could see on the knife a number of diagonal scratches which might point to the fact that the knife had been sharpened, although badly and imperfectly.  He (Counsel), perhaps because of the failing light, could not detect any such scratches, but the judge had made a point of the scratches to the jury.

Mr Justice Atkin said “In the summing up, the judge does not seem to attach a great deal of importance to the matter”, and Mr Bernard replied “If the jury paid proper attention to the summing up they were practically bound to think that the man sharpened the knife for the purpose of killing the woman, for the statement was absolutely conclusive against the prisoner”.

Mr Justice Darling said “Suppose the man had sharpened the knife for the purpose of cutting something, that would not be evidence against him of intention to commit a crime. There is a great gap between sharpening a knife and cutting a woman’s throat”.  Mr Bernard agreed.  The evidence that brought that matter so much to light, he said, was that of a woman who was not altogether a friend of the prisoner’s, for he (Counsel) had ascertained since the trial that Mrs Whitbread and the prisoner had quarrelled, and the prisoner had threatened her.  At any rate, she had summoned him before the magistrates and he had been fined 10s.  Mr Justice Darling said “Suppose you had had that information and all these facts before you at the trial, would you have cross-examined her?”, and Mr Bernard said that he thought he would have done so because, if the man did use threatening language, it was not of the character that meant anything.  “Your Lordships”, he added, “must remember that he was a hard drinker”.  Mr Justice Darling asked “But would you have told the jury that the prisoner had been fined 10s for using threats against a woman?”, and Mr Bernard replied “A 10s threat is not a serious one”.  (There was laughter in the Court).  Mr Justice Darling responded “It is for a labourer”.

Further attacking the judge’s summing up, Counsel agreed that Mrs Whybrow’s husband said that there was very little quarrelling between his wife and the prisoner in his house, but on one occasion the prisoner was chopping up a chair when he had said to Mrs Whybrow “Get off that chair or I’ll hit you with the chopper”.  At the same time, he (Counsel) contended that the judge in one part of the summing up threw the onus on the prisoner to prove that he did not intend to do the felonious act.  Mr Justice Darling, however, could not assent to that proposition.  “All the judge did”, he observed, “was to tell the jury that, in the event of certain circumstances, they could find such and such a verdict, whilst in other circumstances they could find a verdict of a different character.

Mr Bernard said “But in spite of it all, they were not told under what circumstances they could find the man ‘not guilty’ “.  He desired to impress on the Court the fact that the judge in his summing up also misrepresented the evidence of a boy named Rodwell.  That boy told a story which proved that the prisoner’s statement was a physically possible one, viz. that he committed the act through an accident, but the judge so mis-stated the facts that the prisoner’s story seemed incredible.  The boy had said that when he saw the prisoner and the woman in the road they were standing face to face.  The judge had said in his summing up that the pair were walking along the road side by side.  The prisoner’s story was that he was cutting up some tobacco with his knife and the woman had caught hold of his arm.  He had attempted to throw her off and, in doing so, accidentally cut her jugular vein with his knife.  The judge, by the way that he stated the facts as given by the boy in his evidence, made the prisoner’s story appear to be an impossible one.  Mr Justice Darling said “But Rodwell said more than that.  He also said he saw the man pull the knife from his pocket, open it behind him and, putting his arm around the woman’s neck, cut her throat with it”.

Delivering the judgement of the Court, Mr Justice Darling said the judge had summed up the case accurately and fully.  The evidence of the boy, Rodwell, which was of vital importance to the presentation, was to the effect that he saw the prisoner and his victim walking along the road.  They stopped and faced each other and the prisoner opened a knife behind his back, threw one arm around the woman’s neck, and cut her throat.  The boy was able to see that because he walked round the pair, partly for curiosity as to what the man was going to do with the knife, and partly because he was going to deliver some goods at a house nearby.  The prisoner could not deny that he cut the woman’s throat with the knife, but he said it was an accident.  “We were quarrelling”, he said “and I wanted to get away from her and, swinging my arm round, I accidentally cut her throat with my knife”.  He told that story for the first time at the Assizes, and the story seemed to be an absolutely impossible one.  It could not be denied that the woman cried out “You are satisfied now that you have cut my throat?”, while the prisoner walked away in an absolutely callous manner to a public house nearby, a course of conduct that was inconsistent with his story that the whole affair was an accident.  When arrested, the prisoner said “She has been aggravating me for some time, and I don’t care if I hang for it”.  There was not the slightest ground for allowing the appeal, concluded his Lordship, and the appeal would be dismissed.

Unless a reprieve is granted in the meantime, George Anderson, the Waltham Cross murderer, would be executed at St Albans gaol on Wednesday, 23rd December 1914.

George Anderson was executed at St Albans prison on Wednesday morning, at 8:00am.  Ellis, of Bolton, was the executioner, assisted by Brown, of Exeter.  There were present Mr Philip Longmore, Deputy Under-Sheriff, and his assistants, Mr S.S. Squires and Mr G. Worboys,  Dr. Lipscomb, the prison medical officer, and Dr Chadwick, the prison chaplain.  Very little interest was taken in the event, and only a few soldiers billeted in the town were outside the prison when the black flag was hoisted.

The customary inquest was afterwards held, and a verdict that the deceased had met his death according to law was returned.


This page was added on 15/11/2014.

Add your comment about this page

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Start the ball rolling by posting a comment on this page!