Now! Then! Hairdresser John Kitching of Wellington Road, Hunslet (Leeds) misinterprets the disposal by the murderer of the corpse of rag merchant William Rothery in the Aire as the drowning of a dog

8 July 1840: Hairdresser John Kitching of Wellington Road, Hunslet (Leeds) misinterprets the disposal by the murderer of the corpse of rag merchant William Rothery in the Aire as the drowning of a dog

Leeds Mercury. 1840/07/11. Barbarous Murder at Leeds. Leeds. Get it:

Excerpt

On Tuesday morning last, about a quarter or twenty minutes before three o’clock, I had occasion to get up, in consequence of the illness of a child. I looked out of the window, and observed a man near the suspension bridge, on this side of the river, apparently looking into the Monkpits. I looked out again in a short time, and then the person was stood upon the bank fronting the river. I thought it was the same person, as I saw no other man. I observed him throw a large bulk into the water which made a very great splash. I then stood upon a chair, and saw him stoop down to the water side, as if he was either pulling something out or pushing it further in. I did not remain in that position above two or three seconds. He then picked something up from the ground, and ran away as fast as he could towards Leeds. I thought from the view I had of him he was a tall man, and from the speed with which he ran I took him to be a young man. I could not distinguish his dress. My first impression was that a dog had been thrown into the water, but I afterwards thought it was too great a splash. On the following morning, two men passed my shop, and I heard them say that a man had been found in the river, with his throat cut. I am almost confident that the man must have been murdered first, as there was no struggle when the object was thrown into the water. I should think two minutes would elapse between my seeing the man on the bridge and on the bank of the river.

Order the book

Subscribe to the free daily email

To facilitate reading, the spelling and punctuation of elderly excerpts have generally been modernised, and distracting excision scars concealed. My selections, translations, and editions are copyright.

Abbreviations

Comment

Kitching’s evidence is confusing:

His “Tuesday morning” must have been Wednesday morning, or the body would surely no longer have been losing blood. One would have thought too that it would have been discovered on Tuesday, since there is no evidence that it was weighted.
Though I have followed the Mercury in altering his “canal” to “river,” he must have known the difference.
Could he really have seen anything much at 3 in the morning over a distance of 400m? (Here‘s a slightly later map overlaid on OpenStreetMap – fiddle with the transparency.)

More on the Monk Pits Bridge / Monk Bridge.

Something to say? Get in touch

Original

BARBAROUS MURDER AT LEEDS.

We regret to state that this town, so deservedly distinguished for the absence of atrocious crimes, has this week been disgraced by an horrid murder, which, as far as the progress yet made in the inquiry extends, is involved in perfect mystery.

The unfortunate victim of this crime is William Reynolds Rothery, about twenty years of age, a dealer in rags, who resided alone in a house in Holbeck-lane. He left his home about noon on Thursday, the 2nd instant, and sold a quantity of rags to Mr. John Kirk, in Meadow-lane, for which he received about £1 4s. He was afterwards seen at the Anchor Inn, Hunslet, about nine o’clock the same night, in company with a young man, with whom he left, and from that time till Wednesday morning last nothing whatever was heard of him, when the body of a man, which afterwards proved to be that of the deceased, was discovered in the river Aire, near to the Monkpits Suspension Bridge, by some girls who were going to work shortly before six o’clock. The body was immediately taken out, conveyed to the Geldard Arms, Wortley-road, and searched, but nothing found upon it, excepting a few trifling articles, such as a box key, a comb, &c. &c. On examination of the person of the deceased, a frightful gash was discovered in the throat, of about two inches in depth and an inch and a half in width, which appeared to be caused by some sharp instrument having been plunged into the part in a perpendicular manner, and then worked across to the extent before described.

By whom this cold-blooded act has been committed, yet remains a secret. How the deceased spent his time from the night he was last seen to the discovery on Wednesday is equally a matter of mystery, but it would appear that the crime has been perpetrated very recently before the latter day, as from the opinion of the medical man (who, however, has not yet been examined) the body had not remained long in the water. It may be proper to state that his absence did not occasion any surprise among his relatives, as he was accustomed to leave home on business for three or four days together.

There were some facts elicited in the inquiry yesterday of a very extraordinary character. About three o’clock on Tuesday morning, Mr. John Kitching, a hair-dresser, had occasion to leave his bed in consequence of the illness of one of his children. The window of his bed room commands a distinct view of the suspension bridge and the bank of the river, and whilst up, he looked out and observed a man standing near the former place. He did not stop to observe him, but, attended to the child. In the course of about two minutes, he again looked out, and at the very moment, saw a man on the banks of the river, (whom he took to be the same as he had observed on the bridge) in the act of throwing what appeared to be a very heavy substance into the water, which occasioned a loud splash. The man afterwards stooped to the ground, as if to take something up, and then ran off with great speed towards Leeds. Mr. Kitching did not mention the circumstance to any person the following morning, as he supposed the splash was occasioned by the throwing in of a dog, it being a common practice for young men to repair to the river early in the morning for the purpose of making their dogs swim. It is singular, however, that the precise place which Mr Kitching subsequently pointed out as the one where the substance was thrown in, was that where the body was discovered. But the circumstance which occasions the greatest surprise is the discovery of a large butcher’s knife, quite new, and a towel, in a box in the house of the deceased. The weapon had evidently been very carefully washed, but the handle exhibited strong marks of blood, and the blade appeared dimmed, though it was difficult to say from what cause. The towel was also marked with blond as though the knife had been wiped upon it. The door was found locked when the search took place, and the key has not been discovered. No part of the furniture or other effects appeared to have been disturbed. Where the poor man was deprived of his life, whether in the house or at the water side, is matter for conjecture. There is one feature in the case which would favour the supposition that death had taken place before the body was thrown into the water, as, according to the evidence of one of the witnesses who saw him taken out, his right hand was in his pocket, so that no struggle can have taken place. Wherever the deed may have been perpetrated, it is most probable that plunder was the object of the murderer, as the deceased had saved nearly £40, but where he kept it is not known. Such are the features of this extraordinary case, as given in evidence at the inquest.

The Inquiry commenced on Thursday morning at the Geldard’s Arms, before John Blackburn, Esq. Coroner, and after viewing the body, by adjournment to the next morning. The following evidence was adduced:-

Joseph Rothery. – I am a butcher, and live in Holbeck. The deceased was my brother. He was a dealer in bones and rags, and lived in a house in Holbeck, by himself. He was 21 in January last. I do not know what money he had in his possession when he was last seen alive. I never was in the house during his life time. I last saw him a week since on Monday. He was first missing last Friday. I know nothing of his death. I do not know what furniture or other effects he had. I was on friendly terms with my brother. He worked at the glue trade for two or three years, and then came to me to learn to be a butcher, but he did not turn his mind to it, and left me about a fortnight before getting his money. I am not aware where he kept it. He had not a knife (a butcher’s knife) like the one now produced, when he left me. It seems to me to be a new one. I never saw it before. He was a very steady man. I never knew him go to a public house by himself. I cannot mention any circumstances connected with his death. He has been in the habit of going from home for three or four days together, and therefore his absence was not particularly noticed.

Thomas Rothery, another brother of the deceased, was examined, and stated that he never saw the knife produced in his brother’s possession, though he might have used it to cut up his rags. The witness believed he was on good terms with his brother Joseph.

James Watson, a potato dealer, deposed to the fact of accompanying the deceased to the warehouse of Mr. Kirk, in Meadow-lane, about noon on Thursday, the 2nd instant, for the purpose of selling a quantity of rags. At that time he talked of going to America. Witness left him at Mr. Kirk’s, and never saw him again alive. In answer to a question by a Juryman, Watson said he never knew that the deceased and his brother Joseph had any differences.

Mr. John Kirk, rag merchant, Meadow-lane, proved the fact of the deceased having sold him a quantity of rags, on the 2nd instant, and the payment for them, amounting to about £1 4d.

Mary Buckley.-I live on the Armley new road. About a quarter before six on Wednesday morning, I was going to my work. There was a girl standing near the canal who called me to her, saying she believed there was a man in the water. She shouted to some men and boys, who came and thought it was a dog. A boy of the name of George Austin went into the water, and with the assistance of a rall the man was got out. His right hand was in his breeches pocket, and it dropped by his side when he was being pulled out. His left hand was hanging down. His trousers were much torn.

George Austin, the boy who swam into the water, to assist in getting out the body, gave similar evidence. He did not observe the position of the man’s hands at the time.

William Heaton, a watchman, stated that he was on the opposite side of the river when the body was taken out. On being searched, a few trifling articles, such as a box-key, a comb, &c. were found in the pockets. Blood issued from a wound in his throat. The witness did not hear any remarks as to the position of the hands when taken out. The neck-handkerchief did not appear injured.

Nancy Kay, a woman who was accustomed to wash for the deceased, stated her belief that he and his brother Joseph never had any quarrel, and also that the latter was never in the house of the former. She added that the deceased had not told her where he kept his money.

John Chadwick, butcher, was examined, and stated that he met the deceased between two and three o’clock in the afternoon of the 2d instant, in Water-lane. He had an empty sack under his arm.

Joseph Ely.-I am foreman at Mr. Bower’s glue works, at Hunslet. I knew the deceased. He worked with me five or six weeks. I saw him last on Thursday night week. He was at the Anchor public-house. He was in the house when I went in. A young man was in his company, but I didn’t know who he was. They were both sat together drinking. When I went into the room he asked me to drink with him, and I did so. The other man drank the remainder, and asked me if they were to have any more. The deceased said, no, they would be going. The other man gave him a tap on the shoulder, and they left together. This was about ten minutes to nine. The deceased talked several times about going to America. He said England was worth nothing, and he would go. I asked him if he had made his money more or less? He said it was more. He didn’t say where he kept it. When the man asked him if he would pay for another pint, the deceased said he had no more money on him.

At this stage of the inquiry, Mr. T. P. Teale, surgeon, entered the room, and the knife before produced was shown to him. He detected blood on the handle, but could not say what had dimmed the blade. He also examined the towel, and was satisfied of the same appearances. A night-cap worn by the deceased was further produced, marked with blood in several parts.

Ely.-Deceased and the man appeared to be companions. I could tell the latter again if he were in the same dress. I have frequently seen him rambling about Hunslet. Rothery said he was going to Liverpool, but that we should see him again in the course of the week. He was perfectly sober, and a particularly careful and steady man. The stranger was sober, but appeared to be in a very deep study the whole of the time they were sat together. Rothery was always in very good spirits, and never given to despondency.

By a Juryman.-The deceased came to live with me in April last, and told me that his brother Joseph and himself quarrelled so much that he could no longer live with him.

By another Juryman.-The man who was with the deceased always appeared to be at a loose end, running errands, and never sticking to any particular kind of work. I noticed him the more at the Anchor Inn, because I thought that the deceased, being so careful, he would not be able to extract much from him in the way of drink.

Mary Bellamy, who lives next door to the deceased, was next sworn, but her evidence was immaterial.

Mr. John Kitching.-I am a hair-dresser, and reside in Wellington-road. On Tuesday morning last, about a quarter or twenty minutes before three o’clock, I had occasion to get up, in consequence of the illness of a child. I looked out of the window, and observed a man near the suspension bridge, on this side the canal, apparently looking into the Monkpits. I looked out again in a short time, and then the person was stood upon the bank fronting the canal. I thought it was the same person, as I saw no other man. I observed him throw a large bulk into the water which made a very great splash. I then stood upon a chair, and saw him stoop down to the water side, as if he was either pulling something out or pushing it further in. I did not remain in that position above two or three seconds. He then picked something up from the ground, and ran away as fast as he could towards Leeds. I thought from the view I had of him he was a tall man, and from the speed with which he ran I took him to be a young man. I could not distinguish his dress. My first impression was that a dog had been thrown into the water, but I afterwards thought it was too great a splash. On the following morning, two men passed my shop, and I heard them say that a man had been found in the river, with his throat cut. I went to the canal side, and in consequence of what I had heard I told the barman not to show me where the man was found, but I would point out the place where I saw something thrown in. I then pointed out the place, which proved to be the spot. [The witness here described from the room in which the jury were sitting, the place where the object was thrown in.] I am almost confident that the man must have been murdered first, as there was no struggle when the object was thrown into the water. I should think two minutes would elapse between my seeing the man on the bridge and on the bank of the canal.

By a Juryman.-I did not mention what I had seen to any person next morning. I frequently see young men with dogs at the canal early in a morning, and, therefore, I supposed it was a dog in this case.

Robert Bellamy, a hair-dresser, who lives next door to the deceased, stated that in consequence of the long absence of the latter, he went to his brother Joseph’s, and expressed his surprise that he had not come home. Joseph appeared to make very light of it, and said his brother was probably gone a rag-buying, and would spring up in due time. No further conversation took place between them.

This was the whole of the evidence adduced. The Coroner then suggested an adjournment to Monday evening, in order to allow time for the production of further evidence. The Foreman inquired why Mr. Teale had not been examined? Mr. Blackburn replied that it was important to have all the before taking Mr. Teale’s evidence, and as some important circumstances were likely to come out, he had thought it advisable to examine Mr. Teale at a future day. The inquiry was then adjourned to Monday evening, and the Jury and witnesses were bound over to appear.

2739 words.