London, United Kingdom
Sunday, 30 September 1888
Another Startling Discovery.
On Friday morning, at about half past seven o'clock, a horrible discovery was made in Southwark, which tallies with the late discovery at Pimlico. It appears that a lad was walking along the Lambeth road, and passing the Blind School, which has a garden protected by railings, he noticed a curiously shaped paper parcel which was lying on the grass inside the railings. he had managed to obtain possession of the parcel, and upon opening it to his horror found it to contain the arm of a woman. It was somewhat decomposed, and had lime thrown over it. The attention of a policeman of the L Division was immediately called, and he took the limb to Lambeth Police Station, in the Kennington lane.
A bricklayer named Jim Moore said to as reporter:-
"At about a quarter past seven o'clock this (Friday) morning I was walking along Lambeth road, when I saw a boy pick up a parcel through the railings which surround the Blind school. He was opening it when I went up and saw the arm of a young woman, which had been put in lime."
The licensed shoeblack who stands at the corner of a public house facing the Blind school said:-
"Seeing some people round a parcel which had been fished out of the garden I went over. The parcel lay opened, and I saw the arm of a woman which had been cut from the body. It was decomposed and had been laid in lime. The fingers were clutched."
In the course of his summing up at the inquest on the body of Annie Chapman, the coroner made a statement to the jury which throws a possible new light of an entirely unexpected kind upon two at least of the four fearful crimes which have been popularly included in the now historic term, "The Whitechapel Murders." Mr. Wynne Baxter stated in effect that it had come to his knowledge on unimpeachable testimony, that some months ago a request was made by an American to the authorities of more than one of the London hospitals for a number of specimens of the particular organ which was missing from the body of the unfortunate Chapman. The American professed to wish to issue a specimen of that organ with every copy of a work on which he was engaged; and he offered as much as £20 a piece for them. Here, then, we have at once a possible solution of the mystery. As the coroner said, "the object of the murderer appears palpably shown by the facts, and it is not necessary to assume lunacy, for it is clear that there is a market for the missing organ." Take the fact of such a proposal having been made, and connect with it the very considerable knowledge of the anatomy of the human body displayed by the murderer, who, says the coroner, "must have been one accustomed to the post mortem room." What is, at first sight, the obvious conclusion? That some abandoned villain, who had himself been asked to provide these specimens, or who knew that they were desired, deliberately started out to assassinate wretched women for the sake of the considerable sum offered for each specimen. This theory, horrible as it is, is undoubtedly strengthened by the fact that the murderer evidently knew exactly how to compress the throat of his victim in such a way as to prevent a single cry escaping and to produce strangulation. Furthermore, the case of Nicholls the Buck's row victim, indicates that she, too, was murdered with the same ghastly intention though the assassin was unable to complete his work on her dead body and carry off that which he sought. As to the two previous murders and the one at Gateshead they can on this theory have no connection with the cases of Nicholls and Chapman for the injuries inflicted did not point to any attempt to do anything but hack and mutilate the bodies with blind and savage fury.
While, however, admitting to the full importance of the clue which is now in the possession of the, as yet, baffled police we cannot but think that there is a disposition on the part of the press and the public to jump immediately to the conclusion that the mystery ahs been solved except as concerns the detection of the actual criminal. It is only natural that this disposition should exist. After the painful suspense of the past weeks, and the utter absence of any trace of the assassin, the public mind rests with a sense of relief on any coherent explanation of the motive of these fantastic exploits in assassination. For that very reason, that we are all so anxious to solve the problem, we should all remember that the proposed solution is as yet but a theory. And plausible as that theory is, there is yet a good deal to be said against it. The persons who take it as proved that some one who knew that certain specimens were wanted set forth at once to slay his fellow creatures in order to obtain them seemed to imagine that the specimens could be obtained in no other way. That is utterly erroneous.
Of course, the authorities of a hospital would never consent to provide them; anything of the kind would be a flagrant transgression of the rule which obtains, we believe, at all such institutions that no portions of the human body may in any circumstance be taken outside the hospital. Nowadays, a medical student who wants to remove a specimen for dissection or study must do so more or less surreptitiously, and no such request as that of which the coroner was informed could possible, we undertake to say, be granted by any responsible official. But it requires no very intimate knowledge of the ways of hospitals to understand that there are always a certain number of irresponsible underlings about the place who, for a sufficient consideration would undertake to procure specimens of any organ in the human body. Assuming it to be known in any one of our large hospitals that there was £20 to be had as the price of a small organ such as the one in question, there would be no lack of persons ready to get possession of specimens in a more or less legitimate way of the thing required. The last plan which would occur to any one connected with a hospital would be murder of this kind, with all its risk of detection. We admit that there is much to be said at first sight for the theory, and we are also aware that the unexpected happens more frequently in criminal than in many other matters. But, without losing sight of those considerations, we are far from satisfied, for the reasons we have alleged that the latest theory, which has succeeded to so many others, is really correct.
Joseph Woods, the son of a publican, was charged at the Portsmouth Police Court on Thursday with assaulting a woman named Candey, at midnight on Tuesday last. Candey stated that the prisoner took hold of her in a disgraceful manner in the street, and produced a knife. She then asked him if he was the Whitechapel murderer, to which he replied in the affirmative. She then blew a whistle which, she said, she had always carried since the Whitechapel tragedies, and a policeman came to her assistance. The prisoner told the constable that he had frightened the woman by telling her he was the Whitechapel murderer. The magistrates regarded the matter as a stupid freak, and bound the prisoner over to keep the peace.
INQUEST ON ANNIE CHAPMAN.
Startling Disclosures - A Revolting Theory.
The inquest respecting the death of Annie Chapman, whose body was found in a mutilated state in the back yard of the house, 29 Hanbury street, Spitalfields, about six o'clock on the morning of the 8th inst., was resumed on Wednesday afternoon by Mr. Wynne E. Baxter and a jury, at the Working Lads' Institute, Whitechapel road.
The coroner, in the course of an elaborate and very remarkable summing up, said:
I congratulate you, gentlemen of the jury, that your labours are now nearly completed. Although up to the present they have not resulted in the detection of the criminal, I have no doubt that if the perpetrator of this foul murder is eventually discovered our efforts will not have been useless.
Deceased was a widow, 47 years old, named Annie Chapman. Her husband was a coachman living at Windsor. For three or four years before his death she had lived apart from her husband, who allowed her 10s. a week until his death at Christmas, 1886. She had evidently lived an immoral life for some time, and her habits and surroundings had become worse since her means had failed. She no longer visited her relations, and her brother had not seen her for five months when she borrowed a small sum from him. She lived principally in the common lodging houses in the neighbourhood of Spitalfields, where people herd like cattle. She showed signs of great deprivation, as if she had been badly fed. The glimpses of life in those dens which the evidence in this case discloses is sufficient to make us feel that there is much in the nineteenth century civilisation of which we have small reason to be proud; but you who are constantly called together to hear the sad tale of starvation, or semi starvation, of
which some of the occupants of the 5,000 beds in this district have every week to relate at coroners' inquests, do not require to be reminded of what life in a Spitalfields lodging house means. It was in one of these that the older bruises found on the temple and in front of the chest of the deceased were received, in a trumpery quarrel, a week before her death. It was in one of these that she was seen a few hours before her mangled remains were discovered. On the afternoon and evening of Friday, September 7th, she divided her time partly in such a place as 35 Dorset street, and partly in the Ringers public house - where she spent whatever money she had; so that between one and two in the morning of Saturday, when the money for her bed is demanded, she is obliged to admit that she is without means, and at once turns out into the street to find it. She leaves there at 1.45 a.m. She is seen off the premises by the night watchman, and is observed to turn down Little Paternoster row into Brushfield street, and not in the more direct direction of Hanbury street. On her wedding finger she was wearing two or three rings, which appear to have been palpably of base metal, as the witnesses are all clear about their material and value. We now lose sight of her for about four hours, but at half past five, Mrs. Long is in Hanbury street on her way from home in Church street, Whitechapel, to Spitalfields market. She walked on the northern side of the road going westward, and remembers having seen a man and a woman standing a few yards from the place where the deceased was afterwards found. And. although she did not know Annie Chapman, she is positive that that woman was the deceased. The two were talking loudly, but not sufficiently so as to arouse her suspicions that there was anything wrong. The words she overheard were calculated to do so. The laconic inquiry of the man,
and the simple assent of the woman, viewed in the light of subsequent events, can be easily translated and explained. Mrs. Long passed on her way and neither saw nor heard anything more of her, and this is the last time she is known to have been alive. She was found dead about six o'clock. She was not in the yard when Richardson was there at 4.50 a.m. She was talking outside the house at half past five when Mrs. Long passed them. Cadosh says it was about 5.20 when he was in the back yard of the adjoining house, and heard a voice say "No," and three or four minutes afterwards a fall against the fence; but if he out of his reckoning but a quarter of an hour, the discrepancy in the evidence of facts vanishes, and he may be mistaken, for he admits that he did not get up till a quarter past five, and that it was only after the half hour when he passed Spitalfields clock. It is true that Dr. Phillips thinks that when he saw the body at 6.30 the deceased had been dead at least two hours, but he admits that the coldness of he morning and the great loss of blood may affect his opinion; and if the evidence of the other witnesses be correct, Dr. Phillips has miscalculated the effect of those forces. But many minutes after Mrs. Long passed them cannot have elapsed before a mutilated corpse in the yard of 29 Hanbury street, close by where she was last seen by any witness.
This place is a fair sample of a large number of houses in the neighbourhood. It was built, like hundreds of others, for the Spitalfields weavers, and when hand looms were driven by steam power, these were converted into dwellings for the poor. Its size is about such as a superior artisan would occupy in the country, but its condition is such as would to a certainty leave it without a tenant. In this place seventeen persons were living, from a woman and her son, sleeping in a cat's meat shop on the ground floor, to Davis and his wife and their three grown up sons, all sleeping together in an attic. The street door and the yard door were never locked, and the passage and the yard appear to have been constantly used by people who had no legitimate business there. There is little doubt that the deceased knew the place, for it was only 300 or 400 yards from where she lodged. If so, it is quite unnecessary to assume that her companion had any knowledge - in fact, it is easier to believe that he was ignorant both of the nest of living beings by whom he was surrounded, and of their occupations and habits. Some were on the move late at night, some were up long before the sun. A carman named Thompson left the house for his work as early as 3.50 a.m.; an hour later John Richardson was paying the house a visit of inspection; shortly after 5.15 Cadosh, who lived in the next house, was in the adjoining yard twice. Davis, the carman, who occupied the third floor front, heard the church clock strike a quarter to six, got up, had a cup of tea, and went into the back yard, and was horrified to find the mangled body of the deceased. It was then a little after 6 a.m. - a very little, for at ten minutes past the hour Inspector Chandler had been informed of the discovery while on duty in Commercial street. There is nothing to suggest that the deceased was not fully
It is true that she had passed through some stages of intoxication, for, although she appeared perfectly sober to her friend who met her in Dorset street at five o'clock the previous evening, she had been drinking afterwards, and when she left the lodging house shortly after two o'clock the night watchman noticed that she was the worse for drink, but not badly so, while the "deputy" of the lodging house asserts that though she had evidently been drinking she could walk straight. Dr. Phillips is convinced that she had not taken any alcohol for some time. The deceased, therefore, entered the house in full possession of her faculties, although with a very different object to her companion. From the evidence which the condition of the yard affords and the medical examination discloses, it appears that after the two had passed through the passage and opened the swing door at the end, they descended the three steps into the yard. On their left hand side there was a recess between those steps and the palings. Here, a few feet from the house and a less distance from the paling, they must have stood.
The wretch must have then seized the deceased, perhaps with Judas like approaches. He seized her by the chin. He pressed her throat, and while thus preventing the slightest cry, he at the same time produced insensibility and suffocation. There is no evidence of any struggle. The clothes are not torn. Even in these preliminaries the wretch seems to have known how to carry out efficiently his nefarious work. The deceased was then lowered to the ground, and laid on her back; and although in doing so she may have fallen slightly against the fence, this movement was probably effected with care. Her throat was then cut in two places with savage determination, and the injuries to the abdomen commenced. All was done with cool impudence and reckless daring; but, perhaps, nothing is more noticeable than the emptying of her pockets, and the arrangement of their contents with businesslike precision in order near her feet. The murder seems, like the Buck's row case, to have been carried out without any cry. Sixteen people were in the house. The partitions of the different rooms are of wood. Davis was not asleep after 3.0 a.m., except for three quarters of an hour, or less, between 5.0 and 5.45. Mrs. Richardson only dozed after 3.0 a.m., and heard no noise during the night. Mrs. Hardiman, who occupies the front ground floor room, did not awake until the noise succeeding the finding of the body had commenced and none of the occupants of the houses by which the yard is surrounded heard anything suspicious. The brute who committed the offence did not even take the trouble to cover up his ghastly work, but left the body exposed to the view of the first comer. This accords but little with the trouble taken with the rings, and suggests either that he had at length been disturbed, or that as daylight broke a sudden fear suggested the danger of detection he was running.
There are two things missing. Her rings had been wrenched from her fingers, and have not been found, and the uterus has been taken from the abdomen. The body has not been dissected, but the injuries have been made by some one who had considerable anatomical skill and knowledge. There are no meaningless cuts. The organ has been taken by one who knew where to find it, what difficulties he would have to contend against, and how he should use his knife, so as to abstract the organ without injury to it. No unskilled person could have known where to find it, or have recognised it when it was found. For instance, no mere slaughterer of animals could have carried out these operations. It must have been some one accustomed to the post mortem room. The conclusion that the desire was to possess the missing abdominal organ seems overwhelming.
If the object were robbery, the injuries to the viscera were meaningless, for death had previously resulted from the loss of blood at the neck. Moreover, when we find an easily accomplished theft of some paltry brass rings and in internal organ taken, after, at least, a quarter of an hour's work, and taken by a skilled person, we are driven to the deduction that the abstraction of the missing portion of abdominal viscera was the object, and the theft of the rings was only a thin veiled blind, an attempt to prevent the real intention being discovered. Had not the medical examination been of a thorough and searching character it might easily have been left unnoticed that there was any portion of the body which had been taken. The difficulty in believing that the purport of the murderer was the possession of the uterus is natural. It is abhorrent to our feelings to conclude that a life should be taken for so slight an object; but when rightly considered, the reasons for most murders are altogether out of proportion to the guilt. It has been suggested that the criminal is a lunatic with morbid feelings. This may or may not be the case, but the object of the murderer appears palpably shown by the facts, and it is not necessary to assume lunacy, for it is clear that there is
To show you this, I must mention a fact which at the same time proves the assistance which publicity and the newspapers afford in the detection of crime. Within a few hours of the issue of the morning papers containing a report of the medical evidence given at the last sitting of the court, I received a communication from an officer of one of our great medical schools, that they had information which might or might not have a distinct bearing on our inquiry. I attended at the first opportunity, and was informed by the sub curator of the Pathological Museum that some months ago an American had called on him and asked him to procure and number of specimens of the organ that was missing in the deceased. He stated his willingness to give £20 a piece for each specimen. He stated that his object was to issue an actual specimen with each copy of a publication on which he was then engaged. He was told that his request was impossible to be complied with, but he still urged his request. He wished them preserved, not in spirits of wine, the usual medium, but in glycerine, in order to preserve them in a flaccid condition, and he wished them sent to America direct. It is known that this demand was repeated to another institution of a similar character.
Now, is it not possible that the knowledge of this demand may have incited some abandoned wretch to possess himself of a specimen? It seems beyond belief that such inhman wickedness could enter into the mind of any man, but, unfortunately, our criminal annals prove that every crime is possible. I need hardly say that I at once communicated my information to the Detective Department at Scotland Yard. Of course, I do not know what use has been made of it, but I believe that publicity may possible further elucidate this fact, and therefore I have not withheld from you the information. By means of the press some further explanation may be forthcoming from America, if not from here. Gentlemen, I have endeavoured to suggest to you the object with which this crime was committed, and the class of person who must have committed it. The greatest deterrent from crime is the conviction that detection and punishment will follow with rapidity and certainty, and it may be that the impunity with which Mary Anne Smith and Anne Tabram were murdered suggested the possibility of such horrid crimes as those which you and another jury have recently been considering. It is, therefore, a great misfortune that nearly three weeks have elapsed without the chief actor in this awful tragedy having been discovered.
Surely, it is not too much even yet to hope that the ingenuity of our detective force will succeed in unearthing this monster. It is not as if there were no clue to the character of the criminal or the cause of his crime. His object is clearly divulged. His anatomical knowledge carries him out of the category of a common criminal, for that knowledge could only have been obtained by assisting at post mortem examinations, or by frequenting the post mortem room. Thus, the class in which search must be made, although a large one, is limited. Moreover, it must have been a man who was from home, if not all night, at least during the early hours of the 8th of September. His hands were undoubtedly bloodstained, for he did not stop to use the tap in the yard, as the pan of clean water under it shows. If the theory of lunacy be correct (which I very much doubt) the class is still further limited; while if Mrs. Long's memory does not fail, and the assumption be correct that the man whop was talking to the deceased at half past five was the culprit, he is even more closely defined. In addition to his former description we should know that he was a foreigner of dark complexion, over 40 years of age, a little taller than the deceased, of shabby genteel appearance, with a brown deerstalker hat on his head and dark coat on his back. If your views accord with mine, you will be of opinion that we are confronted with a murder of no ordinary character, committed, not from jealousy, revenge, or robbery, but from motives less adequate than the many which still disgrace our civilisation, mar our progress and blot the pages of our Christianity.
The jury consulted for a minute, when the foreman said:
We can only come to one conclusion, and that is that a brutal murder has been perpetrated by some person or persons unknown. That is all we can find as our verdict. I think that will meet the case.
The Coroner: Quite so.
The Foreman: If that would meet the case we do not want to add anything more. We were to add a rider as regards the mortuary, but that having been done by the previous jury, we will allow that to stand as it is. There is only one thing that we may ask. We have sat here for five days, and the majority of the jury now wish to be excluded for at least two years from attending on any other coroner's jury in your district.
The Coroner: We will endeavour to meet your views; but I am sure, if any important case occurred, you would not be unwilling to serve, as, from your own residence in the district, your attendance would be important.
The Man with a Knife.
Before Mr. Saunders, at the Thames Police Court, Charles Ludwig, 40, a German who professed not to understand English, and giving an address in the Minories, was brought up on remand, charged with being drunk and threatening to stab Alexander Finlay, of 51 Leman street, Whitechapel.
The evidence of the prosecutor showed that at three o'clock in the morning he was standing at a coffee stall in the Whitechapel road, when Ludwig came up in a state of intoxication. The person in charge of the stall refused to serve him. Ludwig seemed much annoyed, and said to the witness, "What are you looking at?" He then pulled out a long bladed knife, and threatened to stab the witness with it. Ludwig followed him round the stall, and made several attempts to stab him, until the witness threatened to knock a dish on his head. A constable came up, and he was then given into custody.
Police constable 221H said when he was called to take the prisoner into custody he found him in a very excited condition. The witness had previously received information that Ludwig was wanted in the City jurisdiction for attempting to cut a woman's throat with a razor. On the way to the station the prisoner dropped a long bladed knife which was open, and when he was searched a razor and a long bladed pair of scissors were found on him.
Constable John Johnson, 806 City, deposed that early on the morning of the 11th inst. he was on duty in the Minories, when he heard loud screams of "Murder!" proceeding from a dark court. The court in question leads to some railway arches, and is a well known dangerous locality. Witness went down the court, and found the prisoner with a prostitute. The accused appeared to be under the influence of drink. The witness asked what he was doing there, and he replied, "Nothing." The woman, who appeared to be in a very agitated and frightened condition, said, "Oh, policeman, do take me out of this." The woman was so frightened that she could then make no further explanation. The witness got her and the accused out of the court, and sent the latter off. He walked with the woman to the end of his beat, when she said, "Dear me; he frightened me very much when he pulled a big knife out!" The witness said, "Why didn't you tell me that at the time?" and she replied, "I was too much frightened." He then went to look for the prisoner, but could not find him, and therefore warned several other constables of what he had seen, and also gave a description of the prisoner. On the last occasion the witness was unable to procure the attendance of the woman.
On the application of Detective inspector Abberline, of Scotland Yard, Mr. Saunders again remanded the accused for full inquiries to be made.
An Alleged Confession.
The Story Discredited.
A man, giving the name of John Fitzgerald, gave himself up at the Wandsworth Police Station on Wednesday night, and made a statement to the inspector on duty to the effect that he committed the murder in Hanbury street. He was afterwards conveyed to the Leman street Police Station, where he was detained during the day, but his story was not worthy of credence.
The police have succeeded in tracing his antecedents, and have ascertained definitely where he spent the night of the murder, as well as his movements on the following morning. Their information shows conclusively that he could not have committed the crime. It is expected he will be released.
The clue afforded by the coroner at the inquest is, of course, being followed up by the police, who have now had the information in their possession for a week, but it has not transpired whether it has yet led to any tangible result. The inquiries of the police would necessarily extend to America, and on that account it may be some time before fresh facts would be in the hands of the public. An important point yet to be made clear is as to whether the object of the murderer was the same in the cases of the woman Nicholls and of Annie Chapman. The coroner in the former case, when he summed up last Saturday, appeared to think that it was, and at the time of expressing that opinion he must have been in receipt of an important communication from the sub curator of the Pathological Museum attached to one of the metropolitan hospitals, to which he referred in his summing up on the body of Annie Chapman. The opinion he expressed last Saturday regarding Nicholls's case thus carries weight. The "shabby genteel" man who was seen in Chapman's company shortly before her murder is being sought for, but up to the present, it would appear, without success. From inquiries made at some of the great medical institutions it has been ascertained that requests similar to that of the American gentleman have before been made, but the peculiar conditions attaching to the requests could not possibly be complied with unless the operations were performed before or immediately after death. Ever since the coroner communicated the facts to the police authorities no stone has been left unturned to follow up the clue, and active inquiries are still proceeding.
At Dalston Police Court on Friday, James Johnson, 35, a well set, pale complexioned and clean shave man, with a strong American accent, giving his address as 18 Bendhurst road, St John's Hill, Wandsworth, and describing himself as a waiter, was charged with assaulting Elizabeth Hudson, by throwing her down on the pavement and threatening to stab her at Richmond road, Kingsland.
The prosecutrix, who was described as an unfortunate, of Louisa street, Kingsland road, said that about two o'clock that (Friday) morning she was proceeding home when the prisoner accosted her, put his arm round her waist, and threw her down upon the pavement. He then produced a long knife, and attempted to stab her. She screamed "Murder" and "Police," and then the prisoner ran away. The knife was about eight or ten inches long.
Mr. Bros: Are you sure he had a knife?
The Witness: Yes.
Mr. Bros: How did he open it?
he Witness: It was open, and had a sharp point.
Mr. Bros: Where did he take the knife from?
The Witness: From his coat pocket. It was like a carving knife, only longer.
Alice Anderson, describing herself as a feather curler of the same address as Hudson, said the latter was a friend of hers. Between one and two that morning she was in the Kingsland road, near the Lamb public house, when the prisoner accosted her and asked if he could walk home with her. She said she did not mind, and the prisoner accompanied her along the road. At a dark spot he put his arm round her waist, and
The witness succeeded in knocking at a door, at the same time shouting "Murder!" The prisoner used a very foul expression and ran away. A quarter of an hour later the witness heard screaming some distance off, and on hastening up the road she saw Hudson, who told her that a man had thrown her down and attempted to stab her.
The prisoner said it was untrue that he had a knife. Both the women ran after him, and Hudson attempted to steal from his pockets. He pushed her off, and she fell down, as she was drunk. As for attempting to stab the woman, "he would not hurt a worm, much less a human being."
Constable New, 460J, said that at a quarter to two that morning he was on duty in De Beauvoir square when he heard screams of "Murder," and shouts of "Police." Witness then saw the prisoner running and stopped him. On asking what was the matter he said that two women had accosted him and asked him to go down the mews in Richmond road, and when he declined, they screamed. The witness took the man down the Kingsland road, where he saw the women, and Hudson accused the prisoner of trying to stab her. Prisoner was searched at the station but no knife was found upon him.
Police constable 183J said that at about the same time he heard
He saw the woman Hudson and she told him what had occurred, and pointed to the prisoner, who was running away. The witness called to him to stop, but he only ran the faster. Then the other officer came on the scene, and he stopped the prisoner. No inquiries had been made respecting the prisoner.
The prisoner said that the woman had spoken untruthfully. Everything they said was just the other way about. He repeated the statement that the women had run after him. They asked for eggs and money.
In answer to Mr. Bros, the prisoner said none of his friends were in court. His wife was only confined on Thursday night, and he would not let her know of the matter if he could help it, as it would kill her. He could produce his friends if it were necessary.
Mr. Bros said he had better do so. he should put the case back until the afternoon.
The magistrate then directed Inspector Holland to make inquiries as to the prisoner's character as speedily as possible.
On Wednesday night a young girl named Duffy, residing with her parents in Chapel street, Newry, ran home from a field in the suburbs of the town, where she had gone to fetch cows home for the night, and stated that she had been accosted by a strange man, only partially dressed, who leaped out of a hedge and chased her through the field, saying he was "Leather Apron" and the murderer of the Whitechapel victims. When the girl reached home, without waiting to bring the cows, she was almost breathless, and in a very excited state. Her father informed the constabulary of the affair, and they went to the field, but filed to find the mysterious stranger. An alarm of a similar kind has been exciting the minds of the people of Warrenpoint and the district for the past three or four days. So great is the panic amongst the female portion of the community that not one of them can be induced to go out on the Newry road after dark. The police believe the mysterious man is some half crazy individual.
During the last three months nearly 2,500 foreign Jews have left Odessa under the expulsion law enacted in the spring of this year, and the exodus steadily continues. Their number has recently been swelled by the emigration of a large number of Russian Jews proper, who have taken advantage of the extended exemption as to age and eligibility for military service. Young Russian Jews not having actually reached their twentieth year now readily receive permission to leave the country. Formerly they did not receive this permission after having reached their seventeenth year. The larger number of these voluntary Jewish emigrants go to America or England. Chiefly of the poor artisan class, not more than one or two percent who go to England possess any capital on which to commence business in the country of their adoption.