Although the Jack the Ripper murders were dominating the columns of newspapers throughout the country towards the end of September, 1888, it is worth reading stories of other crimes that were featuring in the press at the time, if only to gain an idea how the police and the court system worked.

The Leeds Times, in its edition of Saturday the 29th of September, 1888, published the following story:-

CHARGE OF MURDER AGAINST A DOCTOR

At the Central Criminal Court on Tuesday, before Mr. Justice Charles, the trial of James Gloster, 34, a medical man, on a charge of wilfully murdering Eliza Jane Schummacher, concluded.

Mr. Poland, for the prosecution, said that the prisoner was a properly qualified medical man, residing at Kensington, and the deceased lived with her little boy at Pimlico.

She was separated from her husband, and, besides a small allowance she received from him, she carried on the business of a dressmaker.

SHE THOUGHT SHE WAS PREGNANT

In April last she had an idea (which turned out ultimately to be erroneous) that she was pregnant, and the evidence would show that the defendant had performed on her a certain operation with instruments, in the course of which injuries were inflicted from which the woman, it was believed, had died.

She first called on Dr. Crain, of Pimlico, who said her notions were groundless.

The woman, not being satisfied, went to Dr. Parrico, of Wardour-street, who gave her a medicine which was innocuous, as he was of the same opinion as Dr. Crain.

PERFORMED AN OPERATION

She next seems to have consulted the prisoner.

It was alleged that the operation was performed in the deceased’s own room in Pimlico.

Before she died there were different communications between them, and as to one of these communications (a telegram) the prisoner was alleged to have said:- “I would not have had that telegram sent to my name and address for £500.”

REPORTED TO THE POLICE

Dr. Crain was called in who felt it his duty to communicate with the police, and the prisoner was taken into custody.

In the presence of the police, and after the woman had said she felt sure she was dying, she made a written statement about which there might be some doubt as to whether the statement was legal evidence or not.

The prisoner on being arrested remarked, “that it was all spite, and that the woman was a bad, drunken person.”

HE SEEMED ALARMED

Mrs. Emily Maud Baker, a married sister of the deceased woman, deposed that she was sent to the prisoner’s house.

He seemed alarmed, and said that she must not go there again, but must go to Dr. Parrico, for “he would rather pay £500 than have had his name and address in a telegram about such a case.”

The witness further added that she urged the prisoner to go to her sister, and undo something that he had done in the course of the operation, but he again referred to Dr. Parrico.

DR. CRAIN’S EVIDENCE

Dr. Crain corroborated the statement that the deceased was not pregnant at all, and that she had been injured by instruments.

The witness was cross-examined as to the circumstances under which the dying declaration of the deceased was made.

He stated that it was he who suggested the making of the statement, his object being to relieve the woman’s mental sufferings.

She was perfectly conscious and there were no signs of delirium about her.

Other medical evidence was given.

HER DEATH BED STATEMENT

Mr. Poland then proposed to put in the statement of the deceased made on her deathbed.

Mr. Gill, for the defence, objected, contending that the admission of such a document would be most anomalous, and against all the rules of evidence; and that there was no settled and hopeless expectation of immediate death in the mind of the deceased at the time.

Mr. Justice Charles said that he could not but come to the conclusion that the poor woman was not really and truly, in the eye of the law, under the full and implicit belief that she was dying, and that she had no hope of getting better.

He, therefore, decided not to admit the evidence.

NOT GUILTY

Mr. Poland stated that this being so, he could carry the case no further, and he felt that he could not ask the jury to return a verdict of guilty.

The jury, under the direction of the judge, then returned a verdict of not guilty.