In its edition of Sunday the 3rd of June 1838, The Examiner provided its readers with a description of a particularly gruesome murder that had occurred in the early hours of Saturday, 26th of May of that year:-

THE MURDER OF ELIZA GRIMWOOD

A very shocking murder, perpetrated under circumstances which have increased the interest always created by such things, has spread through town during the past week much curiosity and excitement.

The report of the alleged murder was first given by a man lodging at No. 12 Wellington terrace Waterloo Road, who, at six o’clock on Saturday morning, the 26th, was observed to run out of the house calling “Police,” and ejaculating that a murder had been perpetrated.

THE ROOM DELUGED IN BLOOD

At the end of the terrace the man alluded to met policeman 31 L, and, having apprised him that a female had been murdered, he (the policeman) immediately proceeded to the house, and on entering the back parlour, which is fitted up as a bed-room, he beheld a female, apparently about 25 years of age, lying on the floor, with her throat cut in a dreadful manner, and quite dead: the room was deluged in blood.

The body was lying near the entrance into the room, and there were several cuts or gashes across her hands, as if she had struggled against her assailant.

TOOK HOME MEN FROM THE THEATRES

From the inquiries made on the spot soon afterwards by the police belonging to the division, it appeared that the unfortunate woman, whose name was Eliza Grimwood, and who was a remarkably handsome young female, had been for some length of time living with a man at the house in Wellington Terrace; and that, independently of that circumstance, she was in the habit of frequenting the theatres, and taking home gentlemen.

On those occasions when she was accompanied home by a friend, the man with whom she lived retired to another bed in the same house, in which it also appears that there are other lodgers; and that on Friday she left home in the early part of the afternoon, and returned at twelve o’clock the same night, when her servant, a young girl, perceived that she was accompanied by a gentleman, and having gone up stairs from the kitchen without a candle, asked her if she should return down stairs, and strike a light.

WHAT THE SERVANT SAW

Her mistress, however, desired her to go to bed, adding that she would get a light for herself, as she knew in what part of the room the tinder-box was to be found.

As this conversation took place in the dark, in the passage of the house, the servant had no opportunity of distinguishing the features of the person by whom her mistress was accompanied, but she describes him to be a well- dressed man, rather tall, and of gentlemanly appearance, so far as the night enabled her to see.

That she (the servant girl) then went down stairs, and she heard her mistress and the gentleman enter the back parlour, which is the bed-room, and shut and lock the door after them.

The servant girl, however, says that she heard no noise during the night, and that the first intimation she had that her mistress was murdered, was on hearing the man with whom the deceased had been living, and who slept in the house, giving the alarm at six o’clock in the morning.

THE INQUEST

The inquest was commenced on Monday, and various witnesses examined.

We select a few of the more interesting facts elicited.

THE INJURIES SHE HAD SUFFERED

The jury having been sworn, proceeded to view the body of the deceased, which was lying on the floor in the position in which it was first discovered, in the back room on the ground floor, which she used as a bedroom.

The body was near the door, and the head was nearly severed from the shoulders.

Some deep cuts were also perceptible on her left hand, the thumb and second finger of which had scars across them, apparently as if she had thrown up that hand while her murderer was attacking her.

She had all her clothes on, with the exception of her gown, and it was quite apparent that her murder must have been perpetrated when she got out of bed, there having been impressions on the pillows in the bed, as if two persons had been lying down.

Nothing in the room, however, appeared to have been disturbed, and although every diligence has been used to discover the weapon the murderer had used on the occasion, none has been found.

WILLIAM HUBBARD’S EVIDENCE

From William Hubbard’s evidence (the man who lived with the deceased), we take the following.

He deposed to the above fact, he stated that he did not get out of his bed during the night, neither did he hear any noise, except that of the barking of a little dog in the house.

In answer to a juror, he then said that he was a married man, but had not been living with his wife for the last twelve years and that he had been living with Eliza Grimwood for a period of nearly ten years.

The deceased was his first cousin.

Since he had entered the inquest-room, he recollected that he had now missed a small purse in which there were ten or eleven sovereigns when he last saw it.

A WOMAN OF SOBER HABITS

The deceased was perfectly sober when he saw her on Friday night at eight o’clock, and she was a young woman of remarkably sober habits.

The witness went on to say that he had objected to the girl’s prostituting herself at first, but that he had not latterly objected to her going ta the theatre.

By the coroner: They both received a benefit by her prostitution.

THE SUSPICIOUS MAN

The only person that he suspected of the murder was a man that he saw outside the door, in the street, when he ran out to give the alarm.

The cause of his suspicion was, that the man appeared so eager to render assistance.

Some circumstances of suspicion attached to this man, but the coroner did not hold them sufficient, on closer inquiry, to justify his detention.

The principal of them was that, on the policeman who was first called in after the discovery of the horrid transaction entering the room in which the body of the deceased was found, he observed the man, Hubbard, take up seven shillings in silver, which were lying on the dressing-table, and quietly put them in his pocket.

The circumstance at the time excited no surprise, but it has since given rise to a deal of conversation and surmise.

If this seven shillings was paid, as is most likely, by the stranger who entered the house with the deceased, it seems unlikely that the murder should have been afterwards committed by him.

THE SERVANT’S EVIDENCE

The servant in the house was examined after Hubbard, and deposed that on Friday night the deceased went out after Hubbard went to bed, and she returned home again about one o’clock, with a strange man.

She (witness) opened the door for them, and the man, who was behind the deceased on entering, shut the door after him, so that witness had not an opportunity of distinctly seeing who he was; and after the deceased had been down stairs in the kitchen, she went up again, desiring witness to go to bed.

Witness then went to bed, but heard no noise during the night, and the next morning she was awakened by Hubbard, who told her of the murder.

Witness, on going upstairs, saw the candlestick which she had left overnight in the deceased’s bedroom standing on the mat, near the street door.

A commercial traveller, named Bird, who was sleeping with a girl that lodged in the same house, corroborated this evidence.

The servant also swore:- “I heard a cab come up to the door, and from that circumstance conclude that my mistress and the stranger came home together in a cab.”

EVIDENCE FROM THE SURGEON

The surgeons were examined and deposed to the frightful wounds inflicted on various parts of the deceased.

The inquest was resumed on Wednesday.

Mr. Cook, the surgeon, then gave a more clear account of the state of the body.

He said that, on Tuesday, in company with several other medical men, he had examined the deceased, and, in addition to the terrible wounds in the neck, there was also a stab two inches below the left nipple, and about a third of an inch in depth.

There was another stab in an oblique direction directly over the breast bone. There was another wound in the abdomen, and one also at the back of the left ear. These latter wounds did not appear to have been inflicted by an instrument that cut clean.

Neither of these wounds would have caused instant death, but they would have done so ultimately.

HOW SHE WAS STABBED

By the coroner:- One of the wounds was inflicted by stabbing through the stays, and I imagine that the murderer seized hold of the top of the stays on the opposite side with his left hand, and with the other hand then stabbed her downwards.

I am also of the opinion that the murderer must have turned up her clothes, and, grasping the husk of her stays, stabbed her upwards, with a view, as I think, of piercing her heart.

There was no effusion of blood from these wounds, and I believe they were inflicted after life was extinct.

HE CHANGED HIS OPINION

I have altered my opinion since the first holding of the inquest as to the infliction of the wound at the back of the neck. I at first supposed that that injury was inflicted first, because I considered after the extensive wound in the front of the neck the murderer could have had no object in inflicting the second; but now I am of a different opinion, and I think that the wound on the back of the neck was perpetrated after that in the throat, for the purpose of severing the head from the body.

By the foreman of the jury:- The wounds might have been inflicted with an instrument either with a sharp or flat point. The instrument could not have been more than half an inch in width, because the wounds have penetrated a very considerable depth, and are only half an inch wide.

By the coroner:- I still believe that the wounds in the neck were the cause of death. The wound on the back of the neck extended from ear to ear, and the vertebrae was divided.

The person who committed the act must have had his hands covered with blood. I saw no discoloured water in the room, as if any person had cleansed their hands.

THE BEADLE QUESTIONED

The coroner here put some questions to Anderson, the beadle, as to whether he found in any of the rooms in the house any towel or cloth stained with blood.

Anderson said that he did not, but he saw a napkin placed under her head, which appeared to be tumbled as if hands had been wiped on it.

This circumstance, he said, he particularly noticed, as it struck him as being very singular.

THE CAB DRIVER’S TESTIMONY

Spicknell, driver of cab No. 949, examined:-

“I live at No. 10 Boddy’s bridge, Upper Ground Street, Blackfriars.

On Friday night last I was driving down the Strand, near Temple Bar, between twelve and one o’clock, when I was hailed by a lady and gentleman between the Strand Theatre and St Clement’s church.

They were standing upon the pavement, and the female called to me.

I pulled up, and I opened the door of the cab as I sat upon the box in front, by means of a rod for that purpose; and the two persons then got into the vehicle.

TAKE THEM TO WELLINGTON STREET

The female directed me to drive to Wellington Street, in the Waterloo Road. I told her I did not know it, but I knew Wellington Terrace. She then told me to drive to the Hero of Waterloo, in the Waterloo Road. I did so, and the female paid me my fare.

She was dressed in a dark-coloured dress and a fawn-coloured bonnet. I did not notice whether she had a feather or flower in her bonnet.

The gentleman wore a broad-brimmed hat, dark clothes, and he carried a Mackintosh on his arm, and had very much the appearance of a gentleman.”

The Coroner:- “Did you see his features?”

“Yes, but I did not take particular notice.”

“What was his height?”

“A little taller than myself.” (The witness was about five feet six inches in height.)

The witness resumed:-

The gentleman was of a swarthy complexion, and he had very large dark whiskers, but he had no mustachios.

“Did you get off your box?”

“No, I did not; I let them out of the cab by pulling the rod which opened the door.”

“Did you have any conversation with them?”

“No, Sir; the female said that I had a very nice horse.”

“Did you then see if she had any boa?”

“No, Sir.”

“Did you set into which house they went?”

“No, I did not.”

By the jury:- “The parties stood for about five or six minutes in conversation after they called me. The man walked away to the lamppost, and the woman followed him. He called her by her name and appeared to know her. He did not appear to be angry. He had a double-breasted waistcoat buttoned up.”

HER BONNET AND DRESS

The coroner here ordered the beadle to produce the deceased’s bonnet and dress, which was accordingly done. The bonnet is of blue silk, with a flower in it.

The cabman said that the bonnet resembled in shape the one worn by the female.

WILLIAM CHAPMAN’S TESTIMONY

William Chapman, a member of the orchestra of Covent Garden Theatre, deposed that on Friday night, about a quarter past twelve o’clock, as he was passing Wellington Terrace, he saw a man and woman go into No. 12.

The man had on a broad-brimmed hat and very full whiskers. He wore dark clothes.

Coroner:- “Could you identify that person if you were to see him again?”

“From the casual view, I had I do not think I should be enabled to do so with any degree of certainty.”

Juror:- “Was he a foreigner?”

“He was a man with a very swarthy complexion.”

THE BEADLE RECALLED

Anderson, the beadle, was recalled, and in answer to different questions, he said that there were three marks of blood in the passage when he examined the house, but he saw no blood on the handle which opened the door inside.

INSPECTOR FIELD’S EVIDENCE

Inspector Field deposed that the cesspool, the chimneys, and leaden pipe running up the house had been examined: but there was no instrument found, or anything else which could throw any light upon the murder.

EMMA LEWIS’S TESTIMONY

Emma Lewis examined:-

“I live at No.1 Strand lane.

I knew the deceased, and was in company with her about ten o’clock on Friday night last. She was accompanied by a female dressed in mourning. That person’s name is either Julia Doxman or Julia Seymour, and I have heard that the latter person lives in Crown Street, Westminster.

I saw the deceased again about half-past eleven o’clock the same night, at the Strand Theatre; a tall gentleman was in her company; he had a cloak on his arm, and wore glasses. I did not notice what kind of shaped hat he had on.

I saw Seymour last night. She did not tell me who went home with the deceased, nor did she say with whom she was in company.

The deceased, just before the theatre was closed, tapped Seymour on the shoulder, and said, “Julia, I am going out with my friend.”

I do not know his name.

The deceased and the man stood talking together opposite the theatre for some time, and a cab was standing near them, but I did not see them get into it.”

By the jury:- “I did not observe that he had a stick.”

JOHN ROCKALL THE WATERMAN

John Rockall, the waterman to the rank of coaches opposite the White Hart, in the Strand:-

“On Friday night, about twelve o’clock, a female who came out of the theatre called a cab.

A man was with her, and they told the driver to go over Waterloo Bridge. I opened the door for them.

I am sure I did not let them into the cab No. 949.

ELIZABETH HUBBARD’S EVIDENCE

Elizabeth Hubbard, examined:-

“I was married to Mr. Hubbard eleven years ago, and have left him since, and now live at Pentonville, and go by the name of Payne.”

In answer to some other questions, she said that she had not seen her husband for the last four years and that she was aware he was living with the deceased, who was his first cousin.

She added that she could give no evidence with respect to the late murder.

THE WOMAN SEYMOUR

Inspector Field here said that the woman Seymour was not in attendance, but that he should be enabled to procure her evidence if the inquiry was adjourned for two or three days.

He was also desirous of making a further search of the dry arch of Waterloo bridge and the neighbourhood for the instrument with which the murder was perpetrated.

Mr. Carter said that he did not see any impropriety in adjourning the inquiry until Monday, which was accordingly done.

HUBBARD WAS STILL IN THE HOUSE

To this account, we have only to add that Hubbard is still in the house, No. 12 Wellington Terrace, and continues in a state of great mental excitement.

His mother (aunt to the deceased) and his sister are in the house with him.

It is stated that he was married to his wife, who was examined on Wednesday, in the year 1827. At the time of their marriage, she was in possession of cash to the amount of near 400l., as well as articles of jewellery worth 50l. or more.

He, however, soon squandered the whole away, and, before eleven months had elapsed, having beaten her dreadfully, he turned her out of doors, from which time they have been living separately.

HUBBARD WAS JEALOUS

It is also said that Hubbard was very jealous of a gentleman residing in Birmingham, for whom it is known the deceased had a greater partiality than for any other of her friends, and that Hubbbard had been heard to express himself against her accompanying that gentleman to Epsom races, which she intended doing.

This person has been written to.

HER HIDDEN BANK BOOK

We have also to mention that, a few days after the murder, Inspector Field, whilst proceeding to search the room usually occupied by the deceased, and in which the dreadful act was perpetrated, discovered a banking book, by which it appears that she had accumulated the sum of 20l., which she had invested in a savings bank; and it would further appear that her friends are in possession of some documents by which she had secured the money to them in the event of her death.

The above-mentioned book was concealed under the bed.

The poor deceased was altogether a better-conducted and more respectable person than the girls of her class usually are.

THE MURDER WAS NEVER SOLVED

Nobody was ever brought to justice for the murder of poor Eliza Grimwood, and, just like the later crimes perpetrated by Jack the Ripper, it remains one of London’s unsolved crimes.