LONDON HOTEL TRAGEDY

Auckland Star, Volume XXVIII, Issue 288, 11 December 1897, Page 3 (Supplement)

LONDON HOTEL TRAGEDY

ALLEGED MURDER OP A LIVER-

POOL WOMAN.

VERDICT AND SENTENCE.

On October 26th at the Central Criminal Court, before Mr Justice Ridley, William Scott Stormonth, 33 years of age, described as an engineer, was indicted for the murder of Sarah Jane McLean, and also for attempted suicide. In opening the case, Mr Mathews said it disclosed a strange state of things. The prisoner, a married man, whose wife lived at Derby with her children, had made the acquaintance of the deceased woman in Ireland. They had occasionally come up to London, staying at the Midland Temperance Hotel, Guildford-street, as Mr and Mrs Scott. They arrived on thenlast visit on the 14th of August. They had no luggage, and at the end of the first week they were unable to pay their bill. They, however, stayed on, and the woman was last seen alive on the 2Sth of August. Two days later the prisoner left. He did not return, but later in the day borrowed a sovereign from afriend named Robinson, Who saw him off to Derby. In the evening the door of the bedroom in the hotel was forced open, and the body of the woman was discovered dead in the bed. There was a letter in the room written by the prisoner, in which he said that they had determined to commit suicide, and inquiries showed that they had made large purchases of laudanum from various chemists, and also that they had attempted to purchase strychnine. In another letter the prisoner stated that the woman died on the 29th of August, but that in his own case the poison had not proved fatal. He spoke, of another attempt on his life,and said that if that failed there was then the river. Prisoner seemed to have spent a great deal of his time o nthe 29th of August in writing letters. He wrote to Mrs McLean, the mother of the deceased, in Flaxman-street, Liverpool, upbraiding the family because of their conduct towards the deceased, and stating that as they had failed to mend it together they bad determined to end it together. When arrested prisoner showed some marks on his throat, and stated that he had attempted suicide. His letters and threats, however, were in strange contrast with his conduct on his arrest. He then wrote a letter to his wife, who was from home, stating that the best legal aid must be obtained for him as hhe was innocent as a child unborn. Evidence was given in support of counsel's statement. Among the witnesses was a brother of the deceased woman. He is employed as a shorthand writer in Commerce Court.Liverpool. His sister when in London telegraphed asking him to wire £3 as a loan, and he replied that he had not the cash to send. The next thing he heard was the discovery of her body. The medical officer at Holloway Prison, who had the prisoner under observation from September 3 to October 11, said there was no indication, that he had taken opium in excessive quantities. Opium had been twice supplied to him in prison in small quantities. In cross-examination the witness said in the case of a person not a confirmed opium-eater who had taken opium in large quantities the consequences of sudden deprivation would suddenly disappear. The prisoner had shown no abnormal mental depression. Mr Mathews maintained that if the woman's death resulted out of a felonious agreement into which the prisoner entered with her, he was guilty of wilful murder, but the case was . even stronger than that, for there was no evidence in support of the prisoner's statement that he had made a serious attempt o nhis own life by laudanum poisoning. The wound on his throat was superficial, and he did not go near the river. He wrote to Mrs McLean that he was going to follow his 'darling.' and that 'the .end would be to-day,' but at the time he was engaged obtaining the means to take him home to Derby. This, counsel held, was not a genuine agreement on a prisoner's part, but a design by him to relieve himself of the woman Avhose life he had ruined. Lord Coleridge, on behalf of the prisoner, expressed amazement at the aspect of the case now put forward by the Crown. The Crown had formally indicted the prisoner for attempting to take his own life, and he had pleaded guilty to that indictment. Now it was contended that that attempt was a fraud. He accepted the statement of the law made by Mr Mathews, but urged that in a case of this exceptional kind the jury would want proof specific and undeniable that the agreement was arrived at, and that it was in consequence of that agreement that the woman took her life. He w rent on to contend that the prisoner had no interest in taking the woman's life, as she had no claim against him, and there was every reason to believe that, being in a desperate condition, and destitute of money, she determined to take her own life. The proof of an agreement rested entirely on prisoner's writings, which w rere done under the influence oi opium. His Lordship, in summing up, said, it was the undoubted law of the coun* try that if two persons mutually agreed on suicide and only one of them died as the result of the attempt, the survivor was guilty of murder. What the jury had to consider was whether this mutual agreement ex-* isted in the case. The jury, after a deliberation of! twenty minutes, found the prisoner, guilty. Asked if he had anything to say, h^ answered in a ele__r voice, 'Nothing sir, beyond the fact that I am perfect*? ly innocent; perfectly innocent.' Sentence of death jvas jpassedjin. ,__o__| -usual iona* ",v„.>~. '"7,3