There Must Be Evil

by Bernard Taylor

  It was almost by chance that there came to be an investigation into Mrs Finley’s death. It began, reported the Chronicle, early in January when police officers Hodgkinson and Purser started to make inquiries into the death of the child Edith Berry, and in the course of their investigations interviewed Mrs Sanderson, the dead child’s aunt. It was during their conversation that Mrs Sanderson happened to mention the death of Mrs Berry’s mother, saying that she had died very suddenly at Castleton just the year before. As a result Mr Hodgkinson dispatched one of his officers to Castleton to make inquiries. The detective returned with certain information, including the fact that Mrs Finley had been insured and that her daughter had been the sole beneficiary. A week later, one Detective Lamb was sent to Castleton to inquire further and to interview some of the late woman’s neighbours. His investigations quickly led to the Rochdale constabulary taking up the matter, with the result that application was made to the Home Office for permission to exhume Mrs Finley’s body. With permission granted, the exhumation was arranged to take place on 3 February – a year to the day from Mrs Berry’s arrival at her mother’s house in Castleton.

  When the magistrates’ hearing into the death of Edith Annie Berry was resumed on Thursday 27 January, the general public knew nothing about the investigations into the death of Mrs Berry’s mother, nor of the planned exhumation of her remains. All interest was concentrated on the case before the bench. And interest had continued to grow, so much so that long before ten o’clock, when the police court was due to open, a huge crowd, mostly women, and in no way put off by the cold, had gathered at the entrance waiting for admission. The moment the doors were opened they pressed inside, so many that they occupied most of the body of the court and filled the two balconies, places that were used only on rare occasions.

  The magistrates made their appearance just after ten, and after spending an hour on preliminary matters, the main business of the day got under way.

  After the clerk had called out the prisoner’s name, Elizabeth Berry, with every eye upon her, and wearing the same mourning dress that she had worn at the inquest, stepped up into the dock and took the chair that had been set for her. The Manchester Evening News observed that ‘while unavoidably conscious of the avid interest in her, she sat with an air of unconcerned demeanour’, though the man from the Chronicle reported that she ‘seemed somewhat less at ease than on her earlier appearance in court’.

  Before the proceedings proper got under way it was observed that Mr Cottingham, the prisoner’s legal representative, had not yet arrived, he being occupied still at the Manchester Assizes. In his absence Mr Whitaker at once announced that he would conduct the case on the prisoner’s behalf, and requested that she be allowed to sit near him, in order for him to ‘take instructions for the purpose of cross-examination’. Permission was granted, and Mrs Berry left the dock and walked with a light step to the solicitors’ bench, there sitting down beside Mr Whitaker.

  Mr J.W. Mellor, for the Crown, then addressed the court.

  He began by saying that the prisoner, Elizabeth Berry, was charged with causing the death of her daughter, Edith Annie Berry, by administering poison, and it was his duty to lay the facts before the bench, and ask them to say that there was a prima facie case upon which they would commit the prisoner to take her trial. ‘It is common knowledge, he continued, ‘that at the coroner’s inquiry on the 20th instant, a verdict was found that the deceased, Edith Annie Berry, died from poison, and the jury then found against the mother a verdict of wilful murder. She now stands before you upon this charge.’

  In a detailed account of the case, he said that Elizabeth Berry had brought her daughter to stay with her at the workhouse, that Edith Annie was in good health until the morning of Saturday, the 1st, when she became unwell and began to vomit. Dr Patterson examined the girl, and soon began to suspect that she was suffering from poison. He got the assistance of Dr Robertson, and after the child’s death her body was subjected to a post-mortem examination, and later to analysis. Although no actual traces of any poison were found there were internal appearances which produced a conviction in the minds of the medical men that the girl had died from poison. He closed his address, saying: ‘I have desired to open this case very briefly, and I have no desire to give any colour to it. My duty, as the representative of the Crown, is to state fairly the facts of the case, and let the magistrates draw their own inferences, and to satisfy themselves that it is a proper case to be investigated by a jury.’

  Of the witnesses called that day, most had testified previously at the inquest and would repeat much of their testimony. There would, however, be others with different stories to tell, and one new witness in particular coming forward with fresh and vital evidence, evidence that would turn out to have the most significant bearing on the case.

  The first witness was Ann Sanderson. She told the court: ‘Annie came to live with me about six weeks after my brother’s death, about August, 1881. I received 3s. a week for her, and she was insured with the Prudential at a penny a week. Mrs Berry paid for the schooling and clothing.’ As to the child’s health, she said she was only attended once by a doctor, ‘and that was fourteen months after her father’s death’. Occasionally she gave her a little turkey rhubarb,* magnesia or a Gregory’s powder† but never any pills. The child had never been troubled with constipation or had ever passed blood. Following Edith’s departure for the workhouse, she said she received a telegram on 3 January, about ten o’clock in the morning. ‘My husband and I went to the workhouse,’ she said. ‘We went into the bedroom, and I went to Annie and kissed her on the cheek, and asked her if she was poorly. She said, “Yes.” I saw that her lips were very sore and blistered. I asked Mrs Berry what Annie was suffering from, and she said it was acute stoppage of the bowels, and that Annie had eaten a heavy supper the night before. My husband gave Annie some tea, cooled with milk, about two o’clock in the afternoon, and afterwards Mrs Berry gave her an injection of cold milk. Annie asked for it. An hour later Mrs Berry gave her a second injection, and I gave her one half-an-hour later. During the time I was with her she seemed to suffer great pain in her belly, crying out, “Mamma, Mamma.” Her vomiting continued up to twelve o’clock on the night of the 3rd, and then it ceased absolutely. I stayed with her till her death at five o’clock on the morning of the 4th. Mrs Berry left the bedroom at four o’clock, saying she couldn’t bear to see the lass go. Before Annie died she had ease of the pain, and after one o’clock she became very quiet.’

  Mrs Sanderson’s place was taken by the workhouse inmate Ann Dillon. She had not been called at the inquest, and she had a most interesting incident to relate.

  After telling the bench that she had been at the workhouse for three years – having been deserted by her husband – she said that she had been employed as an assistant to Mrs Berry, and that her duty was to help serve their meals to the patients. She had seen the deceased, Edith Annie Berry, on two previous visits to the workhouse, and during the child’s last visit had seen her and her friend Beatrice Hall on several occasions over the Thursday and Friday, when they ‘were going about the place as merry as possible’. On the Saturday morning, about half-past nine, she said, she saw Edith and Beatrice Hall coming from Mrs Berry’s bedroom, though she didn’t see where they were going. Then, at quarter-to-ten, she said, she went to the surgery to ask Mrs Berry ‘for the dinner note’ (sometimes referred to as the ‘diet note’).

  This, it transpired, was something she did every morning. It was her duty to take meals to the patients in the infirmary, and for this purpose she had to find out from Mrs Berry which patients were on ‘diet food’, which, it appears, was generally sago. With regard to her visit on this particular Saturday morning, however, there would come the most startling revelation – one which cast Mrs Berry’s case into a perilous state.

  Ann Dillon told the court that when she went into the surgery she saw Edith there alone with her mother. This was in direct contradiction to Beatrice Hall
’s statement that Edith had not left her side before being taken ill. Said Dillon: ‘Mrs Berry was preparing the dinner note when I went in. Edith said to me: “Are you going out for liberty today, Ann?” and I said, “No, love, it’s not my day.”’

  She went on to say that she was in the surgery for about five minutes, and that the next time she saw the child was in Mrs Berry’s sitting room. ‘This was about a quarter-to-eleven. I went there to get some cloths. When I went in, Mrs Berry was standing near the door by the sofa, and Edith was leaning against her, vomiting. Mrs Berry said to me, “This child is sick.” I didn’t see her vomit but there was some on the floor. Mrs Berry had a drinking glass in her hand with something in it, which I thought was magnesia or cream of tartar. She said to Edith, “Drink this, darling.’ But the child said to her mother: “Oh, no, mamma, I can’t.” I said to her, “Drink it love, and it’ll make you feel better.” She couldn’t drink it, though.’

  Dillon then spoke of seeing the child in the evening between half-past six and seven, in bed in her mother’s bedroom. ‘She seemed to me a little better than she was in the morning,’ she said. ‘I saw her vomit twice. The vomit on the first occasion was caught in a bowl. I emptied it away and rinsed it out with cold water.’ She had not been instructed to wash the bowl, she said. She went on: ‘When I’d been in the room about half-an-hour, Edith, who was always kind and pleasant, asked me to sit down, which, to please her, I did. Ellen Thompson was also in the room, and she left along with me at nine o’clock.’

  At this point, 1.15 p.m., the magistrates’ clerk called an adjournment until two o’clock, and while a large number then left the courtroom, many members of the public remained in their seats rather than leave and risk losing them for the rest of the day.

  When the court reassembled, Ann Dillon was recalled. She stated that on the Saturday night she and Ellen Thompson had offered to sit up with the sick child. ‘But Mrs Berry said she could manage.’ ‘The next time I saw the child was about eleven the next morning, Sunday,’ she said. ‘That was the last time I saw her alive.’

  Ellen Thompson, called next, told the court that she was the wife of William Thompson, who was in Australia, that she was an inmate of the workhouse and had been an assistant to the prisoner in the infirmary. She had seen Mrs Berry, Edith and Beatrice Hall arrive on 29 December, and over the next two days had seen the two girls playing about. ‘There was plenty of room for them to knock about,’ she said. ‘I’ve got six children of my own. I’m used to looking after children, and as far as I know, the two girls were well.’ On the Saturday she had seen them in the corridor about half-past nine, she continued. ‘Edith looked well and hearty. I saw them again about eleven o’clock in Mrs Berry’s sitting room. Edith was standing up and leaning against her mother’s bosom. I saw her vomit three times that I remember. The vomit on the carpet was wiped up by Alice Alcroft with a flannel and water, and afterwards I took a rough cloth and dried it. The second time, Edith vomited into a slop basin. The vomit was streaked with blood and was about a gill* in quantity. At Mrs Berry’s orders I poured the vomit down a drain, then washed the slop basin out and took it back to the sitting room. I saw that Edith had been sick again, and two or three minutes later she vomited again.’ About two o’clock that afternoon, on Mrs Berry’s instructions, she carried the child up to Mrs Berry’s bedroom. She saw the child again that night and on two occasions the next day, Sunday, the second time in the afternoon. ‘She was in bed and appeared to be asleep,’ she said. ‘I noticed a small blister on the right-hand side of her lip, and a discolouration on her upper lip. I called Mrs Berry’s attention to it. I said, “Do you think that’s a cold that’s breaking out on Edith’s mouth?” and she replied, “I don’t know. I think it’s an orange she had.”’

  She went on to say that at 5.15 that afternoon Mrs Berry sent her with a message for Dr Patterson. She was in the bedroom when he arrived, and was there again later when he came back with Dr Robertson, about eleven o’clock. ‘After the doctors left I stayed with Edith until seven the next morning, Monday. She was very ill, sick and vomiting almost every ten minutes, with more blood showing as her vomiting went on. She complained of her stomach, and often cried out, “Oh, Mamma, my stomach.” Mrs Berry said several times to her, “Yes, darling, Mamma will try to do you good if she can.” During the night I said to Mrs Berry that she should give Edith some medicine, but she said, “No, I don’t want to punish her. I’ll give her some when she’s better.”’

  Ellen Thompson’s place on the stand was taken by Dr Harris, who told the court that he had made a post-mortem examination of the body of the child in company with Drs Patterson and Robertson. He described the patches about the child’s lips, which, he said, were the remains of blisters. He had made a sketch of the patches, he added, and here passed the sketch to the clerk. He then spoke of his findings on examining some of the internal organs, in particular the corrosion in the oesophagus. After describing the charred patches and the similar lines in the gullet, he repeated his former testimony, saying, ‘Judging from the post-mortem appearance, I say that the deceased died from corrosive poisoning.’ He was sure of it, he added.

  Mr Mellor: ‘Is there any known disease which could produce similar appearances?’

  ‘None whatever.’

  Asked whether some of the poison would be expected to be found in the body after death, he said that in the case of certain poisons, continued vomiting and purging would eliminate all traces. ‘From twenty-four to forty-eight hours would in my opinion be quite sufficient. That would be enough to remove the traces of certain corrosive poisons.’

  ‘Can you,’ Mr Mellor asked him, ‘from the appearances of the post-mortem examination, fix with certainty the nature of the corrosive poison?’

  ‘No.’

  After Dr Harris had stepped down, Charles Estcourt, the city analyst, was called. Repeating his earlier testimony he said that in his testing he had found nothing to account for death in any way.

  ‘Do you mean chemically?’ Mr Mellor asked.

  ‘Yes.’

  ‘Pathologically, did you find anything to account for death?’

  ‘I should say that the black, charred patches I saw would account for death.’

  The next witness was Beatrice Hall, who told the court that about half-past nine on the Saturday morning she and Edith had gone down to Mrs Berry’s sitting room. Edith didn’t eat any breakfast, but complained of being sick. ‘Mrs Berry gave her a powder, which she said was a seidlitz powder. She went out of the room and brought the powder in. I can’t remember whether Annie went with her, but I think Mrs Berry came back with the powder in a tumbler. On the Sunday I was upstairs with Annie nearly the whole of the day. I was reading to her, and she seemed better than she had been the day before. I slept with her that night. A bed was made up for me in the sitting room downstairs but I didn’t sleep on it.’ Asked whether she had remained at the workhouse until Edith died, she said, ‘No. I went home on the Monday.’

  Sarah Anderson, head nurse of the female imbecile ward, told the court that on Saturday, the 1st, shortly after two o’clock, Beatrice Hall had come for her to go and see Mrs Berry’s child. In the sitting room she was shown some vomit streaked with blood and was told by Mrs Berry that Edith had become sick just after breakfast. The next day, Sunday, she saw the child again, and then again on Monday, about ten o’clock, when she noticed a blister on her upper lip. ‘I said to Mrs Berry, “What has caused that blister?” and Mrs Berry said, “I gave her some lemon and some sugar, and that must have caused it.” I saw Edith again in the evening between half-past four and five o’clock, when she seemed worse.’

  The final witness of the day was Lydia Evett, nurse in the children’s hospital. She said that on the Sunday, having been told that Edith was very ill, she went up to Mrs Berry’s bedroom to see her. ‘I said to her, “You’re starting the new year badly, Edith,” and she replied, “Yes.” Mrs Berry called my attention to the child’s mouth and said, “S
ee what an orange has done to Edith’s mouth,” and I noticed that her mouth was inflamed and red. Edith vomited very often while I was in the room, and said she had pains in her stomach and chest. To ease the pain, she was poulticed – at her own request. Mary Gibbin brought it and Mrs Berry put it on. It only stayed on for a minute or two. Edith couldn’t bear it; it was too hot. That night I delivered a message at the lodge for the doctor to come.’

  This ended Lydia Evett’s testimony. It was now 6.15, and the hearing was adjourned until ten o’clock next morning.

  The Oldham Standard, reporting on the day’s events at the police court, added a most interesting piece in connection with the matter. The article was headed: RESIGNATION OF MRS BERRY, beneath which was written:

  At a meeting of the Oldham Board of Guardians on Wednesday, the following letter was read from Elizabeth Berry, nurse at the Workhouse, who is now in custody on a charge of having caused the death of her child by administering poison to her: – “Oldham, January 26. Gentlemen – Considering my present unfortunate position, I hereby tender you my resignation of my appointment as female nurse in the Oldham Union Workhouse. I beg also to inform you that immediately on the release from my difficulty, I shall apply to be reinstated in my appointment.”

  Mr Schofield moved that the resignation be accepted, and that her salary due, amounting to £2 1s. 6d. be paid. Mr Gartside seconded, and the motion was carried. The question of appointing a successor was raised, and Mr Whitaker moved that Dr Patterson, the medical officer to the Union, make temporary arrangements for the carrying on of the work efficiently. Mr Smith seconded the motion, which was carried.

  Mrs Berry’s professional career was over.